An Inconvenient Deception: How Al Gore Distorts Climate Science and Energy Policy

August 19th, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Al Gore has provided a target-rich environment of deceptions in his new movie.

After viewing Gore’s most recent movie, An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power, and after reading the book version of the movie, I was more than a little astounded. The new movie and book are chock-full of bad science, bad policy, and factual errors.

So, I was inspired to do something about it. I’d like to announce my new e-book, entitled An Inconvenient Deception: How Al Gore Distorts Climate Science and Energy Policy, now available on Amazon.com.

After reviewing some of Gore’s history in the environmental movement, I go through the movie, point by point.

One of Gore’s favorite tactics is to show something that happens naturally, then claim (or have you infer) that it is due to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions. As I discuss in the book, this is what he did in his first movie (An Inconvenient Truth), too.

For example, sea level rise. Gore is seen surveying flooded streets in Miami Beach.

That flooding is mostly a combination of (1) natural sea level rise (I show there has been no acceleration of sea level rise beyond what was already happening since the 1800s), and (2) satellite-measured sinking of the reclaimed swamps that have been built upon for over 100 years in Miami Beach.

In other words, Miami Beach was going to have to deal with the increasing flooding from their “king tides”, with or without carbon dioxide emissions.

Gore is also shown jumping across meltwater streams on the Greenland ice sheet. No mention is made that this happens naturally every year. Sure, 2012 was exceptional for its warmth and snow melt (which he mentioned), but then 2017 came along and did just the opposite with record snow accumulation, little melt, and the coldest temperature ever recorded in the Northern Hemisphere for a July.

The fact that receding glaciers in Alaska are revealing stumps from ancient forests that grew 1,000 to 2,000 years ago proves that climate varies naturally, and glaciers advance and recede without any help from humans.

So, why is your SUV suddenly being blamed when it happens today?

The list goes on and on.

Some of what Gore claims is just outright false. He says that wheat and corn yields in China are down by 5% in recent decades. Wrong. They have been steadily climbing, just like almost everywhere else in the world. Here’s the situation for all grain crops in China:

And that lack of rainfall in Syria that supposedly caused conflict and war? It didn’t happen. Poor farmers could no longer afford diesel fuel to pump groundwater because Assad tripled the price. Semi-arid Syria is no place to grow enough crops for a rapidly growing population, anyway.

I also address Gore’s views on alternative energy, mainly wind and solar. It is obvious that Gore does not consider government subsidies when he talks about the “cost” of renewable energy sometimes being cheaper than fossil fuels. Apparently, he hasn’t heard that the citizens pay the taxes that then support the alternative energy industries which Gore, Elon Musk and others financially benefit from. If and when renewable energy become cost-competitive, it won’t need politicians and pundits like Mr. Gore campaigning for it.

To counter what is in movie theaters now, I had to whip up this book in only 2 weeks, and I didn’t have a marching army of well-funded people like Gore has had. (Too bad he didn’t have someone doing fact-checking.) Despite my disadvantage, I think I present a powerful case that most of what he presents is, at the very least, very deceptive.


452 Responses to “An Inconvenient Deception: How Al Gore Distorts Climate Science and Energy Policy”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. That is for sure .

    I am hopeful global temperatures by next summer will decline to at least 30 year means or lower.

    • David Appell says:

      “Dont you realize that, the warming that has now ended, that took place last century was one of the weakess warming periods the earth has undergone ,lets take a time period ,of the last 20,000 years.”

      – Salvatore del Prete, April 7, 2011
      https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/roy-spencers-non-response/

    • Nate says:

      Roy,

      Your spin on the gmsl paper you quote, jevrejeva, is impressive. You neglect to mention that their conclusion is that there has been an an acceleration of 0.02 mm/y^2 over the period!

      • Paul Homewood says:

        According to Jevrejeva, the rate of sea level rise was about the same between around 1930-50 as it has been in the last twenty years.

        In between the rise stalled as the Earth cooled. Consequently the recent rate of rise appears to be greater than the 20thC as a whole.

        Nevertheless it is far from unprecedented

      • Nate says:

        Paul,

        First, 20 y trends are quite variable.

        ‘far from unprecedented’

        Are you saying the trend of the last century is a continuation of what occurred in prior centuries?

        Historical records show that the 20 cm/century has not been going on for many centuries. That would mean sea-level lower by 4 m at the height of Roman empire. There is strong archaeological evidence countering this.

        Are you saying the ongoing trend is recovery from LIA? The LIA ended mid 1800s. When does this ‘recovery’ process end?

    • Emeritus says:

      Salvatore, when You in a age of 97, walks on a seafront that in your boyhood was dry land, and there is Seawater up to Your ankels. You will burst out; Those IPCC bastards has been here once again and filled up the Oceans.

    • MARVIN WAGNER says:

      I sincerely hope you don’t get your wish. I the earth doesn’t maintain current temperature levels or warm further I fear for the long run food production capacity of the earth. If we only return to the average earth temperature over the last 650,000 years we will lose all of the Canadian and northern U.S. grain production areas which alone would cause mass starvation and decreased living standards across the globe. No sir. Ice is not our friend.

  2. RAH says:

    I have read that part of the subsidence in the Miami area is due to slow recharge of the Biscayne aquifer in places. Though over all the recharge rate is more than adequate because of the nature of the geology the recharge rate varies from place to place and in some areas usage exceeds the recharge rate.

    I have also read that a little over half of Miami Beach was built up from fill dredged from the Bay in the 1920s and is still settling.

    As for Gore? He seems to be the Hillary Clinton of the climate debate now. Despite much adoring slovenly press to promote his movie the attendance figures for his new movie are dismal.

    • bill h says:

      RAH, I have no way of assessing the reliability of your claims. However, the problem of flooding has greatly increased right up the US East coast over the last 60 years, so sea level rise is the only sensible explanation.

      https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2016-07/coastal-flooding-figure1-2016.png

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bill h…”flooding has greatly increased right up the US East coast over the last 60 years,”

        The EPA??? You mean that load of lying, hand-picked alarmists by Obama? Some of the EPA are just plain hysterical.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon attacks the source when he can’t disprove the science. Even when the source has a paleoconservative secretary.

          • Paul Homewood says:

            Funny how the “honest” EPA don’t mention land subsiding.

            Sewell Point, for instance, is in the middle of an old comet impact crater, where the land is subsiding at about 3mm/yr, which is more than the absolute sea level rise.

            It is no wonder people don’t trust the EPA

          • David Appell says:

            Where don’t they mention that?

          • Albert Stienstra says:

            David Appell says:
            August 22, 2017 at 12:07 AM “Where don’t they mention that?”
            Now that is a very silly question.

      • Ian W says:

        Assuming that your information is correct, you are now claiming that this is humanity’s fault for burning fossil fuels despite the sea level rise appearing to be monotonic world wide since the end of the Little Ice Age? You presumably can propose a mechanism for this considering that the entire energy content of the atmosphere is only equal to the top few meters of the oceans. And no mechanism exists for the heat from the atmosphere to warm the oceans only to cool them.

      • Paul Homewood says:

        Wrong Bill (or at least partly!)

        Most of the US East Coast is subsiding as a result of GIA. Strip that out and you end up with a rate of sea level rise of about 2mm/yr, the same as globally.

        • Steve Case says:

          And if you strip out all the “corrections” that have been made to the sea level rise data via satellite you also get around 2 mm/year.

        • Phil R says:

          Paul,

          Agree and mostly correct, but there are also additional factors (none relating to global warming). Here in eastern Virginia, at least, some of the subsidence is also due to dewatering of Coastal Plain aquifers and, more locally, such as in the Norfolk area, the settling of dredge/fill material used to fill streams and wetlands to build on. When you add up GIA, aquifer dewatering and compaction/subsidence of fill material, you’re probably close to, if not exceeding, natural sea level rise.

          • David Appell says:

            Phil R says:
            “When you add up GIA, aquifer dewatering and compaction/subsidence of fill material, youre probably close to, if not exceeding, natural sea level rise.”

            I am genuinely interested in reading a proof of that claim.

          • Phil R says:

            David Appell Says:

            “I am genuinely interested in reading a proof of that claim.”

            You’re a big boy. Do your own research.

      • An Inquirer says:

        One of the fundamental problems with global warming alarmism is the diversion away from real issues facing the environment. From Florida to Minnesota to Maldives, there are serious environmental problems, often caused by humans. But public officials mask the real problem (and probably their role in the real problem) by blaming global warming. Therefore, the real problem does not get addressed.

        If you are concerned about increased flooding on the east coast, get serious about doing something about subsidence, rather than divert attention to global warming. If you are concerned about the loss of millions of birds, do not blame global warming but rather (1) get serious about feral cats and (2) evaluate whether the minuscule T difference from windmills is worth the avian carnage.

        Etc.

        • Bindidon says:

          An Inquirer on August 20, 2017 at 3:22 PM

          Your greenness is terrible. So, windmills are a major origin of bird loss? Aha.

          What about
          – buildings ?
          – overhead lines ?
          – motor vehicles ?
          – trains ?
          – airplanes ?
          – bird hunting ?
          – pesticides in agriculture (especially: neonicotinoids) ?
          HOUSE cats ?

          In Europe, a region far more dense than the US, windmills account for no more than 0.1 % of bird kill. House cats are the main vector for that.

          Avian carnage through windmills! Wow wow wow.

          Do you know how many birds die yearly worldwide through massive insect kill by Monsanto’s Roundup?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Bin, Roundup is a herbicide. It kills plants, not insects.

          • Bindidon says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            As usual, you don’t understand anything of what you write.

            Never heard about neonicotinoides, hu?

            Whatever you write about: it looks so desperately simple-minded.

          • AaronS says:

            Bindidon,
            House cats kill birds of prey? Most studies lump birds to dilute the problem.

          • Bindidon says:

            In some sense, g*e*r*a*n, you are right a bit: Roundup possibly doesn’t contain the stuff found e.g. in Clothianidin, Imidacloprid and Thiamethoxam.

            But nobody on Earth would ever use Roundup without the others.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Keep learning, Bin.

            Once you have enough knowledge, you won’t feel the need to insult people that try to inform you.

          • Bart says:

            Same old red herring argument. We are concerned about raptors, carrion fowl, and bats. The first two are slow to reproduce and already many species are endangered. We allowed millions of Africans to die because DDT might possibly, maybe, have something to do with thinning their eggshells. Now, we slaughter them with abandon for a pittance of power that will never, ever make a significant dent in our energy appetite. And, bats are critical for insect control.

            Small, rapidly reproducing songbirds are in no peril. Wiping out the others is a crime against nature, and will upset its balance to our detriment.

          • David Appell says:

            Oh please — none of you gave a crap about birds before wind energy threatened fossil fuels. Just as none of you give a crap about other endangered species. You response is purely political.

            “Avian Mortality by Energy Source,” US News, 8/22/14
            http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/08/22/pecking-order-energys-toll-on-birds

            “Within the uncertainties of the data used, the estimate means that wind farms killed approximately 20,000 birds in the United States in 2009 but nuclear plants killed about 330,000 and fossil fueled power plants more than 14 million. The paper concludes that further study is needed, but also that fossil fueled power stations appear to pose a much greater threat to birds and avian wildlife than wind farms and nuclear power plants.”
            – The avian benefits of wind energy: A 2009 update, Benjamin K. Sovacool, Renewable Energy, Volume 49, January 2013, Pages 1924. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148112000857

          • Bart says:

            Same red herring. And yes, I have had a lifelong love for birds.

          • David Appell says:

            Bindidon says:
            “Do you know how many birds die yearly worldwide through massive insect kill by Monsantos Roundup?”

            How many?

            Cite your source(s).

          • Bryan A says:

            Bindion,
            That arguement is so often used but it has a fallacy involved. The problem is one of exposure. Certainly more buildings and motor vehicles and overhead lines and HOUSE cats and WINDOWS etc. kill birds than wind turbines. But the fallacy is that a birds exposure to these devices is far greater than wind turbines. There are currently more windows in a single city of 50,000 residents than windmills worldwide.

            Currently there are 341,320 wind turbines worldwide
            Currently there are over 600,000,000 cats worldwide
            So the arguement that House Cats kill more birds tha wind turbines is truely only due to potential exposure

            Wind turbines DO kill, on average, 1 bird and 2-3 bats per year each

        • Bindidon says:

          AaronS on August 21, 2017 at 3:30 AM

          Do you really think that the Inquirer meant millions of birds of prey?

          Or do you rather think that birds of prey are the only ones worth survival?

          Are you serious? Do you need a list of the bird species endangered in Germany, for example?

          • Bart says:

            So stupid…

          • AaronS says:

            Bindidon and Dave.
            I have always cared about birds and the environment. No need for a personal attack. Also I have seen actual wind mill kill data from Colorado. There are horrible kill rates and not published bc former US administration made it legal to kill a huge number. I think an analogy would be including mouse traps in a study about poaching causing rhino extinctions. Obvious large bodied, or apex predators get a special place in the food chain. Meso predators and small birds are doing well with humans. Sorry Im not familiar with German endangered bird data.

          • David Appell says:

            AaronS says:
            “There are horrible kill rates and not published bc former US administration made it legal to kill a huge number.”

            Where did you see these data if they weren’t published.

            You’re just exposing hidden claims. That’s not how science is done.

      • Scott Williams says:

        “the problem of flooding has greatly increased right up the US East coast over the last 60 years” well if people couldn’t get government-backed insurance, they wouldn’t build in precarious locations where flooding is likely. That’s what’s been happening for the last 60 years, not more flooding than historical rates.

  3. Rud Istvan says:

    Thanks for doing this. You beat me to it. Consider it bought.

  4. AaronS says:

    “In the past three years, global emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels have levelled after rising for decades. This is a sign that policies and investments in climate mitigation are starting to pay off.”

    From the Nature paper below. The odd thing is the rate change has not changed based on data. The statement thus appears false (unless someone can explain what I am missing). It just seems the bar is so low for climate science supporting the agw hypothesis- even in journals like Nature. Gore is no different even worse. His method is an appeal to emotion not science, but how does such an approach get through review in Nature?

    Nature: CO2 slowing.
    https://www.nature.com/news/three-years-to-safeguard-our-climate-1.22201

    Actual data.
    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html

    • Lance Wallace says:

      The Nature article concerned global EMISSIONS from industry while your data showed global CONCENTRATIONS. So the Nature statement is not exactly false on that basis. What is interesting, however, is that the fall in emissions is not reflected in the concentrations. This should concern the alarmists. Of course, there is much evidence that the emissions are not accurate (China suddenly discovering that they had been underestimating by 17% or so.) Nobody audits these estimates. Also, Jamal Munshi has shown that there is no statistical relation between emissions and CO2 concentrations. Not too surprising since industrial emissions are only a small fraction (<5%?) of total carbon flux.

      • AaronS says:

        Okay fair enough, i see the key word is emissions in the statement. Also thanks for the information about reporting error in emissions data- I would love a link to refine the point next time? However as u suggest who cares… The concentration is what drives the warming in the agw hypothesis and it did not change. It is perhaps not false but rather an absurd statement to say the effort is paying off. I guess you could say feedbacks in the C cycle are driving the increase but most the lit I have seen suggests the opposite. Soils and algae.

        In addition there is a long precedent where concentration is considered a direct result of emissions (which I agree with based on C isotopes) in the agw hypothesis. So this sort of wordsmithing seems rather disingenuous. It still seems to me likely a paper opposing agw would have a higher bar than uncertain reported data to make such a claim.

    • I think the CO2 concentration increasing faster the past couple years is a result of the El Nino warming the sea surface. Over the next year or two, I expect a slower increase.

      • Exactly. CO2 concentration rises more during El Nino, reduces the rise during La Nina. If global emissions have fallen it’s from increased efficiency or a slowed economy. Hard to believe though with China adding a new coal-fired power plant every 1-2 weeks.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Roy…”CO2 concentration rises more during El Nino, reduces the rise during La Nina”.

          So how about the drop in CO2 emissions during the Little Ice Age from 1400 AD to 1850 AD? Far colder than a La Nina. Global temps were 1 to 2C below normal, glaciers expanded enormously, and the claimed 280 ppmv by the IPCC was during that relatively extreme cold.

          What would we expect it to be under a re-warmed climate today?

          Astronomer Syun Akasofu has claimed the IPCC erred by blaming the increase in global warming post LIA on humans. He feels the warming since the pre Industrial Era is a re-warming following the end of the LIA.

          • John Bills says:

            https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/climate/china-energy-companies-coal-plants-climate-change.html

            1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries

          • AaronS says:

            Emeritus.
            I want to learn from your link because it at surface has an interesting data set. However, the link lost me at “China was selling about 45,000 zero-emitting electrical vehicles each month with a goal to have around 3 million EVs per year by 2020.” Zero emissions is only possible with modern physics after the manufacturing of the green energy source and vehicle have been repaid. If they are using Lithium batteries charged by the same energy source in the graph provided, then the battery construction and coal power source for electricity make their emissions likely worse than a small gasoline powered car. So that statement should reduce credibility and send up some flags for bias. The author sounds like a used e-car sales man saying that. Then I got to the end and the article talked politics. I thus concluded that the link is most useful in an echo chamber where people are like minded and willing to believe graphs at face value. I would love to see true trends for china’s emissions. My guess is they are dropping slightly as they fix the air quality issues they face. Unless they go nuclear they will not decrease significantly and they like Germany and Netherlands will see the wind solar replacement does not work.

          • David Appell says:

            John Bills says:
            “1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries”

            So far the US has emitted over 2 times the CO2 that China has.

            And our per capita emissions are still twice theirs.

            We’re the energy hogs, not them.

        • HotScot says:

          Dr. Spencer,

          I’m a ill educated layman, but I can’t understand why anyone would acknowledge CO2, never mind human liberated, naturally, but accidentally sequestered CO2, could have any impact on our climate.

          There is, to my knowledge, no credible, empirical studies which demonstrate CO2 causes the planet to warm up, so why do discussions continually revolve around the subject?

          I read an article on WUWT which postulated that seawater salt had more of a demonstrable effect on sea currents and ocean temperatures than CO2 has on any temperatures.

          Why isn’t salt the bogey man of climate change?

          And without wanting to be rude, my understanding of scientific endeavour is to present the subject to laymen like me in terms we understand.

          Sceptical scientists comprehensibly fail to accomplish that leaving a gaping chasm for the likes of Al Gore to occupy. And what Al Baby does is not politics, but marketing.

          The entire sceptical community needs to shrug off this idea that climate change is either scientific or political, It’s not. It’s a marketing game played nicely by Gore under cover of his political credentials, and he has stolen a march on both science and politics by marketing his story to line his own pockets.

          The sceptical community needs to change it’s tack and start marketing it’s story rather than insisting the science will prevail. It never will.

          Someone needs to wise up, visit their local marketing company and figure out how to sell the truth to laymen in digestible terms like ‘97%’.

          I had to explain to my local shopkeeper why AGW was bullshit the other day. It took me an hour to make a start. It will be destroyed when some arsehole comes in and says, “but 97%….yada yada”.

          Please give me something to work with.

          • Bindidon says:

            Well I’m no warmista, nor do I know wether CO2 has any effect on climate.

            But excuse me: should I ever want to look at that, WUWT imho would be the very last corner on Earth to search for.

            Take some time to google for ‘effect of co2 on climate change’, it’s tedious but might help.

          • HotScot says:

            Bindidon

            Thanks for that.

            You just gave me the same daft answer I usually get when I ask about CO2 and global warming. I have looked at the science a million times, and you completely missed the point.

            I don’t want science, I don’t want politics, I want the sceptical community to get off their arses and market what they want to tell the world.

            Go and read something about marketing, then come back and tell me something I didn’t know.

          • lewis says:

            HotScot,

            You have the same issue as most of those to the right, but not radical right: you’re trying to be rational while those in opposition are emotional.

            They say it is: and we say, not it’s not and this is the reason.

            Maybe you should try – AGW is real – like witches riding brooms, like Dumbo really flies

            Unfortunately, it is difficult for rational people to reduce themselves to the emoting of the left, so …..

          • Bindidon says:

            Excusez-moi, HotScot! Je vous avais mal compris.

            You love marketing like this strange Gore? Got for it! I prefer science.

            Bonne chance…

          • Nate says:

            HotScot,

            If you are, as you say, an ‘il educated laymen’, and you are in such need of facts to work with, why are you so confidently telling people it is BS? How do you know?

          • gbaikie says:

            “Please give me something to work with.”

            Ok, you want marketing. I hate it. But understand it [I hate it].

            Ok, what works in marketing is the truth. If don’t have the
            truth to sell, at least know the truth [or know your enemy- which **will** kick your ass].

            So I suggest starting from the big picture.
            We in a long period of time which is called
            the interglacial period. And warmest period of
            time which lasted for tens of centuries, is
            called “Holocene Climate Optimal”. See wiki:
            “The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years BP [BP: before present time]. It has also been known by many other names, such as Hypsithermal, Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, and Holocene Megathermal.”

            So why is called a Climate Optimum. Why is it considered the best. Because it’s warm.
            And everyone [since literally the beginning of time] has accepted that warm is better than cold.
            Or human lived when it was cold- a never ending cold- and it wasn’t as fun as it sounds.
            Where to people want to go? someplace warmer, like a tropical island paradise. Why is it paradise- it’s warm.

            Now the definition of room temperature is:
            “a comfortable ambient temperature, generally taken as about 70F.”
            wiki:
            “The range is typically between 20 C (68 F) and 27 C (81 F) and various methods of climate control are often employed to maintain this thermal comfort level..”

            So this is temperature people want and it’s about the temperature of tropical island paradise- night and day.

            Earth’s current average temperature is about 15 C [59 F]
            And most of the world is colder than the tropical island paradise. Though in summer it can be hotter than a tropical paradise ever gets. So, much higher than room temperature. And this is why people buy air conditioners- but if you buy air conditioner, you should not set it for 59 F- it’s too cold.
            So, Holocene Climate Optimum was warmer than it is right now. We have still frozen tree stumps in arctic when these trees were growing in the Holocene Climate Optimum. Also the Sahara Desert was a large grassland. It’s also a time period where people began to make cities and become more like modern civilizations. It was consider a good time.
            And eventually it got cooler for centuries and then return to becoming also as warm as Holocene Climate Optimum, and got cooler again, and etc. Or global climate changed.
            Then moving ahead thousands of years, we left a period called The little Ice Age, and most agree it ended in 1850.
            The Little Ice Age might have been one to coldest and longest periods of cooling we have had in last 5000 years.

            It was called the little ice age for a good reason, sea level lowering and glacier advancing. And things like frost fairs on the river Thames and George Washington Christmas raid upon the German mercenaries of the British army, wiki:
            “Because the river was icy and the weather severe, the crossing proved dangerous. Two detachments were unable to cross the river, leaving Washington with only 2,400 men under his command in the assault, 3,000 less than planned. The army marched 9 miles (14.5 km) south to Trenton. The Hessians had lowered their guard, thinking they were safe from the American army,..”

            River Thames frost fairs:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Thames_frost_fairs

            So since 1850 the average global temperature has increase and we had about 8″ inches of sea level rise.
            And hopeful will continue warming.
            Or no one want global temperatures to decrease by 1 C- that would be bad, millions more people would die from such cooling, mostly from crop failures and colder weather kills more people particularly poorer people than warm weather.

            I could go on, but basically, warming is good.

          • gbaikie says:

            …long period of time which is called
            the interglacial period.

            Should be:

            …long period of time which is called
            the Holocene Epoch, which is an interglacial
            period.

            Since here:
            We have been living in an icebox climate for millions
            of year. Icebox climate is cold oceans and having polar
            icecaps. Within this icebox climate or Ice Age there are
            long periods of glacier period and interglacial periods.
            And glacier periods last for about 100,000 years- or tend to much longer time periods than interglacial periods.
            Our present interglacial period [Holocene] was interrupted
            near in the beginning of it, or when we climbing out of last glacial period, by an event called Younger Dryas, wiki:
            “The Younger Dryas is a climatic event from c. 12,900 to c. 11,700 calendar years ago (BP)”
            But roughly, it started +10,000 years ago.

          • David Appell says:

            gbaikie says:
            “We have been living in an icebox climate for millions
            of year”

            And notice how low CO2 is compared to geological ages in the past….

          • AaronS says:

            Dave,

            CO2 appears to be the same as Pliocene. Under 300. This is why the 2.7 Ma pliocene Ice discovery is so important.

          • David Appell says:

            “Ice-Free Arctic in Pliocene, Last Time CO2 Levels above 400 PPM,” Scientific American, 5/10/2013
            https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-free-arctic-in-pliocene-last-time-co2-levels-above-400ppm/

          • David Appell says:

            gbaikie says:
            “We have been living in an icebox climate for millions
            of year. Icebox climate is cold oceans and having polar
            icecaps. Within this icebox climate or Ice Age there are
            long periods of glacier period and interglacial periods.”

            And notice how low atmo CO2 is compared to the hundreds of millions of years before this.

          • David Appell says:

            HotScot says:
            “I dont want science, I dont want politics, I want the sceptical community to get off their arses and market what they want to tell the world.”

            How interesting. You don’t want science, you want marketing. As if future climate is just soap to be sold on a market.

            What a horrifying idea.

        • Bart says:

          Because the rate of change is proportional to temperature anomaly. It’s not us, to any significant degree.

          https://tinyurl.com/ycvd2k9o

          • David Appell says:

            Correlation does not imply causation. Especially in the absence of a supporting reason.

          • Svante says:

            Bart,
            Those ups and downs is from the natural carbon cycle, which has a massive turnover and depends heavily on el Nino.

            Our contribution is the slight upward trend line in your two curves.

            See comparison here: https://tinyurl.com/yaogerpr.

          • Bart says:

            Nonsense, Svante. Were that true, it would represent an unstable feedback that could not even by stabilized by T^4 negative feedback – CO2 rise, followed by temperature rise, followed by CO2 rise, ad infinitum. And, because it is a rate of change relationship, it never stabilizes until saturation. We are not in a saturated state, and never have been.

            It’s almost all temperature related. We do not affect the balance of CO2 any more proportionately than our proportionate contribution to the natural flows, as indeed would be impossible. And, that proportionate contribution is very small.

          • Svante says:

            CO2 can not drive temperature at those time scales, because of the great mass involved.

            It’s the other way around, ENSO is driving CO2.

            Here’s another paper: https://tinyurl.com/yayg5e3u.
            Interestingly, the ocean flux is the opposite of what you might think.

          • Bart says:

            Not just ENSO. The correlation holds in ENSO years as well as at other times.

            Any broad change of temperatures drives a slow global re-equilibration such that, in the near term, it looks like the rate of change is proportional to the temperature anomaly. Our contributions are necessarily negligible. And, the impact of CO2 on temperatures also is necessarily negligible in the present climate state.

            The whole brouhaha is an unmitigated scientific fiasco. It is not unlike the war on fat. A group of people decided fat was icky, and decided to “prove” it was bad for us. A group of people decided fossil fuels were icky, and decided to “prove” they would lead to catastrophe. This “verdict first, trial afterwards” mode of pseudo-scientific investigation has got to stop.

          • Svante says:

            It’s not just ENSO, look at Pinatubo in the diagram.
            ENSO years? The correlation holds for the full cycle.

            There are surely a lot of other contributions, ENSO is just the main one.

            I agree with your middle paragraph. We add only about 1% of the total atmospheric store annually.

            This is the group of people that worked it out: https://tinyurl.com/y94jowrs.
            It took two hundred years.

            And I think fat is good for you (some more than others)!

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “Because the rate of change is proportional to temperature anomaly.”

            If that were true, anomalies would follow an annual sinusoid just as d CO2(t)/dt does.

            But they don’t. Hence your hypothesis is wrong.

          • Bart says:

            “If that were true, anomalies would follow an annual sinusoid just as d CO2(t)/dt does.”

            That is painfully obtuse. They are temperature anomalies. By definition, any yearly sinusoid has been removed. It must also be removed from the CO2 data to make an apples-to-apples comparison.

          • Svante says:

            Anyway, our contribution is that slight upward trend in your diagram.

          • Bart says:

            Sorry, no. Not possible given the data and the necessary unstable dynamics to make it so.

          • Svante says:

            Bart,
            that’s because your time span is so short.
            Fig. 3 gives you more context: https://tinyurl.com/ybekjssn.

            “We are not in a saturated state, and never have been.”

            Band saturation starts on day one, that’s why you always need a doubling of CO2 for the same effect on temperature.
            So you need ln(CO2) in your diagram.

          • Bart says:

            I think you have missed that the plot does not show CO2, but its rate of change.

          • Svante says:

            Yes, I did miss that!

    • David Appell says:

      AaronS says:
      “The statement thus appears false (unless someone can explain what I am missing).”

      Atmospheric CO2 will rise until it reaches equilibrium with (in the shorter-term) the ocean and in the long-term with the carbon cycle. The ocean can’t immediately absorb “excess” atmo CO2.

      And there are natural sinks and sources of CO2 that aren’t all constant. The most obvious one is an El Nino:

      “These conditions not only limit the ability of forests to draw down CO2 from the atmosphere but also trigger huge fires around the globe that inject extra carbon into the air.”
      http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36521068

      • AaronS says:

        Dave,
        I can see your point. I agree there are other factors involved and lags. So when can we assess CO2 emissions from 2016? Or how long is the lag?

        • gbaikie says:

          If Co2 is warming the entire oceans, thousands of years.
          If not warming the entire ocean, no lag.

        • Bart says:

          There is no lag. The oceans have no trouble at all absorbing our emissions almost immediately.

          The rate of change of atmospheric concentration is proportional to temperature anomaly. Our inputs have negligible impact.

          https://tinyurl.com/ycvd2k9o

          • Nate says:

            Ugghhh. What rot.

            The correlation you see occurs over 1-2 y. Byond that there is no correlation. Your analysis is dishonest.

          • Bart says:

            Nonsense. That plot extends over 35 years. A similar plot with surface data shows the correlation extends all the way back to 1958, when reliable CO2 records first became available.

            https://tinyurl.com/l4r6ex7

          • Nate says:

            Proper analysis shows no such thing

            http://tinyurl.com/y7mfsolq

          • Bart says:

            Actually proper analysis does.

            https://tinyurl.com/y92surey

          • Nate says:

            In science, as you should know, methods have to be rationally justified, i.e. the steps one takes in analyzing data have to have reasons, and should be unbiased.

            There is no rationale for what you have done in excessively smoothing one set of data and not doing so to the other. That is a straight up cheat to get a result you want.

            Without your data manipulation, your ‘effect’ disappears.

            http://tinyurl.com/y7mfsolq

          • Bart says:

            It is you who are excessively smoothing one set of data, as is evident in a cursory view of your plot where the CO2 data have much greater resolution. The temperature data have already been smoothed by the anomaly calculation. You are smoothing them twice over.

          • Nate says:

            ‘The temperature data have already been smoothed by the anomaly calculation.’

            Nope. Now you are simply making sh*t up.

            In your plot one set of data has a strong low-pass filter, @ 24 mo, and the other data has no such filter. This suppresses fast variation in one set and not the other. That has a large effect on one set of data. Then you compare the sets.

            The only reason to do this is to get a result you want. A big no-no.

            I think, based on your apparent knowledge of signal processing, that you ought to know exactly what you are doing.

          • Bart says:

            Dude, it’s obvious in your plot. Your temp data do not have the resolution of your CO2 data.

            I do know exactly what I am doing. I am comparing apples to apples.

          • Nate says:

            Nope,

            You want to say variation in one series matches variation in the other on time scales of months to decades. But no match on decadal unless you artificially suppress the faster variations in one series by just the right amount.

            Hence the need for your 24 mo. filter, which has no other legit purpose.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Dude, its obvious in your plot. Your temp data do not have the resolution of your CO2 data.’

            Nonsense. You can very clearly see the steps I have done, which, unlike yours, filters both data sets equally @12 mo, the minimum possible.

          • Bart says:

            Please stop being an idiot, Nate.

          • Bart says:

            This is how it works.

            The anomaly is computed as an average across the globe. Global temperatures vary in phase by 180 degrees from pole to pole. Thus, the spatial average becomes a temporal average, with each measurement effectively representing a yearly average.

            It is very obvious that averaging the temperature data over a year degrades resolution compared to the yearly averaged CO2. That is because it is effectively being averaged twice.

            Thus, an apples to apples comparison demands yearly averaging of the CO2 values. Additional smoothing (e.g., with two year averaging) is needed for good comparison with surface data because the surface data are very noisy and error prone. Yearly averaging is all that is needed for the higher quality satellite data:

            https://tinyurl.com/ycvd2k9o

          • Nate says:

            ‘Thus, the spatial average becomes a temporal average, with each measurement effectively representing a yearly average.’

            What a weird idea. Spatial and temporal averaging are in no way equivalent.

            The anomaly is global data for each month with a climatological mean subtracted. So each month, a constant is subtracted from the data. It is subtracting the periodic background signal, which is NOT remotely the same as averaging. It is not supressing any sub-year variations.

            When an El Nino produced a strong monthly variation in 2015-2016, that information was not lost or averaged, and it clearly showed up in the monthly anomaly.

            ‘ it is effectively being averaged twice’

            No absolutely not, as explained above.

            What is true is that CO2 data has not had its climatalogical mean subtracted. We could do this, and it would allow us to see sub year variations, and we could compare to sub year temp variations.

          • Bart says:

            “Spatial and temporal averaging are in no way equivalent.”

            Yes, they are, due to the phasing. We do this with optics, when we are looking at a moving object. The spatial pixel quantization becomes temporal error due to the rate coupling. It’s not unusual to have spatio-temporal coupling in dynamic systems. In this case, we are measuring disparate locations that are in a different phase of their yearly temperature cycle.

            But, I knew you would not understand, so I didn’t want to bring it up.

            The loss of resolution in your plot is enough to indicate to any sane person that you are not treating the data on an equal footing. You are reaching for an excuse to deny the obvious.

          • Nate says:

            Bart,

            You are delusional.

            If a spatial average is equivalent to temporal is equivalent, then explain how el nino variations over a year are not supressed? Explain how the ‘blob’ produced its season long anomaly bump.

          • Nate says:

            Bart,

            ‘Look at the plot’ ‘Its obvious’ are qualitative arguments that would not convince peer reviewers or editors.

            Nor can you use a qualitative argument to explain the need for a fine-tuned number, 24 mo.

          • Nate says:

            ‘In this case, we are measuring disparate locations that are in a different phase of their yearly temperature cycle.’

            You are talking about periodic seasonal variations that happen every year, whereas the anomalies of interest are the aperiodic deviations from this.

            You are saying, if we subtract a 60 Hz sine wave from a signal, that will somehow filter out 500 Hz? No. Just no.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Co2 data have much better resolution’

            No. You are seeing more noise on co2 and equating that to resolution.

          • Bart says:

            “…whereas the anomalies of interest are the aperiodic deviations from this.”

            Nope. They are globally coupled. What is happening now in the SH is the mirror of what is happening in the NH on an annual scale.

            “You are seeing more noise on co2 and equating that to resolution.”

            Noise that just happens to align consistently with the noise in the temperature signal? That’s now what would generally be considered “noise”.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Nope. They are globally coupled. What is happening now in the SH is the mirror of what is happening in the NH on an annual scale.’

            Think about what you are saying.

            Seasonal temps are globally coupled and mirrored, of course.

            Anomalies are NOT globally coupled.

            If there is a heat wave in central Russia in August (that is an anomaly!), are you saying there must be a equal cold wave in SH?

          • Nate says:

            Definition of anomaly here at No*aa.

            They are monthly deviations from local long-time average.

            What this means is that in Iowa city, the August anomaly is the monthly temp for this August minus long-time average for August.

            There is mathematically no way for this to happen:

            ‘ spatial average becomes a temporal average, with each measurement effectively representing a yearly average.

            Also, we are constantly looking at and discussing UAH monthly updates. Those are clearly not representing a yearly average. The variations from month to month are clearly not smoothed out.
            Thus he also plots the running annual mean (they are not the same!).

          • Bart says:

            “Anomalies are NOT globally coupled. “

            Ridiculous. Of course they are.

            “If there is a heat wave in central Russia in August (that is an anomaly!), are you saying there must be a equal cold wave in SH?”

            That’s just spatial noise, and it gets filtered out in the global average, too. We are looking for systematic behavior, and that behavior depends upon local conditions, conditions that are 180 deg out of phase between the NH and the SH.

            Say, for instance, we have an amplification of temperature from CO2. That means, if we start with temperature T0 in the summer in the NH, then inject the CO2, we will get a temperature (1+S)*T0, the delta being S*T0. The SH will not see a delta of that much until its summer comes along.

            Mathematically, this is a characteristic of a wave phenomenon descibed by some function

            f(k*lambda – omega*t) + f(k*lambda+omega*t)

            representing a standing wave pattern over latitude lambda. It is immediately seen that integration over lambda is proportional to integration over t. Thus, averaging over the period 2*pi/omega is equivalent, modulo scaling, to integration over lambda.

            Your loss of resolution confirms what I am telling you. You are grasping at straws. Trust your eyes.

          • Nate says:

            Bart,

            ‘Mathematically, this is a characteristic of a wave phenomenon descibed by some function’

            f(k*lambda omega*t) + f(k*lambda+omega*t)

            What you are describing is a highly speculative model of heat transfer in the atmosphere.

            It is irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is purely one of signal processing.

            The processing of the global temperature anomaly is done in a way that is NOT filtering out sub-annual variations. The data has NOT been temporally averaged over more than 1 month. Period. There is no way to weasel out of this.

            The main signals of interest are those like El Nino, which has a global impact and significant sub 1 year variation. Its variance is larger than data smoothed over 12 mo and 24 mo.

          • Nate says:

            Bart, To take a page from you, just look at the UAH series, it is clearly not low pass filtered and has higher resolution than the 13 month running average. Agreed?

          • Bart says:

            “What you are describing is a highly speculative model of heat transfer in the atmosphere. “

            It’s a highly mundane observation of the cyclical spatio-temporal nature of planetary temperatures.

            Nate – the series match. To deny it is to deny the Sun rising in the morning. You need to be asking, “why do they match?”, not “how can I rationalize ignoring the match?” If you do not like my explanation, you should seek another. But, it is not an excuse for sticking your head in the sand.

          • Nate says:

            ‘ the series match. To deny it is to deny the Sun rising in the morning. You need to be asking, why do they match?, not how can I rationalize ignoring the match?

            When data is honestly and properly analyzed, there is clearly no match. You have been asking ‘How can I weasel my way out of doing things properly’

            ‘Sticking your head in the sand’ is what are you doing.

            To deny the basic properties of filters, and how signal signal processing works, to twiddle and twiddle in order to ‘get a match’ is entering into epicycles territory.

            Then to come up with weird notions to justify the twiddling…the apparatus shrinks in the direction of the ether wind by just the right amount to cancel out the ethers’s effect…in order to preserve your baseless theory.

          • Nate says:

            Bart,

            BTW, this reminds me of all our previous arguments. They end when you have no more answers, and you just expect me to believe you, to trust you. But that’s not how science works, thats how religion works.

            Look, you are not doing science if you cannot or are unwilling to address valid critiques with valid science-based answers , even modify your positions when valid criticisms are made. That is exactly the process of peer review and getting things published.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Its a highly mundane observation of the cyclical spatio-temporal nature of planetary temperatures.’

            El Nino, which is the main source of fast variance in Temp and CO2,
            does not follow your model at all.

            It heats NH and SH at the same time (no mirroring), and its effect has no relationship to the annual cycle.

          • Nate says:

            An thus the subtraction of the annual cycle has NO effect on the time dependence of El Nino heating

          • Bart says:

            “When data is honestly and properly analyzed, there is clearly no match.”

            You are imposing your own conception of what the data should do, ignoring what the data are telling you.

            “To deny the basic properties of filters, and how signal signal processing works, to twiddle and twiddle in order to get a match is entering into epicycles territory.”

            Again, 180 degrees backwards. Drawing epicycles is an example of trying to force the data to fit a preconceived ideal, rather than recognizing the elliptical nature of the orbital data that can be seen at a glance when the data are plotted relative to the correct frame of reference. Were we in those days, you would be accusing me of treating the data unfairly by shifting the frame of reference.

            “They end when you have no more answers…”

            They end when I meet a wall of invincible ignorance, and can find no way around it. At that point, I have to walk away and let you find your own path.

            “El Nino, which is the main source of fast variance in Temp and CO2, does not follow your model at all.”

            Doesn’t it? The onset and peaks look about a half year out of phase to me.

            https://tinyurl.com/yaddnlal

            And, these are crummy surface data. Would be interesting to see what the satellite data say.

            “Look, you are not doing science if you cannot or are unwilling to address valid critiques…”

            You do not have a valid critique. You are simply grasping for excuses to ignore what it right in front of your face.

          • Bart says:

            ‘”El Nino, which is the main source of fast variance in Temp and CO2, does not follow your model at all.”

            Doesn’t it? The onset and peaks look about a half year out of phase to me:’

            Note that the equator is an arbitrary line of demarcation. ENSO is primarily an East-West phenomenon. Since we are talking about a global average, the line of demarcation can be arbitrary, and we can choose any meridian or, for that matter, any great circle, as our demarcation boundary.

            This is akin to finding the proper frame of reference from which to observe the elliptical nature of orbits about the Sun. I propose there exists a great circle such that the impacts of ENSO are anti-symmetrical and 180 deg out of phase on either side over a year, and thus the global spatial average is essentially equivalent to a yearly temporal average.

            Again, the proof of the pudding is the resolution. When your temperature series and your CO2 series have essentially the same resolution, that is what you should be using for your basis of comparison. When they display differing resolution, you are not comparing apples with apples.

          • Nate says:

            ‘You do not have a valid critique’

            Well, i have made several critiques that have evaded.

            I asked, can subtracting a 60 hz sine wave filter out 500 hz? 60 hz being analogous to the annual, stationary background sine wave.

            El nino is not mirrored in hemispheres. Youur model has no relevance to el nino.

            Look at uah series. I asked you whether it has high resolution than smoothed one. No answer.

          • Nate says:

            ‘You do not have a valid critique’

            ‘I propose there exists a great circle such that….’

            You can propose whatever you want, doesnt make it reality. You are the one grasping at straws.

          • Bart says:

            “I asked, can subtracting a 60 hz sine wave filter out 500 hz? 60 hz being analogous to the annual, stationary background sine wave.”

            Yes, it can attenuate it if you have a spread of signals at 500 Hz with well distributed phase displacement and you average them all together.

            “El nino is not mirrored in hemispheres. Youur model has no relevance to el nino.”

            That has not been established – you would need to look at the cumulative impact on the hemispheres over an entire year. Besides, it would not be particularly noteworthy even if it proved to be an exception to the rule.

            The match is obvious. You are just casting for excuses to ignore it.

          • Nate says:

            Thank you for that definition from wikipedia:

            ‘make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, etc. or saying that they don’t prove anything; all without actually demonstrating how the objection fit these terms’

            Recall that you said none of my critiques are valid, so they can be dismissed. Hmm

          • Bart says:

            Your critique is not valid. It’s saying yes, this looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but if I put it in a blender, it doesn’t anymore.

          • Nate says:

            Your claim that subtracting a 12 month period, const amplitude sine wave is somehow equivalent to a 24 mo smoothing, a low pass filter, is beyond belief. It is denying basic math, and disingenuous.

          • Nate says:

            Then you try to say that temp of earth is somehow intrinsically low pass filtered.

            Then this is a logical problem. If co2 is driven by earths temp, which is already filtered, then if you filter co2 data, it has been overfiltered!

            Once again we arrive at the requirement that both series should be treated equally in the way they are filtered.

          • Bart says:

            You are either willfully or intrinsically incapable of understanding. The obvious coupling between spatial and temporal averaging is really not that hard.

          • Nate says:

            ‘The obvious coupling between spatial and temporal averaging is really not that hard.’

            I understand very well that seasonal temps in nh and sh are 180 deg shifted. What does not make sense is why you think that should apply to anomalies. It doesnt. Nor to el nino, which is not 12 mo periodic.

          • Nate says:

            But key point that you have not addressed is that you would like to say there is an intrinsic filtering effect on global temp anomaly:

            “this is a logical problem. If co2 is driven by earths temp, which is already filtered, then if you filter co2 data, it has been overfiltered!’

          • Bart says:

            “If co2 is driven by earths temp, which is already filtered, then if you filter co2 data, it has been overfiltered!”

            CO2 is not driven by filtered Earth temps. Filtering is a construct we apply to the data, not something intrinsic to the data.

          • Nate says:

            ‘CO2 is not driven by filtered Earth temps. Filtering is a construct we apply to the data, not something intrinsic to the data.’

            OK, but previously you asserted about temperature:

            ‘They are globally coupled. What is happening now in the SH is the mirror of what is happening in the NH on an annual scale.’

            Your claim here is that temperatures are coupled across the globe, that is a property of the temperature–not our construct.

            So which is it? You cant have it both ways.

        • David Appell says:

          AaronS says:
          “I can see your point. I agree there are other factors involved and lags. So when can we assess CO2 emissions from 2016?”

          At infinity.

          The CO2 we’re emitting today will cause a higher atmospheric CO2 (cp pre-industrial) even 100,000 yrs from now.

          “The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth’s Climate,” David Archer (University of Chicago), 2008.
          http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10727.html

        • Nate says:

          ‘Yes, it can attenuate it if you have a spread of signals at 500 Hz with well distributed phase displacement and you average them all together.’

          No not at all. I thought you understood time series analysis.

          • Nate says:

            More specific, does subtracting a const amplitude sine wave from a signal, act like a low pass filter?

          • Bart says:

            Because it is subtracting it from a number of signals, and then averaging them. Those signals range in phase from +/- 180 deg. As a result, spatial averaging effectively produces temporal averaging.

          • Nate says:

            Nonsense! Prove that.

    • Svante says:

      ‘Burning of fossil fuels’ is bigger, but we have cement manufacture, deforestation, agriculture and other land use too.

    • AaronS says:

      Also, Im sure most have seen this. I believe it is from a conference abstract, but this is amazing. If Pliocene temp was 2 to 3 deg warmer and they found CO2 from the atmosphere was under 300ppm then this will really shake things up.

      http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/record-shattering-27-million-year-old-ice-core-reveals-start-ice-ages

  5. Obama says:

    No worries. California’s cap & trade scheme to fight climate change will save the day.

    Just imagine how much worse the climate would be without the Paris Climate Accord.

    Can someone provide the links to the scientific evidence that climate policies can regulate/reverse climate change?

  6. Frank says:

    Roy wrote (hopefully not in his book): “That flooding is mostly a combination of (1) natural sea level rise (I show there has been no acceleration of sea level rise beyond what was already happening since the 1800s) …”

    Rising sea level is not a natural state for the planet. Sea level rises and falls with temperature. 120 m over about 12 millennia (100 cm/dedade) t the end of the last ice age. Beginning about 4000 year ago, the rate of rise dropped below the recent 2 cm/decade. Over the last 2000 years before the tide gauge record, the rise has been effectively zero – averaging at most 0.5 cm/decade. The rise between 1850 and 1950 was probably the result of the end of the LIA. The rise since 1950 is probably a combination of anthropogenic warming, possibly continued rise from the end of the LIA and natural variability.

    There is no such thing as natural SLR. There is natural (and antrhopogenic) warming that drives SLR.

    • RAH says:

      In case you didn’t notice we are in an interglacial period of an ice age. It is quite natural for sea levels to rise between periods of glaciation. Thermal expansion during warmer periods is also quite natural. SLR has been at a pretty constant rate for the last 8,000 years.
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/01/sea-level-rise-jumpy-after-last-ice-age/

      SLR cannot confirm AGW/climate change. To that you have to prove the quotient of warming due to mans activity. I invite you to do so.

      • Frank says:

        RAH: SLR due to the end of the last ice age became slower than the current rate more than four millennia ago. For the last 2000 years before the tide gauge era, the rate of SLR average at most 20% of the 20th-century rate. SLR due to the end of the last ice age – for all practical purposes – stopped – averaged over the millennial time scale.

        The rate Dr. Spenser shows, 2 cm/decade, is equivalent to 2 m/millennium. Reconstructions of past sea level rise can detect changes of this order of magnitude on the millennial time scale (but not the centennial). This rate of SLR hasn’t been occurring – on the average – over the last 4 millennia. Nor has half this rate. 10% of this rate might not be detected. You can prove this for yourself using the graph you linked at WUWT. Use your browse to expand the graph. Scroll until current sea level is at the top of the window. Note that line is horizontal for the last two millennia. Now scroll down and line up with sea level about 6 millennia ago, just after SLR slowed dramatically. That point is about 5 m below the last two millennia. Over the last six millennia, SLR averaged 1 m/millennia, half the 2 m/millennia (2 cm/decade) cited by Roy above. This gives you a line with a slope of about 1 m/millennia. Clearly SLR in the last 4 millennia is well below 1 m/millennia. Today’s rate of SLR is not “natural” for SLR more than 10 millennia after the end of an ice age. Therefore, we are sure that the end of the last ice is not contributing anything significant to SLR today.

        Strawman alert: I certainly never said that SLR confirms AGW/climate change. All we need to confirm climate change are the various temperature records we already have: 2 m land, SSTs, UAH/RSS, and now ARGO. The issue is not whether it is warming, but how fast it is warming. All we need to prove AGW is the GHE that Roy strongly supports provides an explanation for warming, but not a precise prediction for how much warming we should have experienced from rising CO2 (mostly since 1950). So we have AGW and therefore at least some ASLR. As long as some warming is anthropogenic, at least some SLR is also anthropogenic. Some warming is due to the end of the LIA. We don’t know why the LIA ended. Nor do we understand why there was so much warming from 1920-40. These may be examples of unforced variability, natural fluctuations in climate. FWIW, divide changing climate into three categories: anthropogenically-forced (aGHGs and aerosols), naturally-forced (volcanic, solar, orbital?) and unforced (chaos).

        With improving data on the rate of ocean heat uptake, we can say how much SLR is produced by thermal expansion associated with warming, no matter what the cause of the warming.

        RAH wrote: “To that you have to prove the quotient of warming due to mans activity. I invite you to do so.” Another strawman alert. All I set out to do is prove that today’s is not “natural” – not what we have experienced for the past few millennia. The rest of what you request goes into climate sensitivity which is derived from the increasing rate at which the planet radiates LWR and reflects SWR to space as GMST rises – the climate feedback parameter (the sum of all feedbacks including Planck). We have good evidence from CERES that the planet radiates an additional 2.2 W/m2/K of LWR to space as the planet warms 3.5 K SEASONALLY. That is equivalent to an ECS of 1.6 K. SWR doesn’t respond immediately and linearly to rising GMST, but the overall feedback to seasonal warming is positive. These observations and other guarantee that ECS is around 2 K and almost certainly not less than 1 K. It is impossible to get anywhere near 0 K.

        • bill h says:

          Dr Roy’s claim about no acceleration of sea level rise since the indusrtrial revolution is contradicted by the javreshava et al reference that he cites. The abstract states an average of 0.02 +/- 0.01 mm/year^2 rise between 1807 and 2008.Also it’s a tad suspicious that Roy of all people avoids all mention of the satellite record for sea level.

          • TedM says:

            I don’t think it’s suspicious at all. I consider the difference between the satellite record and actual tide gauges (particularly GPS referenced gauges) to be suspicious. As far as I know they are not “homogenized”.

          • Look at my plot, which is their data from their website, and tell me there’s an acceleration there. If there is, it is SMALL compared to the linear component, which was occurring before we emitted hardly any CO2.

            The reason they get an acceleration is the early 1800s (which are questionable data) were pretty flat for sea level. So, when you fit a quadratic curve to the whole time series, yes, it has a nonlinear component (acceleration). But that does NOT represent the data over the most recent 150 years.

            Regarding comments on the recent satellite data, the tide gauge data suggests there are multi-decadal variations, and so we really can’t put any faith that the recent satellite record is indicative of a longer time scale trend.

          • Paul Homewood says:

            The current rate of sea level rise is the same as 1920-1950, as even the IPCC admit.

            In between sea level rise stalled as the Earth cooled.

            There is nothing unusual going on now.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Roy…”So, when you fit a quadratic curve to the whole time series, yes, it has a nonlinear component (acceleration)”.

            Some good basic calculus here Roy. Takes me back to my engineering days at the uni. ☺

          • David Appell says:

            Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
            “So, when you fit a quadratic curve to the whole time series, yes, it has a nonlinear component (acceleration). But that does NOT represent the data over the most recent 150 years.”

            “A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise,” John A. Church and Neil J. White, Geophysical Research Letters, v. 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826, 2006GRL (2006).
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL024826/abstract

            “Sea-Level Rise from the Late 19th to the Early 21st Century,” John A. Church and Neil J. White, Surveys in Geophysics, September 2011, Volume 32, Issue 4-5, pp 585-602, doi: 10.1007/s10712-011-9119-1.
            http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10712-011-9119-1

          • wert says:

            David, ffs.

            You have an obsessive-compulsory problem. Can you think or do you just throw in a ‘bible’ cite?

          • David Appell says:

            Roy, look at this plot, and tell me there’s not an acceleration there:

            http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.png

        • TedM says:

          You overlook negative feedback.

      • David Appell says:

        SLR was 1 meter in 5,000 years before the industrial era. That’s an average of only 0.2 mm/yr. SL started rising with the industrial era, and is now over 15 times higher. What natural cause did that?

        http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

    • Svante says:

      This is not consensus science, but let me propose that the LIA did not die from natural causes, and ‘natural warming’ is the wrong label in Roy’s graph.

      The CO2 relation to temperature is logarithmic, so the first small rise has more impact. Look at the correlation in https://tinyurl.com/yd9959v3 fig. 3, or here https://tinyurl.com/y8kyzwsk.

      Look at previous interglacials: https://tinyurl.com/yd9959v3.
      They all have sharp peaks, while ours is drawn out.

      Look at the diagrams at 6:35, 8:38, 14:07, 18:35 and (multiple) after 40:51 in https://tinyurl.com/ybrvus6a.

      So we were heading for a new ice age, but thank’s to our GHG emissions, in David Appels words, the next ice age is toast.

      25 ppm might have been just right, but we overdid it a bit and now we are shooting for the stars.

      What do you think?

      • Emeritus says:

        Svante, at last a warmista with soul. The “sceptics” are using their whole energy and lack of inellektual capacity to deny the whole AGW stuff without asking the right question;

        If You had the choice, would You reduce CO2 levels from 400 ppm back to 280 ppm?

        Is all the warming just bad. I agree, we might be overshooting a bit, but look what happened with the aeronautical industry between 1944 and 1969 (planes, rockets etc.) – a period of 25 years. This should be peanuts.

      • gbaikie says:

        “So we were heading for a new ice age, but thanks to our GHG emissions, in David Appels words, the next ice age is toast.

        25 ppm might have been just right, but we overdid it a bit and now we are shooting for the stars.

        What do you think?”

        I think we are still heading towards another glacier period.
        I view the recent warming as like going back up for air, or rather than continue the pattern of LIA and be gliding towards the depths.
        I tend to think we will continue going along the surface- and up and down until some great white eats us. Which is possible it doesn’t happen. It could be a giant octopus.

        But other than things like super volcano or dinosaur impactor or nearby Super Nova or the Sun stops acting like an adult, the main problem on Earth is the humans. What psychotic thing will they do next. There no reason we could have something what Germany, Japan and Italy did for their desire for world conquest. Different Player and basically the same madness. I don’t Americans when decided isolationism would work, thought they would doing this global security thing for centuries. And currently the worse “countries” which could have nuclear weapons , have them.
        So great job with the non-proliferation treaty- which did absolutely nothing of any value. Or lefties who were maddly in favor of it, are the ones doing the most to undermine it.

        Which was very predictable.
        This what politician do, which is nothing, or they are lazy- and they have zero work ethic.
        Bitching and pointing fingers is their only habit.
        Hard decisions- let’s decide to do it later.
        And idea that the politician class can “improve” is absurd, rather they rot and rot, until they are slime on the floor.

        What ‘seems” fairly alarming is there appears to be no people who could create a workable government from scratch. Anywhere on Earth.
        So, I can’t see much good related to “political science”.

        I hope there isn’t something which called “educational science”, but whatever going on in that department, is completely *ssbackward.
        But, I am aware that my views are nothing to do with present circumstances, rather the lack of faith in all such things is historical constant. Or it’s old man saying “get off the lawn?”

        And technological progress continues at a dizzying rate.

    • Paul Homewood says:

      Frank

      While overall sea level rise over the last 2000 year may be small, there have been significant ups and downs.

      I suggest you read HH Lamb

      • wert says:

        And use some common sense. In biblical context, it is forbidden of course.

      • Emeritus says:

        Why should I read HH Lamb regarding Sea Level, because HH Lamb was born in 1913 and died in 1997, and have done very little work on sea level? Or maybe research done 30 or 40 years ago is better than research done with help of satellites and a hole new series of tide gauges that is designed to do these kind of measurements.

        I suggest that You develop a new scientific theory that older science is generally more accurate and advanced then newer theory and science.

        So let us begin with this question; is the world at the center of the Universe?

        • gbaikie says:

          “So let us begin with this question; is the world at the center of the Universe?”

          Yes.
          Obviously and scientifically, any star and planets are at the center of the universe according to the big bang theory.
          If want to argue with big bang theory, go for it.

          • Bart says:

            Correct.

          • David Appell says:

            gbaikie says:
            “Obviously and scientifically, any star and planets are at the center of the universe according to the big bang theory.”

            So what?

          • Emeritus says:

            gbaikie, if You had lived back in the days of Galileo, I’m convinced You would have sided with Pope regarding what was right, the Geocentric model or the Heliocentric model.

          • gbaikie says:

            -Emeritus says:
            August 22, 2017 at 1:04 AM

            gbaikie, if You had lived back in the days of Galileo, Im convinced You would have sided with Pope regarding what was right, the Geocentric model or the Heliocentric model.-

            If lived back in that time, I might be as stupid as the rest of them. But it wouldn’t be too hard to notice that the Pope was a tyrant.
            If the assumption is I would know then what I know now, then I would be quite depressed living in that time- and I don’t speak Italian so I would be pretty useless.

          • Bart says:

            Emeritus @ August 22, 2017 at 1:04 AM

            “…Im convinced You would have sided with Pope regarding what was right, the Geocentric model or the Heliocentric model.”

            That would be quite the role reversal, given that the Geocentric model was the settled science of the day.

          • David Appell says:

            No, it wasn’t settled. That’s why Galileo got house arrest.

          • Bart says:

            And, CC skeptics have been similarly hounded, vilified, and persecuted. Plus ca change…

      • David Appell says:

        Can you point me to Lamb’s data? Not a cartoon — to his actual data.

      • Frank says:

        Paul: I criticized Roy for saying: “That flooding is mostly a combination of (1) natural sea level rise (I show there has been no acceleration of sea level rise beyond what was already happening since the 1800s)

        There is no such thing as “natural SLR”. Globally, SLR is caused by warming. If there have been ups and down in the last 2000 years (and I assume there have been, though small slow changes are hard to document), none of them are “natural”. SLR at the beginning of the tide gauge record was caused by warming at the end of the LIA. The even faster warming today is causing SLR. There is no clear break between these two periods of SLR, as there is with temperature. Is the end of the LIA still having an effect SLR two centuries later? We don’t know. The rise after the end of the last ice age persisted for about 10 millennia. But it did stop. Global SLR is not normal or natural. It is cause by global warming – that may be natural, anthropogenic, or even unforced.

  7. George says:

    I can’t wait for this website’s resident gadfly, David Appell, to chime in. Something negative, I’m sure, and belying his academic credentials. LOL

  8. David Appell says:

    “Natural sea level rise” from what?

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      Davie does not understand “Archimedes Principle”. When I mentioned it on a previous post, he thought i was talking about Aristotle.

      We enjoy Davie’s humor.

    • Who knows, for sure? It was rising before CO2 could be blamed, and it’s still rising at the same rate since then. Are you saying we should ignore observations from science if we still do not have an explanation for them? If that was the case, there would be no science.

      • David Appell says:

        Who knows, Roy?? THAT’s your scientific answer??? Wow, that’s disappointing — you’re completely sidestepping science — not *the* science, but science altogether.

        “It was rising before CO2 could be blamed,”

        So what?

        “and its still rising at the same rate since then.”

        False. Read Church & White, links above. Read John Fasullo’s recent paper, finding that SLR acceleration is imminent, and would have been occuring already except for Pinatubo.

        • Robert Austin says:

          Not accelerating pre-industrial to industrial, where is the problem? “SLR acceleration is imminent”. Let’s wait and see.

        • Frank says:

          David and Roy: The problem with the satellite record of sea level rise is its great potential for SYSTEMATIC error. The latest re-analysis of the early satellite record reduced the average rate of rise from 3.2 mm/yr to 2.4 mm/yr in the satellite era, a massive change since all of the correction was made to the Topex data that ended in 2005 and overlapped with Jason 1 for the last three years. The orbits of these satellites drift about 1 cm per yr, so their altitude must the calibrated using sea level at specific sites. The calculate distance from the satellite to the surface of the ocean depends on the conditions in the troposphere, stratosphere, and upper atmosphere and on the roughness of the sea surface. Some correction factors can be as large as 40 cm – almost a century of SLR. Reanalysis data is required for this calculation – a climate model constrained by observations is needed to calculate sea level height. Changing inputs to reanalysis can introduce bias, thereby biasing calculated SLR. The analysis also requires assessment of GIA, which requires another model to correct slowing rotation as ice near the earth’s axis of rotation melts and the water moves further from the axis. This requires another complex model.

          The recent change is only the latest correction of systematic errors in the program. Worst of all, there are five groups that use satellite data to calculate SLR, but I believe they all rely of common calculation of satellite orbits. So the bid systematic errors are common to all five groups. Contrast that to the satellite record of atmospheric temperature, where RSS and UAH compete in all aspects of the process for converting raw data to temperature.

          We would be far better off if we had DPS calibrated tide gauges at all coastal sites where a significant number of people live. This where rising SL is going to do its damage, not in the middle of the ocean

        • Frank says:

          David: If you do a quadratic or other fit with a confidence interval (corrected for autocorrelation), you will find that the coefficient for t^2 is not statistically significantly different from ZERO. That is why these coefficients change so quickly. You are talking about noise.

          If we were on a quadratic path to 1 m or more of SLR by 2100, the coefficient for t^2 would be statistically significant.

      • David Appell says:

        The rate of sea level rise has not been constant over the 19th century. See Fig 7.2 here:

        https://www.nap.edu/read/12782/chapter/11#238

      • Emeritus says:

        Roy, it’s not. Do the science, do the reading. Sea level rose a bit due to recovery from the LIA, but that’s far from being the whole cause. There is a lot more to be explained. I find it offensive to give You links to the Science, but please stop this nonsense that all we se is “natural.”

      • David Appell says:

        Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
        “Who knows, for sure?”

        A deus ex machina is for ancient playwrights, not modern scientists.

    • Laura says:

      @Apell

      I look forward to your intense exchanges with Gore regarding predictions… err, projections.

      Please do not forget (as you have this far) to post links to to this exchanges.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Laura…”I look forward to your intense exchanges with Gore regarding predictions err, projections”.

        Gore is still recovering from being sued by Fred Singer for claiming Gore’s former Harvard prof, Dr. Roger Revelle, was senile when he claimed the populace should not read too much into CO2 warming. He claimed Singer put him up to it and took advantage of his senility.

        Revelle was only an eminent oceanographer who had studied the CO2/atmosphere interaction since the 1950s. Al seems to have gotten his message wrong in class and became incensed when Revelle rained on his parade.

        Al never seems to have gotten things right. During his 8 years as Clinton’s VP he uttered not a word about global warming. He and his wife Tipper were too busy checking rock groups for Satanic messages in their lyrics.

        I think Al is just sore that he lost to Bush, just as Hillary and the Dems are sore about losing to Trump.

        • Laura says:

          Indeed, Gordon, indeed. Gore has gotten so much wrong that it is practically impossible to find anything worthwhile… except to him, of course, and his CO2 fortune.

          • lewis says:

            Laura,

            The point of all this CO2 hype: ” except to him, of course, and his CO2 fortune.”

            That’s all any of it is about, money and control.

          • David Appell says:

            With renewable energy, you will still plug your toaster into the same outlet. So how exactly is this about “control?”

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          “Gore is still recovering from being sued by Fred Singer for claiming Gores former Harvard prof, Dr. Roger Revelle, was senile when he claimed the populace should not read too much into CO2 warming. He claimed Singer put him up to it and took advantage of his senility.”

          Huh??

          What’s the court case number of that suit? I’d love to learn more about it…….

      • David Appell says:

        Gore isn’t a scientist. He doesn’t publish science. I don’t know why you people are so obsessed with him. I think it’s for political reasons.

        • David Johnson says:

          He’s the one pushing the false agenda Appell, that’s why you buffoon

        • gbaikie says:

          David posts about 50 post of total about 100 for this blog topic on Al Gore. And does not “know why you people are so obsessed with him”.

          Let’s focus on the positive.
          Al Gore is a politician.
          In terms of politics, what were some of best things Al Gore said in terms of global warming?

          Some people think politicians are supposed increase public awareness. So with this lefty metric, what was most important public awareness, that Al Gore increased.
          Or as a Clinton famously said, “what difference does it make?”

          • gbaikie says:

            As example personally, The interior of the earth is several millions of degrees. was pretty good.

            It’s good because it shows that politicians know nothing about anything. Which needs more public awareness. Despite vast numbers of the public already being aware of this.

          • lewis says:

            Actually good politicians are like TV preachers, they sell what you’re willing to buy.
            Gore is a rich man due to his ability to sell lake front property in the Sahara.

          • gbaikie says:

            ” lewis says:
            August 21, 2017 at 4:29 AM

            Actually good politicians are like TV preachers, they sell what youre willing to buy.”

            I am not willing to buy anything from any politician.
            But I assume there must a lot of people who are willing to buy what they are selling.

            Of course what is valuable is getting access, so you get more money than you spent by various things a politician can do to that rob Peter in order to give to you.
            Or less access and something like a general yearning, for instance, Obamacare was robbing money from people who didn’t want and could not get healthcare insurance, and giving to people who wanted “free” healthcare.
            Or most people who weren’t buying healthcare insurance were people who were healthy and/or young- and weren’t basically getting as a job perk [“free”]. Or perk wasn’t good enough- didn’t pay for toilet paper- or something which obviously is health related.
            Any same question what was Gore selling that you wanted.
            And what politician sold you something which you were the most pleased with in terms of the purchase.

        • Laura says:

          @Appell

          I see.

          You dig 6 year old posts of people that got “predictions” wrong without a single concern to their credentials. Yet, you claim Gore has a protection shield made of “he isn’t a scientist” that allows him to say whatever he pleases no matter how far-fetched.

          Now, now.

          You are constantly harassing anyone and everyone that is not parroting climate alarmism. You engage with psychotic fervor in unending exchanges with all sorts of people, not just scientists.

          So, please make available your surely-quite-informative exchanges with Gore regarding predictions err, projections and please do not forget (as you have this far) to post links to these exchanges.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      DA…”Natural sea level rise from what?”

      How about variations in gravitational force from the Sun and Moon over an entire orbital period? Of course, it would be expected to lower as well.

      How about re- warming from a Little Ice Age?

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        “How about variations in gravitational force from the Sun and Moon over an entire orbital period?”

        Your calculations and numbers? I doubt you have any.

        Is there something special in the last 50 years that is causing this sea level rise, something that hasn’t been happening for eons?

        What is it?

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        “How about re- warming from a Little Ice Age?”

        a) the LIA wasn’t global (PAGES 2k)
        b) the world doesn’t warm past any pre-LIA level without additional forcings.

        • TimTheToolMan says:

          David Appell writes

          a) the LIA wasnt global (PAGES 2k)

          Warming water expands whether its a “global” phenomenon or not. So this is flawed thinking.

          b) the world doesnt warm past any pre-LIA level without additional forcings.

          The world has been established as being warmer at the beginning of the Holocene so your understanding is flawed here too.

          • David Appell says:

            TimTheToolMan says:
            “Warming water expands whether its a global phenomenon or not. So this is flawed thinking.”

            It only expands where it’s warming. It doesn’t expand where it’s cooling.

            If it’s not globally warming in the long-term, sea level probably isn’t rising in the long-term, absent things like ice dams breaking or Antarctic glaciers flowing more easily towards the sea.

        • Svante says:

          PAGES 2k:
          There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between AD 1580 and 1880,

        • TedM says:

          Argentina, 3-5 meters higher than present, Bini et al., 2017
          The main conclusion is that the relative sea-level between c. 7000 and 5300 cal. yr BP was in the range of c. 24 m a.s.l. [above present mean sea level], with a mean value of c. 3.5 m a.s.l

          South Africa, 3.5 meters higher than present, Lecea et al., 2017
          Ramsay (1995) produced a 9 kyr BP record of sea-level changes from the South African east coast, that showed sea levels reached a high stand of +3.5 m [above present] at 4.65 kyr BP [4,650 years ago].

          Western Sumatra, Indonesia, 2-6 meters higher than present, Dura et al., 2011
          A prominent feature of southeast Asia Holocene sea level records is the mid-Holocene highstand [Geyh et al., 1979; Tjia, 1996; Scoffin and Le Tissier, 1998; Hanebuth et al., 2000], which in Western Sumatra, varies in timing and magnitude from 3000 to 5000 cal years B.P., and +6 to +2 m above present-day sea levels[Horton et al., 2005].

  9. Chris Morris says:

    David
    The recovery of ocean temperatures from the little Ice Age – the tide gauges show it has been happening at a linear rate for about 150 years.

    • George says:

      You would think, given his academic credentials, that he would understand that concept. Guess he doesn’t. LOL

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      George…”You would think, given his academic credentials, that he would understand that concept. Guess he doesnt. LOL”

      DA, bless his heart, is still trying to understand why NOAA should not declare a 48% confidence level for declaring 2014 as the warmest year on record.

      I understand 1945 was the warmest year based on a 29% confidence level.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        “DA, bless his heart, is still trying to understand why NOAA should not declare a 48% confidence level for declaring 2014 as the warmest year on record.”

        That’s the scientifically proper way to address the question.

        But you’re too dumb to understand any of that, Gordon.

      • George says:

        Gordon, Appell likes to post here because he doesn’t get as roasted as he did over on Dr. Berry’s website. Dr. Berry exposed him for the fool that he is, and a PHD-fool no less!

    • David Appell says:

      Chris: That’s not what the scientific literature says:

      “A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise,” John A. Church and Neil J. White, Geophysical Research Letters, v. 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826, 2006GRL (2006).
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL024826/abstract

      “Global and regional sea level change during the 20th century,” Manfred Wenzel and Jens Schrter, JGR-Oceans, (7 Nov 2014) doi:10.1002/2014JC009900.
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JC009900/abstract

      Sea-Level Rise from the Late 19th to the Early 21st Century, John A. Church and Neil J. White, Surveys in Geophysics, September 2011, Volume 32, Issue 4-5, pp 585-602, doi: 10.1007/s10712-011-9119-1.
      http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10712-011-9119-1

      • Chris Morris says:

        Even the most recent of the papers you quote has no data less than eight years old. The last decade has shown that the “acceleration” has gone and was an artifact of short time periods. And quoting Church 2009
        “The linear trend from 1900 to 2009 is 1.70.2mmyear−1 and from 1961 to 2009 is 1.90.4mmyear−1. However, there are significant departures from a linear trend. We estimate an acceleration in GMSL by fitting a quadratic to the time series, taking account of the time variable uncertainty estimates. From 1880 to 2009, the acceleration (twice the quadratic coefficient) is 0.0090.003mmyear−2 (one standard deviation). This estimate is slightly less than but not significantly different from the (one standard deviation) estimate of Church and White (2006) of 0.0130.003mmyear−2, but still significantly different from zero at the 95% level. From 1900 to 2009, the acceleration is also 0.0090.004mmyear−2. If the variable uncertainty estimates are ignored the equivalent accelerations are 0.010 and 0.012mmyear−2.”
        Acceleration of 9 microns a year *(Wenzel had half this) – That looks very much like data torture. How long before that becomes an issue?

        • David Appell says:

          Chris Morris says:
          August 19, 2017 at 11:27 PM
          “The last decade has shown that the acceleration has gone and was an artifact of short time periods.”

          Really? According to what analysis?

          According to my calculations of Aviso data, the last 10 years has a SL trend of +4.2 mm/yr, higher than the 20-yr trend of +3.3 mm/yr. Though not statistically significant when you include autocorrelation.

          What does your calculation give, Chris?

          Source:
          ftp://ftp.aviso.altimetry.fr/pub/oceano/AVISO/indicators/msl/MSL_Serie_MERGED_Global_AVISO_GIA_Adjust_Filter2m.txt

          • Chris Morris says:

            You are using satellite data – apples and oranges. Look at Jevrejeva 2014 Figure 7, the blue line 2003 onwards. tell me that is acceleration.

          • David Appell says:

            How about a link to the paper?

            This paper doesn’t even have 7 figures….

            http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/10/104008/pdf

          • Chris Morris says:

            Nice try David but yours is the wrong paper. Look in Global and Planetary Change with 2 more authors and 16 figures.

          • David Appell says:

            Chris: Why didn’t you provide a citation to the paper?

          • Chris Morris says:

            I had it as a pdf so I couldn’t give the link. I also have fat fingers and small keys on my tablet so typing anything complex is an exercise in frustration.
            With regards the satellite data, this recent paper finds no acceleration, though there might be some soon.
            http://www.nature.com/articles/srep31245
            You will note all the acceleration uses a change point about 1990. Not co-incidently, this is when they switch from tidal to satellite. Few people graph the tidal data past the early 90s. Could that be because it shows that the data sets aren’t measuring the same thing?

          • David Appell says:

            Chris: I need a link. I’m not going hunting on your say so.

            It’s trivial to find the link if you have the doi. Or the title.

          • Chris Morris says:

            Trends and acceleration in global and regional sea levels since 1807

          • David Appell says:

            So, Chris, you don’t have links?

            So what good are your claims, if you cant prove them?

          • Chris Morris says:

            I have given you an accurate reference, the paper and where it is published, the authors are Jevrejeva, Moore, Grinsted, Matthews, Spada.
            The text of Figure 7 is:
            Fig. 7. Panel (a), global sea level from satellite altimetry recalculated to monthly mean values (red) and tide gauge based global sea level reconstruction (blue), 19932009. Dashed red and blue lines represent linear trends for satellite altimetry (3.2 mmyr−1) and tide gauge (3.1 mmyr−1) based sea levels. The difference between sea levels from satellite altimetry and tide gauge are black dots on panel (b).

            I have given the information needed to verify my claims – a lot more than “scientists like Mr Mann did.

          • David Appell says:

            From that paper’s abstract:
            “A consequence of this finding is that barring another major volcanic eruption, a detectable acceleration is likely to emerge from the noise of internal climate variability in the coming decade.”

  10. John Smith says:

    Thank you Dr. Spencer.
    I despise merchants of fear.

  11. g*e*r*a*n says:

    Bravo, Dr. Roy.

    You could have easily charged twice the measly $4! But, you’re obviously more interesting in spreading truth than profiteering.

  12. Antonio (AKA "Un fsico") says:

    Mr. Roy Spencer, your effort in those two weeks, fact-chekcing Al Gore’s film and book, must have been remarcable. I started to be interested in climate science ten years ago when, by 2007, Al Gore film was refuted point by point in a UK court.
    Nowadays the summary of facts bout climate change that I have compiled can be free downloaded at: drive.google.com/file/d/0B4r_7eooq1u2ZlIwZFcxQ2ZWaHc . But in my document there is still one issue I could not sort out (neither with UAH, nor with RSS staff, etc.): the concern on global temperature uncertainties estimation (pg.5/12).
    In contrast, in all other scientific disciplines each value estimation has attached the estimation of its uncertainty. For example: scalar spectral index was estimated 12 years ago to be 0.98+/-0.02, and 2 years ago it was estimated to be 0.9667+/-0.0040. In this case we see how science tends to get narrower estimations of values and its uncertainties.
    But in the case of global temperature trends I have read from you in a previous post “our globally-averaged trend is now about +0.12 C/decade, while the new RSS trend has increased to about +0.17 C/decade. Note these trends are still well below the average climate model trend for LT, which is +0.27 C/decade” and as there is not any extra info on the uncertainty estimation of those trends: sientific knowledge cannot provide any advances. Imagne now that those +0.27 C/decade are +0.27 C/decade +/- +1.20 C/decade, and that your +0.12 C/decade is +0.12 C/decade +/- +1.35 C/decade; and so on, well we can imagine many scenarios but it is the responsibility of professional scientist to show their results in an appropriate scientiffic way.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      antonio…”But in the case of global temperature trends I have read from you in a previous post our globally-averaged trend is now about +0.12 C/decade…”

      I am obviously not speaking on behalf of Roy but the 0.12C/decade trend crosses the baseline (1981 – 2010 global average) near the midway point of the range. What does that trend tell you when the first part in a -ve anomaly region is re-warming and most of the rest of it is a flat trend?

      I am sure UAH is obliged to present an overall trend for its data but their 33 year report clarifies what I have stated above.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        “I am obviously not speaking on behalf of Roy but the 0.12C/decade trend crosses the baseline (1981 2010 global average) near the midway point of the range.”

        Hardly surprising! It’s expected…!

        There are no “halves” to the trend. It’s just the complete trend.

        Gordon, your math skills are horrifically poor.

      • Svante says:

        Gordon, why do you say ‘re-warming’? There is warming on both sides of the baseline, what’s the difference?

  13. Jimbo says:

    If your “science” depends on
    * Data that has been cherry picked or outright invented
    * ALTERING historical temperature data to show more warming
    * IGNORING data that doesn’t agree with your agenda
    * A “Nature Trick” that “Hides the Decline”
    * Deleting all emails about that “Nature Trick”
    * A debunked “Hockey Schtick” graph that used manufactured data
    * 130+ climate models that forecast significant warming that DIDN’T HAPPEN
    * SCOTUS, not SCIENTISTS calling a TRACE GAS that is necessary for life a “POLLUTANT”
    * Threatening IMPRISONMENT for those who dare to be SKEPTICAL of this clown car science
    You might be a brain dead Globull Warming Gestapo Useful Idiot
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      jimbo…” ALTERING historical temperature data to show more warming”

      You might add they altered the historical temperature data to show more warming then spread the lie that it actually shows cooling.

      • David Appell says:

        Another lie from Gordon Robertson. Adjustments *reduce* the long-term warming trend. Gordon’s been told that many times but he keeps lying about it anyway.

        Gordon is not an honest participant in the comments forum.

    • David Appell says:

      Jimbo says:
      “* ALTERING historical temperature data to show more warming”

      Data are not altered — they are adjusted to correct for biases.

      How would you prefer to correct for those biases?

      BTW, adjustments *reduce* the long-term warming trend. How many times does this have to be repeated before people like you get it?

    • Bindidon says:

      Jimbo on August 19, 2017 at 5:31 PM

      What you write here (and elsewhere) is at the level of pitbull barking.

      What about avoiding the word ‘Gestapo’ in your stoopid nonsense?

      There are still enough people on Earth whose dads and moms were tortured till death in the Gestapo’s dungeons!

    • Emeritus says:

      Jimbo,it must be deeply tragic to have only one climate theory that consists of a quit pathological notion that all climate data and scientific work is a bunch of lies.

      But it is a easy theory, You don’t have to do any reading, any thinking, no choosing, no review, no doubt, simply no use of Your cognitive skills – or lack thereof.

      But it works perfectly all the time.

    • David Appell says:

      Jimbo says:
      “* A Nature Trick that Hides the Decline”

      What do you think this means — decline of what?

      I bet you don’t know.

  14. TopTuna says:

    Thank you Dr Spencer for providing some rational and factual information about global climate change.
    I am sick and tired of constantly hearing about how global warming has made the crops ripen a month earlier, the coral reefs are dying or the shoreline is now lapping at their front door.
    It is fairly extreme to think that an increase in temperature of less than one half of a degree C can wreak so much damage.
    Perhaps in a hundred years or so, if the temperature continues to climb, they can start to make such assumptions.
    And by that time, when a big vacuum cleaner has been invented to remove all carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and the temperatures continue to change we may also find out what is causing that change.

  15. Jimbo says:

    To put the Globull Warming Gestapo wet dream of Carbon Taxes in real world perspective, in 2015, a Mustang owner in the Netherlands had to pay a $12,000 CARBON TAX on his “green” ECOBOOST 6 cylinder car (in 2017 the tax was $18000, increasing to $24000 in 2020)… If he had purchased a V8 GT in 2015, the CARBON TAX would have been $68,000!!
    Post 2971 – http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1829912&highlight=CO2#post1829912

  16. John Smith says:

    Where am I?
    I thought this was the Appell Show sponsored by Doc Spencer’s trusted BS removing salve.

  17. ossqss says:

    I hope like heck that you, and finally someone, exposed the 97% BS drawn from the failed Cook et.al and or Doran/Zimmerman, or even Naomi’s full BS concensus stuff, in you book. How long do we have to wait for that crap to be dismissed as not credible, because it does not stand up to scrutiny?

    There must be an eclipse coming soon! 😉

  18. ossqss says:

    Once again, I fall prey to the your, corrected to you, mobile speech to text issue. I blame Google dangit! Doh!!

  19. ren says:

    Currently, the Sun is very active. The solar wind speed exceeds 700 km / s. A very active sunspot in front of Earth.
    http://www.n3kl.org/sun/noaa.html

    • Jimbo says:

      @edmh:
      Great links!
      Cue the Globull Warming Gestapo heads exploding… they don’t deal well with facts and reality, you know, REAL science.

  20. Steve Fitzpatrick says:

    David,
    No, Al Gore is no scientist. The political problem is that he pushes a distorted, exaggerated, and sometimes outright false version of science for political purposes. And yes, people are concerned about that distortion, exaggeration, and falsification because of its political influence. Sea level rise is by far the most credible negative consequence of GHG driven warning, but rational public policies about that rise ought not be based on Al Gore’s distortions.

    By the way, there is a good chance that higher Pearson score for a quadratic fit to the satellite data is in large measure due to the higher sea level from the recent El Nino.. You should not be suprised if the best fit ‘acceleration’ value declines in magnitude over the next few years.

    • gbaikie says:

      “Sea level rise is by far the most credible negative consequence of GHG driven warning, but rational public policies about that rise ought not be based on Al Gores distortions. ”

      Less than 1 foot per century is most important aspect of GHG driven warning?

      What portion of the 8 inch rise in sea level over the last Century or so, was “driven by GHG driven warning”
      And how much sea level rise in next century is considered possible which driven by GHG warning.

      It seems a lot of things can happen within a century of time.

      Most people in US can go from not having electrical power, to most people having electrical power.
      Or not to long ago, the richest people didn’t have electrical power and if or when they did, could use it to do much. Today if for whatever reason you don’t have access to electrical power, you very poor and in the poorest regions of the world.
      Or the biggest problem of global poverty is lack of access to clean drinking water. This is non problem if one has access to electrical power, but it is correct to focus on getting everyone access to clean water, even if don’t have access to electrical power.
      And in century, we went from airplane being invented as novelty, to routine use of airplanes to fly thousands of miles- and billions of per seat flights per year.
      US govt sent 12 people to lunar surface. And etc.

      In century, we could be living on the Ocean- say hundreds of millions of people. Or the beach could be 1/2 way to the other beach. Or Venice could be common- but far more modern Venice.
      There are a number of things which could lead to this. And politicians leading the way, is vastly optimistic. Or politicians have never done this sort of leadership- though predictably they will get on band wagon and claim they were involved [they always to that].

      Other things are settling Mars. And if settle mars, it’s predictable this will lead to space power satellite.
      If you have electrical power beamed to Earth from space power satellite this will lead to Earth ocean settlements.
      Or getting power from space, solves a major problem of living on the ocean [far away from access to electrical power- and with cheap electrical power, other problems can be solved]

      Anyhow, lands areas are rising and falling and can at greater rate than global sea level rise. For instance were sea levels to stop rising [is possible] New Orleans will continue to sink, and some fools have suggested that only solution is to left it sink and buy off those living there so they can move elsewhere. But there are other ways.

    • David Appell says:

      Steve Fitzpatrick says:
      “By the way, there is a good chance that higher Pearson score for a quadratic fit to the satellite data is in large measure due to the higher sea level from the recent El Nino.”

      You mean the data show acceleration, but that should reverse because the data aren’t the real data?

      A quadratic fit to Aviso global sea level data, 24.3 years in length, now shows an acceleration of 0.055 +/- 0.008(stat) mm/yr2. That’s where it’s stalled since 1/14/2017. It’s not decreased.

      Source:
      ftp://ftp.aviso.altimetry.fr/pub/oceano/AVISO/indicators/msl/MSL_Serie_MERGED_Global_AVISO_GIA_Adjust_Filter2m.txt

  21. “One of Gore’s favorite tactics is to show something that happens naturally, then claim (or have you infer) that it is due to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions.”

    That’s pretty much what all of the Warmists do. See something, assign anthropogenic causation to it. Without science.

  22. Don B says:

    Dr. Spencer, thank you for writing this book, which I just read; it is worth many times its price. Facts destroy Al Gore’s alarmist claims.

  23. John Wick says:

    I cant find any data showing diesel price tripled in Syria, world bank historical data is blank http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EP.PMP.DESL.CD?end=2014&locations=SY&start=1960&view=chart

    seems as though they pumped water from underground aquifers during the drought years of 2012 to 2015 and then the aquifers ran out and they didnt drill deeper?

  24. Jimbo says:

    When a Globull Warming Gestapo stormtrooper gets pushed into a logical corner, rely on them using the tried and true leftist tactics of DENY, DECEIVE, DEFLECT and DEMAGOGUE.

  25. Jimbo says:

    Dr. Spencer

    IMO the two “pull thoughts” from your well written and easily understood e-book are

    There is “science” and then there is “SCIENCE” where you compared the agenda driven, unrepeatable GW “science” with the utter predictability and repeatability of astronomy, which is SCIENCE

    The other point I thought hit home was that when subsidies are removed, “renewable” energy cannot survive in the marketplace, both due to its microscopic contribution to the world’s energy needs, and the cost in prosperity to people who embrace it.

    Well done, sir!!

    • David Appell says:

      “Health benefits of wind and solar offset all subsidies,” Cathleen O’Grady, Ars Technica, 08/17/2017
      https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/wind-and-solar-energy-have-saved-thousands-of-lives-since-2007/?amp=1

      “A new analysis in Nature Energy gives renewable-energy subsidies the thumbs-up. Dev Millstein of Lawerence Berkeley National Laboratory and his colleagues find that the fossil fuels not burnt because of wind and solar energy helped avoid between 3,000 and 12,700 premature deaths in the US between 2007 and 2015. Fossil fuels produce large amounts of pollutants like carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter, which are responsible for ill-health and negative climate effects.”

      https://qz.com/1054992/renewable-subsidies-are-already-paying-for-themselves/
      8/17/17

      • Bart says:

        Hilarious.

        • Steve Fitzpatrick says:

          Indeed, ridiculous, yet oldly funny. The world is not going to reduce emissions over the next two decades, and only the profoundly delusional think otherwise. David Appell will not live to see his dream of falling emissions, eco-justice, and kumbaya. all about the world. And the fact he can’t recognize that is both strange and more than a little sad. You should have done more useful things with your time David!

          • David Appell says:

            Steve: Do you disagree with the science in that Nature Energy paper? If so, what? From all I’ve seen here, you can’t discuss the science at all — all you have are personal insults and meaningless speculation.

            Have any rationality?

        • David Appell says:

          Bart replies with a single word, because he can’t discuss the science or advance rational arguments. It’s the lamest reply possible.

          • Bart says:

            It’s a joke study on its very face. It merits no greater response.

          • David Appell says:

            Another response equally as vapid, showing zero understanding of the issue. You want to dismiss the findings, and you magically think you can just snap your fingers and make it so.

            WHen you do that you abandon all rationality.

          • Jake says:

            Ok David, I’ll play. As often as I’d like to reply, I don’t because I realize that all I’m doing is feeding into your planned (payed?) disruption of each and every discussion. I’m not going to pay for the study, you didn’t even provide a link (when someone else doesn’t provide you an easy link, you crucify them), but doing an non-mathematical analysis of the range provided, I’ll restate it as 7900 +/- 4900 deaths. Stated another way, 62% relative error.

            So, now we’re down to being less scientific than a sociologist, and this should drive energy policy? Forget about the fact (and I’m going to be equally unscientific) it could be hypothesized that energy policy in the US drives world wide policy, and who knows how many people in India died in the same time frame because they didn’t get their coal plant …. two fold, three fold, ten fold greater than 7900 +/- 4900? All this due to “it’s accelerating, I’M TELLING YOU IT’S ACCELERATING, BY LIKE 0.02 mm/yryr …. without ever providing an error for that already ridiculously small value. Because, if THAT has 62% relative error, I’m certainly not worried.

          • David Appell says:

            Jake, are you paid to comment here?

            I’m certainly not. Is that really the best excuse you could come up with? It’s very lame.

          • David Appell says:

            Jake says:
            “All this due to its accelerating, IM TELLING YOU ITS ACCELERATING, BY LIKE 0.02 mm/yryr . without ever providing an error for that already ridiculously small value.”

            Jake, is there some reason you can’t calculate this for yourself? Don’t know enough math?

            AVISO data gives a 2nd-order fit acceleration of 0.055 mm/yr2, with a statistical 2-sigma error of 0.008 mm/yr2.

            That’s enough to mean an additional 24 cm of SLR by 2100, compared to the linear fit.

            Source:
            ftp://ftp.aviso.altimetry.fr/pub/oceano/AVISO/indicators/msl/MSL_Serie_MERGED_Global_AVISO_GIA_Adjust_Filter2m.txt

  26. jimc says:

    Thanks. A nice succinct, lucid presentation.

  27. ren says:

    High solar activity can be correlated with La Ninia.
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino3.png

  28. Bindidon says:

    Chris Morris on August 19, 2017 at 2:13 PM

    David

    The recovery of ocean temperatures from the little Ice Age the tide gauges show it has been happening at a linear rate for about 150 years.

    At a linear rate for about 150 years ?

    Are you sure, Chris Morris?

    Recently I downloaded from CSIRO

    http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/GMSL_SG_2011_up.html

    This is the data corresponding to their chart

    http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.png

    comparing tide gauges ans satellite altimetry.

    Here is a time series produced out of the data:

    http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170820/97biwe4x.jpg

    Eyeballing at such a plot looks quite linear, but that won’t help very much.

    Linear trend estimates in mm/year:

    1880-2013: 1.6 +- 0.01
    1920-2013: 1.9 +- 0.01
    1950-2013: 2.0 +- 0.02
    1980-2013: 2.6 +- 0.04
    1993-2013: 3.5 +- 0.06

    The last trend is in good relation with satellite altimetry:

    1993-2013: 3.2 +- 0.03

  29. Bindidon says:

    Antonio (AKA “Un fsico”) on August 19, 2017 at 5:29 PM

    Imagine now that those +0.27 C/decade are +0.27 C/decade +/- +1.20 C/decade, and that your +0.12 C/decade is +0.12 C/decade +/- +1.35 C/decade; and so on, well we can imagine many scenarios but it is the responsibility of professional scientist to show their results in an appropriate scientific way.

    You are right, and it is indeed a bit disappointing that Mr Spencer does not publish standard errors associated to his data in the files we regularly download.

    Please have a look at Kevin Cowtan’s Trend computer, it will give you all uncertainty information needed concerning, among others, various UAH and RSS time series:

    http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html

    For models, hmmmh. I think you might have a look at KNMI:

    https://climexp.knmi.nl/CMIP5/Tglobal/[email protected]

  30. henkie says:

    Dear David,
    what is it that you are trying to prove by having almost 50% of all replies to Dr Spencer’s blog? Nobody is listening, you could just try screaming at the top of your voice in your cellar. Really, nobody is following your links, whatever. Get a life, you poor soul. kind regards, henkie

    • John W. Garrett says:

      Appell is busy saving the world. He’s too busy saving us from ourselves and, thus, can’t be bothered with facts or actual science.

      • David Appell says:

        Unless you have a meaningful critique of what I write here about the science, I’ll ignore you as irrelevant and a whiner.

        If you don’t like my comments, don’t read them.

        • Steve Fitzpatrick says:

          David,
          Most of what you write is irrelevant. Get over it.

          • David Appell says:

            Steve Fitzpatrick says:
            “Most of what you write is irrelevant.”

            What an easy and meaningless response. You don’t have to provide any data or evidence — you just dismiss it all from the get-go. That’s intellectually vapid.

  31. Mark Tinsley says:

    Just posted this review over at Amazon.co.uk.

    A good chronological demolition of Al Gores claims.

    In a few places (e.g. Storm Sandy/9/11 flooding, China Grain production, ancient trees under retreating glaciers) Dr Spencer definitely proves Mr Gore is not only wrong, but almost certainly deliberately lying. Just for these claims/lies alone Gore should no longer be welcome in any scientific or public debate as he is not honestly seeking the truth. This should be regardless of your opinion about climate change, CO2 or fossil fuels.

    However in a few areas it could be improved:

    -Occasional grammar/spelling errors. One whole sentence trails off at one point. However this is understandable given speed of book production post-movie.

    -Accepts the alarmist framework too often – e.g. terms like “renewable” even when Dr Spencer himself points out that the whole *process* of using wind/solar isn’t and can never be “renewable”. Remember greens don’t count hydro as renewable, yet using tons of cement, steel, rare metals and carbon fibre to make skyscraper-size windmills (with fossil fuels) apparently is. Dr Spencer refers to wind/solar without specifically noting they need 100% back up (apart from saying the word “unreliable” and “when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine”). Also vaguely implies fossil fuels are in danger of being “depleted” anytime soon, without noting proven reserves are increasing, not falling – dramatically in the case of natural gas with fracking. Similar for oil and there are thousands of years of coal left at minimum.

    -Some lack of precision – e.g. On sea level rise (SLR) says two periods are the “same” (exact quote from graph), when actually there is a slight acceleration in one. Also other studies show slightly faster acceleration as well. The point really should be that Gore said 20 feet SLR, implied 100% man-made, and this would happen in coming years, at most a few decades. At present rate (1 inch per decade) 20 feet would be achieved in *2,400 years*, with the vast majority likely from natural causes. Gores claim here is so bad it is “not even wrong”.

    -No references/footnotes (except those provided in graphical links). Makes it hard to check evidence independently (they all look right but best to let people check for themselves)

    -A key weakness: no book of simple fact checks can be a persuasive argument against the near religious fervour of the alarmists. They can always make up something else, move the goalposts, or shout “denier”, “97%” or “there is no debate”. Only a positive message about the benefits of energy to human life, and the unique ability of fossil fuels to provide that energy today will work. Energy is barely mentioned and only briefly towards the end (and this short part is the strongest section for me).

    -It would have been good to provide a clearer framework of analysis for evaluating the movie, or in fact any movie about the climate. I like Alex Epstein’s 3 simple questions for everyone to use prior to seeing AIS. These address the underlying problems at the core rather than the individual facts:

    1. What does this documentary want us to do? i.e. What actions does it want us to take? (Spoiler: get rid of the fuels that power 80% of human civilisation)

    2. Does it give us the full, big picture context with which to make those decisions? (No, as it only provides negatives of fossil fuels and only positives of wind/solar, failing to mention they are 2% of global energy use, whilst implying this is a way higher % with anecdotes)

    3. What would a really good documentary on energy and climate look like? (Surely no obvious lies or distortions is a minimum standard, along with the big picture context?)

    • David Appell says:

      Mark: Can you envision *any* energy source that is 100% renewable?

      Of course, wind/solar/nuclear/hydro aren’t perfect, but they’re far more “renewable” than fossil fuels.

      • David Appell says:

        I’ll take your lack of response as a “no.” Which is the right answer.

      • Mark Tinsley says:

        No, hence the categorisation of “renewable” is largely meaningless, especially any definition that includes solar but excludes hydro.

        You can’t make a windmill with another windmill for instance. Or tow the thing out to sea on a battery powered barge….

        • David Appell says:

          Mark: Why can’t you make a windmill with the energy generated by (an)other windmill(s)?

          • uk ian brown says:

            David that should be obvious ,to make a windmill as you call it. you need mining and smelting of raw materials. transport.manufacturing processes.none of that can be achieved at this moment in time by electrical power.its like removing you car engine and fitting two alternators and expecting one to power the other.nice thought free power,but as Tesla found out the real world doesnt allow it

          • David Appell says:

            Any of those can be done with electricity and electric motors.

          • Mark Tinsley says:

            The simplest answer is that windmills only generate intermittent electricity, not the reliable high energy heating required.

            The production of windmills requires high temperatures for production of the cement, concrete, steel and carbon fibre. This is best achieved with fossil fuels (there are some so called “green” alternatives, none of which are on industrial scale).

            While you could theoretically use the existing windmill’s electricity to drive some other process (e.g. Steam turbine) and try and get the heat that way, it would be very unreliable, you’d lose a lot of energy in the process and it would therefore be incredibly expensive (and probably net cost more CO2 than just using the fossil fuels in the first place). Which is why nobody does it. Literally nobody on planet Earth. Maybe I should have said “don’t” rather than “can’t”.

  32. Steve Fitzpatrick says:

    Not sure what that long comment has to do with sea level. The best estimate of average rate against a geologically stable shoreline (based on the last 25 years) is about 10 inches by 2100. There is some evidence of very weak acceleration, but even that would not lead to an average rise of 15 inches by 2100. So no, there is at present little data to support great alarm about the threat of sea level rise.

    That being said, a significant increase in the rate of acceleration could increase the total rise by 2100 and so is a legitimate subject for study and measurment. Dramatic increases in sea level, like Al Gore always talks about (1 to 2 meters by 2100!) are not plausible, and ought not be the basis for public policy. Prudent public policy should evaluate the credible range for sea level rise and what impacts are likely… and decisions made about addressing those impacts. There are plenty of coastal regions where an increase in sea level of 10-15 inches would cause problems. Continued measurement of sea level, both globally and regionally, is certainly prudent.

    • Bindidon says:

      Steve Fitzpatrick on August 20, 2017 at 6:30 PM

      The best estimate of average rate against a geologically stable shoreline (based on the last 25 years) is about 10 inches by 2100.

      What about citing a real source, Mr Fitzpatrick? (By a real source I understand an official publication, and not the usual Goddard nonsense.)

      Actually, we are at 3 small mm/yr. That gives indeed between 10 and 15 inches per century.

      Maybe you won’t trust in tide gauges, though they give a good fit to satellite altimetry since 1993?

      1880-2013: 1.6
      1920-2013: 1.9
      1950-2013: 2.0
      1980-2013: 2.6
      1993-2013: 3.5 >< 3.2

      Don't misunderstand me: I live in a continental corner, and don't feel concerned by SLR. That is the job of people living in coastal regions.

      I don't understand why Roy Spencer spends so much of his precious time in falsifying this strange Al Gore.

      What is the exercise for? People listening to Al Gore never and never would trust in Roy Spencer. And luckily: vice versa!

      • Steve Fitzpatrick says:

        Ummm… 3 mm per year is about 10″ by 2100, so I have not a clue what you are talking about. As for source, I was refering to the non-glacial rebound adjusted satellite data since 1993. The best estimate is from satellite measurement is 3.1 mm pey year; the measured altimeter data has tacked on to it about 0.3 mm extra per year to account for ‘increasing ocean basin volume’, giving 3.4 mm per year. Of course, standing on a geologically stable shore line, the expected average increase is 3.1, not 3.4 mm per year.

        • Bindidon says:

          Incredible but true: you didn’t understand what I tried to indicate with the sequence of increasing trends tide gauge data since 1880:

          Maybe you wont trust in tide gauges, though they give a good fit to satellite altimetry since 1993?

          1880-2013: 1.6
          1920-2013: 1.9
          1950-2013: 2.0
          1980-2013: 2.6
          1993-2013: 3.5 >< 3.2

          Or you very well did but decided to ignore. Not so untypical…

          • Steve Fitzpatrick says:

            Maybe you should cite something a little less cherry-picked. Oh say, consistent 25 year trends starting 100+ years ago. The rate of rise in 25 year periods has varied quite a lot since 1900, but your odd collection of starting dates and periods seems chosen to hide the ups and downs and show acceleration. There has been no consistent acceleration. I hope you agree that there is a tacked-on 0.3 mm to account for increasing ocean basin volume , and so the best estimate against a geologically stable shore line, based on 25 years of satellite data, is ~3.1 mm per year. So, at that rate for 83 years, we get a bit over 10″. Could the rate increase? Sure, but the acceleration evident over 25 years of the satellite record is minimal.

          • Bindidon says:

            Steve Fitzpatrick on August 21, 2017 at 6:47 PM

            Maybe you should cite something a little less cherry-picked. Oh say, consistent 25 year trends starting 100+ years ago. The rate of rise in 25 year periods has varied quite a lot since 1900, but your odd collection of starting dates and periods seems chosen to hide the ups and downs and show acceleration.

            Sorry, that’s really WUWT style.

            I repeat the links inserted some comments above

            http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.png

            http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170820/97biwe4x.jpg

            I guess that in fact what you want to say here without explicitly writing it is that you do not trust in the tide gauge measurements, because in your mind all what exists before any satellite era is automatically discarded.

            Am I right? I hope I’m not.

          • Bart says:

            You are comparing apples and tennis balls. Your confidence limits increase faster than your estimates.

            1880-2013: 1.6 +/- 1.6
            1920-2013: 1.9 +/- 3.2
            1950-2013: 2.0 +/- 5.2
            1980-2013: 2.6 +/- 7.8
            1993-2013: 3.5 >< 3.2 +/- 10.3

          • David Appell says:

            Ironic coming from Bart, who loves to cite short-term trends.

            What’s the minimum period you will accept for a meaningful trend? 30 years? More?

          • Bart says:

            That’s not the issue. The issue is that they are different time intervals, and the comparison is not like-to-like.

          • Bindidon says:

            Bart on August 22, 2017 at 2:28 PM

            Where did you obtain these nonsense standard errors from?

            Here are mine, computed by Excel’s ‘linest’ function.

            Linear trend estimates in mm/year:

            1880-2013: 1.6 +- 0.01
            1920-2013: 1.9 +- 0.01
            1950-2013: 2.0 +- 0.02
            1980-2013: 2.6 +- 0.04
            1993-2013: 3.5 +- 0.06

            Autocorrelation is of course missing here, everybody well informed knows that, but it would maximally account for from 0.05 (1880-2013) up to 0.5 (1993-2013).

            Please show us which software you used on the basis of which data, I’m interested…

          • Bart says:

            “Where did you obtain these nonsense standard errors from?”

            I made them up in my head as an illustration, not as a rigorous exercise.

            “1880-2013: 1.6 +- 0.01”

            Absolute nonsense. We do not even have measurements anywhere near +/- 0.01 deg.

            “1993-2013: 3.5 +- 0.06”

            More nonsense. Even if you assume iid variates, uncertainty in the trend would go as N^3/2, so you would have at least

            (133/20)^1.5*0.01 = 0.17

            by the end.

            But, of course, the variation is not iid. The autocorrelation is both long term and short term with long and short term cyclical components. All these pseudo-rigorous applications of statistical analysis are just so much mathturbation.

            But, the bottom line holds: you are not comparing like with like, and your conclusions are ridiculous.

          • Bart says:

            We do not even have measurements anywhere near +/- 0.01 mm.

            For crying out loud, that’s 10 microns! That’s 5X less than the width of a flaxen blonde’s hair!

          • Bindidon says:

            Bart on August 23, 2017 at 3:40 PM

            I made them up in my head as an illustration, not as a rigorous exercise.

            I am terribly impressed.

            This, Mr SuperMath Bart, is a similar sequence of linear estimates for Had-CRUT4.5.

            Simply lisdting estimates for five periods in one and the same time series: is this really comparing apples with tennis balls, Sir? What the hell do you mean here?

            1880-2013: 0.063 +- 0.008
            1920-2013: 0.073 +- 0.012
            1950-2013: 0.110 +- 0.020
            1980-2013: 0.161 +- 0.043
            1993-2013: 0.142 +- 0.090

            Is the computation done by Kevin Cowtan in your opinion ‘mathturbation’ as well? What about you scientifically falsifying his work in that case?

            But, the bottom line holds: you are not comparing like with like, and your conclusions are ridiculous.

            Sounds a little bit arrogant for layman Bindidon! Could that not better hold for your ‘illustration’?

          • Bart says:

            “Is the computation done by Kevin Cowtan in your opinion mathturbation as well?”

            Absolutely. It’s completely ridiculous. 90 microns in 20 years. Well, at least you’ve graduated to the diameter of an average human hair. Ho, ho, ho, hee, hee, hee, ha, ha, ha.

            Look, sport. How about you at least try doing the same trends on 20 year samples only, and plot a histogram of them. Or, some uniform duration. It still suffers from your lack of knowledge of the autocorrelation, but at least they’re on an equal footing.

          • Bart says:

            What are these dueling lists, anyway?

            1880-2013: 1.6 +- 0.01
            1920-2013: 1.9 +- 0.01
            1950-2013: 2.0 +- 0.02
            1980-2013: 2.6 +- 0.04
            1993-2013: 3.5 +- 0.06

            1880-2013: 0.063 +- 0.008
            1920-2013: 0.073 +- 0.012
            1950-2013: 0.110 +- 0.020
            1980-2013: 0.161 +- 0.043
            1993-2013: 0.142 +- 0.090

            Why do they vary so much from each other orders of magnitude outside the purported uncertainty bounds?

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “Absolute nonsense. We do not even have measurements anywhere near +/- 0.01 deg.”

            Major math fail from the showoff mathematician.

            You’re clearly never studied error analysis.

            Instrument uncertainty almost never contributes anything to a trend’s uncertainty — it all comes from statistics.

            Question for the math guy: given N measurements each with an uncertainty of 1-sigma, how does the uncertainty of the trend scale with N? With sigma?

          • Bindidon says:

            Bart on August 23, 2017 at 8:18 PM

            What are these dueling lists, anyway?

            Duelling?

            I was comparing the standard errors of
            – tide gauges SL measurements 1880-2013
            – global temperature anomalies of Had-CRUT

            shown, the one by Excel, the other by Cowtans’s trend computer.

            What duel? You behave like a troll. I’m wasting my time here, thanks and good bye.

          • Bart says:

            David Appell @ August 23, 2017 at 8:55 PM

            “Youre clearly never studied error analysis. “

            You clearly enjoy accusing people of clearly doing things you clearly do not understand.

            “Instrument uncertainty almost never contributes anything to a trends uncertainty it all comes from statistics.”

            Just wow.

            “…given N measurements each with an uncertainty of 1-sigma, how does the uncertainty of the trend scale with N? With sigma?”

            What’s the autocorrelation?

            Bindidon @ August 24, 2017 at 2:54 AM

            “You behave like a troll.”

            Don’t blame me when you throw up lists with no description or even units and expect me to divine your inner thoughts.

            I am challenging you to think! Do you really think you can divine sea level to units of the width of a hair? That is pure fantasy.

            When you get absurd results using assumed statistical models, it is an indication that your statistical model is horse–it. Cloaking it in sciency lingo does not make it smell any sweeter.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            >> Instrument uncertainty almost never contributes anything to a
            >> trends uncertainty it all comes from statistics.

            “Just wow.”

            You very clearly don’t understand measurement theory.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “Do you really think you can divine sea level to units of the width of a hair? That is pure fantasy.”

            a) human hair diameter is up to 200 microns = 0.2 mm.

            b) what’s being calculated is GLOBAL MEAN sea level.

            Q: Given N measurements x_i, each with uncertainty e, what is the uncertainty of the average of all the x_i?

          • Bart says:

            “You very clearly dont understand measurement theory.”

            You clearly are an advocate of “do as I say, not as I do.”

            “a) human hair diameter is up to 200 microns = 0.2 mm.”

            I provided a link. Average is 90 microns. But sure, fine, 200 microns on the tails. I.e., really small. If you think you can determine sea level to this resolution, you are out of your mind.

            “b) whats being calculated is GLOBAL MEAN sea level.”

            No! What is being calculated is global AVERAGE sea level. The global mean is ill defined.

            “Q: Given N measurements x_i, each with uncertainty e, what is the uncertainty of the average of all the x_i?”

            Is the process stationary? Does it have consistent statistics to begin with? What quantity does the average represent? What are the 1st and 2nd order statistical measures, i.e., the expectation and the autocorrelation? We need a lot more info that you have provided to answer the question.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “If you think you can determine sea level to this resolution, you are out of your mind.”

            No one is measuring sea level to +/- 90 microns!

            You are clearly unable to grasp that essential fact.

            “What is being calculated is global AVERAGE sea level.”

            What’s being calculated is the trend. Please pay attention.

            “Is the process stationary? Does it have consistent statistics to begin with? What quantity does the average represent? What are the 1st and 2nd order statistical measures, i.e., the expectation and the autocorrelation? We need a lot more info that you have provided to answer the question.”

            Yes. Yes. A meaured parameter. A number. Autocorrelation calculated in any of varying means, by order.

            You get so tangled up in trying to prove how smart you are that you consistently fail to deliver any goods.

            And again, clearly you have not any studied measurement theory.

          • Bart says:

            “Yes. Yes. A meaured parameter. A number. Autocorrelation calculated in any of varying means, by order.”

            All right then, let’s choose an exponential correlation with time constant extending to many centuries. Then, there is essentially no reduction in uncertainty in an average computed over decadal timelines, no matter how many samples you have.

            I can put up autocorrelations for cyclostationary processes, or pink noise, and again find no reduction. If I fade to red, the uncertainty will actually increase with more data.

            The AGW crowd are throwing up arbitrarily conceived autocorrelations, with exceedingly dubious connection to reality, to arrive at conclusions they find comfortable. It is pure mathturbation.

        • Mark Tinsley says:

          0.83 feet by 2100 or 20 feet by 2100?

          No difference, Gore was still right about SLR, stop quibbling! 😉

          • David Appell says:

            Sea level will be rising for many many centuries. By 2100 it’s just getting started…. In the past, sea level has ultimately risen[fallen] 10-15 m for every 1 deg C of warming[cooling] (David Archer). That will hold today as well.

          • Steve Fitzpatrick says:

            David,
            In the long run, we are all dead men. (and you know where that quote comes from) Please stop imagining that you can (or should try to) determine what will happen a century or two after you are dust; you are embarrassing yourself, even if you can’t see that. People will continue to use fossil fuels for the foreseeable future; get used to it. If you want to beat the drum for nuclear, more power to ya, but be prepared for the green rabble to push back hard. If you beat the drum for wind mills and solar cells, then be prepared to be disappointed when emissions continue to rise.

          • David Appell says:

            It’s science that projects sea level, not me. The data show that sea level has ultimately risen 10-15 m for every 1 deg C of warming. It will again this time, too.

            Do you have better science? If not you’re just sticking your head in the sand.

          • David Appell says:

            Steve Fitzpatrick says:
            “If you beat the drum for wind mills and solar cells, then be prepared to be disappointed when emissions continue to rise.”

            Why are you opposed to saving money, and so determined to see that future generations must deal with rapid climate change and rapid sea level rise?

          • David Appell says:

            Steve Fitzpatrick says:
            “In the long run, we are all dead men.”

            But future generations aren’t.

            Or do you not care for their prospects or what kind of world you leave for them?

          • Bart says:

            Why are you opposed to saving money…

            You are not proposing saving money. If you were, it would pay for itself and there would be no argument.

            …and so determined to see that future generations must deal with rapid climate change and rapid sea level rise?

            And, when did you stop beating your wife?

            There is no significant anthropogenically induced climate change globally, and sea levels are rising at the same pace they have for over 100 years, well before CO2 could have been the causative agent. All you’ve got are counterfactual assertions of monsters under the bed.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “You are not proposing saving money. If you were, it would pay for itself and there would be no argument.”

            “How the Clean Air Act Has Saved $22 Trillion in Health-Care Costs,” Alan H. Lockwood, The Atlantic 9/7/12.
            http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/how-the-clean-air-act-has-saved-22-trillion-in-health-care-costs/262071/

          • Bart says:

            Why not make it quadrillion? Or quintillion? Or a kajillion bajillion?

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “Why not make it quadrillion? Or quintillion? Or a kajillion bajillion?”

            Because that’s not what the evidence shows.

          • Bart says:

            Never stopped you before.

          • David Appell says:

            No need to get snotty just because you have no evidence. Just admit it, and move on like a man.

          • Bart says:

            Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the fairest one of all?

    • David Appell says:

      Bindidon says:
      “People listening to Al Gore never and never would trust in Roy Spencer. And luckily: vice versa!”

      Gore is a useful target for those who opt-out of the scientific process — journal papers, out-of-town seminars, workshops and conference proceedings.

      • Steve Fitzpatrick says:

        Gore is a very rich man who zooms about the world on his private jet, frequents the yachts of the rich and famous, chaces younger women, lives in miltiple mansions, and creates a gigantic ‘carbon footprint’, all the while telling the ‘little people’ they must take public transport and pay 3X more for electricity. to ‘save the planet’. “jerk” is not nearly a strong enough adjective to describe Gore.

        • David Appell says:

          I agree that Gore isn’t perfect. But he speaks for himself, not science, and his prominence is only due to his political career, especially his having won the 2000 election.

          If GW Bush was as prominent and accomplished as Gore, and speaking out regularly against the science, he’d get lambasted too.

          Only the science speaks for science. Gore is a simple foil for those who want to avoid addressing the science.

  33. SNOWREADY says:

    Looking forward to the solar eclipse tommrow here in Vancouver Washington state 98.7 percent eclipse.

  34. SNOWREADY says:

    My home weather station records real time rises and falls of temperature humidity and wind speed
    Interested what changes will occur during the eclipse.

  35. Mark Albright says:

    The wonderful Bryan Snider video of a wet microburst over Tucson from 8 August 2015:

    https://vimeo.com/135811823

    has been hijacked by Al Gore to use as a piece of climate propaganda. It can even be found in his new movie trailer:

    http://www.imdb.com/videoplayer/vi1430763033?ref_=ttvi_vi_imdb_1

    ​At about 30 seconds ​in, ​Al Gore says “​Storms get stronger and more destructive, wa​tch the water SPLASH off the city, this is global warming!​ Despair can be paralyzing”.

    ​Since I was actually driving a car at the edge of that microburst, it would seem I barely escaped despair and destruction!

    Th​e Tucson microburst is celebrated in Bryan Snider’s narrated film “Why I Chase: The Arizona Monsoon”
    https://vimeo.com/169514378
    Check out Bryan’s comments between minutes 16 through 18 and contrast those with the doom-and-gloom narration of Al Gore.​

  36. lewis says:

    Dr. Spencer, while a bit late, I suggest there are numerous people who frequent this blog who would have been pleased to have been of assistance in doing research for your book.

  37. Ryddegutt says:

    Great book, Dr. Spencer. I will highly recommend it to anyone.

  38. Dale says:

    Excellent read Roy. Good information and to the point.
    There are however, a number of “typos” which need to be corrected.
    Will Amazon permit changes in the text at this point?

  39. ren says:

    Current temperature in southern Australia.
    http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00926/enxkorqqoaru.png

  40. Mark E. says:

    I have reviewed allot of the plots and data on sea level rise, and am not convinced that there has been any appreciable acceleration, especially since 1973 which has been fairly constant at about 3 mm/yr across the globe. If anybody has any data to support SLR acceleration in recent times, I would be thankful if you could present this.

  41. Bart says:

    Even were there a readily observable acceleration in sea level rise, it wouldn’t mean anything. One would expect an acceleration in a warming world. Nobody is arguing that the world didn’t warm over the 20th century. The debate is over why it warmed.

    • David Appell says:

      Yes, an increase in the rate of global warming is certainly expected — because of feedbacks now kicking in, and increasing over the next several decades.

      • George says:

        Keep messing with Bart and he’ll roast you just like Dr. Berry did. “feedbacks”???? You must believe in the tooth fairy as well. Stick to Chemistry because you know next to nothing about climate dynamics. Oh! did I mention you are a stranger to the ‘scientific method’?

        • David Appell says:

          You think feedbacks don’t exist???

          Would love to hear you explain why not.

          • George says:

            I knew that you’d fall for the bait. You are that shallow. Thanks for confirming what I already knew about you.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”You think feedbacks dont exist???”

            Not the positive feedback programmed into climate models to exaggerate warming. Such feedback in models produce an effect akin to perpetual motion and that’s a no no in physics.

            An explanation?? Here ya go. AGW claims solar energy warms the surface, which becomes an independent radiator of LWR. As the fable goes, a portion of the LWR is absorbed by GHGs and back-radiated to the surface as a positive feedback.

            It has to be a PF since AGW claims the back-radiation super heats the surface beyond the temperature it is warmed by solar energy. That’s not only perpetual motion it’s a flagrant violation of the 2nd law.

            PF requires gain, which translates to an amplifier. Where is the amplifier in the atmosphere?

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “It has to be a PF since AGW claims the back-radiation super heats the surface beyond the temperature it is warmed by solar energy. Thats not only perpetual motion its a flagrant violation of the 2nd law.”

            Why do you keep lying about the 2nd law?

            You’ve been corrected innumerable times — the Earth is not an adiabatic system.

            So why do you keep lying it?

      • Steve Fitzpatrick says:

        You want to bet?

  42. Mike Flynn says:

    Just as a matter of interest, surface temperatures dropped around 5C during the solar eclipse – over a period of a few minutes of total eclipse.

    So much for GHGs preventing LWIR from escaping from the surface to space.

    Maybe back radiation only occurs when the Sun is shining. I’m sure the Warmists will come up with the usual collection of excuses to support their denial of reality.

    CO2 doesn’t stop temperatures from dropping during solar eclipses – or at any other time!

    Cheers.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        David Appell,

        Why do you boast that you are “beyond dumb”?

        Is there a hidden Warmist meaning, perhaps?

        It doesn’t seem that Nature is taking much notice of your petulant tantrums. Oh well, keep trying, if it makes you happy.

        Cheers.

    • ren says:

      Of course, the gases do not stop the heat in the troposphere. Only latent heat can cause a slower decrease in temperature in the atmosphere.

    • ren says:

      “The latest indications are that a similar jet stream block will return and may be in no hurry to leave,” Vido said.
      https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/bursts-of-cool-air-to-refresh-midwestern-northeastern-us-this-week/70002516

    • Bindidon says:

      Mike Flynn on August 21, 2017 at 9:30 PM

      One of the trolliest comments I have ever read.
      Thank you for this amazingly transcendent nonsense.

      The very best of it is that people like Appell seem to really take you seriously! I think I could learn a lot from you.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Bindidon,

        Thank you for your kind comments. I appreciate and value your support.

        You are correct, of course. You could learn a lot from me, if you choose. A starting point point might be acceptance of the verifiable fact that no one has ever managed to make a thermometer hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between it and a heat source (or the converse, for that matter).

        However, it is obvious that Foolish Warmists are somewhat afflicted with delusional beliefs – a condition which cannot be cured easily. I wish you well with your obsessive desire to rid the world of its human population by removing that most essential plant food, CO2, from the atmosphere.

        As for me, I rather like trees, wheat, rice, grass and such. I do my best to provide more CO2 plant food, rather than less. Of course, the plants all have to be broken down into their constituents eventually, to ensure that the temporarily sequestered CO2 is returned to the atmosphere.

        Burning “fossil” fuel is a convenient method of providing additional CO2 if concentratiosn drop to dangerous levels, as has happened in fairly recent times.

        I hope you have learnt enough for now, but I doubt that reality is likely intrude into your thought processes anytime soon. Let me know if you want more instruction. I’m here to help.

        Cheers.

        • David Appell says:

          Mike Flynn says:
          “Burning fossil fuel is a convenient method of providing additional CO2 if concentratiosn drop to dangerous levels, as has happened in fairly recent times.”

          When was that?

          What was the evidence for danger?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            I’ll gladly answer the questions you have posed, albeit in bad faith, (unless you can provide evidence to the contrary,) as soon as you show that you have expended any effort at all in attempting to find out the answers for yourself.

            I’m here to help those who make even the slightest effort to help themselves, which seems to exclude you.

            No spoon-feeding for you, David!

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            I have certainly considered the question.

            So what’s your answer?

        • Bindidon says:

          Mike Flynn on August 22, 2017 at 5:37 PM

          Thank you in turn, Mike Flynn, for this friendly but unfortunately useless answer.

          Because by learning from you I obviously meant your diabolic ability to throw nonsense like does the angler when fishing, and to wait until somebody comes around and is stupid enough to reply.

          I don’t know wether you lack knowledge about CO2 and IR or if you simulate lacking.

          A starting point point might be acceptance of the verifiable fact that no one has ever managed to make a thermometer hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between it and a heat source (or the converse, for that matter).

          No one indeed did, because no one is bloody enough to try. Your statement is lightyears away from any valuable discussion, and I guess you perfectly know this.

          Increasing the amount of CO2 between Earth’s surface and space has the simple effect of preventing a bit more of LW IR emitted by Earth (in response to Sun’s SW radiation) to directly reach space.

          I’m sure you won’t read this book because it doesn’t fit to your narrative:

          http://tinyurl.com/kqfdgj2

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bindidon…”Increasing the amount of CO2 between Earths surface and space has the simple effect of preventing a bit more of LW IR emitted by Earth (in response to Suns SW radiation) to directly reach space”.

            Exactly how much? And can you prove that emissions from the surface play a significant role in cooling the surface?

            If you have two solids in contact, one hotter than the other, the heat is transferred mechanically from one to the other. IR is not a significant issue. The atmosphere is in direct contact with the surface and it’s a mass comprised 99%+ of nitrogen and oxygen.

            Can you explain in the first place why surface heat should not be mainly coupled to the atmosphere directly by warmed N2/O2 rising high into the atmosphere and radiating from there?

            The AGW theory is myopic in it’s inability to understand that both N2 and O2 will radiate to space due to the immense temperature differential. Furthermore, AGW theorists seem to be completely unaware of the inverse square law that applies to radiation. By the time surface radiation reaches a few feet it has lost much of its effectiveness to warm GHGs.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bindidon…”Im sure you wont read this book because it doesnt fit to your narrative:”

            The title of the book is Radiative Heat Transfer. There is no such thing as the ‘direct’ transfer of heat via radiation. The title is misleading and a misnomer.

            Heat is a product of atoms and molecules. The only way to transfer heat directly is by the movement of a mass from one place to another, which occurs via convection in liquids and gases.

            When people talk of heat transfer via radiation they are talking about the decrease of heat in one body and the increase of heat in another body. The heat in either body remains on the respective bodies.

            IR radiated by a hotter body can be absorbed by a cooler body, at the same time, cooling the radiator and warming the absorber. No heat travels through the intervening space, only IR, which does not have heat as a property. Therefore, calling IR radiation ‘heat’ is plain silly.

            IR can be transferred from a hotter body to a cooler body but not heat, directly through space. Preventing a trace amount of LWR from reaching space in no way slows down the cooling of the surface. That’s just bad physics.

            Putting on a sweater, or lying under a blanket, prevents air molecules escaping, or at least, it slows them down. GHGs cannot do that and trapping a tiny amount of IR makes no difference whatsoever to the cooling of the surface.

          • Bindidon says:

            Some people should carefully read books instead of pretending things they do not at all understand.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “There is no such thing as the direct transfer of heat via radiation.”

            Does radiation carry energy?

            What happens to that energy when the radiation is absorbed?


            Don’t flake out and avoid the questions.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      mike…”surface temperatures dropped around 5C during the solar eclipse ”

      I don’t understand how that happens when a thermometer is encased in an enclosure. Loss of radiation for 2 minutes 38 seconds is not going to cause that. The only thing that could cause it is convective air flow that somehow gets through the slats in the housing and changes the air temperature physically.

      A drop of 5C due to solar radiation implies strongly that the solar energy is warming the air molecules. If that’s the case then the GHE theory and AGW are totally wrong.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Gordon,

        From Dr Spencer’s Eclipse post –

        “Back in Huntsville, which experienced 97% of totality, I was taking air temperatures every 10 sec in our backyard. I took ambient air temperature, as well as the air temperature in a Styrofoam cooler, painted black inside, with Saran Wrap covering it. The ambient air temperature drop during the maximum portion of eclipse was about 10 deg. F, while temperature drop in the cooler was over 100 deg. F.”

        100 F drop in Styrofoam cooler. I assume relatively airtight, but I could be wrong.

        Back to an enclosed thermometer.

        You wrote –

        “Loss of radiation for 2 minutes 38 seconds is not going to cause that.” It seems as though it did, though. Pretty widely recorded. Your comment “. . .the GHE theory and AGW are totally wrong.” could be right – I certainly think that the GHE theory is nonsense. Reality seems to support me.

        I guess others can make up their own minds.

        Cheers.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          mike…”Loss of radiation for 2 minutes 38 seconds is not going to cause that. It seems as though it did, though. Pretty widely recorded”.

          Recording is one thing, interpreting the reasons for the drop in temperature is quite another.

          AGW proponents would have us believe the loss of solar radiation caused the surface to cool, which reduced the amount of IR, which reduced the temperature of GHGs.

          I think that is hogwash for the simple reason that the surface temperature could not change that fast to that degree. The answer has to have something to do with a wrong presumption, that incoming solar energy cannot warm all air molecules directly. Obviously it can.

          Official thermometers are housed in a box with a solid roof and slats around the sides to allow ambient air to enter. The thermometers are shielded from direct solar radiation so why should an absence of radiation affect the temperature readings?

          I think the GHE theory, and the AGW, theory, with their reliance on surface radiation, are very naive. There is obviously direct heating of the atmosphere by solar radiation for a 5 – 10C drop in ambient temperature to occur so quickly.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “AGW proponents would have us believe the loss of solar radiation caused the surface to cool, which reduced the amount of IR, which reduced the temperature of GHGs.”

            Gordon, only you could screw up the physics this badly.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        “A drop of 5C due to solar radiation implies strongly that the solar energy is warming the air molecules. If thats the case then the GHE theory and AGW are totally wrong.”

        Whacked.

        Just what do you think is warming air molecules in the first place???????

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”Just what do you think is warming air molecules in the first place???????”

          Conduction from the surface followed by convection. That accounts for about 99% of atmospheric warming. Radiative warming is a red herring argument.

    • David Appell says:

      Mike Flynn says:
      “CO2 doesnt stop temperatures from dropping during solar eclipses or at any other time!”

      During totality the Sun was delivering very little sunlight.

      With almost no solar energy being delivered, what kept the temperature from plummeting far below zero?

      • Mike Flynn says:

        David,

        I assume you’re just trolling, unless you can provide some independent evidence that you are as mentally defective as you are pretending to be.

        Warmists love trends. Dr Spencer’s trend of more than 100 F drop in a couple of minutes or less of restricted sunlight, should be easily extrapolated by a brilliant PhD such as yourself.

        How long would you calculate it would take for temperatures to plummet well below zero based on Dr Spencer’s recorded observations? Are you sure? Are you really that stupid, or just pretending?

        Cheers.

        • David Appell says:

          I’ll give you another chance to answer this question:

          With almost no solar energy being delivered to the path of totality, what kept the surface temperature from plummeting far below zero?

          What keeps nighttime temperatures from plummeting?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”With almost no solar energy being delivered, what kept the temperature from plummeting far below zero?”

        Takes time for the heat in air molecules, 99%+ of which is nitrogen and oxygen, to drop significantly during a 2 minute 30 second full eclipse. Stations in the full eclipse zone were reporting drops of 5C from 90C.

        CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with it with a gas concentration of 0.04%. Based on the law of partial pressures for an atmosphere of constant volume and constant mass, CO2 at 0.04% could contribute no more than about 0.01C.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          “Takes time for the heat in air molecules, 99%+ of which is nitrogen and oxygen, to drop significantly during a 2 minute 30 second full eclipse.”

          Why?

          How long?

          Of course, I know better than to expect any science out of you. But I’m going to keep pointing out that you have none.

  43. ren says:

    Solar eclipse 2017 weather: Did the temperature drop in Alabama?
    http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/08/solar_eclipse_2017_weather_did.html

  44. David Appell says:

    Roy: Are you aware that global wheat production peaked in 1997?

    How can this be, if CO2 is so good for plants?

    • Mike Flynn says:

      David,

      You wrote –

      “. . . global wheat production peaked in 1997.”

      Typical simplistic nonsense. About as stupid as assuming tree growth depends only on temperature.

      Foolish Warmists calling themselves climatologists often make such silly assumptions. Next you’ll be denying that CO2 is necessary for photosynthetic plant growth!

      What’s your brilliant idea for growing plants without CO2? Can you provide citations? Probably not from Nature or Science – they have a record of publishing junk science which they are eventually forced to retract.

      Do let me know why the FAOSTAT database is wrong. 1997 shows about 613 million metric tonnes, 2014 about 729 million. Only estimates or guesses, I know. Maybe your Spidey-sense tells you that 729 is less than 613?

      Cheers.

    • tonyM says:

      David, must you invariably submit such nave views. Production is subject to a number of variables not the least of which is farm decisions on what to plant or grow. Data from FOA says:

      As for wheat:
      “World wheat production in 2016 is expected to exceed the 2015 record by 1.2%, underpinned by output increases in India, the Russian Federation and the United States, it said.”

      So your comment shows false statistics.

      As for cereals:
      “In 2016, world cereal production is set to increase by 1.5%, or 38 million tonnes, to hit a new record of 2.569 billion tonnes, topping by at least 5.5 million tonnes the preceding peak of 2014,”

      As to your naivety it said:
      “In spite of the projected year-on-year growth in total cereal utilization, the rise in world cereal production in 2016 would still result in an increase in the level of global cereal inventories,” the FAO said. “All would be in the form of wheat, as ending inventories of coarse grains and rice are anticipated to slide below their opening levels.”

      http://www.world-grain.com/articles/news_home/Features/2016/11/Another_recordbreaking_harvest.aspx?ID=%7BF66FAB2B-AE1E-40B6-95F7-A7F92CD9B379%7D&cck=1

      Next you are likely to tell us that the huge drop of Merino flocks is all due to climate change and the lack of grass as that is all they eat. What happened to CO2, eh? Please go spend more time on your own site.

      • David Appell says:

        tonyM says:
        “So your comment shows false statistics.”

        Do you know what per capita means?

        • tonyM says:

          David:

          Do you know what a surplus of wheat means? Do you know grasp what adding to end inventories means?

          Simply put, farmers are not stupid. Please do not become a farmer.

          • David Appell says:

            A surplus can exist for many reasons, not the least of which are market failures.

            Data:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_wheat_production_statistics

            World population:
            https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/POPTOT1WA647NWDB

            Divide one by the other. You’ll find that global wheat production peaked in 1997, at 105 kg/person/yr.

          • tonyM says:

            David:
            This was your statement and question:
            Roy: Are you aware that global wheat production peaked in 1997?

            How can this be, if CO2 is so good for plants?

            “global wheat production” is an absolute statement and has nothing to do with per capita production.

            Further you imposed a condition in your question without allowances for other variables.

            You keep squirming around this as I already pointed out:
            “Production is subject to a number of variables not the least of which is farm decisions on what to plant or grow.”

            Your question was about CO2 and its effect on absolute food production. Do you see it or do you need your nose rubbed into it some more. Your naive simplistic version leaves you bereft of logic.

            Now squirm some more as is your penchant. Whatever you do, never apply for jobs which requires giving advice to farmers or dealing with multiple variables or deal with future markets.

            Suggest you go look after your own site; you may have more luck.

          • David Appell says:

            tonyM says:
            “global wheat production is an absolute statement and has nothing to do with per capita production.”

            Ridiculous. Just divide by world population. That so hard for you to do?

          • David Appell says:

            tonyM says:
            “Production is subject to a number of variables not the least of which is farm decisions on what to plant or grow.”

            Ha! This is exactly what I put write when people like you and Roy point to production data, which depends on many variables, including climate, but you ignore that altogether.

            But we do know this: if less wheat per capita is produced, people are eating less wheat. They have to make up those calories somewhere else, or go hungry.

    • UK Ian brown says:

      David production is not yield..UK wheat production dropped in favour of other crops.but yield per acre increased.why sow 3 acres when 2 will do the job..the market drives production .growers follow the money

  45. Joz Jonlin says:

    Just bought the book if for no other reason than to support you for what you do. You might consider diverting a portion of the money from the book to purchasing a ballistic vest for when you’re working at your office. We should crowdfund a vest for Dr. Christy, as well, to make sure you’re both protected from angry environmentalists.

  46. ren says:

    The typhoon attacked China at the height of Hong Kong.

  47. Rob says:

    I am not a scientist but perhaps a naturalist. While burning coal, natural gas, fuel oils etc., are we only putting CO2 into the atmosphere? No. For me that is a good enough reason to reduce ALL emissions.

  48. Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek says:

    David A:

    Re birds killed by electric energy sources.

    I looked at the reference you provided while claiming that, for example, coal fired power plants killed more birds than wind and solar installations.

    I also looked at the links provided at the source you cited.

    There is literally no data behind any of the claims. Also you claim for coal, 14m per year for the USA while the other referenced source estimates 9m for the world. Huh? The papers seem to be constructed to make coal look bad and wind look good, safe, clean, etc, while ignoring the factors for wind that are included for coal, mining, for example.

    The estimate for the distribution grid killing birds is pretty meaningless because whatever the power source, the grid is still needed.

    You didn’t provide any estimate of the birdkill per GWH of power produced, which would have been a fair comparison because as an advocate of wind power you should be able to demonstrate that it is not worse for the bird population than what it replaces. Alas the bird and bat kill per GWH is higher for concentrating solar and wind than estimates of birds killed by ‘climate change’ in the USA. To save the others the time wasted reading the papers, the ‘major’ estimated killer of birds, is the estimate that ‘global warming’ kills birds, and that warming is attributable to coal fired power plants, and therefore coal kills birds, in the USA, which save for a corner in the SW, is either cooling or not warming a measurable amount. No warming means no bird kills so that argument is hollow.

    Ignoring that silliness, let’s look at Ontario which has had a huge subsidy scheme for wind turbines. Bird kill by everything to do with power generation is dominated by wind turbines. Claims that the nuclear power sector kills more birds is fatuous. Do you know what fatuous means?

    There are a large number of birds killed in Ontario by wind turbines, especially large birds. Does it matter? I am not sure. There are no believable numbers. They are all invented. What we do know is that wind turbines are hopeless at reducing total CO2 emissions, waste large amounts of money, create large areas filled with infrasound and caused us, the consumers, to have to pay $3.8bn to build three gas fired grid stabilization plants. It is a stupid way to generate electric power.

    • David Appell says:

      The source is chock full of sources. Read harder.

      https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/08/22/pecking-order-energys-toll-on-birds

      So is Savacool’s paper. Read it.

      “Within the uncertainties of the data used, the estimate means that wind farms killed approximately 20,000 birds in the United States in 2009 but nuclear plants killed about 330,000 and fossil fueled power plants more than 14 million. The paper concludes that further study is needed, but also that fossil fueled power stations appear to pose a much greater threat to birds and avian wildlife than wind farms and nuclear power plants.”

      – The avian benefits of wind energy: A 2009 update, Benjamin K. Sovacool, Renewable Energy, Volume 49, January 2013, Pages 1924. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148112000857

      • Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek says:

        David

        I did read.

        So let me understand your position on converting from nuclear and coal fired power for electricity supply. Is it correct that your assessment of the evidence is that installing an equal capacity of wind power and the retirement of these two technologies will on balance reduce the total number of birds killed?

        I looked again at the numbers for the grid and the huge uncertainties in the numbers. The claim for the US is that the grid kills an equal number compared with coal stations, or as many as eight times more. That means there are no real numbers, there are wild estimates.

        One cannot run public policy of wild estimates. This whole ‘bird kill business’ of shouting numbers is as hollow as the claims of HAPIT, GBD, aDALYs and the whole PM2.5 equitoxicity nonsense. Anyone who looks into the roots of the claims finds there is nothing real there. One find nearly no facts and a multiplicity of ‘heroic assumptions’. So it is with birds.

        My objections to wind turbines is they are a stupid way to generate grid power where there are options and I wish not to subsidise them. Obviously they kill large birds. Beyond that, there is too much alarm based on a wing and a prayer. Everyone is guessing.

        • David Appell says:

          Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek says:
          “So let me understand your position on converting from nuclear and coal fired power for electricity supply.”

          What???

          What are you talking about? That’s not at all my position.

      • UK Ian brown says:

        Having read Savacools paper i still don’t know how he came to the numbers.in the UK power stations including nuclear.are a great attraction for resident and migrating birds as safe nesting sites.birds are not stupid . it appears he is including eletrocution and power line strikes.wind turbines have no attraction to birds as nesting sites and are useless as such.bird strikes in the UK are almost impossible to calculate as the large wind farms are offshore. Close to my home a new small wind farm of some 36 turbines has been commissioned on the flight path of migrating Canada Geese to their winter feeding grounds at two lakes.if governments must build these things .better research needs to be done on sites.at this moment in time it seems to be green at any cost and sod the consequences. And for what a blind desire to fix something that ain’t broke

      • David Appell says:

        Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek says:
        “The claim for the US is that the grid kills an equal number compared with coal stations, or as many as eight times more.”

        What??

        Crispin you are making no sense whatsoever.

    • David Appell says:

      Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek says:
      “There are a large number of birds killed in Ontario by wind turbines, especially large birds.”

      Based on what data and evidence?

  49. Dr Tim Ball says:

    Latest books and documentary.
    The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science.
    My latest documentary and video of my presentation.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
    My website is
    The Trans-mountain Pipeline will add 3/10,000 of 1% CO2 to the atmosphere.
    Besides, CO2 is not a pollutant.
    Human Caused Global Warming, ‘The Biggest Deception in History.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO08Hhjes_0
    http://www.drtimball.com
    http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/

  50. Harrowsceptic says:

    Same thing in the UK, over the last 50 years there has been a greatly increased building on flood plains. Now I wonder why there were called flood plains! Also the severe floods in the Somerset levels were caused by an EU mandate to stop dredging the channels, as had been done for centuries, to create a wetlands area for wildlife. Come heavy rain the water has no where to go and lo and behold you have floods.

    • Bindidon says:

      Strange this difference between UK and DE!

      Here we had to learn a lot! I tranlated using Google, apos for possible nonsense here and there.

      *

      Floodplains are a natural and important protection against extreme floods.

      Water is stored in the landscape and returned to the river in dry times. The best flood protection is therefore not to cultivate these floodplains.

      This is exactly what has been done over decades. Around 80 percent of the natural floodplains were lost in Germany.

      Through dikes and dams, man has separated many floodplains from the river. Rivers were made “faster” by straightening and dusting.

      The Rhine and the Danube are now mainly used for navigable waterways. Even the Elbe, which is otherwise flowing in many places, is built in its upper course on the Czech side with 22 weirs and dams.

      This is why today the water rushes in most developed rivers with much higher speed towards the sea. In the Rhine, for example, a floodwater winds from Basel to Karlsruhe in 30 hours – in 1955 it took 65 hours.

      We are sealing more and more land at a breathtaking pace. Every day, 100 hectares of open countryside under asphalt or concrete disappear in Germany, an area of five soccer fields every hour.

      This accelerates the drain water. Where rainwater can no longer seep into the ground, it quickly flows into the sewage system. Thus the rain reaches the rivers much more quickly than the normal water.

      *

      Not even one silly word about climate change…

  51. Svante says:

    Those tree stumps are reportedly from the end of the Roman warm period.
    So we have already shot past the MWP in that location and
    the glacier is nowhere near equilibrium.
    See discussion here: https://tinyurl.com/ycr3sesv

  52. cdavid says:

    I take all of this with a grain of Salt. everyone has brought up great points. But the Lack of Blame directed at the Sun puzzles me. The Earth does it’s process (methane, Co2,Hydrgen Sulfide, etc)
    Then the Sun adds it’s process (Solar storms Massive Radiation blast). How is this not more prevalent to a floating ball of gas in a vacuum under constant bombardment from a star. Next I would love to hear the explanation of the moons death. How did man accomplish that having never been there. Man just adds to the earth what the earth naturally adds to the atmosphere. Do we need to be concerned. Yes we do we are not plants and need different levels of gases. But to make this into a political debate is embarrassing at best. To Guilt people and Shame them for not Blaming man is Absurd. People like Gore and his circle are heavily invested in the Alt-energy movement . Will they make money from the Sun, yes. Will he blame it for most of our problems, No. Too many people taking advantage of the uninformed. Grow up.

  53. gwbush says:

    Has any of the climate science models been right so far? If CO2 prevents sun rays from bouncing off the earth back to space, then why doesn’t CO2 prevent the sun rays from reaching the earth in the first place?