Cracks in the Empire’s Armor Appear

September 20th, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Yesterday brought widespread news coverage of a new “study” published in Nature Geoscience which concludes that global warming has not been progressing as fast as expected, and that climate models might be a “little bit” wrong.

(That the “little bit” is a factor of 2 or 3 is a fine point upon which we won’t quibble here.)

I’m still trying to process my feelings about how the two authors, Myles Allen and Michael Grubb, might have been allowed to wander so far off the Empire’s (UN IPCC’s) reservation.

My initial reaction to the news was captured by my wife:

I’ve been thinking about what led to this turn of events. I’ve decided it was not some random realization by rogue elements of the Empire. It was not a tactical anomaly, but instead a strategic trial balloon of sorts.

Had John Christy or I tried to publish such a paper, Storm Troopers led by Darth Trenberth would have been quickly dispatched to put down the rebellion.

The realization by the authors that the climate models have produced too much warming since about 2000 has been out there for at least 5 years. It has been no secret, and Christy and I have been lambasted as “deniers” for repeatedly pointing it out.

The timing of the authors’ realization of the same seems not very believable. Quoting from the Independent article,

According to The Times, another of the papers authors, Michael Grubb, a professor of international energy and climate change at University College London, admitted his earlier forecasting models had overplayed how temperatures would rise. At the Paris climate summit in 2015, Professor Grubb said: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.” But speaking to The Times he said: “When the facts change, I change my mind, as [John Maynard] Keynes said.”

Now, I must ask, what did Grubb know, and when did he know it? What exactly has changed in the model forecasts since the Paris summit in December 2015?

Exactly nothing.

Allen and Grubb knew the models had a problem well before that.

I suspect there have been years of discussions in e-cigarette vapor-filled back rooms where Empire leaders have been discussing how the increasing disparity between models and observations should be handled. The resulting new paper is part of a grand scheme that Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich perfected decades ago. I believe the new narrative taking shape is this: “yes, we were wrong, but only in the timing of the coming global warming disaster. It is still going to happen… but now we have time to fix it, before it really, really is too late.”

I wonder if Allen and Grubb will also be called “deniers” for pointing out that the emperor’s models have no clothes?

Only time will tell. For now, all I can say is, welcome to the dark side.

Since it is card-carrying members of the climate establishment saying the models are wrong, though, they will probably be hailed as visionaries.


362 Responses to “Cracks in the Empire’s Armor Appear”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Why AGW is not correct in my opinion. Some of the premises this theory is built on that just have not happened.

    I think the GHG effect is a result of the climate/environment not the cause.

    I do believe in the GHG effect but I do not think it causes the climate to change. One main reason being ice core data always having shown temperature change first, then CO2 change.

    Yes CO2 absorbs infrared radiation the earth emits, as does water vapor and if a positive feedback had been established ,(that being the lower tropospheric hot spot near the equator), I would have given much more credence to AGW theory, but this important premise of the theory has never materialized.

    Another problem for the theory is climatic history has shown the earth to be as warm or warmer then it is currently. An example being the Holocene Optimum.

    Another problem is I do not see the AO/NAO evolving into a more positive mode over the past few decades which this theory has called for.

    Another problem is CO2 is a trace gas with a trace increase and I find it hard to believe that this one item could overwhelm the whole climatic system, unless a positive water vapor /CO2 feedback were to become established.

    I will end by saying if very low solar translates to overall lower sea surface temperatures and a higher albedo this in my opinion will overwhelm any AGW that might be occurring.

    The test is on now and over the next several years things should become much clearer.

    I will admit to being wrong if my low avg. solar parameters are largely present from this point in time on and global temperatures do not fall.

    Reply

    • Salvatore, your comments are as reliable as the sun rising in the morning.

      • I hope you agree with some of them.

      • Dave S says:

        “Hence, limiting warming to 1.5 °C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation.”

        Could you at least read the abstract of the journal article and quote the actual journal instead of the headline grabbing press, before running off with your typically fanatical hyperbole?!

        I know its quite hard to do for a “scientist” that cannot come to terms with the scientific peer review process…but please give it a try.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          dave s…”Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford and one of the studys authors told The Times: We havent seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We havent seen that in the observations.”

          A quote from one of the paper’s authors: “Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford and one of the studys authors told The Times: We havent seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We havent seen that in the observations.”

          • Svante says:

            From the authors at
            https://tinyurl.com/yck7cw8k

            “A number of media reports have asserted that our recent study in Nature Geoscience indicates that global temperatures are not rising as fast as predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and hence that action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is no longer urgent.

            Both assertions are false.

            Our results are entirely in line with the IPCCs 2013 prediction that temperatures in the 2020s would be 0.9-1.3 degrees above pre-industrial (See figures 2c and 3a of our article which show the IPCC prediction, our projections, and temperatures of recent years).

            What we have done is to update the implications for the amount of carbon dioxide we can still emit while expecting global temperatures to remain below the Paris Climate Agreement goal of 1.5 degrees. We find that, to likely meet the Paris goal, emission reductions would need to begin immediately and reach zero in less than 40 years time.

            While that is not geophysically impossible, to suggest that this means that measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are now unnecessary is clearly false.”

          • Alfons Mittelmeyer says:

            There will be an end soon to this CO2 warming hypothesis. But we have to understand the true reason. Otherwise there could be an immense catastrophy, because naturally climate could be very different, what would be expected. And this could happen very suddenly.

            What do you think happened after 1945?

            http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Arctic-Sea-Ice-1920-1975-768×505.jpg

          • Svante says:

            After 1945 the records show that global temperature went down for 30 years.

            I think the main reasons were forcing from aerosols and volcanoes, plus the AMO.

            Check out seventeen different forcings here:
            https://tinyurl.com/ybu6hta8
            The AMO:
            https://tinyurl.com/puz6fy9

            CO2 wins in the long run because it lasts for millennia.

          • Alfons Mittelmeyer says:

            Hi Svante,

            you are right of this 30 years of cooling. But there is also something to say. If there was a GSA, the IPCC always looked for a volcano, which could be an explanation. And there are many volcanoes, so it’s not difficult to find one, to have an explanation.

            But I didn’t mean the next 30 years, only the next years and what could have been the reason, why the sea ice increased fast.

          • Svante says:

            Here is a later paper by the same author, with a longer record. It only assumes natural variation on top of the trend. You can register and login for free.
            https://tinyurl.com/y9dxe9ld

            Here you can see the impact of major volcanoes on the temperature record:
            https://tinyurl.com/y8kyzwsk

        • Bindidon says:

          Svante on September 20, 2017 at 5:23 PM

          Thank you Svante for restoring the truth distorted by an irresponsible troll.

        • Alfons Mittelmeyer says:

          Hi Svante,

          there are many volcanoes. But what a pity, not every time is one available which could be chosen.

          For the winter 1947 in Britain none could be found?

          http://blog.kindeo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/5501396-large.jpg

          If trains shall run, the rails have do be cleared

          And for the winter 1963 they didn’t find one either?

          http://www.vintage-dreaming.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/1963-snow.png

          • Svante says:

            There are two effects. Warmer temperature cause more melting, and warmer air hold more moisture.
            More snow and more melting.
            Data show that there is more snow early in the season, but less in spring.
            https://tinyurl.com/zg9mk6c

            As for temperatures, you have to look at all forcings. This will not come out right, but perhaps you get the idea (its from the first link I gave you):
            Year GHGs Aerosols Aerosols Volcanos Black Ozone Strat. Land Snow Solar Sum
            (direct) (indirect) Carbon H2O Use Albedo Intens.
            1940 0.617 -0.300 -0.316 0.133 0.017 -0.053 0.062 0.047 0.129 -0.052 0.284
            1941 0.616 -0.306 -0.320 0.134 0.017 -0.054 0.064 0.047 0.128 -0.021 0.305
            1942 0.615 -0.311 -0.324 0.136 0.017 -0.054 0.066 0.047 0.123 -0.075 0.240
            1943 0.616 -0.316 -0.329 0.137 0.018 -0.055 0.068 0.047 0.109 -0.078 0.217
            1944 0.615 -0.322 -0.333 0.139 0.018 -0.056 0.069 0.048 0.119 -0.028 0.269
            1945 0.621 -0.327 -0.337 0.140 0.018 -0.056 0.071 0.048 0.160 -0.026 0.312
            1946 0.627 -0.333 -0.341 0.141 0.019 -0.056 0.073 0.048 0.170 -0.014 0.334
            1947 0.636 -0.338 -0.345 0.143 0.019 -0.057 0.075 0.048 0.204 -0.028 0.357
            1948 0.644 -0.343 -0.350 0.144 0.020 -0.058 0.076 0.049 0.227 -0.014 0.395
            1949 0.658 -0.349 -0.354 0.145 0.020 -0.058 0.078 0.049 0.213 -0.049 0.353
            1950 0.672 -0.354 -0.358 0.147 0.021 -0.059 0.080 0.049 0.180 -0.042 0.336
            1951 0.689 -0.370 -0.368 0.152 0.021 -0.060 0.085 0.051 0.145 -0.019 0.326
            1952 0.704 -0.385 -0.378 0.158 0.022 -0.062 0.090 0.053 0.146 -0.063 0.285
            1953 0.721 -0.401 -0.389 0.163 0.022 -0.064 0.094 0.055 0.123 -0.052 0.272
            1954 0.740 -0.417 -0.399 0.169 0.023 -0.065 0.099 0.058 0.128 -0.061 0.275
            1955 0.759 -0.432 -0.409 0.175 0.023 -0.067 0.104 0.060 0.145 -0.016 0.342
            1956 0.778 -0.448 -0.419 0.180 0.024 -0.069 0.109 0.062 0.220 -0.002 0.435
            1957 0.800 -0.464 -0.429 0.186 0.025 -0.070 0.113 0.064 0.272 0.019 0.516
            1958 0.819 -0.479 -0.440 0.192 0.026 -0.072 0.118 0.066 0.268 0.023 0.521
            1959 0.847 -0.495 -0.450 0.197 0.026 -0.074 0.123 0.068 0.232 0.023 0.497
            1960 0.876 -0.511 -0.460 0.203 0.027 -0.075 0.128 0.070 0.220 -0.080 0.398
            1961 0.900 -0.526 -0.470 0.209 0.028 -0.076 0.132 0.073 0.166 -0.230 0.206
            1962 0.926 -0.541 -0.479 0.214 0.029 -0.076 0.137 0.076 0.135 -0.284 0.137
            1963 0.953 -0.556 -0.488 0.220 0.030 -0.077 0.142 0.078 0.127 -1.050 -0.621
            1964 0.978 -0.571 -0.498 0.226 0.031 -0.078 0.147 0.081 0.130 -1.661 -1.215
            1965 1.006 -0.586 -0.507 0.231 0.031 -0.078 0.151 0.084 0.139 -0.987 -0.516
            1966 1.051 -0.601 -0.517 0.237 0.032 -0.079 0.156 0.086 0.172 -0.522 0.015
            1967 1.083 -0.616 -0.526 0.243 0.033 -0.079 0.161 0.089 0.203 -0.317 0.274
            1968 1.117 -0.631 -0.536 0.249 0.034 -0.080 0.166 0.092 0.214 -0.618 0.007
            1969 1.162 -0.646 -0.545 0.254 0.035 -0.081 0.170 0.095 0.229 -0.783 -0.110
            1970 1.209 -0.661 -0.555 0.260 0.036 -0.081 0.175 0.097 0.227 -0.364 0.343
            Avg 0.808 -0.450 -0.418 0.182 0.025 -0.067 0.109 0.064 0.174 -0.241 0.187
            Trend 0.018 -0.012 -0.008 0.004 0.001 -0.001 0.004 0.002 0.002 -0.024 -0.015

          • Alfons Mittelmeyer says:

            Hi Svante,

            there cannot be seen any connection between an arctic winters in Britain and Europe and volcanoes.

            Winter 1947: no volcano
            Winter 1963: Agung after the winter was finished
            Winter 1979: Chicon 3 years later

            http://i1.gazettelive.co.uk/incoming/article8331830.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/JS49034675.jpg
            Source: http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/remember-when-days-heavy-snowfalls-8329995

            Winter 1979 in Britain

            and also:
            https://www.theweatheroutlook.com/images/readers/1_s.jpg

            Drawing lines for snow coverage doesn’t make much sense, because this can change and until 2030 will happen this cooling, which can be seen here from 1940 until 1950 in Iceland

            http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Regional/TAVG/Figures/iceland-TAVG-Trend.png

            Source: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/iceland

            The cooling has already started in the northern North Atlantic, will weaken the anticyclonic winds in the arctic latest after the next El Nino, which can be expected to happen about 2020/21. After this there will not be any turbo drive any more for the rotation of the Beaufort Gyre. Weaker winds will cause more warm air coming to the Arctic Ocean with a sea ice extent considerable lower as in 2012.

            And when everybody means, that climate surely becomes warmer and warmer, because of so little sea ice, then the next or the winter after next will be such an arctic winter like 1947 for Europe, because the freshwater dome in the Beaufort Gyre will come like an El Nino of icy cold arctic waters through the Fram Strait into the North Atlantic and into the North Sea with North Sea frozen at coasts and very low frosty temperatures.

            Because of weakening the Gulf Stream, the coming summer after this winter will be a severe drought summer in some areas. And a severe drought period will follow in the USA as has happened in the fifties.

            There wouldn’t be needed any discussion much longer, because nature will show this in some years. But people and governments have to be prepared for such a severe winter.

            Shutting power plants down, because of difficulties with coal mining and transport, could cost the life of many people, because now heating units need electricity.

            Note: The sea ice increase after 1945 means, that there was such an arctic spill out with freshening the borders of the arctic ocean and weakening of the Gulf Stream. The sea ice increased more than after the spill out of after 1950. This means, that it was a more prominent one. And the extreme winter and the droughts are enough further evidence, that this happened after 1945, also the theory says this. But additionally to theory alone, we can now estimate the time when this will come to pass. Should be about 2023-2025, if a further El Nino coming soon could cause a delay.

            There can’t be any doubt, that the cooling will happen. The question is only, when will be this arctic winter and whether there is enough time for preparing.

          • Svante says:

            Yes, there is a risk that global warning may slow down the thermohaline circulation.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        roy…”Salvatore, your comments are as reliable as the sun rising in the morning”.

        You do mean the horizon dipping below the Sun in the morning, I hope. ☺ ☺ ☺

        Good stuff in your article. Thanks for your integrity in standing up for science.

    • David Appell says:

      “I do believe in the GHG effect but I do not think it causes the climate to change. One main reason being ice core data always having shown temperature change first, then CO2 change.”

      Salvatore, would temperature lead or follow if a large alien spaceship parked in Earth’s orbit, lowered a big hose to the surface, and began pumping out 1,000 kilotons of CO2 per second for many years?

  2. I’d enlarge just slightly on what you’ve said, Roy–or, rather, make it more explicit. I read this development as a heroic (may we say panicked?) effort to salvage an agenda. Socialist former UN FCCC Secretary-General Christiana Figueres revealed the agenda (though indeed others, less prominent, had spoken it before) when she so candidly said, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

    With Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement, the crack in the dike appeared. Without the U.S., the agreement will lack the majority of the bribe money to be redistributed from the West to the Rest, and developing nations will peel off, one by one, and the whole agenda will collapse. So if the agenda is to be preserved, the world must thing it’s still achievable.

    But the growing divergence between model temperature projects and real-world temperature data was making more and more people think the agenda wasn’t NEEDED. Since it was becoming increasingly implausible to argue that eventually the projections and the observations would merge (we’d have to see REALLY rapid warming over the rest of the century for that to happen!), the Empire resorts to a new tactic: slowing the pursuit of the agenda so people won’t feel so pinched.

    The bad news for the Empire, though, is that if climate sensitivity really is much lower than what’s embedded in the models and driving their temperature projections that are 2-3 times what’s observed, then the cooling to be achieved by any CO2 emission reductions (like those proposed in the Paris treaty) will also be one-third to one-half what the Empire has claimed. That makes the benefit/cost ratio even worse than it previously appeared. As Lomborg pointed out, the cost would run around $1-$2 trillion per year from 2030-2100, i.e., $70-$140 trillion, for a projected temperature reduction of 0.3 degree Fahrenheit, i.e., $23.3 to $46.6 trillion per tenth of a degree. If this new study is right, and projected temperature reductions are to be brought in line with observations instead of the exaggerations provided by the models, then the cost per tenth of a degree will double or triple.

    Maybe THEN more people will figure out that the Paris agreement–or any other to reduce CO2 emissions and thus warming–is a bad deal.

  3. alphagruis says:

    Funny, thanks.

    Maybe the alarmists are even getting a bit smarter after all.

    Whatever the climate sensitivity might ever be, it was quite clear (except to them) at the very beginning that it is simply not yet possible to rapidly curb CO2 emission to the extent “demanded” by the amusing “models”. Simple physics by itself already prevents it being done without doing much more harm than good. Not to speak of democracy.

    So, at any rate, there was no way left to keep the decarbonization agenda as well as the funny “projections” business alive but downsize the “demands” of the models. Easy task, there are more than enough fudge parameters.

    • David Appell says:

      The models don’t “demand” anything. The decision of whether to reduce CO2 etc is an ethical decision, not one based in science. The science addresses the question “what will happen if X,” but the X is up to us. What kind of world do we want to live in? Do we care about the world others live in? Our children? The 100th generation from now? Millions of other species?

      The physics will do what it always does. Our decision is about our values, morals and ethics.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”The physics will do what it always does. Our decision is about our values, morals and ethics”.

        Which physics, the observable, objective physics of Newton and Einstein or the fictitious, consensus-based physics of your ilk?

        • David Appell says:

          Do you think there isn’t a consensus about the work of Newton and Einstein?

          NASA used the consensus on Newtonian physics to go to the moon and back. But what did they know.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Established physics is verifiable, repeatable, and often mathematically backed, unlike the AGW hoax.

          • Tom C says:

            I believe the actual persons responsible for getting us to the moon and back are not too keen on CAGW.

          • David Appell says:

            NASA is, of course, well aware of AGW and it’s science. You must be talking about a few crotchety engineers who very likely don’t understand climate science anyway. There’s a rash of that going around.

      • alphagruis says:

        The decision of whether to reduce CO2 etc is an ethical decision, not one based in science.

        No, of course it is (supposed to be) based on verified science and reason. Nothing else.

        The science addresses the question what will happen if X, but the X is up to us. What kind of world do we want to live in?

        Just more laughable pontifications.

        Nature, of course, doesn’t care at all of what world you “want to live in”. If simple physics doesn’t allow a 7+ billions people civilization to be powered by renewable energy, you may wish whatever you want and babble endlessly about “ethics, morals and values” it’s nothing bur wishful thinking and dreaming.

        • David Appell says:

          alphagruis says:
          “No, of course it is (supposed to be) based on verified science and reason. Nothing else.”

          Does science say it’s OK for Miami to be inundated? Bangladesh What’s the rational calculation on that?

          • lewis says:

            Science says Miami will be inundated if it is below sea level, if the oceans continue to rise. Building there is poor decision making but if others continue to subsidize – pay for the damage through taxes – then the poor decision making will continue. Note what the leftist/alarmist reaction to Dick Cheney when he suggested NOT building New Orleans back. HOrrORS in the media. But it was/is a rational reaction to the situation.

            Bah on the ethics you talk about David – they are based on fantasy and political ambition. Get DeCaprio to give you a ride in his non-CO2 emitting jet the next time he runs off to a convention of do-gooders. Ethics indeed! Bless your heart.

          • David Appell says:

            What does the science say about continuing to burn fossil fuels and threatening to inundate 1/3rd of Bangladesh? NYC, Boston, Oakland? Venice, Guangzhou, Mumbai?

            Who pays when all this real estate, worth many trillions of dollars, is lost? When lives are lost?

          • alphagruis says:

            Does science say its OK for Miami to be inundated? Bangladesh Whats the rational calculation on that?

            What science can say is just that these are idiotic questions.

          • David Appell says:

            These questions are certainly not idiotic — they are among the most pressing questions of our time.

            Avoiding them will get you nowhere here.

          • alphagruis says:

            Bullshit.

            Your questions are completely stupid.
            Science by no means could ever tell ‘if i’s OK” for Miami to be be inundated.

            And if you can’t even grasp this you are obviously and definitively an idiot.

            Yet maybe, once tired with laughably pontificating here (and probably elsewhere) maybe you might take some of your time and medidate what I told you:

            Nature, of course, doesnt care at all of what world you want to live in. If simple physics doesnt allow a 7+ billions people civilization to be powered by renewable energy, you may wish whatever you want and babble endlessly about ethics, morals and values its nothing bur wishful thinking and dreaming.

          • Svante says:

            “based on verified science and reason. Nothing else.”

            No, you should also do a risk assessment on inconclusive evidence.

          • alphagruis says:

            Risk assessment on inconclusive evidence ?

            If, as I clearly pointed out above, it is most likely not technically possible to curb seriously and rapidly the CO2 emissions, then we have to accept the risk whatever it might ever be and whether we like it or not.

            And “inconclusive evidence” is actually rather good news.

          • Svante says:

            The US has already curbed it’s emissions, it wasn’t that hard.

          • alphagruis says:

            As the US, Europe also has curbed its emissions but not because of climate.

            And this reduction is much too small to fix in any sizable degree the climate problem.

      • Bryan says:

        David Appell for once you got it right

        “The decision of whether to reduce CO2 etc is an ethical decision, not one based in science.”

      • barry k says:

        David,
        I guess I can assume then (based on reading many of your posts) that your carbon footprint is zero and you have planted enough trees to negate your past carbon footprint?

        • barry says:

          I smoke. When I say smoking is bad for you, am I wrong?

          • barry k says:

            Barry

            A poor example because there are benefits to CO2. It is food for our food supply for one…

            But it generally does prove my point. You would be way out of line telling me I need to quit smoking. And David would be out of line telling me I need to cut my CO2 emissions unless he has already eliminated his carbon footprint after he declared it to be an ethical issue.

            Cheers.

        • Svante says:

          In economics, people are only expected to maximize their own benefit, and that is a pretty good approximation.

          People can not be expected to calculate carbon footprint back through the global logistic chains for everuthing they buy.

          Costs to third parties should be added at the source like Rex Tillerson says, or at the border like Donald Trump says (for tax evasion). Free markets will then work everything out based on real cost.

          • barry k says:

            Svante,

            If someone declares CO2 to be a problem and then declares it to be an ethical issue, they dang well better figure out how much impact they have had so they can correct it!

          • Svante says:

            The majority will not do that until you put a price on the problems and risk. It’s the tragedy of the commons:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

          • barry k says:

            Svante,

            In principle I wouldn’t have an issue with ‘pricing risk’. However, when it comes to this issue, it would not be done right. The negatives of CO2 have been exaggerated and the positives ignored. The people who would decide are motivated politically, not for scientific or financial reasons. And there are countries who would in the end not be compliant and while benefiting economically counteract the efforts of compliant ones.

            A carbon based world is here to stay for now. That is just a fact. Green energy sources will continue to grow. But, even if we forced the issue it would take decades and likely CO2 levels would still be higher 50yrs from now than they are today.

            So, what the AGW crowd is left with (many I have talked with admit what I just said) is ‘well, we still have to do something’. And when one comes out and declares it an ‘ethical issue’ they sure better be putting their money where there mouth is and cutting there CO2 emissions. As a starting point I would suggest having a CO2 footprint significantly lower than the average human on planet earth today. Should be able to figure that out with a quick google search.

            Cheers!

          • Svante says:

            We need to start with a conservative estimate in order in order to get it approved. Rex Tillerson says it should be revenue neutral, that might take some of the politics out of the equation (I think it would be better to reduce some of those taxes that make people do the wrong thing, such as income tax or capital gains tax).

            It has to be introduced gradually, the economy can not turn around over night. It’s better to keep existing coal power and compensate India if they invest in something better.

            There has to be tariffs on imports from non-compliant countries (or even trade sanctions), otherwise we are just shifting the problem abroad.

            I don’t think it will be that hard to change once new technology has some economical incentive, the US has already come a long way and China looks promising.

            If it is impossible we can at least tell our children that in our estimation the world was not worth saving.

          • barry k says:

            Svante,

            The ultimate question is what does it mean to save the world? Is it 280, 350, 400ppm? What level of CO2 is safe? The answer determines whether the solution is possible or not. If 400ppm is safe, sure… it’s a matter of spending trillions and it’s probably achievable over ~50-100yrs. First convince me having a whole lot of CO2 is considerably better than a bit more. Good luck… In fact, it may be better to put those trillions into a fund to alleviate damages to people-groups affected by climate change.

            If it’s an ethical issue, to absolve ourselves of guilt we should return the CO2 to where it was… impossible. Only gonna happen via killer asteroid or such, and even then would take hundreds of years to dissipate.

            But there is no excuse for someone who wants me to sacrifice via green energy policy, claiming that it is an ethical issue, who hasn’t first sacrificed themselves. The technology exists. Buy solar panels, electric cars, grow your own food, make your own clothes and furniture, plant lot of trees etc. Lead by example, cut your personal CO2 emissions by ~90% or more (what we would need to do globally) and then come and ask me to sacrifice. If you believe it is something we must do for the sake of our children how can you not already be doing it yourself? If you are not already doing it, I can only assume you don’t believe it firmly?

            Cheers!

          • Svante says:

            The Paris agreement was to stay under 2 C to avoid various tipping points. They thought they could. It included funds for mitigation too.

            2 C translates to max emissions of 1000 Gton C, which is just under 800 ppm by my calculations. We just passed 500 Gton C and 400 ppm.

            I think we will take CO2 out, but perhaps not this century. It will require a lot of energy and technology.

            I guess individual enthusiasts do a lot, but not enough to turn this around. Besides, it’s unfair to put all the load on those who have a conscience. You may dislike a loophole in the tax system, but use it while it’s there.

            https://tinyurl.com/ya3ajftp

          • barry k says:

            Svante,

            Can anyone say with certainty there are ‘tipping points?’ We have a continent on the south pole and a land-locked north pole. We are not going to exit the current ice age anytime soon. A much greater danger would be something like 10C cooling caused by whatever factors caused the last glacial periods… whenever the next one happens.

            Returning CO2 to pre-industrial levels would require either human extinction or a combination of 0% CO2 emissions, very expensive & inefficient CO2 reclamation technology, and hundreds of years for dissipation. Either way, it’s not something to dream about. I don’t understand the fascination with the notion humans should leave earth unchanged. It isn’t possible to have north of 7 billion humans on earth trying to ‘live life’ and not drastically change the landscape of mother earth. Think of all the deforestation, mining (required to build solar panels, windmills, and batteries by the way), hundreds of thousands of square miles of asphalt, urban sprawl, other greenhouse gasses, pollution, etc. CO2 is just the problem of the day because the powers that be can benefit by taxing us to ‘fix it.’ It is a politician’s holy grail because it is a problem that cannot be solved.

            And that is entirely the point I have been trying to make. At the end of the day a person can only control what they do. If you think CO2 is a problem, then return your carbon footprint to zero. You’ll be able to tell your children you did your part and absolve yourself from guilt.

            Cheers!

          • barry k says:

            One more comment… I assume what you mean by ‘loophole in the tax system’ is choosing not to give up your lifestyle… waiting until the ‘cost’ of CO2 is properly factored (base on your opinion I guess…) into everyone’s burden via green energy policy.

            If that’s true there is a disconnect. You cannot then consider this to be an ethical or moral issue. You cannot declare others (who do not believe as you do) ethically guilty of doing the same thing you are doing… because you thus condemn yourself.

            Also, you don’t understand the magnitude of the problem. If it were easy to eliminate CO2 globally, it would be easy to do so personally. The fact that you choose not to (undoubtedly because of cost) means that it would be very costly to do so globally. If you are typing on a computer you stand to lose by far the most to tackle the problem globally.

            And this is the thing that irks me with the AGW crowd. Forget about the science. They are demanding (or at least asking) me to do something very costly that they have made no effort to do themselves.

          • Svante says:

            I guess it’s my conservative values. It do not want another ice age either. Open my previous link and go back to 49:30. We have fixed the ice age problem for up to 500000 years.

            World population might double, and all need more goods and services. They can not make rational choices if all costs are not accounted for. We can not afford to make stupid choices, were the cost to others is greater than our own gain. I just want everyone to take their own cost.

            If coal power (90% – watch at 54:26) is still your choice then you’re right, it is difficult. On the margin people will substitute it for something else, market forces will find smarter solutions and new technology. The truth is that it is already uneconomical in many places.

            I don’t think anybody should have a bad conscience, so I’m not your best opponent on that sort of ethics. I just think we should be rational.

          • barry k says:

            Svante,

            I’ve thought some about your ‘cost’ model. Such a system would undoubtedly only charge individuals what they could afford… maybe 10s of dollars per month. It would be orders of magnitude less than that required to afford meaningful change. Meanwhile, if the IPCC is right, we have already (historically and the status quo…) caused astronomical damages. So, you should ask yourself if it’s worthwhile to pay a sizable amount you can afford so that the astronomical damages that have already occurred would increase by an amount = (x – delta) where x is the very large amount it would increase without the system, and delta is very small. It’s obvious to me the only real effects of such a system are to cede even more money and power to government (who would take an enormous cut…) and so some folks could pat themselves on the back for ‘doing something.’ A much better system would be a voluntary foundation where all folks who feel they need to could give their 10s of dollars to and all the proceeds could be given to affected people groups (who would probable receive more from such a system). I have a better suggestion… let’s work our butts off, develop new technology, and in 30-50 yrs we may have what we need to affect substantial change at a reasonable cost. The end result (~100yrs from now) would probably be better.

            Also, still why the fascination with only CO2. If you’re going to setup a ‘cost & reparations’ system you should include all effects individuals and people groups have on the environment or others. There are more greenhouse gasses and many types of pollution. There have been numerous deleterious things done to the environment in the name of progress. Heck, if you include social problems (i.e. poor choices others make and become a burden to society), I’m sure that in the end I would be owed money under such a system.

            Cheers!

          • Svante says:

            If we make a good cost estimate and it doesn’t help it means that the benefit outweighed the cost.

            The damage gets progressively worse, so the “astronomical damages” are in the future.

            You are confusing the issue when you bundle it with size of government (others throw in poverty). You need to divide and conquer. You can make this revenue neutral and remove all other taxes if you like, that is a separate political decision.

            Free markets can solve this much more efficiently than government or a committee, if they get the right price signals. It will create an incentive for new technology. Reparations are less important in my mind.

            We can tick off these other problems one by one.
            CH4 forcing is 50% of CO2, but it is washed out in decade.
            CO2 is worse because it lasts for millennia and it just accumulates.

          • barry k says:

            Svante,

            Separate political discussion? Government would be required to setup, administer, and enforce the system. Therefore, government would benefit. Revenue neutral and ‘removing other taxes’ is a ruse. Once a new system is in, even if it is setup right would be abused later (i.e. 4-yr election cycle here). Governments may have been setup with good intentions but today are instruments to take from the haves and buy votes while giving to the have-nots. CO2 is another perfect mechanism to do so because someone with a big CO2 footprint has a lot.

            Free markets are already working. Carbon based energy sources are becoming more scarce and expensive. Green technology is improving and in a few decades may be at a point we can make a step change that is meaningful. Under your system, the ‘cost’ would be set arbitrarily low because that’s all people could afford, so it would not operate as a true market (i.e. future damages would be less than astronomical by an amount that is vanishingly small…). If reparations are not important than forget about it. The only benefit of such a system would be to scratch the egos of folks who believe religiously in such an approach.

          • Svante says:

            We both agree this will be fixed by technology. I say we should give it a push. Technology finds more fossil fuels too, so the problem is it will not run out.

            You are right that there is a net loss with taxation. In this case it matters less, it will still give markets that price signal.

            It is much cheaper to tax ten coal producers than millions of consumers, so simplify some of those other taxes that make people do the wrong thing.

            It gets difficult when you worry about government at the same time. The way to solve difficult problems is to divide them into easy parts.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_conquer_algorithm

            If you don’t trust your government more CO2 will not solve it. It reflects badly on voters, perhaps they need higher education? Perhaps you need to split your country to improve democracy, or perhaps you need to update your constitution?

            The point is this is a different problem.

          • barry k says:

            Svante,

            What I can tell now is you do not believe in freedom. Also, when you say free market, it will not be a free market because of the government meddling. Government is at best a necessary evil. It is made up of the same types of people running corporations, only there is no longer true accountability, even in our ‘democracy.’ I agree on splitting things up, but the way to do that (here, in the USA…) would be to return all but those things required by the constitution for the federal government to do to the states.

            You seem to think the government is a good thing setup to do your bidding. Well, someday the tide will turn and the government will be your enemy (i.e. you’ll be on the wrong side of the issue) and unlike corporations, government can throw you in jail. It has ultimate power over you, so it’s power should be greatly curtailed.

            You seem to imply that you are educated, yet you cannot perceive that if there weren’t a golden rainbow at the end of the CO2 issue for government in the forms of more power and taxation, it would not have the appeal it does….

            Cheers!

          • Svante says:

            I agree government should be minimal, but there are some things it must do.

            I believe in freedom, but not at others expense.
            For that reason, government must keep law and order.

            Free markets can achieve Pareto optimum, but not when there are externalities. These must be alleviated by government.
            Business cycles need to be stabilized, and there has to be a lender of last resort. A failure in this regard caused democracy to fail in Germany.

            Your type of failure has never happened in a developed country, has it?

            I think people in government are doing their best, although some are not the smartest. There are checks, and voters can get rid of them.

          • barry k says:

            The federal govt of the USA should only be doing protection (military & borders) and providing a federal court system. Everything else (including your idea..) should be left to the states. Then, we could have competition of ideas. The state of California is already doing some of these progressive things. If it works out there, then other states can adopt individually. The problem is government is so inefficient and politically motivated (not financially) that when programs undoubtedly fail or drag down an economy, there is nothing to compare with to see how badly it fails. Government should be as minimal as humanly possible and it should be done at the most local level possible. Then, the people who are affected the most have the most say and there is the highest amount of accountability. In our country something like 80-90% of congressional seats I would guess are predetermined based on voter makeup from that district. Because ideas are so polarized and voters are so polarized there really isn’t accountability anymore on a federal level.

            Again, if we’re talking about actions of people affecting other people financially, I have a long list of ways that I pay for others misbehavior.

            When it comes to CO2:
            – there are both negatives and positives… when it comes to feeding an ever-growing population on earth having more tillable land that grows more food will be a good thing.
            – the gap between carbon-based energy sources and solar and wind is so large currently that shifts are only happening very slowly and only when heavily subsidized
            – even if the true cost of green vs carbon were equal it would be an astronomical cost to switch over (and take many decades to do so).

            Thus, your system would:
            – not determine the cost properly in the first place
            – not send the correct cost signal because what people could pay would be orders of magnitude less than really required
            – thus, it’s only purpose would be to ‘do something’ (i.e. a moral victory) and give more power, money to government

            But, hey, if you can convince California to do it, more power to you. I can choose not to live there…

            Cheers!

          • Svante says:

            Yes, let California solve it first and the world can copy.
            It has worked many times before.
            I mean that. There is something about that place.

  4. Don B says:

    On a completely related topic….

    Roy’s two recent e-books are just great, and popular:

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/16053231/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_b_1_4_last

  5. Rockyredneck says:

    Models and spreadsheets are useful and valuable tools. They have the problem, however, that you can get any outcome you want by tweaking the inputs until the result you want appears.

  6. Gary says:

    It doesn’t really matter any more. The climate change danger meme is fully embedded in the media and educational systems and regardless of reality there is money to be made and control to be acquired by continually pushing it. Most of the populace will ignore the noise and be oblivious to the slow creep of the loss of their freedom and wealth. That’s just the way these things work. Smarter people will find ways to avoid the worst abuses. You can’t beat the the zeitgeist; you only can figure ways to dodge it’s effects. But be cheerful; there’s more to life than just this world and it’s schemers.

    • David Appell says:

      What loss of freedom? With sustainable energy you’ll still plug your toaster into the same outlet. Do you find that somehow onerous?

      • lewis says:

        David, if you don’t see a loss of freedom inherent in the AGW proponents programs you really have the blinders on.

      • Mark Luhman says:

        David said “What loss of freedom? With sustainable energy youll still plug your toaster into the same outlet. Do you find that somehow onerous?” Yes when it cost me 10 time more to purchase it. Add in it does not reduce CO2 emissions, after fossil fuels at this time are use to produce so call sustainable energy making it unsustainable. Most of you pie in the sky sustainable energy project take more energy to make than they ever will produce. That the rub all the wishing in the world will never change that. It that I don’t want sustainable energy it just most “sustainables” are just a sad joke played on unsuspecting useful idiots.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      gary…”It doesnt really matter any more. The climate change danger meme is fully embedded in the media…”

      I am currently debating with someone further up the food chain at a local new media outlet. I cannot get him past the corrupt study that produced a 97% figure for agreement with AGW in scientific papers even though I have pointed out the author of the study is a cartoonist who was caught impersonating a physicist on a blog.

      Belief systems are hard to address, even when the science is presented with references.

      He who has ears, let him hear.

      • graphicconception says:

        Maybe you should show your media friend the report from Legates et al (2015) that shows that of the nearly 12,000 reports Cook et al (2013)looked at, only 0.3% of the abstracts claimed that man was mainly responsible.

        The skill of the Cook et al paper was to convert 0.3% into 97%.

        The data is available as a file on the Skeptical Science web site if anyone wants to check it independently.

        • David Appell says:

          Scientists also rarely mention in their papers that energy is conserved or that atoms exist Does that make either of these statements untrue?

          • Mark Luhman says:

            David ” Scientists also rarely mention in their papers that energy is conserved or that atoms exist Does that make either of these statements untrue?” No it does not but our understand of atom has changed a lot in the last 100 years. As to how they are made up and how exist is still a question. We think now there is darkmatter it may or may not exist, again what it made of and how it exist is a big question. As to energy is conserved the question still remains will the universe keep expanding will it stop will all the energy through the universe just disperse to a point of being unmeasurable or will it cease to exist? These all are question that are unanswered yet you act like the papers are the last word on all of this. It look to me David don’t know that a number of Newton’s laws held for over 200 years, yet many of them were wrong, disproven by a single man. Newton laws were based on solid math, yet they were wrong, they were wrong because of tiny discrepancies in what was predicted and what the actual measure result was. If you think AGW has only tiny discrepancies, good god you best watch out for bridge salesmen.

          • David Appell says:

            No, whether atoms exist is not still an open question. Jeez.

            Of course I know Newton’s laws were proven wrong in extreme cases — high velocities and very strong gravitation fields. But there is still a consensus, of course, on the application of his laws to basic astronomy and space flight. NASA utilized that consensus to go to the Moon and back. Do you think their engineers were terrified throughout the flight that Newton’s 1/r^2 law would suddenly be found to really be 1/r^3??

  7. Mickey Prumt says:

    Roy,

    I think you don’t understand what you read.

    I don’t see that “factor of 2 or 3” you are talking about.

    • Erik Aamot says:

      Mickey .. that would have nothing to do with Roy .. but your inability or unwillingness to see that the computer climate models are indeed rising 2 to 3 times faster than the scientific satellite observations since 1979. The scientific method is to compare observations to hypothesis .. to falsify or confirm .. and this hypothesis of James Hansen starting in 1981 that CO2 increases would lead to runaway global warming has been shown to be false by quite a number of scientific observations and well based evidence .. and has never seen a bit of confirmation .. time to accept the science .. rather than false belief

      • David Appell says:

        The scientific method also requires publishing your data and methodology, and giving other experts the opportunity to examine your work, respond to it, and debate it.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”The scientific method also requires publishing your data and methodology, and giving other experts the opportunity to examine your work, respond to it, and debate it”.

          Only in your perverted view of science. There are no provisions in the scientific method for publishing anything.

          If I did a perfectly valid experiment, following the scientific method, I likely could not get it published. The journal editor would axe it before it got to peer review.

          Same thing happens to Roy.

          • David Appell says:

            Roy has published plenty of papers. So your claim is obviously false.

            You are right, however, that you couldn’t get a paper published. Not with your cartoon physics.

        • Mark Luhman says:

          “The scientific method also requires publishing your data and methodology, and giving other experts the opportunity to examine your work, respond to it, and debate it.” David why does the AGW crowd keep fighting this? Dr Mann is a gold plate example, he lost his Canada court case because the would not allow the opposition discovery, if he had nothing to hide and his data and methods were so good why would he not welcome discovery?

          • David Appell says:

            Mann’s data have been publically available for well over a decade, on his Web site.

            Why hasn’t UAH made their model methodology known? Ask them for their code — they won’t share it.

            An important point in science is not “auditing” — it’s taking the same underlying data and doing your own analysis. That’s what makes or breaks hypothesis, not auditing.

            PS: I didn’t know the Mann-Ball lawsuit had been settled. I can’t find that on Google — can you point me to the court decision?

  8. Jason Lewis says:

    My concern is that this will just be a fig leaf for the alarmists. Ive wondered how the alarmists would modify their position to accommodate the inevitable lack of catastrophic warming, while still allowing them to save face (and continue funding). If they can say Our models are improving. The warming will still be man made and catastrophic, but it will just take longer. Lack of short term warming does not disprove our models, then they will have their fig leaf.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      jason…”Ive wondered how the alarmists would modify their position to accommodate the inevitable lack of catastrophic warming….”

      They move the goal posts. When global warming was not happening quickly enough the alarmists invented catastrophic climate change, a concept that cannot be verified. Alarmists talk about CAWG and CCC even though there has been no significant warming the past 18 years.

      Another goal post moving technique is claiming just about everything bad going on in the atmosphere was predicted by AGW theory. They even claim cooling was predicted.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        “Alarmists talk about CAWG and CCC even though there has been no significant warming the past 18 years.”

        Gordon fibs again.

        Temperature change in 18 years:

        UAH LT: 0.23 C
        NOAA surface: 0.37 C
        Hadley SST: 0.27 C
        ocean heat content 0-700 m: 0.32 W/m2 (9e22 J; 1.4 billion Hiroshima bombs).

        • David Appell says:

          I’m sorry, I forgot to put plus signs in front of all these numbers.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            David,

            http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

            From the above study:

            We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 +- 0.4C and 1.5 +- 0.4C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65 warmer than in recent decades.

            The inferred similarity in temperature anomalies at both hemispheres is consistent with recent evidence from Antarctica (30), thereby suporting the idea that the HTM (Holocene Thermal Maximum), MWP, and LIA were global events.

          • David Appell says:

            If true, that just makes our current situation worse, since apparently solar variations, Milankovitch factors, and natural feedbacks can lead to more warming is throught. On top of GHG warming, that could be quite significant — all the more reason to cut our emissions.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            BS. It just proves our current climate is mild in comparison to our short recent past. Bummer

          • David Appell says:

            Who cares what the past was? We’re living now, not then, and we (and all other species) need to adapt to the change that’s taking place *now*, not then.

            What caused those large natural variations in the past?

          • Svante says:

            Quote from the paper:

            “The modern rate of Pacific OHC change is, however, the highest in the past 10,000 years (Fig. 4 and table S3).

            The current response of surface temperatures to the ongoing radiative perturbation is substantially higher than the response of the oceans interior, due to the long whole-ocean equilibration time.”

  9. ren says:

    Perhaps it is the fear of harsh winter in the north?
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino3.png

  10. bill jackson says:

    The mystical oracle of the religion of Warming has now been questioned. I wonder if they had the same problem at Delphi.

    Doc, I am curious whether you concur whether the NOAA and others have been manipulating the temperature record in order to match the models. In short, did they reach an impasse where they could no longer adjust the models enough to history match and gave up and started adjust the history to match the models?

    • David Appell says:

      You do realize, right, that Roy and the UAH group ALSO adjust their temperature record? Usually more so than groups who measure surface temperatures.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”You do realize, right, that Roy and the UAH group ALSO adjust their temperature record? Usually more so than groups who measure surface temperatures”.

        Unmitigated lies. Sat data is adjusted for orbital fluctuations in the instruments and to normalize the instruments. That is standard practice in science. There are also instrument adjustments for the angle of detection.

        NOAA has slashed 75% of it real data and used less than 15% of the real data to SYNTHESIZE the missing 75% in a climate model using statistical interpolation and homogenization.

        Furthermore, both NOAA and NASA GISS have manipulated record warming years by lowering confidence levels to a point required to move a year like 2014 from a distant 4th place to the warmest year.

        Had.crut has done who knows what. In the Climategate email scandal, Phil Jones, the keeper of the record, admitted to using Mike’s trick to hide declining temperatures. He also bragged about using his clout at the IPCC to block papers from skeptics.

        When Steve McIntyre asked for the data to verify it, Jones hemmed and hawed, claiming the data was in disarray and some of the old data had been changed and lost. When McIntyre used an FOI request to the UK government to get the data, Jones was seen trying to thwart his effort in the
        Climategate emails.

        The surface record has been seriously compromised retroactively by arrogant, alarmist SOBs.

      • bill jackson says:

        Of course that’s the reason I asked the doctor the question.

        I have written numerical models that find numerical solutions to partial differential equations for petroleum reservoirs. Atmospheric models utilize the same techniques but I am sure they include more variables and obviously much larger grids to model the entire Earth with further complications of the discontinuity at the Earth’s surface and the vacuum of space. When modeling petroleum reservoirs to make decisions concerning capital expenditures it is critical to history match in order to have confidence. The history matching of atmospheric models has been marginal at best and they have constantly been manipulated in an attempt to match the historical record, yet they the church of warming consistently consults them as prophetic oracles despite their failures. Again, have the government funded modelers who have been given a political conclusion to reach met an impasse with their computer programs?

        • David Appell says:

          “The history matching of atmospheric models has been marginal at best and they have constantly been manipulated in an attempt to match the historical record….”

          All models are “manipulated” (= reevaluated and made better) to better match observed data. Numerical or analytic. Even yours, I’m sure.

  11. JohnD says:

    I love these ‘Inside Climatology’ posts.

  12. David Appell says:

    Roy wrote:
    “(That the little bit is a factor of 2 or 3 is a fine point upon which we wont quibble here.)”

    That might begin to be taken seriously if you guys would publish that graph in a good peer reviewed journal. Why have you avoided doing that? Instead you’re relying on unscientific blogs and Congressional testimonies and (it looks like) avoiding the scientific community and experts.

    Some find serious problems with it:

    “Comparing models to the satellite datasets,” Gavin Schmidt, RealClimate, 5/7/16
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/

  13. Dick Piland says:

    So, when all of this is over and the Earth decides it wants to be cooler again, even though CO2 is rising, can we have the equivalent of Nuremberg Trials and put some of these “quacks” who deliberately lied to us, in jail? (I am thinking Mann and Trenberth should be the first to face the trial process…or maybe they should go together to save money.)
    Charges?:
    Science by consensus, Hockey Stick Graphs, Hiding the Decline, Pall Review Processes, Ignoring Scientific Method and extortion of large sums of money through lying to the public.

    • David Appell says:

      Nuremberg Trials. Wow. I’m going to capture this and put it on Twitter as an example of a demented denier. People need to see how far into ignorance and darkness they plan to go.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Dave, why don’t you also put on Twitter that you believe the Earth can heat the Sun.

        You should share your humor with everyone.

        (Even better, post a photo of your welfare check.)

    • dr No says:

      “can we have the equivalent of Nuremberg Trials “?
      Only if you agree we can persecute the denialists when the world continues warming.
      If I were you, I would head to Panama quick smart.

  14. barry says:

    Good news, if well-verified. But let’s avoid the old single study syndrome.

  15. Tim Wells says:

    We have the Greenland ice sheet at record levels and the Artic looks like it is already gaining ice mass.

  16. Mike M. says:

    Max Planck once said something like: New scientific theories get accepted because old scientists eventually die.

    That overstates the case. But people (even scientists) are indeed reluctant to change their minds, especially if they already have a lot of skin in the game. Some will do so faster than others. So although the divergence of data from models may have been obvious to Dr. Spencer for some years, we should expect that realization to be slow and gradual among those with a lot of professional reputation riding on the models.

    The paper by Allen and Grubb is just the latest in a number of chinks in the consensus. With each, the still barely moving snowball rolls a bit faster. Eventually, there will be no stopping it.

    Science is self-correcting. Sometime it happens fast, sometimes it takes a while. Continental drift was a crack theory for 50 years until it suddenly became the consensus.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      mike m…”Continental drift was a crack theory for 50 years until it suddenly became the consensus”.

      That doesn’t make it right. There is surprisingly little evidence to support plate tectonics theory. What seems apparent with regard to shapes that supposedly used to fit together don’t hold up when the stratigraphy is verified.

      No one has ever witnessed a plate diving under another and there’s little evidence to suggest it is going on right now. Earthquakes are blamed on such an occurrence but one would tend to think a movement of a plate under another would cause 100s of simultaneous earthquakes, not one at an epicentre.

      This is the tip of the iceberg. I fear all of science will have to be reassessed.

    • Svante says:

      Gordon, you said:

      “If you dig through Google you will find well-written critiques of the theory and other explanations for what plate tectonics tries to explain.”

      Google will try to serve you what you want, usually a load of rubbish, especially if you ask for rubbish. You really must find the scientific sources, the sort of science that you find at universities.

      https://tinyurl.com/hegxqr3

      • Svante says:

        From the link:

        “These platforms are structured in such a way that they are allowing and enabling consciously or unconsciously more extreme views to dominate”

        “This is compounded by Googles personalization of search results, which means different users see different results based on their interests.”

        Virtually no one is aware of bias in search suggestions or rankings.

  17. Travis Casey says:

    Dr. Roy,

    I think part of the strategy, since the climate cartel controls most of the journals, is to have published papers on both sides of every issue. This way they always have a reference that proves them right. The Pause was a skeptic talking point for years, so they had to have Karlized reanalysis to claim there was no pause. Shortly afterwards was a paper that said, “whoa Nelly, there was a slow down or hiatus, but just not to the extent the skeptics allege”. This covered all the bases…

    It seems to me this has been done with every major issue in climate science. There has been great work by the Idso family, as you know, showing the benefits to plants of increased CO2. The cartel responds, “Quick, find that one plant or weed that grows more, but produces less nutrients with increased CO2.” Medieval Warming Period is a big skeptic issue. Cartel response, “find a few proxies that disagree, so we can claim it was a regional warming.”

    At least this is how I see it from the outside.

    BTW, Zeke is on Twitter saying models v. observations only show a difference of ~8%, so the models are remarkably skillful. 🙂

    https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/910455620909678592

    • David Appell says:

      “I think part of the strategy, since the climate cartel controls most of the journals, is to have published papers on both sides of every issue.”

      A paranoid conspiracy theory with not a trace of evidence to back it up. What garbage.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        “A paranoid conspiracy theory with not a trace of evidence to back it up.”

        A perfect description of the AGW hoax.

      • Kevin Egan says:

        How about as true science goes allow for the contrary opinion a fair and honest budget without attacks from some aggressive peers and risk of being ostracized from funding circles.

        As we all know scientists need to feed, house and cloth there families. Any risk of not getting funding is serious.

        You know personal attacks and name calling is rampant. Fair opportunity to prove benefits of warming outweigh negatives. Funding to falsify AGW studies is critical to the scientific process. Removing the incestuous you review me and I review you and we all share the same beliefs is not good science.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      travis…”Shortly afterwards was a paper that said, whoa Nelly, there was a slow down or hiatus, but just not to the extent the skeptics allege. This covered all the bases”

      Not quite. The IPCC, the mother of all peer reviews on climate, concluded in 2013 that no warming had occurred for 15 years between 1998 – 2012.

      It was following that declaration that NOAA, enabled by the Obama alarmist faction, set out to erase the hiatus. Prior to 2013, NOAA was showing the hiatus as well.

      • David Appell says:

        Yet again, improved data has come out since the IPCCs statement in the 5AR. It shows no pause.

        15 years isnt representative of climate anyway too short of an interview.

        You continue to impugn scientists because you don’t like their results. Rather McCarthyesqe.

      • dr No says:

        Gordon, I am sorry to remind you, but “the pause” died last year.
        It must be difficult losing old friends, but do try and remember what happened.
        Otherwise it is off to the dementia ward!

        • RealOldOne2 says:

          dr No: “but “the pause” died last year.”

          Only due to the natural 2015-2016 El Nino, which was a release of stored solar energy from the ocean to the atmosphere.

          So the pause ended because of natural climate variability, not due to any ghgs. Only solar radiation adds thermal energy/heat to the oceans.
          So just like the late 20th century warming, the only 21st century warming has also been overwhelmingly natural.

  18. Carbonicus says:

    Roy, I think you are spot on with the comparison to Ehrlich, Holdren, etal in terms of only being wrong as to timing.

    My initial reaction to this new study was the same.

    And then I thought, for those of us who are scientists like you and John, or non-scientists like myself but who’ve immersed ourselves in the science around this issue for many years….who’ve been called “denier”, “skeptic”, and far worse – even though we do not deny the earth’s surface temp has been warming since the late 1800s, that CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs and emits IR energy, that humans have been emitting large amounts of CO2 from fossil fuel burning, but have serious questions/disagree with the prevailing wisdom on sensitivity – but saw this coming clearly over the last 5+ years, I believe the words of Ian Anderson in the famous Jethro Tull song “Aqualung” describe our reaction quite well:

    “…salvation ala mode, with a cup of tea….”

    Keep up the great work. I continue to predict that you, John, Judy, and plenty of others will go down as having been on the right side of scientific history when this is all said and done (we just might all be dead before that is common knowledge, at the rate we’re going).

    – C

  19. Tom Anderson says:

    Here is something a good deal off the main topic: \

    I had heard a different version of the John Maynard Keynes quote and decided to look it up. As with most memorable but unwritten statements, its provenance — hence accuracy — is not ironclad, One site does provides detailed investigation in to well known quotations that suggests the likeliest version:

    Paul Samuelson, the Nobel laureate from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, recalled that John Maynard Keynes once was challenged for altering his position on some economic issue. When my information changes, he remembered that Keynes had said, I change my mind. What do you do?

    https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/07/22/keynes-change-mind/

  20. Tom Anderson says:

    My apologies for the typos.

  21. Steve Case says:

    What exactly has changed in the model forecasts since the Paris summit in December 2015?

    Exactly nothing.

    Oh! In the model forecasts. Leave that qualifier out and it’s an easy question to answer – Donald Trump was elected President of the United States of America.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      You may be on to something, Steve.

      I monitor NWS temperature stations near me. I have caught them “adjusting” actual temps several times.

      But, just in the last month, the tampering seems to be gone.

      There are severe penalties for a GOV employee that falsifies official records. But, the laws have to be enforced.

    • Curious George says:

      Technically, models don’t forecast anything anymore. Now they make projections, a subtle but legally important difference.

      Or astral projections, maybe?

      • David Appell says:

        If you can predict the future of how much fossil fuels societies will burn (by month), and how the Sun will change, and what volcanoes will erupt, and how many aerosols will be emitted, and the ENSOs too, models could start predicting instead of projecting.

        Why don’t you get started on that right away?

  22. Darwin Wyatt says:

    Say it ain’t so Joe!

  23. The geological activity always picks up following severe solar geomagnetic disturbances tis time it is happening again.

  24. David Appell says:

    “Science is self-correcting.”

    It doesn’t correct what is factual. The laws of thermodynamics aren’t going to be overthrown in the next generation. No genius is going to come along and figure out that special relativity is wrong and Newton was correct after all. It won’t be discovered that the atomic model of matter is all wrong, and it’s plum pudding instead.

    Science is based on facts established by experimental and observational evidence. No one is going to ever find that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas, or that the Stefan-Boltzman law is wrong. The infrared radiation given off by the Earth won’t be found to have been a big mistake, and it’s microwaves instead.

    Climate science is based on the physical principles that make heat seeking missiles work, ear thermometers, your computer, and many other things.

    If you’re waiting for someone to discover that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas, you will be very disappointed. Its ab.sorp.tion properties are known inside and out. Putting the pieces together really isn’t that difficult. It’s clear AGW has to take place. Sure, there are uncertainties as in all science, but no one is going to overthrow the fact that humans are changing the climate. That’s solid.

    The science says the world should be warming, ice should be melting, seas should be rising. All these things are happening, and yet still it’s not enough for you.

    Expecting all this to someday be found wrong is delusional. AGW *is* the result of self-corrections that happened long ago.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      Davie is sooooo desperate.

      His vision that he’s a hero is fading fast. He’s now left with the reality that he has nothing but a failed career.

    • Dan Pangburn says:

      CO2, in spite of being IR active (AKA a ghg), has no significant influence on climate because absorbed EMR is immediately shared with surrounding molecules and, at low altitudes, gas molecule emission is dominated by water vapor.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      DA…”The science says the world should be warming, ice should be melting, seas should be rising. All these things are happening, and yet still its not enough for you”.

      You actually made some coherent statements about science then you blew it with the statement above. ‘Should’ is not part of science. The laws of thermodynamics have prevailed because they can be proved over and over. The 2nd law does not state that heat ‘should’ always move from a warm body to a cooler body it states emphatically that it will, under normal conditions.

      You finally conclude ‘all these things are happening’ yet you can supply no evidence to support your claim. The IPCC claimed in 2013 that global warming had been in hiatus for the previous 15 years yet you continue to deny that.

      Ice is not melting in winter in the Arctic nor is it melting in Antarctica other than on the northern tip of the Antarctic peninsula which is located close to South America. Seas are not rising appreciably and there is no evidence from science that the claimed cause of warming, anthropogenic gases, is a factor.

      Yes…we’ve had warming but there’s no evidence whatsoever as to the cause.

      • David Appell says:

        Oh b.s. on evidence — you know exactly where the evidence is.

        Yet again, improved data has come out since the IPCC’s statement in the 5AR. It shows no pause.

        15 years isn’t representative of climate anyway — too short of an interview.

      • dr No says:

        Gordon, stop covering your ears with your hands and shouting.
        I warned you that this behaviour has consequences.

      • Bob Droege says:

        Gordon, you are using the 19th century concept of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it was updated with the discovery of Quantum Mechanics and the idea that heat only transfers from hot to cold is no longer true.

    • kyle_fouro says:

      “It’s clear AGW has to take place”

      “The science says the world should be warming”

      (looks at artificial up-djustments to the “official” SLR figures)
      (Looks at artificial up-djustments to the surface temperature record)
      (Looks at very recent artificial up-djustment to RSS)
      (Looks at innumerable examples over the past decades of cherry-picking baselines)
      (Looks at hide the decline)

      totally “solid”

      • JohnS says:

        Perfect response.

      • David Appell says:

        Kyle, you forgot adjustments to the UAH data.

        “Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data: How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it *must* be done,” Scott K Johnson, Ars Technica 1/21/16.

        http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/

        PS: Also, I wonder if you know what “hide the decline” really meant.
        Hint: It wasn’t about cooling.

        • kyle_fouro says:

          Lol of course hide the decline refers to cooling. Briffa’s rings contradicted Mann’s reconstruction. Briffa also correlates with the raw temperature record, which shows a similar warm/cooling cycle.

          Sure UAH has adjustments but in all honesty I don’t see Dr Spencer or Dr Christy changing their underlying data sets then smugly asserting that the artificial changes are evidence of an organic process taking place.

          • David Appell says:

            Nope; “hide the decline” referred to the divergence problem — the fact that some northern proxies do not accurately correlate to temperatures after about 1960. Instead, they show temperatures declining, when thermometer measurements show the opposite.

            No one is changing their “underlying data sets!” — the raw numbers. They are correcting them for biases. UAH does this too.

            Please learn something before you spout off.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Kyle was right. Hide the decline refers to Figure 2.21 of the IPCC TAR where the declining post-1960 values of the Briffa MXD series are deleted from the multiproxy spaghetti graph.

            Climategate email concerning above:

            “So, if we show Keiths series in this plot, we have to comment that something else is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. [Perhaps Keith can help us out a bit by explaining the processing that went into the series and the potential factors that might lead to it being warmer than the Jones et al and Mann et al series?? We would need to put in a few words in this regard] Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates. I dont think that doubt is scientifically justified, and Id hate to be the one to have to give it fodder!” (Mann Sep 22, 0938018124.txt)

            The TAR did not even discuss the data deletion nor the divergence problem.

      • Kevin Egan says:

        How about closures of recording stations in the Arctic while leaving the higher ones suprisingly enough.

    • Kevin Egan says:

      Science is about trying to prove findings wrong. The most important test is being about to falsify the hypothesis.

      Majority of global warming statements and “studies” appear to we what if statements or conjecture.

      One cannot test properly with an objective view when everyone is the funding tent is peer reviewed by those with all the same viewpoint.

      When group think dominates research you have a failed process.

      • David Appell says:

        That’s how peer review has worked for a couple hundred years. Too bad science hasn’t accomplished anything in that time.

        BTW, anyone can offer to do peer review. If you are qualified.

        Anyway, you’re just making excuses because you can’t prove the science of AGW is wrong. Shouting “conspiracy!” is simple and trivial, and impossible to disprove. That’s why deniers (of all sciences) do it.

        • Kevin Egan says:

          Simple. While CO2 was rising the temperature rise stopped. Temperature Is now tracking natural climate cycles after coming out of the last ice age.

          Can you are that natural warming is not happening?

          • David Appell says:

            Kevin Egan says:
            “While CO2 was rising the temperature rise stopped.”

            When was that?

            “Temperature Is now tracking natural climate cycles after coming out of the last ice age.”

            Which natural cycles are those?

            Be specific.

          • Kevin Egan says:

            The pause. However you want to manipulate it is real.

            Also as noted true temperature and your models are totally out of whack.

            But again. Run more models till one fits. Eureka. Proof you are right again.

            Doesn’t fly and is getting warn out.

            I guess that is why a new study came out to say old models are wrong but trust us. New ones are correct.

  25. Dan Pangburn says:

    A larger mistake than failing to recognize that CO2 has no significant effect on climate is the potential tragedy of failing to realize what is happening that actually does http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_201708.time_series.txt . The still-rising water vapor (which is IR active AKA a ghg) is rising more than twice as fast as expected from water temperature increase alone (engineering feedback). The warmer temperature is welcome (and self-limiting because of increasing cloud cover) but the added WV increases the risk of precipitation caused flooding. See graph of global WV plus disclosure of two EPA mistakes at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      dan…”The still-rising water vapor (which is IR active AKA a ghg) is rising more than twice as fast as expected from water temperature increase alone …”

      More climate model pseudo-science and/or NOAA fudging???

  26. Scott says:

    There is hope.

    Here’s another one of those great RetroReports, or brief documentaries of a few minutes, that The New York Times produces. This one about Ehrlich’s failed predictions and how some true believers now see ZPG as wrong. Stewart Brand asserts at the end of the video that the real problems may come if global human population peaks in a few decades, as expected, and starts to decline. I think he may be right.

    https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000003712862/the-population-bomb.html?mcubz=1

    Look at the data. Humans experienced the greatest leap in our standard of living in the 20th century. Global population increased from about 1.6 billion in 1900, to 7.5 billion today. We’ve never been more affluent, better educated, healthier, lived longer, as tolerant, or have lower infant mortality rates than we have now with global population at its highest ever.

    What happens after human population peaks and begins to decline?

    https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute

  27. dr No says:

    I smell a rat.
    A BIG rat.
    It doesn’t take much effort to find out what the article REALLY said. For example:
    “Ambitious 1.5C Paris climate target is still possible, new analysis shows.
    Goal to limit warming to 1.5C to avoid the worst impacts of climate change was seen as unreachable, but updated research suggests it could be met if strong action is taken.”

    The article talks about how the model results are affected by different emission amounts.
    These results span a range of global warming values (including +1.5!)
    The likelihood of one result over another is essentially the issue -NOT the model projections.
    i.e. Roy appears to be deliberately misrepresenting the findings in some sort of self gratification and appeal to the denialist community.
    Why would he do this?
    It is such a pathetic tactic.
    Maybe a distraction?
    Maybe Hurricane Maria has gatecrashed his “Why hurricanes can’t be blamed on global warming” party.

  28. dr No says:

    Furthermore, here is another quote from one of the authors:
    “In 2015, Grubb said the massive scale and speed of carbon cuts needed to meet the 1.5C target were incompatible with democracy.

    But the new work has changed his mind, showing there is more room for emissions than thought. He also said carbon emissions have stopped growing sooner than expected, especially in China, and that renewable energy costs are plummeting unexpectedly quickly. We are in the midst of an energy revolution, he said.”

    As I said, A BIG RAT!

    • Harry Cummings says:

      Dr No

      I often go to China and India on business and like many other companies I have shifted my buying from China to India as their prices are now way more competitive. Clean energy revolution in China !!! I think you have been reading to many Chinese government statements go have a look some time

      Such an angry response from warmists you think they would be please we are all not going to die tomorrow

      Regards

      • dr No says:

        Sorry Harry – you seem to have drifted off topic.

      • dr No says:

        While we are off-topic:
        “There are 22,000 suitable locations for pumped hydro sites across Australia and if storage was built at a tiny fraction of them, we could be 100 per cent powered by renewable energy within 20 years, researchers say.”

        In 20 years you will be buying Australian if this comes true.

        • Dan Pangburn says:

          The fallacy of renewables is revealed with simple arithmetic.

          5 mW wind turbine, avg output 1/3 nameplate, 20 yr life, electricity @ wholesale 3 cents per kwh produces $8.8E6.

          Installed cost @ $1.7E6/mW = $8.5E6.

          Add the cost of standby CCGT for low wind periods. Add the cost of land lease, maintenance, administration.

          Solar voltaic and solar thermal are even worse.

          The dollar relation is a proxy for energy relation. Bottom line, the energy consumed to design, manufacture, install, maintain and administer renewables exceeds the energy they produce in their lifetime.

          Without the energy provided by other sources these renewables could not exist.

      • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

        Harry

        Perhaps India workers are willing to work for less because they are poorer than comparable Chinese workers.

  29. dr No says:

    For those of you who may be confused:
    If the final global warming is indeed +1.5, then it has nothing to do with the models being “wrong”.
    It will have occurred because the models CORRECTLY predicted the possible outcomes and the world took action to avoid the worst.
    A predicted warming of +1.5 under low emissions is consistent with a warming of +4.5 under high emissions.
    It has nothing to do with some error in the models.
    Understand now?

    Somebody take that rat out of the room.

  30. Curious George says:

    Modelers usually work with averages. Where I live, there are more clouds during the day than at night. Daytime clouds cool the surface. Nighttime clouds warm the surface. Take an average, and you have fewer daytime clouds, thus warming the surface, and more nighttime clouds, thus warming the surface again.

  31. Harry Cummings says:

    Dr No

    The point I was trying to make was China CO2 reduction through green technology is a myth, its because they are losing market share CO2 output is just shifting

    Therefore regardless of the theory (proven or otherwise) of CO2 and climate warming the reality is there is now considerable lack of warming compared to the models. Even though CO2 has continued and continuing to be put into the atmosphere. Claiming a green revolution and using China as an example is total crap it also begs the question is CO2 having any effect at all.

    Regards

  32. Kevin Egan says:

    CO2 is going into plants in an increasing rate. Recent paper done in British Columbia shows an increase in tree growth so the British Columbian economy benefits.

    Maybe someone can list all the ways heat escapes into space. Curious if hurricanes suck warmth up from the oceans and dissipate it into the upper atmosphere and then into space.

    Also I read that hurricanes in the Atlantic are highly influenced by La Nia in the pacific. Equatorial pacific is colder thereby decreasing upper atmosphere wind shear that in turn allows hurricanes to build.

    Also while additionally curious about how the jet steam tracks hostorically over time. Are there any micro and macro global cyclical trends?

    Also what about all the volcanic activity in the Antarctic. Are they cyclical at all or no pattern?

    What about the Atlantic ossilation currents. What are they doing these days.

    I am tired of reading what if studies. What if we are right doesn’t prove one right.

    Also there is a French sea level station on rock showing a steady rising sea level trend since 1800. If sea level rise is caused by man why is there no increase in the last 50 years? With all the variability in sea level data who looks at ground height change to factor out ground dropping

    Last but not least. Why have all models failed? How can scientist keep making new guesses?

  33. dr No says:

    While I am at it:

    “The psychological basis for climate change denial has attracted increasing academic study in recent years, as researchers try to work out why one particular demographic older white males tends to dominate the ranks of climate denialists (compare, say, vaccination denialism, which has a younger and more female demographic). A 2015 study that has drawn considerable attention identified that denial is driven partly by dominant personality and low empathy, and partly by motivation to justify and promote existing social and human-nature hierarchies. That is, climate denialists were partly motivated by concern that climate action would undermine existing hierarchies, which, as white males, they tended to dominate. And because they see the world in terms of hierarchies, the only alternative they can conceive of is a hierarchy in which they are not dominant.”
    Bernard Keane, Crikey, September 21, 2017.

    • Harry Cummings says:

      going straight home to tell the wife as soon as I finish the washing her car, that is if she will listen to me

    • Dan Pangburn says:

      Or, perhaps “older white males” are not as easily hoodwinked.

      Looks like some people, who apparently lack engineering science skill and an interest in discovering the truth about climate change, have waaaay too much time on their hands.

      • Norman says:

        Dan Pangburn

        After trying to discuss actual textbook science with a few regular posters I might have to agree with Dr. No to some extent.

        I do not see science skill in humans who continue to repeat false science even when you demonstrate clearly their ideas are not correct.

        Some big ones. N2 and O2 are GHG because they can absorb an astonishingly small amount of IR. You point out it is totally insignificant in energy balance and link them to all types of valid science, they ignore all the real data and on the very next thread post the same false physics.

        Or that a hotter surface cannot absorb any IR from a colder one. This idea violates Kirchhoff’s Law and has zero supporting evidence. I guess they believe if they say it enough times it is reality, they cannot support this false physics with any experiment or textbook physics but persist with it anyway.

        This is the case of complete denial not of just AGW but also of actual science. I am not sure where it comes from but would like to know why it persists.

        • Dan Pangburn says:

          Nor I share your frustration. I have rationalized it with the idea that everyone has an opinion and people with less or different educations assume an equivalence of opinions. Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know. Montaigne (16th century).

          I explain, with links to the source data, in my blog/analysis (click my name to see it) why CO2, in spite of being IR active, AKA a ghg, does not now, has never had and will never have a significant effect on climate. A key factor is that when a CO2 molecule absorbs an IR photon, it immediately (about 0.0002 microseconds) begins sharing the absorbed energy with surrounding molecules. It takes CO2 molecules about 6 microseconds to emit a photon after one is absorbed so emission before sharing is negligible. The shared energy retains no identity of the molecule that absorbed it so energy absorbed by water vapor is indistinguishable from energy absorbed by CO2.

          The shared energy has a statistical distribution among all of the gas molecules in the atmosphere. The population in the distribution is higher among lower energy molecules. Radiation from gas molecules depends on this distribution which is different from the Planck spectrum. Water vapor has 170+ absorb/emit bands at lower energy than the one IR band for CO2 and, on average at low altitude, there are about 35 WV molecules for every CO2 molecule. As a consequence, at low altitudes (except near the N & S poles where there is hardly any WV) the photon energy absorbed by CO2 is effectively rerouted to the water vapor molecules.

          Water vapor, which is IR active (i.e. a ghg), has been increasing at 1.5% per decade. It has increased 8% since the more rapid increase began in about 1960. The rate is about twice what it would be based solely on the temperature increase of liquid water (engineering feedback) and coincides with the increase in irrigation. Increased WV means more warming but also more clouds which reflect more sunshine so the warming effect is ultimately self-limiting.

          Thus humanity is contributing to the planet warming, or at least countering global cooling, it just has nothing significant to do with CO2.

          • Norman says:

            Dan Pangburn

            I really do like discussing things with you. You do know physics and do not make up your own ideas and pass them off as reality as our good friend Gordon Robertson is compelled to do.

            The point you are making is not the whole picture. The GHE or DWIR is not a product of immediate re-emission (as I had thought at one time). It is a product of temperature of the gas. Warmer CO2 will radiate so much IR. Others have done the math so I don’t have to.

            Here is a good article on the topic.

            http://www.patarnott.com/atms411/pdf/StaleyJuricaEffectiveEmissivity.pdf

            CO2 does play a role and always will. The full extent of the role is where the debate should be. CO2 will emit an amount of IR based upon the temperature of the gas and the amount present. The paper develops how much that amount will be and empirical measurements have confirmed these amounts.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Nor _ thanks for the link. I think I see some issues on which we differ. They assume radiation from gas molecules follows the Stephan-Boltzmann law. I of course am aware this being true for liquids and solids and believe it to be essentially true also for aerosols and other particulates because they typically contain millions of molecules.

            It is clear that when a molecule absorbs a photons energy it immediately shares that energy with surrounding molecules, warming the gas.

            Gas molecules, however, exhibit Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of molecule energy. Lower energy levels are more populous in this distribution (Wikipedia shows generic graphs of the distribution). I dont know, and perhaps no one knows for sure whether photons are emitted by molecules because of their individual molecule energy or are emitted because of impact between molecules (IMO its the former). Either way, the distribution would be related to M-B. The measured temperature of the gas is determined by the average of the M-B distribution.

            Now, looking at the energy levels of emission bands, there are 170+ emission bands for water vapor which are lower energy than the one IR active band for CO2. Also, there are, on average at low altitude and away from the N & S poles, about 35 times as many WV molecules as CO2 molecules.

            Heres the key to my perception: WV molecules dominate radiation from the M-B distribution. Even if a CO2 molecule emits a photon, the energy gets added to the mix and biased towards the more populous lower energy bands of WV.

            There are other completely independent observations which support this. Look at TOA emission profiles such as Fig 1 in http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com . The emission profile from about 100/cm to about 550/cm does not follow a Planck profile but is consistent with bunching up of wavelengths absorbed by CO2, shared with surrounding molecules, and preferentially emitted by WV.

            As an aside, there is an inconsistency between the TOA plots and the output of Hitran2012. This is observed especially at e.g. 500/cm. It appears to me that Hitran2012 is not telling the full story.

          • Norman says:

            Dan Pangburn

            It is so refreshing to read your posts. I am reading through your blog. It might take a bit for me to process your ideas.

            I like that you possess intelligence and are not making up science to and peddling it on this blog.

            One thing I might state is I am not sure why you believe the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of energy is on the low end. All the graphs I have looked at seems to be a bell curve.

            Also the article I linked to is based upon actual empirial data collected by Hottel. He actually did real world tests to get his data.

            Here is the results of Hottel’s experimental data collection.

            Hot CO2 emits IR and is based upon the concentration of the CO2, its temperature and the path length you are measuring.

            The 15 micron range is not absorbed by H2O so any IR emitted by Carbon Dioxide will not be reabsorbed by H2O but travel to whatever destination it will reach be it surface or space.

            Hottel’s empirical work on the emission of CO2 and H2O. The emissivity is how much IR will be emitted by one of these gases at a given temperature using Stefan-Boltzmann.

            http://fchart.com/ees/gas%20emittance.pdf

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            I am being blocked by the word censor. I would like to continue this discussion via email so we can exchange graphics and avoid the word censor. My email is pangburndan at gmail.com

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Norm _ Thanks for the link (I will need to spend some time with it before I comment) and for the challenge to the M-B assessment. On revisiting that aspect of M-B I find it superfluous to the issue and have deleted it. I also just added some more stuff to the blog/analysis you might find of interest.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          norman…”Or that a hotter surface cannot absorb any IR from a colder one. This idea violates Kirchhoffs Law and has zero supporting evidence”.

          The thing you don’t get, Norman, is that Kircheoff, Boltzmann, and Planck apply under certain ideal conditions, like in a theorized blackbody. You cannot apply Kircheoff in our atmosphere, wrt the surface, and claim the 2nd law does not apply.

          Furthermore, Kircheoff applies to statistical mechanics not to a generalized macro problem where heat is transferred between bodies in our environment. If you are going to engage statistical mechanics theory you must do it through averages since it is not possible to speak of individual photons of energy.

          In other words, your contexts are undefined. So define them. Lets begin with the surface radiating a humungous amount of IR flux into the atmosphere and having that flux intercepted by an insignificant number of CO2 molecules. Let’s have those CO2 molecules at an altitude where their temperature is 10C below that of the surface.

          The model just described does not apply to Kircheoff which requires two independent radiators that are blackbodies. Besides, you cannot describe the CO2 in our atmosphere as a blackbody.

          Back to the model. You have a body, the surface, radiating a massive amount of IR flux, and CO2, a tiny absorber that misses most of the radiation. Then the CO2 warms slightly and radiates IR isotropically.

          The basis of AGW, besides the ludicrous heat trapping blanket theory, is that CO2 can back-radiate enough IR to warm the surface BEYOND the temperature it is warmed by solar energy.

          Do I have to go on or have you caught the obvious absurdity of that claim? CO2 is radiating, as defined, from a temperature 10 C lower than the surface. The 2nd law claims it cannot transfer heat to the surface. Common sense tells us their is in no way enough CO2 to back-radiate the required flux for warming, even if a cooler body could radiate enough to raise the temp of a warmer body THAT WARMED IT.

          Heard of perpetual motion, Norman?

          Come on man. Get off trying to ad hom me while you spout absolutely amateurish science.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            On the previous thread I linked you to a textbook on the subject and suggested pages for you to read. Most obviously you will not do this and then you claim I am wrong.

            You constantly are making up stuff with no valid support and will totally refuse to read real science. I guess you have more fun making up whatever reality suits you.

            Why do you persist in your made up science and you will not correct your many flaws by reading the real stuff?

            Here I will link you to the post from the previous thread. You are making many errors in logic and reason and you do not understand much. What you don’t understand you make up.

            I can’t even argue with you about heat since you use your own made up version and will refuse to use the current use in physics.

            Heat is NET energy between two objects at different temperatures (if they are the same temperature Heat is zero, no net energy flow).

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-263795

            In my post to you go to the textbook and read the pages I suggest. You will see your physics is made up, has no bearing on reality.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            You do not understand the concept and set up a straw-man argument.

            YOU: “The basis of AGW, besides the ludicrous heat trapping blanket theory, is that CO2 can back-radiate enough IR to warm the surface BEYOND the temperature it is warmed by solar energy.

            Do I have to go on or have you caught the obvious absurdity of that claim? CO2 is radiating, as defined, from a temperature 10 C lower than the surface. The 2nd law claims it cannot transfer heat to the surface. Common sense tells us their is in no way enough CO2 to back-radiate the required flux for warming, even if a cooler body could radiate enough to raise the temp of a warmer body THAT WARMED IT.”

            I doubt I have enough time in life to get you to understand the correct logic.

            You can try by using the equation you posted on a previous thread.

            If an hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings the net radiation heat loss rate can be expressed as

            q = e s (Th4 Tc4) Ac (3)

            where

            Th = hot body absolute temperature (K)

            Tc = cold surroundings absolute temperature (K)

            Ac = area of the object (m2)

            Do you understand the equation you posted? Probably not, I do not have much confidence you are able to understand anything that you did not make up.

            q is defined as the radiation heat loss of a hot body radiating to a cooler body.

            If you have no GHG in your atmosphere the Tc is about 3 K. In your post you put the atmosphere at 10 C less than the surface. Make the surface 25 C and the atmosphere 15 C. Convert to Kelvin.
            25 C = 298 K 15 C = 288 C

            The amount of heat that can leave the surface is determined by the equation you provided.

            IR emissivity of water is listed as 0.98
            http://www.infrared-thermography.com/material-1.htm

            q/A (watts/m^2) = 0.98(e)(5.67 x 10^-8)(298^4 – 288^4) = 55.9 W/m^2

            This is the amount of heat the surface will radiate to the warm atmosphere. If you have an constant input of 163 W/m^2 from the Sun you will only lose 56 W/m^2 by radiant energy. Evaporation and convection will balance the rest.

            Now if you had no atmosphere but the surface was radiating straight to a 3 K surrounding you can plug this value in your same equation.

            q/A = 0.98(5.67 x 10^-8)(298^4 – 3^4) = 438 W/m^2

            Now how in the name of reason can’t you understand what is going on. It is your own equation. Are you stupidly suggesting that a surface that can only lose 56 W/m^2 (and receive 163) will not end up warmer than one that is losing energy at a rate of 438 W/m^2?

            If you are that unable to reason I suggest you quit posting for some time and start reading. I have linked you to physics textbooks. You can even use your own equation to see how totally flawed your thoughts are.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      dr no…”Bernard Keane, Crikey, September 21, 2017″

      Who is Bernard Keane, another cranky older white male?

  34. Cloudbase says:

    Just maybe Dr No it is because older white males had parents who taught them how to correctly process information in their formative years….and didn’t just send their kids off to be taught by brainwasher liberal/leftie teachers.

  35. 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/

    • Billyjack says:

      Dr. Ball, I appreciate your post, but looking at Appel and Dr. No, you would have an easier time dissuading an Evangelical concerning the virgin birth. I doubt you could get a 97% consensus on the virgin birth like they contend on the climate.

      • Bart says:

        Perhaps, however persuading zealots like Appel and Dr. No is not a realistic proposition in the first place. But, there is a larger, persuadable audience.

        • David Appell says:

          As if Tim Ball has any credibility. He does not and his ideas about climate and the greenhouse effect are seriously whacked.

          Tim Ball is not a climate science expert, and this has been admitted in a court of law.

          After the Calgary Herald published an op-ed by Ball on April 19, 2006, whom the newspaper identified as the first climatology PhD in Canada and a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years, they published a letter on April 23, 2006 from Dr. Dan Johnson, a professor at the University of Lethbridge, who pointed out that neither of those descriptions is true; that Dr. Ball’s credentials were being seriously overstated. Ball later threatened Johnson and the Herald and ultimately sued for defamation.

          In their Statement of Defense filed in Court, the Calgary Herald submitted the following:

          1. “…that the Plaintiff (Ball) never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming.

          2. “The Plaintiff has never published any research in any peer-reviewed scientific journal which addressed the topic of human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming

          3. “The Plaintiff has published no papers on climatology in academically recognized peer-reviewed scientific journals since his retirement as a Professor in 1996;

          4. “The Plaintiff’s credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media; and

          5. “The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”

          Ball dropped his lawsuit.

          Source: The Calgary Herald, Statement of Defense paragraph 50, Dr Tim Ball v The Calgary Herald, In the Court of the Queens Bench of Alberta Judicial District of Calgary, Dec 7, 2006 (http://is.gd/brO4uO).

          More at:
          http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-vs-dan-johnson-update-0
          http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-vs-dan-johnson-lawsuit-documents
          http://www.desmogblog.com/ball-bails-on-johnson-lawsuit

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”Tim Ball is not a climate science expert, and this has been admitted in a court of law”.

          He has as much credibility as Gavin Schmidt, a mathematician and failed climate modeler, Michael Mann, a geologist and failed statistician (MBH98), and James Hansen, an astronomer and failed climate modeler.

          Neither Schmidt, Mann, nor Hansen have proved there is such a thing as catastrophic warming/climate change.

          Ball has proved alarmist climate science is nonsense, hence he is as much a climatologist as Schmidt. Mann, or Hansen.

          BTW, John Christy of UAH actually has a degree in climate science and the data to prove AGW wrong.

    • Dan Pangburn says:

      Dr Tim, IMO it would be worth your time to look into the issue of rising water vapor. As a start, I have searched on line and have documented my findings at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Tim…”Latest books and documentary.

      Way to go, Tim, keep up the good work. It’s worth the price of admission to see David Appell frothing at the mouth over your post.

    • Bindidon says:

      Mr Ball

      Look at this:

      http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/309442/football-and-hockey-mark-steyn

      Is that the right way to present a scientific dispute?
      Simply disgusting.

  36. Bart says:

    “Im still trying to process my feelings about how the two authors, Myles Allen and Michael Grubb, might have been allowed to wander so far off the Empires (UN IPCCs) reservation.”

    It’s like when politicians start downplaying a previously strident position: internal polling shows it is hurting them more than helping.

    In this case, I suspect the internal numbers are showing that La Nina is about to reestablish the “pause” with a vengeance, and they need to get out in front of that, or risk being fully discredited.

  37. MikeN says:

    I’ve been predicting this for years. The first sign was when RealClimate had a guest post that there could be a global warming pause that lasts until 2020 or longer, then global warming will be back stronger than ever. They were hedging their bets.

    As climate skeptics get stronger with their talking points, particularly using models to show the futility of the policies being proposed(China is 30% of global emissions and growing, scientists are calling for a 90% cut, US+Europe+Japan, Aus, SK, Canada is 30%), then activists will have to change the science to requiring smaller emissions cuts. Beenstock and Reingewertz will come in play, which says that as long as emissions stop increasing, global warming will stop. Developing countries can’t solve the emissions cuts by themselves, but holding them responsible for cuts to offset growth in other countries will be the new plan.

  38. AGW is a fraud who time is rapidly coming to an end.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Salvatore…”AGW is a fraud who time is rapidly coming to an end”.

      Seems it ended in 1998.

      • David Appell says:

        Do I have to repeat for you yet again how much warming has occurred since 1998?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”Do I have to repeat for you yet again how much warming has occurred since 1998?”

          I already know what is is, excluding 2016, it is 0C. That has been verified by the IPCC and UAH.

          I don’t know what planet for which you are claiming the warming, it certainly is not Earth.

          You may have noted that since Feb 2016, we have been cooling.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “I already know what is is, excluding 2016, it is 0C. That has been verified by the IPCC and UAH.”

            We’re not excluding any data just to give credence to your lies.

            Since 12/98 UAH global LT has warmed by +0.23 C.

            The top 700 meters of the ocean has gained 1.51 billion Hiroshima bombs of heat.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “You may have noted that since Feb 2016, we have been cooling.”

            Even when you cherry pick you’re wrong.

            Since 1Q16, the top 2000 meters of the ocean have gained 410 million Hiroshima bombs worth of heat (1.30 W/m2; 26 ZJ).

      • Yes since 1998 temperatures have been more or less neutral but now we need a down trend which I think has started this year which should end the nonsense of AGW.

  39. Martin Trittelvitz says:

    The best I can say is: “I told you so!” But it’s not enough to be right finally, it’s the right timing. Perhaps now is the right time to publish this study.

  40. David Appell says:

    Roy wrote:
    “Since it is card-carrying members of the climate establishment saying the models are wrong, though, they will probably be hailed as visionaries.”

    Roy, that is not what they found! You should correct your error.

    This what Allen and Millar wrote in today’s Guardian:

    “We knew this finding would be controversial, since previous estimates had indicated that to meet the same goal, emissions might have to reach zero in well under a decade, which really is inconceivable. Crucially, THE REASON FOR THE CORRECTION WAS NOT THAT WE HAD A NEW ESTIMATE OF THE CLIMATE RESPONSE, OR WARMING PER TONNE OF CO2 EMITTED — WE USED EXACTLY THE CURRENT CONSENSUS RANGE — but that we took better account of past emissions and where human-induced warming has got to already.” (emphasis mine)

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/21/when-media-sceptics-misrepresent-our-climate-research-we-must-speak-out

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      DA…from your link…”…in the articles beneath them, Ben Webster and Henry Bodkin were careful not to say there was any evidence the models were systematically over-responding to CO2″.

      Then let me say it, the models are not only over-responding to CO2, they are unvalidated models which are programmed incorrectly. No one has ever proved how much CO2 contributes to atmospheric warming and I have shown, using the Ideal Gas Equation and Dalton’s Law of Partial pressures, that CO2 could not contributes more than a several one-hundredths of a degree C based on its trace mass.

      Roy is correct, you are wrong.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        “Then let me say it, the models are not only over-responding to CO2, they are unvalidated models which are programmed incorrectly.”

        What exactly is wrong with the programming, Gordon?

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        “…I have shown, using the Ideal Gas Equation and Daltons Law of Partial pressures, that CO2 could not contributes more than a several one-hundredths of a degree C based on its trace mass.”

        Your calculation was stupid and wrong because you didn’t include radiative transfer.

  41. In order for David to be correct the climate of today has to become unique , which it is not.

  42. Norman says:

    Gordon Robertson

    I have actually done some math for you to dispel your complete ignorance. I hope you take the time to look at it. I know you ignored it the first time I posted it.

    YOU: “Back to the model. You have a body, the surface, radiating a massive amount of IR flux, and CO2, a tiny absorber that misses most of the radiation. Then the CO2 warms slightly and radiates IR isotropically.”

    Here is my response and calculations to show how little physics you know and how much you just make up.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-261618

  43. SK says:

    Dr. Spencer or other scientists-

    I’m a lay person trying to understand this AGW issue. How would you and Dr. Cristy answer this published study.

    Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v10/n7/full/ngeo2973.html

    Thanks

    SK

  44. Norman says:

    Dan Pangburn

    I am starting a new line down here so you might see it and not have to scroll upward to find it.

    I was continuing reading your blog. I did see your graphs of CO2 vs H2O from SpecCalc site

    I am not positive how the graphing works but if you use log instead of linear (to get all the graphs in) and you use an altitude of 120 km instead of 0 you will see a much stronger contribution from CO2.

    I think the altitude is air from ground to whatever point you go up.

    Water vapor dominates at low altitude because of its abundance but it is fairly dry above the condensation level and water vapor drops off rapidly.

    If you put in an altitude of 10 km you will see that CO2 at 15 microns (I use microns as I am more familiar with these units) is getting comparable to H2O.

    • Dan Pangburn says:

      Norm – I am not sure how the graphing works either. I am aware of the increasing importance of CO2, with altitude as water vapor declines. The whole idea is that the CO2 radiation energy gets shifted over to the low wavelength WV at low altitude. Then at higher altitude, WV declines and thermalization allows CO2 to come back in to play. Of course, most of the way up, convection is a substantial contributor to the energy flow. I checked various altitudes, as I recall, at 2km CO2 was very small but became apparent at 10km.

      On the log plots, notice the ordinate scale. The CO2 is lower by orders of magnitude which is consistent with being barely discernible on the more meaningful linear plots.

      Microns was my first familiarity also but I have learned to also use wavenumber and usually mark both on my ‘working’ graphs. A convenient relation is 10^4/microns = wavenumber. e.g.10^4/15 = 667.

  45. Norman says:

    Dan Pangburn

    On your blog you reach this conclusion concerning the TOA IR graph.

    YOU: “Typical top-of-atmosphere (TOA) emission spectra such as shown in Figure 1 include a notch associated with the CO2 absorb/emit wavelength. The existence of this notch demonstrates that CO2 absorbs terrestrial radiation in this wavelength range. Perhaps not as obvious, the presence of the notch also demonstrates thermalization and that the Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity/energy distribution substantially redirects the radiation that was absorbed by the CO2 molecules and thermalized to the 170+ absorb/emit bands of lower energy (longer wavelength) photons of water vapor molecules. This explains the reduced number of photons at the notch.”

    The way the notch is explained in conventional physics is that the Carbon Dioxide is absorbing All the IR from the surface in the 15 micron range. The IR picked up by satellites at the 15 micron band is not at all from the surface (which was all absorbed) but is the emission energy of the IR at colder levels of the atmosphere and is emitting less IR because of the cooler temperature of the gas. That is why it is considerably less than what the surface is emitting.

    • Dan Pangburn says:

      Norm – Good catch on M-B reference in that paragraph. I need to fix it by deleting “Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity/energy distribution substantially redirects the” . (I still suspect M-B might be a factor in the shift but have not come up with a way to quantify it so am not pushing that idea). I expect the fix will include adding a reference to Fig 0.5.

      With that fix, there is a lot of similarity between the two statements. IMO ‘they’ could benefit from incorporating the concept of thermalization (absorb photons and share the energy with surrounding molecules), the huge number of lower energy absorb/emit bands of WV, reverse-thermalization which gets CO2 back in the action at increasing altitude, that gas molecules comply with M-B distribution, and the spike results at extreme high altitude (30 km or so) where the molecules are getting far apart. I ‘explain’ (my guess) the spike in Fig 1.

      I expect the height difference between the two lows on each side of the spike is telling us something. Perhaps it is following the shape of the M-B distribution.

    • Dan Pangburn says:

      Norm – The ‘missing’ energy, absorbed by CO2 at low altitude had to go someplace. The likely place is to lower energy (longer wavelength, lower wavenumber) photons from WV and thermalization allows that to happen. As WV declines with increasing altitude, CO2 starts getting more of a share of the radiant energy. Of course, convection is carrying a lot of the energy up, especially in the mid altitudes.

      The M-B distribution is biased to the left. The peak looks to be about 1/3 of the way from 0 thru the ‘bell’ and back to near 0. The distribution gets taller and narrower as the temperature declines with increasing altitude. I am still thinking that all this must be the cause of energy shifting to lower energy photons resulting in the notch.

  46. Alfons Mittelmeyer says:

    Today I wrote an email to President Donald J Trump, because he would like to trump down this CO2 warming hypotheses, explained the warming, explained the current northern north atlantic cooling, explained the climate which will follow. This is the very severe winter 1947 in Europe. The USA get its great blizzard 1947 back or maybe this of 1888, Maine will burn again and the USA will get also back its dust bowl.

    In the winter 1947 about 200,000 people died in Germany, in Russia about two millions. Nowadays it could be more, because people don’t have ovens any more, but heating units which depend on electricity.

    When the soil is frozen hard, coal mining becomes dfficult or nearly impossible. Many power plants have to shut down. When the heating don’t work any more and when the temperature is -20 C, and people have no ovens, many will die.

    This is the real danger and not CO2.

    • Dan Pangburn says:

      The science of thermalization of EMR and the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of molecule energy (EMR absorbed by CO2 near ground level is effectively redirected to the 170+ lower-energy absorb/emit bands of WV) explain why CO2, in spite of being IR active (AKA a ghg) has no significant effect on average global temperature. The 8% increase in average atmospheric water vapor since 1960 is countering the temperature decline that would otherwise be occurring.

  47. Alfons Mittelmeyer says:

    People know about the Great Salinity Anomalies (GSAs). And they know the first one is the greatest. But the first one in the negative AMO phase is only one of the greatest. The other one of the greatest is the first GSA in the second half of the positive AMO phase.

  48. Alfons Mittelmeyer says:

    Maybe there could be more cracks. AMO would cause a slight global cooling, a kind of a hiatus of 40 years. But solar activity could cause further cooling. I could think, that the long time warming since about 1900 was due to solar activity. Solar activity doesn’t mean only insulation or UV radiation. It means also solar wind. And the effects of solar wind for the troposphere are currently not explored, only effects of solar storms, which cause or strengthen meteorological perturbations. The sea level shows three months more a hiatus now since two years. Could become interesting, how this will progress further.

    https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

    If this long term warming of about 0.6 K/century doesn’t continue, this would mean global cooling from the second half of the positive AMO phase on, which means, it should become clearly visible after the next El Nino, which should be expected about 2020/21 soon after the solar minimum.

    How can the cooling of AMO be explained? The reason are GSAs. And these GSAs happen already in the second half of the positive AMO phase, which seems to be unknown until now.

    This is a reconstruction of the Beaufort Gyre freshwater content:

    https://www2.pic-upload.de/img/33916128/fc.gif

    The blue line shows the freshwater content anomaly of the Beaufort Gyre in 1000 km

    Source: Protushinky et al. 2002: The role of the Beaufort Gyre in Arctic climate variability: Seasonal to
    decadal climate scales

    PDF 4 pages: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.577.7238&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    It’s a little bit sloppily, because it’s not km but 1000 km. And why per year?

    But here can be seen a GSA already before 1960 and notice the big freeze in Britain 1953 and 1955.

    So there are also GSAs in the second half of a positive AMO phase. This one was the second one. The first one was more prominent.

  49. Alfons Mittelmeyer says:

    The reason for the northern north atlantic cooling.

    You know that the heat content of the northern north atlantic has decreased. You know also, that the temperatures over greenland have decreased a bit.

    But nobody, who don’t know the true reason for warming ever can detect the reason for this cooling.

    It’s simple. Freshwater goes into the arctic ocean, will be cooled and eventually becomes sea ice. It cannot become higher and higher, so it will become exported.

    Let’s think, what would happen if about the same amount, which goes in also comes out. Everybody would think, that this would be something constant, which would be quite normal.

    No, this isn’t normal, because this means cooling of the North Atlantic Ocean. Now you may guess the cause of warming.

    • Alfons Mittelmeyer says:

      There is a great problem about many scientists,

      There are a lot, which think they are the great experts: They have learned, what their parents said, they have learned what their teachers said, they have learned, what whas written in the books, they have learned what their professors said, they have learned, what the consensus says, but thinking themselves they haven’t learned.

  50. Alfons Mittelmeyer says:

    Seemingly there is no much interest. I thought, it could be interesting, when there are GSAs also in the second half of the positive AMO phase. That the first one is a very prominent one, which not only brings an extreme winter to Europe. But also slows the Gulf stream, so that there will be not much precipitation in some areas – dust bowl – and which caused also, that Maine burned, for example:

    http://www.pressherald.com/2012/10/07/the-week-that-maine-burned_2012-10-07/

  51. gallopingcamel says:

    @Henryk, (September 28)
    That report you linked describes a paper that appeared in Nature. The paper is at best a wild speculation intended to feed the false narrative that CO2 drives climate. When you throw billions of dollars at “Scientists” you will get many thousands of papers and most of them will be useless junk.

    The paper is a good example of what Climate Whores can do. They tell the government what it wants to hear and all they ask in return is money…………..lots of money.

Leave a Reply