Fake Climate News from Reuters

August 10th, 2018 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Will Google down-rank Reuters for spreading fake climate news?

I spoke at Heartland’s America First Energy Conference, held in New Orleans on Tuesday, August 7, 2018. A young Reuters reporter was there, who asked me before I spoke to tell him what I was going to say.

I simply replied, why don’t you come and listen to my talk to find out?

The result was a news story with this headline: Sea level rise ‘overblown,’ solar energy ‘dumb,’ climate change deniers tell forum

Climate change deniers“? Really? This is what passes for responsible journalism today?

As readers here know, I don’t deny climate change. I doubt any in attendance deny climate change.

I don’t even deny recent warming could be mostly human-caused.

The following photo of me speaking had the caption (emphasis added):

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama, said the presence of Trump administration officials at the conference gave a boost to climate change deniers. (Edmund D. Fountain/Reuters)

I have no idea what I said that led the reporter to write: “Spencer said…the presence of Trump administration officials at the conference gave a boost to climate change deniers”. Where did that come from?

The mainstream news media (MSM) is treading on dangerous ground as Google is now deciding what web content is climate-denying and what isn’t. They don’t even understand the arguments. There are crappy science arguments being routinely published on the web on both sides of the debate.

About the only climate-related statements I might characterize as unsupported scientific claims would be, “the climate has cooled in recent decades”, or “there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect”.

But even though I consider those to be demonstrably wrong, I would not support censoring or putting disclaimers on such content. Even the most ridiculous claims (the Earth is flat, the Moon landings were a hoax) should be allowed to be heard and subjected to questioning, and maybe even ridicule.

If such censorship and search engine down-ranking is implemented, will they do the same for the recent “hothouse Earth” claims, which are little more than speculative sci-fi climate porn, with no new science, and totally ignore the most recent evidence that global warming of the oceans and atmosphere over the last century indicate the climate system is twice as resistant to warming as the IPCC claims?

Such hypocrisy is part of the reason why Americans (Canadians, Australians, et al.) are increasingly distrustful of the MSM.


274 Responses to “Fake Climate News from Reuters”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. TomRude says:

    In typical fashion, the CBC had to reprint the Reuters story:
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-conference-new-orleans-1.4779156
    No comments allowed from them, thus no correction to the edict possible. In any case political censorship at the CBC is rife and pretexts abound to ban comments.

    • Bill the Sane Canadian says:

      So very true. CBC is so beholding to PETs brat (Trudeau jr for our American friends) that you simply cannot get anything factual from them anymore.

    • Dale says:

      Tom: The CBC was actually so obsessed with hiding the truth and not permitting any dissent that they wouldn’t even permit comments on the story. Attempts to contact them directly about their complete lack of investigation on this story were also blocked.

      • David Appell says:

        Lots of media no longer allow comments. The trolls and deniers have ruined them.

        • dennisa says:

          If presenting facts that show the AGW mantra to be flawed is trolling, then you have little interest in scientific fact, but merely follow your own group think.

        • WizGeek says:

          @Appell: “The Media” no longer supports comments on articles and opinions because they don’t want to pay for the “CPU cycles” and disk storage to maintain said comments.

          If by “ruined them” you mean “called into question their veracity amd motives,” then so be it. If a position is defensible in the arena of discussion–regardless of whether the position is for or against–then why not welcome and embrace the opportunity to defend? Is not the ultimate goal to arrive at the truth or at least form a cogent theory that allows a scientific method to prove its truthiness?

          Simply cutting off or denying discussion of or forcing acceptance of a position is a very Fascist thing in deed.

  2. Entropic man says:

    I see no problem with Steffan et al 2018.

    Their take-home message is that if we raise CO2 concentration to Eocene levels we will get Eocene temperatures and Eocene sea levels.

    • Nate says:

      I think the media, as usual, exaggerates the certainty about the ‘Hothouse Earth’ scenario. The paper had many caveats.

      The media fails to make clear that such papers are just one of many, with no consensus yet.

      Similarly Roy is over-emphasizing a single climate sensitivity paper, which is one of many, with no consensus yet.

      • Entropic man says:

        There is a theory that the climate tends to settle into one of four stable states.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth

        Warmest is the Greenhouse or Hothouse Earth. Temperatures around 19C, CO2 over 500ppm and high sea levels.Ice cover is negligible.

        Next are two Icehouse Earth states.

        Icehouse Interglacial has temperatures around 14C, CO2 around 280ppm and current sea levels. Ice above 70N and 70S.

        Icehouse glacial has temperatures around 9C. CO2 is around 200ppm. Ice to 50N and 50S.

        Snowball Earth has temperatures around 4C. CO2 is less than 200ppm. Ice down to low latitudes.

        Nothing in Steffen et al is original. It describes what you would expect if we increase CO2 enough to tip us from Icehouse Interglacial conditions to Hothouse conditions.

        • gbaikie says:

          It is not really a theory, it’s classification.
          It’s like say lions are predators- and predators eat other animals.
          One can have theories related to it, but idea that animals eat meat or animals eat plants is not really a theory. Nor would making cats eat vegetables- prove that cats aren’t predators

          And Icebox climate is when the ocean temperature is 1 to 5 C.

          A snowball climate would be ocean of 0 C or colder ocean temperature. And there is no evidence of this happening on Earth.
          But if it did happen, one just change definition of icehouse to include a colder ocean

          I see it as a classification of two extremes: icehouse and hothouse which very different ocean temperatures. Hothouse is warmest Earth has ever been and icehouse [icebox] is coldest earth has ever been.
          And global climates in the middle of the extremes and most of Earth history in the middle.
          And most human history has been in the extreme of a icehouse climate.

          • David Appell says:

            gbaikie says:
            A snowball climate would be ocean of 0 C or colder ocean temperature. And there is no evidence of this happening on Earth.

            A snowball Earth has happened at least twice on Earth, and possibly several more times.

          • gbaikie says:

            –David Appell says:
            August 10, 2018 at 6:00 PM
            gbaikie says:
            A snowball climate would be ocean of 0 C or colder ocean temperature. And there is no evidence of this happening on Earth.

            A snowball Earth has happened at least twice on Earth, and possibly several more times.–

            As said there isn’t convincing evidence.

            But a question occurred to me, since you believe CO2 is a control knob when in Earth’s history has there been the lowest CO2 levels?

            So two question what is lowest CO2 that have occur [or could have occurred]
            And two, did the lowest CO2 levels occur at all the same time periods as these snowball earths that you are imagining may have occurred.

            It seems to me, that if you actually believed greenhouse gases control global temperature, a very low level of CO2 [and low levels of other greenhouse gases] would be required in order for you to begin to imagine that such cold conditions occurred.

            I and many others don’t think CO2 is this control knob, and lacking CO2 would cause Earth to be -18 C.
            But since you hold this fringe belief, it occurred to me, that the level of CO2 would be the only thing which should provide sufficient evidence.

          • gbaikie says:

            I ask the question, then briefly look for the answer.
            But I expect a fervent believer should have spend considerably more time looking into at this issue.
            So I provide this:
            “It is therefore interesting to ask what, if any, correspondence exists between ancient climate and the estimate of pCO2 in Fig. 4. The gray bars at the top of Fig. 4 correspond to the periods when the global climate was cool; the intervening white space corresponds to the warm modes (18). The most recent cool period corresponds to relatively low CO2 levels, as is widely expected (30). However, no correspondence between pCO2 and climate is evident in the remainder of the record, in part because the apparent 100 My cycle of the pCO2 record does not match the longer climatic cycle. The lack of correlation remains if one calculates the change in average global surface temperature resulting from changes in pCO2 and the solar constant using energy-balance arguments ”
            http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167

            As perhaps, a starting point in the journey in which you can surely provide additional information.
            Or I expect people with fervent beliefs to have some clues which support their delusional ideas.
            So, what else have you got?

          • gbaikie says:

            Now you have mentioned that sun output is higher in last few hundred millions years.
            And you have expressed your belief that sun has not much to do with global temperature, BUT do have any record of lower solar activity, occurring at the same time period as the imagine times of snowball earth, which might have some effect- even though you believe CO2 is the dominate factor.

          • David Appell says:

            “Snowball Earth” Confirmed: Ice Covered Equator, 2010
            https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100304-snowball-earth-ice-global-warming/

            Snowball Earth: New evidence hints at global glaciation 716.5 million years ago, 2010
            https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100304142228.htm

          • David Appell says:

            gbaikie says:
            But a question occurred to me, since you believe CO2 is a control knob when in Earths history has there been the lowest CO2 levels?

            I don’t know offhand, but it doesn’t matter.

          • gbaikie says:

            –In the new study published to the journal Terra Nova, researchers argue that plate tectonics on Earth began 800 million- 600 million years ago.

            This, they say, is evident through both geological and theoretical evidence, and could help to explain nearly two dozen theories that have previously been proposed to explain the onset of Snowball Earth.–
            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5701555/Snowball-Earth-700-million-years-ago-caused-plate-tectonics.html

            I would argue that plate tectonic 700 million years ago is rather vaque.
            And it seems a lot fuss is made of finding glacial activity near the equator.
            We currently have tropical glacier.
            And seems possible in the past we could different glaciers near equator.
            It even seems possible that during a hothouse climate we could glaciers in the Equator. But let’s make easier, say global temperature was 12 C rather than 25 C.

            As I said endless, what make icebox and Hothouse is the temperature of the ocean. And if want to get more specific- warm surface ocean water in or near the polar regions.

            We don’t have a really massive ocean current going to the poles.
            We call the Gulf stream huge but relatively it could considered on the small size.
            Or movement ocean water of tropics is much bigger than Gulf stream.
            Say, entire ocean average temperature is 10 C and global average is 12 C, and have large flows of tropical waters going both poles or one pole. And you have different glacier in tropics than the glacier we have currently in the tropics.
            Different in terms of bigger, as general thing, also could different in other ways. Or bigger and …

        • Christian says:

          i think it is not possible to simulate the Eem Temperature curve with high sensitivity due to GHG like CO2.
          We see the sharp T increase to the early Eem followed by the CO2 increase up to about 300 ppm (starting at 200).
          Relative small forcings (circulation, orbital) lead to relative fast decreasing T over the following centuries and millennia(2-4C). CO2 and all the claimed positive feedbacks could not stop the T falling to levels we see today and the last ice age was the result.

      • Nate says:

        So isn’t it a question of where are those tipping points? How close are we to a tipping point? High enough CO2 (2000 ppm) seems to do it.

        Also the configuration of the continents seems to matter a great deal.

      • dennisa says:

        But the science has been settled for years…

        • Nate says:

          That there is AGW? Will the Earth keep warming as a result? Yes. The ultimate state of the Earths climate in centuries? No.

    • Chris Hanley says:

      The Eocene planet was very different to now, for instance the oceans were much warmer with waters at 3400 meters depth in the South Atlantic around 16C compared with around 2C- 3C today.
      It would take a very long time to get the deep oceans to the same temperatures under current conditions.

  3. Nate says:

    I wonder if Roy agrees with the statement at the conference from Heartland Institute rep?

    “Huelskamp dismissed United Nations findings on climate change as “fake science” motivated by a desire for “power and control.”

  4. eric says:

    Those that can’t do or teach become politicians, bureaucrats, or “journalists.”

  5. Nudely says:

    “Those” (people) are who’s, not “that”s.

    Those who can’t do or teach…

  6. The next few years is going to put an end to much of this AGW nonsense.

  7. Rob Mitchell says:

    test

  8. Bri says:

    The problem is that they “believe” in climate change, you cant use facts or data to change someones religion. so you are a heretic , you are in good company though Galileo ect.

    • argus says:

      Just think, Industrialization has happened. It will only become more widespread. Warming, very logically, could be a result. While still yet small, in a little over 200 years, we’ve changed the Earth’s composition and makeup remarkably. If you rule out a tiny temperature adjustment upwards caused by the activities of billions of people, and say we’re too small to affect such a tiny speck as the Earth, 260 billion cubic miles, I think that you’re wrong. We’re indeed capable of much, as we’ve shown with Nuclear weapons, heart transplants, and countless concrete meccas.

    • Entropic man says:

      Its hard not to concede that coal hasnt been put on Earth and other fossil fuels as part of a divine plan,

      We are, I know, doing the Lords work.

      Fred Palmer, Heartland Institute

      “There has to be a designer a creator behind this to make something as complex as it is, yet as robust as it is,

      To be a true Christian means you have to believe and understand what we are being taught through the Bible and through Gods word.

      Professor David Legates

      The theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution.

      Dr Roy Spencer

      Unscientific beliefs are more characteristic of climate change sceptics.

  9. Norman says:

    Roy Spencer

    You do bring up a very serious issue. You were misquoted for a story. Journalism needs to be like science. You pay people money to research and find the factual information about things. There could be bad journalists in the bunch but I think the problem is much deeper and serious. That is one thing I agree with Trump doing, pointing out “Fake News”. It upsets the Media but they should be upset with themselves. They need to go back to the basics of looking for the truth and getting away from activism and distortion. I can’t trust any story dealing with climate change and weather patterns. You would hope a good journalist would be like a good scientist and research the story. I can go back on my own and find all types of horrible weather events in the past. It is really difficult to say things are worse, better or the same as the past. Trends are difficult to generate on extreme events which do not happen very often to generate a trend.

    This video on “Fake News” is circulating on the web. It makes things look really bad for CNN. The sad thing is the top people in that organization don’t take active roles to make their news valuable information. Something bad has happened to the News media.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=41&v=buMab0eGAjk

    • gbaikie says:

      “You do bring up a very serious issue. You were misquoted for a story. Journalism needs to be like science. ”

      I tend to think a problem with journalism is they imagine they are like science [pseudo science].

      I think a better model might be a court reporter.
      Maybe, say, a court reporter on the lam.

      • David Appell says:

        Have you ever written any journalism?

        • gbaikie says:

          No.

          But journalism can be many things, and broadly it means selling
          stories- and I have not sold any stories.
          Nor have ever been a employee of publishing company in any capacity in my past.
          I am not a good writer [as numerous posters have pointed this out], but I would like to become better at writing- that requires practice.
          It could be a futile desire on my part.

          But my desire to be writer is not a desire to become a journalist.

          In true or pure sense a journalist is an explorer, attempting to get compensation for the work of the exploration which is done. Making living by exploring and documenting that work.

          Of course one could also do this without the focus earning money or being a paid professional journalist [but earning money at what you want to do, is a brilliant plan].

          It could be a hobby- and in that sense, that is what humans are “always doing”- in one form or another. Gossip [seeking and trading information] is what human do [a lot of], and is the only reason or the driving factor of why there are professional journalists.
          People want the professional help.

          Writing is an art, a writer is type of artist.
          Journalists are explorers or investigators.

          But none of this has much to do with the modern media, which are more like predators or scavengers. Quite similar to a drunken brawl.
          Of course people aren’t “a” anything [a writer or a journalist or an animal], but they can pursue a direction or have a meaning to life.

          Though in terms of modern media, you got to talk about editors and the producers of the news- but I don’t have much to say about that.

    • Svante says:

      A guy on the internet with a viral “fake news” story, what happened to your critical thinking Norman? I would like to see that one fact checked.

  10. gbaikie says:

    “I have no idea what I said that led the reporter to write: Spencer saidthe presence of Trump administration officials at the conference gave a boost to climate change deniers. Where did that come from?”

    Reporters mis-educated to make a story interesting by adding fictional aspects.

  11. m d mill says:

    We can calculate the sensitivity to CO2 doubling somewhat simply using the average linear change in global average UAH lower atmosphere temperatures since 1979, ie approx .5 C; and the co2 concentration change monitored during that same period ie 340 to 410 ppm. Assuming delta T is proportional to ln(concentration) [as every one seems to agree], then
    delta.T=k*[ln(410)-ln(340)] , so
    k=.5/[ln(410/340)]=.5/.187
    k=2.67
    So for doubling of CO2…
    delta.T=2.67*ln(2)
    delta.T=2.67*.693
    delta.T=1.85 degrees C per doubling of CO2 density

    This 1.85 C/doubling is inline with the results of Lewis/Curry, which is encouraging.

    However I still believe there is an underlying un-modeled natural cooling component during the last 100 years which makes this calculation too low.
    I am calculating 2.6+ C/doubling to be more likely.

    • DavidA says:

      m d mill says:
      We can calculate the sensitivity to CO2 doubling somewhat simply using the average linear change in global average UAH lower atmosphere temperatures since 1979

      No we can’t, unless you first subtract out the changes from (1) other GHGs, (2) aerosols, (3) brown carbon, (4) the Sun, (5) ENSOs, and more.

      • m d mill says:

        I said it was a simple calculation, not detailed.
        Please show me how the effects you mentioned change my result substantially. I do not think you can. Prove me wrong, but the burden now lies with you. You don’t seem to want to admit the models do not simulate the UAH data well over the last 40 years.

      • m d mill says:

        It occurs to me, the most important criticism you did not mention, which could indeed be significant, is the effect of deep ocean thermal capacitance. Since a significant temperature rate increase started around 1965, we have been in a ~55 year increase. Therefore my calculation (1.85) is more like the TSR than the ECS! (in fact the TSR would be somewhat larger than 1.85). The recent model average TSR is
        ~1.8C/CO2 doubling (see Eby et al 2013). Therefore the current models ARE in agreement with observed simply calculated TSR, and I have proved myself wrong (beat you to it). The modeled ECS, corresponding to TSR=1.8, is
        ~3C/doubling, so this ECS seems a consistent estimate based on the observed UAH data..at least to me…unless someone can prove another substantial omission.

        • JDHuffman says:

          m d mill, the “most important criticism” is that you are using a bogus equation. Start with garbage, and you end with garbage–GIGO.

          • m d mill says:

            show me the correct equation.
            describe what is incorrect, and why.
            I am open to correction.
            Until you do this what you say is not worth consideration.

            I simply want to know the truth, rationally arrived, regardless where it leads.

          • JDHuffman says:

            There is no “correct” equation because CO2 is NOT a heat source. It can NOT warm the planet.

          • m d mill says:

            If you perturb the resistance of a resistor in a simple voltage sourced circuit the current perturbation through the resistor responds as if the voltage source itself exhibited the perturbation. The calculation is the same. It can be theoretically viewed as a parameter perturbation OR a source perturbation. Your criticism on that score is invalid.

            If you however believe that CO2 does NOT effect the outward conductance of thermal radiative energy, given all the theoretical and experimental evidence to the contrary…well then have a nice life. There is no reason to continue this dialog.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            m,

            If you believe resistors or the atmosphere can accumulate or trap energy in any practical sense, you are mistaken.

            No magic one way insulators. No magic one way resistors in a simple circuit. Energy transmission is restricted equally in both directions.

            Time for you to shift the goalposts, and introduce another pointless and irrelevant analogy to support a GHE concept which you cannot even clearly annunciate!

            Oh, the wonders of climatological pseudoscience! Cooling is warming, anything can be anything else,
            and the GHE is so mysterious that it cannot be expressed in English!

            Time to deny, divert, and confuse, eh?

            Cheers.

          • Nate says:

            ” Energy transmission is restricted equally in both directions.”

            Argument by assertion, Mike. What evidence you got? None of course.

            Plenty of one-way insulators. no magic needed. Example: the window on my house.

            Science does seem like magic to those bad at science.

          • JDHuffman says:

            m d mill, Earth’s surface warms the atmosphere. Just as, in your circuit analogy, the energy from the source warms the resistor. I’m not aware of anyone that would disagree with that.

            The problem arises when the claim is made that the resistor will increase the voltage of the source.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Clown Nate believes windows only work in one direction!

          • Nate says:

            Never heard of passive solar heating?

            If you guys aren’t able to back up your BS comments with facts, then why are you here?

          • JDHuffman says:

            You mean “facts” like “one-way windows”?

            (What a clown!)

          • m d mill says:

            The co2 increase further restricts the long wave radiation which is coming (only) from the earths surface. There is very little coming from the space side of the insulator.
            Therefore it is the earth/surface side that responds with a temperature increase. The insulator is not “one-way”, but it is frequency dependent! This seems to be the key point you miss.

          • Nate says:

            Windows not ‘perfectly’ one-way insulators of course, just much better at transmitting visible light than IR and blocking heated air flow.

          • JDHuffman says:

            m d mill states: “Therefore it is the earth/surface side that responds with a temperature increase.”

            m d, you are unabashedly stating that the resistor can increase the voltage of the source.

            Just be aware that is blatant pseudoscience, my friend.

          • Nate says:

            m d “responds AS IF the voltage source itself exhibited the perturbation.”

            JD: “you are unabashedly stating that the resistor can increase the voltage of the source.”

            Proof positive that JD cannot read.

            And he twists peoples words to try to make them say things they obviously havent. Hes trying hard to get banned again.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Poor Nate can find nothing wrong with what I said. So, he has to make false accusations and mis-represent my words.

            His desperation just makes him that much more ineffective.

          • Bart says:

            Mike Flynn:

            “No magic one way insulators. No magic one way resistors in a simple circuit.”

            The simplest circuit I ever constructed was a crystal decoder for AM radio. Ever heard of a diode?

          • Nate says:

            JD “Poor Nate can find nothing wrong with what I said.”

            Maybe you’re not a native english speaker?

            Everybody who is understands that ‘as if’ means the thing that follows is not really happening.

            “He ran as if ghosts were chasing him.”

            While ‘unabashedly stating’ means the thing the follows is really true and happening.

            STATED: “set down explicitly” : “We declared our stated intention”

            Any other plain english phrases you need explained, JD?

          • JDHuffman says:

            Poor Nate can find nothing wrong with what I said. So, he has to make false accusations and mis-represent my words.

            His desperation just makes him that much more ineffective.

          • m d mill says:

            The co2 increase further restricts the long wave radiation which is coming (only) from the earths surface. There is very little coming from the space side of the insulator.
            Therefore it is the earth/surface side that responds with a temperature increase. The insulator is not “one-way”, but it is frequency dependent! This seems to be the key point you miss.

          • Nate says:

            JD,

            “Poor Nate can find nothing wrong with what I said.”

            Why do you bother even posting, when all you have to say is straight up bullshit?

    • Fritz Kraut says:

      m d mill says:
      August 10, 2018 at 4:26 PM

      We can calculate the sensitivity to CO2 doubling somewhat simply using the average linear change in global average UAH lower atmosphere temperatures since 1979, ie approx .5 C; and the co2 concentration change monitored during that same period ie 340 to 410 ppm.
      ________________________________________

      One problem is, we dont know the inertia of the global climatesystem. First of all because of the buffering effect of deep sea.
      If 410ppm would stay konstant-how long would warming go on?
      5 or 50 or 500 Years?

      • JDHuffman says:

        ZERO years, Fritz.

        Warming is NOT caused by CO2.

      • m d mill says:

        The ocean beneath the mix layer can be modeled as a simple distributed thermally capacitive/conductive system. Given this simplified but completely reasonable model the response is a theoretically strait forward calculation…it is not a mystery, and the TSR sensitivity is the result.

        The two parameters of this model can be estimated empirically from observed data. I have done so using two completely different methods and data types, and have calculated parameters that are identical to within 10%, which is extraordinary. Using these empirically derived parameters I have calculated the ECS/TSR ratio to be nearly identical to the value calculated by average of most model simulations, ie ~3/1.8=1.67 . Thus I consider the ECS/TSR ratio to be verified.

        To answer your question, the temperature response after 70 years to a linear change in CO2 forcing (which stops at some constant final value after 70 years) is ~.67 of the full final change…but requires hundreds of years to get much above the .9 of full final (due to the distributed nature of the system).

        There may be no reason you should believe me (because I cannot present the details here), but these are my results, sincerely presented to you here, which I hope to publish in years to come.

        • m d mill says:

          Excuse me, I should have said “~.6 of the full final change”
          NOT “~.67 of the full final change”,
          ie .6=(3/1.8) .

        • Bart says:

          Did other people not think of this because it is so esoteric and you are a genius?

          • m d mill says:

            Others may have used the same methods …i don’t know.
            I do not have a particluarily high I.Q., but i work hard and am open to correction.

            The fact that my TWO independantly calculated ECS/TSR ratios(based soley on observation) are nearly identical to the value calculated by the average of most model simulations (ie ~3/1.8=1.67) is encouraging.

            And I have found another error. I started this thread stating the ECS to be 1.85, based on admittedly simplifying assumptions. Then altered that to say it was more likely the TSR, and the ECS would then be about 3.0 .
            But I have misapplied the TRS definition to the UAH data (ie the temperature change from 1979 to the present, whereas the large increases in CO2 started aboout 1965)
            I now see that the value of 1.85 c/doubling is somewhere between the TSR and the ECS value (because the largest temperature lag occurs in the first ~30 years)
            I can figure this more precisely ,but it will take some time.

          • m d mill says:

            I have reviewed my plots of forcing response of the deep ocean to a sudden linear forcing (using a simple distributed capacitance/conductance model). If we approximate the CO2 forcing between between 1960 to 2018 as a sudden linear function, then the temperature change between 1979 and 2018 will be about 0.72 of the value for a similar system without any deep ocean and mix layer thermal capacitance.

            Therefore the estimated ECS for the sensitivity calculation (using UAH temperature data) given at the beginning of this thread would be

            ECS=1.85/.72 = 2.57 C/doubling CO2

            This does assume other sources of forcing variation during that time are insignificant.

            [it is interesting to me that this value is nearly identical to the “most likely” value I have calculated using other completely independent methods that filter out all interfering low frequency forcing trends]

  12. DavidA says:

    Roy wrote:
    If such censorship and search engine down-ranking is implemented, will they do the same for the recent “hothouse Earth” claims, which are little more than speculative sci-fi climate porn

    You’ll have to do better than that. This was a serious paper in a quality journal.

  13. Eben says:

    Welcome to Bizarro World – where politicians write the news – and the reporters engage in politics

  14. Rob Mitchell says:

    NOAA reduced the number hurricanes expected this year. Rush Limbaugh was how I first found out about it yesterday. That should tell you something about the news media!

  15. Rob Mitchell says:

    For Dr. David A. and those who think like him.

    http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/noaa-forecasters-lower-atlantic-hurricane-season-prediction

    Something tells me the global warming fanatics are brooding over this.

    • DavidA says:

      I already gave that link.

      Why did you imply that no media were reporting on it?

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Why do you ask?

        Cheers.

        • Rob Mitchell says:

          Mike, I never heard/saw any news media reports from radio or TV about the revised prediction downward, did you?

          DavidA, I don’t listen to Rush all day! Only in my car, and that is how I found out about it. It doesn’t fit the mainstream news media narrative, so they don’t report it.

          • David Appell says:

            Rob Mitchell says:
            DavidA, I dont listen to Rush all day! Only in my car, and that is how I found out about it. It doesnt fit the mainstream news media narrative, so they dont report it.

            I just *gave* you a link to all the news stories about it, yet you still deny this. Incredible.

            How do you think Limbaugh found out about it — from the media!

            Wake up.

      • Steve says:

        Did it make the headlines on CNN? Did it make the headlines at the NY Times or the LA Times? Of course it didn’t. If it was mentioned at all, it would be buried on page 40. If the NOAA released a report that said that hurricanes will increase, it would have been front page, top of the fold at those papers and top of the hour every hour on CNN and they would have blamed MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING?

        Do you get it now?

        • Rob Mitchell says:

          Thank you, Steve. That was exactly what I was trying to get through to DavidA’s dense skull!

          But he just spins the issue that Limbaugh got it from the mainstream news. And I was listening to Rush Limbaugh all day, and that is why I got the new from Rush instead of the mainstream news.

          This is a typical liberal-socialist-progressive tactic of deception.

  16. M d mill says:

    I said it was a simple calculation, not detailed.
    Please show me how the effects you mentioned change my result substantially. I do not think you can. Prove me wrong, but the burden now lies with you. You don’t seem to want to admit the models do not simulate the UAH data well over the last 40 years.

  17. CraigT says:

    I don’t think Reuters is responsible for the headline. The same Reuters story ran on Foxreuter.com with the headline “United Nations puts out fake science about climate change to control the global energy market.”

    • Mike Flynn says:

      C,

      You might be right, but who said Reuters was responsible? What’s the point of making something up, and then pointing out that you’re wrong?

      The article was credited as follows –

      “Thomson Reuters Posted: Aug 09, 2018 4:01 PM ET | Last Updated: August 10”

      Editors write headlines to go with supplied copy, framing the view as they wish. The copy is provided by so-called journalists, often based on their personal views of good and evil.

      For example, the paragraph “Pumping carbon dioxide into the air makes the planet greener; the United Nations puts out fake science about climate change to control the global energy market; and wind and solar energy are simply “dumb.”” may be factually correct, but presented in such a way as to imply that it is false.

      Emotive descriptions slanted one way or the other do not change physics one bit. Attempting to rally the stupid and ignorant to take up their pitchforks and torches to hunt down GHE unbelievers is pointless in the long run. Just more futile attempts to promote GHE worship – an invisible deity with awesome powers, obviously. Shiva, destroyer of worlds, has nothing on GHE, destroyer of rationality and scientific enquiry.

      Off you go, Craig. Work yourself into a righteous lather of self importance. Thrash around aimlessly, blaming mythical “deniers” for your impotence. See, that made you feel better, didn’t it?

      Cheers.

  18. Ken says:

    The alarmist claim is that we will see anywhere from 1 to 6 meters of sea level rise by 2050 or 2100 (both numbers depend on the alarmist)

    It doesn’t take much to look at a few long record tide gauges to find the average rate of sea level rise is 1 or 2 mm per year (3 mm per year if you believe the satellite data is somehow better) Even if you accept the 3 mm per year ‘data’ it still adds up to anywhere between 10 – 30 cm per century … certainly not 1 meter by 2100, never mind 2050.

    Then I looked at temperatures Antarctic and Greenland -40C and -10C. My understanding is that ice doesn’t melt at atmosphere pressure at temperatures below 0C and not much even at 10C …

    So that’s two strikes on the sea level alarmism.

    How does anyone still believe the AGW hypothesis has any merit?

    • CraigT says:

      “Winds from the south and high air pressure over Iceland caused a spike in melt area in early July. To date, heavy winter snowfall along the eastern side of the island and a near-average melt season means that the ice sheet has gained a large amount of mass. However if the melting intensifies, ice sheet mass could rapidly decline in the second half of the month.”

      There has been some mass gain to the Greenland glacier but the melt extent is higher than average this year.

      http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
      click on the “Melt” tab.

    • CraigT says:

      The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment ran from 2002 – 2017 collecting satellite data on Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets. Both were found to be losing mass throughout the experiment.
      https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/

    • Fritz Kraut says:

      Ken says:
      August 10, 2018 at 9:50 PM
      The alarmist claim is that we will see anywhere from 1 to 6 meters of sea level rise by 2050 or 2100
      _____________________________________________-

      I dont know what ‘alarmists’ claim (I even dont know one of them), but IPCC projects 70-100cm until 2100. Compared to pre-industrial level.
      And that seems realistic.
      Trend since 1993 is 3.3mm, and rise is accelerating.

        • Fritz Kraut says:

          @Bart
          Jevrejeva says it is accelerating:

          Trends and acceleration in global and regional sea levels since 1807

          “We calculate an acceleration of 0.02 ± 0.01 mm·yr− 2 in global sea level (1807–2009)”

          He also says:
          “There is a good agreement between the rate of sea level rise (3.2 ± 0.4 mm·yr− 1) calculated from satellite altimetry and the rate of 3.1 ± 0.6 mm·yr− 1 from tide gauge based reconstruction for the overlapping time period”

    • Fritz Kraut says:

      Ken says:
      August 10, 2018 at 9:50 PM

      Then I looked at temperatures Antarctic and Greenland -40C and -10C. My understanding is that ice doesnt melt at atmosphere pressure at temperatures below 0C
      ___________________________________________

      Your understanding is …. limited.
      Even the lowest AVERAGE-Temperature cant prevent ice melting.

      • Bart says:

        Sublimation and melting are two different things. And, if it weren’t, then we might as well party, because nothing can stop it from melting.

        • Fritz Kraut says:

          Bart says:
          Sublimation and melting are two different things.
          ___________________________________________________

          Of course. But thats not the point.
          Temperature and AVERAGE temperature are different things.

          You can even boil eggs in water of an AVERAGE temperature of -40C. It just has to be over 100 for a few minutes.

  19. Nate says:

    Ken,

    “Then I looked at temperatures Antarctic and Greenland -40C and -10C.”

    Parts of Greenland are above 0C this time of year, and the daily melting is tracked and shows more melting than in the past.

  20. gbaikie says:

    Its Easier to Leave the Solar System Than to Reach the Sun
    [[The center of the solar system is a tricky destination, but NASA is going.]]

    “In a very short time, we human beings have seeded our corner of the universe with all kinds of signs of our existence. We have flung hundreds of satellites into the sky, cloaking the Earth in technology. We sent spacecraft to swing by planets and moons, to orbit them, to roam their surfaces. A few years ago, we reached the invisible line between the end of our solar system and the beginning of everything else, and then pierced it, hurtling into the darkness beyond.
    This last achievement, humanitys escape from the solar system, was certainly astonishing, a testament to human ingenuity and engineering. But it was much easier than what were trying to do next.”…

    ” Im always amused when someone says, Shoot X or so-and-so into the sun, says Rand Simberg, a space consultant and an engineer. Because they have no idea how hard that is to do. ”
    https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/08/parker-solar-probe-launch-nasa/567197/

    Linked from:
    http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=71153

  21. gbaikie says:

    Suppose by year, 2050 AD, global CO2 levels are around 475 ppm.

    And if you think rising CO2 levels cause global warming how much would think that level of CO2 have warmed the world since the time of around middle 20th century when there was about 300 ppm?

    And suppose that at 2050 AD and in some fashion or another that CO2 do not increase any further and remain at about 475 ppm for next 200 years.
    Would having CO2 levels remain at 476 ppm for two century cause more additional increases to global temperatures?

    If so, then how much per century do you think having CO2 at 475 ppm would increase global temperatures?

    I imagine some could provide some kind of approximate range of temperatures, which they expect to occur.
    But another aspect is I have never had any answers in regard to possible difference expected in increase in temperatures of global land vs ocean surface temperatures.

    As I said on numerous occasions, global average land temperature is currently about 10 C and global average ocean temperature is about 17 C.

    So if you supposed global average temperature were to increase by 2 C due to increasing CO2 levels, would both the land and ocean surface temperature increase by 2 C?

    Average land would increase from 10 to 12 C and ocean from 17 C to 19 C?

    Or would one expect global land temperature to increase more than global ocean surface temperature?
    For example, land average temperature increase by 4 C and global average ocean surface temperatures increase by 1 C.

    There seems to me there could be numerous possible reasons why one could expect more of an increase in global land temperature as compare to surface ocean temperature.

    • David Appell says:

      delta(T) = (CO2’s climate sensitivity)*delta(forcing)

      delta(CO2’s forcing) = alpha*ln(CO2/CO2_initial)

      where

      alpha = 5.35 W/m2

      This is basic stuff that, if you are going to opine about CO2, you should know already.

      • JDHuffman says:

        It is “basic”–basically wrong.

      • gbaikie says:

        “alpha = 5.35 W/m2

        This is basic stuff that, if you are going to opine about CO2, you should know already”

        What practice value is connected with it?
        Why not simply answer my question using your basic stuff.
        If it doesn’t answer it- why mention it?
        And what could possibly tell you if it has nothing to do with global temperature?

  22. Compared to last month, the updated (June-July) MEI dropped rapidly to +0.07, ending up right in the middle of ENSO-neutral ranking. This means that not a single season has reached El Niño conditions in 2018. Looking at the nearest 12 rankings (+6/-6) in this season, and excluding all cases that departed by more than 0.6 standard deviations in the changes from the previous month as well as three months earlier (March-April), there are only four analogues to the situation this season: 1985, ’00, ’01, and ’08. All four of these cases either continued with ENSO-neutral conditions (2001) or dropped into at least intermittent La Niña conditions (especially in 2008, but also in 2000, and very briefly in 1985). Even among the other eight cases, El Niño was ‘not on the menu’ (2003 came closest). Compared to last month, the likelihood of El Niño conditions later this year has changed dramatically (from “inevitable” to “very unlikely”).

  23. and to add the overall sea surface temperatures are in a down trend.

  24. Darwin Wyatt says:

    I also agree most warming can be human caused. I think the correlation between Uhi is clear. That along w deforestation, water vapor from internal combustion engines and human caused albedo changes all contribute. But it’s also clear natural climate variability is the overwhelming factor with CO2 being a minor player if at all. The tendency for some alarmists on upward trends albeit natural, to politicize is obvious. The same can be said on downward trends, if somewhat less hysterically, by skeptics. I’m guilty of that but mostly because I know the big freeze is literally around the corner, geologically speaking. Meanwhile, the science is somewhat settled on oceans absorbing and releasing CO2 based on cooling or warming completely unrelated to an as of yet trace trace gas (anthropogenic CO2). The alarmist position died with the lack of significant temperature rise in relation to said anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It’s over as far as I’m concerned. Most people get this which explains the panic over gw subsiding. It’s over we’ve won! Eternal vigilance is still necessary to keep the would be collectivists at bay. Liberty 1, communists 0.

    • Nate says:

      “But its also clear natural climate variability is the overwhelming factor with CO2 being a minor player if at all.”

      Its clear? How can it be clear, when scientists who have looked at all the evidence, come to the opposite conclusion?

  25. CraigT says:

    But Darwin the oceans are becoming more acidic from an increased level of dissolved CO2 while the Earth warms.

    • Carbon500 says:

      CraigT: ‘ the oceans are becoming more acidic from an increased level of dissolved CO2 while the Earth warms.’
      The oceans are acidic, and becoming more so? Really?

      • CraigT says:

        Atmospheric CO2 has a higher C^13 to C^12 ratio than the carbon in fossil fuels. Studies show the C^13/C^12 ratio of CO2 both in the atmosphere and oceans are dropping over time as fossil fuel exhaust is added to the environment.
        https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bronte_Tilbrook/publication/6037061_Oceanic_Uptake_of_Fossil_Fuel_CO2_Carbon-13_Evidence/links/0deec526eeff549cc3000000/Oceanic-Uptake-of-Fossil-Fuel-CO2-Carbon-13-Evidence.pdf

        • JDHuffman says:

          Craig, you are WAY behind on your pseudoscience. That silliness is over 25 years old. Ocean acidification has been debunked for years.

          • David Appell says:

            JDHuffman says:
            Ocean acidification has been debunked for years.

            There is idiocy out there, but only at this site do you find it in such raw, unfiltered form.

            “Ocean acidification” (review)
            Phillip Williamsona, Carol Turleyb and Clare Ostlec
            MARINE CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS PARTNERSHIP: SCIENCE REVIEW
            2017
            doi:10.14465/2017.arc10.001-oac
            http://www.mccip.org.uk/media/1760/2017arc_sciencereview_001_oac.pdf

            See especially figure 2.

          • JDHuffman says:

            DA, obviously it is the idiocy you display, both in your links to pseudoscience and your physics.

            As Mike Flynn likes to advise, “Carry on”.

        • Nate says:

          What an idiot you are, JD!

          Isotopic ratio has nothing to do with acidification.

          Yet you splain physics to people with physics degrees!

          • JDHuffman says:

            Obviously poor Nate did not understand the connection between the two links.

            But, poor Nate seldom understands anything….

          • CraigT says:

            As awkward as it is to defend JD, I think he was addressing my first post on ocean acidification not the second on oceans absorbing CO2 released from fossil fuels.

            I’m not sure if the entire concept of pH is considered a pseudoscience by JD but field data shows 40 years of increases in dissolved CO2 and dropping pH in oceans around the globe.
            https://tos.org/oceanography/assets/docs/27-1_bates.pdf

          • Carbon500 says:

            The first use of the term ‘ocean acidification’ was in a paper by Ken Caldeira and Michael E. Wickett (Nature, vol 425, p365 in September 2003.
            This came from from America, of course – where all the good global warming scares began.
            Then there’s this from (of all people!) the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) in their bulletin from 2015 (Vol 64, 1) where they claim that ‘anthropogenic CO2 reacts with water to form an acid’ – when referring to a buffered ocean! This has to be deliberately misleading, or written by an incompetent.
            The WMO then refer to ocean pH measurements during the previous 10 years, and say ‘while ocean surface pH has decreased during the period of observations at an average rate of -0.0013 per year to -0.0024 per year, depending on the location.’
            Let’s hope that they calibrate and check their meters at least daily if they claim to be able to measure such tiny pH changes.
            During my many years spent in medical laboratory science, pH measurements to two decimal places were the norm across all the assay systems in use. Making up buffer solutions was a way of life. Once the chemicals had been weighed as needed, mixed and dissolved in de-ionised water, it was customary to adjust the pH at the temperature of the room in which the buffer was to be used. To adjust the pH down, strong acid was added, and vice versa. We wouldn’t have dreamed of using such an idiotic phrase as ‘acidifying’ an alkaline buffer – the process was simply referred to as ‘adjusting the pH’.
            The whole point of a buffer is that it resists changes in pH. The scaremongers are claiming that there’s so much CO2 in the air that the oceans of the world are having their buffer systems overwhelmed by the addition of a few parts per million of CO2. Really? Where’s the bench laboratory experiment for proof of principle? This would be easy to show. Set up a sealed chamber with seawater in it, and add a few ppm of CO2 to the air above. Mix well, and then let’s see what happens – or not. If this hasn’t been done as a proof of principle, then why not? Care would need to be taken regarding the presence of micro-organisms in the seawater because of metabolic products.
            Rainwater is a weak acid (H2CO3) – i.e. it only partly ionises to yield protons (H+). and has a pH of about 5.3. Rain has been hitting our seas since time immemorial, and we’re still here.
            Never mind, these trivial claimed changes make for good scary science and some grant money, don’t they?

          • Nate says:

            Ok. I was too hasty hitting the ‘JD is an idiot’ button this time. My apologies.

          • Nate says:

            Carbon,

            “pH measurements to two decimal places were the norm across all the assay systems in use. Making up buffer solutions was a way of life. ”
            The pH of the global ocean is an AVERAGE of presumably thousands of measurements. As such, it can have a much smaller error than any single measurement.

            Just as the birthrate per woman this year is 1.76 babies is an average, though the individual measurements of babies are integers.

  26. Stevek says:

    The problem the media has today is the internet.

    They simply can no longer go out and tell lies without someone calling them out on internet. The playing field real has changed. They can adjust or die a slow death.

  27. GC says:

    CraigT,

    No, lets test your physically incomplete understanding of the relevance of TSI at TOA vs GASTA.

    You make the specifically unstated claim via suggestion that as TSI at TOA has reduced (approx 0.5 watts/m^2 equating to 1/2720th of TSI – no error bars considered) over the instrumental satellite record (1979) the increase in surface temperature (aggregated ocean and land surface – both without error bars) rules out downwelling incident Solar radiation as the cause of the increase in surface temperature (without error bars).

    However, when one takes into account the observed reduction in low level Cumulus cloud cover over the corresponding time frame (from 1982 when ISCCP satellite observations began) it is easy to see that an increase in downwelling incident Solar radiation penetrating to the surface from TOA far offsets the deceease in TSI at TOA.

    When one investigates the empirically observed ISCCP data further, and determines that the low level Cumulus cloud reduction since 1983 has had its largest reductions at the equatorial latitudes dominated by ocean water, one can easily determine that not only has downwelling incident Solar radiation flux increased at the surface since 1983 from an essentially unchanged TSI at TOA, but that increase in downwelling incident Solar radiation at the surface has largely taken place over ocean water at equatorial latitudes, increasing ocean heat content.

    Further, when one does a few basic calculations based upon the Trenberth energy budget, one can easily determine that the increase in GASTA and ocean heat continent is entirely attributable to the increase in downwelling incident Solar radiation at thesurface secondary to the reduction in low level Cumulus cloud.

  28. CraigT says:

    See my response to your meme-like regurgitated understanding of this topic by reading my post in the main thread of this article post thread below. I have tried to reply to your specific post immediately above with the relevant reply (posted in the main thread of this article post thread below), however my attempts to post into this specific sub thread have failed.

  29. GC says:

    The post immediately above is mine and was directed at CraigT but was posted by me inadvertantly using the screen name CraigT in error when I was rather wanting to initiate the post with @CraigT.

  30. GC says:

    @CraigT

    August 11, 2018
    A lot of people here have said CO2 cant be causing the warming because global temperatures go up and down while CO2 slowly rises. Lets test solar activity the same way.
    The graph at the link shows the total solar irradiance, cosmic ray count from Oulu and UAH TLT global anomaly for 1979 to July 2018. Solar activity ebbs and peaks with the roughly 11 year solar cycle. There is no rise and fall in temperature that matches that pattern.
    More important, over that time temperature has a warming trend while solar activity has a falling trend. Total solar irradiance is less over time and the cosmic ray count increases.
    https://i.imgur.com/RPc0mnZ.jpg

    CraigT,
    No, lets test your physically incomplete understanding of the relevance of TSI at TOA vs GASTA.
    You make the specifically unstated claim via suggestion that as TSI at TOA has reduced (approx 0.5 watts/m^2 equating to 1/2720th of TSI no error bars considered) over the instrumental satellite record (1979) the increase in surface temperature (aggregated ocean and land surface both without error bars) rules out downwelling incident Solar radiation as the cause of the increase in surface temperature (without error bars).
    However, when one takes into account the observed reduction in low level Cumulus cloud cover over the corresponding time frame (from 1982 when ISCCP satellite observations began) it is easy to see that an increase in downwelling incident Solar radiation penetrating to the surface from TOA far offsets the deceease in TSI at TOA.
    When one investigates the empirically observed ISCCP data further, and determines that the low level Cumulus cloud reduction since 1983 has had its largest reductions at the equatorial latitudes dominated by ocean water, one can easily determine that not only has downwelling incident Solar radiation flux increased at the surface since 1983 from an essentially unchanged TSI at TOA, but that increase in downwelling incident Solar radiation at the surface has largely taken place over ocean water at equatorial latitudes, increasing ocean heat content.
    Further, when one does a few basic calculations based upon the Trenberth energy budget, one can easily determine that the increase in GASTA and ocean heat continent is entirely attributable to the increase in downwelling incident Solar radiation at thesurface secondary to the reduction in low level Cumulus cloud.

    • CraigT says:

      Ren claimed “The climate is changing because solar activity and the geomagnetic field are changing in long limits.” Nothing you wrote applies to his post. Without worrying about exact rates or error bars the rising trend in cosmic rays reinforces the general point that total solar irradiance is dropping. Several posters here are betting on global cooling based on changes in TSI. Solar activity is unlikely to be the cause of warming 1979 to present.

      Can you link to the data that shows a reduction in low cumulus clouds?

      • Mike Flynn says:

        C,

        Can you post the description of the mythical GHE?

        Or even the mythical disprovable GHE hypothesis which purports to explain the aforementioned non-existent GHE?

        No? I thought not – climatological pseudoscience is based on unquestioning faith. So unquestioning that you can’t even say what it is that you are required to believe!

        Give it a try if you wish. Maybe you could draw more of the stupid, ignorant, and mentally deranged into your diminishing fold. I wish you well. Only joking.

        Cheers.

        • CraigT says:

          Let’s go old school:

          HEAT TRANSFER BY INFRARED RADIATION IN THE ATMOSPHERE
          By WALTER M. ELSASSER
          1942

          https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015002007907;view=1up;seq=7

          • Mike Flynn says:

            C,

            If you appeal to authority, it is generally more useful to use an authority which supports your point of view, rather than your opponent’s.

            I merely point out that –

            1. Your reference is not a description of the GHE, and does not even appear to contain one.

            2. Your reference’s author declares that the ideas of Arrhenius in relation to the effect of CO2 on surface temperature have been shown to be untenable.

            If you actually read the paper, it is obvious that your comprehension skills are sorely lacking.
            There are some instances where various assumptions made by the author have also been shown to be incorrect, but this is not surprising given that more than seventy five years have passed since the publication of the paper.

            Do you wish to appear less ignorant and stupid next time, or is your motto “Backward and downward”? You could always have a stab at a GHE description yourself. How hard can it be?

            Cheers,

          • David Appell says:

            Re: Elsasser

            “Before the advent of numerical models of radiative transfer that included the detailed infrared spectrum of CO2 and water vapor, meteorologists used a simplified atmospheric radiation chart and tables developed by Walter M. Elsasser in 1942 and Arent Bruinenberg in 1946. The Elsasser Chart assumed that CO2 was a perfect black body absorber at all altitudes, but only for wavelengths between 13.1 and 16.9 microns. Other simplifying assumptions were made for water vapor.

            “Plass used his more sophisticated theory to warn that accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources could become a serious problem in the near future….”

            – Historical Perspectives on Climate Change, James Rodger Fleming (2005) p 122.
            https://tinyurl.com/y9bkpsuo

          • CraigT says:

            The paper explains and studies data on radiant energy from the atmosphere slowing the cooling of the planet.

            “In the atmosphere there are two radiating substances, water vapor and carbon dioxide. In Fig. 5 this black body flux of temperature To, which might be taken as the emission of the ground, is given by the triangular area (a) +(b). The net flux (which is the net loss of heat at the ground) is equal to the difference of the upward and downward flux and is represented by the area (b).”

            That is how I, Dr. Spencer and physicists for 3/4 of a century have explained the greenhouse effect. There are a lot of things in that 1940 paper that no longer match what we know about the greenhouse effect because of data being gathered and scientists arguing about its meaning.

            But I suppose it might come down to an appeal to authority. You say nothing in that paper could be true because it violates the second law of thermodynamics. Do I believe you or all the physicists like Elsasser who performed radiative energy transfer studies in the lab and saw no violation. Either that group lacked a basic understanding of thermodynamics or you and JD are wrong.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            C,

            A few points.

            Slow cooling is still cooling, isn’t it?

            You claim I said things which I didn’t.

            The paper is not a description of the GHE, nor does it contain one.

            It does not matter who supposedly “explains” something that does not exist!

            You may believe whatever you wish. It still doesn’t make fantasy become fact.

            Notwithstanding any of the above, are you disagreeing with anything I said, or are you just flying off at a tangent because you can’t provide any facts to support your disagreement?

            Complaining based on assertion makes you appear stupid and ignorant. Is this because you are stupid and ignorant, or are you just pretending?

            Cheers.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            Are you disagreeing with something I wrote, or just whining for no good reason at all?

            Keep trolling.

            Cheers.

  31. GC says:

    @CraigT

    Keep in mind the below link incorporates other data and the graph displays TOTAL (all latitudes) average reduction globally.

    The latitude breakdown for low level clouds between 15N 15S is approx 6-8% reduction with a 2% rebound in 2001 stable since 2001 at 4-6% down relative to 1983 levels between 15N 15S.

    Ill find the links on my HDD for the more explicitly differentiated data by latitude.

    https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Low-level-cloud-cover-estimated-from-ISCCP-and-MODIS-adapted-from-Laken-et-al_fig3_287209825

    • CraigT says:

      That was an interesting paper:
      “In conclusion, there is no compelling evidence to support a wide-spread cosmic ray cloud connection, as outlined in Cosmoclimatology. I.e. there is no basis to the claims that solar activity, via a modulation of the cosmic ray flux, is able to significantly alter global cloud cover, nor explain recent global warming.”
      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287209825/download

  32. Aaron S says:

    The left strategy is simple. One they create a trait like: racist, sexist, climate change denier, or nationalist using a fuzzy definition that can be changed depending on context. Then two they create a precedent of social consequences using extreme examples that are valid examples of flawed logic, socially negative behaviour, or even evil. This makes a “power word” that can have significant consequences. Then three, they apply the trait and ‘power words’ to examples that do not fit within the original definition. It is a straw man informal fallacy in essence. In this case, calling Roy Spensor a climate change denier for being a climate model sceptic is a straw man. The media are assigning a position that he never took. I believe this is a big part why fake news trend and media credibility was lost. There are irrational consequences for pointing out empirical facts and all someone has to do is use a power word and there can be real life damage to a person in society. I just hope that the James Damore case with google eventually provides protection against these irrational consequences. How great if you could get 10,000 USD for media slander for this clear example of fake news? In court they could not prove you deny climate change because you have a long precedent as a luke warmist.

    • David Appell says:

      You’re the worst kind of commenter. You have no facts to present, but just rant and rave that the left this and the media that and look how liberals have ruined your poor life.

      The word “denier” was invented to describe people exactly like you.

      (Yes, you.)

  33. Aaron S says:

    Craig T,

    Yet here is is empirical data showing the opposite.

    http://www.nature.com/articles/srep05159

  34. Aaron S says:

    I can not reply to posts. This sucks.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287209825/download

    This paper has a mountain of evidence against it. Including the CERN work that definitively showed the opposite. Seems a case of someone pick and choosing within their biased dogmatic worldview.

    • CraigT says:

      The researchgate paper only addresses the correlation between cloud cover and cosmic rays from 1985 to 2010. There was rough correlation between 1985 – 2000 but after that the two move in opposite directions. Unless you have a possible reason why that would happen the finding is a mark against the cosmic ray – cloud connection.

      Your nature and PNAS papers show good correlation between cosmic rays and temperature on the geological scale. Higher cosmic rays go with lower solar irradiance so it’s hard to say if temperatures changed because of change in cloud cover.

      Note what the PNAS paper said: “Though generally the
      agreement between solar forcing and Asian climate is good, there
      are also periods without any coherence, pointing to other forcings
      like volcanoes and greenhouse gases and their corresponding feedbacks.” Even if increased cosmic rays lead to more clouds it doesn’t eliminate other forcings. For the past 40 years the cosmic ray and temperature trend has both been upwards.

  35. Aaron S says:

    Using a 2015 paper. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287209825/download

    To go against more recent papers

    1. Svensmark.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2

    2. CERN.

    Cloud chamber aerosol-cloud albedo
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7604/full/nature17953.html

    3.
    Donnge cave asian monsoon
    http://www.nature.com/articles/srep05159

    3b.
    Pnas 9400 yr cosmic ray record correlated with asian monsoon
    http://m.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967.full

    This is basicall a case of Dunning Kruger and I am not trying to be critical because I do appreciate that Craig T used an actual citation, but it got crushed later. For the record there is a counter model based paper that suggests cosmic rays stopped working durning modern times because of industrial pollution.

  36. GC says:

    I dont subscribe to the cosmic ray flux theory of cloud modation. There simply is not enough evidence, be it chemical or biological.
    The point of the matter is however, is that the EMPIRICAL observations of low level Cumulus reductions completely undermines the CO2 theory of surface warming when viewed in conjunction with the LT satellite data, which clearly shows that the mechanism as spelt out by the CO2 theory is not causing the warming in the surface datasets. The step change temperature anomly increase in the LT satellite data shows thats not CO2 but strong El Ninos with weaker LaNinas due the increased energy in the upper oceans above the thermochline secondary to the increase in downwelling incident Solar short wave secondary to the decrease in low level Cu
    Ulus over equatorial latitudes. Theres absolutely zero evidence that the warming at the surface caused reduction cloud cover and not the intuitive and far more obvious order of occurance tgat reduced cumulus cloud caused the increase in temperature anomoly at the surface.

    The fact is, clouds are not understood. But what is understood is that increased Solar Short Wave at the surface secondaey ro decreased low level Cumulus cloud cover at the most sensitive latitudes to year round Solar flux – being the equatorial latitudes – dwarfs into insignificance the THEORISED increase in downwelling long wave radiation secondary to CO2.

    In short, the warming at the surface and the increase in ocean heat content is as a result of a clearer path to the surface for Solar radiation from an essentially unchanged TSI at TOA.

    • ren says:

      You make a big mistake by not appreciating the role of the stratosphere in climate change. The increase in GCR causes an increase in ionization in the lower stratosphere, depending on the geomagnetic field. This leads to a local temperature increase in the lower stratosphere at high latitudes. It will increase stratospheric intrusions in winter and spring periods.
      “Stratospheric Intrusions are when stratospheric air dynamically decends into the troposphere and may reach the surface, bringing with it high concentrations of ozone which may be harmful to some people. Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low tropopause heights, low heights of the 2 potential vorticity unit (PVU) surface, very low relative and specific humidity concentrations, and high concentrations of ozone. Stratospheric Intrusions commonly follow strong cold fronts and can extend across multiple states. In satellite imagery, Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low moisture levels in the water vapor channels (6.2, 6.5, and 6.9 micron). Along with the dry air, Stratospheric Intrusions bring high amounts of ozone into the tropospheric column and possibly near the surface. This may be harmful to some people with breathing impairments. Stratospheric Intrusions are more common in the winter/spring months and are more frequent during La Nina periods. Frequent or sustained occurances of Stratospheric Intrusions may decrease the air quality enough to exceed EPA guidelines.”
      http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zu_sh.gif

  37. Bob Tisdale says:

    Roy, you wrote, “This is what passes for responsible journalism today?”

    But isn’t “responsible journalism” an oxymoron nowadays?

    Cheers.

    Bob

  38. Ren you have it correct and I see some do not understand that the global temperature response due to solar activity should have been and was up until 2005.

    Only after 2005 did solar activity become low enough to start to have a cooling impact on the climate but lag times have to be included of 10+ years and thereafter a period of very low average solar parameters has to take place which started in late 2017.

    As one can see the overall sea surface temperatures are off some .2c over the last year and the global temperatures will follow.

  39. There is a galactic cosmic ray cloud/explosive volcanic eruption connection just as there is a UV light intensity /overall sea surface temperature connection.

    We will be finding out now- next few years as the low solar conditions necessary to have a more apparent climate connection are now here.

    Threshold levels are out there meaning you can have items increase/decrease but if they do not reach the threshold the effects are minimal.

    With solar conditions now as they are perhaps some threshold levels will be met.

  40. I have called for global cooling as early as 2010 or 2011 which did not pan.

    The earlier calls were wrong because they were based on a continuation of very low average value solar parameters and not enough years of sub – solar activity in general were present. I did not realize the coming of solar cycle 24 maximum, which although weak was strong enough to put on hold the solar/climate cooling connection.

    This time however is now the first time since the Dalton solar minimum ended, that the solar conditions are in. Also this time(now-next few years) if cooling does not take place , I can not use the excuse that the solar conditions I expected needed for cooling did not materialize.

    So if cooling does not take place now-next few years that will be bad for my theory. On the other hand if no further warming takes place over the next few years, then by the same token that will not look good for AGW theory.

    The climate test in on and I think this year is the transitional year. Only time will tell.

  41. Aaron S says:

    Salvatore. The complexity is if solar and CO2 both have forcing. Then it is a game of rates.

  42. gbaikie says:

    If you ever wondered what a Ice Age looks like, then you should look outside.

    We are in an Ice Age and we have some who think Earth could become like Venus any day now.

    The hoping for the Venus, is something which some day could be realized, because one could travel to Venus.

    Venus may become a hot tourist destination sometime within 100 years.
    If you want to visit another planet, Venus is the closest.

    Venus has lots of sky, so as, to put sky cities in. And one of things you might want to see, is when and where it snows CO2 on Venus. Though skiing the CO2 snow on Venus, could be rather fantastic [not going to happen too soon- Ie, it’s a very daunting plan]. And seems skiing on Mars might be more realistic or practical.

    No one knows much about Venus, but it seems likely the terminator line of night and day could be a good place to witness as a tourist.
    It’s probably quite violent- and if no one getting injured too much, then it’s fun.

    What is knowable about Venus is it in a pretty good location in our solar system- in regards of being in a orbit of Venus.

    One travels about our solar system by using hohmann transfers, which roughly speaking to the longest path to somewhere but requires the least amount rocket power to get to that somewhere. And one could say that Venus is location with a short pathway in terms of distance to getting somewhere- like Earth, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, etc.
    But also, Venus atmosphere could made into a tourist destination.

    What is happening now, is we in a long term growth rate of the global satellite market- and could call this a space market.

    And when this space market grows much, much, bigger in the future, we will probably be doing things like having tourists going to Venus.

    I and many others [including US Congress in terms of passing laws to that effect] think it would good idea to explore the Moon and then explore Mars.
    How this is done, is the difficult thing in terms of finding much agreement.
    And it seems to me, that it’s unlikely I will happy with how it will be done- not too happy about how it’s been done so far, and I expect that this will continue.
    Meanwhile and almost on different topic, we have billionaires doing things like making rockets- Ie SpaceX and Blue Origin.
    I can’t say I have had much faith in billionaires, and I am constantly surprised by their crazy desires [and more importantly, that they are actually getting things done].
    Trump and his Space Force thing- is likewise surprising.

    So we living in an Ice Age and lots of people are worried about it getting a bit warmer.

    That is pretty amazing.

    Stupid, but still, it is quite amazing. An amazing skill- sort of like, juggling 7 balls and an elephant.

    Now, one could say it’s all talk and no action- no one actually juggling an Elephant or even a number of balls.
    But I would say that it’s the thought that counts.

    Does increasing CO2 levels cause warming?
    I believe so.
    But warming means increasing the global average temperature.
    And right now, global average temperature is about 15 C.
    And 15 C is not very warm, or one only get an average global temperature of 15 C when you are in an Ice Age.
    How warm the day gets is different topic, the warming of summer day is due to sunlight. Summer is when the sun gets nearer to zenith at noon.
    70% of Earth is ocean and global average surface temperature is about 17 C, and the result is and average global temperature [Land+Ocean] of about 15 C.
    To get a significant increase in global average temperature, the average surface temperature of ocean has to get warmer than 17 C.
    17 C is not very warm, and it’s average of 17 C because 40% of ocean is in the tropics where the average ocean surface temperature is about 26 C. 26 C is warm and having such a large area be be warm, increase the average surface temperature of entire ocean to 17 C.
    Increasing the global average requires the ocean surface outside of the tropics [60% of all ocean water] to increase in temperature. The 60% of ocean surface water [outside of tropics] average temperature is about 11 C [which is fairly cold] if it were to warm to 15 C [still fairly cool] that would significantly increase global average temperature. And would significantly increase average land temperature [which is currently about 10 C- which is fairly cold].
    If the 60% of ocean warms to 15 C, the nightmare of alarmist becomes a reality [in terms of having a much higher global average temperature number- or much higher than 15 C global average temperature. But Earth is *still* fairly cold.
    But increasing the 60% of the rest of ocean to 15 C, is basically impossible- within a century. Though if allowing for thousands of years into the future, it’s possible, but not likely.

    • David Appell says:

      gbaikie says:
      We are in an Ice Age and we have some who think Earth could become like Venus any day now.

      Bullsh!t.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        DA,

        Bullsh!t??

        Talking to yourself again, David?

        Cheers.

      • ren says:

        Your views are harmful because they do not warn people against the very cold winter of 2018/2019.

      • Carbon500 says:

        DA: I notice that you haven’t responded to gbaikie’s comment that ‘right now, global average temperature is about 15 C. And 15 C is not very warm’,
        Temperature anomalies have been so much more useful in spreading scary stories, haven’t they? Stretch the axis of the graphs upwards, and hey presto – we’re doomed!

        • Nate says:

          Carbon,

          Given that we often get 40C in tropics and -40 C at the poles, is the average of 15 C really meaningful to you?

          Anomalies are helpful in seeing change over time.

        • Bindidon says:

          “Temperature anomalies have been so much more useful in spreading scary stories, haven’t they?”

          If you prefer absolute temperature measurements: feel free to use them!

          But they all will tell you only where it is warm and where it is cold, and not where it gets colder or warmer wrt a given reference period.

          Should you btw think that using absolute values would produce less scary stories, then you might have the problem of terribly underestimating today’s press.

      • tonyM says:

        Ren don’t spoil Appell’s clothing needs. His comments suggest he goes all year round with only shorts. He won’t spare a thought for the sharks and fish which were frozen alive earlier in the year; he just wants more of the same.

        The Emperor penguins aren’t complaining. There is plenty of space around them if he is uncomfortably hot where he lives now (I could get him a special price for a scenic spot close by – only a small fee payable).

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      gbaikie…”Venus may become a hot tourist destination sometime within 100 years”.

      Literally….with a surface temperature around 450C.

      Don’t forget your fire proximity suit and your Scott air pack.

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

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Air-Pak_SCBA

      • gbaikie says:

        wiki:
        “The colonization of Venus has been a subject of many works of science fiction since before the dawn of spaceflight, and is still discussed from both a fictional and a scientific standpoint. However, with the discovery of Venus’s extremely hostile surface environment, attention has largely shifted towards the colonization of the Moon and Mars instead, with proposals for Venus focused on colonies floating in the upper-middle atmosphere and on terraforming.”

        Some people think colonization is not good way describe it- because colonization is defined as “the action or process of settling among and establishing control over the indigenous people of an area.”
        Or even def 2: “the action of appropriating a place or domain for one’s own use.”
        But I sometime use the word, anyhow, but I like to use word, settlements or towns.

        Also colonization has suggestion by it’s done by a government or by government program. Or people might imagine NASA would colonize or create settlements on a different planet.
        US government or Congress doesn’t support idea of using tax dollars to make space colonies- and it example of Congress making a good decision in my opinion.
        Anyhow, base for exploration purpose is different than a town- Congress is fine with having government bases.

        Wiki, continue:
        At least as early as 1971 Soviet scientists have suggested different approaches, however, claiming that rather than attempting to colonize Venus’ hostile surface, humans might attempt to colonize the Venerian atmosphere. Geoffrey A. Landis of NASA’s Glenn Research Center has summarized the perceived difficulties in colonizing Venus as being merely from the assumption that a colony would need to be based on the surface of a planet:

        “However, viewed in a different way, the problem with Venus is merely that the ground level is too far below the one atmosphere level. At cloud-top level, Venus is the paradise planet.”

        Landis has proposed aerostat habitats followed by floating cities, based on the concept that breathable air (21:79 oxygen/nitrogen mixture) is a lifting gas in the dense carbon dioxide atmosphere, with over 60% of the lifting power that helium has on Earth.[6] In effect, a balloon full of human-breathable air would sustain itself and extra weight (such as a colony) in midair. At an altitude of 50 kilometres (31 mi) above the Venerian surface, the environment is the most Earth-like in the Solar System – a pressure of approximately 1000 hPa and temperatures in the 0 to 50 °C (273 to 323 K; 32 to 122 °F) range. Protection against cosmic radiation would be provided by the atmosphere above, with shielding mass equivalent to Earth’s.”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus

        Though Venus has lots of hydrogen one get from clouds of acid and atmosphere lacks anything to burn hydrogen.

  43. steve case says:

    About the only climate-related statements I might characterize as unsupported scientific claims would be, the climate has cooled in recent decades

    Some aspects of climate have cooled. Summertime highs in much of the United States have cooled since the 19th century:

    https://s6.postimg.cc/pgojg85vl/10er3ps.gif

    • Nate says:

      Some regions yes, but not at all true for the western US.

    • Bindidon says:

      “Summertime highs in much of the United States have cooled since the 19th century”

      1. Are you an American?

      US is about 2 % of Earth, i.e. 7 % of its land surface.

      2. Are you sure?

      If it was true, why then do I see so few maxima coming from before 1900 in a sorted list of all maxima above 40 C collected out of the US GHCN daily stations?

      The highest maxima occured during the 1990’s, and the world’s (!!!) highest maximum in GHCN daily (about 35,000 stations) was recorded in South Dakota in 1997, september 28:

      SD RED CANYON SOUTH DAKOTA 1997 9 28 56.7 C

      Of course: if you average all these local station maxima into months, things become different.

      And if you again average all that into years, 1934 suddenly appears on top.

      3. If US is cooling, why aren’t there in GHCN daily as many minima below 40 C as there are maxima above 40 C? The maxima ratio min/max is roughly 1 (one) %.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”1. Are you an American?

        US is about 2 % of Earth, i.e. 7 % of its land surface”.

        …..

        Germany is in Europe and you are European. It makes no sense to call Germany ‘Europe’, does it?

        America is a continent and the United States is a country ‘IN’ that continent. Canada in in the continent as well and we are as much Americans as the US, as are Mexicans, Guatamelans, Brazilians, etc.

        http://www.7continents5oceans.com/north-america

        There is no difference between North America and America. The United States is in America, not America itself.

        Sooner or later, preferably sooner, the good citizens of the United States are going to have to drop the anachronism of ‘America’, as reference to themselves only, and join the rest of us as Americans.

        The problem is, the name United States does not lend itself well to a nickname. Still, it makes no sense to call yourself America when the full name is United States of America. The name of the country makes it clear that the good, old US of A is in America, not America itself.

        • Bindidon says:

          As usual, dumb, completely off topic replies written by the most ignorant, incompetent person writing here.

          I will be as tolerant as is Roy Spencer.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny….”As usual, dumb, completely off topic replies written by the most ignorant, incompetent person writing here”.

            I call you an idiot for good reason. I made a point about the term ‘America’, backed by geographical fact, and you fail to address my point.

            I pointed out a similarity to you, a German, living in Europe, another continent. You call yourself German and don’t insist that Germany is Europe. Nor do France, Belgium, Poland or any other country in the continent of Europe.

            Mind you, we do have issues with the UK, where some people insist on calling the UK ‘England’. England is a country in the UK and is not the UK itself. Similarly, the United States is a country in America, as it’s full name declares, yet many people insist on calling that country America.

            This is simply bad geography, not to mention bad English, just as AGW is bad science. Anyone speaking English who translates the ‘United States of America’ as the US being America, needs a refresher course in English.

            It seems you support bad science as well as bad geography and bad English.

            Yet here you are calling me ignorant. Go figure.

      • steve case says:

        Even though the United States is only 7% of the land area, it’s a good sampling of a variety of climate types across an entire continent. The implication that it is somehow an outlier in terms of summer maximum temperatures is a matter of faith as weather records in the rest of the world aren’t anywhere near as complete as those in the U.S.

        • Bindidon says:

          “Even though the United States is only 7% of the land area, its a good sampling of a variety of climate types across an entire continent.”

          Yes but this does not make the US by definition a good sampling of the whole world.
          ___

          “… a matter of faith as weather records in the rest of the world arent anywhere near as complete as those in the U.S”

          It is historical evidence that the US stations are thoroughly domnating the rest of the world in any global record.

          But nevertheless, a complete scan over GHCN daily data

          https://tinyurl.com/y8xyojfw

          shows that inbetween, there are as many stations outside as there are inside of the US (nearly 18,000 each).

          The major problem of the US predominance is, as I showed to bilybob some weeks ago, the fact that many world temperature series look as if there were made out of CONUS with a little backyard around it, a situation out of which you can only escape by averaging station data into appropriate grid cells.

      • bilybob says:

        Hey Bindidon,

        I am not familiar with a Red Canyon South Dakota world record in 1997. A world record of 56.7C did occurred in Death Valley in 1913. I was unaware that it had been tied.

        • Bindidon says:

          Hello bilybob

          No idea where you obtained your Death Valley data.

          The Red canyon record was found by tracing all records in GHCN daily above 40 C. Here are the top 5:

          US SD RED CANYON SOUTH DAKOTA 1997 9 28 56.7
          US SD RED CANYON SOUTH DAKOTA 1993 9 29 56.7
          US OR RIDDLE MOUNTAIN OREGON 2011 6 4 56.7
          US MT LITTLE BULLWACKER CREEK MON 1991 5 3 56.7
          US CA GREENLAND RCH 1913 7 10 56.7

          The first occurrence of Death Valley is at position 96:

          US CA DEATH VALLEY 2013 7 1 53.9

          No record with Death Valley in 1913 was found in the list (over 880,000 lines).

          • bilybob says:

            Greenland RCH is in death valley.

            On 13 September 2012 the World Meteorological Organization disqualified the record for the highest recorded temperature, exactly 90 years after it had been established at El Azizia, Libya, with a measurement of 58°C. The official highest recorded temperature is now 56.7°C (134°F), which was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch, Death Valley, California, USA.

            Not sure of your other data points, it may be a parsing error. Riddle Mountain north of 40C? Not likely. Others look suspect too. Temperatures above 50C very rare and usually in desert areas.

      • Bindidon says:

        Yes, I read that too. No one can beat Grant Foster in that job.

      • bilybob says:

        That summertime graph shows a 3F reduction from the peak in 30/40’s to now (88 to 85). So I guess Steve is correct, his graph was not as good though. This is also why I have been saying that using ratio of new max records is a waste of time in proving increase extreme heat. It certainly has not materialized in the USA. Even with those billion new max records be recorded every microsecond /sarc the summer high temperatures are still below the 1930’s/40’s.

        It is unfortunate that the data is lacking for all other countries. From what I have seen, this phenomenon is true for South America, Australia and Africa as well. Minimum temperatures are up, maximum temperatures down just not as much.

        • Bindidon says:

          bilybob

          You seem to be still fixated on this maxima story.

          What about considering the complementary record created by averaging not only the stations’ highest maxima, but also their lowest minima?

          http://4gp.me/bbtc/153436803149/001.jpg

          And to help you in getting rid of another fixation (new stations screwing the historical inormations), here is the same graph as above but with only those 1058 stations present from 1895 till 2017:

          http://4gp.me/bbtc/1534368174609/001.jpg

          Do you see the similarity?

          • bilybob says:

            I was replying to Svante’s comment as it relates to Steve’s comment. If I was in error, please let me know. But what I stated I believe to be correct.

            As far as your graphs, I neither dispute nor confirm these. I simply trust you know what you are doing and accept it as true. And yes, I see the similarity. But that does not change the ratio discussion from before or that temperatures were generally warmer in the first part of the 20th century. This does not mean that the average temperature is not higher now, I never said that.

            As far as my fixation of Tmax, when we check weather, we don’t look at what the average temperature will be for the day, we look at the upper and lower end and plan accordingly. So yes I do find it interesting that Tmin is up and Tmax is down in the USA. See figure 6.3 and 6.4 for the following.

            https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/6/

  44. The truth of the matter is since the Holocene Optimum the climate has been in an overall cooling trend punctuated by spikes of warmth, this latest one being nothing in the way of being unique.

    AGW THEROY- is hi jacking the natural variation of the climate to a warmer period following the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850.

    I think this has ran it’s course and this year and the following years should not see any further global warming.

    The climate monitors I am watching are overall sea surface temperatures, global cloud and snow coverage, and major explosive volcanic activity.

    • gbaikie says:

      I prefer to think of it, as, soon we should get better understanding of global climate.
      Maybe even China and India will add a lot to it.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Salvatore…”AGW THEROY- is hi jacking the natural variation of the climate to a warmer period following the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850″.

      And as famed geoscientist Syun Akasofu pointed out, the alarmists did not have the decency to attribute any warming to recovery from the LIA.

    • Bindidon says:

      Interesting paper as far as high latitude like Arctic regions are concerned.

      But even more interesting is that climate depot’s post ‘forgets’ to give the link, so everybody thinks the article was published this year).

      See also

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/07/tree-rings-and-climate-some-recent-developments/

      • The climate scam will be ending soon.

      • Svante says:

        They also erased the instrumental part of the graph, and that it ends in 1980. They say Britain when it is for northern Scandinavia.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”But even more interesting is that climate depots post forgets to give the link, so everybody thinks the article was published this year)”.

        2012 is close enough. It was a year celebrating 15 years of no average global warming, hence the alternative POV.

        Please don’t link to sites that specialize in pseudo-science, like realclimate. This is a scientific blog, have some respect.

        realclimate is run in part by Michael Mann of hockey stick fame. What the heck would he know about tree ring proxies after the fool he made of himself in that regard in MBH98.

        • Svante says:

          Looks like Manns wild guess was pretty good though:
          http://tinyurl.com/y95cmx6t

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”Looks like Manns wild guess was pretty good though:”

            Note that Mann’s part of the graph only goes from 1760 – 1860.

            Also note the error bars which mysteriously end circa 1985, as if to suggest there are no errors after that.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            S,

            How good is that?

            One wild guess about the past is as good as another wild guess about the past!

            Amazing. Predictions of the past are useful because . . .?

            Stupid, ignorant, and deluded to boot!

            Grand.

            Cheers.

  45. D Clancy says:

    Dr. Spencer should write a letter to Reuters demanding alteration of the headline on the basis that it is false. A letter like that would at minimum get the attention of Reuters legal personnel and put some appropriate scrutiny on the article’s author. (Might the letter be ignored? Yes but there is no cost in sending it and it is the right thing to do as a matter of principle).

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      D. Clancy…part 1….posting issues.

      “Dr. Spencer should write a letter to Reuters demanding alteration of the headline on the basis that it is false. A letter like that would at minimum get the attention of Reuters legal personnel and put some appropriate scrutiny on the articles author”.

      Waste of time. In a court case, there’s no way to prove anything related to climate science, it comes down to consensus and the prevailing paradigm. Judges have recently ruled based on the paradigm rather than fact.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        part 2….

        Here in Canada, I contacted the CBC and a poobah replied, claiming they go by the IPCC, suggesting it is incumbent on the skeptics to prove their case.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          part 3….

          The Catch-22 is that skeptics are not covered by the CBC. No one in Canada hears the skeptic POV.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            part 4…

            Apparently it is not in the interest of the national news media to let the public hear both sides of the story. They are not conveying news, they are proselytizing.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            part 5…

            Backwards logic. It’s up to the pseudo-scientists to prove their case, that CO2 is a pollutant warming the environment.

            This guy did not want to hear a scientific argument against the AGW paradigm, no matter how much sense it made. He did not know physics from a hole in the ground but he was quite willing to blindly accept pseudo-science if everyone else agreed it was correct…or LIKELY.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Sorry for messed up post in parts. There was something in the wording WordPress did not like and it was not the common words that normally messes up posts.

          • Svante says:

            Apology accepted.

  46. Gordon Robertson says:

    nate…”The media fails to make clear that such papers are just one of many, with no consensus yet”.

    I think you have it backwards. Both the GHE and AGW are based on consensus with little or no proof. No proof for either has come forward.

    Even the IPCC, with all its reviewers cannot claim a proof.

  47. Svante says:

    Salvatore thinks the sun causes volcano activity.
    He has not shown any historical evidence for that as far as I have seen.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      svante…”Salvatore thinks the sun causes volcano activity”.

      Something is causing it but no one has quite nailed what it is.

      The planet has a pumpkin shape, and as it revolves around the Sun, there are tidal stresses put on it by the Sun. Also by the Moon. Those stresses affect the solid surface as well as the oceans.

      It has been theorized that cracks in the surface of the planet (faults) as affected by the tidal forces, producing magma as they rub together. That explanation better explains the locality of Earthquakes rather than the tectonic plate theory.

      There seems to be a correlation between solar activity and the Earth’s spin. Even though the effect may be minute, the size of the planet translates those tiny changes into volcanic activity.

      https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/JB094iB12p17371

  48. D Clancy says:

    Hi Gordon, interesting points and thanks for the response. I am not sure I agree that it would be a waste of time though. First, it would not take much time. Second, it would put a major news organization on formal notice that the label (“climate change denier”) is rejected and not accepted by Dr. Spencer. Third (based on experience in corporate litigation) demand letters like this can and do create an internal stir (justified in this case) even if the company ultimately decides to try to wait it out. Fourth, it is just the right thing to do. “Climate change denier” is by any objective reading a false description of Dr. Spencer. Therefore it ought to be objected to, to the author/publisher directly.
    I suspect Reuters would argue that the term has
    come to mean something other than its literal/objective meaning — but that argument seems weak and insincere to me; the term is used precisely for its pejorative power, and alternate terms are available.
    Thanks again for your comments though — and I fully recognize that I may be wrong in this! I am not a participant in these controversies, just a sometime observer. It is my strong instinct though that if a major news organization says something false about a distinguished scientist he should at minimum formally object to that organization.
    Have a great day.

    • gbaikie says:

      And Roy could be not the only writing to them- and class of people writing about same kind of complaint- is a sign of a future class action suit. And not taking any kind of action, can legally amount to malice. And class action suits can start small and have people piling on to it.
      So, looking for “common problems” is good idea.

  49. Entropic man says:

    Dr Spencer rejects the sciences ofcosmology and biology, instead basing his reality on words written by desert tribesmen thousands of years ago.

    That fits any reasonable definition of scientific denial.

    • JDHuffman says:

      Entropic man, do you have any links/quotes to support such nonsense?

      • Entropic man says:

        There you go.

        http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php

        Written by the gentleman himself.

        • JDHuffman says:

          I was unable to find where he “rejects the sciences of cosmology and biology”. In fact the words “cosmology” and “biology” weren’t even there.

          Did you just dream that up?

          • Entropic man says:

            The big bang theory is part of cosmology, the theory of evolution is part of biology.

            In the linked article Dr Spencer rejects them both in favour of a Creation described in the Bible.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Well then, he’s rejecting pseudoscience, not science.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          entropic…”There you go.

          http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php

          Written by the gentleman himself”.

          You have not outlined your objections to the article. What are they exactly?

          Can you prove scientifically that anything Roy stated is not true? Conversely, can you prove the universe was not created?

          I have issues with certain points he makes but that does not affect my view of Roy as a scientist. I am more concerned about Roy’s view of the 1st law of thermodynamics, that it’s about generic energy whereas it’s about thermal energy (heat) and mechanical energy (work).

        • Norman says:

          Entropic man

          Thanks for posting the Roy Spencer statement of Faith. I like to read that an intelligent rational person can have Faith in God and Christ. Seems like the big push in science is atheism.

          I would agree with JDHuffman on this one. Whereas Evolution itself seems to be supported by observational science. In the layers of rock formation which store the structures of past living things, the progression is always from simple life forms (single celled organisms) to more complex life forms. The mechanism for this process is far from established. It would be an article of Faith to declare that it is random chance mutations. In order for this to become a scientific point, scientists would have to demonstrate that random changes in DNA lead to higher order proteins capable of new interactions.

          From what I read on random generators, the way mathematicians determine if a generator of numbers is truly random is to find NO pattern in the numbers. If you roll dice billions of times you would expect to see no established order anywhere. If you see more 1’s than any other number you start to think the dice are not random. I am not at all convinced that random chance is able to create vast order and structure. If you have links that can show this to be the case I will gladly read up on it.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      entropic…”Dr Spencer rejects the sciences ofcosmology and biology….”

      There is no science of cosmology. If you study the universe at university you take astronomy or astrophysics. I don’t think Roy has any problem with most biology.

      Isaac Newton, arguably the most eminent scientist of all time, was devoutly religious. He managed to balance his faith with science, why can’t Roy?

      Roy wrote a good article on evolution with which I agree, even though I am not religious. Can’t find the link at this time, it is not valid.

      The basis of the theory of evolution is that 5 elements came together by chance in primeval muds and formed life through an equal amount of chance. An experiment to prove that in the 1950s failed miserably, resulting in tar with no life, the conclusion being given that the conditions required to fuse the chemicals into life could not support it.

      Think about it. Even though we are composed of atoms, where does the life force come from? Nothing in evolution can explain that and the subject is completely ignored.

      Along the way, people like Darwin concluded that a mystical phenomenon called natural selection was at work even though there were no fossils to support it nor was there any proof it was true. Natural selection has never been proved using the scientific method.

      Scientists like Mendel proved that plants can inherit traits from other plants but within the same species. There is not an ounce of proof that one species has ever morphed into another species or that inanimate objects like atoms of hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorus can form life.

      Genetics is not evolution.

      Natural selection would require life forms in an intermediate form between species and there is no evidence of that.

      Here again, as in climate science, consensus is the driving force, not observable science. On the skeptical side, one mathematician calculated the probabilities of 5 basic elements forming the life we know today and the odds were billions and billions to one against. Another scientist attacked the problem using entropy with a similar result.

      Roy’s view on evolution are the same as mine, that an intelligence was involved in designing life. Roy may think that intelligence is the Biblical God, I don’t know. My intelligence has nothing to do with the Biblical God, I simply don’t know what it is.

      Although I am not religious, I am convinced that Jesus Christ lived and that he was executed circa 30 AD. His teachings have been passed on and the basis is that we should help the poor, and in general, to treat each other with compassion and empathy.

      He was executed for challenging the orthodoxy of the Jewish church, although some historians have blamed it on the Romans. It was the Jews who tried arrested him and tried him initially, then handed him over to the Romans.

      When criticize Roy you are criticizing Genesis, an ancient Jewish treatise. Jesus Christ changed all that and gave us the basis for our current Western civilization.

    • tonyM says:

      Entropic Man:
      Hard to see how you have a problem with what Dr Spencer says as his personal view. You are trying to conflate two different perceptions and evaluate them by the one standard when there is no such comparability. Science is empirically based and tested; religion is not limited by that given the idea that an all powerful God always existed. If not the latter then where did all the energy for Big Bang come from? You are back to the same position if you believe it has “always” existed.

      It might be worthwhile to note that it was a priest who proposed the Big Bang hypothesis and Darwin was a believer. Go back further in time to Copernicus; he was a cleric and dedicated his treatise to the Pope. There is no conflict unless you wish to impose a limit on “God.” Ironic that Galileo’s conflict was with the “consensus scientists” of the day and not the Church. They at least had a physical geocentric model that worked. All were Christian believers.

      Perhaps you can show a working model for CAGW that has not failed. Your views on Climate seem more akin to a religious belief than science for you cannot show via the Scientific Method that the conjecture holds. There is plenty of evidence which shows it fails. Only one failure is necessary to falsify a hypothesis in science.

      I don’t agree with Dr Roy on evolution as some of the anti evolution “science” arguments are based on the low probability of creating life by pure random events (such as monkey correctly typing the bible). Chemistry and biochemistry do not function like that in that only certain products are produced under given conditions. Fundamentally the primordial soup would only require a mix of four elements and energy to create basic building blocks. If there is enough time and enough environmental variation then it would be possible to form more and more stable compounds which could eventually lead to simple cells etc. Minerals abound in the waters so that they are incorporated in the evolution. You can still witness the most primitive form of life in stromatolites (fossilised and living ) in the North West of West Oz – oldest deposits about 3.5 billion years.

      In any case evolution does not pose a religious impasse; by definition God can “create” by whatever means and pathway! BTW I am not religious.

      • JDHuffman says:

        tonyM states: “If there is enough time and enough environmental variation then it would be possible to form more and more stable compounds which could eventually lead to simple cells etc.”

        “if there is enough time”

        “it would be possible”

        “which could eventually lead”

        “If”, “would be”, and “could”, are NOT science. Evolution is a belief system, supported by pseudoscience.

        • tonyM says:

          G*e*r*

          If I had thought that either Big Bang or Evolution from inception molecules had solid empirical evidence I would have said so and been definitive. They are properly classified as hypotheses rather than your term pseudoscience. There is enough cogent evidence to support them. There is no evidence which dismisses them as I know it. Do you have any such evidence?

          Neither of these conflict with a belief in God; science can never address such a question. Besides science is only the science we can understand from our universe perspective. It can address white horses skyward bound to rendezvous with “God;” Pegasus is a myth.

          CAGW, in the way presented, is properly classified as pseudoscience in that its conjectures have failed yet its proponents continue to believe and even reinforce the same story. I suggest this is why Lindzen has said it has become a religion and called for defunding the lot and start again.

          Aquinas spent much of his life to showing the existence of God. In the end despite his brilliant work he simply philosophized that faith was all that was necessary. The idea of a single God is not as intuitive as might be imagined. Look at Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Norse mythology. Even the Abrahamic Yaweh originally was meant to be the God of the Jews only.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            tony…”Aquinas spent much of his life to showing the existence of God. In the end despite his brilliant work he simply philosophized that faith was all that was necessary”.

            There’s is a lesser known take on early religion that comes from the more recent discovery of ancient papers at Nag Hamadi in Egypt.

            http://gnosis.org/naghamm/Pagels-Gnostic-Gospels.html

            Several Gospels were discovered that had been banned in 325AD by the Roman Emperor Constantine, who essentially formed Catholicism (The Nicene Creed). One of the banned Gospels was the Gospel of Thomas which consists of sayings attributed to the Living Jesus.

            I am not religious in a conventional sense, I regard, ‘to be religious’, by its root meaning, ‘to be serious’. However, I regard the Gospel of Thomas as quite revealing. Thomas is ‘Doubting Thomas’, with whom the 4th Gospel, the Gospel of John, takes umbrage. Thomas was a confidant of Jesus, and typically, the sayings of Jesus are in riddles.

            One of them suggests that God is in everyone and although I don’t know what that means exactly, the idea appeals to me, not as an ego trip, but as an explanation of the mysteries of life.

            I think our job is to try somehow to understand what that means. Isaac Newton wrote two volumes on it.

            I know one thing, if we summarily reject everything religious, based on an ego-trip related to science, we will never understand. I am really into science but I am aware of its limitations and how it is affected by human ego.

            There is room to consider religion. No one said it had to be approached from the Christian Bible, we were born with an intelligence that cannot be explained. We have information inside already, and natural means of understanding through intelligence, compassion, empathy, and insight.

            I don’t think evolution produced any of them.

            Just ask questions and seek answers.

            Is that not one of the tenets of The Bible, “Ask and ye shall find”. No one said finding would be easy.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        tony m…”Fundamentally the primordial soup would only require a mix of four elements and energy to create basic building blocks”.

        Biologist Rupert Sheldrake has an interesting take on that. He compares the amino acids produced by cells to construction material being dropped at a construction site and expecting them to form into a building, perhaps by chance.

        As you pointed out, chemistry has rules. Chemical compounds form based on stringent rules of formation that are based on inter-atomic charges between electrons and protons. All organic molecules are formed and shaped by electrical charges.

        There is absolutely nothing in chemical bonding that can explain life. It’s an incredible stretch to go from the chemical bonding of oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus in primeval muds to extremely intricate forms of life, such as sight and intelligent thought.

        DNA is a relatively simple bonding of basic elements but the information it contains from which RNA forms different amino acids and proteins, is not something one would expect from chemical bonds. There are intelligent codes in DNA, where did they come from?

        It’s highly unlikely that random, natural selection could produce intelligent codes that are the basis of life and maintenance of life.

  50. I think AGW is going to be in more trouble as we move forward and the trends do not cooperate with the theory.

Leave a Reply