The Five Questions Global Warming Policy Must Answer

December 18th, 2018 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

It is no secret that I doubt increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will have enough negative effects on the global environment to warrant the extreme cost to humanity of substantially reducing those effects. Note that this statement has both science and energy policy components. In fact, with “global greening” we should consider the possibility of net positive benefits.

The public perception of global warming risks has involved a mixture of exaggerated claims regarding both the science and the energy policy, instigated by a minority of activist scientists and amplified by an eager news media. In my Kindle e-book Global Warming Skepticism for Busy People, I list 5 questions I believe must be answered in the affirmative before embarking on any large-scale decarbonization of the global economy:

The Five Big Questions
1) Is warming and associated climate change mostly human-caused?
2) Is the human-caused portion of warming and associated climate change large enough to be damaging?
3) Do the climate models we use for proposed energy policies accurately predict climate change?
4) Would the proposed policy changes substantially reduce climate change and resulting damage?
5) Would the policy changes do more good than harm to humanity?

As I state in my book, it is not obvious that the answer to any of the five questions is yes, let alone all of them. The first three questions deal with the science, and the last two deal with energy policy.

Regarding the first question, I might concede it is indeed possible most of the warming since the 1950s is human-caused. This is a core conclusion of the IPCCs 5th Assessment Report (AR5).

But so what? What it acknowledges is rather unremarkable, given (as we will see) the rather slow rate of global warming. As the second question asks, is the human component large enough to cause substantial damage? There has yet to be any good evidence produced that weather extremes are worse in recent decades than in previous centuries. Even warming itself appears to have begun in centuries past, before humans could be blamed, with proxy evidence of previous receding glaciers and low Arctic sea ice extent (and very high extent during the Little Ice Age) begging the questions of just how large natural climate variations have been, and what is the naturally preferred state of the climate system anyway?

This leads to the third question, which has to do with the fact the latest generation of climate models produce, on average, about 2 times too much warming compared to the rates at which the global surface temperature and deep ocean have observed to have been warming, with the latest energy budget study (which makes the same climate forcing assumptions over the last 100+ years as the models) suggesting more like 1.6 deg. C of eventual warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2, rather than 3.2 deg. C projected by the average climate model. (And even THAT assumes ALL of the warming is human-caused!)

In the last 40 years, the discrepancy between models and observations for the globally-averaged lower atmosphere looks like this:

The discrepancy in the surface temperatures is less dramatic, but growing:

How can such models, which are increasingly portrayed as accurate, be defended with a straight face for energy policy decisions? The amount of warming they produce is not based upon physical first principles, as is often claimed. That some warming should occur is based upon fairly solid principles, but the amount of warming from increasing CO2 is entirely debatable.

The dirty little secret is that the models are tuned so that only increasing CO2 causes warming, since the various uncertain sources of natural climate change are either not known well enough to include, or are purposely programmed out of the models. (How do I know? Because NONE of the natural energy flows in and out of the climate system are known to the accuracy [about 1%] needed to blame recent warming on increasing CO2, rather than on Mother Nature. Those natural energy flows in the models are simply forced to be in balance, and so the cause of model warming ends up being anthropogenic. Thus the models use circular reasoning to establish human causation.)

The fourth and fifth questions have to do with whether we can really reduce CO2 emissions as long as humanity needs fossil fuels to reduce poverty and create prosperity. I have nothing against alternative energy sources per se, as long as they are practical and cost-competitive. Everything humanity does requires energy, and as long as China and India continue to reduce poverty with ever-growing usage of fossil fuels, global CO2 emissions will continue to increase, no matter what the United States does. With about 1 billion people in the world still without electricity, I believe it is immoral to deprive them of access to affordable energy.

Out of the 5 Big Questions, which are most important? Ultimately, economics is what rules peoples lives. Poverty kills, and forcing people to use more expensive energy will worsen poverty.

In France we are seeing the violent push-back against green energy policies (among other , mainly economic, issues), and we havent even yet reached the point where policies will reduce future CO2 emissions by enough to measure the effect by the end of this century in terms of global temperature. So, if you think the Paris riots are bad, wait until you see the public response to policies that will reduce future CO2 emissions by, say, 50%.

But we cannot ignore the science. What if the science was absolutely certain we were in for 20 deg. C of warming and a collapse of the Antarctic ice sheet, with 200 ft. of sea level rise? Then humanity might be willing to make large sacrifices to save itself. So, the science does matter… the question is, can it be trusted?

Based upon the observed rate of global warming (which is too small for any individual to feel in their lifetime), and failed climate model projections, I’d say the current state of the science is not yet ready for primetime.

For now, the science supports some modest and mostly harmless warming, but not enough warming to justify CO2 emissions reductions that would destroy the global economy, worsen global poverty, and have no measureable effect on global temperatures by the end of this century anyway.


394 Responses to “The Five Questions Global Warming Policy Must Answer”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Paul says:

    Thank You! Happy Christmas and New Year.

  2. There was global warming but it is was due to natural variability which has been in place sine the Dalton Solar minimum ended which is now (2017 -THROUGH PRESENT) changed.

    So cooling should be the rule if correct moving forward for many years to come.

    Historical climatic data back it up in that the recent warming last century has not been unique in degree of scope ,magnitude change and rate in change of global temperatures in contrast to earlier events. I see nothing unique.

    • David Appell says:

      Yes, cooling started 16 years ago:

      “Your conclusions are in a word wrong, and that will be proven over the coming years, as the temperatures of earth will start a more significant decline (which started in year 2002 by the way)….”

      – Salvatore del Prete, Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming, 10/8/2010
      http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428

  3. Mark B says:

    I wonder if you could expand on what is meant by “the various uncertain sources of natural climate change” and how such mechanisms are consistent with the apparent radiative imbalance at top of atmosphere and ocean surface.

    • Bill Hunter says:

      Its really not a matter of any radiative imbalance being apparent at the top of the atmosphere. Radiation budgets of just a few years ago did not specify an imbalance for the precise reason Roy gave:
      “Because NONE of the natural energy flows in and out of the climate system are known to the accuracy [about 1%] needed to blame recent warming on increasing CO2”.

      Along the way somebody noted that assumptions in climate models that assume their parameters are accurate and the modelers believe CO2 is the sole cause of climate change determined they could slightly adjust the assumptions so as to allow for a calculation of 6 tenths of a watt of radiative imbalance.

      • David Appell says:

        Bill Hunter says:
        Along the way somebody noted that assumptions in climate models that assume their parameters are accurate and the modelers believe CO2 is the sole cause of climate change

        A) it’s not an “assumption,” it comes from solving the equations of physics

        B) no climate modeler in the world thinks CO2 is the sole cause of climate change.

        C) You clearly don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

        • TimTheToolMan says:

          No David.

          Here is what climate modelers actually do to tune the TOA imbalance. Taken from Mauritsen

          “the radiation balance is controlled primarily by tuning cloud-related parameters at most climate modeling centers [e.g. Watanabe et al., 2010; Donner et al., 2011; Gent et al., 2011; The HadGEM2 Development Team, 2011; Hazeleger et al., 2011], while others adjust the ocean surface albedo [Hourdin et al., 2012] or scale the natural aerosol climatology to achieve radiation balance [Voldoire et al., 2012].”

          So you see they set it to what they believe it should be. It isn’t a value that has come from the “equations of physics” because many components are parameterised and not based on “equations of physics” at all.

    • David Appell says:

      No, “skeptics” (quote-unquote) can’t expand on these natural forces. Because they’re wishes, not science.

      • Punksta says:

        Right. Because climate never really changed until the CO2 era. Which is why the models sensibly assume them away.

        • b fagan says:

          There is no “CO2 era”. CO2 has always been a greenhouse gas in Earth conditions, and changes in its concentration have changed global climate since long before apes like us existed. The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum is an easy example. The actions of greenhouse gases are plain old physics, and have been measured in the lab, in the environment, and on other planets and moons in our solar system. CO2, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide and human-created CFCs can block wavelengths of infrared.

          Natural increases or decreases in greenhouse gas concentrations change the climate. They did before humans, and there’s no expectation that they won’t long after humans have gone extinct.

          So why the continued pretense that it’s somehow just models that are the source of concern about a rapid increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases? Why do so many kid themselves that somehow a greenhouse gas won’t do what it always does, just because this time the source is humanity?

  4. DR Healy says:

    As I understand GW theory, 2/3 of warming is supposed to come from increased water vapor in the upper troposphere, but the earlier studies show a decrease, and the more recent “reanalayises” seem to indicate “indeterminate” results. It would appear that the lack of increase in total precipitatal water would explain quite precisely the difference between actual and modeled temperature changes.

    Any thoughts on this? If the water vapor component is not cooperating, the GW problem would be of much less concern.

    • David Appell says:

      Water vapor IS increasing — but only after the atmospheric temperature first increases, as from CO2.

      IPCC 5AR WG1 Ch2 Figs 2.30 & 2.31 documents positive trends in water vapor in multiple datasets.
      http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf

      “Attribution of observed surface humidity changes to human influence,”
      Katharine M. Willett et al, Nature Vol 449| 11 October 2007| doi:10.1038/nature06207.
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7163/abs/nature06207.html

      “Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content,” B. D. Santer et al, PNAS 2013.
      http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.abstract

      “How much more rain will global warming bring?” F.J. Wentz, Science (2007), 317, 233235.
      http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5835/233

    • ftop_t says:

      Good point on water vapor. Evaporative cooling dwarfs any mythical CO2 attribution. Much of this faux science is predicated on the calculated Global Average Temperature (as if that exists) with attribution magically applied to CO2.

      A 0.5 meters/second wind speed has more cooling capability than the entire estimated CO2 forcing

      The Lake Mead Equation looks to quantify the evaporation rate based on wind speed.
      E = 0.0331 V (e – es) [1 – 0.03 (T – Tw)] 24 h day-1

      Why doesn’t the climate modeling incorporate Global Average Windspeed (GAW)? This value should be equally important to GAT?

      Cloud cover
      Water Vapor
      Wind speed
      Ocean variability
      Solar output variances

      are just a few factors that make CO2 concentration changes of .01% of total atmospheric composition meaningless.

      Trying to pin a suspect measurement (GAT) to a bit player (CO2) has pushed this field to the brink of absurdity.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        +1.

        There are just too many factors with too few measurements to conclude CO2 is causing the warming. As Dr. Spencer wrote:

        “Because NONE of the natural energy flows in and out of the climate system are known to the accuracy [about 1%] needed to blame recent warming on increasing CO2, rather than on Mother Nature.”

      • David Appell says:

        But water has been evaporating since forever.

      • David Appell says:

        ftop_t says:
        A 0.5 meters/second wind speed has more cooling capability than the entire estimated CO2 forcing

        We are discussing climate CHANGE, not climate.

        Has wind speed been drastically dropping in recent decades?

        PS: Here’s a description of a climate model. Search it for “wind speed”, which you claim doesn’t appear in climate models.

        “Description of the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 3.0),” NCAR Technical Note NCAR/TN464+STR, June 2004.
        http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/atm-cam/docs/description/description.pdf

        • Martin says:

          Oh dear…. DA says – ” we are discussing climate CHANGE, not climat.”… smh….. one can’t discus climate CHANGE…without first understanding CLIMATE…. wow things must be hard for some.

  5. RW says:

    Roy, mostly yes, but why aren’t these arguments swaying public opinion? This is what you should also be asking, because from what I see they’re not. In my opinion, the presumption of a net warming anthropogenic influence and sensitivity results far too high (and often even in IPCC’s range) are the primary reason. Way too much credibility has been given to the whole premise of this thing, and fatally too much has been accepted.

    Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think our side can win this with these arguments.

    • RW says:

      Roy, you can analyze it all from 10 different ways to Sunday, but the bottom line is the science involving the magnitude of the effect is not getting debunked, i.e. not getting challenged nearly aggressively enough (or assertively enough). It’s not much more complicated than this. No one is putting two and two together and realizing this is why we’re losing public support.

      To have a realistic chance of persuading the public, I think much more aggressive and assertive posturing on the science will be required.

      • David Appell says:

        Or maybe it’s that the science of AGW is correct and can’t be debunked.

      • Punksta says:

        It’s not being debunked because government
        (a) stands to gain from climate alarm
        (b) funds almost all climate science
        and therefore
        (c) is hostile to it being debunked, and so takes sure to fund only alarmists.

        Trusting government climate science is like trusting tobacco company smoking science. Only a halfwit would believe either.

    • R Hayes says:

      “why arent these arguments swaying public opinion?” Because most people do not based their opinions on logic and evidence. They think they are but in reality they are using their logical reasoning to support their deeper rooted emotions. Please see “The Righteous Mind: Why Good people Are Divided by Politics and Religion” by Jonathan Haidt. It is human nature to diminish or dismiss evidence that does not support emotions and accept and elevate evidence that does support emotions. Unfortunately, due to this human condition, the most effective way to sway public opinion is by appealing to emotions versus employing logic, reason and scientific evidence. The GW crowd is good at this and has had about a 20 year head start.
      Also it is very difficult to prove something does not exist, for example big foot, loch ness monster, space aliens and human caused global warming.

  6. Craig T. says:

    “That some warming should occur is based upon fairly solid principles, but the amount of warming from increasing CO2 is entirely debatable.”

    One of the most true statements I’ve seen here.

    • David Appell says:

      The IPCC doesn’t disagree — CO2’s climate sensitivity is still about 3 +/- 1 K per CO2 doubling.

      • m d mill says:

        Can you prove this claim of sensitivity observationally?
        Did the IPCC give a median value of sensitivity
        in the latest report?

        • David Appell says:

          Yes — lots of papers have been written on how past episodes of climate change provide a method of calculating climate sensitivity.

          Find them and read them.

          • m d mill says:

            Can YOU prove this highly precise claim of sensitivity (3+-1 C/2xCO2)observationally? I don’t think so.
            Please do so. A claim is not an argument. Lots of papers make claims using highly questionable data and assumptions.
            I can think of several recent high profile examples of completely flawed claims made in Science and Nature peer reviewed papers (and these flaws were then usually found by “skeptics” who were not “experts” in the field)).
            Find them and read them.
            Can YOU make a general argument and some data to corroborate this highly precise claim based on observational data.

            The best such papers using the best direct recent instrumental temp data and IPCC sanctioned forcing values are by Lewis and Curry (following the Power Budget methods of Otto etc.)indicating much lower median values.

            In fact your precise value comes primarily from models which do quite well for seasonal and daily temp and humidity variation, but quite poorly for seasonal cloud(and reflected short wave radiation) and rain variation. Further, the oceans never really warm very much over this seasonal time period due to the huge mix layer thermal capacity, and therefore must be suspect for equilibrium sensitivity calculations without some observational verification (such as by Lewis and Curry).

            I ask again, did the IPCC even give a median value of sensitivity in the latest report? Did it give the very likely range as 2 to 4 C/2xCO2, and what was that rational (ie the statistical data source).
            Show your source please.

          • m d mill says:

            waiting…

          • md mill says:

            Another David Appell drive by?

          • m d mill says:

            Appell has taken a hike, it seems.

      • Richard M says:

        More like .5 .5.

    • ftop_t says:

      I would like the following question answered:

      “If increased CO2 is the culprit behind all catastrophic climate scenarios, what is the exact level in PPM that CO2 should be in order to eliminate the threat of global warming, CAT 3-5 hurricanes, ice melt, droughts, flooding, declining polar bear population and every other one of the negative impacts our carbon footprint is causing?”

      Surely, with the amount of research supporting this theory, the exact number is well understood.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      True yes, because “fairly” solid principles and “debatable warming caused entirely by CO2” includes the possibility that CO2 sensitivity could still be zero.

  7. Eben says:

    What we have here is a total bizzaro world scenario.
    The global warmers are claiming warming will bring a catastrophe but at the same time they are very unhappy and disappointed when it is not happening,
    The skeptics don’t only think warming will not happen but they wish for cooling and are disappointed not to see any.
    I am totally different in this , I believe the climate will cool down and will not warm up more than present but I actually wish it did warm up.
    I believe the warmer climate is overwhelmingly beneficial and would be much better with temperature about 6 degrees C higher than today
    The CO2 vilifying is also completely backwards , CO2 is the best plant fertilizer and as such the ultimate green gas, It should be around 800 PPM at least
    The warmers claim CO2 is the main temperature drive and we shouldn’t emit any of it.
    skeptics want to prove CO2 does not drive the temperature, but would be pissed if it was somehow proven it it does. I myself don’t believe it does , but I would prefer if it did , I want a warmer planet and if it was this easy I would get it.

    • David Appell says:

      Eben says:
      The global warmers are claiming warming will bring a catastrophe but at the same time they are very unhappy and disappointed when it is not happening,

      What????????

      This is a complete crock of you know what.

      And typically for Eben, not an iota of evidence provided.

      • jim says:

        David Appell wrote: “not an iota of evidence provided.”
        ME—Speaking of evidence – When are you going to show some actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming?

        Note that evidence warming is NOT evidence of it’s cause.

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          Now your going to get his trifecta of papers showing that forcings calculated from spectra correlate with radiation measurements that aren’t correlated with temperature.

  8. Bart T says:

    RW, two things.

    First, perhaps the reason the arguments are not swaying public opinion is that the public does not hear them. There is no compelling presentation on CNN, MSNBC, Bloomburg, NYT, etc. And if you do a google search for “global warming”, this website does not pop up first.

    Second, it’s not really public opinion that counts. It’s government officials. Macron must somehow not be grounded in facts. France makes 0.9% of the world’s human-caused CO2. Reducing this by 25% would give 0.2% reduction (and would wreck France). But increasing emissions from China and India eclipse all of France in one year. French sacrifices would change nothing, yet Macron has destroyed his presidency. Why? He had a pre-commitment to an ideology. So somehow, these are the people to try to reach.

    • David Appell says:

      THe protests in France are about far more than carbon taxes. From what I can tell they’re about the poor being tired of getting shafted. If only the poor in the US would rise up and do the same.

      • jim says:

        David Appell–” If only the poor in the US would rise up and do the same.”
        Why would they – they are better off in our capitalist country than those in the various socialist paradises, including France.

      • DHR says:

        Poor? Most wear yellow vests, required to be carried in cars in France. So the French “poor” have cars? A new definition of poverty.

        • Bindidon says:

          Is that not a little bit simple-minded?

          Why do you think that people wearing a yellow vest you can buy anywhere should be owners of a car?

      • Lewis guignard says:

        They did rise up, and Voted FOR Trump.
        Now you watch daily as the Swamp and sycophants try to maintain the Swamp as it was: taking from the poor to give to the politically connected.

        • An Inquirer says:

          Lewis, Good point.

          I may quibble about the category of “the poor” being the primary victims of the “politically connected” because an intellectually honest appraisal of income distribution must recognize the mitigating impact of programs to help the poor. Initially, the upper quintile has 14 times the income as does the lower quintile. After taxes and key transfer payments (SS and Medicare, but excluding energy assistance, housing allowance, ACA subsidies, free government services, etc.), the ratio is seven to one. That still is a tremendous ratio, but maybe not terribly unreasonable considering that the upper quintile guy puts in 6 times as many work hours as the lower quintile guy.

          But there are victims of the politically connected. And they did turn out in support of Trump.

          It has always amazed me that Bernie Sanders recognizes the corruption of government via the politically connected, and his answer is to give the government more power.

    • Bindidon says:

      The main reason for yellow vest protest is that president Macron suppressed France’s ‘impot sur la fortune’, the wealth tax, which had been reintroduced by his predecessor Hollande.

    • Nate says:

      ‘ France makes 0.9% of the worlds human-caused CO2. ‘

      My house makes .01 % of the raw sewage in my town. Why should I pay to have it taken away? I could pour it in the street. It’s such a small amount, who cares?

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        Really, Nate? That’s a terrible analogy.

      • Nate says:

        Over your head?

        Ok, how about:

        Your kid’s girlscout troop is raising money by selling girlscout cookies.

        Are you gonna say to her: at most you’re going to sell 1% of the cookies, too small to make a real difference. Don’t bother.

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          Nate,

          How about this:

          We need to cut our company’s budget by 0.25%, so we need to cut 25% from your department’s budget which is only 1% of the total company budget.

        • Nate says:

          Still missing the point, bigly.

          Nobody expects

          one dept to do all the budget cutting.

          one girlscout to sell all the cookies.

          one country to do all the emissions reduction.

          That is a silly strawman argument.

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          Nate,

          I think you might be missing the point.

          The French might be pissed because they realize how much they will be hurt economically to make the 25% cut which will make practically no difference in emission reductions, let alone global warming. If they aren’t pissed, they should be.

          • Nate says:

            ‘the 25% cut which will make practically no difference in emission reductions’

            Ugggh, you’re hopeless.

            Don’t vote, since your vote will make no difference.

            Don’t donate to charity, since your contribution will make so little difference.

            Don’t give blood. No point.

            Don’t contribute to any collective effort, because your contribution will be insignificant.

            The french goals are comparable to those of most other 1st world countries in Paris agreement.

            If all countries nearly meet the goals, the reductions would be significant.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Forget it, Nate. Only sucker warmists like you will sacrifice for a lost cause like climate change. Have you stopped driving and flying yet? Just because the rest of the world won’t, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t put your money where your mouth is.

            BTW, when I give blood, I’m 100% sure that most it will end up helping a lot of people. When you stop burning fossil fuels, no one will notice or give a damm.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate – “If all countries nearly meet the goals, the reductions would be significant.”

            I agree that would amount to a significant reduction in emissions. However, that’s not the question that one asks oneself in making a sacrifice. Roy has outlined the 5 questions that must all be answered as yes to make the sacrifice worthwhile.

            Obviously if you are flush cash wise its a small sacrifice but thats not the case across the board. Environmentalism is a luxury that many cannot afford. Environmentalism is not limited to stopping disasters, environmentalism extends to aesthetics and such things as whether you have an oil drilling platform in your pristine ocean view. And often those who do know no bounds in proclaiming certain unrecoverable disaster from having an oil drilling platform in or near their ocean.

            A little intellectual honesty would call for answering those questions as opposed to simply comparing it to voting.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Have you stopped driving’

            I take a commuter train to work- and have to suffer through reading your responses on my way to work..

            My wife drives a 50 mpg car-so she has suffer the horrible consequence of buying less gas.

            I use now-inexpensive LED bulbs and have to suffer by using way less electricity.

            Several red states, like Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, and North Dakota, are leading the way on wind power installation.

            Are they suckers?

            The unsubsidized price of land-based wind, and utility-scale solar is now competitive with fossil fuels.

            I’m for doing things that make economic sense and are mostly market driven.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Only sucker warmists like you will sacrifice for a lost cause like climate change.’

            Chic,

            Not sure why you pretend to honestly discuss the science of climate change, when its very clear that you have already decided its nothing.

          • Nate says:

            Bill,

            ‘A little intellectual honesty would call for answering those questions as opposed to’

            The point of my posts was to show that it is intellectually dishonest to suggest that one small country is bearing the burden of the whole world, or that since its contribution is small it is pointless.

            I think the answer to the first 4 questions are, with more or less certainty, YES.

            And last one can be No, if done wisely as I suggested above.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Nate,

            Then good for you that you’re not a hypocrite.

            “Are they suckers?”

            Maybe, or maybe they’re just hedging their bets.

            “Not sure why you pretend to honestly discuss the science of climate change, when its very clear that you have already decided its nothing.”

            Number one, I enjoy learning stuff I did not know. Two, I totally endorse Dr. Spencer’s last paragraph on this blog. If anything I write here causes anyone to have second thoughts about AGW, then I’m making a contribution to that end.

          • Nate says:

            You agree with the last paragraph?

            ‘reductions that would destroy the global economy, worsen global poverty, and have no measureable effect on global temperatures by the end of this century anyway.’

            These are just unproven ‘the sky is falling’ type declarations. I have asked Roy several times whether there is any research studies demonstrating that any of these predictions are likely, but he has never provided anything.

            ‘Destroy the global economy’ how hyperbolic can one get.

            ‘Worsen global poverty’ Don’t see how.

            The Paris Treaty is not asking 3rd world countries to stop using energy to develop.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate – “The point of my posts was to show that it is intellectually dishonest to suggest that one small country is bearing the burden of the whole world, or that since its contribution is small it is pointless.”

            If that were the case I would agree with you. And it may well be some hold that form of intellectual dishonesty. But that is just because they don’t have a full grasp of the problem or have not done a good job in communicating it.

            However, what is happening in this country and now France and maybe somewhat less UK; is a growing realization that the sacrifice of abstaining from carbon emissions is not going to accomplish its goal when the majority of the world has been given an “official pass” on putting forward a contribution.

            The Paris agreement essentially envisions some kind of bastardized form of world socialism whereby wealthy countries make sacrifices so that poor over populated countries can increase their emissions and get wealthier.

            Not that its a bad thing to encourage poor countries to improve the lot of their people. But there are two major problems with that. One choosing to use carbon as the means of doing it harms the poor in the rich countries far more than it harms the wealthy. They are rioting in France because the elite cut wealth taxes and then levied gas taxes. A huge shift of tax burden to the poor and the elite feel good about it because they think they are saving the world in a totally classic let them eat cake sense.

            To give you a sense of the problem. Sales taxes, especially taxes on necessities like carbon are the most regressive of all taxes. Income taxes even when tiered is a regressive form of taxation because it doesn’t tax the rich directly it taxes those trying to get rich. Wealth tax which is non-existent in this country would be a tax on ones total wealth, not how much they earned last year.

            And of course its hard to levy wealth taxes for two reasons. Money politics is one and the other was as Macron sort of moaned about in his speech trying to give a reason for cutting wealth taxes is the wealthy avoid wealth taxes by moving to somewhere like some Caribbean nation buying an island and changing citizenship.

            That brings up the second problem. Giving the poor nations an “official pass” does practically nothing for the abject poor in those nations. The profits of the “official pass” will accrue to their oppressors. . . .including those who skipped out on the wealth taxes.

            Yeah spending trillions on a global initiative paid for largely by the poor and the hard working of wealthy nations isn’t going to go far.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Yeah spending trillions on a global initiative paid for largely by the poor and the hard working of wealthy nations isn’t going to go far.’

            How many trillions are we talking about? Data?

            Does that spending have any economic benefit, health benefits?

            What is the evidence of the costs will fall largely on the poor? Quote a study?

            I think the fairness of how taxation and wealth is distributed is a whole other issue.

            Recently the US has spent trillions of $ on wars in the middle east, in part to keep oil flowing. That debt will have to be paid.

          • Nate says:

            Chic,

            ‘I do believe in an intelligently designed universe and, if humans are to be created part of it, might as well make it a temperate one with a natural climate thermostat.’

            Interesting speculation. And you agree with Roy’s last paragraph.

            Sounds like you might be a Cornwall Alliancer?

            How can you guys believe that on the one hand, God gave us a big brain and the ability to understand and manipulate our world, and on the other hand, be so certain that you know humanity’s limits?

            We’ve built weapons that can thoroughly wipe out civilization, but we cannot affect Earth’s temperature?

            Where does scripture draw such lines?

            Why would God gives us this brain, but expect us to turn it off at key moments?

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Nate,

            I don’t know why God made things the way they are, but wee have to have a decent climate for it to be livable. It’s hard enough for people to flourish as it is. Without fossil fuels, how will everybody make a solar panel or a wind turbine? Population control would be no problem, because so many would be dying off.

            We could be robots with no free will. How does that sound?

            “We’ve built weapons that can thoroughly wipe out civilization, but we cannot affect Earth’s temperature?”

            Why bother if the climate is ok like it is. That should be Roy’s point number 6, if he hasn’t already covered that in his first five.

            What’s it all about, Alfi? I don’t know what the point of that movie is, but what are we doing here if there isn’t a point to it? What God wants #1 is for everyone to honor Him. Number 2 is to love your neighbor as yourself. That’s the main problem the world has to deal with, not climate change.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Population control would be no problem, because so many would be dying off.’

            More hyperbole, no evidence.

            Again, where in the bible or scripture or anywhere does it say that humans cannot change the temperature of the Earth? And why should any thinking person believe that?

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Nate,

            “More hyperbole, no evidence.”

            Your crowd is constantly telling us the world is coming to an end. I think one could make a good case for how much worse off we would be without fossil fuels. Read Alex Epstein’s “The moral case for fossil fuels.”

            I don’t know (does anyone?) if humans can change the temperature of the Earth. But that is a secondary issue. I repeat: why change the temperature of the Earth if it’s good like it is?

          • Svante says:

            Chic,
            Your theology is naive, learn from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences:
            https://tinyurl.com/y92rg66v

          • Nate says:

            ‘Your crowd is constantly telling us the world is coming to an end.’

            I don’t know anyone saying that.

            If a few idiots are saying it, then this gives you guys an excuse to exaggerate and make up stuff?

            ‘why change the temperature of the Earth if it’s good like it is?’

            It’s been good for 5000 y or more, no ice sheets nor water covering our major cities.

            But now it is warming. Did you forget that?

            Your ‘thermostat’ is malfunctioning.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Nate,

            Do I need to name names? There are *.org groups saying if we don’t dial CO2 back to * ppm CO2, bad things happen (“end of the world” is an admittedly strong euphemism). All warmist reports are versions of the same doomageddon.

            “Your ‘thermostat’ is malfunctioning.”

            It warms and cools and has been since the last ice age. When the next ice age occurs, we’ll know the thermostat malfunctioned. Relatively lately, you we say confidently that is working well as humanity is flourishing nicely other than man’s inhumanity to man.

        • An Inquirer says:

          Nate, I understand your point, but I am not sure that you understand Chic’s point. In economics, there is a concept of a public good which has a key feature of non-excludability. If a non-payer cannot be excluded from a good/service which is important to the nation, then it makes sense for government to provide it and to fund it via taxes. The distribution of the tax burden is an issue that society will and must determine.
          However, it is not clear that CO2 control fits under the public good category. As an international concepts, contributions are more voluntary than mandatory. Furthermore, the current distribution of the burden has questionable equity — probably more reflective of the politicians’ desire to get an agreement than of an equitable distribution. The contributions of many countries is more words than reality. And some words reveal meaningless platitudes (e.g. “continued increases until 2030 and then examine ways to control.”) I think Chic is referring to this phenomenon; whatever France does will be swamped by the “non-actions” of other players. In addition, there is an unanswered question of whether CO2 control is a needed product. Despite the hype of the media and twisted analysis of climate reports, negative meteorological events are not getting more severe.

          • Nate says:

            Inquirer,

            ‘whatever France does will be swamped by the “non-actions” of other players.’

            The biggest headwind facing collective effort on almost any issue right now are the actions of the US. The idea of ‘America First’ and the backing out of various treaties and obligations, is giving many people excuses to say ‘Me first’ and do nothing in the way of international effort.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Yes, AI, that’s the general idea. This could very well be a pied-piper situation with government’s leading the people over the cliff. We have failed models and some circumstantial evidence, but no definitive evidence that CO2 will have any more effect on rising global temperatures. There may be a thermostatic element at play. Let’s be sure and not react to suspicions.

          • Nate says:

            ‘We have failed models and some circumstantial evidence, but no definitive evidence that CO2 will have any more effect on rising global temperatures. ‘

            But you’ve already made it abundantly clear that your beliefs don’t require scientific evidence. Don’t you already have the answers from scripture?

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            No, the scriptures don’t provide scientific evidence, but they do provide guidelines for belief in things unseen. Things that can be seen need scientific evidence and the evidence for CO2 changing global temperatures is still fuzzy.

          • Svante says:

            LAUDATO SI’of the Holy Father Francis:
            https://tinyurl.com/ptcm9bz

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Svante,

            I’ll read what Pope Francis has to say later, but until then my view is that we are called to tame the Earth, not worship it. It’s our playground, not our shrine.

  9. Bob Tisdale says:

    Thank you, Roy.

    Happy Holidays to you and yours!
    Bob

  10. Rob Mitchell says:

    Merry Christmas Dr. Roy! The climate research and data that you provide to science organizations and to the general public goes a long way to bringing sanity to the entire debate over climate. I just call it climate because attaching “change” to climate is silly and redundant. It would be like a weathercaster talking about the “weather change” of today and tomorrow will be. Weather implies change. So does climate. When examining the instrument and proxy data of the past, when has climate ever not changed?

  11. Regarding:
    “(How do I know? Because NONE of the natural energy flows in and out of the climate system are known to the accuracy [about 1%] needed to blame recent warming on increasing CO2, rather than on Mother Nature. Those natural energy flows in the models are simply forced to be in balance, and so the cause of model warming ends up being anthropogenic. Thus the models use circular reasoning to establish human causation.)”

    The differences in energy balance component between the models seem to be 10-fold the observed/estimated global energy imbalance of around 0.6 W/m2.
    See for example Table 2 in Wild et al 2014:
    The energy balance over land and oceans: an assessment based on direct observations and CMIP5 climate models
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-014-2430-z

    I think the magnitude of these differences between the models supports your point.
    Most, if not all, models must have been tuned to match the observed/estimated global energy imbalance.

    As these deifferences demonstrate that all models cannot possibly be right, the question is:
    Are any of these models even approximately right?
    If so, which one is approximately right, and how do we know that?

  12. Neville says:

    Prof Nic Lewis has a look at their data and comes to the same conclusion as Dr Roy Spencer.
    Anyway, why would any country want to follow the EXTREME German or Danish example that clearly shows ( over decades) that clueless Wind & Solar have zero chance of having any measurable impact on temp by 2040 or by 2100 or perhaps for a thousand years. ( see Nic lewis update link)
    So when will these fools wake up?

    https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/11/climate-sensitivity-to-cumulative-carbon-emissions/

    • David Appell says:

      Nic Lewis isn’t a professor, he’s an “independent climate science researcher.”

      https://www.nicholaslewis.org/

      • CoRev says:

        David, if you can not attack the argument, attack the Nic Lewis’ espereience? Too often an academician is not the career path the produce concrete, societal, and physical improvements.

        I did notice you HAVE NOT TRIED TO ANSWER Roy’s questions. Nor have you tried to counter Roy’s and Nic’s conclusions.

      • Richard M says:

        David, what does being a “professor” have to do with anything? Says nothing about your actual knowledge of the subject matter. I suppose that’s all you have but it really is weak (kind of like all your arguments).

  13. Entropic man says:

    Part of the reason for the poor reception of the sceptic case is the poor evidence.

    For example Dr Spencer in this post is attempting to discredit the models using the graph that John Christy put together for the Republican Party.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Fig17-CMIP5-vs-obs-1979-2017-global-LT.jpg

    That has two invalidating mistakes.

    1) It chose the CMIP5 runs which projected most warming and ignored the lower projections. This gave the impression that the ensemble predicted higher temperatures.

    2) It used the averages, not the runs which most closely resembled reality, again giving a falsely high impression.

    This was recognised years ago, but the same misleading graph keeps being presented as evidence.

    • Robert Austin says:

      Entropic,
      The ensemble did not ignore models with lower temperature projections. The ensemble merely averaged 102 models without judgement in that it did not weight those which “closely resembled reality”.
      With the spaghetti graph of models all over the chart, each model allegedly based on “science”, who’s to say that the models that “most closely resembled reality” are actually modelling climate more accurately. Models that closely follow measured average global surface temperature do not necessarily model other climate phenomena well. If the science is so well understood, there should not be the model spread in the first place.
      Talking about poor evidence presented by skeptics is gross projection.

      • David Appell says:

        I highly doubt that 102 models are all trying to project future global climate. Scientists make models mostly to do experiments — how well does this model which specializes in ice dynamics predict the change in Arctic sea ice? How well does a model that specializes in cloud dynamics match the observed cloud data? Is this parametrization for water vapor concentration better than the one before?

        There are only a handful of big models that attempt to incorporate all known factors. Let’s focus on them. I don’t think that plotting 102 of them is honest. Scientists aren’t so much interested in warming by 2100 — though they run the big models for the big reports — as they are in how various features of their models change under certain assumptions. As least, that’s what modelers have told me when I’ve asked.

        How well does UAH’s model do in projecting temperatures? Or any “skeptic” model?

        • m d mill says:

          Are the big models any better at matching observations than the average of 102? I doubt it.
          In any case the big models are sold as accurate predictors of the future…that is what the alarm-ism is based upon.

        • Robert Austin says:

          The ensemble average serves no scientific purpose but the spaghetti plot of 102 models does serve to show the model spreads. I have no problem with modelers as long as they do not claim to predict future climate and they chastise those who abuse model outputs in order to claim prediction (projection?)of future climate.

          Also, since when has the UAH satellite temperature model ever been used to project future temperatures? David, when you try too hard to score points, you merely make a fool of yourself.

        • Bill Hunter says:

          David, criticizing using 102 climate models is really a non-starter because just a glance at the graph shows the results of the 102 models are nearly identical or are identical to what the IPCC reported. I kind of doubt you are giving the same criticism to the IPCC.

    • Bart says:

      It’s not a winning argument to say that Dr. Christy’s graph is invalid because it doesn’t show the low projections that somewhat match the measured data.

      Firstly, it is the Texas Sharpshooter’s Fallacy: if the spread is so wide that it encompasses every eventuality, then the models are useless. You don’t get to paint your target around the ones that vaguely were in the ballpark and declare your models skillful.

      Secondly, the low projections indicate low sensitivity, which implies there isn’t anything to worry about.

      • David Appell says:

        The models aren’t all trying to calculate the same thing.

        Why has this graph never been published??

        • DHR says:

          Mr. Appell, I don’t understand. I think you are saying that some of models shown in the temperature/time plots of 100 or more models are not focused on predicting temperature changes but predicting something else? So why would temperature output from these temperature-deficient models be included in such plots. Indeed, why is the climate community not focused on the Russian model since it predicts temperatures closer to observations than any other, from what I can see.

  14. Neville says:

    Here is the data from the EU based IEA for TOTAL energy generated by China and USA. China generates 66.7% of TOTAL energy from king coal and the USA just 17.1%. China would be higher in 2018 but this 2015 update is the latest free info from their site.

    China generates just 1.6% of TOTAL energy from GEO+ S&Wind and the USA just 1.4% and Lomborg calculates that the IEA projects just 3.6% of TOTAL energy from GEO+ S&W by 2040. IOW little change and meanwhile China, India etc are building 100s of new coal fired stns and many multiples to come by 2040. Here’s China, USA data for TOTAL energy from the IEA.

    https://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/CHINA4.pdf

    https://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/USA4.pdf

  15. Neville says:

    Here’s Bjorn Lomborg’s latest 2018 update of the IEA data. He now estimates just 0.8% of TOTAL world energy from S&Wind ( no GEO in this estimate) and this may increase to 3.6% by 2040.
    What is it that people don’t understand about these very simple sums? Dr Hansen was correct when he said that PARIS COP 21 was just “BS and fra-d”.

    https://climatechangedispatch.com/where-do-we-get-most-of-our-energy-hint-not-renewables/

  16. aaron says:

    N and P are CO2 constrained. When CO2 rises, plants are able to provide more resources to N and P fixing organisms. Soil becomes better able hold water. Plant need less water, leaving more for other plants and soil.

    There is no reason to believe the CO2 bio sink will saturate. In fact, we can be quite confident that the opposite is happening.

    Add to that that evaporation happens more readily over water than land, you get net transfer of water to land which is increasingly better able to retain it. Likely this is/will mitigate sea level rise. (GRACE recently showed that land water basins are increasing in contradiction to models https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TSGtxx52yX8J:https://news.utexas.edu/2018/01/22/discrepancies-in-water-storage-trends-across-the-globe+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us).

    This happens to a lesser extent with crop because they generally aren’t N and P constrained (no need to share with soil to get N and P) and crops have been bred to optimize for carbohydrate content. (It should be researched to see if crops can be productive with less added P and N as CO2 rises.)

  17. David Appell says:

    Roy wrote:
    There has yet to be any good evidence produced that weather extremes are worse in recent decades than in previous centuries.

    Roy, please stop it.

    You know there is evidence out here, and some of us here have presented it to you. So why do you still keep up this charade? It harms your credibility.

    “Global warming already driving increases in rainfall extremes: Precipitation extremes are affecting even arid parts of the world, study shows,” Nature 3/7/16
    http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-already-driving-increases-in-rainfall-extremes-1.19508

    “Increased record-breaking precipitation events under global warming,” J Lehmann et al, Clim. Change 132, 501515 (2015).
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-015-1434-y

    “Here we show that, worldwide, the number of local record-breaking monthly temperature extremes is now on average five times larger than expected in a climate with no long-term warming.”
    – Coumou, D., A. Robinson and S. Rahmstorf, 2013: Global increase in record-breaking monthly-mean temperatures. Climatic Change, doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0668-1.

  18. My answer to The Five Big Questions are the result of extensive analysis of the UAH satellite lower troposphere temperature data and atmospheric CO2 concentration data from observatories around the Globe.

    The public should be informed that IPCC reports are compiled on the assumption that atmospheric CO2 warms the Earth’s surface, a condition that they have never proven. Thus predictions based on that assumption are merely entertaining stories about a make-believe World.

    The measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentration show a regular 12 month cycle superimposed on a near-linear upward trend. The cycle is the response of vegetation to the seasonal change in temperature, humidity and rainfall whereby the plants absorb CO2 and water through photosynthesis for growth and the production of oxygen. This process provides us with the food that we eat and the air that we breath. It is climate change causing CO2 change. Our farmers know this. Our World leaders appear to be appallingly ignorant of this process.

    Remove the seasonal effect by calculating the annual rate of change of CO2 concentration and you have a time series that matches the Oceanic Nio Index 3.4 used in the identification of El Nio events. Again this is climate change driving CO2 change, caused by the ever-changing configuration of the Sun, Moon and planets modulating the radiation received by the Earth.

    Comparison of the annual rate of change of CO2 concentration with the Tropics temperature reveals that maxima in the temperature match maxima in the rate of change of CO2. As these must precede maxima in the CO2 concentration it means that temperature change occurs before CO2 change so the temperature change cannot possibly be caused by the CO2 change that happens later in time.

    CO2 has not caused global warming nor has it caused climate change. Except for volcanic activity and other natural processes, CO2 change is driven by the climate.

    Human caused warming is a local issue, the urban heat island effect, destruction of forests and the pollution of the oceans by a film of plastic and other waste. It is policies to address these real issues that are needed not meddling with energy generation based on imaginary pollution via carbon.

    For detailed analysis, please see my website at: https://www.climateauditor.com

    • David Appell says:

      Bevan Dockery says:
      The public should be informed that IPCC reports are compiled on the assumption that atmospheric CO2 warms the Earths surface, a condition that they have never proven.

      Bullsh!t. There is every expectation that CO2, like water vapor, will ab.sor.b some of the IR given off by the surface. It’s obvious from data like these:

      https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif

      And when this is calculated using the physics of radiative transfer and GHG molecular spectra, that’s indeed what is found.

      This isn’t difficult — it was first done in 1896. If you think that’s wrong, let’s see your science — I’m sure you can’t do it.

      http://www.davidappell.com/EarlyClimateScience.html

      • JDHuffman says:

        DA, heat energy moves from the surface to the atmosphere. No one argues with that.

        But to then claim the atmosphere can warm the surface is not valid physics. That’s when you wade into the pseudoscience muck.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        “And when [absorp.tion of surface radiation] is calculated using the physics of radiative transfer and GHG molecular spectra, that’s indeed what is found.”

        Difficult or not, those calculations don’t prove CO2 causes warming. It is just as difficult to prove CO2 doesn’t cause warming as it will be for you to prove it does.

      • David, I am not writing about opinion pieces in corrupted journals, I have dealt with real world data.
        For example, the Spearman Rank independence test for UAH satellite lower troposphere Tropics temperature with respect to the annual rate of change of the atmospheric CO2 concentration at the Cape Grim Baseline station, NW Tasmania, had a probability of the order of 10^-36 that the two series were independent. This means that CO2 change lags temperature change so it cannot be the cause of the earlier temperature change.
        Furthermore, the rate of change of CO2 concentration cannot be the cause of the temperature change as a rate does not determine a level. A rate of change of 2 ppm pa could be between 0 and 2 ppm, 1765 ppm and 1767 ppm or any other pair of numbers that differ by 2.
        This explains the continual increase in the annual CO2 concentration as it means that the concentration is the integral over time of the preceding temperature and the Tropics temperature has been greater than the level at which the rate of change of concentration is zero.
        It also explains why the CO2 concentration continues to increase in spite of the sudden drop in temperature marking the beginning of previous ice ages. The CO2 concentration does not fall until the temperature reaches the critical temperature level when CO2 generation ceases.
        Another confirmation is the fact that the Fourier spectrum for the rate of change of CO2 at the South Pole matches that at the Mauna Loa Observatory in spite of the Fourier spectrum of the South Pole temperature approaching that of random noise. As the Tropics has the highest average temperature, the zone creates the greatest amount of CO2 which spreads North and South towards the Poles. The later are the sink whereby CO2 is precipitated in rain or snow due to its increased solubility in water. It is there locked into the polar ice sheets and moves slowly towards the surrounding oceans. The resulting melt water is rich in CO2 and this causes a profusion of plankton and other life which attracts whales, penguins and the like.

        • Nate says:

          Bevan,

          ‘For example, the Spearman Rank independence test for UAH satellite lower troposphere Tropics temperature with respect to the annual rate of change of the atmospheric CO2 concentration at the Cape Grim Baseline station, NW Tasmania, had a probability of the order of 10^-36 that the two series were independent. This means that CO2 change lags temperature change so it cannot be the cause of the earlier temperature change.’

          Indeed the series are not independent. But there is a well-known strong correlation of rate-of-change of the atmospheric CO2 concentration with ENSO, due to effects of ENSO on tropical land carbon sinks.

          Global temperature is also correlated to ENSO.

          Clearly ENSO causes global temperature variation and CO2 variation. This is a natural phenomenon that has been going on for eons.

          But this effect says NOTHING about whether something else causes temperature variation, like volcanoes or GHG, does it?

          One does not preclude the other.

          • Yes Nate, we are continually reminded that climate is a chaotic system that cannot be accurately predicted. So where in the system is the reliable indicator that CO2 causes global warming and climate change?
            Take a look at the data from the South Pole. The CO2 record is much the same as that from the Mauna Loa Observatory but delayed in time so that the South Pole concentration is a few ppm less than at Mauna Loa. 40 years of UAH satellite lower troposphere measurements show no increase in temperature for the South Pole region. So what has happened to the claimed CO2 warming. There is none.
            My guess is that the most likely effect of CO2 is a change in emissivity of the surface due to the greening of the Earth not global warming. It might even induce cooling?

          • Nate says:

            ‘My guess is’ is not science.

            ’40 years of UAH satellite lower troposphere measurements show no increase in temperature for the South Pole region.’

            AGW has a predicted spatial pattern- More in NH and Arctic. More warming in West Antarctica-this pattern was predicted 40 y ago.

            And indeed West Antarctica is warming faster. https://www.nasa.gov/images/content/305938main_Antarctica_temps.jpg

            As you say, the Earth is complex, chaotic. Climate change is not uniform, nor expected to be.

          • barry says:

            Indeed. The rate of change is 2 orders of magnitude smaller than the actual change. The biosphere has an influence on tiny fluctuations in atmos CO2, but the large changes over time are correlated with anthropogenic output.

            Atmospheric CO2 has increased quite steadily – every annual global concentration is greater than the previous annual concentration. Unlike global temperature, where the annual fluctuations are in both directions. therefore, CO2 concentrations in the modern era are not strongly tied to annual temperature, while tiny fluctuations in the rate of change are influenced by the biosphere.

            Much like a car accelerating. The engine could be set to add a kilometer per hour every second, but changes in wind will make this an imperfect acceleration. Noticing that variations in the acceleration are caused by the wind, some fool may conclude that the car is powered by the wind…

    • David Appell says:

      And if you want just some of the observations that have shown this, start here:

      “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

      Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004).
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract

      “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015).
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        David,

        Here you go again with your trifecta of papers showing model calculations of radiative forcing that predicts a temperature increase without showing the corresponding temperature increase. In other words, the spectra calculations show, for example, that an increase in CO2 affects surface radiation. But the spectra doesn’t show the net effect of any surface warming that moves the absorbed energy from the surface to the upper troposphere where that energy is radiated away. These time dependent processes cannot be completely explained by spectra from only a few vantage points.

    • Bart says:

      You are correct in every detail, Bevan.

  19. Stevek says:

    If the cagw crowd were serious they would have been pushing for nuclear power decades ago. They are not being honest and that is why they have failed to get any enforceable agreements.

  20. David Appell says:

    Roy, how come neither of the graphs you presented here have been published in a peer reviewed journal?

    • jim says:

      David Appell—“Roy, how come neither of the graphs you presented here have been published in a peer reviewed journal?”
      MA—Probably because your idols at the CRU blocked their publication by getting editors fired.

      Thanks
      JK

  21. bk says:

    Ecological sciences isn’t exactly your strength, is it?

  22. DR Healy says:

    I’ll check out your citations, but I’ve read an equal number that contradict that position, especially regarding the upper troposphere where the effect is the greatest.

  23. DR Healy says:

    Suggestion; let’s stick with empirical evidence. Evidence based on models is an exercise in circular logic and useless.

    • David Appell says:

      How will you determine future climate without a model?

      • Chris Hanley says:

        You can’t.
        ” The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible ” (IPCC 2001).
        Of the ensemble of model solutions for the mid-troposphere only the lowest outlier, Russian model INM-CM4, has come close to the observations:
        https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/modsvsobs_thumb.png

        • Chris Hanley says:

          Oops, I meant of course you can’t “determine future climate” at all, with or without a model.

        • Craig T. says:

          “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the systems future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential.”

          • Chris Hanley says:

            The entire statement is self-defeating.

          • Craig T. says:

            Not at all. The focus is on probability not prediction. No one can predict the roll of the dice but the house knows what they will make at the end of the year.

          • Chris Hanley says:

            Even with the best efforts of dodgy croupiers and card sharps GISS and RSS the modellers are still out by miles.
            If a gambling joint or casino had the success record of climate modellers they go out of business.

  24. Eben says:

    The communists socialists and globalists latched on the global warming as a new vehicle for taking over the control of energy production and the whole economy , destroying the free market and capitalism

    Global warming fears are a tool for political and economic changeit has nothing to do with the actual climate
    The history keeps repeating itself

    If you don’t fight it as such you will lose.

    • David Appell says:

      More baloney with no evidence presented whatsoever.

      The first global warming calculation was performed in 1896. Apolitical — it’s a simple fact that atmospheric CO2 causes warming. But don’t expect Eben to touch that science at all.

      • jim says:

        David Appell—“The first global warming calculation was performed in 1896.”
        ME AND DEBUNKED a few years later because it was discovered that water vapor masks the effect of CO2.

        thanks
        JK

        • Craig T. says:

          As spectrography improved in the 50’s physicists found bandwidths absorbed by CO2 but not water vapor.

          “Stratospheric heating and cooling rates caused by carbon dioxide are calculated for the N.A.C.A. Standard Atmosphere. Considerable radiative-flux divergence is found in the 15- band.

          Neglect of the pressure effect has resulted in underestimation of outgoing radiation by previous investigators of the heat balance. Thus a smaller value of the albedo is required, in agreement with Fritz’s findings.”
          https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281952%29009%3C0001%3AOTPDOR%3E2.0.CO%3B2

      • JDHuffman says:

        DA claims: “it’s a simple fact that atmospheric CO2 causes warming.”

        FALSE.

        CO2 is NOT a thermodynamic heat source. It can NOT raise the temperature of a system.

        • Norman says:

          JDHuffman

          Your wording is misleading on what actually takes place. It is well known that CO2 is not a thermodynamic heat source. But you incorrectly use this knowledge to create a false conclusion.

          CO2 alone will NOT raise the temperature of a system. But it will raise the temperature of a HEATED system, one with a constant input energy (the Sun).

          This has been explained to you too many times to count. Many links to textbook physics have been sent to you. It seems you will continue peddling your pseudoscience and false conclusions based upon illogical and irrational thought process not connected in any way to actual experimental and valid physics.

          Nothing NEW!

          • JDHuffman says:

            Wrong again, Norman, as usual.

            CO2 will not raise the temperature of a system, even if a real heat source exists within the system. You just don’t understand the relevant physics.

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            I fully understand the correct and true physics. I am not sure what you mean by “relevant physics”. I think that is just made up version.

            The real physics certainly claims that a heated surface will be at the lowest temperature when it radiates away all its energy with zero compensation. Such a state would exist in a vacuum condition with no other heat loss mechanisms (conduction or convection).

            If you have any object that absorbs and emits IR in-between the surface and the cold space, the surface will reach a higher temperature than without such an object.

            With the GHE the complication is the heater (Sun) goes though the object in-between the surface and space. The atmosphere absorbs very little IR from the Sun (solar IR is very low in the GHG bands) but the atmosphere absorbs all but a small part of the Earth surface IR (atmosphere window). That means the atmosphere will work like E. Swanson green plate.

            The GHG will absorb all but a fraction of the Earth IR emission, heat up and start to radiate in all directions. Without the GHG you have zero IR returning to the surface. Now with the GHG you have plenty of IR returning to the surface. It will cause the surface to reach a warmer temperature than if no GHG are present. It is the actual physics. Your so called “relevant physics” is unsupported nonsense that you make up.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “CO2 alone will NOT raise the temperature of a system. But it will raise the temperature of a HEATED system, one with a constant input energy (the Sun).”

            That is the GHE hypothesis which has yet to be validated.

            “That means the atmosphere will work like E. Swanson green plate.”

            No it won’t, because the green plate analogy completely ignores convection which could hypothetically nullify any temperature increase due to CO2.

          • Norman says:

            Chic Bowdrie

            It would seem that the GHE has been validated by noting the actual average surface temperature (a somewhat measured value) is considerably warmer than it would be without such an effect.

            Some on this blog are not able to understand that to get the amount of energy that reaches the total Earth’s surface (average) you must take this energy and divide it up into the Earth’s total surface area. The amount of energy the total Earth can radiate will then be the same as the total incoming solar energy, even if some regions radiate at greater rates than others. The steady state temperature for the total Earth will be equal to the amount of energy coming in with respect to how much it will radiate away (the total surface area). This temperature, when you calculate for albedo (energy reflected away), is 255 K. The measured average surface temperature is 288 K or so. At this time there is not a remotely valid explanation for this higher temperature other than a GHE which is simulated by E. Swanson test.

            As for convection, it does remove surface heat to an extent but it is a small one. I believe it is determined to be around 18 W/m^2 total. It will be much higher for solar heated surfaces in warm areas and much much lower in colder regions or night time conditions. The GHE is 24/7.

            Some do not believe it is possible for backradiation to be greater than solar influx. Evidence and measured values show that this is a false belief.

          • Norman says:

            Chic Bowdrie

            I did some actual calculations based upon actual data

            https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5c1acdd06c4fe.png

            The Solar Net peaks around 800 w/m^2 in the Nevada desert location (full sun). This includes the albedo, the reflected light that is not absorbed. The Net Solar is what is absorbed by the surface.

            https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1223291032

            Take the area of this parabola Peak 800 going for 12 hours and you get a total of 6400. To even this out to compare with the 400 plus Downwelling IR for 24 hours you divide the total by 24 hours to get the same relative rates of energy addition to the surface.

            The Solar averages 267 W/m^2 considerably less energy than the GHE (downwelling IR).

            I think there is actual data and scientific data that confirm the GHE.

            https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5c1ad0e3c03fd.png

            Remove the Downwelling IR and see how much Net energy reaches the surface. You would get at least 20% more energy reaching the surface if you did not have GHG in it but how does that compare to the amount lost by not having GHG?

          • Svante says:

            Chic, improve your argument with latent heat:
            https://tinyurl.com/y7yognko

            Some of it comes back in the form of radiation.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Norman, you’re still wrong, even after the 1000-word rambling comments.

            Maybe if you try another 1000-word rambling rage….

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “It would seem that the GHE has been validated by noting the actual average surface temperature (a somewhat measured value) is considerably warmer than it would be without such an effect.”

            It seems that way as long as you imagine a validation actually took place. A planet without an atmosphere probably would be colder than Earth. But that airless planet is not the same as a planet with an inert atmosphere, ie one without IR absorbing gases. Without removing or adding those IR absorbing gases and simultaneously control for all the other factors that will confound your results, you cannot validate the so-called GHE hypothesis.

            The case you need to make, the only one that matters, is what difference incremental increases in CO2 will have on future global temperatures. The E.Swanson green plate test has no application to this issue, because the test takes place in a vacuum with no convection or evaporation involved.

            “As for convection, it does remove surface heat to an extent but it is a small one.”

            No, convection and evaporation is how the majority of heat gets off the planet’s surfaces. Only radiation through the window isn’t absorbed in the atmosphere and subsequently convected or evaporated up. Notice in your second link how the upwelling IR is greater than the downwelling IR. That’s what’s being radiated through the window. Otherwise the downwelling equals the upwelling. That would create a stalemate except for the fact that the air doesn’t just sit there. When the solar radiation is absorbed the surface radiation is absorbed by the IR active gases which transfer their energy to the bulk air. It’s temperature increases which increases both DWIR and UWIR even more. Meanwhile cooler air above replaces the warmed air. This movement of air is not depicted in the Desert Rock graph summarizing all the radiation processes at a specific point in time and altitude.

            These processes have nothing to do with a greenhouse. I misspoke when I wrote “the GHE hypothesis which has yet to be validated.” I believe that a certain level of CO2 is required to maintain an average global temperature within the inter-glacial range. However, claims that more CO2 will contribute to further warming is a hypothesis that has not been verified. Some refer to this as GHE enhancement.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Svante,

            By latent heat you mean evaporation from the surface which eventually results in energy release in the upper atmosphere. How do water molecules get up there? By convection. Also note the difference between the 398.2 W/m2 emitted from the surface minus the 40.1 W/m2 radiated through the window. That makes 358.1 – 340.3 (backradiation) = 17.8 W/m2 that should be added to the conduction/convection arrow making a total of 122.6 W/m2 energy moved from the surface to the upper atmosphere by convection.

          • Norman says:

            Chic Bowdrie

            I do like your type of skepticism. You are not attempting to distort and change established physics (such that a hot object cannot absorb IR from a colder one…this is pseudoscience with zero experimental support…at least two posters believe this. I think the idea came from the musings of Claes Johnson. He came up with this idea but it has zero experimental evidence to support it).

            You seem to be questioning the extent of warming or if the other factors that play will actually prevent warming. The facts seem to indicate the surface has warmed some in the last few decades. Even if scientists cannot fully determine the cause, the goal of science is to find the underlying mechanisms and causes.

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            YOU: “Norman, youre still wrong, even after the 1000-word rambling comments.”

            And you have not provided even the slightest evidence of my error and your correctness. You make fun of a long post but you have zero ability to prove that I am wrong.

            You say it, but what does that mean? Nothing. Just another one of your many unsupported claims. Nothing new with you.

            Prove I am wrong and you are correct. You won’t do this, you never have been able nor will you ever be able to do it. All you are able to do is complain about long posts and make unsupported statements.

            I have proven you are totally wrong. You have done zero to prove I am wrong. Roy Spencer proved you are wrong, E. Swanson proved you are wrong, textbook physics all say you are wrong. You have yet to provide any evidence to support your claim that I am wrong. Just do it! Prove your statement just once. Link to material proving I am wrong, do and experiment to prove I am wrong. Anything at all more than just your mindless declaration.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Poor Norman, he always steps in his own droppings.

            Above, he erroneously averages/divides/manitpulates a peak solar flux, 800 Watts/m^2, down to 267 Watts/m^2. That way, he can imagine infrared from the atmosphere is “warming the planet”!

            His problem is that he doesn’t have a clue about radiative flux. 267 Watts/m^2 is less flux than ice emits! So poor Norman is claiming the Sun has less warming ability than an ice cube.

            And he always claims he understand the relevant physics….

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            Are you telling me that you can’t do simple math?

            YOU: “His problem is that he doesnt have a clue about radiative flux. 267 Watts/m^2 is less flux than ice emits! So poor Norman is claiming the Sun has less warming ability than an ice cube.”

            Basically it is not at all what I am claiming. It is what the measured values state. Evidence that you can’t accept.

            The Sun alone would not be able to heat the Earth’s surface above the freezing point of ice. 255 K is about 0 F. Well below the 32 F freezing point of ice.

            The Sun shines during the day but not at night. I am not sure you can understand this fact, you act like you don’t. The math is completely correct. The Sun will add 6400 watts/m^2 of energy to the surface in a 24 hour period. This equals an average of 267 W/m^2.

            The Sun adds energy to the surface of Nevada desert for 12 hours. For 12 hours the surface receives zero energy from the Sun. However the surface emits radiant energy 24 hours so when the Sun is not adding energy to the surface it keeps emitting it.

            You need to learn some physics and take a few course on math and logical thought while you are at it. You seem lacking in all areas of science. Science, evidence, math and logic are all things you seem to lack. Sorry that is your problem.

            Go to the local University and prove to the Astronomy professor that the Moon does not rotate on its axis. Good luck. Maybe email as many astronomers you can and see if even one agrees with you. Then post it for all to see.

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            Okay you don’t know physics and you hate science. But I don’t want to leave you in your dark zone of ignorance. This empirical data should help you (unfortunately it will not, but it may help someone)

            https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5c1b2ae3591f2.png

            This one is just of the incoming Solar input energy (24 hour period or cycle) and the emitted energy from the surface (actual measured values).

            Note. If you take the area under the parabola for the solar incoming energy you will get a value of around 6400 watts/m^2 energy input. That will be all the energy the Sun can provide at this location in a 24 hour period. The emission does not stop at night. If you look at the graph it stays generally above 500 w/m^2 each hour (dipping below 500 during the cooler night but going well above 500 during the day).

            If you take 500 W/m^2 as the average emission per hour (probably a little more) you end up the surface will emit 12,000 watts/m^2 in 24 hours.

            That means the surface is emitting much more energy than the Solar input provides. Convection and latent heat both remove energy from the surface they do not add energy. The energy has to come from somewhere. Where would that be? The Downwelling flux.

            https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5c1b2d04bce6a.png

            If you take the average downwelling IR to be around 300 W/m^2 and multiply this by 24 hours you get an energy input from this source of 7200 w/m^2. Combined with the solar input of 6400 w/m^2 the surface receives 13,600 watts/m^2 in 24 hours. That gives an excess energy of 1600 w/m^2 which would be removed by the other heat transfer mechanisms.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Norman clearly believes the pseudoscience: “The Sun alone would not be able to heat the Earth’s surface above the freezing point of ice. 255 K is about 0 F. Well below the 32 F freezing point of ice.”

            With no meaningful background in science, poor Norman just believes whatever Institutionalized Pseudoscience (IP) puts out. He makes so many mistakes that no one wants to take the time to correct him. I only correct some of his mistakes, in case anyone else is interested. Clearly, Norman is not.

            The “255 K” comes from IP. It is the result of the meaningless calculation of dividing average solar flux by 4, then using that value in the S/B equation. IP then compares that to the actual average of Earth’s temperature–288 K. They believe the difference, 288 – 255 = 33, “proves the GHE. WRONG!

            What it proves is that IP does not understand the relevant physics. The 255 K is a bogus value. It can NOT be compared to Earth’s actual temperatures. “Bogus” and “actual” are only comparable in Institutionalized Pseudoscience.

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            It does seem most obvious you are not able to understand some math like geometry. You act like I am the one who is ignorant. Look in the mirror, you can’t comprehend simple geometry.

            HERE YOU CLAIM: “The “255 K” comes from IP. It is the result of the meaningless calculation of dividing average solar flux by 4, then using that value in the S/B equation. IP then compares that to the actual average of Earth’s temperature–288 K. They believe the difference, 288 – 255 = 33, “proves the GHE. WRONG!”

            More than one poster has explained how it works in detail. I have tried. You do not have enough geometry knowledge to understand how the calculation is derived and it seems until you get this knowledge it is impossible to explain it to you.

            It is actually very good math and very logical. The flaw is in your ignorance, not the science.

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            YOU: “With no meaningful background in science, poor Norman just believes whatever Institutionalized Pseudoscience (IP) puts out. He makes so many mistakes that no one wants to take the time to correct him. I only correct some of his mistakes, in case anyone else is interested. Clearly, Norman is not.”

            This is why you are a complete dork. You think valid science based upon math and logic is “Institutionalized Pseudoscience”. Then you add the idiotic (IP) as if that gives your stupidity validity.

            I make no mistakes, you are lacking in any math skills, logic ability or any ability at all to understand any science. Just a dumb dork that pretends.

            You are a true crackpot making up all kinds of things. The biggest made up thing is your claim to have studied physics. This is a fantasy of yours. You show you have zero knowledge of physics and can’t comprehend geometry at all. You are near the lower IQ limits of bloggers like the goofy Gordon Robertson that can’t understand Inverse Square Law.

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            It was predicted that you could not understand actual empirical data. I was correct. One can show you actual evidence but you are not even close to smart enough to grasp it. Pretend all you want and keep posting. It is good for people to see how stupid the extreme skeptic side is. You do okay on the pseudoscience blogs like Postma and PSI where people just make up anything they want. No evidence, no support any random idea they come up with is accepted as valid. You are a creature of these pseudoscience blogs and have learned all your physics from them. Now you come on an actual blog with people that have studied real physics and you look like a dork out or water.

          • JDHuffman says:

            There are two issues here that have poor Norman terribly confused.

            1. The 255 K.
            2. 800 Watts/m^2 can not melt ice.

            The first issue is wrong because you cannot compare a bogus value to an actual value. The bogus value, 255 K, is NOT the temperature of the Earth. It is the calculated value of a super-conducting, homogeneous, isotropic, black body sphere. The sphere would have no mountains, no trees, no soils, no atmosphere and no oceans. No such object exists in reality. It is bogus.

            The second issue is Norman’s perversion of radiative physics. You cannot arbitrarily average/divide radiative flux. 800 Watts/m^2 corresponds to a S/B temperature of 345 K, But Norman’s 267 Watts/m^2 corresponds to 262 K. He’s created a difference of 83 C, or 149 F, just by corrupting the laws of physics.

            As usual, he doesn’t know what he is doing.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Norman,

            Your solar net average of 267 W/m2 is for Desert Rock, Nevada, USA. Trenberth’s global average absorbed solar SW is about 163 W/m2. But even that average amount concentrated during daylight is enough to keep the average global temperature at about 288 K or so. That is an average from some lower temperatures and some higher temperatures that fluctuate daily depending on how much sun they get on any given day. So there is an inherent lower bound temperature at the surface that daily sunlight adds to to maintain the global average.

            The updwelling IR from that global average temperature is going to be about 398 W/m2 or so. Downwelling IR measured at a specific altitude simply equals the upwelling IR minus the IR that is radiated directly to space. To maintain its global average temperature, the surface must rid itself of the 163 W/m2 absorbed from the sun. 40 W/m2 goes directly to space and the rest is convected and/or evaporated and eventually radiated to space. Downwelling IR never exceeds upwelling IR and only complements the level of upwelling radiation. This is because any radiation emitted from IR absorbing gases will be absorbed immediately except at an altitude where the density is sufficiently reduced or whatever goes through the atmospheric window. Downwelling IR doesn’t add anything that wasn’t already there in the first place.

            One could argue that the planet cooled from being much warmer billions of years ago or warmed from the last ice age. Either way, Earth’s surface has an inherent temperature capable of contributing at least an average of (398-163) 235 W/m2 to the average daily solar insolation. IOW, it didn’t come from DWIR.

            I responded to an earlier comment in a new thread below.

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            The display of stupid comments from you continues. Again you demonstrate you are clueless about the topic you engage in.

            YOU: “The first issue is wrong because you cannot compare a bogus value to an actual value. The bogus value, 255 K, is NOT the temperature of the Earth. It is the calculated value of a super-conducting, homogeneous, isotropic, black body sphere. The sphere would have no mountains, no trees, no soils, no atmosphere and no oceans. No such object exists in reality. It is bogus.”

            Where does that come from? They use basically the Earth’s surface with its Albedo of 0.3 to arrive at the figure. They are not assuming things you claim. You don’t know what you are talking about. Idiot!

            The second point is as dumb as the first and you wonder why you are called a dork. You are one. Read you stupid posts and you will understand.

            Ok dunce your idiot comment: “The second issue is Norman’s perversion of radiative physics. You cannot arbitrarily average/divide radiative flux. 800 Watts/m^2 corresponds to a S/B temperature of 345 K, But Norman’s 267 Watts/m^2 corresponds to 262 K. He’s created a difference of 83 C, or 149 F, just by corrupting the laws of physics.”

            How incredibly stupid do you have to be? Why? You realize that the real surface cycles on a 24 hour schedule? The peak output in the Nevada summer desert reaches about 800 watts/m^2. The surface emission continues when the Sun goes down. The Sun supplies zero energy to the surface for about 12 hours. How dumb can you be and pretend to think you are smart. Be gone idiot, go enlighten idiots that think you have knowledge. I doubt any but Gordon Robertson and your boyfriend DREMT think you are anything but a dumbass troll.

          • Norman says:

            Chic Bowdrie

            I do believe you are wrong on a lot of your points. I might take some time to explain the errors if you are interested. I think you are an intelligent skeptic that can comprehend physics.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Poor Norman. He’s so confused.

            It must make him very frustrated.

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            YOU: “Poor Norman. Hes so confused.

            It must make him very frustrated”

            Not really, I am just tired of trying to reason with a drunk baboon that has no knowledge of physics, geometry, and thinks he is the smartest person alive.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Your confusion frustrates you, so then you have to resort to your juvenile attacks.’

            Nothing new.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Norman,

            That’s nice of you to say, thanks. I’ll be tuning in occasionally during the holidays and it will be a pleasure to continue discussing the science with you.

            Meanwhile, have a Merry Christmas.

          • Svante says:

            Merry Christmas!

          • JDHuffman says:

            Poor Norman demonstrates his ignorance. Not only does he not understand the relevant physics, he doesn’t even understand the pseudoscience he espouses.

            But, he can slander and insult, like an uneducated adolescent.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/12/the-five-questions-global-warming-policy-must-answer/#comment-334407

            Nothing new.

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            YOU: “Poor Norman demonstrates his ignorance. Not only does he not understand the relevant physics, he doesnt even understand the pseudoscience he espouses.

            But, he can slander and insult, like an uneducated adolescent.

            I already explained what YOU mean by “relevant physics” it is your made up nonsense that is unsupported. It has no bearing on any actual physics.

            When I call you stupid it is not an insult. It is a very true fact. You are a babbling drunk baboon that posts endless nonsense.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Norman shows more of his incompetence and ignorance.

            The only thing he got right was when he directly quoted me. But, he doesn’t know how to copy-paste correctly. He hasn’t learned that the punctuation gets wiped out, and must be re-entered. He just can’t learn.

            And, he continues with his juvenile remarks. He hasn’t learned that doing so clearly identifies him as an immature, uneducated, frustrated failure.

            Nothing new.

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            There is one thing you did not mention. I have much more physics and math knowledge than you. Maybe if you started reading some actual science the light would go on inside your dim skull and you would realize just how bad your posts really are.

            Learn real physics. Try to be a little competent. As it stands you can’t understand geometry and do not realize a sphere has a larger surface area than a circle if both have the same radius. There are probably many things you need to learn. It will take you some time and effort.

          • JDhuffman says:

            All wrong, Norman. Just because you can bang out something on your keyboard doesn’t mean it is accurate.

            Always directly quote me, then you will at least have something correct.

            Now, try again.

    • Craig T. says:

      Eben you left out Soros, the Rothchilds and the Illuminati.

    • Eben says:

      You people need to learn to just ignore those David Appell brown skidmarks he leaves in everyone’s thread

  25. DR Healy says:

    Provide the empirical and you have a point.
    Models are not science; remember Dr. Feynmann!!!!!!

    • Entropic man says:

      DR Healey

      All the processes which together drive the climate can be demonstrated empirically at the laboratory scale. Signatures such as radiation spectra can be identified.

      Those signiatures can then be observed in the field.

      If by “empirical” you mean controlled experiments, then you can compare current conditions and changes with past conditions. Controlled experiments on AGW are limited by the lack of a control planet.

      As for Dr Feynmann, he would note your request for proof. He would then mark you down as a non-scientist who did not know what he was talking about.

      • JDHuffman says:

        E-man, your “signatures” are, in reality, random scribblings that have no value as scientific proof.

        The fact that matter both absorbs and emits infrared does not mean the system will move to a higher average temperature.

        • Entropic man says:

          JDHuffman

          “The fact that matter both absorbs and emits infrared does not mean the system will move to a higher average temperature.”

          It does when the system absorbs more radiant energy than it emits

          Net energy accumulation leads to a higher average temperature.

          • JDHuffman says:

            E-man says: “It does when the system absorbs more radiant energy than it emits.”

            It doesn’t when it doesn’t.

  26. ren says:

    Circulation in the Pacific still does not indicate El Niño.
    https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
    Frost in the northeast of the US. The stratospheric polar vortex will attack in Western Europe.

  27. aaron says:

    https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1890/04-1724

    A meta‐analysis of mycorrhizal responses to nitrogen, phosphorus, and atmospheric CO2 in field studies

    Here meta‐analyses were used to integrate nutrient responses across independent field‐based studies. Responses were compared between ecto‐ and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, and among fertilizer types, methods of measurement, biomes, and lead investigators. Relationships between degree of response and study length, fertilization rates, total amounts of nutrients applied, and numbers of replicates were also tested.

    Across studies, mycorrhizal abundance decreased 15% under N fertilization and 32% under P fertilization. Elevated CO2 elicited a 47% increase. Nitrogen effects varied significantly among studies, and P effects varied significantly among lead investigators. Most other factors did not affect mycorrhizal responses.

    These results support the plant investment hypothesis, and suggest that global standing stocks of mycorrhizal fungi may increase substantially under elevated CO2…

    Elevated CO2

    By contrast to N and P fertilization, CO2 enrichment consistently and strongly increased mycorrhizal growth, by an average of 47% across all studies (Fig. 1), and by 36% within studies that measured percentage colonization (R = 1.36, CI of 1.11–1.68, number of studies = 12).

  28. aaron says:

    https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1890/04-1724

    We compiled data from 104 published papers that study C and N dynamics at ambient and elevated CO2. The compiled database contains C contents, N contents, and C:N ratio in various plant and soil pools, and root:shoot ratio. Averaged C and N pool sizes in plant and soil all significantly increase at elevated CO2 in comparison to those at ambient CO2, ranging from a 5% increase in shoot N content to a 32% increase in root C content.

  29. aaron says:

    http://archive.news.iupui.edu/releases/2016/02/drylands-global-greening.shtml

    After analyzing 45 studies from eight countries, Lixin Wang, assistant professor of earth sciences in the School of Science at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, and a Ph.D. student in Wang’s group, Xuefei Lu, concluded the greening likely stems from the impact of rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide on plant water savings and consequent increases in available soil water…

    Defined broadly as zones where mean annual precipitation is less than two-thirds of potential evaporation, drylands are the largest terrestrial biome on the planet, home to more than 2 billion people…

    “The stability of the rate of change justifies using higher carbon dioxide enrichment levels to interpret soil water responses to currently observed carbon dioxide enrichment,” Wang said.

    The analysis also showed that elevated carbon dioxide significantly enhanced soil water levels in drylands more so than it did in non-drylands, with soil water content increasing by 9 percent in non-drylands compared to 17 percent in drylands…

    Studies including Wang’s earlier work in Africa have shown that even small changes in soil moisture in drylands could be significant enough to cause large changes in vegetation productivity.

    “Importantly, the observed response lends weight to the hypothesis that any additional soil water in the root zone is then available to facilitate vegetation growth and greening under enhanced carbon dioxide,” Wang said. “Future studies using global-scale process-based models to quantitatively assess the carbon dioxide impact on soil moisture is needed to further validate the hypothesis.”

  30. aaron says:

    CO2 causes seeds to germinate earlier and more successfully (heartier seeds can risk earlier germination).

    https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/nph.12691

    Seed germination and rising atmospheric CO2 concentration: A meta-analysis of parental and direct effects

    Plant regeneration from seed is largely governed by germinability and speed of germination. These fitness components have received considerably less attention in CO2
    research relative to studies of vegetative or reproductive output responses. Moreover, the limited literature has not
    been rigorously examined for generalizable patterns of responses and/or potential mechanisms.

    We used a meta-analytic approach to summarize literature results of seed germination characteristics in response to parental CO2 enrichment (eCO2). The direct effects of
    eCO 2 on germination components were also analyzed. The data set came from 29 original research papers
    encompassing 64 species and 116 observations. Across all studies, parental eCO2 increased subsequent germination by 9%, but the responses varied among species by as much as 300%. The response was significantly higher in trees than in other life forms. With the exception of
    crops, parental eCO2 also increased germination rate in most life forms and functional groups. Despite a considerable interspecific variability, we found a positive correlation between germination success and seed mass responses to parental eCO2. Therefore, the observed
    diversity of regeneration success responses to parental
    eCO2 is partly controlled by the direction
    and magnitude of changes in seed mass.

  31. aaron says:

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.13147

    Elevated carbon dioxide increases soil nitrogen and phosphorus availability in a phosphorus‐limited Eucalyptus woodland

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11104-008-9614-4

    The significant enhancement of enzyme activities under elevated [CO2] reflected an increase in nutrient acquisition activity in the soil, as well as an increase of fungal population. Nitrogen fertilization did not influence N availability and cycling, but acted as a negative feed-back on phosphorus availability under elevated CO2.

  32. David I have shown time and time again that the climate of today is not unique. It has happened many times over.

    In addition the global temperature trend has been down the last few years, in direct opposition to what the IPCC and their pathetic climate models have predicted.

    David the best part is as we move forward is the IPCC climate predictions will be more and more off while my prediction will be more and more correct.

    I would say all signs are moving in the direction of cooling, although slower then I thought but moving in the correct direction.

    Then again when the climate changes it does so in an abrupt manner rather then in a slow gradual manner.

    AGW theory will be shown to be obsolete by 2020!

    • Craig T. says:

      “In addition the global temperature trend has been down the last few years, in direct opposition to what the IPCC and their pathetic climate models have predicted.”

      The models were never intended to make year to year predictions.

      • Bart says:

        Or, even decade to decade, apparently. In fact, they are totally useless except as a means to pressure low information voters into clamoring to give up their cash and freedom in exchange for preposterous promises to control the weather.

  33. I will sum it up.

    There has never been or will there ever be AGW.

  34. aaron says:

    https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.12022

    Our results imply that elevated CO2 and N addition could facilitate tree species to mitigate P limitation by more strongly influencing P dynamics than N in the subtropical forests.

  35. This article by Dr. Spencer is excellent and supports views which do not support AGW.

  36. ren says:

    In two days, the stratospheric intrusion will reach the Gulf of Mexico.
    https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00976/jbnmbryt1sfc.png

  37. Eben says:

    This is the original model predictions that triggered the global warming hysteria, this should be used as a bench mark when comparing predictions to reality.
    The actual CO2 increase actually exceeded scenerio “A” but lets not split hairs here.

    https://goo.gl/3qHzLF

  38. Neville says:

    I think Roy’s points 4 and 5 are a big problem for the silly fantasists as well.
    Jo Nova reports that up to 25% of Aussie solar installations have poor installation standards/workmanship and a regular number of fly by nighters go belly up after completing very shoddy jobs.
    This looks like becoming another pink bats fiasco under the then hopeless Krudd Labor govt.
    And of course no change to climate by 2040 or 2100 or for thousands of years if you believe the joint Royal Society/ NAS report. OH and that’s IF we cancel all human co2 emissions today.
    OH and China, India and non OECD emissions continue to soar and they are building 100s of new coal fired power stns, plus Germany are extending their brown coal mines to bring more stability and real baseload power to their grid.
    Japan are also building many more Coal fired stns . The silly fantasists are pulling the greatest BS fra-d in history and wasting trillions of $ for a guaranteed ZERO return.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2018/12/deadly-a-quarter-of-all-solar-panels-pose-high-or-severe-risk/#more-61977

  39. Neville says:

    BTW here’s the father of their CAGW scare after the nonsensical PARIS COP 21 agreement.
    Dr Hansen ( Gore’s top adviser) called Paris COP 21 just Fra-d and BS in this 2015 interview with the Guardian.
    But the silly fantasists think it’s okay to waste endless trillions of $ on this obvious BS and fra-d? Will they ever wake up and why don’t ALL the MSM tell the truth to the long suffering taxpayers around the world?

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-change-paris-talks-fraud

  40. Neville says:

    Here’s question 20 from the joint Royal Society/NAS report and their answer. Click on fig 9 for more detail.

    https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-20/
    20.”If emissions of greenhouse gases were stopped, would the climate return to the conditions of 200 years ago”?
    Climate change: evidence and causes

    “No. Even if emissions of greenhouse gases were to suddenly stop, Earths surface temperature would not cool and return to the level in the pre-industrial era for thousands of years.

    fig9-smallFigure 9. If global emissions were to suddenly stop, it would take a long time for surface air temperatures and the ocean to begin to cool, because the excess CO2 in the atmosphere would remain there for a long time and would continue to exert a warming effect. Model projections show how atmospheric CO2concentration (a), surface air temperature (b), and ocean thermal expansion (c) would respond following a scenario of business-as-usual emissions ceasing in 2300 (red), a scenario of aggressive emission reductions, falling close to zero 50 years from now (orange), and two intermediate emissions scenarios (green and blue). The small downward tick in temperature at 2300 is caused by the elimination of emissions of short-lived greenhouse gases, including methane. Source: Zickfeld et al., 2013 (larger version)

    “If emissions of CO2 stopped altogether, it would take many thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to pre-industrial levels due to its very slow transfer to the deep ocean and ultimate burial in ocean sediments. Surface temperatures would stay elevated for at least a thousand years, implying extremely long-term commitment to a warmer planet due to past and current emissions, and sea level would likely continue to rise for many centuries even after temperature stopped increasing (see Figure 9). Significant cooling would be required to reverse melting of glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet, which formed during past cold climates. The current CO2-induced warming of Earth is therefore essentially irreversible on human timescales. The amount and rate of further warming will depend almost entirely on how much more CO2 humankind emits”.

  41. gbaikie says:

    The Five Big Questions
    1) Is warming and associated climate change mostly human-caused?
    2) Is the human-caused portion of warming and associated climate change large enough to be damaging?
    3) Do the climate models we use for proposed energy policies accurately predict climate change?
    4) Would the proposed policy changes substantially reduce climate change and resulting damage?
    5) Would the policy changes do more good than harm to humanity?

    #1 No.
    #2 both nature and human cause has not caused damage and will not cause damage.
    #3 obviously, not.
    #4 no government policy has worked.
    #5 Harm.
    Most harm done in world is connected with governmental corruption.
    Which can can simplified as government saying it is doing something to help the citizens, and govt doesn’t do what it claims it is doing.
    Climate change policy only amplifies governmental corrupt.

  42. Bindidon says:

    I think it’s time to focus into a specific corner of the KNMI Explorer…

  43. Aaron S says:

    Are we are currently in the “COOL PHASE” of the 2016 2017 Mega El Nino and forecast significant warming in 2019?

    I can not help but notice that if we use the Had_Crut_4 data and take the 1997 1998 El Nino warm phase and subsequent 1999 to 2000 cool phase as an analogy for the current status of climate (a simple back of envelop matching of the 1997 98 El Nino peak to the 2016 2017 peak and extrapolate the global temperature pattern from 97 98 to today into the future), then we see the 2016 2017 El Nino warm phase is gone and we are currently in the middle of the subsequent cool phase. If this analogy method were valid, and the analogy holds onward then the global temperature forecast calls for a sharp rise in global warming in about mid 2019 to about 0.4 C.

    I am not saying I think this will happen, but I do think this is a plausible outcome. If it does happen then if what you label as “Climate Models” on the figure is the 50th percentile, then I would estimate 0.4 C on the Had_Crut_4 would be about 40th percentile of IPCC model predictions and reasonable. Point is the Natural Climate Change argument cuts both ways. At a bigger scale all of Salvatore’s solar cooling could be offset by all of Al Gore’s GHG warming and we currently have moderate warming as a sum. And not Salvatore I am not saying you are as significant as Al Gore- you would have to somehow become a billionaire like he did off your uncalibrated ideas to be equal.

    Of course, I don’t think the Had_Crut_4 is the best guess for global temperature as it has been updated several times and there is opportunity to optimize the global warming in each update using long term ocean circulation patterns to enhance warming from stored heat, but I regress and that is a totally different issue.

  44. Aaron S says:

    Oops I digress not regress.

  45. Neville says:

    Wonderful to see Dr Curry’s article in the Australian newspaper using data and evidence to throw more doubt on the extremist’s claims about dangerous SLR.

    “ALARMIST SEA RISE SCENARIOS UNLIKELY, SAYS CLIMATE SCIENTIST JUDITH CURRY
    Date: 12/12/18 The Australian
    “A catastrophic rise in sea levels is unlikely this century, with recent experience falling within the range of natural variability over the past several thousand years, according to a report on peer-reviewed studies by US climate scientist Judith Curry.
    Writing in The Australian today, Dr Curry says predictions of a 21st-century sea level rise of more than 60cm are increasingly difficult to justify, even if the predicted amount of global warming is correct.

    Predictions of higher than 1.6m require a cascade of extremely unlikely to impossible events using overly simplistic models of poorly understood processes, Dr Curry says.

    The review coincides with debate about whether some warnings about climate change relied too heavily on worst-case scenarios.

    Dr Curry, a professor emeritus form Georgia Institute of Technology, said extreme, barely possible values of sea level rise were driving policies and local adaptation plans. She said an additional sea level rise of 60cm or less over a century could be a relatively minor problem if it was managed appropriately.

    She said there was not yet any convincing evidence of a human fingerprint on global sea level rise because of the large changes driven by natural variability. An increase in the rate of global sea level rise since 1995 is being caused by ice loss from Greenland, she said. Greenland ice loss was larger during the 1930s, which was also associated with the warm phase of the Atlantic Ocean circulation pattern.

    Dr Curry said predictions of sea level rise depended on climate models to predict the correct amount of warming.

    Based on current greenhouse gas emissions, temperature rises to 2100 have been predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to be 3C.

    However, there were reasons to think the climate models were predicting too much warming. She said observed warming for the past two decades was smaller than the average warming predicted by climate models.

    When compared with observations over the past 150 years, climate models produced too much warming in response to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, she said”.

    • Bobdesbond says:

      The Australian – more Murdoch crap.

      • Entropic man says:

        Neville

        “She said observed warming for the past two decades was smaller than the average warming predicted by climate models.”

        Dr Curry has made the same error as John Christy.

        She is comparing observed warming with the ensemble average.

        She should be comparing the observed warming with the models whose forcing most closely resembles the observed forcings. Those models match prediction and observation much better.

        • Bindidon says:

          Exactly, and that is a good reason for me to start learning how to use the model series generator of the KNMI Explorer:

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

          There you can compare their series with all series of observed temperature, surface or troposphere.

          I remember that a commenter nicknamed ‘Olof R’ produced KNMI graphs differing by a lot from those Prof. Christy used in his testimonies.

      • Carbon500 says:

        Bobdesbond: Whether The Australian is ‘Murdoch Crap’ may or may not be true, and is irrelevant.
        What matters is – is Dr. Curry Right?

  46. Neville says:

    Willis Eschenbach has a look at the latest data adjustments to try and find more dangerous acceleration in SLR.
    What a con, what a fra-d.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/17/inside-the-acceleration-factory/

    • Kristian says:

      More of the same. It’s all about selling the narrative.

    • Bindidon says:

      Willis sometimes is a bit quick in writing.

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lPq2ssPdwQuCwZOZnRtRYw5wIwRTDGlK/view

      You clearly see here that the reason for the acceleration has few to do with the satellite era:
      – the trend shown by the polynomial existed long time before it;
      – the harsh increase did not happen just after 1993, but around 2007.

      You see it best by comparing linear estimates in mm/year:
      – 1980-2010: 2.4
      – 1980-2013: 2.6

      Now: what this really is due to is another question. It will be a mix of 1001 things among which CO2 sure is one… but yes, one of many.

  47. Entropic man says:

    Salvatore del Prete

    This is the UAH V6.0 temperature data.

    I have added the linear trend (0.12C/decade) and its confidence limits.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1970/to:2019/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:1970/to:2019/every/trend/offset:-0.1/plot/uah6/from:1970/to:2019/every/trend/offset:0.1/plot/uah6/from:1970/to:2019/every

    You can see that both the 1998 and 2016 El Ninos are outliers. They are short term excursions above the trend, followed by reversion to the trend.

    I am afraid that your long wished for coo!ing trend is just normal reversion to the ongoing warming trend.

    • ren says:

      In the solar minimum period there will be no strong El Niño.
      This will last at least until 2020.

    • ren says:

      If the next solar cycle is weak, the ENSO cycle will be disturbed.

    • Entropic man you are stuck in the past.

      • Entropic man says:

        Rooted in the past, one can grow into the future.

        “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

        George Santayana

        • And you Entropic man are not only rooted in the past but oblivious to the fact that the climate of today is in no way unique in contrast to what it has been in the past as far as degree of change, absolute change and rate of change in the global temperature.

          How you can think a trace gas with a trace increase is going to somehow govern the climatic system of the earth is amazing.

          • Bindidon says:

            This, Salvatore, was explained 40 years ago by a sound scientist named Joseph W. Chamberlain, whose life and work alltogether were best characterised by the word ‘sobriety’:

            Chamberlain, J.W., 1978. Elementary, Analytic Models of Climate:
            I. The Mean Global Heat Balance

            http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19790010343

            Only dumb, ignorant and pretentious commenters discredit his work. But none of them was ever able to falsify it.

            Not one!

          • I am with Dr. Spencer ,when it comes to the climate models and it is so bad now and guess what it will be getting worse.

            AGW – is a sham and any one that thinks other wise is in denial.

          • Bindidon says:

            It seems to me that you stopped reading when looking at the third word in the paper’s title.

            1. Chamberlain’s model has nothing to do with what is actually behind that word.

            2. To understand what Chamberlain wrote does not at all not to be with Dr Spencer. Where is the contradiction?

            You see the worldd a bit too binary, too ‘black and white’.
            Try to continue reading till the end of the paper.

          • Bindidon says:

            “… does not at all not to imply…”

          • JDHuffman says:

            Bindidon, this paper is just more of the same old Institutionalized Pseudoscience (IP).

            I just quickly scanned it, finding (bold my emphasis):

            “Such a simplified model can be useful, however, for exploring the importance of changes in the greenhouse effect, caused by changes in the atmospheric composition”

            “A change in the content of water due to a change in stratospheric temperature will affect the earth’s greenhouse (Chamberlain, 1977).”

            Greenhouse heating of the atmosphere is thus dependent on composition in several distinct ways.”

            So the paper starts off claiming to be about Earth’s energy balance, but is just promoting IP.

            Equation (1) is nothing more than using a black body to represent Earth, which is pure pseudoscience.

            When you see a large number of conditionals, assumptions, estimates, etc., you recognize the pseudoscience. (Bold my emphasis.)

            “The surface temperature, Ts, which is assumed to be the immediate source of radiationvertical opacity of the atmosphere, which we now estimate.”

            If the ground emits isotropicallywhich we approximate with 3
            a simple exponential.”

            Nothing new.

  48. What are the three satellite datasets of the “lower atmosphere”? Is this referring to the middle troposphere or total troposphere instead of the lower troposphere? The middle and total troposphere datasets include some of the upper troposphere, which is warming less than the troposphere as a whole.

    • Bindidon says:

      A very pertinent remark, reminding us that Prof. Christy’s recent Senate testimonies no longer contained the words ‘lower troposphere’, which were replaced by ‘mid troposphere’.

      But his collaborator Dr. Spencer still publishes charts referring to the lower troposphere.

  49. bilybob says:

    Dr. Spencer,

    I like your list of questions, but would add 2 that I believe are just as important in policy setting. These also would have to be answered affirmatively as well.

    1) Can humans come together to determine the ideal climate for each region of the world?

    2) Can humans intervene in the very dynamic and ever changing conditions of our planet to maintain these ideal climates by region.

  50. thefordprefect says:

    Roy – I have asked you many times to propose a means of providing cheap (essentially free) electricity to isolated villages. They have no free water for local turbines, they have little free money.
    A pressing need is of course safe cooking.
    How will you provide 100kW from central generators along 1000s miles of grid to these villagers who have no money to pay for it?

    Perhaps it is better to use local generation and battery storage?

  51. HAPPY BIRTHDAY DR SPENCER. MUCH SUCCESS IN YOUR STUDIES.

  52. David Young says:

    RSS has also put out a recent comparison of their temperature product vs. CMIP5 and it shows much the same thing as Roy’s charts here.

    http://www.remss.com/research/climate/#Atmospheric-Temperature

  53. Chic Bowdrie says:

    Nate,

    Continued from here:
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/12/the-five-questions-global-warming-policy-must-answer/#comment-334353

    “You seem to be questioning the extent of warming or if the other factors that play will actually prevent warming. The facts seem to indicate the surface has warmed some in the last few decades. Even if scientists cannot fully determine the cause, the goal of science is to find the underlying mechanisms and causes.”

    I totally agree with your last two sentences. Let me clarify the first one.

    There are legitimate questions about the extent of the warming, but it seems certain that there has been warming especially in the last two decades of the last century and about 1 deg C since that beginning of the 20th century. The question is what causes warming? Because of all other potential contributions, the magnitude of the CO2 contribution is not yet clear to me.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      Sorry, my comment was for Norman.

    • Norman says:

      Chic Bowdrie

      I do not think it is clear to anyone. That is why this debate has been going on for a couple decades. No one can come up with enough certainty to make a direct claim. Models try but they have limitations and flaws.

      But the way science works is to attempt to find the answer by observing as many variables as possible.

      Carbon Dioxide is rising. Some believe that it follows heating. These posters have not come up with a scientific explanation for the warming. It is factual the human race does emit a large amount of CO2 via burning fossil fuels. This cannot be ignored. The amount can be estimated to a fairly close quantity and compared to the rising CO2.

      Do you have other mechanisms that you think could explain the warming that has been seen? If so let me know I would like to research them and learn more. Cloud cover could be one.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        Norman,

        Cloud cover would be the most likely. Kristian has been posting about resulting increased ASR being the result. Read his responses to Ball4 and others.

  54. JohnD says:

    Q1 should also ask what % of human caused warming is strictly from CO2. My estimate 50%.

    • Entropic man says:

      That would be a climate sensitivity of 2.0

      • JDHuffman says:

        CO2 can not raise the temperature of a system. It is not a thermodynamic heat source.

        • Norman says:

          JDHfuffman

          Learn real physics and not your unsupported blog pseudoscience. Just once post relevant physics that is valid. You have not done so to date, will the New Year bring in a New JDHuffman? Will the light go off in his head and he will come to realize actual textbook physics is far superior to the fantasy physics of Joseph Postma.

          CO2 does NOT have to be a thermodynamic heat source to increase the temperature of the Earth’s surface. It can do just fine by absorbing surface energy, warming and emitting energy back to the surface increasing the amount of energy the surface absorbs (Sun plus downwelling IR).

          I have linked you to actual measured values of Downwelling IR. The Earth’s average emissivity/absorb is around 0.95 close to a black body. Nothing you have posted has meaning or value. All garbage all day, every day. You have no shame at all and you think your pile of stinking crap is good, logical and rational. You have much to learn.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Three rambling paragraphs, filled with inaccuracies.

            Why not try for five, Norman? At least you’re getting some keyboard practice…

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            Prove one of my statements incorrect. You state they are ” filled with inaccuracies” so what are the inaccuracies.

            Give evidence. I tire of your endless unsupported declarations. Give proof of your droning points.

            You provide zero proof of anything you say. Why is that? I give evidence for all my points, why is that.

            The reason is you don’t have knowledge of science. I do. Big difference.

            I know science and how it works. You don’t.

            Science is about supporting evidence. I show mine, you show nothing.

            You can pretend to have knowledge and hide behind meaningless taunting comments but when it comes down to it, you have nothing of value, just empty mindless declarations from a drunk baboon.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Okay Norman, let’s start with your very first sentence:

            “Learn real physics and not your unsupported blog pseudoscience.”

            In that sentence you are implying I don’t know the relevant physics. So, give just one example of where I am wrong.

          • Norman says:

            JDHUffman

            I have already done this many times.

            One, you don’t accept the Moon rotates on its own axis as it orbits around the Earth. One rotation at near the same rate of its orbit.
            I have suggested you email astronomers and see if any agree with you. To date you have not attempted such a fact finding mission.

            You think radiant IR from a cold source all bounces off a hotter object. I have linked you to numerous established physics material that clearly states this is an incorrect view. In one link you reported that I had already linked you to it. I can do it again if you think it is necessary, it clearly states the radiant energy of the cold object will be absorbed by the hotter one (based upon the bands the hot object is able to absorb…if it can emit energy in those bands it will absorb energy in those same bands).

            Your inability to understand why scientists divide the Solar flux into 4 to create an average flux for the total Earth surface to find what a steady state temperature would be for an object with the Earth’s surface area if it received the amount of energy available from the Sun. It is useful and correct application of math and science. You don’t understand how it works so you say it is wrong.

            Those are three. There are more.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Norman, I realize you can bang on your keyboard, without ever getting anything right. Here, you are wrong again.

            You insist that the racehorse is also rotating on its own axis, as it laps the track. You do not understand that there are TWO different motions being discussed, and the racehorse and the Moon, only make one motion.

            The fact that you cannot raise the temperature of the banana proves you are wrong. You just try to spin your way out of it. When I present such an example, you usually try to twist the scenario. You will say ice can warm the banana if the banana were near zero absolute. Your effort to twist the scenario reveals you know you are wrong.

            And, the divide-by-4 issue just proves you wrong again. If you divide the incoming flux by 4, you are treating it as energy. You cannot then go back and use the S/B equation. You have perverted the physics.

            That’s just 3 of your mistakes. There are more.

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            So you will insist you are correct about the Moon not rotating on its axis but are unwilling to get supporting evidence for you view? Basically you will not email actual astronomers or NASA scientists who send probes to the Moon to see if they take in the Moon’s rotation as part of their calculations.

            Again with the lame banana point. Why do you think it is a valid point at all? This is why I call you a drunken baboon, you always bring up the unrelated banana example. So with the banana, if it is at room temperature it is receiving as much energy from the surroundings as it is losing. If you put ice around it, you are blocking the higher amount of IR from the surroundings and now the banana receives less energy from the ice than from the surroundings so it will cool. A no brainer, but it is not proof that the IR from the ice is not being absorbed by the banana. If the banana was heated by its own source and you had ice around it, the banana would reach a higher temperature than if you surrounded it with colder dry ice. Make the analogy similar to the Earth’s surface please.

            You still don’t know geometry and you are still wrong. Take a class on math and they can explain how you can take the total amount of flux (watts…joules per second).
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_flux

            You can take the total watts that can pass though the area the Earth disk occupies (this is all the solar flux, watts, that can reach the Earth) and multiply it by 4 to get the effective radiating surface of the Earth (area of sphere vs a disk). The total Earth’s surface radiates. It receives the amount of watts that can pass through the area of a disk the radius of Earth but it radiates from the total surface. Your inability to understand math and geometry is an error on your part not mine. I got an A in geometry and can understand how it works. I suggest you take an actual math course and you can learn why you are wrong.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Norman, I asked for just one example of where my physics was wrong. You tried to throw out three, hoping one would stick. But, all three are a bust.

            A racehorse doesn’t rotate on its axis, you can’t heat a banana with ice, and you can’t divide solar flux meaningfully.

            You can’t show me one example where I am wrong, but you can bang on your keyboard all day, rambling in circles.

            Nothing new.

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            It is time for me to take a break from you. You are truly a drunken baboon.

            You are not rational enough to effectively debate any issue with. You probably post in a drunken stupor believing what you say is the smartest thing someone can say. Unfortunately it is all illogical.

            YOU: “You can’t show me one example where I am wrong, but you can bang on your keyboard all day, rambling in circles.”

            That is correct. I can’t show you anything nor can anyone else. We do show you how wrong you are but you are too stupid to understand the actual evidence. You are wrong on all of those points.

            1) email astronomers and find any who support your idea that the Moon does not rotate on its axis. Until you do this you are completely clueless.

            2) You and the dumb banana example. That has nothing at all to do with your stupid false notion that a warm banana does not absorb IR from ice. If you were intelligent (which you are not) you could take your banana and surround it with first ice and let it reach a temperature with the ice. Now surround it with dry ice and see if it gets colder, once it is colder add ice again and you will find the ice will warm the banana. You don’t understand what I wrote, you can’t you are not intelligent enough to understand this.

            3) You are so ignorant of geometry that it is hopeless to attempt reasoning with you about any math. If you learn a little math come back and admit you were wrong and had no idea how stupid you sound to intelligent people.

          • JDHuffman says:

            ibid.

      • JDHuffman says:

        Svante, do you understand the differnce between a “CO2 forcing” and a “thermodynamic heat source”?

        • Svante says:

          Yes! CO2 is a heat sink,albeit not as good as deep space,it reduces energy loss rate and moves equilibrium temperature up.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Wow, I just accidentally happened upon your response, Svante. It was 3 days after the fact. It’s almost as if you slinked in to answer, hoping I wouldn’t see your response.

            Slinky!

            Your response is tragically incompetent. CO2 is NOT a “heat sink”. It does NOT move “equilibrium temperature up”.

            Learn some physics. And be on time with your response next time. Otherwise it just makes you look like an incompetent back-stabber.

  55. Eben says:

    I found the evidence all the warming was caused by humans , only problem you have to be really really smart to see it

    https://goo.gl/idNdeo

    • Bindidon says:

      Go for a trip to the French Alps, and have some smalltalk with people living there.

      They will explain you what they understand under ‘evidence’.

      • Eben says:

        Best refute yet , So here you have it , in French Alps on top of the mountain there is a man who knows catastrophic global warming is caused by humans , that’s Bindidon’s proof , you should get a medal for this .
        Unfortunately I just took a trip to Ural mountains to see a man who manufactures tractors out of snow , so I’m out of money and cannot afford another trip.

        https://goo.gl/C7Kk2X

  56. Brent Auvermann says:

    An even worse analogy.

  57. Bindidon says:

    Aaron S

    “Are we are currently in the COOL PHASE of the 2016 2017 Mega El Nino and forecast significant warming in 2019?”

    The last greater El Nino was 2015/16.

    It had a MEI index of 2.5, compared with 3.0 shown by 1997/98 and… 1982/83 which was invisible in nearly all temperature records, due to El Chichon’s major VEI 5 eruption.

    If I have some time, I will produce for you a graph comparing, within UAH6.0, 97/98/99/00 with 15/16/17/18.

  58. Eben says:

    Speaking of CO2 , The famous scientist Rolf Witzsche put up a new video, the CO2 take starts at 13:30 but better to watch the whole thing

    https://goo.gl/RyFhLp

  59. The sun drives the ocean temperatures which means in time the ocean temperatures will be going down which means say good-bye to global warming.

    What is different this time then in past cool downs is solar activity was not sufficiently weak enough in degree of magnitude change and duration of time to have any kind of significant climatic impact. Now it appears that this has changed and it would be the first time since the Dalton Solar Minimum ended.

    .

  60. Bindidon says:

    Here is a window on Silso’s sun spot data:

    2008 04 2008.290 3.6 2.3 562
    2008 05 2008.373 4.6 3.2 637
    2008 06 2008.456 5.2 2.3 637
    2008 07 2008.540 0.6 2.0 664
    2008 08 2008.624 0.3 2.0 525
    2008 09 2008.708 1.2 2.4 605
    2008 10 2008.791 4.2 2.9 571
    2008 11 2008.874 6.6 2.4 445
    2008 12 2008.958 1.0 2.0 480
    2009 01 2009.042 1.3 2.0 317
    2009 02 2009.123 1.2 2.2 385
    2009 03 2009.204 0.6 2.0 523
    2009 04 2009.288 1.2 2.2 586
    2009 05 2009.371 2.9 2.4 610
    2009 06 2009.455 6.3 2.7 623
    2009 07 2009.538 5.5 2.6 671
    2009 08 2009.623 0.0 2.0 691
    2009 09 2009.707 7.1 2.2 628
    2009 10 2009.790 7.7 2.7 564
    2009 11 2009.874 6.9 3.2 452

    During 20 months all monthly SSNs were below 10.

    Thus we could bookmark this comment and wait for March 2020 before drawing any rash conclusion concerning Sun’s behavior.

  61. gallopingcamel says:

    Merry Christmas Dr. Roy,

    Thank you for your steadfast professionalism.
    Thank you for presenting evidence rather than opinion.
    Thank you for exposing the politicization of “Climate Science”

    Live long and prosper.

  62. PhilJ says:

    Norman,

    “This temperature, when you calculate for albedo (energy reflected away), is 255 K. The measured average surface temperature is 288 K or so. At this time there is not a remotely valid explanation for this higher temperature ”

    Of course there is: the Earth is 288 K because it has not yet had enough time to cool to 255K, loaing its atmosphere as it does so…

    The Earth temp is not solely the result of input solar energy but rather the result of a body at thousands of degrees K COOLING over time despite the solar input…

    H20 cools the surface as it transfers energy from the surface to the atmosphere and cools the atmosphere to space..

    CO2 does likewise cools the atmosphere to space but less effeciently by orders of magnitude…

    • gallopingcamel says:

      Thanks “PhiJ” for picking up on one of “Norman’s” statements:
      “This temperature, when you calculate for albedo (energy reflected away), is 255 K. The measured average surface temperature is 288 K or so. At this time there is not a remotely valid explanation for this higher temperature.”

      “Climate Scientists” used to claim that the GHE (Greenhouse Effect) was 33 Kelvin because most of them believed that an airless Earth would have an average temperature of 255 Kelvin.

      The 255 Kelvin figure is supported by impeccable mathematics as for example here:
      https://diggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/morcombe1.jpg

      The above slide was prepared by Scott Denning a professor of climate science at Colorado State University.

      Dr. Denning now acknowledges that the 255 Kelvin figure is wrong by ~40 Kelvin. He has a model for airless bodies that agrees closely with mine.
      https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-iii-modelling-the-moon-at-various-rotation-rates/

      No competent scientist can defend the 255 Kelvin figure any more and then there is the fact that the lunar average temperature as measured by the Diviner LRE is ~197 Kelvin.

      • JDHuffman says:

        “255 K” fails because it is from astronomy, which is the new astrology, keeping much of the old mysticism and even adding some. Astronomy is currently the largest source of pseudoscience.

        The “effective temperature” assumes a planet is a super-conducting, homogeneous, isotropic, black body. Such an object does not exist, in reality.

        And, getting the math correct does not matter if the situation is devoid of reality. For example, everyone knows that a snail does not move very fast. But, a pseudoscience clown might point out that a snail traveling 1000 km in 1 hour, is traveling at 1000 kph. So, obviously a snail can move pretty fast.

        That would be getting the math right, but avoiding reality.

        • Nate says:

          ‘fails because it is from astronomy, which is the new astrology, keeping much of the old mysticism and even adding some. Astronomy is currently the largest source of pseudoscience.’

          JDG* is going for top level on the ignoramus scale.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Spoken like a true believer of the 1000-KPH-Snail cult.

            (That’s the same cult that also believes racehorses rotate on their axes, and CO2 heats the planet.)

      • Norman says:

        gallopingcamel

        The graphs show that the rate of rotation is critical. That would be because as the surface temperature approached the steady state with the input solar flux, no energy will be added to the internal energy. If the temperature remains considerably below the steady state temperature of the solar flux, a considerable amount of the solar flux will be absorbed leading to warmer temperatures then the slow rotating Moon.

        The Earth receives a total of 174 Petawatts from the Sun.

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

        The surface reflects 30% so the Earth will absorb 121.8 Petawatts.

        The Earth’s surface area is 510.1 x 10^12 m^2.

        121.8×10^15 divide 510.1×10^12 = 238.8 W/m^2. The steady state temperature with this amount of energy and area would be around 255 K.

        If you had a sphere in space with the area of Earth’s surface that had an internal amount of energy added to it equal to the 121.8 Petawatts you would have a surface temperature of 255 K.

        I think the rotation is what is changing the calculation.
        The other point is that without water and clouds you could have a much smaller albedo. Moon is 0.12 so it absorbs a lot more energy, the airless Earth may also have a much higher lower albedo.

        • JDHuffman says:

          Norman likes to play with numbers that support the pseudoscience. So, let’s have some fun.

          The bogus 255 K results from assuming Earth is a homogeneous, super-conducting, isotropic, blackbody sphere. The solar flux, adjusted for albedo, is 960 Watts/m^2. Doing the infamous “divide-by-4”, results in 240 Watts/m^2. Going directly to the S/B equation yields the 255 K.

          If the Moon were also a homogeneous, super-conducting, isotropic, blackbody sphere, we could do the same calculation. The solar flux, adjusted for albedo, is 1220 Watts/m^2. Dividing by 4, we get 305 Watts/m^2. And, a corresponding S/B temp of 271 K.

          So, Earth with all the “drastic warming from the GHE”, has a temp of 255 K. But, the Moon with no GHE, is HOTTER, at 271 K!

          Obviously, the GHE effect cools!

          Don’t we just love how the clowns always get tangled in their own pseudoscience?

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            Even with an non homogeneous sphere with different temperatures at different regions, it will still have to lose as much energy as it receives. If it receives more than it loses it will heat up. If it loses more than it receives it heats up.

            The assumption is only to make the situation easier to understand. You can average things out and make rational assumptions to determine reality.

            Not sure of what your last part is trying to convey. The drastic warming of the GHE would leave the Earth’s surface at 288 K and not 255 K. The 255 K is WITHOUT GHE not with.

            The Moon would be hotter in similar condition because it only reflect 12% of the incoming solar energy and the Earth reflects 30%.

            If they were both actual black-bodies that absorb all the solar flux the temperature would be 1361/4 = 278 K.

            Even if the object absorbs all the available solar energy it would only reach a temperature of 278 K.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Norman, you have to ramble in circles trying to cover your ignorance and incompetence.

            I don’t have to do that.

            You keep ignoring that simple distinction.

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            There is no rambling in circles.

            You made an incorrect point and I corrected it.

            I do not attempt to cover ignorance. I know exactly what I am saying.

            You made this phony claim: “So, Earth with all the drastic warming from the GHE, has a temp of 255 K. But, the Moon with no GHE, is HOTTER, at 271 K!”

            The Earth with GHE has a temperature of 288 K and not 255 K.

            The Moon would be hotter than an Earth without a GHE if the albedos were the same. It is really simple math. The Earth with a higher albedo would reflect away more solar flux than the Moon. Why is this hard for you to process?

          • JDHuffman says:

            Norman, your logic is flawed, as usual. You are foolishly comparing two different things. 255 K is Earth’s “effective temperature”. You can compare it to Moon’s “effective temperature” of 271 K, but you can NOT compare it to Earth’s actual temperature. There is no connection.’

            Unless you prefer pseudoscience over reality.

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            You made a mistake and won’t admit it so try a diversionary tactic hoping no one will notice.

            I posted you direct words. You are just wrong with what you wrote.

            Calling me foolish does not change the error in thought you made.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Wrong again, Norman.

            I didn’t make a mistake. The mistake is your failure to understand your own pseudoscience.

            Earth — 255 K

            Moon — 271 K

            271 K is hotter than 255 K.

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            Excuse me as I have to call you stupid. It fits.

            Your claim was not about “effective temperature” of the Moon and Earth.

            Did you neglect what you wrote or are you so lack in word use that you don’t understand the context?

            YOU: “So, Earth with all the “drastic warming from the GHE”, has a temp of 255 K. But, the Moon with no GHE, is HOTTER, at 271 K!”

            It does not have a temperature of 255 K with the GHE going on. It has a temperature of 288 K. Your words are as senseless as you are but you try to weasel out of your complete error.

            It is kind of funny how stupid you are. Keep entertaining. If you did study actual physics or know anything you would not be so amusing. Drunken baboons can be funny. Thanks for the humor.

          • JDhuffman says:

            Norman, when I realized you did not understand my facetious “drastic warming”, I made it simpler for you:

            Earth — 255 K

            Moon — 271 K

            271 K is hotter than 255 K.

            But, you still can’t understand.

            Nothing new.

            Both values, 255 K and 288 K, involve atmospheres. Both include albedo, and albedo is due to an atmosphere. The difference (33 K) is NOT evidence of the GHE. Believing that is is indicates one does not understand the relevant physics.

            (Oh, and the reason I don’t respond to your childish insults is that I want innocent onlookers to easily discern who the idiot is.)

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            I will give you a timeout to think about things. If the Earth were a blackbody, able to absorb all solar energy that reached its surface with no reflection, the steady state temperature would only reach 278 K! Yet the Earth’s surface is 10 K above that. The Earth’s surface is warmer than what is possible from solar input alone. Think about it.

            By the way you still are a drunk baboon that doesn’t know any actual physics (pretends to). You have never taken a higher level physics course in your life. You can say you did but it is totally untrue.

            Your posts show a total lack on any physics basics. By the way did you email any astronomers and convince them the Moon does not spin on its own axis. This is the first clue you never took any physics. You can continue to con yourself and pretend you did. Any onlooker will know you are making things up. Nothing new, you do it all the time. It is your nature.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Norman, you calculate the hypothetical temperature of an imaginary object, then immediately compare it to the real Earth’s average temperature!

            That is pseudoscience. The real Earth is NOT a super-conducting, isotropic, homogeneous, blackbody sphere. You are comparing two different things. Think about it.

            Learn to face reality.

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            Again and again you demonstrate a total lack of any scientific studies. Are you so lame you don’t know that you can calculate ideal situations and compare them to real world situations.

            I can’t reason with a drunken baboon. You have never studied higher physics. You have no logical or rational thought process. You don’t understand any math past 2 + 2 = 4. What hope would one have to get a decent debate with someone as lacking in knowledge as you are.

            You can’t reason at all. The hypothetical blackbody it the MOST an object could absorb. It can’t absorb more than that! Why do you have to be so stupid? Does it make you feel better? You can’t absorb more energy than 100% so any real world object will absorb less energy. Why is simple logic beyond your level of comprehension?

            I could continue to argue with a stupid person like you but what is the point. You have zero logic or rational thought process and probably totally drunk as you post. Drunken baboon!

          • jdhuffman says:

            Norman, it’s okay to use an imaginary object, to make a concept easier to understand. But, you can’t impose your imagination on reality. You can imagine you can fly, but you wouldn’t jump off a 40-story building, flapping your arms.

            When you find yourself always having to twist, spin, and pervert reality, maybe it’s time to reconsider your beliefs. That might reduce your frustration.

            Look how easy the correct solution of the plates really is. The simple graphic does not break any laws of physics. It doesn’t frustrate me at all to share it.

            https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/

  63. PhilJ says:

    Norman,

    “If you had a sphere in space with the area of Earths surface that had an internal amount of energy added to it equal to the 121.8 Petawatts you would have a surface temperature of 255 K.”

    The Earth has far more internal energy than that… That temp is the ground state that the Earth is cooling towards… And it will not reach it until its dynamo has stopped, it finishes outgassing and has lost its atmosphere and oceans…

    • Norman says:

      PhilJ

      The Earth’s surface will continue to keep a steady state temperature with the Sun.

      Objects in space with no internal energy (asteroids etc) still have warm surface temperatures.

      I am not sure what you point is. We are talking about the surface, down at the core it is thousands of degrees. That energy is not moving rapidly through an insulating mantle.

      • PhilJ says:

        Norman,

        “I am not sure what you point is. We are talking about the surface, down at the core it is thousands of degrees. That energy is not moving rapidly through an insulating mantle.”

        That IS my point!. We have such a well insulating mantle BECAUSE water is so effective at cooling the surface…

        Merry Christmas!

  64. barry says:

    The 5 questions seem to be isolated from a crucial issue with AGW. Unlike the risk of your house burning down (you can rent, buy or build another), or crashing your car (you can repair or buy another), there is no reset function for CO2 in the atmosphere and the consequences. We don’t have another atmosphere to replace ours with. We are inside the test tube in an uncontrolled experiment with no certainty on the outcomes.

    Why this uncertainty should engender complacency is a riddle no one can answer. Uncertainty cuts both ways – ie, it could be worse. And anyone saying that the science is uncertain is therefore NOT guaranteeing that the consequences will definitely be benign.

    Omitting the nature of the issue isn’t just an oversight, it’s a particular blindness that comes with secretly already knowing the answer. ‘Skeptics’ don’t think the science is uncertain – they are convinced that there is no need for concern.

    Roy, you don’t think that there is any danger – that there is no risk. Why don’t you just say so?

    • JDHuffman says:

      barry, that’s a lot of psychobabble just to say you believe the “sky is falling”.

      If you seriously believe the planet is about to burn up, why are you afraid to give your full name? Dr. Spencer is a public figure. He’s not hiding.

      Why hide your identity, if your beliefs are correct?

      What other irrational fears do you have?

    • Eben says:

      The CO2 didn’t control the temperature in the past , isn’t now , will not in the future.
      The evidence is all around , and you don’t have to be a scientist to see it , all you need to do is take off you communist hockey stick glasses and open your eyes

      https://goo.gl/xmk4GR

      • barry says:

        So there is no uncertainty about the science for you, Eben. You have absolute answers to the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, namely, zero.

        I trust you will never bother to make any argument about AGW based on uncertainty.

      • barry says:

        With this juvenile comment,

        communist hockey stick glasses

        you became a sloganeer of little interest.

      • Svante says:

        These glaciers have not reached equilibrium.

        https://tinyurl.com/ycdrgm8v:

        “This evidence, in turn, suggests that glacier recession in the 20th century is unprecedented during the past several millennia and that glaciers in western Canada have reached minimum extents only 150–300 years after they achieved their maximum Holocene extents.”

        • JDHuffman says:

          Scary huh, Svante?

          You and barry should hid under your beds. Don’t go outside.

          Nature kills city boys.

          • Eben says:

            They should seek a shrink at least and monitor their mental health condition , don’t want to end up like people who murder their kids and commit suicide because of climate catastrophe fears,

            https://goo.gl/jMsquV

        • Svante says:

          Please don’t panic,learn stoic philosophy and face the truth, don’t lie to yourselves to feel better, it will not work in the long run.

        • Eben says:

          So Alpine glaciers and permanent ice and snow patches in western Canada approach their smallest sizes since the mid-Holocene, – and – so they were also smaller before that so how is it unprecedented ? – so
          What is the point or what does it proof here ? , is this a confirmation of my original “Tree Trunk Conundrum” post or an attempt to refute it ? whose side are you on ???

          • Svante says:

            It was an attempt to refute it Eben.
            When you find these tree trunks you can not conclude that temperature was the same then.
            Climate has changed so quickly that glaciers may need hundreds of years to reach a new equilibrium, if they still exist by then.
            See table:
            https://tinyurl.com/y9vzgv2m

          • Eben says:

            Svante
            “and that dramatic changes may occur in the near future.”

            Something may (or may not )occur – is not science , this if a fortune telling ,
            I found that exact sentence in one of my Chinese restaurant fortune cookies.

            https://goo.gl/6z5jCz

          • svante says:

            Yes, the past can inform us about the future.

            “the [Altai] landscape has reacted sensitively to environmental changes ”

            The area is sensitive to changes in the monsoon.
            https://tinyurl.com/y8jhw8uf

        • Eben says:

          “When you find these tree trunks you can not conclude that temperature was the same then.”

          we have very good temperature records from those ice cores so we know it was higher then, when you see the trees growing there again get back to me I will send you two free tickets to Al Gores movie

          • Svante says:

            You sound such a nice person.

            The paper looks good though, it says:

            “The reconstructed amplitude of climatic changes and the shift of the altitudinal zones show that the landscape has reacted sensitively to environmental changes and that dramatic
            changes may occur in the near future.”

            https://tinyurl.com/ybwzzxa8

    • Kristian says:

      barry says, December 24, 2018 at 6:55 PM:

      […] anyone saying that the science [of AGW] is uncertain is […] NOT guaranteeing that the consequences will definitely be benign.

      Agreed. This is the main problem of the lukewarmer position, to which I believe Dr. Spencer adheres.

      ‘Skeptics’ don’t think the science is uncertain (…)

      Just like the CO2 warmists, then. They don’t think the science is uncertain either, do they? If so, why would we even have the AGW conversation? You know as well as I do, barry, that planning for the future based on the precautionary principle – WITHOUT a very high degree of certainty about particular outcomes – is utterly pointless, because it doesn’t get you anywhere. Without knowledge, no course of action is better than the next.

      No one should let their opinions and convictions be dictated by UNcertainty. UNcertainty about an issue is not an argument for (or against) action on that issue.

      Certainty is.

      (…) they are convinced that there is no need for concern.

      Hehe. No.

      We’re NOT convinced (by observational evidence) that there IS need for concern. Which is YOUR claim. Based on … nothing but opinion.

      YOUR claim, YOUR burden of proof. Not ours.

      You’re basically the theist asserting that I, the atheist, am convinced that God does not exist. In an attempt to shift the burden of proof from yourself onto me. But, no. Atheism is not, and never was, a denial of God’s existence. Just as a-‘Santa-Claus’-ism isn’t a denial of Santa’s existence. You can only deny the existence of something that is already SHOWN to exist. Up until the point where it is, you simply POINT OUT that it isn’t.

      Rather, it is a simple statement of NOT being convinced by the claim that God (Santa) DOES exist. Which is a very different (in fact, the opposite) thing. And the reason one is not convinced by a simple claim of existence, is the fact that no EVIDENCE to back up the claim is ever put forward, by the one making the claim.

      The truth and reality of AGW is your claim. We’re not convinced. Which naturally follows from the utter lack of relevant observational evidence presented to support the claim. Evidence of warming is not evidence of what’s CAUSING it.

      barry, you can do better than this.

      • barry says:

        As usual, you misrepresent, or misunderstand my position.

        I think some things are certain to a degree it’s not worth quibbling, and some things are uncertain.

        CO2 (and other GHGs) absorbs IR much more strongly than the bulk of incoming solar radiation.

        From this empirical basis it follows that more CO2/GHGs in the atmos should, all else being equal, result in a warmer global surface temperature.

        When all the highly qualified skeptics (Spencer, Christie, Lindzen etc) agree with that basic premise, along with the rest of the properly qualified science community, it is entirely unreasonable to give much rope at all to denizens of the blogosphere who announce they’ve proved that the enhanced GHE is a fiction. I’ll take the vast weight of scientific research corroborating the basic physics over randoms on the internet. If you have a problem with that, then we have little to discuss.

        What is uncertain is the degree to which such warming will occur over the next several decades and into the new century (and possibly beyond). What is uncertain is any combination of benign and malign effects.

        People who cannot credit uncertainty are pretty much disqualified in my mind. Uncertainty is so little a feature in your writings that you seem to be just like all the others peddling a viewpoint.

        To go back to my original point, the element of risk (which you will avow is zero without batting an eyelid) is heightened when one factors in the singularity often overlooked by skeptics. We are inside the test tube. We can’t get out of it. We can’t reset.

        With that in mind, and accepting the crushing weight of established science on the ‘greenhouse’ effect, the burden of proof falls on AGW critics to prove without doubt that the effects will be small or benign.

        Either critics don’t see the issue clearly – the atmospheric singularity of our predicament – or they actually have an absolute belief that more CO2 will definitely not have an adverse effect. I’d prefer they were honest about that. I think Roy fundamentally believes there is no risk from increasing our CO2 output, and he uses uncertainty as a foil to promote this belief. Hence my call out to him.

        • steve case says:

          Boiled down, Barry said December 27, 2018 at 6:51 PM:

          More CO2/GHGs should result in a warmer global temperature. What is uncertain is benign and malign effects. We are inside the test tube, the burden of proof falls on AGW critics to prove without doubt that the effects will be small or benign. Critics dont see the issue clearly, the singularity of our predicament, or they believe that more CO2 will definitely not have an adverse effect.

          And what’s happened so far? Since 1850 the average global temperature has gone up and down mostly up to the tune of about a degree. The IPCC tells us that the warm up will be at night, in winter and around the poles. That seems to be true and an odd wrinkle at least here in the U.S. summer maximums have dropped.

          The IPCC also tells us there will be more precipitation. That also seems to be true. We have been constantly told that Climate Change will cause more extreme weather. That does not seem to be true. Indeed, The Washington Post just ran a story that the occurrence of F4 & F5 tornadoes, here in the U.S., has trended down since 1950. You can look up Ryan Maue’s graphs of hurricane activity over the decades and it’s difficult to claim from those that they’re getting worse. Are floods worse? I don’t know. Are droughts worse? I know your side would like to claim they are.

          The scariest prediction you guys have is sea level. Unlike temperature it has been constantly rising since the beginning of the tide gauge record in 1807. Over time that rate has been faster and slower. For the thirty years prior to 1950 the rate was around 3 mm/year. By the 1970s that rate had dropped down close to just 1 mm/year. Currently it’s back up to 3 mm/year. There doesn’t seem to be any acceleration. The keepers of the satellite records re-wrote the historical data last January to say that there is acceleration. It’s difficult to deal with institutions that fundamentally change their story – it’s Orwellian. Stories in the popular press make ridiculous claims for sea level rise. Here’s a LINK that claims 3.4 meters in the next 100 years or so. Maybe you don’t think that’s ridiculous.

          Then of course there are the bears. The tea leaves I read say they’re doing fine.

          So we have records that go back 30 years, 40 years, 70 years, 170 years, 210 years and do they indicate any trend that predicts a looming catastrophic disaster in the making? Not that I can see. Can I without a doubt definitely say it doesn’t? Well no. I can’t definitely say we won’t get hit by an asteroid either. If you were told that there’s a boogyman living in your attic and the best way to get rid of him was to burn your house down, would you torch your place? No, you wouldn’t.

          I don’t see any reason why I should ride the bus, turn my thermostat down, eat tofu or in any other manner genuflect to your God.

        • Kristian says:

          barry says, December 27, 2018 at 6:51 PM:

          As usual, you misrepresent, or misunderstand my position.

          Again with this huffy show of indignation every time I so much as dare to comment on one of your sanctimonious rants about the flaws of people who disagree with you.

          I quote you and comment on what you write, barry. Live with it.

          CO2 (and other GHGs) absorbs IR much more strongly than the bulk of incoming solar radiation.

          Hehe, yes. This we know, barry. It’s not the issue.

          From this empirical basis it follows that more CO2/GHGs in the atmos should, all else being equal, result in a warmer global surface temperature.

          Sure. But all else isn’t equal. So we cannot simply assume this to be a given … before we actually go out and OBSERVE the causal connection, in the real Earth system. You know, going by “the scientific method” – first you have an hypothesis about the world, then you go out and TEST it empirically, to see whether it jibes with reality or not.

          When all the highly qualified skeptics (Spencer, Christie, Lindzen etc) agree with that basic premise, along with the rest of the properly qualified science community, it is entirely unreasonable to give much rope at all to denizens of the blogosphere who announce they’ve proved that the enhanced GHE is a fiction. I’ll take the vast weight of scientific research corroborating the basic physics over randoms on the internet. If you have a problem with that, then we have little to discuss.

          Yawn. Three words, barry: “Nullius in verba”; the motto of all natural science. People’s words and opinions don’t mean a thing. Observations always trump them all. Nature doesn’t care about how you (or anyone) THINK she works. If you want to know, if you want to find out, you need to go out and OBSERVE what she’s doing.

          And I repeat: Evidence of warming, coupled merely with the output of climate models (based fully on the idea that more CO2 in the atmosphere MUST lead to some degree of warming, no matter what – IOW, inherently circular, the cause already assumed) is NOT evidence of the CAUSE of the warming.

          barry: The idea that observed warming is CAUSED by the rise in atmospheric CO2 has NEVER been even remotely verified by actual relevant observations from the real Earth system.

          You obviously have a hard time grasping this fact, so I’ll restate it for you:

          The idea that observed warming is CAUSED by the rise in atmospheric CO2 has NEVER been even remotely verified by actual relevant observations from the real Earth system.

          In fact, the relevant observations from the real Earth system show NO SIGN WHATSOEVER that the rise in atmospheric CO2 has caused or is causing observed warming.

          THAT is what you need to focus on. Not what people SAY.

          What is uncertain is the degree to which such warming will occur over the next several decades and into the new century (and possibly beyond).

          Nope. What is “uncertain” (i.e. never been shown to be true) is the fundamental premise BEHIND the entire climate circus, that more CO2 in the atmosphere MUST and WILL lead to global warming. We do not know this. Not at all. Rather, the actual empirical evidence strongly suggests it doesn’t. Yet, all warmist (and lukewarmist) actors of ‘modern climate science’ are happy and all too eager to ignore this fact and just PRETEND that they know.

          What is uncertain is any combination of benign and malign effects.

          No. We do not control global climate, barry. Nature manages that all by herself. As the relevant data suggests. We (humans) should take a deep breath, refocus and start worrying about real problems instead, like genuine pollution and local/regional effects.

          (…) the element of risk (which you will avow is zero without batting an eyelid) (…)

          Yup. For the simple reason that the relevant data doesn’t give me any reason to do otherwise.

          With that in mind, and accepting the crushing weight of established science on the ‘greenhouse’ effect, the burden of proof falls on AGW critics to prove without doubt that the effects will be small or benign.

          I mean, this is just complete and utter BS, barry. This is religious/ideological/dogmatic rubbish. The burden of proof is on YOU (!!!), the people actually making the positive claim, that there IS a risk that we – humanity – somehow have to face up to. Not on the people who aren’t convinced by your endless, frantic (yet still entirely unsupported) shrieks.

          Either critics don’t see the issue clearly (…)

          No, we DO see the issue clearly. We see that you don’t have a scientific case. That this issue is fully an IDEOLOGICAL one.

          (…) the atmospheric singularity of our predicament (…)

          *Facepalm*

          Yes, we’re all going to die, aren’t we? Unless we repent. That’s the “environmentalist” view, isn’t it? We’re a virus, a cancer. All we do is destroy the world. In all we do. Yeah, yeah; we get it.

          (…) or they actually have an absolute belief that more CO2 will definitely not have an adverse effect.

          No, barry. Again, the opposite is the case. We are NOT convinced (by the evidence) that more CO2 definitely WILL have an adverse effect – as assumed and proclaimed by YOU.

          You’re trapped inside the Green bubble, incapable of seeing beyond its confines.

          I think Roy fundamentally believes there is no risk from increasing our CO2 output (…)

          Good on him if he does.

          (…) and he uses uncertainty as a foil to promote this belief. Hence my call out to him.

          Yes, and I agreed with you on that particular point. Did you even notice …?

          People who cannot credit uncertainty are pretty much disqualified in my mind. Uncertainty is so little a feature in your writings that you seem to be just like all the others peddling a viewpoint.

          *Sigh*

          I always use observational data to back up my claims. So the (un)certainty of my claims is more or less equal to the (un)certainty of the data I use. And normally that uncertainty isn’t particularly large – I aspire to keep to validated, high-quality data.

          All data has some degree of uncertainty attached to it. By necessity. This fact, however, doesn’t thereby invalidate the data or its central estimate. I know that, and you know that. Still, in your mind I should state the range of uncertainty every single time I use data to make a point.

          Sorry, but that particular pet peeve is yours, not mine. The range is there, calculated and provided in the literature. What you’ve done in the past, though, is ignore the data I present (but only when you don’t like what it says, of course) and rather focus completely on the fact that the data in question comes with uncertainty (wow!), and then somehow try to use this as an argument (excuse, rather) to dismiss the data altogether. Case in point: the CERES data.

          But this is a recurring theme – I investigate the processes operating within the Earth system, while you seem perpetually unable to lift your gaze to see patterns, contexts and connections, and rather remain completely stuck on the minute statistics of a graph.

          This is why debating you, barry, is among the more tedious and pointless things I do in life. IOW, bye.

          • Svante says:

            Evidence for Kristian, reflected SW is going down:
            https://tinyurl.com/y8cmmrlh

            It’s not enough, you need models to understand why.
            Of course you have to test them against observations.
            Something like this:
            https://tinyurl.com/y87fh9ub

            In fig. 8/9, note the slow LW up trend in CO2+gas (orange) against the wild swings in WV and temperature itself.

          • Kristian says:

            Svante, what are you trying to say? There’s nothing here to show how a rise in atmospheric CO2 causes global warming …

            Can you be more concrete?

          • Svante says:

            I’m trying to say you need to split out components to find the cause.

            In the 2nd link, fig. 9b they have gone part of the way, though they bundled CO2 and CH4 with other things.

            The orange LWIR curve is trending down, I guess most of that is CO2 and methane, do you agree?

            It’s a lot like global temperature, a tiny long term trend against strong short term fluctuations.

          • Kristian says:

            Svante says, December 30, 2018 at 2:50 AM:

            I’m trying to say you need to split out components to find the cause.

            Hehe, Svante. You’re confusing yourself. They are not looking at what caused the warming, only at what (might have) caused the radiative variations.

            You do NOT need to split out components (beyond SW (ASR) and LW (OLR)) to find the cause of the WARMING. That is effectively doing what Al Gore did – claiming something that is in fact exceedingly simple to be “Oh, so complicated”.

            You’re (unwittingly, perhaps) attempting to pull the “Look, a squirrel!” trick, to draw attention away from the real issue.

            Look, this isn’t complicated at all, Svante. It’s really straightforward:

            The warming is caused by a positive net flux at the ToA. And the net flux is the balance/IMbalance between SW in (ASR) and LW out (OLR).

            # EITHER a positive net flux is the result of an increase in the heat IN (+ASR),

            # OR it’s the result of a DEcrease in the heat OUT (-OLR),

            # or both.

            And what do we see?

            We see 1):

            – ASR has indeed gone up.

            – OLR has NOT gone down, but up also.

            – OLR has gone up in step with tropospheric temps.

            This is all you need to know, Svante. All based directly on observational data from the real Earth system.

            We KNOW what has caused (and is causing) global warming: An increase in solar heat IN (+ASR), and NOT a strenghtening of the “greenhouse” mechanism.

            Read this and see how we know the latter, straight from the CERES data:

            https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/11/11/how-the-ceres-ebaf-ed4-data-disconfirms-agw-in-3-different-ways/

          • Svante says:

            Kristian says:

            They are not looking at what caused the warming, only at what (might have) caused the radiative variations.

            The warming is caused by the TOA radiation imbalance.

            – ASR has indeed gone up.
            – OLR has NOT gone down, but up also.
            – OLR has gone up in step with tropospheric temps.

            2nd ref, fig. 8, 2016:
            – ASR is up because of clouds, as in the emerging consensus, cloud feedback is positive.
            – OLR is up due to increased temperature, that is hardly a root cause.
            – Clouds, WV, GHGs et al. are pulling down, aerosols are neutral.

          • Kristian says:

            Svante says, December 30, 2018 at 11:47 AM:

            The warming is caused by the TOA radiation imbalance.

            Yes, like I said. And the ToA (im)balance is SOLELY the net of the incoming heat (the net SW (ASR)) and the outgoing heat (the net LW (OLR)). No need to partition the energy between the contributors of either flux in order to see whether a positive imbalance is caused by +ASR or -OLR. Then you simply look AT THOSE TWO FLUXES.

            ASR vs. OLR during the ERBS Ed3_Rev1 era (1985-1999):
            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/asr-vs.-olr-ERBS-2.png

            With the opening up of the long-term positive imbalance between the two starting towards the end of 1988:
            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/asr-vs.-olr-ERBS-b-3.png

            ASR vs. OLR during the CERES EBAF Ed4 era (2000-2018):
            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/asr-vs.-olr.png

            How is the “GHE” causing the warming here, Svante?

            How is the Sun NOT consistently the driver and the OLR (via Earth’s temperature) not simply the consistent response …!?

            – ASR is up because of clouds, as in the emerging consensus, cloud feedback is positive.

            No. It’s an emerging EXCUSE, Svante. A “Mainstream Climate Science” post hoc-invented get-out clause, just as they’ve gradually come to realise that the rise in ASR in fact came first (it’s what the data shows us) and that the OLR is never observed to have dropped systematically during a period of warming, but has rather just risen (and fallen) with the temps, a simple radiative response to the overall ASR-driven global warming …

            If you think otherwise:

            Where’s the validated observational data from the real world showing how a systematic reduction in OLR, causing global warming in its wake, came before the major 1988-89 increase in ASR, to make that sudden jolt simply a positive feedback to the directly preceding warming …?

            Where is it? Present it.

            I’m afraid I will have to ask you to put up or shut up on this particular topic, Svante.

            * * *
            You’re living in a fantasy bubble. Like so many others. Wake up, lift your head and take one small step forward, and you might be able to escape it …

          • Ball4 says:

            “..and NOT a strengthening of the “greenhouse mechanism.”

            The CERES/Argo era data does not support your statement Kristian as the 95% significance level CIs are too wide to support a conclusion about any strengthening of the “greenhouse” mechanism in the era. Per CERES team, their data shows changes in sea ice coverage and decreases in low cloud cover are the primary drivers of the slight decrease in SW TOA flux (albedo) for an increase in ASR since OLR hasn’t increased as much as SW has decreased in the observed era through Sept. 2016.

            “How is the “GHE” causing the warming here, Svante?”

            Added CO2 ppm increases atm. IR opacity thus near surface global atm. temperature and equally decreases temperature of the upper atm. regions. In an amount that current CERES instrumentation cannot significantly detect in the era. However, surface thermometer fields have detected the predicted near surface global T increase due added CO2 ppm in long enough periods of observations (WMO 30-year periods).

            Kristian is commenting in a fantasy bubble. Like so many others. Wake up, lift your head and take one small step forward by reading the CERES team papers wherein informed, critical readers will be able to escape the fantasy.

          • Svante says:

            Kristian says:
            “How is the ‘GHE’ causing the warming here, Svante?”

            For the sake of argument I say CO2 and CH4 are the main components of the orange GHG curve.

            In the sixteen years the all sky GHG anomaly goes from +0.2 W/m^2 in the 1st year to -0.1 W/m^2 in the last year. The trend looks linear, so that’s about 2 W/m^2 in a hundred years. There’s your driver.

            All other factors in the graphs are well known feedbacks since a long time ago:
            – Water vapor (blue).
            – Surface albedo (purple).
            – Clouds (gray).

            None of us think the remaining two are the root cause:
            – Aerosols (green).
            – Temperature (red).

            No I don’t have the ‘validated observational data’, but this is what you need to do.

            P.S. Another way to prove the enhanced GHE would be measure differences in actual TOA altitude. Something like 15 m in a decade?

          • Kristian says:

            Svante,

            I asked you, referring specifically to the graphs showing how the total ASR and OLR fluxes evolved over the ERBS and CERES eras, respectively:

            How is the “GHE” causing the warming here?

            How is the Sun NOT consistently the driver and the OLR (via Earth’s temperature) not simply the consistent response …!?

            But rather than giving me a straight answer, you of course chose to spend your time and energy instead on meticulously evading the issue altogether through this sadly all-too-familiar warmist tactic of ever goalpost-shifting manoeuvring.

            You should just stop using it, Svante, because as soon as we see it employed, and it always happens at some point (oftentimes, quite early on, even), we immediately know that we’ve reached the stage where you’ve finally come to realise (but still can’t get yourself to admit) that you actually don’t have a case at all, and so, rather than just conceding this (because that would make you look bad, wouldn’t it?), you enter the phase of making things up, elaborate excuses and justifications, none of which comports with observed reality, being mostly of the “personal opinion”, “Look, a squirrel!” or “What if?” variety, basically meant purely as expedients to escape the hole you’re in …

            You’re still wallowing in the “findings” of this paper you just found that simply tries to assess different contributions to variations in the total fluxes. As if that mattered at all to the issue at hand, and thus to the question I asked you …!

            Svante: Only the TOTALS matter. If what you want to find out is what’s going on with the “GHE”. Surely you understand this …

            If the total OLR flux hasn’t gone down, but is simply observed to track tropospheric temps over time, what difference does it make what some individual contributor to that final flux is doing. Only the decadal progression of the TOTAL, FINAL flux could serve to gauge any potential strengthening of the hypothetical “greenhouse” mechanism.

            And, as granted by you, the warming is caused by a positive net flux (ASR – OLR) at the ToA, nothing else.

            Once again, how do we achieve a positive net flux – leading to net warming – starting from a neutral initial state?

            1) If OLR stays unchanged: +ASR.
            2) If ASR stays unchanged: -OLR.
            3) If OLR goes up: +OLR, ++ASR.
            4) If ASR goes down: -ASR, –OLR.

            From this we recognise four things:

            a) In 1), +ASR is what causes the initial warming. Because it is what opens up the positive imbalance. A flat OLR can only, from this point, help to augment the warming, by not increasing in step with tropospheric temps (its main thermal source by far), when appropriately translated from flux to temp via the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

            b) In 2), -OLR is what causes the warming.

            c) In 3), ++ASR is what causes the initial warming, because rising faster than +OLR, it is what opens up the positive imbalance. A rising OLR is directly caused by rising temps, in turn the direct result of the solar warming. But the rising OLR can still help augment the warming, secondarily, by rising systematically LESS over time than what tropospheric temps alone would have it.

            d) In 4), –OLR is what causes the warming.

            – – –
            3) is clearly the scenario that is actually occurring in the real Earth system.

            So, the only thing we need to figure out, is whether or not the rising OLR isn’t just a normal radiative response to rising tropospheric temps, caused by the ASR-induced positive imbalance at the ToA, but in fact also helps in enhancing the solar warming.

            And the one way – the only way – to find out about this, is by comparing T_e (<=OLR) with T_tropo (TLT), over a sufficient amount of time.

            Which is what I do. And NOT what the papers you refer to are doing. They’re looking at something ELSE, Svante. OTHER pieces of the puzzle …

            No I don’t have the ‘validated observational data’ (…)

            Exactly. So why are you still pretending you have some kind of argument here? You have no relevant (i.e. observational) backing of any kind to your speculations, so why should I keep paying attention to them …?

            (…) but this is what you need to do.

            What do I need to do? That I haven’t already done. Please remind me.

            P.S. Another way to prove the enhanced GHE would be measure differences in actual TOA altitude.

            And how do you expect to be able to “measure” the ToA altitude? What do you think the ToA is, Svante? And what is Earth’s “effective radiation level” (ERL)? Is it an altitude level you can actually measure …?

            You clearly don’t know enough about the fundamentals of this topic. But still you’re arguing. And arguing. And speculating. And arguing. Based on your speculations.

            Like all CO2 warmists do. Out of pure necessity, it seems. Vehemently defending your commitment to the Green Cause. (As Dr. Leon Festinger wrote: “A man with a conviction is a hard man to change.”)

            Producing what seems like an endless stream of new red herrings as you go along …

            All in the name of this sustained effort to stubbornly refuse to accept that ‘global warming’ isn’t our fault.

            It’s not our fault, Svante. Nature is handling herself. Lighten up!

          • Svante says:

            Kristian,
            I’m not afraid to look bad, I have learnt a lot from you that way.

            Happy new year!

  65. PhilJ says:

    ” western Canada have reached minimum extents only 150–300 years after they achieved their maximum Holocene extents.

    So 150-300 years ago was the coldest point of the Holocene? Guess natural warming from that low point is not unexpected…
    But thats good! Warmer is much more beneficial to life than colder…

  66. PhilJ says:

    ” This level of misunderstanding and BS is hard to countenance as genuine thought.”

    Indeed, and that it has been institutionalized as ‘established science’ and been used to rob the people of resources is unbearable…

    • barry says:

      Looks like you’ve drowned your brain in your own BS.

      You could have read the paper at the link provided and made informed comment on the point. But instead you copied half the cite from the post, twisted the point, and mouthed off to peddle your POV.

      Reflexive contrariness is a self-pleasuring thing. On a blog that aims to talk about science, it’s odious, trollish behaviour.

  67. Armando Alizo says:

    @David Apnell – Given your views regarding the certainty of anthropomorphic Global Warming, what actions do you believe should be taken? China isnt going to cut emissions, and having developed economies commit economic suicide wont make much of a dent either.

  68. PhilJ says:

    Barry,

    “Looks like youve drowned your brain in your own BS.”

    Lol. Rather than refuting anything I have said, you resort to insults… The last desparate attempts of someone without any argument to speak of….

    Happy New Year!

  69. rejean tremblay says:

    Questions for R. Spencer who write this :

    that would destroy the global economy, worsen global poverty, and have no measureable effect on global temperatures by the end of this century anyway.

    Are you an economist ?
    destroy the global economy : explain your affirmation !
    have no mesuerable effect !!!!!!!: Wow : scientific point of view or just political opinion ??

    • Svante says:

      Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D is a bit of an alarmist on that.

      Here’s a couple of economists:
      https://tinyurl.com/yd7eqb5l

      Paul Romer solved this problem by demonstrating how economic forces govern the willingness of firms to produce new ideas and innovations.

      Nordhaus’ model is now widely spread and is used to simulate how the economy and the climate co-evolve. It is used to examine the consequences of climate policy interventions, for example carbon taxes.

  70. Quaestio says:

    It’s the same propaganda as Christy’s dishonest graphics. What do you hope to achieve other than producing propaganda for climate truthers to spread around the internet>

  71. Lucas says:

    To the authors, can you please point me to information on the balloon datasets you point to in the charts above. Where does this data come from? You mention 3 different balloon datasets – how many are there in total?

Leave a Reply