The Faith Component of Global Warming Predictions

September 8th, 2019 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Credit: NBC News.

It’s been ten years since I addressed this issue in a specific blog post, so I thought it would be useful to revisit it. I mention it from time to time, but it is so important, it bears repeating and remembering.

Over and over again.

I continue to strive to simply these concepts, so here goes another try. What follows is as concise as I can make it.

  1. The temperature change in anything, including the climate system, is the result of an imbalance between the rates of energy gain and energy loss. This comes from the First Law of Thermodynamics. Basic stuff.
  2. Global warming is assumed to be due to the small (~1%) imbalance between absorbed sunlight and infrared energy lost to outer space averaged over the Earth caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning.
  3. But we don’t know whether the climate system, without human influence, is in a natural state of energy balance anyway. We do not know the quantitative average amounts of absorbed sunlight and emitted infrared energy across the Earth, either observationally or from first physical principles, to the accuracy necessary to blame most recent warming on humans rather than nature. Current best estimates, based upon a variety of datasets, is around 239-240 Watts per sq. meter for these energy flows. But we really don’t know.

When computer climate models are first constructed, these global-average energy flows in and out of the climate system do not balance. So, modelers adjust any number of uncertain processes in the models (for example, cloud parameterizations) until they do balance. They run the model for, say, 100 years and make sure there is little or no long-term temperature trend to verify balance exists.

Then, they add the infrared radiative effect of increasing CO2, which does cause an energy imbalance. Warming occurs. They then say something like, “See? The model proves that CO2 is responsible for warming we’ve seen since the 1950s.”

But they have only demonstrated what they assumed from the outset. It is circular reasoning. A tautology. Evidence that nature also causes global energy imbalances is abundant: e.g., the strong warming before the 1940s; the Little Ice Age; the Medieval Warm Period. This is why many climate scientists try to purge these events from the historical record, to make it look like only humans can cause climate change.

I’m not saying that increasing CO2 doesn’t cause warming. I’m saying we have no idea how much warming it causes because we have no idea what natural energy imbalances exist in the climate system over, say, the last 50 years. Those are simply assumed to not exist.

(And, no, there is no fingerprint of human-caused warming. All global warming, whether natural or human-caused, looks about the same. If a natural decrease in marine cloudiness was responsible, or a decrease in ocean overturning [either possible in a chaotic system], warming would still be larger over land than ocean, greater in the upper ocean than deep ocean, and greatest at high northern latitudes and least at high southern latitudes).

Thus, global warming projections have a large element of faith programmed into them.


590 Responses to “The Faith Component of Global Warming Predictions”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Curious George says:

    My understanding is that for a dry planet we could compute how much warming an addition of CO2 would cause. Add water – and we are left clueless…

    • Roy W. Spencer says:

      yes, that’s a good way to phrase it.

      • David Appell says:

        Roy is clueless. Others aren’t.

        • WizGeek says:

          @David Appell: Why resort to ad hominem aggression, David? Both sides of the climate analysis have their own belief systems because there’s still so many gaps and unknowns in the climate equations. I believe [see what I did there?] this is Dr. Spencer’s point.

          • bill hunter says:

            David resorts to ad hominems because he can’t carry the science argument other than spouting cherry picked numbers like the ocean rising 4mm a year which is well outside the range of what science says it is.

        • Randy Cornwell says:

          Funny David, I say the same about you, that your are clueless. My reasoning is that you have to come to Dr. Roy’s blog to make yourself relevant. If you could somehow manage to get the number of comments on your on blog that the good Doctor does, then there would be no reason for you to spend as much time here flaming others.
          Just image David, YOU could flame those deniers on your own blog!

    • bill hunter says:

      Lets just say we can compute anything we want and that “dry” is less complicated than “wet”. However, computing something doesn’t mean its right. The military has confirmed much outgoing longwave radiation gets initially absorbed into the atmosphere that comes from technology developed in missile programs but beyond that it is all just untested theory.

    • Domnhul says:

      Actually it’s a matter of physics that doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere will conservatively trap 1.5 degrees (including the effect of increased water vapour) more heat from being radiated back into space.

      • Roy W. Spencer says:

        Well, no… the well-known physics part is the direct warming from doubling CO2, which is about 1 deg C. I consider the water vapor feedback part uncertain because it depends a lot on how free-tropospheric vapor changes with warming as the precipitation efficiency of rain systems change. That, we don’t even understand, let alone have it included in climate models. Instead, arbitrary moistening assumptions (e.g. constant RH with warming throughout the troposphere) are made. Increasingly, observations suggest that is wrong (e.g. lack of a strong hot spot in the tropical upper troposphere).

        • Domnull says:

          Your clarification is appreciated. As you point out, the CO2 alone 1 degree increase is pure physics. The additional 0.5 degrees attributable to increased water vapour is the conservative part of the estimate that I was referring to.

          • TimTheToolMan says:

            Domnull writes “The additional 0.5 degrees attributable to increased water vapour is the conservative part of the estimate that I was referring to.”

            Even that is an assumption based on the idea the earth will continue to warm slowly to an asymptotic warmer value. However if the earth was currently experiencing a spike in warming (at least partly) due to the CO2 then its not impossible the long term feedbacks could be negative and the warming be less than 1C.

          • m d mill says:

            Actually the increase due to an assumption of constant RH is only 30%, ie 1.3 C/2xCO2, as calcuulated here:

            http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/

        • David Appell says:

          Roy, real scientists publish scientific papers in the scientific literature.

          Not any old thing on blogs.

          The professionals don’t care whatsoever what you publish on your blog. You know that.

          You’re just trying to get returned in a Google engine search.

          Oh how your standards have fallen.

        • Peter says:

          Dr Spencer, is it true that humans only contribute about 3.6% of the total CO2 yearly? and we can measure that reasonably? If so that would mean that 96.4% comes from nature, and scientist have a convenient assumption that Natural emissions and sequestrations cancel each other out, but there is really no data that proves this correct? That also would mean small fractional changes would swamp human emissions of CO2 correct? Just wondering, Thanks

          • bdgwx says:

            Yes. This is correct. Human emissions are ~4% of the total emissions. There are also absor*tions as well. That ~4% emission increase has upset the balance such that the net accumulation in the atmosphere is no longer close to zero. Remember emissions and absor*tions are terms that describe rates as measured in GtC/year or ppm/yr. If you integrate the total flow over time you’ll see that this ~4% emission increase has resulted in a total concentration increase of about 130 from 280 to 410 ppm. And the slope of the increase in concentration matches human fossil fuel extraction almost perfectly. So the human contribution to the total CO2 concentration as measured in ppm is about 31%. Does that make sense?

      • bill hunter says:

        Domnhul says:
        September 8, 2019 at 1:41 PM
        Actually its a matter of physics that doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere will conservatively trap 1.5 degrees.
        ======================

        That would be the sort of physics in a thought experiment, not the sort of physics that has been tested and proven correct. But if it were the case the physics had been tested and found true then we would not be talking about what is conservative and what is not. Thus I think the word conservative has more applicability to politics than any thing else and the non-conservative folks would be doing their best to move everybody to left of center. Golly! No kidding???!!!

        • Domnhul says:

          Ask a meteorologist if it’s a thought experiment. They will tell you that the physics is that a warmer atmosphere will hold more water vapour. Water vapour is a green house gas.

          • coturnix says:

            Nonono, warmer atmosphere MAY hold more water vapour, NOT necessarily WILL hold more water vapour. There is small but crucial distinction there with a biiiig difference in consequences.

          • bill hunter says:

            The entire issue is a thought experiment not just that if it gets warmer it will hold more water vapor. While there is no question that greenhouse gases are a necessity for a greenhouse effect there is more to a greenhouse effect than just greenhouse gases.

          • Adrian Roman says:

            Might also hold more clouds. Those clouds have albedo. Those clouds cannot be simulated correctly.

            I call such story telling without quantification ‘science by fairy tales’. Despite calling it science, it has no scientific value whatsoever. You have a predictive model, perfect. You don’t, all you have is fairy tales.

          • bill hunter says:

            Adrian Roman says:
            =============================
            You have a predictive model, perfect. You dont, all you have is fairy tales.
            =============================

            Correct. In natural systems its not possible to have lab science lay out all the terms of a model. Thus the critical step in modeling is a positive track record in successfully making predictions.

            Which is nigh impossible for climate because change is so slow, tends to be unidirectional and lacks clear generational benchmarks.

            The models have been off track since day from being incapable of duplicating past change. Not knowing how to do that instead led to an effort to figure out if past change was real. And data is scarce enough, uncertain enough, to conclude just about anything you want.

            I would listen to Lindzen’s advice on this matter he has a handle on the problems and has no dogs in the fight.

          • David Appell says:

            A warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor, about 7% per degree C of warming.

          • David Appell says:

            bill hunter says:
            Correct. In natural systems its not possible to have lab science lay out all the terms of a model. Thus the critical step in modeling is a positive track record in successfully making predictions.

            You’re still too lazy (and/or too incompetent) to read Ch 9 of WG1 of the IPCC 5AR.

          • coturnix says:

            @David Appel said:
            “””A warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor, about 7% per degree C of warming.
            “””

            That statement is not exactly true, and it’s meaning and validity strongly depends on a how it is interpreted. thus, being vague, i hereby assert that such a statement is in the least a manipulation by vagueness and in the worst a LIE BY OMISSION, on warmists’ part.

      • Dumbhul
        Humans have been adding CO2 to the atmosphere for over a century. (That century has also included large improvements in human health and prosperity, evidence that more CO2 in the air has not been bad news at all).

        If CO2 is really a “climate controller”, and it’s effect on the global average temperature is “a matter of physics”, then please explain why there was no global warming from 1940 to 1975 ?

        And please don’t tell us sunlight was blocked by air pollution, because if that was true, then why did global warming begin in 1975?

        All the air pollution did not suddenly fall out of the sky in 1975 !

        The “coming climate change catastrophe” has been “coming since the 1970’s, but never shows up.

        Reason:
        The “coming catastrophe” exists ONLY in the minds of deluded leftists who reject conventional religions, but love to be part of the climate change “religion”, and tell people what to believe about the climate, and what to do (The Green New Deal).

        Leftists like you Dumbhul, are never happy unless they are telling people how they must live, and character attacking them when they ask questions.

        Their favorite phrase is “Scientists say …”

        Have a nice day.

        • Domnull says:

          Did I say there will be global disaster? I’ll do you one better . . . if you look at the surface warming graphs there is no evidence that there is global warming from the inception of the industrial revolution to 1979 outside that can’t be explained by natural variation. I’d also point out that we are a long way off from doubling CO2.

          As far as your question is concerned, one needs to appreciate that the green house gas effect only applies to heat radiating back from the surface. If there is less sunlight warming the surface due to pollution, increase cloud cover etc. surface temperatures would likely be less. Also, the oceans are a huge heat sync so surface temperatures will be less than 1.5 or so degrees if one does accept the physics.

          I’d also challenge those who think that atmospheric vapour won’t increase if CO2 is doubled to think about what they are saying. The only explanation for why it might happen is climate change in terms of desertification. A warmer atmosphere will pick more water vapour from the oceans. So that would mean there will be less coming from the land mass. Can we pray that they are wrong?

          • bill hunter says:

            Adrian Roman says:

            Might also hold more clouds. Those clouds have albedo. Those clouds cannot be simulated correctly.

            I call such story telling without quantification science by fairy tales. Despite calling it science, it has no scientific value whatsoever. You have a predictive model, perfect. You dont, all you have is fairy tales.
            =================================
            Actually I tend to think that NOAA was doing a better job explaining it with natural variation in the recent past when they had charts up showing how it tracked long term solar activity.

            But once NOAA had up a beautiful chart (until maybe 6 or 8 years ago) with temperatures smoothed out with a 60 year filter laid over solar activity.

            The chart was widely pooh poohed by warmists because solar activity had topped out around 1986 and cooling had not started. But one forgets that with 60 year smoothing you have problems with 30 year long tails in need of 30 years of data. So now we are 30 years out and no more warming.

            Not that it was actually getting colder yet but the deceleration was about -0.048 +/- 0.036 C/dec as calculated for me today by physicist David Appell over on the monthly update thread through Aug 2014.

            Keep that trend going for a couple more decades you could have a statistically adequate climate cooling trend that continues to match natural variation (at least using the unadjusted solar activity database).

        • David Appell says:

          Greenesleeves wrote:
          then please explain why there was no global warming from 1940 to 1975 ?

          Most probably, post-WW2 sulfur pollution in the US and Europe.

          WHy did it end when air pollution standards came into effect?

          PS: This is an easy objection that has been already answered long ago.

          • Mr. Appeal to Authority Appleman

            Global SO2 emissions peaked in the 1970 to 1990 period.

            If SO2 was blocking sunlight from 1940 to 1975, then it was blocking even more sunlight from 1975 to 1990 … yet we had global warming from 1975 to 1990.

            Therefore, you and your fellow climate alarmists must believe that SO2 prevents global warming when the average temperature is cooling, but causes global warming when the average temperature is rising.

            That’s a true dingbat belief, worthy of a member of the AOC fan club, and it seems to be your belief too.

            Have a nice day.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        dohmnhul…”Actually its a matter of physics that doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere will conservatively trap 1.5 degrees (including the effect of increased water vapour) more heat from being radiated back into space”.

        Your terminology is a bit off so I’d like to clarify.

        CO2 cannot trap surface heat. When the surface radiates electromagnetic energy in the infrared band the surface heat is lost during conversion. Therefore, the surface cools. The emitted IR is not heat, although it has the potential of being converted back to heat by cooler CO2 in the atmosphere.

        So what if it is converted back to heat, where does that heat go?

        One CO2 molecule is surrounded by 2500 molecules of nitrogen and oxygen. That heat will immediately be transferred to those molecules. The heat cannot be radiated away or it will be lost again. The heat must remain in the molecule or be transferred by conduction to adjacent molecules of N2/O2, in order to affect the temperature of the atmosphere.

        But how much surface IR can molecules of CO2 making up 0.04% of the atmosphere absorb, and of the heat they gain through conversion from IR, how much does that affect the temperature of the atmosphere?

        If CO2 is doubled to 0.08%, which is highly unlikely, how much heat will that add to the atmosphere?

        Those questions have not been answered, all we have is sheer conjecture about the heating effect of CO2 molecules in a gas mixture. Gavin Schmidt, a mathematician who programs models for NASA GISS, claimed the heating effect of CO2 is 9% to 25%, depending on the amount of WV. He has not an iota of scientific evidence to back that claim.

        According to the Ideal Gas Law, if the atmosphere can be considered a relatively constant volume, the amount of heat contributed by CO2 would be proportional to its mass percent, which is about 0.04%. Therefore the contribution of heat by CO2 should be about 0.04C per 1C rise in temperature.

        With regard to water vapour, the amount of WV in the entire atmosphere is about 0.31%. It is higher nearer the surface, especially in the tropics, ranging as high as 1% to 3.5% respectively.

        Again, where’s the proof that WV adds significant heat to the atmosphere? It is far more likely to transport heat conducted directly from the surface.

        Why do you think studies about this have not been conducted in the atmosphere? I’ll venture one reason, it’s not possible to do it.

        • Domhnull says:

          I’m only talking about surface tempature. The green house gas effect is that some of the long wave radiation emitted by the surface gets radiated back to back to the surface. The retuning long wave radiation then turns into heat when it is absorbed. The physics is well understood for over 100 years and is easily demonstrable experimentally and in real world meteorology. The difference between a warm tropical night and plunging desert night time temputures is water vapour. Dr. Spencer acknowledged the physics of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere as being 1 degree in this post but said the amount of water vapour couldn’t be calculated.

        • David Appell says:

          CO2 cannot trap surface heat.

          False. CO2 absorbs strongly at many IR wavelengths emitted by Earth’s surface.

          Gordon is, literally, afraid to admit this.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          David, please stop trolling.

  2. Edward Caryl says:

    I wrote this over five years ago. Also, read the comments. There was some excellent feedback from some very bright people. The bottom line is that CO2 only correlates with warming for a limited period that may not mean anything.
    http://notrickszone.com/2014/03/26/plots-show-it-should-be-clear-that-something-else-besides-co2-is-in-charge/#sthash.4f4eAFEY.dpbs

  3. Patrick says:

    1) 46.4% increase of CO2 levels (130/280)

    2) 0.012% overall atmospheric change

    3) 0.0001 mole fraction change

    4) 1/10,000ths change

    5) 450,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules (450 zettajoules) increase in ocean heat energy since 1940 https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate-new-record-ocean-heat-content-and-growing-a-el-nino

    6) Oceans have been warming for 142 years (0.59C or 1.1 F) https://www.livescience.com/19414-oceans-warming-135-years.html

    7) We know an instantaneous warming of the oceans of 0.1C can cause an instantaneous 2C warming of our atmosphere simply because of the added water vapor, so why hasn’t the atmosphere warmed by almost 12C simply due to ocean surface warming of almost 0.6C over the past 142 years?

    There are lots of reasons to be skeptical about CO2 causing dangerous atmospheric warming or even minute amounts of global climate changes.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      patrick…”1) 46.4% increase of CO2 levels (130/280)”

      No positive proof. This value is a guess based on ice core samples in Antarctica. The IPCC cherry picked the 270 ppmv pre-Industrial value from a fairly wide range of concentrations, up to 2000 ppmv.

      We saw how badly tree ring proxy data failed in the hockey stick debacle. It’s not a good idea to base a warming theory on ice core proxies which have so much uncertainty.

      “2) 0.012% overall atmospheric change”

      Even if that’s true, which no one can verify for sure, why did the original CO2 of about 0.03% not cause catastrophic warming?

      This fact alone destroys the notion that CO2 in the atmosphere is producing significant warming.

      Furthermore, atmospheric CO2 is 96% from natural sources. Those natural sources have been there for eons and caused no warming issues.

  4. Eben says:

    For the last 10000 years of the Holocene the CO2 and the temperature goes in completely opposite directions
    How is that for a correlation

    https://i.postimg.cc/mkptYwKw/figure-38.png

  5. Milton Hathaway says:

    The appeal of socialism is a tough one for me to wrap my mind around. In my youth, I strongly believed in additional government control over our lives (or more accurately, other people’s lives, for I knew best) because of what I saw as bad behavior causing problems for society. Looking back, I don’t know why I believed this; the only explanation I can come up with is “the arrogance of youth”.

    People get annoyed with me for linking the two issues, climate change and socialism, but they are two sides to the same coin. For all practical purposes, they are indistinguishable – relinquishing freedom and individual choice to the government to achieve some greater common good. They share a fundamental requirement to eliminate competition, to eliminate accountability. A socialist country cannot compete economically with a capitalist county, and a country that implements CO2 emissions reductions cannot compete economically with a country that doesn’t.

    Countries that embrace socialism or CO2 emissions reductions are signing up for a reduction in the standard of living for its citizens. Human nature being what it is, this requires force. Long term, the required enforcement will be unsustainable as long as freedom exists somewhere in the world, and that freedom is visible to the repressed.

    Hence the absolute need for globalism, to eliminate competition and accountability on the part of the ruling elite that know best.

    Do you notice how countries move (slide?) from capitalism to socialism, but not the other way around? Capitalism provides the economic resources to indulge experimentation with socialism, but socialism tends to just die a slow, miserable death.

    Perhaps the oddest thing of all is that if the alarmists are correct, and CAGW is indeed in our future, only capitalism can pull us through. In other words, their current attempts to avert the problem would insure that we are unable to deal effectively with whatever inevitably occurs.

    • lewis guignard says:

      Call it the idealism of youth.
      Included would be lack of knowledge and understanding of human nature.

    • barry k says:

      I think it’s pretty simple. Any free capitalistic country will likely end up ‘socialist’ because resources are limited and even though the overall average is much better in a free country, there are still too many people at the bottom. Populism and government programs will win out. It’s truly an uphill battle to come back.

      The most efficient way to be benevolent as a society is via personal philanthropy and local community involvement. The amount of accountability is the highest, but this also takes the most effort. It’s interesting that even the rich in our country can tend toward socialism. I think, by-and-large, they have lost their way and now consider the government the best solution to poverty, etc.

      Barry

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry k…”The most efficient way to be benevolent as a society is via personal philanthropy and local community involvement”.

        barry…I think you have a jaundiced view of what socialism means. I live north of the US in Canada and we are a socialism. I see none of the negatives you list. We have a good blend of socialism and capitalism which proves capitalists can live in a socialism and thrive.

        There are other socialist states like the UK, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Australia and New Zealand. Are you sure you are not confusing socialism with the barbaric Stalinist-Russian communism?

        The US has a phobic fear of centralized government but run properly, there’s nothing to fear. We have not solved problems like poverty, especially child poverty, which is a shame.

        • barry k says:

          Gordon,

          That’s why I put ‘socialist’ in quotes, because it has numerous connotations and means different things to different people. Generally, what I mean is since there are more people at the bottom once they realize they can vote people into power who will take from the few and give to them (and they are ok with it), there begins a slide toward ‘socialism’ (my connotation, regardless of the strict definition).

          What we really need to improve society in the most optimal way is a nation of individuals who look out for each other and their community and look for those around them who need help. What we have now (now that government is looked to as the savior) is people who consider their taxes a charitable contribution and rely on the government to help those in need. And we now have a class of people who are career politicians who are ready to help.

          Sure, there are shades of grey along the way and the USA has a long way to go yet. But, because we are one of the most free (if not the most free), it gets harder to see how far we’ve already moved in that direction.

          And, poverty will always be with us as long as we have limited resources. There is not enough resources to go around to make everyone happy. We can either be free and live with some poverty or make everyone equally miserable (or something in between…)

          Barry

        • Nate says:

          Gordon +1.

      • Eben says:

        Any free capitalistic country will likely end up socialist

        Any socialist country is only maintained such by force, when the force is removed the system will instantly flip to free capitalism.

        I’m the one who escaped from behind the iron curtain and
        You don’t know squat about socialism

        • barry k says:

          Eben,

          You may have been replying to Gordon, but I’d agree I don’t truly know about ‘socialism’ (i.e. dictionary definition, where it is applied by force).

          In our country (USA), the ‘socialism’ we are sliding toward is one where I don’t think we could come back from so quickly, since it’s applied by majority rule (i.e. a majority of people at the bottom voting themselves goodies from the few…) as opposed to a dictatorship/regime.

          The end result is similar though. Since resources are limited and the ‘average’ situation is maybe lower middle class at best, the only thing being shared is mediocrity/misery… that is the end-point of the trajectory if things continue.

          Barry

  6. Entropic man says:

    “But we dont know whether the climate system, without human influence, is in a natural state of energy balance anyway.”

    That turns out not to be the case.

    The natural forcings are measurable. They added up to a cooling effect of 1C the last 5000 years and have been flat or slightly cooling since 1850.

    http://www.globalwarmingindex.org/AWI/AWI_AR5_large.html

  7. Roy W. Spencer says:

    Entropic Man, there is a widespread assumption that the mid-1800s was the point when the climate system was in a state of energy balance. But we don’t know that! Volcanoes are not the only possible cause of natural climate forcing. The oceans are a nonlinear dynamical system, and ANY change in the rate of ocean overturning (combined with the strong vertical temperature gradient in the ocean) will cause global warming or global cooling. To assume such things (and who knows what other things?) never happen in the face of widely-accepted natural warm and cool periods is grossly naive.

    • Denny says:

      I dont understand how anyone can believe earth can ever be in a state of energy balance. We are affected by a constant flow of stacked oscillations and known and unknown forcings of innumerable periods that are unprecedented at each stage. The dynamics of today are not precisely what they were 100 years ago or 1000 years ago or 1 million years ago. Its constantly evolving, so the outcomes will never quite be the same.

    • Nate says:

      Roy,

      Are than any episodes of significant cool periods in the past that can be causally linked to ocean dynamics, WITHOUT a solar or volcanic forcing as well?

      • gbaikie says:

        –Nate says:
        September 12, 2019 at 6:06 AM
        Roy,

        Are than any episodes of significant cool periods in the past that can be causally linked to ocean dynamics, WITHOUT a solar or volcanic forcing as well?–

        Warming or cooling from ocean dynamics are slow processes requiring thousands of years.
        Within thousands of years, you can always find solar or volcanic forcing.
        But after 115,000 years ago.
        And after 5000 years ago.

  8. Entropic man says:

    Eben

    Speaking of correalations, I used your graph for a few calculations.

    The temperature dropped 1.4C in 10,000 years. It correalated very well with orbital eccentricity as we continue to move towards the next glacial period.

    Over the same period CO2 increased from 260ppm to 280 ppm. That would have a warming effect of 5.35ln(280/260)3/3.7 = 0.32C.

    That makes the natural cooling rate 1.4-0.32/1000 = 0.001C/decade.

    Compare that with the UAH warming rate of 0.13C/decade.

    • bill hunter says:

      Whoa! Trigger!

      1.4c in 10,000 years? A perfectly linear sun? Son, the simple solutions isn’t always the right solution.

    • curious says:

      Entropic – just checking your maths without any other comment, I think your signs are muddled?

      Assume:
      observed change in temp = non CO2 driven change + CO2 driven change

      Using your numbers:
      -1.4 = non CO2 driven change + 0.32

      Rearrange:
      non driven CO2 change = -1.4 – 0.32 = – 1.72 degC/10,000 years

      ?

  9. bill hunter says:

    EM, ice core data shows many climate fluctuations of approximately 2C and double interglacial peaks of up to 4C. And such appears to have occurred in the last 5,000 years as well. It makes no sense at all to draw a straight line through all that and claim the difference is all anthropogenic. If you have to resort to that to make a case for global warming I would suggest a sobriety program might be in order.

  10. Entropic man says:

    Dr Spencer

    Confidence limits for most climate related measures is about +/-0.1C.

    Anything which forces a change of less than 0.1C is going to get lost in the noise; not statistically significant. None of the natural forcings, including obliquity and ENSO, show a trend above the noise level.

    This is the old problem. If you can show that natural forcings can explain the UAH warming of 0.5C since 1979, a Nobel. prize beckons.

    The calculated effect of CO2 forcing 5.35ln(410/335)3/3.7 = 0.87C. Even

    Even ignoring lag your own data suggests that the majority of the warming since 1979 is due to CO2.

    • Stephen P Anderson says:

      The probability of non random systematic influence on the temperature curve since 1980 is less than 5%. Salby has demonstrated this.

      • Entropic man says:

        I would be fascinated to read Salby’s calculation. He has access to unique data and statistical techniques not available to mere biologists and climate scientists.

        • Stephen P Anderson says:

          I believed he used IPCC data.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          entropic…”I would be fascinated to read Salbys calculation. He has access to unique data and statistical techniques not available to mere biologists and climate scientists”.

          It’s not that, it’s just that Salby is smarter than them and willing to express his skepticism.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Salby is smarter than them’

            But not smart enough to avoid getting caught for his fraud.

            Not smart enough to know that if a professor doesnt show up to teach, he will get fired.

            And not smart enough to get his work published, and therefore influence actual science.

    • ren says:

      There is no global climate. Depending on the jetstreams, drought may occur in one area, and rainfall in another. A hurricane can occur if the jetstream is favorable. Changes in pressure in high latitudes have the greatest effect on temperature in medium latitudes.

  11. Stephen P Anderson says:

    Outstanding post Dr. Spencer!

    • Entropic man says:

      Stephen P Anderson

      I’m afraid not.

      Dr.Spencer is deploying an old AGW denier meme. He is hinting at the possibility of large unmeasured forcing and temperature variations without providing any evidence that they exist.

      • bill hunter says:

        There is plenty of evidence they exist. We see changes far beyond that from a short term ENSO event. We see reductions in warming trends by more than that every solar minimum. We saw decades of that in the early 20th century. We have seen glaciers melting uncovering human advances from the Bronze age through the Renaissance. We know without question of large climate fluctuations that periodically opened the Arctic for the migration of animals and people. I realize you proponents of straight line trends and uniform climate like to try to dismiss all that as way too uncertain, but stop and think for 1 second, doesn’t that apply to your ideas as well? Or are you too egotistical to be self critical?

        • Entropic man says:

          “are you too egotistical to be self critical?”

          No.

          Read my posts and you will notice that

          1) I know that all the measurements we are discussing are uncertain.

          2) I know the size of that uncertainty. That allows me to judge what changes are significantly affecting temperatures and which are not.

          Thus I am aware that El Nino produces a 0.3C spike, significant but transient. It has no effect on long term trends.

          The solar cycle would be expected to produce variability of +/-0.15C which is usually impossible to pick out of the noise.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            -I know all measurements we are discussing are uncertain-

            -thus I am aware El Nino produces a 0.3C spike-

            LOL

        • Nate says:

          Gish gallop.

          ‘ We see reductions in warming trends by more than that every solar minimum.’

          False. We see very little temperature change that can be correlated to solar max -min.

          If you think otherwise, show us the data.

          “We know without question of large climate fluctuations that periodically opened the Arctic for the migration of animals and people.”

          Yes during glaciation ~ 20,000 y ago, a land bridge existed.

          So what? Nothing similar recently.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        entropic…”Dr.Spencer is deploying an old AGW denier meme. He is hinting at the possibility of large unmeasured forcing and temperature variations without providing any evidence that they exist”.

        You are the outlier, with your alarmist science fabrications. I think Roy is being somewhat magnanimous in that he has the data to prove you wrong.

        Your so-called CO2 forcings are sci-fi. No proof.

      • aaron says:

        It exist in may academic papers.

        It is also quite evident in the massive NH glacier melt prior to 1950. The LIA, medieval warm period, Holocene optimum, as Spencer noted.

        These things also make clear that massive feedback necessary to make warming costly are implausible.

      • S.P. Anderson is deploying the old (Chicken Little/The sky is falling) AGW THEORY, that is based on physically unverifiable, ‘cherry picked’, and ‘adjusted’ data, that has little to do with real science, and a lot to do with politics.

  12. Thomas says:

    This is all well and good.

    But where is the summary of why humans alone are responsible for every conceivable “climate ill”?

    The complete absence of the usual deniers in the comments as of the time of this post must have a plausible explanation.

    Models anyone?

  13. Entropic man says:

    Thomas

    “But where is the summary of why humans alone are responsible for every conceivable climate ill?”

    And that’s another AGW denier meme.

    • Thomas says:

      On every TV channel, buddy, for 3 decades now.

      Three decades, still going strong.

      And all you have is calling the kettle black.

  14. Roy W. Spencer says:

    Entropic Man, yes, I actually “believe” most of the warming in our data is caused by humans. Do you never read anything I write? Because I tire of repeating myself.

    But (1) it cannot be proved with any level of certainty how much is due to humans (the point of my current post)…it’s a matter of faith; and (2) if the UAH warming is, say, 70% human-caused, then comparison with models (which show about twice the UAH warming, and it’s ALL human caused in the models) suggests global warming from 2XCO2 is a non-issue. (Unless there are cost-competitive, widely deployable, and practical alternative energy sources, in which case, sure, minimize fossil fuel use just to be on the safe side).

    • Mr. Spencer says:

      ” … yes, I actually believe most of the warming in our data is caused by humans.”
      .
      .
      That’s just a personal opinion — real science does not include the phrase “I believe”.
      ,
      ,
      Religions include “I believe”.

      Please stop saying “I believe”, and state the truth: NO ONE KNOWS how much warming has been caused by CO2 — the right answer is between 0% and 100%.

      Some people believe saying “I don’t know” makes them sound dumb, so they avoid that.

      But sometimes the smartest person in the room will say
      “I don’t know”, or “No one knows”, when that is the correct answer.

      • bdgwx says:

        You don’t think 150 years of learning in a broad array of scientific disciplines, observations, and experimentation have been able to narrow this range at all?

        What range would you put on the contribution from naturally modulated processes?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        richard…”Please stop saying I believe, and state the truth: NO ONE KNOWS how much warming has been caused by CO2 the right answer is between 0% and 100%”.

        Don’t be so thick, Richard, Roy has pointed out that no one knows the truth. Therefore, having said that, he is entitled as a scientist to express a belief.

        When Roy claims he believes, he is saying he does not know for sure but he thinks what he claims may be true.

        Religious belief is another matter unrelated to science. Isaac Newton believed so strongly in God that he wrote volumes on the Bible. Does that make his discoveries as a scientist any less valid?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        richard…”NO ONE KNOWS how much warming has been caused by CO2 the right answer is between 0% and 100%”.

        richard…sorry…I may have confused you with someone else.

  15. Mark Wapples says:

    So entropic it is ok to claim co2 causes all the changes with very little evidence and bad physics l, but it is not ok to suggest other factors may be at play.

    This is why the article has faith in the title.

    • bdgwx says:

      The scientific consensus does not claim that CO2 causes all changes. What it claims is that the net effect of all climate forcing agents provides the best match to reality.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        You do realize “scientific consensus” is an oxymoron? No, I don’t think you do.

        • bdgwx says:

          When I use the phrase “scientific consensus” I’m not talking about a vote or popularity contest. I’m talking about the manifestation of the consilience of evidence to form a theory that best matches reality. And I stand by what I said. This consensus which includes all climate forcing agents provides the best match to all available observations and experimental results. This consensus does not claim that CO2 is the only agent that modulates the climate.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            b,

            You don’t have theory, do you? Not even a testable hypothesis.

            All you have is faith.

            There are no climate forcing agents. That is just religious teaching. Climate is the average of weather. As the weather has changed, so has the average.

            Keep preaching.

            Cheers.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            -the manifestation of the consilience of evidence to form a theory-

            You’re a hoot.

          • bill hunter says:

            The consilience of BS on the floor is making a huge mess in here.

          • bdgwx
            In the history of science, a scientific consensus was usually found to be wrong.

            Sometimes slightly wrong.

            Sometimes completely wrong.

            “Consensus” means little in science — but the consensus is LIKELY to be wrong, based on the history of scientific advancements.

            Science is never settled.

            If it was, why would we need scientists?

          • bdgwx says:

            So are you guys arguing that…

            Theories that selectively ignore one or more climate forcing agents do a better job at matching reality than those that include them all?

            AND

            That the best results in science arise when contradictions and divergence among evidence is maximized?

            …because these are rather odd arguments. If these aren’t the arguments that are being made then we all agree which leaves me questioning why this is even an issue.

          • bdgwx says:

            Richard,

            I’m not saying that science is ever settled. Or that the scientific consensus on any particular topic is ever perfect. Its not and it never will be. All that is being claimed here is that the scientific consensus represents the position or theory that best match to reality among many candidates. And in this particular case the theory that best matches reality is the one that considers all climate forcing agents. This theory does NOT claim that CO2 is the only mechanism which modulates the climate. Is this what you are disagreeing with?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bdg…”All that is being claimed here is that the scientific consensus represents the position or theory that best match to reality among many candidates”.

            How about the re-warming from the Little Ice Age theory. It offers something tangible, a well documented event. All the AGW theory offers is wild claims of the effect of trace gases on warming. No scientific evidence based on atmospheric measurements.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            b,

            Neither you nor anybody else can produce any sort of AGW theory to examine.

            You can’t even describe the GHE which you claim exists!

            Religious fervour and faith tend to fail when forced to confront fact. Your 97% consensus is a motley collection of the confused, the delusional, and the extremely gullible.

            The GHE is a figment of the imagination, CO2 provides no heat, and Gavin Schmidt is not even a scientist.

            Carry on praying. It might help – or it might not.

            Cheers.

          • bdgwx says:

            Gordon, can your LIA “rewarming” theory explain the PETM, timing and magnitude of the glacial cycles, faint young Sun paradox, and countless other climatic change events in the paleoclimate and instrumental record? Can you describe the fundamental physical processes that cause “rewarming”?

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx says: So are you guys arguing that…

            Theories that selectively ignore one or more climate forcing agents do a better job at matching reality than those that include them all?

            AND

            That the best results in science arise when contradictions and divergence among evidence is maximized?

            …because these are rather odd arguments. If these aren’t the arguments that are being made then we all agree which leaves me questioning why this is even an issue
            =========================
            What makes you think any of that is happening?

            there are a lot of intelligent and knowledgeable folks that think much of what you are saying actually applies to the climate models.

          • bdgwx says:

            bill,

            First, I don’t know if it is or isn’t happening or what “it” even is. Remember what we are discussing here. There is a claim out there that “co2 causes all the changes”. I don’t know where this claim originates. I just knew that the current scientific consensus makes no such claim.

            Second, when I speak of “models” unless it is explicitly stated I’m almost always talking about any method which can explain past observations and predict future observations. This can include global circulation models using numerical weather prediction techniques, but it’s not limited to this either. It could be a statistical model, a heuristic model, a 3 layer box model, a single equation, etc. Any model, whether it be a GCM or not, that ignores CO2 or any climate forcing agent necessarily results in a poorer match to reality than models which include ALL climate forcing agents. If you disagree then the challenge to you to present a no-GHG or weak-GHG model that provides at least as good of a match to reality over the paleoclimate and instrumental record as what we already have via the established scientific consensus.

          • bill hunter says:

            bdwgx I think you are still having a reading comprehension problem. I believe I said all the warming (that would be the “net” warming) without CO2 in the models they claim it would be cooling.

          • bdgwx says:

            bill,

            I’ve not seen any discussion in this thread (yet anyway) about what models suggest might occur in the current era had CO2 not increased.

            The only things that have been discussed so far is the claim that the scientific consensus says “co2 causes all the changes” (it doesn’t) and that the scientific consensus itself and consilience of evidence are just BS (they aren’t).

            If you want to discuss what the temperature trajectory in the modern era might be had CO2 not increased then that’s fine. We can do so now if you’d like.

          • bill hunter says:

            why? you just want it to all be co2. my objection is the conspiracy to call the science settled when clearly it is not. that meme was established to end the investigation of the science issues and move straight to the handing out of sacks of money. a corruption in government for special interests on a scale probably never seen before

          • bdgwx says:

            bill, I don’t want anything in this regard. And even if I did the laws of physics don’t care what I, you, or anyone wants. And not only am I not claiming that “co2 causes all changes”, but I’m also not even claiming that it is responsible for all of the changes during the modern warming era either. How many times do I have to repeat that the scientific consensus, which I advocate for, says the climate in any era is modulated by the net effect of everything. And the contribution of changes in CO2 in the different climatic eras ebbs and flows. It is not always the same. We just happen to live in an era where the contribution from CO2 is significant. This is because the change in CO2 is also significant. It has nothing to do with what I want or how I feel about it.

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx says: bill, I dont want anything in this regard. And even if I did the laws of physics dont care what I, you, or anyone wants. And not only am I not claiming that co2 causes all changes, but Im also not even claiming that it is responsible for all of the changes during the modern warming era either. How many times do I have to repeat that the scientific consensus, which I advocate for, says the climate in any era is modulated by the net effect of everything. And the contribution of changes in CO2 in the different climatic eras ebbs and flows. It is not always the same. We just happen to live in an era where the contribution from CO2 is significant. This is because the change in CO2 is also significant. It has nothing to do with what I want or how I feel about it.
            ====================
            bdgwx, there are no laws of physics that describe the behavior of gases in a radiation field. Dr. Lindzen keeps trying to drive that point forward. But out of sheer panic, the lure of sacks of money, and corruption on scale probably never seen before the public is getting fleeced on this one.

            Advocating for a scientific consensus is just plain stupid. Thats not how science works. And CO2 from its ability to warm anything is quite insignificant. Its heating ability in the atmosphere is about 1/2500th of the other gases and if it doesn’t warm the atmosphere its not likely to have any significant effect on the surface either.

            I get the construction they have come up with to suggest CO2 does do that. But its a concept that has never been observed to work. Thus in essence they have concluded it must be that way because they can’t think of another explanation. Thats how they came up with the Ptolemy Theory. It simply isn’t science its pure politics. And because its politics thats why its corrupt.

          • bdgwx says:

            bill said…”there are no laws of physics that describe the behavior of gases in a radiation field”

            Yes. There most certainty are.

            bill said…”Dr. Lindzen keeps trying to drive that point forward.”

            No he doesn’t. He acknowledges the laws of physics that describe the behavior of gases in a radiation field. What he tries to drive home is that the climate system is resistant to change mostly via his iris effect theory. The irony of his position here is that this puts him in the minority since both advocates and skeptics alike overwhelmingly agree that the climate is sensitive to change as evidenced by the numerous climatic change events in Earth’s history.

            bill said…”Advocating for a scientific consensus is just plain stupid.”

            Picking the best theory that matches reality is stupid?

            bill said…”And CO2 from its ability to warm anything is quite insignificant.”

            Not according to 150+ years of observation, experimentation, and knowledge accumulation over a broad array of scientific disciplines. But let’s assume your statement is true for a moment. Nobody is stopping you or anyone else from positing a no-GHG or weak-GHG theory that can explain climatic change at least as well as the scientific consensus. This includes explanations for the faint young Sun problem, PETM, other ETMx events, magnitude of the glacial cycles, modern warming period, etc.

            bill said…”But its a concept that has never been observed to work.”

            You mean aside from the 150+ years of thermopile and spectroscopy experiments including those that have been occurring continuously via the various radiometers onboard satellites that constantly monitor this stuff and the 500+ million year paleoclimate record and instrumental temperature that is consistent with the effect. Right?

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx says:

            Ive not seen any discussion in this thread (yet anyway) about what models suggest might occur in the current era had CO2 not increased.

            If you want to discuss what the temperature trajectory in the modern era might be had CO2 not increased then thats fine. We can do so now if youd like.

            =================
            OK, so why would you believe it would be any different? Provide me a blueprint of how all this works with calculations and references to where the individual calculations have proven to be correct.

            I understand what they are doing but have no real world example to demonstrate it works that way.

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx says:
            bill said…”there are no laws of physics that describe the behavior of gases in a radiation field”

            Yes. There most certainty are.

            bill said…”Dr. Lindzen keeps trying to drive that point forward.”

            No he doesn’t. He acknowledges the laws of physics that describe the behavior of gases in a radiation field. What he tries to drive home is that the climate system is resistant to change mostly via his iris effect theory.
            ============================

            Come on bdgwx, switch on the thinking cap!! Lindzen’s Iris Theory is a different behavior in a radiation field. Where in God’s sake do you come up with anything to call it the same behavior?

            +++++++++++++++++++++++++
            bdgwx says:

            The irony of his position here is that this puts him in the minority since both advocates and skeptics alike overwhelmingly agree that the climate is sensitive to change as evidenced by the numerous climatic change events in Earth’s history.

            bill said…”Advocating for a scientific consensus is just plain stupid.”

            Picking the best theory that matches reality is stupid?
            ==================================
            Oh my Lord! Back to a popularity contest what a bonehead you are. At the very minimum that isn’t a shred of science its all politics, religion, world view.

            +++++++++++++++++++++++++
            bdgwx says:
            bill said…”And CO2 from its ability to warm anything is quite insignificant.”

            Not according to 150+ years of observation, experimentation, and knowledge accumulation over a broad array of scientific disciplines. But let’s assume your statement is true for a moment.
            ==========================

            Well whatever CO2 absorbs it is can only warm other stuff by a factor of 1 over 2500, or .04%. What it absorbs is well distributed in the atmosphere and it would take 2500 times as long to warm anything else.

            Look what happens is CO2 absorbs IR somewhere in the atmosphere. Generally you can’t warm a free floating gas by radiation unless you have it trapped. Sure it absorbs energy but then it floats to and shares its heat with other gases that also float.

            Only too the extent that it warms the “virtual” radiating surface does it become capable of slowing surface radiation.

            It will do some of that to the extent that the virtual surface effect isn’t saturated otherwise its on a Lindzen Iris trip. Observe the radiation exchange from a greenhouse gas molecule. It half up and half down (two virtual surfaces) thus radiation can’t warm that layer unless there is some countervailing forcing to keep it from freely mixing with other gases which there probably isn’t.

            Thus Lindzen’s theory does not require something we don’t know anything about and Lindzen can see the weak link. OK so maybe Lindzen is wrong but nobody has proven him wrong yet. Current theory may require a type of order in the atmosphere that the atmosphere simply does not possess. Of course proponents of the “popular” theory thinks it doesn’t matter if the gases in the atmosphere are moving all over the place. Lindzen does.

            ++++++++++++++++++++
            bdgwx says:
            Nobody is stopping you or anyone else from positing a no-GHG or weak-GHG theory that can explain climatic change at least as well as the scientific consensus. This includes explanations for the faint young Sun problem, PETM, other ETMx events, magnitude of the glacial cycles, modern warming period, etc.
            ===================
            All you are doing here is trying to shift the burden of proof. Climate has always changed, all you have to do is look at any temperature record to see that. Its currently changing daily, the idea that it all ends up with zero effect is complete BS.

            +++++++++++++++++
            bdgwx says:

            bill said…”But its a concept that has never been observed to work.”

            You mean aside from the 150+ years of thermopile and spectroscopy experiments including those that have been occurring continuously via the various radiometers onboard satellites that constantly monitor this stuff and the 500+ million year paleoclimate record and instrumental temperature that is consistent with the effect. Right?
            =========================
            blather, blather, blather. All premised on the idea of zero natural climate change.

            I think you were arguing the opposite side of this argument in this comment section. If not here then the previous one. You even claimed the IPCC recognized all these other forcings. All you are doing is buying hook, line, and sinker into their attmepts to segregate it from the Holy Moly Molecule with a “claimed” understanding of the behavior of a gas in a radiation field, that all experts don’t agree with. And all you offered here is a weak appeal to consensus. A consensus that is about 99% comprised of folks that haven’t thought about it much.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          stephen…”You do realize scientific consensus is an oxymoron? No, I dont think you do”.

          Great point.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bdg…”The scientific consensus does not claim that CO2 causes all changes. What it claims is that the net effect of all climate forcing agents provides the best match to reality”.

        That makes them both unscientific and wrong.

        • bdgwx says:

          So things like aerosols, solar radiation, GHGs, albedo, ocean currents, clouds, etc. have no impact on the climate? Would it be fair to say that you believe it’s all caused by this ever mysterious “rewarming”?

          • Thomas says:

            There no mystery.

            You yourself have said above that humans alone are to be blamed.

            For what?

            Whatever ill.

            Consensus nonsensus proves it all.

          • bdgwx says:

            Thomas said…”You yourself have said above that humans alone are to be blamed.”

            I have never said that. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else?

            Thomas said…”There no mystery.”

            So if not via the net effect of everything or any subset of the things I listed above and it’s no mystery then what is it?

          • Thomas says:

            The consilience of evidence and all that circus, buddy.

          • bdgwx says:

            So let me get this straight…in addition to the poster down below who says science is all about the feelies you’re now telling me that evidence based theory development is a circus?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bdgwx, please stop trolling.

  16. Jacques Lemiere says:

    i think the same, but it “proves” that the catastrophy is possible… simply possible from what we know..

    nowaday it is enough, as crazy as it seems, to justify to “do” something …

    similarly…”you can’t prove this chemical is absolutely safe..so let s ban it” … even we have no evidence it is actually unsafe!!!

  17. Entropic man says:

    Roy W. Spencer

    “(1) it cannot be proved with any level of certainty how much is due to humans (the point of my current post)its a matter of faith; ”

    Not faith, but statistics. The level of certainty is well defined by the confidence limits of the data.

    The IPCC summed it up.

    The chance that we caused !ess than half the observed warming since 1880 is less than 5%.

    The chance that we caused more than 160% of the warming (ie. 1C warming overcoming 0.4C cooling is also less than 5%.

    The mid-range estimate is 108% that we have caused 1.15C warming, against 0.15C cooling.

    • Entropic man says:

      (2) if the UAH warming is, say, 70% human-caused, then comparison with models (which show about twice the UAH warming, and its ALL human caused in the models) suggests global warming from 2XCO2 is a non-issue.”

      The models are designed to deduce the likely range of temperatures if we followed policies varying from BAU down to major reductions in emissions and land use forcing. Natural forcings such as ENSO are randomised. The resulting ensemble shows what outcomes are probable from different policies.

      We have been lucky. Observed emissions have continued apace, but natural forcing has been low. Thus reality has followed a path below the ensemble average.

      Regrettably this does not support your contention that “global warming from 2XCO2 is a non-issue. ”

      If anything, the models indicate that unless the abnormally low natural forcings persist, we can expect warming to accelerate even if we stabilise emissions.

      • bill hunter says:

        Entropic man says: If anything, the (untested) models indicate that unless the abnormally low natural forcings persist, we can expect warming to accelerate even if we stabilise emissions.

        • Entropic man says:

          Yes.

          We may have dug ourselves into a hole we cannot climb out of.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Em,

            By abnormally low natural forcings, I presume you mean cooling? The same cooling that has taken place for four and a half billion years?

            Or are you talking about some other abnormal natural condition? If it’s natural, how can it be abnormal? That sounds like a value judgement – faith based comment about a natural process. Religion determining what should be regarded as normal?

            Try science if you want to gain knowledge of the natural world, or just accept things as they are. Faith is probably easier than science – you will told what to believe, and what not to believe. Consensus climatology is a good example.

            Cheers.

          • Entropic man blathers:
            “We may have dug ourselves into a hole we cannot climb out of”.

            Gross overreaction to a nonexistent problem (the coming climate change catastrophe, “coming” for over 30 years so far, but it never shows up) is the true existential threat.

            This planet has had global warming since the late 1600s.

            It has been 100% good news all the way.

            You climate alarmists would have us believe the FUTURE global warming will be completely unlike PAST global warming.

            All you “see” is bad news in the future (YOUR FANTASY), and never mind the good news from global warming in the past (OUR REALITY).

            DDT, acid rain, hole in the ozone layer, global cooling and global warming have two things in common — (1) none were the disasters that were predicted, and (2) all could be fixed (allegedly) only by a more powerful government clamping down on the “evil” private sector, and telling people how to live their lives.

            Not everyone believes the leftist climate scaremongering, although many gullible fools do, such as you.

      • Edward Caryl says:

        “We have been lucky. Observed emissions have continued apace, but natural forcing has been low. Thus reality has followed a path below the ensemble average.” Don’t you mean that natural forcings have been negative, offsetting the observed emissions? Doesn’t that imply that they are roughly equal?

        • Entropic man says:

          Edward Caryl

          “Dont you mean that natural forcings have been negative, offsetting the observed emissions? Doesnt that imply that they are roughly equal?”

          I’m afraid not.

          The temperature changes due to natural forcings are subject to the same +/- 0.1C uncertainty of all measurements. The measured values are all within 0.1C of zero change, This means that it is unlikely that natural forcings are having a significant effect on temperature.

          That means that most of the change we observe is artificial.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Em,

            Thermometers react to heat. Burning hydrocarbons creates heat. As populations increase, and per capita energy use increases, the rate and amount of heat production increases. Even in the absence of sunlight.

            If you tell me that thermometers do not react to heat, on religious grounds, I won’t challenge your faith.

            Cheers.

          • Entropic man says:

            Mike Flynn

            The climate system is gaining 10^22 Joules/year, mostly due to AGW.

            Our civilization generates 10^15 Joules/year of waste heat.

            Our contribution to global warming through the greenhouse effect is detectable, but the effect of our waste heat is too small to measure except locally.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Em,

            Warmth is measured by thermometers – as in degrees C. Talk of energy flows is meaningless. 10^22 joules of energy from ice will not raise the temperature of a teaspoon of water. Fact.

            You mention that man-made heat can only be measured locally – by thermometers, presumably. That is the point. I will point out that radiation travels in straight lines, and heated matter, say air, can move – effectively transporting energy from one place to another.

            There is no GHE. You cannot describe it in any useful way, can you? You believe it exists. You have faith. Anybody who does not share your religious fervour is an unbeliever, a denier, a heretic.

            Bad luck. Nature cares not what we think. And, as Feynman said “Nature is absurd”.

            Cheers.

          • Edward Caryl says:

            Was the 0.35°C warming from 1910 to 1936 natural or artificial? That is far more than 0.1°C. There have been many similar warming and cooling periods in the past. Some of those are demonstratively due to volcanism, a natural occurrence/forcing. Some are due to solar influence, solar minimums and maximums. Many of these are recognized and named: Maunder, Dalton, etc. Those are also natural and more than 0.1°C.

          • Edward Caryl says:

            “Our contribution to global warming through the greenhouse effect is detectable, but the effect of our waste heat is too small to measure except locally.”
            There are two things you are overlooking: (1) Calculate all the energy use in the U. S. versus the area of the U. S. All that energy use ends up as waste heat. It amounts to ____. (Do the calculation.) (2) Most land surface temperatures are measured locally, in the presence of heated and cooled structures. Those stations that are truly isolated don’t measure any warming. So, it is true that most of the change we observe is artificial, from our waste heat.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        entropic…”The models are designed to deduce the likely range of temperatures….”

        The models are designed to bolster the ridiculous claims in AGW. From the outset, the IPCC has been run by climate modelers (John Houghton…first co-chair) and climate model theory has been given precedence over actual data.

        Models are programmed with fabricated theory such as a positive feedback in the atmosphere and a warming effect of CO2 that has never been proved.

        That is, models are unvalidated, expensive toys that cannot be tested by the scientific method because they are far to expensive to replicate.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      entropic…”Not faith, but statistics. The level of certainty is well defined by the confidence limits of the data”.

      Puleeeeze…the IPCC made up their scale of confidence levels. They are just as bogus as the rest of the IPCC propaganda.

      The IPCC represent cheaters who have destroyed science to uphold their mandate to find evidence of warming.

    • bill hunter says:

      EM. Statistics is 50% faith. Faith in having a representative population for the attributes you wish to test. Statistics is suited for uncertain weather forecasting and even more uncertain climate forecasting, not on the basis it is tool that achieves high levels of certainty, but on the basis its the only tool.

      And it would really be nice to have some real science on radiative exchanges in gases with a lapse rate, but there is zero. And as Dr. Lindzen said if there were no lapse rate there would be no greenhouse effect as currently described.

    • bill hunter says:

      Entropic man says:

      The chance that we caused !ess than half the observed warming since 1880 is less than 5%.
      ==============================

      You need to understand how certainty is determined. When “the science is settled” that means they assume all the forcings on the climate system are understood. Thus none of that is figured in the uncertainty. They can’t calculate the uncertainty of the forcings because because they have no way of testing them. So basically the theory is based upon a Ptolemy style theory where it is simply believed the forcings are correct. They know the input is sufficient but they don’t know the efficiency of the system to use that energy to warm the surface. Politically it was determined that these things would be just assumed as being correct. I think there is a reasonable argument for doubling CO2 to cause 1.5 degrees warming but have no way to estimate the certainty. Notice the IPCC restricts itself to saying the “warming observed” not what the models say. Big difference there but it flew right over your head. It is also a calculation that assumes a lot of facts as described above as facts when they aren’t.

  18. Dan Pangburn says:

    It appears most folks are aware of the fact that, below saturation, absolute water vapor increases as the temperature of the liquid water source increases. Much less well known is that water vapor has been increasing about twice what it would if based only on the temperature increase of the liquid water.

    Water vapor is a powerful ghg with global average of about 10,000 ppmv. Relative IR absorb/emit of greenhouse gasses water vapor and CO2 at zero altitude are shown in this graph calculated by Spectracalc/Hitran. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ECWhyyDUYAA1P89?format=jpg&name=medium At zero altitude, H2O molecule count/CO2 molecule count ≈ 10,000/410 ≈ 24. Each WV molecule is about 5 times as effective at absorb/emit as a CO2 molecule.

    High above the tropopause the cold reduces the WV content to about 32 ppmv while CO2 remains at about 410 so most radiation originating there is from CO2 molecules. As the molecules get farther apart with altitude increase more and more of the outward directed radiation makes it all the way to space. More CO2 there means more emitters to space. The multiple observations that CO2 has no significant effect on climate indicate that the added CO2 molecules emitting at high altitude effectively compensates for the added CO2 molecules absorbing at ground level.

    The human contribution to warming is from increased water vapor, not CO2.
    WV increase and therefore warming is self-limiting.

    • Stephen P Anderson says:

      Murry Salby says there is very little evidence of systematic enfluence on temperature.

    • Nate says:

      “Murray Salby says…”

      Stephen, who cares what one particular science outcast says?

      This is simply an appeal to your favorite bad-boy authority figure.

      There are thousands of other very knowledgeable people that can offer evidence that he is completely wrong.

      So this argument is unconvincing.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      dan…”Water vapor is a powerful ghg with global average of about 10,000 ppmv”.

      When you claim it is a powerful GHG that means nothing in itself. It means simply that it absorbs a greater proportion of surface IR than CO2. Neither one absorb much of the surface IR.

      Even if they do, what effect does that have on atmospheric warming? I am looking for direct proof, Dan, not conjecture.

      It is presumed that WV creates atmospheric warming and that somehow that warming affects the surface temperature. Where’s the proof?

      The entire GHG theory is based on the incorrect notion that greenhouses warm because they trap IR. If that were true, and it’s not, what is the mechanism by which trapped IR raises the temperature of air molecules in the greenhouse? 99% of the greenhouse air cannot absorb IR.

      R. W. Wood disproved it was trapped IR heating a greenhouse. He was an expert on the radiation of gases and he suspected the claim first time he heard it. Through experimentation, he proved it was a lack of convection in greenhouses that caused the warming.

      As we know, there is no lack of convection in the atmosphere.

  19. dr myki says:

    “And, no, there is no fingerprint of human-caused warming. All global warming, whether natural or human-caused, looks about the same. If a natural decrease in marine cloudiness was responsible, or a decrease in ocean overturning [either possible in a chaotic system], warming would still be larger over land than ocean, greater in the upper ocean than deep ocean, and greatest at high northern latitudes and least at high southern latitudes”

    But, you are ignoring the fact that climate models allow natural fluctuations of the type you describe. You can dispute the fidelity of these simulated fluctuations but, nonetheless, you are seriously underestimating the ability of climate scientists to take account of them and to extract signals over and above the noise.

    And, I must take issue with your final sentence “Thus, global warming projections have a large element of faith programmed into them.”
    A: Unless you can describe what specific element(s) of the models needs correcting, this is not justified.
    B: “Thus” ? This implies you have carefully mounted a proof. I don’t think so. All you can really say is that “..projections MAY have a large..”

    • Mike Flynn says:

      dm,

      You are confusing fantasy with fact. Models are self-serving in nature, as Dr Spencer pointed out.

      Even so, if 132 models show different outcomes, then at least 131 (almost assuredly 132) are wrong. Averaging 131 wrong outcomes does not guarantee a correct result. This is just stupid faith based assumption.

      The atmosphere is a nonlinear deterministic system, sensitive to changes in initial conditions. Chaotic. As the IPCC pointed out, this means that future climate states are unpredictable. Unpredictable.

      If you don’t accept chaos theory on religious grounds, fine. Richard Feynman has pointed out that the future state of a non linear system such as the atmosphere is unpredictable anyway – using classical mechanics – due to completely unavoidable error propagation.

      If your faith says that the future is predictable, the stick with it. I wish you well.

      Until I see reproducible experimental verification, I treat the speculations and assumptions of others as no more valid than my own. For example, I assume the sun will rise tomorrow. If you like, I will bet that no weather forecast based on numerical prediction can produce better results than I can.

      I have no problem trusting my life to the assumptions of others – every aircraft I have boarded has taken me safely to my destination. I assume my car will perform as it should, that my house will not fall on my head, and driverless trains and lifts will function as I hope. So far, so good.

      Worrying about unpredictable future climate states I leave to you. Keep praying if you think it will help.

      Cheers.

      • Dr Myki says:

        Please don’t clog up this thread with your ignorant half-baked ideas about chaos and probability.

      • gbaikie says:

        –The atmosphere is a nonlinear deterministic system, sensitive to changes in initial conditions. Chaotic. As the IPCC pointed out, this means that future climate states are unpredictable. Unpredictable.–
        Weather tends to chaotic.
        Atmosphere temperature is largely determined by ocean surface temperature, which affected somewhat by weather- less chaotic

        “If you don’t accept chaos theory on religious grounds, fine. Richard Feynman has pointed out that the future state of a non linear system such as the atmosphere is unpredictable anyway – using classical mechanics – due to completely unavoidable error propagation.”

        Average ocean temperature is more stable- slower and longer fluctuation of energy flows.
        Average ocean temperature determines global temperatures.
        Our cold ocean determines that we in icebox global climate- An Ice Age. Within your Ice Age, an average ocean temperature of 1 to 2 C requires that we in a glacial period, and 4 to 5 C requires we are in interglacial period. 3 C might be either way,
        Our present ocean is about 3.5 C
        One reason weather might seem more chaotic, is most of us are living a temperate zone, which has variation temperatures and different seasons. The tropical zone has a more uniform temperature, seasons are some rain, and seasons when there is a lot more rain.

      • Carbon500 says:

        MF – your mention of airborne travel prompts me to note the following:
        Outside an aircraft at around 35,000 to 40,000 feet up (when vapour trails are seen, yet nevertheless so close that you can see the aeroplane from the ground) – the temperature outside is around minus 40 degrees Celsisus.
        Climb any hill in the English Lake District on a summer’s day, and at 3,000 feet it’s already noticeably cooler than at the base.
        Yet we see endless hand-wringing over trivial fraction of a degree temperature changes – dangerous man made global warming? (whoops – I meant climate change) – yeah, right, as I believe the American say!

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          carbon…”Climb any hill in the English Lake District on a summers day, and at 3,000 feet its already noticeably cooler than at the base”.

          There’s a bigger hill in the Himalaya called Everest, whose peak is a bit lower than the jets, at nearly 30,000 feet. If you climb it on a nice summers day in shorts and a T-shirt you are very liable to die from exposure before reaching the top.

          BTW…why do they call them shorts when there’s only one short.

    • bill hunter says:

      dr myki says: “You can dispute the fidelity of these simulated fluctuations but, nonetheless, you are seriously underestimating the ability of climate scientists to take account of them and to extract signals over and above the noise.”

      That would be a far more convincing argument if the provenance of the expected results actually had been arrived at in that way. But even then one could not rule out some faith-based objective guiding the work. As it stands and considering the provenance of the 1979 Charney Report that argument sounds rather incredible.

      What actually happened follows a far different path. The path instead of building to an answer started with an answer and in that case its more like manufacturing a rationalization like building a Ptolemaic Epicycle Machine which actually also required a great deal of genius and ability.

      • Dr Myki says:

        Sorry, yours and Dr Roy’s argument is based on assuming some “faith-based objective guiding the work”.
        To simplify the argument, if I gave you a climate model, and asked you to estimate the effect of doubling CO2 on global average temperature, what would you do?
        Specifically, what would you do differently to what has been done to date?

        • bill hunter says:

          Dr Myki says: Sorry, yours and Dr Roy’s argument is based on assuming some “faith-based objective guiding the work”.
          To simplify the argument, if I gave you a climate model, and asked you to estimate the effect of doubling CO2 on global average temperature, what would you do?
          Specifically, what would you do differently to what has been done to date?
          ========================
          I actually have a project related to that.

          But in the meantime I recommended a little Judy Curry from this discussion.
          bill hunter says:
          September 9, 2019 at 7:46 PM and the two posts following it.

  20. bdgwx says:

    Dr Spencer said…”All global warming, whether natural or human-caused, looks about the same.”

    Not all mechanism that result in an energy imbalance will necessarily lead to a warming hydrosphere/troposphere simultaneous with a cooling stratosphere. This observation necessarily eliminates some causes for the energy imbalance.

    Of course the agents that are most commonly attributed to anthroprogenic modulation (namely aerosols and GHGs) are equally implicated in natural modulation as well. For example, the warming that occurs as a result of a decrease in aerosols could be natural-caused (quiescent volcanism) or human-caused (less pollution). Likewise, the warming occurs as a result of an increase in GHGs could be natural-caused (like the PETM) or human-caused (fossil fuel extraction). In either case the climate sensitivity (assuming all else remains equal) will be the same whether it is natural-caused or human-caused. In other words, if you acknowledge that nature can cause warming by one of these mechanism then you’ll also have to accept that humans can cause the same amount of warming given the same magnitude of modulation. In this particular case nature-caused and human-caused might be expected to look the same IF we are talking about the SAME fundamental physical process.

    • Dr Myki says:

      Good points bdgwx.
      Global warming, whether natural or human-caused, does not look about the same.
      The ENSO pattern of warming is quite unique.
      As is that due to solar radiation, urban heat islands, aerosols, etc.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        DM,

        The El Nino Southern Oscillation provides no heat at all. You are confused. The atmosphere is a chaotic system, and the IPCC agrees.

        Is ENSO predictable? Not in any useful fashion. If you disagree, I refer you to the IPCC AR5 document. If you can define “partially predictable to mean anything useful, go ahead.

        Carry on trying to convince others that faith and fantasy are more practical than facts and science.

        Cheers.

        • Ian says:

          Wrong again.
          ENSO events are linked to increases in both global average surface temperature and UAH values.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            I,

            Really? How? Or are you just making a pointless assumption?

            It’s all about as silly as giving out the following –

            “The latest IRI/CPC plume of forecasts of the Nio-3.4 index [Fig. 6] favors ENSO-neutral (Nio-3.4 index between -0.5C and +0.5C), with index values greater than zero from late Northern Hemisphere summer into fall, warming closer to the El Nio threshold (+0.5C) by winter. Atypically, dynamical models forecast weaker positive SST anomalies than statistical models throughout most of the forecast period. As a result, while forecasters favor ENSO-neutral conditions, the odds of El Nio (~30%) are roughly twice that of La Nia for next winter. In summary, El Nio has transitioned to ENSO-neutral, which is most likely to continue through Northern Hemisphere winter 2019-20 (50-55% chance; click CPC/IRI consensus forecast for the chance of each outcome for each 3-month period).

            Oooooh! Someone’s tax money hard at work. Let us all fall down before the high priests of ENSO!

            What a crock! Do you support this nonsense because you were told to, or are you just too lazy to even wonder whether you are being led astray for no good reason?

            Cheers.

          • Dr Myki says:

            Again, meaningless ignorant drivel.
            You give climate denialsts a bad name. Dr Roy wouldn’t touch you with a barge pole.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Ian…”ENSO events are linked to increases in both global average surface temperature and UAH values”.

            I think Mike’s point is that ENSO distributes heat, it does not create it.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            GR,

            You are right. I’ll go a little further – ENSO is just measurements of heat redistribution within a chaotic system.

            Chaotic systems can exhibit all sorts of apparent or quasi-periodic variations. However, if the system is truly chaotic, then none of these apparently almost regular variations can be depended on.

            Examples abound – various oscillations and cycles in weather, climate, finance and so on, turn out to be seductive, but ultimately of no practical value whatsoever.

            We love to think we can predict the future by examining the past. Ha!

            Cheers.

        • Dr Myki says:

          “Is ENSO predictable? ”
          Who claimed it was? And what has predictability got to do with the issue of finger-printing climate change. Try sticking to the point for once.. or, if you cannot follow the debate, belt up.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DM,

            What has anything at all got to do with something you stupidly call finger-printing? Using silly climatological pseudoscientific jargon doesn’t make any difference to the fact that climate is only the average of weather. No finger print involved. Just a simple arithmetical calculation that can be carried out by any reasonably competent 12 year old.

            I’ll ignore your demands. I do as I wish. I was pointing out that ENSO is merely a description a set of numbers, has no predictive ability, and nothing at all to do with the creation of additional heat within the atmosphere or anything else. Therefore, a curiosity of precisely no practical value. About as useful as pointing out that sunlight tends to make the ground brighter and hotter than it is at night.

            Carry on with your faith based beliefs – fingerprints and all.

            Cheers.

          • Dr Myki says:

            You are totally clueless.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            And obviously still well ahead of you. What does that indicate about about your clue status?

            Try throwing in a fact or two – your faith doesn’t seem to be convincing too many converts, eh?

            Cheers.

    • Stephen P Anderson says:

      Problem is it is so small it is insignificant. It is almost two orders of magnitude less.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        Even natural CO2 emission is insignificant much less anthropogenic which is almost two orders of magnitude less.

    • JDHuffman says:

      bdgwx, you’re problem is that there is no mechanism for CO2 raising the temperature of the surface.

      That’s just your belief.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        JD…”bdgwx, youre problem is that there is no mechanism for CO2 raising the temperature of the surface.

        Thats just your belief”.

        In other words, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.

        Just don’t lead it on a curved path or the alarmists will claim it is rotating.

      • bdgwx says:

        Of course there is a mechanism for CO2 raising the temperature at the surface. This mechanism was identified and quantified via experimentation, observation, and explained by a broad array of scientific disciplines beginning in the mid 1800’s. Just because you don’t acknowledge the mechanism doesn’t mean that it don’t exist.

        • bill hunter says:

          Well when talking about surface forcing you should acknowledge that has not been verified by observation or experimentation.

          You are confusing that with what is absorbed by the atmopshere, not by the surface.

          So just saying what quantity it is or that it exists independently without other unobserved or experiment verified processes doesn’t mean it actually exists except in the imagination.

  21. Go Fish says:

    Dr. Spencer correctly concludes what some of us have been saying all along. There ARE VARIABLES, some are logistical in nature such as where (relative to other heat sources) these instruments of heat measurement are placed all over the world. Some are mechanical in nature with possible malfunction and some are simply manipulated (human bias) data among other things. Of course there is also a measure of human error in anything studied unless you think you are infallible. No matter which discipline is involved (including all related sciences and or theology) we have presupposition, conjecture, hypothesis, theory and “faith.” Faith in this case can simply be “interpretation” since its definition can mean complete trust or confidence in something. However, that alone does not make ones position true or correct. Moreover, the splitting of hairs over nominal minute variations has more than divided and further polarized a good many folks who post on this board regularly. The results are a never ending barrage of banter and insult with no remedy in sight. I suppose this is the lot of mankind seen throughout the ages over everything under the sun!
    Thus we live in a world that embraces 2 primary worldviews. Ultimately we cannot PROVE either worldview beyond any shadow of human doubt. One in which a Creator God exists and the other in which He does not exist. Nonetheless, He is replaced by mans’ self exaltation in the latter scheme in which “supreme importance” (religion) is placed squarely upon mans’ shoulders as the ultimate arbiter of truth! Therein lies the crux of the matter and the universal PROBLEM. How and why should there be any moral absolutes if the Darwinian motif is to be believed and then how do we interpret many great atrocities over the course of human history in light of the survival of the fittest paradigm? Thus there IS such a thing as pseudoscience and real reality. The only question that remains is which side is pseudoscience and which is reality? All the science in the world cannot solve that one! Thus science ought to have a more subservient role instead of the place to which it has been exalted! It appears to be balanced, at least on this subject, by a very subjective “faith”!

  22. ren says:

    “Faith” tells me that in November, when sea ice begins to melt in the south, La Nina will develop. This means an extremely cold winter in North America (with a minimum of solar activity).

    • captain droll says:

      My tea leaves tell me that El Nino will develop. The 30-day SOI has just plummeted to minus 8!

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren…”Faith tells me that in November, when sea ice begins to melt in the south, La Nina will develop”.

      Faith tells me that I’ll be here in November to see that.

  23. gbaikie says:

    “Global warming is assumed to be due to the small (~1%) imbalance between absorbed sunlight and infrared energy lost to outer space averaged over the Earth caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning.”
    And:
    “When computer climate models are first constructed, these global-average energy flows in and out of the climate system do not balance. So, modelers adjust any number of uncertain processes in the models (for example, cloud parameterizations) until they do balance. They run the model for, say, 100 years and make sure there is little or no long-term temperature trend to verify balance exists.”

    I wondering if this reason the words “lost in ocean” was used instead of simply, the ocean absorbed the energy.

    Or:
    –Change over time
    More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean. Recent studies estimate that warming of the upper oceans accounts for about 63 percent of the total increase in the amount of stored heat in the climate system from 1971 to 2010, and warming from 700 meters down to the ocean floor adds about another 30 percent.

    Averaged over Earth’s surface, the 1993–2017 heat-gain rates are 0.36 (±0.06) to 0.40 (±0.18) watts per square meter for 0–700 meters, and 0.19 (±0.07) to 0.35 (±0.03) for depths of 700–2,000 meters. Less than a watt per square meter might seem like a small change, but multiplied by the surface area of the ocean (more than 360 million square kilometers), that translates into an enormous global energy imbalance. It means that while the atmosphere has been spared from the full extent of global warming for now, heat already stored in the ocean will eventually be released, committing Earth to additional warming in the future.–

    https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content

    This part is a bit psychotic:
    “It means that while the atmosphere has been spared from the full extent of global warming for now, heat already stored in the ocean will eventually be released, committing Earth to additional warming in the future.”
    “Evenually released” might be a thousand years.
    And warmth from 3 C ocean is not what I would call terrifying- but, it is global warming.

    But I am fond of expression, lost in the ocean.

    • Dr. Capek says:

      The temperature of the Ocean increses slower than the atmosphre. According the second law of thermodynamics heat flow is from “warm” to “cold”. A heat release from the “cold ocean” to the “warm atmosphere” is impossible. Thus the statement is totally psycotic.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        dr….”A heat release from the cold ocean to the warm atmosphere is impossible”.

        It’s a bit more complex.

        The atmosphere and water must be in thermal equilibrium at the interface. That means the atmosphere should absorb heat directly from the water to maintain equilibrium. It does not have to be a transfer, as claimed by the 2nd law, it’s just the two layers interacting in thermal equilibrium.

        However, heated air tends to rise through surrounding cooler air, and any later of air gets colder with altitude. You can see that in the Arctic in mid-winter through cracks in the ice. Steam rises through the cracks, even at an ambient temperature of -40C.

        So, the warmer air rises and surrounding cooler air replaces it, maintaining thermal equilibrium.

        However, the opposite is not true, according to the 2nd law. Cooler air cannot transfer heat to the warmer surface.

  24. Entropic man says:

    Gbaikie, Dr Spencer and others

    The atmosphere is a nonlinear deterministic system, sensitive to changes in initial conditions. Chaotic. As the IPCC pointed out, this means that future climate states are unpredictable. Unpredictable.

    This meme pops up regularly on AGW denier sites. The poster then interprets “unpredictable” as completely unknowable. Since we can’t know anything about the future AGW is not going to happen.

    A better word to describe climate is stochastic.

    stochastic
    /stəˈkastɪk/
    adjectiveTECHNICAL
    having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analysed statistically but may not be predicted precisely.”

    The IPCC and the deniers are both correct that the global average temperature for 2100 cannot be predicted. We cannot say that it will be anomaly 3.51C precicely.

    We can say, based on the science, that it is unlikely to be much smaller than 2.5C or much larger than 4.5C.

    It should also be realised that this unpredictability is not a good thing. Uncertainty is not your friend. It is as likely to be worse as it is to be better.

    You can see this in the published papers. As we understand the processes better, estimates are being refined. Unfortunately the message from recent estimates is “It’s going to be worse than we thought! “

    • Entropic man sez:

      “The IPCC and the deniers are both correct that the global average temperature for 2100 cannot be predicted.

      We cannot say that it will be anomaly 3.51C precicely.

      We can say, based on the science, that it is unlikely to be much smaller than 2.5C or much larger than 4.5C.”
      .
      .
      .
      DING DING DING —- WRONG !

      The correct answer is “no one knows”.

      No one even knows if the planet will be warmer or cooler in 2100.

      Your appeal to authority statements are meaningless in real climate science, as usual.

      • bdgwx says:

        We might not know with 100% certainty, but we do know with a high degree of confidence that certain representative climate pathways will result in a warmer climate by 2100. Remember, knowledge and understanding isn’t binary. It is a spectrum in which the amount of it is non-zero and is always increasing.

        • bill hunter says:

          I would suggest before you start spreading around political statements about certainty you take a serious look at some important articles surrounding uncertainty in natural systems.

          I have taken courses in it in relationship to some of the work I have done in more than one area of expertise.

          The best compendium of papers on that I am aware of applied to climate are archived on Judith Curry’s site who has been writing about uncertainty for years and does an excellent job. go to climate etc and search on uncertainty. Articles by Dr. Curry and other natural system professionals will pop up.

          • bdgwx says:

            It’s interesting that you mention JC here. She lists the ECS of 2xCO2 with 95% confidence at 1.15-2.70C. So it would seem her conclusions are inconsistent with your statement. I’m not sure what this has to do with politics, but is it appropriate to conclude that JC was being political here because her hypothesis comes with uncertainty and a confidence interval? I’m just asking…

            https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx says: Its interesting that you mention JC here. She lists the ECS of 2xCO2 with 95% confidence at 1.15-2.70C. So it would seem her conclusions are inconsistent with your statement. Im not sure what this has to do with politics, but is it appropriate to conclude that JC was being political here because her hypothesis comes with uncertainty and a confidence interval? Im just asking
            =============================

            Actually I am glad you pointed that out.

            that said here is the meat:

            If you had read the abstract you should have noticed that in the very first line of the abstract she wrote: ———“Energy budget estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR) are derived based on the best estimates and uncertainty ranges for forcing provided in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5).”———-

            Heady stuff there right? She isn’t calculating a new forcing for existing elements in the atmosphere. I am not sure one way of the other if she would. What she doing is providing a “relevant” oranges to oranges comparison to with the IPCC assumption of how much is natural and how much is manmade built into the paper and putting that on line one nobody should miss it.

            So bottom line Curry has no strong feelings on pre-feedback sensitivity (e.g. the forcing that her results are conditional upon).

            So without even considering natural variation she moves on to her work and she is offering 3 ECS ranges.

            1.052.45 K
            1.152.7 K, and
            1.23.1 K

            laying out 3 uncertainty scenarios.

            and concludes with: These results imply that high ECS and TCR values derived from a majority of CMIP5 climate models are inconsistent with observed warming during the historical period.

            IMHO, a very professional way of handling uncertainty.

            The gal is a true Georgia Peach. (hope thats still politically correct). A real professional totally committed to her craft, and its not hard at all to see why she was a long time chairman of School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

          • bdgwx says:

            My point was that I don’t see any political motivation by JC or anyone simply because they publish quantified uncertainties along side their conclusions nor do I see uncertainty or discussions of it as inappropriate in the study of climate science or any other discipline of science.

          • bill hunter says:

            And why pants?
            ====================

            Considering the advancement of technology, etymology might suggest that it was in effect two skirts.

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx says: My point was that I dont see any political motivation by JC or anyone simply because they publish quantified uncertainties along side their conclusions nor do I see uncertainty or discussions of it as inappropriate in the study of climate science or any other discipline of science.

            =========================
            Well if it were an accountant giving an opinion on your financial condition he would absolutely be required to notate all important uncertainties. Not doing so could get him drummed out the profession with his licenses and certificates stripped off.

            So its not a case of it being inappropriate publish uncertainties alongside conclusions, we are talking about it being the case that not doing so is inappropriate. And by that measure not many measure up. Dr. Curry clearly does. Her study by doing so places it at or near the top of the list in a very loosey goosey academic environment.

          • David Appell says:

            bill hunter says:
            So bottom line Curry has no strong feelings on pre-feedback sensitivity

            You think science is about feelings.

            Enough said.

          • bdgwx says:

            bill, JC does not have a monopoly on transparency with regards to uncertainty and confidence. As an exercise I want you to go through the IPCC’s summary for policy makers and tell us what percentage of the bullet points contain verbiage on confidence or a range of uncertainty in a published value.

            https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

          • bill hunter says:

            feelings are exactly what science is about. the senses working with the brain. when one is a crumpled up emotional mess like yourself not much if any science gets done.

          • bdgwx says:

            bill, if think science is more about feelings than evidence then we are probably at an impasse here. Afterall if you don’t think evidence is important and instead make your decisions and form your worldview based on feelings then I’m probably not going to be able to convince you of anything.

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx says: bill, JC does not have a monopoly on transparency with regards to uncertainty and confidence. As an exercise I want you to go through the IPCCs summary for policy makers and tell us what percentage of the bullet points contain verbiage on confidence or a range of uncertainty in a published value.
            =========================
            bdgwx, you are merely projecting complete ignorance as to what transparency is. I would love to have a conversation about it but in order to do so you would need to go to Curry’s site and read her papers on the matter to begin to have a clue about what your are talking about.

    • JDHuffman says:

      E-man fears: You can see this in the published papers. Unfortunately the message from recent estimates is “It’s going to be worse than we thought! “

      E-man, your “published papers” are often pseudoscience.

      But, feel free to hide under your bed if that makes you feel better.

    • gbaikie says:

      “stochastic
      /stəˈkastɪk/
      adjectiveTECHNICAL
      having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analysed statistically but may not be predicted precisely.”

      The IPCC and the deniers are both correct that the global average temperature for 2100 cannot be predicted. We cannot say that it will be anomaly 3.51C precicely.”

      We can’t measure any air temperature to 3.51C precisely
      Nor measure any air temperature to 3.5 C precisely

      “We can say, based on the science, that it is unlikely to be much smaller than 2.5C or much larger than 4.5C.”

      Yes you can say anything. What you are saying when you say “much smaller than 2.5C or much larger than 4.5C”there is high degree of uncertainity and you think probably no one at the moment can convincely disprove your range of temperature.
      But when say things like “before pre-industrial time” you are very dumb/religious, or “buying” a huge fudge factor.
      And when you say it’s going to be 3 C warmer by some year in future. You have to know how warm it is that it’s warmer to. For instance, I don’t know with any confident in precision what average ocean temperature is, but best I got, is it is about 3.5 C.
      So I can say that assuming ocean temperature is currently about 3.5, then by 2100 AD, the ocean will not be warmer than 4 C.

      So I could do same with global air temperature assuming global air temperature is currently about 15 C, by 2100 AD global air will not warm by more than 2 C. Or global air temperature will less than 17 C. I also could say it will be warmer than 14 C. Or to be more precise it will be warmer than 14.5 C.
      Also during the vague and long period of before pre-industrial time, global average temperature spent a year or more with average global temperature well below 14 C. Or may have period of 15 or 30 years with average temperature 14 C or lower.
      Also some have measured/calculated that ocean temperature lowered a bit during LIA, in terms of hundredth of degrees {and it could be wrong, but I await analysis which is more convincing].
      But roughly I believe sea level fell and the entire ocean cooled duing LIA, and since then sea level have risen and entire ocean has warmed and in 80 years, I don’t think sea levels to rise more than risen since lowest level of LIA, nor nor the ocean to warm as much over this much long time period of the 80 years to 2100 AD.
      But don’t think sea level and/or ocean temperature to lower or cool much from the present levels.
      Or expect present global warming to roughly continue until 2100 AD.

    • Coolist says:

      So you have some known’s with statistically derived (estimated) error bars that influence climate + and – . And you claim that predictions can be made with some statistical probability. Yet, what is not known? What effects climate that scientists aren’t aware of? And, more importantly, what are the feedback’s to all the possible changes and combinations of changes to these influences?

      Alarmists, claim and model positive water vapor feedback, but what about all the potential negative feedback’s? What is the net feedback of a 0.5C rise, a 1.0C rise, a 1.5C rise, a 0.5C decrease, a 1.0C decrease etc. No one knows. As Richard Greene said “I don’t know is the right answer”

      What’s man’s influence on Global climate? Know one knows. The only Global data we have with error bars less than the noise of natural variation is 40 yrs of satellite data that shows nothing unusual, unprecedented or catastrophic while we burned more fossil fuels than any other 40 yr period and CO2 steadily rose.

      What’s man’s contribution to CO2 rise? We don’t know. Physicist’s say 4.5%. Alarmists and some lukewarmer’s say 50-100%

      If this was an issue of “science”, 40 yrs of data would be valued above proxy’s, models and hand waving circular arguments. The proof that climate change is a non-issue is in the satellite data. The proof that climate change is not a scientific issue is in everything else.

  25. Stephen P Anderson says:

    -We can say, based on the science, that it is unlikely to be much smaller than 2.5C or much larger than 4.5C-

    No we can’t. Tjose are empirically derived models, mathematical constructs that have very little basis.

    As Dr. Spencer said:

    -We do not know the quantitative average amounts of absorbed sunlight and emitted infrared energy across the Earth, either observationally or from first physical principles, to the accuracy necessary to blame most recent warming on humans rather than nature-

    And, to further add my two cents to what he said: We don’t even know the dominant heat transfer mechanism from the surface to the TOA.

    • Stephen P Anderson says:

      The only two things we really know is that solar radiation travels from the sun through space and hits the atmosphere and then a certain amount of electromagnetic radiation leaves the top of the atmosphere and back out to space. All the rest is mostly speculation.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        Medical doctors will tell you we know about 10-20% about the human body. That is all medical science has learned in thousands of years. We’ve been studying the planet and the atmosphere for 150 years and the science is settled? LOL

        • bdgwx says:

          This is a good illustration of the idea that we do not need 100% perfect understanding to draw conclusions with a high degree of confidence. This principal applies to a broad array of scientific topics whether it is medical, energy, gravitational, quantum, or climate related. People make medical decisions (and bet their lives) based on only 20% understanding, but somehow it’s unfathomable to make a decision based on 95% confidence because it wasn’t all the way up to 100%?

          • JDHuffman says:

            bdgwx, it is 100% certain that adding CO2 to the atmosphere cannot raise surface temperatures.

            Yet pseudoscience types deny that simple reality.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            I have no trouble making a decision with 95% confidence. Have something in mind?

          • David Appell says:

            JDHuffman says:
            bdgwx, it is 100% certain that adding CO2 to the atmosphere cannot raise surface temperatures.

            Prove it.

            This should be fun.

          • bdgwx says:

            The irony that there is now a claim that we know something with 100% certainty in the comments section of a blog in which it was stated by Dr. Spencer that we have “no idea” is not lost on me.

          • bill hunter says:

            David Appell says:

            bdgwx, it is 100% certain that adding CO2 to the atmosphere cannot raise surface temperatures.

            Prove it.

            This should be fun.
            ================================

            Here David acknowledges he can’t counter the claim with a proof of his own.

    • gbaikie says:

      “And, to further add my two cents to what he said: We dont even know the dominant heat transfer mechanism from the surface to the TOA.”

      I would say land surface cools and ocean surface warms.

  26. Jerry says:

    Here is a little essay I wrote a while back that seems appropriate to this blog post.

    Apparently there are three categories of people who have opinions regarding the question of whether or not man-made carbon dioxide causes global warming.

    These are:

    (a) Believers, who are concerned that continued production of carbon dioxide will destroy mankind via global warming,

    (b) Lukewarmers, who believe that man-made carbon dioxide can warm the earth a little, but not enough to cause harm, and

    (c) Total skeptics, who believe that carbon dioxide does not affect global temperatures at all.

    Groups (b) and (c) frequently point out that increased carbon dioxide leads to increased food production across the world.

    Considering the atmosphere 100,000 molecules at a time can be very instructive in spite of being only a tiny quantity of air. At ordinary atmospheric pressure, a container holding that much air would have to magnified by a factor of about 14 to become visible.

    According to non-controversial data available on the internet, the dry part of a 100,000 molecule packet of air contains roughly the following numbers of molecules:

    Nitrogen ………….78,084
    Oxygen …………..20,946
    Argon ………………….934
    Carbon dioxide………..41.

    Neon, helium, and methane comprise another two or three molecules. Traces of a host of other gases are also in the atmosphere at much smaller concentrations.

    It is generally accepted that 28 of the carbon dioxide molecules pre-existed the industrial revolution. Thus the entire global warming discussion concerns 13 carbon dioxide molecules (per 100,000 air molecules) that mankind has placed in the atmosphere.

    Air usually contains some water vapor, which can be up to 4% of all molecules present. However, the worldwide average over time is somewhere around 0.5% according to estimates available on the internet.

    The 100,000 molecules of actual (moist) air therefore has roughly the numbers of nitrogen, oxygen, and argon molecules given above along with 500 water vapor molecules (on average). When the humidity is high, the number of water vapor molecules can approach 4,000 per 100,000 air molecules.

    Water vapor and carbon dioxide (along with methane and most of the other trace gases) are so-called “greenhouse gases.” They have the ability to absorb and re-emit infrared radiation (radiant heat) that, when unimpeded, serves to cool the earth by going out into space, balancing the heat influx by sunlight. Thus some of the radiant heat emitted by the earth returns to the earth’s surface or is retained in the atmosphere (when greenhouse gas molecules transfer heat to other air molecules through collisions). Neither nitrogen, oxygen, nor argon have any ability at all to respond to or even sense the presence of radiant heat apart from collisions. The dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor.

    Therefore, greenhouse gases impede the cooling provided by radiant heat transfer into space. Unless the earth cools as fast as it is heated, the heat build-up is experienced as global warming. In the absence of other cooling mechanisms, the greenhouse effect will lead to global warming. This is agreed by Groups (a) and (b), and the bulk of Group (c) members.

    Group (a) furthermore believes that the small increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the 13 carbon dioxide molecules causes an increase in humidity, i.e., more water vapor molecules. They believe that this feedback mechanism doubles or triples the carbon dioxide’s effect.

    Group (b) does not believe that the feedback mechanism causes more warming. They point out that water vapor cools the earth as well as warming it. One of the cooling mechanisms is cloud formation (cloudy days are cooler than clear days, for example). Rainfall is another cooling mechanism, in which case heat contained in water vapor is carried high into the atmosphere and released when the vapor condenses into raindrops. That released radiant heat has a better opportunity to escape to outer space due to having less atmosphere above it.

    Thus Group (b) accepts that the 13 carbon dioxide molecules cause some warming, but do not believe that feedback multiplies carbon dioxide’s warming effect.

    Group (c) members do not seem to have a single unifying viewpoint. They agree with Group (b) regarding the cooling abilities of water vapor. However, at least some assert that the effect of 13 carbon dioxide molecules is miniscule in comparison to an average of 500 water vapor molecules (or up to 4,000 of them). The argument is that 13 randomly chosen water vapor molecules would have about the same effect as the 13 carbon dioxide molecules.

    While it is true that the water vapor molecules come and go whereas the carbon dioxide molecules are essentially permanent, if the 13 water vapor molecules condensed there would still be 13 more ready to take their place. Thus, in this view, the 13 carbon dioxide molecules are not much more harmful than 13 water vapor molecules in spite of not possessing the same cooling ability as water vapor molecules.

    Some Group (c) members point out that if more water vapor could heat the earth enough to destroy life, it would have done so long ago given the vast amount of ocean water available.

    Some fringe elements of Group (c) reject the concept of greenhouse gases entirely, but these seem to be a tiny minority.

    Group (a) members assert that their belief in the overwhelming power of the 13 carbon dioxide molecules is based on “science.” Members of Groups (b) and (c) assert that what Group (a) calls “science” is actually just a set of computer models that cannot accurately predict the past, let alone the future.

    Apart from the greenhouse effect, there are many cylic factors that affect atmospheric temperatures.

    Some of these are due to the sun, such as the 11-year sun spot cycle or the long-term variation in that cycle (Maunder minimum for instance). Some are due to variations in the earth’s orbital parameters (Milankovitch cycles). One is due to short-term variation in equatorial atmosphere-ocean interaction, ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation). Some are due to longer-term ocean cycles such as the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscilliation) and AMO (Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation).

    Some historical warming and cooling periods currently have no clear explanation, such as the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age. Some Group (a) members deal with these periods by denying that they happened.

    Group (a) members assert that none of these cycles remain relevant to global temperatures. They believe that the 13 man-made carbon dioxide molecules (per 100,000 air molecules) has overwhelmed them all.

    Groups (b) and (c) believe that the natural cycles are still in control, with Group (c) members believing that the level of that contol is 100%.

    It is important to remember that whether or not global warming is happening is a separate question. Listing out and analyzing real or potential consequences of a warming world does nothing to explain why warming (or cooling) happens.

    Finally, it is also important to realize that deciding one’s view regarding the cause of global warming is a faith-based exercise. A person can believe this or that, but regarding the cause of global warming (or cooling) no concrete proof exists one way or the other.

    • JDHuffman says:

      Well done, Jerry.

      I would only add that many in Group (c) have pointed out that CO2 can NOT raise the temperature of the system. Consequently, adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will NOT raise surface temperatures.

      Group (a) has to twist and distort physics to claim that CO2 will raise surface temperatures. Twisting and distorting physics is called “pseudoscience”.

    • gbaikie says:

      –Apparently there are three categories of people who have opinions regarding the question of whether or not man-made carbon dioxide causes global warming.

      These are:

      (a) Believers, who are concerned that continued production of carbon dioxide will destroy mankind via global warming,–

      I don’t think met anyone who are in group A.
      The closest to that are people who think some amount of warming will cause vast vast of Methane to released. And it’s mostly a fear which is due to fantasies related unknown things which somehow might happen.
      And also generally they do not want methane to mined and used in order to eliminate such imagined threats.

      Instead it seems believer A, mainly don’t want “nature” to be changed in anyway. But mostly they see it a way to increase government control, and they want governments to impose their religious views upon everyone.

      –(b) Lukewarmers, who believe that man-made carbon dioxide can warm the earth a little, but not enough to cause harm–
      It seems one have quite a few categories of lukewarmers.
      It seems almost everyone is a lukewarmer, but many don’t want to admit it. And last thing a lefties wants to be is a moderate/lukewarmer- even I dislike moderates. But I think possible increasing CO2 could cause some warming, and that puts into bin of a lukewarmer.
      One class of lukewarmer is related to costs, and in summary, they think there better things to spend tax dollar on.
      They can be quite angry about the amount money wasted on Global warming/climate change/climate emergency.
      Others might know we living in a Ice Age, and warming would be good outcome.
      Other just look at “climate Science” and see it as a slow moving train wreck. Or look at it form point view of the social cost- the cost brainwashing children, etc, etc. Climate science” is not serious, foolish, corrupt. And they know “scares” are dime a dozen and there better things to be concerned about. And/or perhaps one could say, they waiting for a real scientist to show up and/or see it as vastly complicated will never get resolved.

      One could say that IPCC are actually lukewarmers, but want continue, and are quite willing sell fear and doubt, to continue what they imagine is important work.
      Most people are lukewarmers, though most won’t admit it.
      If they thought it was going to get warmer, then they would be moving to Canada.
      And I believe a lot this global warming is due to wishful thinking of Canadians. It’s Canadian conspiracy.

    • gbaikie says:

      “Group (b) does not believe that the feedback mechanism causes more warming. They point out that water vapor cools the earth as well as warming it. One of the cooling mechanisms is cloud formation (cloudy days are cooler than clear days, for example). Rainfall is another cooling mechanism, in which case heat contained in water vapor is carried high into the atmosphere and released when the vapor condenses into raindrops. That released radiant heat has a better opportunity to escape to outer space due to having less atmosphere above it.”

      Well the runaway effect is a silly idea. Most people don’t buy it.

      I don’t think water vapor cools Earth. Tropical has highest amount of water vapor, and it average temperature is about 26 C.
      And it’s warm temperature emit less radiation then it’s high average temperature “should”. And has lots high towering clouds.
      Tropical deserts will emit more energy into space.

      If and when planet has more water vapor outside the tropics, it will be warmer. Some think clouds cause 1/2 of warming caused all greenhouse gases {clouds are counted as a “greenhouse gas”};

      The thing about water is takes a lot energy to evaporate.
      Dry land can heat to 70 C, wet land can’t, but wet land will heat the atmosphere more than dry land. But not to confused with making hotter air. Or hottest air temperature {50 C] will be created dry land being heated by sunlight. Or water evaporates quickly when warmer than 35 C, and will strongly cool wet land preventing getting to higher temperature, but it would dumping energy into the atmosphere. Meanwhile the wet cooler land is radiating less energy to space.
      Or ocean has has higher average average than land. The ocean [particularly the tropical ocean] heats the entire global atmosphere. You 10 tons of atmosphere above every every meter, if the atmosphere is cold and above dry desert with sun near zenith with clouds, the dry surface will get to 70 C and air will not warm up much in one day. So tropical ocean wasn’t keeping the air warm, so that in morning you didn’t have cold air but air say +30 C, the the surface can warm to 70 C and get air temperature of 40 to 50 C.
      So water and water vapor are increasing and maintain the global air temperature.
      Or remove the 26 C tropical ocean heat engine, and rest of planet freezes.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      jerry…”greenhouse gases impede the cooling provided by radiant heat transfer into space”.

      This presumption is wrong, Jerry.

      For one, the infrared radiation, as part of the electromagnetic spectrum is not heat, radiant or otherwise. When a body radiates EM as IR the heat represented by the IR is lost.

      Heat cannot leave the surface other than through conduction and convection. Heat cannot leave the surface by radiation since radiation is an entirely different form of energy that contains no heat.

      For another, the governing factor for heat dissipation via radiation at the surface is found in an arrangement of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation:

      S = e.fi.A(T^4 – T1^4)

      e = emissivity
      fi = S-B comstant
      A = area over which the heat is dissipated
      T = temperature of A
      T1 = temperature of the entire atmosphere where it meets A.

      It stands to reason that if T = T1, heat dissipation via radiation is zero. If T1 > T, heat transfer is from the atmosphere to the surface, therefore the surface does not radiate at that point.

      We are interested in the case where T > T1. Since the atmosphere to surface interface (T1) is in thermal equilibrium with the surface, no heat should be dissipated. However, that air is constantly rising and being replaced by cooler air from above. The cooler air causes T1 to be less than T.

      It is important to note that heat is transferred from the surface by conduction as well as convection (heated air rises through cooler air).

      It’s equally important to realize that every atom and molecule on the surface is emitting IR so it’s not true that only GHGs can radiate IR. The surface can radiate IR because it’s temperature is in the range where EM is emitted as IR.

      Every mass emits IR, so why can nitrogen and oxygen not emit IR? That’s just a question, I want to know. The explanation is that both molecules lack a dipole action but I think that theory is wrong. It is electrons in the atoms of molecules that emit the IR and that has nothing to do with dipole action of a molecule.

      I think this theory needs to be studied further but I am not holding my breath that alarmist scientists will do that. There is simply not enough CO2 and WV molecules available to absorb all surface radiation, meaning the majority of IR radiated by the surface must be radiated directly to space.

      Lindzen has offered that heat is transported via convection high into the atmosphere where it is radiated to space. He did not specify what is doing the radiating. Again, there is not enough CO2 and WV to radiate all of that heat to space so how does the heat in the nitrogen and oxygen molecules get radiated to space?

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        Maybe the Earth doesn’t act as much like a black body as we think. Maybe a lot more is reflected back into space than we think.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        For one, the infrared radiation, as part of the electromagnetic spectrum is not heat, radiant or otherwise.

        Of course IR EM is heat.

        Ever stand around a fire?

        This is one of Gordon’s favorite places to pretend his stupidity should be your stupidity.

      • David Appell says:

        GR wrote:
        “Again, there is not enough CO2 and WV to radiate all of that heat to space so how does the heat in the nitrogen and oxygen molecules get radiated to space?”

        OMG.

        GR, nitrogen N2 and oxygen O2 don’t absorb IR.

        Only triatomic molecules and molecules with >= 4 atoms absorb IR.

        You really can’t be so ignorant as to not know this. Right?

        Right???

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      David, please stop trolling.

  27. Scott R says:

    Hope you guys had a nice weekend…

    Getting back to the conversation about the GRACE failures, I’d like to talk about Antarctica. Last week I calculated the mass of the yearly snow fall in Antarctica to be 2323.5 gt. I found a recent study showing how the outflows in Antarctica have increased, but only increased up to the current amount of mass gain:

    https://www.pnas.org/content/116/4/1095

    Please refer specifically to table 1, where they show the actual outflows by region and sum it up.

    https://www.pnas.org/content/116/4/1095#T1

    This shows that the flow rate was 2163 Gt / y from 1979-1989. Then 2194 Gt / y from 1989-2000. Then 2244 Gt / y from 1999-2010. Then 2306 Gt / y from 2009 – 2017.

    What this means is that the flow rates have increased, but only enough to match the mass entering the system. This is the same thing happening in Greenland right now. The flow rate at the ocean is increasing to match the snow fall. Antarctica appears to be closing in on equilibrium state. Greenland likely has years of ice gains to go while the outflows continue to increase to try to match it.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      scott…”Getting back to the conversation about the GRACE failures, Id like to talk about Antarctica. Last week I calculated the mass of the yearly snow fall in Antarctica to be 2323.5 gt”.

      Don’t know if you caught this earlier but snow gain is estimated, not measured as a mass change. You were right to claim the GRACE system does not detect it.

      I seriously doubt that GRACE can detect changes in ice mass either. No one knows what is being measured wrt gravity, what masses are producing the gravity.

      When they were surveying in the Himalaya, it was noted that the plumb bobs used to measure vertical were being pulled toward the mass of the Himalaya. So, gravity can act horizontally as well as vertically.

      There are too many error factors in GRACE to make it reliable.

      The average thickness of ice on Antarctica is 2.16 kilometres. If you stood on a bathroom scale on 2.16 kilometres of ice then compared that to your weight in the valley with all the ice removed, the difference in weight would be a few grams, if that.

      So, they are trying to tell me that GRACE can measure the mass of ice on Greenland or Antarctica with such a slight change in gravitational acceleration?

      Don’t think so.

      • Scott R says:

        Gordon Robertson yes it’s true… My calculation of yearly mass gain was an estimate, but I did use the total precipitation in mm over Antarctica vs snowfall. We know with a high degree of certainty the mass of water. That should make for a good estimate. There is also a +/- 142 gt margin of error for table 1. But there is a very good match between my calculation and what table 1 shows for outflows. No proof / sign that the outflows are higher than precipitation.

        Honestly I don’t see why this is a debate. Do people not realize ice cores would not even be possible if Greenland and Antarctica were melting? We would be talking about how the 1st layer is now from 1950 or something. Snow is still stacking up. If it slows down, the system will self-correct. There is no danger of Greenland or Antarctica melting.

        GRACE is a joke, and the method to display the data is AGW propaganda, nothing more. It has the same value as estimating how much water has flowed over Niagara falls over the last 20 years. More water did not mean that the lakes are empty. In fact the lakes are full.

        • David Appell says:

          Why is GRACE a joke?

          Why is your opinion better than the hundreds of PhD professional scientists who designed and launched it?

        • David Appell says:

          Do people not realize ice cores would not even be possible if Greenland and Antarctica were melting?

          A stupid, dumb claim.

          • Scott R says:

            David Appell,

            What is stupid is that the people drilling the ice cores and concluding run away global warming don’t have the common sense to realize that the top layers are from this year, last year etc. If ice was actually melting from the top of these ice sheets, ice cores would not even be possible. The only melt is happening at the coast after being pushed there by additional snow fall as it should be. More melt = more snow fall. Less melt = less snow fall. There isn’t enough heat on the ice sheets for any other process to be the #1 forcer of melt there.

      • David Appell says:

        There are too many error factors in GRACE to make it reliable.

        Gordon is afraid to read about GRACE verification.

        He’d rather spout crap.

        He’d rather look the fool. Again.

        He’s never given any indication he even understands why there are two GRACE satellites instead of one.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        David, please stop trolling.

  28. ren says:

    Faith tells me that in November, when sea ice begins to melt in the south, La Nina will develop. This means an extremely cold winter in North America (with a minimum of solar activity).
    4-month sequence of vertical temperature anomaly sections at the equator, Pacific for September 2019
    NASA predicts the occurrence of La Nia conditions in November.
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/archive/20190903.nino_summary_4.png

  29. Ragnaar says:

    Roy:

    Thanks for your work. I don’t see one of those article specific Facebook links where I click on it and the specific article shows up on my Facebook. I work around it. I think such a thing would inccease your reach.

  30. Jeff R. says:

    Another way of looking at this is from a public policy standpoint. My guess is that over 90% of the public does not have a real understanding of the science, even in layman’s terms. Even fewer people have seen the real data (i.e., just “this is the 3rd hottest July on record” or some version of that statement). Yet people are willing to buy into increased government intervention, higher taxes, etc. That is the definition of “Faith”.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      jeff r…”Another way of looking at this is from a public policy standpoint. My guess is that over 90% of the public does not have a real understanding of the science, even in laymans terms”.

      Policy is created by politicians and most I have seen fit your description of not having a clue about the science. You cannot talk to them about it, their eyes gloss over and go vacant.

      The scary part is their policy comes from the Summary for Policymakers from the IPCC written by 50 politically-appointed lead authors. The LAs tend to tell the politicians what they want to hear.

      The IPCC has this weird practice of having 2500 reviewers write a main report then allowing 50 lead authors to amends the report for no particular reason. That’s how we got the iconic statement that it is 90% likely humans are causing global warming.

      The main report did not say that, the consensus was that we should wait and see what develops (Lindzen). The LAs changed that to the iconic statement and even though there were many protests, they were overridden in favour of the bs.

      • the Real Plastic says:

        Gordon, if you have noticed any eyes glossing over when *you* speak to politicians about “science”, it is likely a defense mechanism against your Alex Jones-levels of confidence bolstered by misinformation.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          plastic…”if you have noticed any eyes glossing over when *you* speak to politicians about science”

          Ad homs are far more effective if you address the issues to which you are responding. Thus far, in your comments on HIV/AIDS and climate science you have revealed you could not recognize your butt from a hole in the ground let alone respond scientifically to the issues presented.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon, no one is going to take the time & effort to disprove you or Dusberg’s claims about HIV.

            THis has been done many times already, and neither you or him are interested.

            You are the kind of man who falls for whatever fluff makes you feel better.

            You’re emotionally driven.

            You think your emotions are all that matter.

            You’re very much a narcissist like Trump.

            You really WANT to understand the science.

            But you can’t understand any of it, and you always come off looking like an idiot.

            Your name is common enough (if real) to ensure no one knows who you really are.

            If you weren’t anonymous, everyone would know you were a fool.

            You keep hiding.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            David, please stop trolling.

  31. Mark B says:

    “there is no fingerprint of human-caused warming. All global warming, whether natural or human-caused, looks about the same.”

    Stratosphere cooling coincident with surface and oceanic warming is pretty hard to explain without greenhouse gas theory.

    “we dont know whether the climate system, without human influence, is in a natural state of energy balance anyway”

    We do have paleoclimate data that suggests current warming is unusual versus the past few millennia from which one can infer we’re further from being in energy balance than over that period. This data suggests also that the earth had been generally cooling for about 7000 years which is to say we had a small negative energy balance for most of that period.

    • JDHuffman says:

      Mark B, we have pathetically little data on stratospheric temperatures.

      And trying to claim we know temperatures from 7000 years ago is pseudoscience.

    • Stephen P Anderson says:

      -Stratosphere cooling coincident with surface and oceanic warming is pretty hard to explain without greenhouse gas theory-

      Have you thought about convection or conduction?

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        SPA,
        Stratosphere cooling coincident with surface and oceanic warming is easily explained once you get past the mistakes of the EPA and popular but superficial greenhouse gas theory.

        1) Learn that temperature change leads CO2 change which demonstrates that temperature increase causes CO2 increase. CO2 increase is a result of warming, not the cause of it. 2) Water vapor (which is a ghg) has increased about twice as much as calculated from temperature increase. WV increase explains the human contribution to warming 3) Understand that all absorbed radiation energy is thermalized i.e. shared with surrounding molecules. Thermalization allows energy absorbed by CO2 molecules to be redirected to WV molecules. 4) Note that the low temperature at the tropopause mandates that WV is only about 32 ppmv there so the population gradient of WV molecules declines with altitude from about 10,000 ppmv at zero altitude. 5) Recognize that this gradient biases radiation from WV molecules toward space. 6) CO2 is transparent to WV molecule radiation in the wavenumber range 0-600/cm so much of it below the tropopause, and all of it eventually, gets to space. 7) Well above the tropopause, radiation from molecules there is mostly from CO2 molecules because they outnumber WV molecules about 410/32. More CO2 molecules well above the tropopause increases the number of emitters to space there for more cooling there which compensates for the slight increase in CO2 molecules which absorb at ground level.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          DP,

          The earth has cooled over the last four and half billion years. Neither CO2 nor H2O prevented this cooling.

          The surface cools at night. Neither CO2 nor H2O prevent this cooling.

          As winter approaches, each day may be cooler than the one before. In other words, all of the previous day’s heat is lost, plus a little more. Neither CO2 nor H2O prevent this cooling.

          As an added extra, the hottest places on earth are the places with the least H2O in the atmosphere. As are the coldest. Just ordinary radiative physics in action.

          Disclaimer: Until someone can propose a testable GHE hypothesis, I assume that the GHE is a speculative figment of someone’s fantasy.

          Cheers.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            MF,
            Actually, the planet cooled enough for life to evolve about 3.7 billion years ago. Since then it has been fairly constant with ups after downs.

            Perhaps your lack of engineering/science skill is an excuse for not realizing that your other statements are not relevant. The existence of the GHE is demonstrated by simple engineering heat transfer analysis. It is also demonstrated by huge night to day temperature swings where WV is very low and at low latitudes.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DP,

            You have not disagreed with anything I said, but your faith requires that you dismiss any observations not in line with your beliefs.

            You agree that the planet has cooled, in spite of any GHE effects, but dismiss it as irrelevant.

            And so it goes.

            The existence of the GHE is demonstrated by precisely nothing except insistence by its worshippers that it exists. You can’t describe this effect, which means you cannot propose a testable hypothesis. Religion, not science.

            Here’s another for you – on the surface of the Moon, temperatures in full sun can reach 127 C or thereabouts. No GHGs to be found. On the Earth, maximum full sun temperatures do not exceed 95 C or so. How does your proposed GHE description accord with reality? Not at all? That’s why none exists. It would be nonsensical. Does it not strike you as odd that nobody at all has managed to describe the GHE in any useful fashion?

            Carry on believing. It won’t hurt you.

            Cheers.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            MF,
            Apparently I was not clear enough. Everything you said is wrong or not relevant.
            I have explained it to you but I cannot understand it for you.
            You are a typical example of a person lacking engineering/science skill who misinterprets or simply fails to understand observations.

            There are several reasons why the big difference between highest temperatures on earth vs moon: The moon is covered with several inches of fine dust with vacuum between the particles; a good insulator from the heat sink below. Although the water vapor is low on the earth desert, it is not zero, like it is on the moon. A spot on the moon is exposed to the sun about 28 times as long as a spot on earth.

            Click my name and spend some time with my blog/analysis. There is enough there to explain how CO2 has no significant effect on climate or the misleadingly named GHE in spite of it being a ghg and that the GHE is caused by water vapor.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DP,

            I have looked at your blog in the past.

            The is one really good reason why Moon max temp is much higher than Earth max temp. The surface of the Moon is exposed to the full insolation – say 1366 W/m2. After identical exposure times, a thermometer on the Moon gets hotter than on Earth.

            The maximum the Earth receives is around 1000 W/m2. The temperature source remains the same in both cases – the Sun – around 5800 K.

            Your faith requires you to think that increased radiation from the same source will not result in a thermometer getting hotter. Unfortunately, fact says differently. Just reduce the amount of sunlight impinging on the thermometer – and the temperature drops. Try CO2, H2O, dust, smoke, cloud, shade cloth or whatever you like.

            Use your brain – faith is no substitute for fact. As Feynman said, the easiest person to fool is yourself.

            Challenge my facts by all means, or actually try and describe the GHE which you claim to exist. You can’t can you?

            So sad, too bad. You might as well appeal to your own authority if you wish to ignore facts.

            Cheers.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Dan, you keep slandering others by claiming they are “…lacking engineering/science skill”, when it is you that cannot understand simple things like the blue/green plates.

            Your “science” is wrong, and your “engineering” is dangerous. Likely you were a “desk-jockey” in an organization where real engineers agreed to your PE because they believed they could keep you from hurting yourself, or others. Every time you slander someone else, you are really speaking about yourself.

            Please continue.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            dan…”Perhaps your lack of engineering/science skill is an excuse for not realizing that your other statements are not relevant. The existence of the GHE is demonstrated by simple engineering heat transfer analysis”.

            So much for your understanding of heat transfer analysis. There is nothing in thermodynamics that supports the GHE. It contradicts the 2nd law and support perpetual motion.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            There is nothing in thermodynamics that supports the GHE. It contradicts the 2nd law and support perpetual motion.

            What I don’t understand is why Gordon PREFERS to be ignorant.

            What does remaining ignorant get him?

            How could anyone possibly CHOOSE to remain ignorant?

            How about explaining, Gordon?

          • David Appell says:

            Dan Pangburn says:
            Click my name and spend some time with my blog/analysis.

            Let us know when you get something published in a good peer reviewed journal.

            Until then you’re just a crank.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            David, please stop trolling.

        • Stephen P Anderson says:

          I understand your hypothesis. However, Salby has shown that there is less than 5% probablility that temperature is non random. This is from the perturbed proxy surface record. Take a look at Salby’s 2018 HSU presentation. Tell me what’s wrong with his logic.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            SPA,
            He asserts a step change in temperature. Apparently he lacks the skill in heat transfer analysis that mandates that step changes in temperature are not possible for something with the huge effective thermal capacitance of the planet (about equivalent to the top 110 meters of ocean). The time constant (time to reach 63.2% (=1-1/e) of the final change following a step change in forcing) is about 5 years.

            His discovery that much of the temperature measurements are random results from the effective roiling of the surface. This is evident in all graphs of average global temperature. The only thing that matters is the trend. The graph at https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DyHdfRmU8AApu68.jpg is an example. I found that the effective s.d. of the temperature wrt the trend is about 0.09 K.

          • Dr Myki says:

            “Tell me whats wrong with his logic.”
            Let me tell you – it is not published and I doubt it will ever be.

            p.s.
            ” In 2005, the National Science Foundation opened an investigation into Salby’s federal funding arrangements and found that he had displayed “a pattern of deception [and] a lack of integrity” in his handling of federal grant money.[4] He resigned at Colorado in 2008 and became professor of climate risk at Macquarie University in Macquarie Park, New South Wales. In 2013 the university dismissed him on grounds of refusal to teach and misuse of university resources.[5]”

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Dan,
            You misunderstand Salby. He doesn’t advocate a step change in temperature. He makes no comment about the step change except that each happened over a four year period-a “perturbation” in the record. He doesn’t comment on what caused it, or if it has any physical basis in reality. Both perturbations occur during four year periods from 1976-1980 and from 1994-1998.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Dan,
            Also, both of those step changes occurred during approximately four year periods-close to your 5 year requirement.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Miyagi,
            The investigation into Salby by the NSF is irrelevant to his work and his hypotheses. He has also written a text, Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate, which is the most widely used text on atmospheric physics. Do you have a copy? I do.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Dan,

            Yes it is a trend. It is a random trend.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Dan,
            I’ve been trying to reconcile what Salby has postulated versus what you have postulated. I agree with almost everything you have put forth in that it makes sense. The only thing that for me is questionable is that increased water vapor is anthropogenic. I believe it is probably random or the anthropogenic component of increased water vapor is so small it is negligible.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Miyagi,

            Salby’s position or hypothesis is that the carbon cycle is conserved and obeys the law of conservation. This has been elaborated by Harde and now by Berry in this paper. Have you read it? Do you wish to debate the points of this paper? Where do you find fault in this logic?

            http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=298&doi=10.11648/j.ijaos.20190301.13

          • Dr Myki says:

            Some disinformation from Salby;
            “Future atmospheric CO2 is only marginably predicable and in significant part, not controllable. That means the changes in human emissions will not be tracked by changes in atmospheric CO2. They never have been.”

            Fact:
            Many lines of evidence, including simple accounting, demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human fossil fuel burning.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            SPA,
            The 5 year time constant means temperature would change 63.2 % of the final amount following a step change in forcing. In 4 years it would only change about 50%.
            A look at a bigger picture as at https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DyHdfRmU8AApu68.jpg shows the obvious trends.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            SPA,
            The research documented in Sections 8 & 9 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com led me to understand that the average global WV increase (measured and reported by NASA/RSS since 1988) results from human activity; primarily increased irrigation. Figure 3 also shows a rational extrapolation of WV back to 1700. Until about 1960 the extrapolation roughly parallels the world population increase. Around 1960, the progressive WV upswing blends with the measured trend and correlates with increased usage upswing (mostly irrigation) shown in Figure 3.5.

            WV increase is ultimately self-limiting so GW is also self-limiting.

            The anthropogenic addition to natural WV is only about 10% since 1909 but it explains more than half of the temperature increase.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            dan…”He asserts a step change in temperature. Apparently he lacks the skill in heat transfer analysis that mandates that step changes in temperature are not possible for something with the huge effective thermal capacitance of the planet…”

            You are beginning to sound like a horse’s ass with your sermonizing.

            The Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1977 represented such a step change in temperatures of 0.2C. No one could explain it and many wanted to erase it as a mistake. It was not till the 1990s that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation was discovered, explaining the warming.

            Since the PDO was not discovered till the 1990s and Tsonis et al only discovered a warming/cooling relationship between all the oceanic oscillation, it’s premature to be making sweeping statements about heat transfer analysis and the planet.

            Perhaps the planet knows something we apparently don’t.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            dan…”He asserts a step change in temperature. Apparently he lacks the skill in heat transfer analysis that mandates that step changes in temperature are not possible for something with the huge effective thermal capacitance of the planet…”

            The Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1977 represented such a step change in temperatures of 0.2C. No one could explain it and many wanted to erase it as a mistake. It was not till the 1990s that the Pacific D.e.c.a.dal Oscillation was discovered, explaining the warming.

            Since the PDO was not discovered till the 1990s and Tsonis et al only discovered a warming/cooling relationship between all the oceanic oscillation, it’s premature to be making sweeping statements about heat transfer analysis and the planet.

            Perhaps the planet knows something we apparently don’t.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Myagi,
            That’s the problem with the left. They use accounting instead of science.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Dan,

            How do you explain the probability calculations of the perturbed proxy surface record?

          • David Appell says:

            Stephen P Anderson says:
            Yes it is a trend. It is a random trend.

            A statistically significant trend isn’t random.

            Please try to learn a little bit.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            David, please stop trolling.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        Dan,
        Also, you don’t have to explain all that to me. You’re preaching to the choir. I’ve been to your site many times. You have to have an explanation for Salby’s work. He says it is not even close. It isn’t even 50/50 or 60/40 which your work would imply. It is less than 5%.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      mark b…”Stratosphere cooling coincident with surface and oceanic warming is pretty hard to explain without greenhouse gas theory”.

      Since stratospheric warming is caused by O2 molecules absorbing solar UV, one would think any cooling would be related to variations in the Sun’s UV range. I don’t see how the GHE theory explains that. Of course, AGW is claimed to prove everything, so why not the GHE?

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        Here is the GHE explains the cooling stratosphere and warming surface.

        https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp

        • JDHuffman says:

          Norman, Jeff Masters is a radical Leftist that named his organization after the terriorist group “Weather Underground” that was responsible for bombings in the 1960s. Now he continues his activism by spreading falsehoods about the climate. Because of your ignrorance and lack of education, you are easily fooled by such people. You spread their garbage believing it makes you look smart. People like you are called “Useful Idiots”, because they can be used to purposes they are not even aware of.

          From the very link you provided:

          “Climate models predict that if greenhouse gases are to blame for heating at the surface, compensating cooling must occur in the upper atmosphere. We need only look as far as our sister planet, Venus, to see the truth of this theory.”

          That’s pure pseudoscience, but you don’t understand enough physics to realize it.

          Nothing new.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          norman…from your link…”Climate models predict that if greenhouse gases are to blame for heating at the surface, compensating cooling must occur in the upper atmosphere. We need only look as far as our sister planet, Venus, to see the truth of this theory. Venus’s atmosphere is 96.5% carbon dioxide, which has triggered a run-away greenhouse effect of truly hellish proportions”.

          The author is a rank amateur, even though he claims to be a meteorologist. What kind of theory relies not only on climate models but on a compensation in the stratosphere for alleged GHG induced surface warming. Modelers are guessing, they have no proof.

          He digs himself a deeper hole by claiming Venus suffered from the same effect. Since it was discovered that the surface of Venus is about 450C, the greenhouse theory went out the window. A greenhouse theory cannot explain such a hot surface and astronomer Andrew Ingersol claimed that would contradict the 2nd law.

  32. Andrew stout says:

    I also point out the limited corrolation between temperature and Co2 – at a million(s) year scale there is no corrolation , at a hundred(s) thoudlsabd years there is one (with a cause-effect problem) , at 10,000 years an inverse relationship , and at 10(s) of years we’re back to something like no corrolation , what with all these ‘pauses’ and cooling periods GISS /NOAA keep trying to erase.

  33. Dan Pangburn says:

    Stratosphere cooling coincident with surface and oceanic warming is easily explained once you get past the mistakes of the EPA and popular but superficial greenhouse gas theory.

  34. Dan Pangburn says:

    Above the tropopause, CO2 molecules outnumber WV molecules by about 410/32 so radiation emitted to space from molecules there is mostly from CO2. More CO2 molecules means more emitters to space making it cooler there.

    Click my name and Ref 51 for link that would not post

    • David Appell says:

      radiation emitted to space from molecules there is mostly from CO2.

      Clearly not:

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

      But you’re right, stratospheric cooling is a sign of GHG global warming. If the Sun were doing the warming, the stratosphere would warm, not cool.

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        DA,
        Either you don’t understand that graph you are looking at or are simply math challenged. Most of the radiation flux on that graph was emitted from molecules below the tropopause.

        Perhaps you have trouble with plain English. I will be more explicit: Above the tropopause, CO2 molecules outnumber WV molecules by about 410/32 so radiation emitted to space from molecules above there (above the tropopause) is mostly from CO2.

        And the cooling by more CO2 there compensates for the warming of more CO2 at ground level. This is demonstrated by multiple compelling evidence listed in Section 2 (click my name). The GHG responsible for part of the warming is water vapor which has been increasing for a very long time and quite sharply since about 1960. WV increase is self-limiting as is GW.

        I have explained all this to you before (specifically, that graph is explained in Section 5) but you stubbornly cling to your bogus interpretation.

  35. Coolist says:

    Entropic man says:
    “A better word to describe climate is stochastic.

    stochastic
    /stəˈkastɪk/
    adjectiveTECHNICAL
    having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analysed statistically but may not be predicted precisely.

    So you have some knowns with statistically derived (estimated) error bars that influence climate + and . And you claim that predictions can be made with some statistical probability. Yet, what is not known? What effects climate that scientists arent aware of? And, more importantly, what are the feedbacks to all the possible changes and combinations of changes to these influences?

    Alarmists, claim and model positive water vapor feedback, but what about all the potential negative feedbacks? What is the net feedback of a 0.5C rise, a 1.0C rise, a 1.5C rise, a 0.5C decrease, a 1.0C decrease etc. No one knows. As Richard Greene said I dont know is the right answer

    Whats mans influence on Global climate? Know one knows. The only Global data we have with error bars less than the noise of natural variation is 40 yrs of satellite data that shows nothing unusual, unprecedented or catastrophic while we burned more fossil fuels than any other 40 yr period and CO2 steadily rose.

    Whats mans contribution to CO2 rise? We dont know. Physicists say 4.5%. Alarmists and some lukewarmers say 50-100%

    If this was an issue of science, 40 yrs of data would be valued above proxys, models and hand waving circular arguments. The proof that climate change is a non-issue is in the satellite data. The proof that climate change is not a scientific issue is in everything else.

  36. gbaikie says:

    How is possible that these experts get trapped?

    Ship with Climate Change Warriors caught in ice, Warriors evacuated

    “Arctic tours ship MS MALMO with 16 passengers on board got stuck in ice on Sep 3 off Longyearbyen, Svalbard Archipelago, halfway between Norway and North Pole. The ship is on Arctic tour with Climate Change documentary film team, and tourists, concerned with Climate Change and melting Arctic ice.”

    https://maritimebulletin.net/2019/09/04/ship-with-climate-change-warriors-caught-in-ice-warriors-evacuated/
    from: https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/

    It’s just a matter of time, and then, they can finally be concerned about the melting ice

  37. Stephen P Anderson says:

    Here we go folks. A mathematically derived carbon model based upon the real world:

    http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=298&doi=10.11648/j.ijaos.20190301.13

  38. gbaikie says:

    If average ocean temperature increase from 3.5 to 4.0 C, how much sea level rise will occur from the thermal expansion.

    I was looking for an answer, and I looking at Eemian {last interglacial period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian }.

    So searching Eemian sea level rise
    And:
    September 10, 2018
    –The last interglacial period about 127,000 to 116,000 years ago was the last time sea level was as high as or even higher than present-day sea-level.–
    ..
    –“Globally, the climate was warmer by 1 to 2 °C during the part of the Last Interglacial Period referred to as Marine Isotope Stage 5e (MIS-5e) between 127,000 and 116,000 years ago,” …–
    –“While this is a well-studied period, we still do not know the exact behavior of sea level during MIS-5e. What we know for certain is that sea level was higher when climate was 1 to 2 °C warmer 120,000 years ago. For this reason, the history of MIS-5e sea level is important as an analog for what will happen to current sea level with warming climate into the future.”–

    — “This is the most accurate, best resolved sea level record for MIS-5e of the last interglacial period,” said Polyak. “It provides exceptionally accurate timing of the sea level history during the above mentioned period and shows that it rose to 6 meters above present sea level ~127,000 years ago, it would have gradually fell to 2 meters by 122,000 years ago, and would have stayed at that elevation for the remainder of the sea level highstand to 116,000 years ago,” says Onac. “The results suggest that if the pre-industrial temperature will be surpassed by 1.5 to 2°C, sea level will respond and rise 2 to 6 meters (7 to 20 feet) above present sea level.”–
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180910111314.htm

    It didn’t answer my question, but this does seem to me, to be much more accurate than previous attempts.

    • gbaikie says:

      Still looking but found something related to what posted above:

      Earth Is ‘Missing’ at Least 20 Ft of Sea Level Rise. Antarctica Could Be The Time Bomb
      CHRIS MOONEY, THE WASHINGTON POST
      12 FEB 2019
      “”It’s very hard to come up with any other explanation, except that at least in that one area where we’re working … the last century is as warm as any century in the last 115,000 years,” said Gifford Miller, a geologist at the University of Colorado in Boulder who led the research on Baffin Island.
      But if Miller is right, there’s a big problem. We have geological records of sea levels from the Eemian. And the oceans, scientists believe, were 20 to 30 feet (6 to 9 metres) higher.”
      https://www.sciencealert.com/earth-s-climate-s-now-like-115-000-years-ago-when-the-sea-was-much-higher

      But according to above article, the highstand was 116,000 years ago or 115,000 was 1000 years after sea levels fell.
      Not sure how fast sea level fall, but at 116,000 it was about 4 meters higher than the present levels.

      But as very wild guess, ocean temperature could be 3.5 to 4.0 C
      and unlike our present world, it could had few meters sea level rise from glacial ice melt from Antarctia and/or Greenland which happened thousands of years earlier.
      Or was long after the warming disaster and just prior worse disaster of slow cooling into the depths of the long cold glacial period.

    • gbaikie says:

      hmm.
      Posted on July 19, 2011

      “The new study, conducted by a team of earth and atmospheric scientists of Arizona University, and upcoming in Geophysical Research Letters, has tried to better reconstruct the Eemian ocean temperatures from the fossil record. They find the temperature difference was even smaller, just +0.7 degrees Celsius.”
      http://www.bitsofscience.org/eemian-sea-level-rise-2189/

      So, 3.5 + .7 = 4.2 C ??? And:
      “As thermal expansion is a physical characteristic of water, they can also conclude which percentage of the 8 meters was caused by thermal expansion: only 5 percent, or 40 centimeters.”

      So if ocean warms to 4.0, you about 1 foot of thermal expansion.
      Or probably somewhere between 30 to 100 cm, cause matters what water being warmed.
      Unless someone got better answer, I try to remember that, as in, should be less than about 1 meter.

      Our ocean are not to warm to 4 C before 2100 AD.

      • Entropic man says:

        Gbaikie

        I’ve done this sort of calculation before, using this equation.

        Sea level rise(mm) = )volume of ocean(km^3) * thermal expansion coefficient * temperature rise) – volume of ocean /volume(km^3) per 1mm rise

        Volume of the ocean is 1.3billion km^3

        Thermal expansion coefficient is 1.000157/C at 2 bar pressure and 5C. It varies with pressure and temperature. I picked a mid-range figure.

        From previous calculations, a shortcut. Increase ocean volume by 360km^3 and you get 1mm sea level rise.

        (1.3 * 10^9 * 1.000157 * 1) – 1.3 * 10^9 / 360 = 204100/360

        = 566mm/C

        For the 0.7C temperature rise you mention, the sea level rise would be 566 * 0.7 = 396mm

        That’s close to the Arizona figure.

        • Entropic man says:

          The same calculation can apply to our current situation.

          The observed sea level rise is 3.2mm/year over the last 40 years, compensted for isostatic changes.

          That is a total volume increase of 3.2 * 360 = 1152km^3/year.

          Of that, about 690 km^3 is accounted for by ice melt, aquifer harvesting, etc leaving 1152 – 690 = 462km^3 due to thermal expansion. That is 462/360 = 1.28mm/year.

          The ocean temperature change producing this is 462/204100 = 0.002C/year.

          • JDHuffman says:

            E-man, you are lost in the pseudoscience, again.

            If the ocean were to gain in average temperature, the evaporation would also increase. Your calculations MUST take that into account.

            You just don’t get to ignore reality.

          • gbaikie says:

            This mostly down 700 meter and smaller amount down 2000 meters.
            It said if deeper water is warmed there could be larger expansive coefficient ??

          • David Appell says:

            JDHuffman says:
            If the ocean were to gain in average temperature, the evaporation would also increase. Your calculations MUST take that into account.

            So you admit global warming. Good to know.

            So where’s your calculation?

            mean mass of water vapor in atmosphere = 1.27E+16 kg

            via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air#Density_and_mass
            and Trenberth and Smith 2005

            = 24.9 kg/m2

            A 1 C change in temperature increases water vapor concentration by 7%, via the Clausius-Claperyon equation.

            => an addition of 1.7 kg/m2
            => delta sea level = -2 mm for 1 C warming

            => evaporation not a big factor.

          • JDHuffman says:

            More examples of tricks from DA.

            Nothing new.

          • David Appell says:

            What tricks?

            You can’t understand the calculation, or do the same yourself, so you flake-out and all you have to offer is your inevitable insult.

            Phony.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Wrong again, DA.

            You don’t understand the physics, so you get confused and frustrated and resort to your tricks.

            E-man was calculating thermal expansion, trying to claim it would cause sea levels to rise. I pointed out that he had not included the effect of evaporation.

            You assumed evaporation only involved the mass leaving the oceans. But, you didn’t realize the major effect is the cooling of the oceans caused by evaporation. You failed to understand the drastic effect on surface temperatures for every 1 kg of water that evaporates.

            You just don’t understand the physics.

            Nothing new.

        • gbaikie says:

          Why 2 bars or 20 meter under surface?
          And why 5 C

          90% of ocean is less 3 C

          • Entropic man says:

            Gbaikie

            This was my source for the thermal expansion coefficient.

            If you want to use a deeper pressure e increases, and so would the calculated sea level rise. At 0C, the next lower temperature in the table, water decreases in volume as the temperature rises, so the calculation would give a reduction in sea level which is not consistent with observation.

            Why not try the calculation with different values of e and see how it affects the sea level rise?

          • gbaikie says:

            “If you want to use a deeper pressure e increases, and so would the calculated sea level rise. At 0C, the next lower temperature in the table, water decreases in volume as the temperature rises, so the calculation would give a reduction in sea level which is not consistent with observation.”

            There lots of ocean water colder than 0 C.
            One also different salinities- that it is “not consistent” has nothing to do it- it’s reality {or involves uncertainties}.

            It also interesting as the average temperature of ocean has been a cold as 1 C.
            Might have something to do with why it does not get colder the than 1 C.
            And of course ocean has as warm as 5 C, and most of earth history {not in an Ice Age] it’s been a lot warmer than 5 C

            “Why not try the calculation with different values of e and see how it affects the sea level rise?”

            I just wanted a rough idea of sea level from thermal expansion if/when ocean warms by .5 C.
            And after wandering around, arrived at number of 30 to 100 cm, it might better to say 40 cm +/- 20 cm but wanted highest “reasonable” possible number {because people seem quite excited by how much sea level could rise in the future- though significant lowering of sea levels could be much worst- ie, people love coral reefs, having them become high and dry is not going make them happy.]
            So, about 1 foot seems good enough. And not too interested in this climate stuff- I am with broad ideas and going too much into the weeds, is not enjoyable for me {and as it is, forgot more things than I learn- simple is better}.

        • gbaikie says:

          “For the 0.7C temperature rise you mention, the sea level rise would be 566 * 0.7 = 396mm

          Thats close to the Arizona figure.”

          I guess 566 is good cheat/shortcut number to use and since wanted
          3.5 + .5 = 4 C
          566 * .5 = 283 mm or less than 1 foot or 30 cm

          But Arizona figure is talking added 8 meter sea level from fresh water of glacial melt, and sure how affects things.
          Of course the think 6 meter higher regarding Eemian is better number. But it’s also circling back, it use to be thought it was 5 meters.
          With our interglacial period we had that unusual event in the beginning of Holocene and theory why caused it could include an impact event in Greenland. And generally there good reasons to assume our interglacial period is quite different than Eemian.

          My personal wild idea is our ocean was warmer in Holocene Maximum thus explaining why this was warmer time period. And I think it’s possible we meet or exceed that ocean temperature but it also possible we don’t.

      • Entropic man says:

        The Arizona paper confirms that thermal expansion is the least of our worries. The ice sheet studiers are expecting a chaotic change, a rapid increase in ice melt at a tipping point. Since most of the Eemian sea level rise was due to ice melt, this tipping point probably also happened then.

        • JDHuffman says:

          Oooooh, scary!

          Maybe you should sleep in a tall tree rather than under your bed….

        • Stephen P Anderson says:

          Eman,
          Nature is chaotic. The planet’s ice has been melting and sea levels have been rising since the last glacial period. They will continue to rise until the next glacial. Life thrives during the interglacials. Rise sea levels rise.

          • David Appell says:

            Wrong, Stephen. Sea level rose 1 meter in the 5000 years before the industrial era. That’s an average rate of 0.2 mm/yr.

            The rate of sea level rise is now over 4 mm/yr, and accelerating.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Yup. Marine fossils are found at elevations over 6000 m, and land based fossils are found 10,000 m below sea level.

            Obviously, sea levels have varied quite a bit over the years.

            Cheers.

          • m d mill says:

            Wrong Appell…the global average rate of sea level rise has apparently been about .3mm/yr for the last 100 years, and is not accelerating appreciably.

          • bill hunter says:

            David Appell says:
            The rate of sea level rise is now over 4 mm/yr, and accelerating.

            =============================
            David is lying again must be reading those propaganda sites.

            AR5 Chapter 5

            It is likely that the rate
            of global mean sea level rise has continued to increase since
            the early 20th century, with estimates that range from 0.000
            [0.002 to 0.002] mm yr2 to 0.013 [0.007 to 0.019] mm yr2.

            It is very likely that the global mean rate was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr1 between 1901 and 2010 for a total sea level rise of 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21]m.

            Between 1993 and 2010, the rate was very likely higher at 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm yr1; similarly high rates likely occurred between 1920 and 1950.

            Looks like the rate slowed down as they moved further from the big glacier retreat at the end of the LIA.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Thanks for confirming my statement.

          • David Appell says:

            Bill, I know how to do my own calculations.

            Fit a 2nd order polynomial to the data

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

            and tell me what you get for

            a) the acceleration

            b) the rate of sea level rise

          • David Appell says:

            m d mill says:
            Wrong Appellthe global average rate of sea level rise has apparently been about .3mm/yr for the last 100 years, and is not accelerating appreciably.

            Wrong mill.

            Using a 25-y time series of precision satellite altimeter data from TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1, Jason-2, and Jason-3, we estimate the climate-changedriven acceleration of global mean sea level over the last 25 y to be 0.084 0.025 mm/y2.

            R.S. Nerem et al, Climate-changedriven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era, PNAS, February 12, 2018.
            https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1717312115

          • m d mill says:

            Wrong Appell…the global average rate of sea level rise has apparently been about .3mm/yr for the last 100 years(although other tide gauge studies over larger groups indicate ~2mm/yr), and is not accelerating appreciably. Tide gauge data is more reliable than satellites attempting to measuring mm accuracies over altitudes exceeding 100 miles in decaying orbits. The slightest systemic error in gravitation and transmission coefficients/calculations are nearly impossible to detect/correct.

            Further, 25 years is not nearly long enough to filter out natural variations in sea level rise(as NASA has itself admitted). See the work of Jevrejeva, et al using a larger group of gauges, and longer time periods.
            ftp://dns.soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate%20Articles/Jevrejeva_2005%20Nonlinear%20sea%20level%20trends.pdf

            Based on tide gauge observations estimates of 4mm/yr(average) are not reasonable, and acceleration calculations based on 25 yrs of data are contaminated with natural variations, and multi-satellite inconsistencies

            https://notrickszone.com/2019/06/20/worlds-76-best-tide-gauges-100-years-of-data-show-a-mean-0-34-mm-yr-rise-negligible-acceleration/

            Further problems with satellite altimetry:
            “TRF errors readily manifest as spurious sea level rise accelerations…
            What’s a TRF error? That stands for Terrestrial Reference Frame, which is basically saying that errors in determining the benchmark are messing up the survey. In land based geodesy terms, say if somebody messed with the USGS benchmark elevation data from Mt. Diablo California on a regular basis, and the elevation of that benchmark kept changing in the data set, then all measurements referencing that benchmark would be off as well.

            In the case of radio altimetry from space, such measurements are extremely dependent on errors related to how radio signals are propagated through the ionosphere. Things like Faraday rotation, refraction, and other propagation issues can skew the signal during transit, and if not properly corrected for, especially over the long-term, it can introduce a spurious signal in all sorts of data derived from it. In fact, the mission summary shows that it will affect satellite derived data for sea level, ice loss, and ice volume in GRACE gravity measurements:

            That list of satellites, TOPEX, JASON 1-3, ICESAT1-2, and GRACE 1-2 pretty much represent all of the satellite data used in the new Shepard et al study released this week A Reconciled Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance.

            In a nutshell, other JPL scientists (Yoaz Bar-Sever, R. Steven Nerem, and the GRASP Team) are saying we don’t have an accurate reference point for the satellites, and therefore the data from these previous satellite missions likely has TRF data uncertainties embedded…

          • bill hunter says:

            David Appell says:
            Bill, I know how to do my own calculations.

            Fit a 2nd order polynomial to the data
            ====================
            Well good of you to finally admit its something you cooked up.

            The IPCC indicates there may be no acceleration, noting that.

            Between 1993 and 2010, the rate was very likely higher at 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm yr1; similarly high rates likely occurred between 1920 and 1950.

  39. captain droll says:

    My tea leaves still tell me that El Nino will soon develop. The 30-day SOI has just plummeted to minus 9, the global average sst anomaly has risen above +0.3 again, and both NINO3.4 and NINO1.2 are on the rise. The east coast of Australia is in drought and on fire. What a bummer!

  40. Kristian says:

    Dr. Spencer, you write:

    2. Global warming is assumed to be due to the small (~1%) imbalance between absorbed sunlight and infrared energy lost to outer space averaged over the Earth caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning.

    To be more precise, it is assumed that this imbalance is caused specifically by a reduction in the “infrared energy lost to outer space” (OLR), from an “enhanced GHE”, NOT from an increase in “absorbed sunlight”. This is a very important point to make, because it enables us to determine whether the current ToA imbalance (which is most likely real, considering the rise in global OHC) is the result of more heat IN or less heat OUT, where only the latter situation is potentially directly influenced by an “anthropogenically enhanced GHE”, the former much more likely to do simply with Earth’s natural internal variability (shifts in the global ocean-troposphere circulation).

    The thing is, the best available observations on the matter (the ERBS+CERES radiation flux data) clearly and unequivocally show us that the Sun (i.e. +ASR) is behind all global warming since at least the mid 80s, and that Earth’s heat loss to space (OLR) has not been reduced one bit, but rather increased in step with tropospheric temps, as it would do if nothing out of the ordinary were going on.

    I’ve been investigating and discussing this issue in depth and at length on my blog:

    https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/the-data-sun-not-man-is-what-caused-and-causes-global-warming/

    https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/the-data-supplementary-discussions/

    https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/06/26/verifying-my-near-global-1985-2017-olr-record/

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

    • David Appell says:

      1) The Sun’s irradiance (heat in) has been decreasing since the 1960s.

      2) Studies like this show it’s less heat out:

      “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

      Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present, J.A. Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 (2004). http://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/5543/1/164_1
      http://tinyurl.com/knoa4dy

      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

      Many more papers of this type:

      http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/

      • JDHuffman says:

        Gosh DA, how much money was wasted on all that pseudoscience?

        It can all be debunked in about 2 minutes:

        Overhead, blue sky –> 14.7 F (-9.6 C)

        Ground –> 83.2 F (28.4 C)

        Learn some physics.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Kristian…”Ive been investigating and discussing this issue in depth and at length on my blog:”

      You are doing interesting work, keep at it.

      Just curious about something re the so-called energy imbalance. Why can we not apply the 1st law to the heat supplied by the Sun? In the first law, increasing heat with work being done affects the internal energy of a system.

      Supposed solar energy heats the surface, and perhaps the atmosphere on the way in. Suppose the heat supplied does work on the atmosphere, causing it to expand. That would increase the internal energy of the atmosphere.

      When the planet rotates till the Sun is not radiating on that portion, the internal energy should decrease along with a contraction of the atmosphere as gravity draws it back in.

      That raises another interesting point. The atmosphere would not expand/contract isotropically, it would expand/contract like waves on an ocean. That may affect the weather.

      In fact, consider the atmosphere to be a cylinder with a piston. The piston has a mass that represents the effect of gravity. When solar energy produces heat, the gas expands against gravity and the piston rises. At night, the piston, driven by gravity, compresses the gas again and it cools.

      Is it not possible that over the billions of years a stasis has been set up that allows an energy input, which does work on the atmosphere, then at night, the atmosphere has work done it by gravity and that the process has its own energy balance? In other words, heat is absorbed then dissipated internally due to the cyclic nature of the Earth’s rotation?

      I am not claiming that no energy is radiated to space just that the system may have adapted so that not as much energy needs to be radiated. It is absorbed and dissipated internally wrt the 1st law.

      Remember, the expansion of the atmosphere due to solar heating is working against gravity. And when the solar input ceases for the day, that portion of the atmosphere is compressed again by gravity. So heat is absorbed during the day and dissipated naturally at night.

      This notion of an energy balance is better applied to a static process. Heat in = heat dissipated applies to a mass directly heated by radiation and the energy in = energy out must apply.

      What if the mass is capable of expanding while storing the energy and then contracting so the added heat is dissipated within? The gravity/atmosphere interface is not typical of a common heated mass, especially when the heat input/heat dissipation is cyclical.

      I fully understand that if the Sun is switched off the Earth must dissipate it’s heat to space. I am talking about a stasis where the Earth has reached a certain temperature and has a means of storing heat between solar inputs.

      And I have not mentioned the oceans yet.

  41. Aaron S says:

    As I understand it, the blog author is a man of faith, and I think this is a powerful concept that a man of faith is open to the realization that faith can be misguided but somehow should persist.
    “But they have only demonstrated what they assumed from the outset. It is circular reasoning.”

    Something for me to think about and contemplate from someone that leans towards creationism.

    I am asking myself: is faith just a systemic belief bias confirming personal views and disregarding contrarian views or is it something more directed to a formal system like religion, politics, family, etc. Or simply put are bias and faith synonyms? Or what is the difference? I always considered creationism faith based and climate change dogma acceptance as bias, but are they the same?Hmmm.

    Like faith in religion puts faith in God or a book, in family puts faith in your own Gene’s, in politics puts faith in democracy or socialism or a dictator. However, in climate change it is part of a progressive ideology that disregards the inefficiency of solar and wind and reality that nuclear is the only true alternative. But is this progressive ideology faith in the left media, a subset of scientists, or a blog like skeptical science? Climate bias is an ideal and the ideological belief system is not as defined of a concept as a religion. I dont think they are regularly considered synonymous, but it is a good thought experiment.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      Virtually everything about climate can be seen, heard, felt, smelled, and experimented on. Religion, not so much. Are they the same? I say no. You make the call.

      Hebrews 11:1 – NIV: Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

    • gbaikie says:

      –Aaron S says:
      September 10, 2019 at 4:43 AM
      As I understand it, the blog author is a man of faith, and I think this is a powerful concept that a man of faith is open to the realization that faith can be misguided but somehow should persist.
      “But they have only demonstrated what they assumed from the outset. It is circular reasoning.”

      Something for me to think about and contemplate from someone that leans towards creationism.–
      People can things in different boxes.
      I have many boxes. Probably better to fewer ones.
      Anyhow, related:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlGL7c4-lPU

      “I am asking myself: is faith just a systemic belief bias confirming personal views and disregarding contrarian views or is it something more directed to a formal system like religion, politics, family, etc. Or simply put are bias and faith synonyms? Or what is the difference? I always considered creationism faith based and climate change dogma acceptance as bias, but are they the same?Hmmm.”

      Probably key part missing is not personal view, it’s a shared view. Or as above video says, religion is the the view of 14 year old. Who might be fixated on couple things. Say, Jesus is not white guy with blue eyes. I have evidence, therefore this religion trying say a lie, I am right and religion is wrong.
      Childish, missing just about everything, but of course they would they are children.
      Of course Roy has advantage, his has something he knows is a faith, others have religion and are completely unaware that it is religion.

      • gbaikie says:

        Also another thing rarely mentioned, any one in anytime, usually more people disagree with one’s faith.
        Say got whole nation of Hindu, there are multiple beliefs within- personal gods or whatever.
        People tend to think of faith as some totalitarian thing, and it never been this, tends promote opposition to totalitarianism.

        Or look China. And every totalitarian state like clockwork crackdown down on religions- they want one State religion {but even that religion has factions}.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          gbaikie…”Or look China. And every totalitarian state like clockwork crackdown down on religions- they want one State religion {but even that religion has factions}”.

          China evolved into that kind of state, it did not begin as such. It began as a revolutionary movement where people were running for their lives. Eventually they prevailed but the beginnings of the Chinese government were just and well intentioned.

          I would venture that it would be mighty difficult, if not impossible, to convert a nation of peasants, war lords, thieves and murderers into a relatively democratic communal way of life, without resorting to some kind of strict control.

          I think we could use something like that in North America. Criminals, muggers, and gangs run around making life miserable for everyone yet no politician has the stomach for putting an end to it.

          They would be faced with civil libertarians crying foul on behalf of the criminals.

          • gbaikie says:

            “I think we could use something like that in North America. Criminals, muggers, and gangs run around making life miserable for everyone yet no politician has the stomach for putting an end to it.”
            I don’t think the war on drugs, had a good result. And US having criminal cartel control it’s southern border, also not good.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            gbaikie…”I dont think the war on drugs, had a good result”.

            There’s a lack of intent and they are targeting the wrong people. Drugs like marijuana are harmless to society although it can cause emotional issues in regular users. Ordinary people in the US caught with small amounts of MJ were getting 30 years hard time.

            In the minds of many, MJ leads to harder drugs like heroin yet there is proof that alcohol is more likely to lead to heroin use than MJ. Alcohol is the most abused drug of the lot yet it has gained acceptance.

            If they really wanted to clamp down on illegal drug use and distribution by criminals they could. However, they are going after small time users who pose no risk to anyone.

            I get the feeling politicians are afraid of gangs.

          • JDHuffman says:

            DA, you’ve apparently spent your life “off topic”.

            But, if you want to pretend you are adding value here, please continue.

          • gbaikie says:

            “Gordon Robertson says:
            September 11, 2019 at 1:04 AM
            gbaikie…”I dont think the war on drugs, had a good result”.

            There’s a lack of intent and they are targeting the wrong people.”

            Well, drugs are like bullets.
            Drugs can harm, but trying to stop people from harming the themselves, is problematic.
            Putting LSD into someone else drink is close enough to trying to kill them. A person choosing to take LSD, is a different topic.
            It could be bad choice, but I don’t want a government making that choice.
            Prison should be about preventing a criminal from harming other people.
            The main thing about drugs is a person should knowledgeable about possible results from taking the substance. Children are limited in terms being able to make choices. And it seems parents are primary in terms of protecting children.

            Taking drugs is something like jumping off a cliff, I think people should allowed to jump off cliffs, and against outlawing cliffs.

            I would be less against laws against taking drug, as kind of emergency measure, until more knowledge can gained. But that wasn’t what the war of drugs was about.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Aaron…”As I understand it, the blog author is a man of faith, and I think this is a powerful concept that a man of faith is open to the realization that faith can be misguided but somehow should persist”.

      I think you are confusing the spiritual, which is immeasurable, with observation and conclusion that is measurable. Science is important but we are stuck with what we can observe and measure.

      Isaac Newton combined both and saw no issue with it.

      You can claim religion is purely faith-based but I have spoken to a very intelligent man who claims to be religious due to a profound visual experience. I am not about to call him a liar because he is a man of integrity and does not make rash claims.

      There are people throughout history who have reported such visual experiences and we have no way of confirming or disproving those claims.

      And how do we know there are not built-in mechanisms that govern spirituality? I am both spiritual and scientific but I cannot explain my spiritual interests.

      Do I have to? Do I have to live my life claiming I cannot prove the basis of what I feel because it does not meet the requirements of the scientific method? That would be pathetic for me, to deny my spirituality because I cannot prove the basis of it.

      It does no harm to have a faith that a basis for spirituality exists. On the other hand, it can do a lot of harm to have faith in the AGW theory.

      With climate alarmists, it’s a different matter. They are not content with their faith-based science, they want to force it upon the rest of us. Some are reaching the level of the Holy Inquisition where people are punished by death for not only lacking faith, but for not demonstrating it as well.

      Obama was calling people out, urging others to call out ‘deniers’. I think that’s sick. It’s one of the reasons I’m glad the Democrats lost.

      One thought on Creationism. I don’t subscribe to the theory as written in the Christian Bible but I find it extraordinary that codes are written into DNA. Without those codes to produce proteins, life fails. Where did the codes come from?

      This is not a trivial question. Codes do not appear out of a randomness like the randomness suggested by evolution theory. Codes have to come from an intelligence.

    • bill hunter says:

      https://youtu.be/7pk9oDrpf6k

      Here is an excellent lecture on Intelligent Design and science.

      Well worth listening to no matter what you think.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        Currently reading Darwin’s Doubt-fascinating.

      • David Appell says:

        Where did the intelligent designer come from?

        • JDHuffman says:

          DA, apparently you do not understand the concept of a Supreme Being. A Supreme Being is beyond our dimensions. He is not limited by space/time. He is beyond our ability to understand.

          Just stick with simple things, like learning a racehorse does NOT rotate on its axis.

          If you can ever understand such simple things, then you can move on to more advanced stuff.

          We can only hope….

        • Stephen P Anderson says:

          -Where did the intelligent designer come from?-

          That’s way above our pay grade.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bill…”Here is an excellent lecture on Intelligent Design and science”.

        I have heard Stephen Meyer before and I like his approach to ID wrt to evolution. However, he leaves me cold when he draws on rubbish like the Big Bang theory then draws on more rubbish from Hawking.

        Quantum physicists like to talk about nonsense like particles being in two places at the same time and matter/energy appearing from nothing. Quantum theory is itself based on a very real particle, the electron. Bohr and Schrodinger based quantum theory on the quantum energy levels taken by electrons as they orbit atomic nucleii.

        When Bohr defected to the nonsense side, Schrodinger washed his hands of it and declared he was out of there. Even Einstein would have nothing to do with the nonsense.

        Meyer seems desperate to establish the notion that there was nothing then suddenly matter and energy appeared. He even delves into General Relativity Theory with the nonsense about space-time curvature forming singularities, like the BB and black holes.

        I have challenged GRT on this blog based on the FACT that time is a human invention that is a constant. It cannot dilate, bend, or do anything, because it’s an artefact of human consciousness that is DEFINED based on the rotational velocity of the Earth, which is a constant.

        Space is, well, space. Apparently it has been discovered recently that it may be teeming with neutrinos, but Einstein’s theory relies on space being empty. He admitted that if Dayton Miller is correct, that an aether exists in empty space, that his (Einstein’s) GRT is wrong.

        So, if space is empty, and time is an invention, how do the two form a 4D continuum that can bend?

        The inventor of the atomic clock, Louis Essen, even challenged GRT as being a non-theory. He claimed Einstein failed to understand the basis of measurement, which is apparent in some of the conclusions he drew regarding GRT, like time dilation.

        It blew me away to read Einstein’s description of time in the GRT…the hands on a clock. I thought, “Albert, please tell me you’re kidding”. A clock is a machine that is synchronized to the Earth’s rotation and its basic unit, the second, is defined as 1/86,400th of that period (24hrs x 60 min x 60 seconds).

        All the basics of GRT are related to the inability of the human mind to observe motion accurately while the mind is moving in another reference frame. Time dilation is about illusions in the human mind.

        I am open to intelligent design but not to far fetched reasoning that is more philosophy than science. I can see the possibility of a far more intelligent life form designing complex entities like life, or even having life on Earth as an experiment.

        I liked the quote from Newton in Meyer’s talk in which Isaac claimed he could understand the complex, precise relationship between planet’s in the solar system but that he could not explain how the system began. That it required a Being.

        I think he’s right. For any of the planets to go into orbit around the Sun they would require a specific velocity, a precise entry angle, and a precise entry distance from the Sun.

        The notion that the planets formed from a gas cloud is more rubbish.

        I can visualize the solar system being formed by someone playing at it. Oh, let’s place a planet here that can support life. Right next to it we’ll put a sister planet with lots of CO2 to baffle humans when they try to study it.

        I’ll make the inner planets all from rock and the outer planets from gases.

        • David Appell says:

          To much raw, pure ignorance to try to disprove.

          Gordon doesn’t prove anything and doesn’t even try.

          He offers no evidence or data.

          So his claims are useless, and can just be laughed out without evidence.

          • JDHuffman says:

            DA can’t find anything wrong with Gordon’s comment, so his claims are useless, and can just be laughed at without evidence.

  42. Joe Peck says:

    Dr. Spencer, on a totally separate note: Will you be commenting on Pat Frank’s recently published paper? Thanks. Joe in NY

  43. gbaikie says:

    LEADERS OF 46 MAJOR ORGANIZATIONS publish joint letter condemning Chinese authoritarianism in Hong Kong.
    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/

    “….
    In the face of the Hong Kong people’s reasonable demands, the
    Administration has resorted to illegal tactics such as using tear gas indoors, shooting protesters in their faces with rubber bullets
    (permanently blinding a nurse in one eye) and simply beating people
    with no just cause. Police have been recorded pepper spraying
    protesters and viciously assaulting them to the point of causing
    serious fractures and broken bones, even after the protesters have
    surrendered. On 11 August, over 23 protesters were also detained
    and denied access to their lawyers.”
    https://www.taxpayers.org.au/submissions/hong-kong-coalition-letter

    That police force is vile, they must face jail time.

  44. David Appell says:

    Roy wrote:
    I’m not saying that increasing CO2 doesn’t cause warming. I’m saying we have no idea how much warming it causes because we have no idea what natural energy imbalances exist in the climate system over, say, the last 50 years.

    So what are they, Roy? What are these natural factors that have been influencing climate and the Earth’s energy imbalance over the last 50 years?

    Just hoping they are out there isn’t science. You have no evidence. Meanwhile we have every reason to expect GHGs to cause and keep causing warming, and evidence they are.

    At 0.2 C/decade, the world can’t wait for you to be happy about the science.

      • Entropic man says:

        ren

        Your graph of sunspot numbers peaks in the 1960s, when the sunlight was strongest, and has been decreasing since.

        The Sun has been weakening while the Earth has been warming.

        This looks like proof that the Sun is not causing the warming.

        • bill hunter says:

          Entropic man says:
          September 10, 2019 at 4:31 PM
          ren

          Your graph of sunspot numbers peaks in the 1960s, when the sunlight was strongest, and has been decreasing since.

          The Sun has been weakening while the Earth has been warming.

          This looks like proof that the Sun is not causing the warming.

          ============================

          So do you also believe all the warming from CO2 occurs instantaneously? If you do then what do we have to worry about?

          • Bart says:

            Exactly. The time constants are loonnnggg.

          • David Appell says:

            Yes, warming from CO2 occurs instantaneously.

            Why wouldn’t it?

          • David Appell says:

            Why would you think warming from CO2 doesn’t occur instantaneously?

            Where do you think it hides in the meantime?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            Go on then. Warm something using CO2. Oh, you can’t do it in the real world, only in your fantasy?

            Why am I not surprised?

            Cheers.

          • Norman says:

            David Appell

            There is a delay in warming with solar insolation due to what is called “seasonal lag”. It is caused by the large heat capacity of water and varies.

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

            So even if you are receiving more energy to the surface (or less) the effects on the atmosphere temperature may be delayed while water warms up.

          • bdgwx says:

            Just to clarify…the energy imbalance caused by CO2 occurs instantly. This energy gets moved from one reservoir to another with a lag period. The uptake itself over the entire geosphere is instant, but the atmosphere or cryosphere does not necessarily respond to this uptake right away. Or if the energy is transferred into the cryosphere it may go into the enthalpy of fusion without raising the temperature. In this manner this provides a break on temperatures over ice sheets until the ice sheet melts away.

          • JDHuffman says:

            bdgwx, why do you feel the need to pervert and corrupt reality?

            “Just to clarify…the energy imbalance caused by CO2 occurs instantly.”

            WRONG! CO2 does NOT cause an energy imbalance. You just can’t understand that the “energy balance” you feed off of is bogus.

            Your opening sentence makes the rest of your comment bogus…just to clarify.

          • Bart says:

            DA: Why wouldnt it?

            Thermal mass.

          • David Appell says:

            Norman, the warming happens instantaneously. It might mostly go into the ocean for awhile, but a CO2 molecule starts absorbing and emitting IR from the moment it appears in the atmosphere.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            David, please stop trolling.

      • David Appell says:

        That’s not proof of anything, ren.

        The Sun’s energy output has been slowly declining since the 1960s:

        https://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/Historical_TSI_Reconstruction_sm.png

      • Eben says:

        Yes , the temperature follows the Sun to a T
        That is why is so easy to predict in a few short years the temperature on the Dr Roy data set will be right back where it started in 1979.
        Just remember you heard it from me here first.

        • Dr Myki says:

          Welcome back for another drubbing Salvatore!

        • bdgwx says:

          If the temperature follows the Sun to a T as you say then why was there a secular decline in temperature coincident with increasing solar output over the last several hundreds of millions of years? How do you solve the faint young Sun problem?

          And please do not be offended if I decide not to hold my breath waiting for the dramatic cooling that seems to always be just right-around-the-corner.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            b,

            Presumably you are referring to the delusional thinking of Sagan and Mullen, who refused to believe that the Earth was created in a molten state, and has progressively cooled since then.

            Nutters. No doubt intelligent, but nutters nonetheless. Off with the fairies. Divorced from reality.

            Read the paper, tell me you accept everything in it, and I’ll laugh in your face!

            There is no faint young Sun problem, except in your fantasy world. If you believe in the evils of CO2, then you could help to prevent climate change by holding your breath for 15 minutes or so to prevent CO2 from leaving your lungs.

            Or maybe continuing to contribute evil CO2 doesn’t seem like such a bad idea, after all!

            Cheers.

        • David Appell says:

          Eben says:
          Yes , the temperature follows the Sun to a T

          You can’t provide evidence showing that.

          You know that as well as I do.

          So why are you claiming it?

    • Chris Hanley says:

      ‘… What are these natural factors that have been influencing climate and the Earths energy imbalance over the last 50 years? …’.
      Elementary logical fallacy: argument from ignorance.
      There is abundant evidence that natural factors have influenced the climate over all time scales in the past.
      Demonstrate that these natural factors have suddenly ceased over the past 70 years.

    • Aaron S says:

      Dave, come on we have no proof of gravity at a quantum scale, but clearly the absence of understanding does not eliminate the potential. For gravity we definetly have evidence at other scales. Same for climate dynamics. Why do glaciers grow and shrink in periodic cycles? Dont say orbital parameters because they do not match patterns by thousands of years. It is clear there are internal dynamics to the climate system that are periodic. This dynamic could opperate at smaller scales. Also 0.2 C decade? What data set is that? I cant keep track with all the manipulations to create that much warming. I think 0.13 to 0. 15 is the acceptable range based on the best satellite data that doesnt regularly adjust to match models. For me 0.2 has very low credibility… after I have seen it change over and over and always more warming.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      DA…”So what are they, Roy? What are these natural factors that have been influencing climate and the Earth’s energy imbalance over the last 50 years?”

      You ask really dumb questions. I don’t recall Roy claiming to know what they are, only that it’s not knowing how much is natural and how much is man-made.

      You alarmists claim to know it’s man-made but you have not an iota of proof.

    • Bart says:

      Argument from ignorance. Equivalent to: “The Volcano God is angry. That is why the ground trembles. If you disagree, what do you think is causing the ground to tremble?”

    • m d mill says:

      The natural phenomenon of Pacific(e.g. el nino and el nina) and Atlantic decadal cycling of the global average temperature is not understood since it cannot be predicted based on theory, and certainly was completely beyond modeling 50 years ago. Would we then have to assume these phenomena could/can ONLY be caused by human influence since no other “natural” explanation was/is known? According to Appell’s reasoning the answer is only yes…and wrong.

      Further, CENTURY LONG large REGIONAL warming cycles on the order of 1C (even assuming the roman and medieval warmings were only regional…which is easily contested) are well documented all around the globe, by unknown NATURAL mechanisms. And shorter decadal global cycles are well documented for the GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE, as described above, by some unknown NATURAL mechanism. Given that these 2 mechanisms do exist(and cannot be modeled currently) it
      would be difficult to conceive a physically realistic model that would NOT allow both to occur simultaneously…ie a century long global average temperature cycle of some non-zero magnitude.

      To state as fact that a natural century long global average temperature cycle of some non-zero magnitude cannot exist, or even should not exist, is not proven and not even particularly reasonable/likely.
      It is more likely/reasonable that natural century long global average temperature cycles of some non-zero magnitude can/do exist, and studies do corroborate this [e.g. see below], although others will dispute this.

      http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/01/12/study-globally-99-of-all-paleoclimatic-temperature-studies-compiled-show-a-prominent-warming-during-medieval-warm-period-mwp/

      https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4&ll=-5.053966191768579%2C-178.5243129999999&z=1

      https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/06/medieval-climate-anomaly-now-confirmed-in-southern-hemisphere-on-all-four-continents/

      continued…

      • m d mill says:

        The WordPress filter will not allow me to submit my additional arguments for some reason…infuriating…

        • m d mill says:

          wordpress blocks this reply in its entirety for some reason
          the post can be read here:

          https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gV3Gj1kNjx_OJNuypu4-cDr76m9t5TrW/view?usp=sharing

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            md mill…hre’s one reason why your post is rejected…

            “…and the “GOLD” standard HAD*CRUT temperature history”.

            Can’t use had-crut without the hyphen.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            how to post rest of your post

            part 1…

            Further, as evidence, the FAST warming in the HAD-CRUT globally averaged temperature record between 1910 and 1945 is not well modeled by GCM’s except by assuming large natural unpredictable forcings, and does not correlate well to CO2 increases. There is no reason to believe such natural unpredictable forcings have not have occured in the period 1980-2015.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ok…first paragraph posted ok…try paragraph 2…

            part 2…

            Further, the current best(global satellite) observational evidence is that global warming trend is currently ~.13C/decade by all natural and AGW forcing.
            And the OBSERVED sensitivity is likely less than 2C/2xCO2–as derived observationally by Curry/Lewis (following the energy budget methods of Otto,et al) using ALL KNOWN IPCC SANCTIONED FORCINGS, and the “GOLD” standard HAD-CRUT temperature history.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            part 2 posted ok…

            part 3…

            In short the climate of the world is currently wonderful (much better than 1850), and the observational evidence is that this will not change much in the next 50 years. During the next 50 years we will determine if there is any reason to be “alarmed”, and can/will adjust accordingly.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            part 3 ok…now last paragraph…

            part 4…

            Don’t let propagandists state as “factual” , statements that are not universally supported by the best current observation.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            I found it would not post as a complete set of paragraphs but changing to had-crut, with hyphen, and posting one paragraph at a time, the entire post went through.

            Don’t know why but sometimes that’s what I have to do.

          • m d mill says:

            Thank you Gordon!
            This is strange.

          • David Appell says:

            GR wrote:
            Further, the current best(global satellite) observational evidence is that global warming trend is currently ~.13C/decade by all natural and AGW forcing.

            1. Why is UAH ‘best’?

            2. Why are global satellite temperatures the best?

            3. Explain why UAH is an outlier.

      • David Appell says:

        Do you have any links to sites that aren’t run by clowns?

        They’re trying to fool you. You fell right into their trap. You’re the kind of unthinking, low knowledge, gullible fool they’re looking for. Congratulations.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      David, please stop trolling.

  45. gbaikie says:

    The biggest political play, ever.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvgCt8MLjBU

    So, in later 1/2 of video {not the smelling and reparation stuff/app}

    The nuclear power and climate part.

    Scott realizes the nuclear power will split dem.
    I will mention the obvious, the dems already knew it splits their party and that is main reason the dem oppose to it {and don’t even want to talk about]. And Booker and Yang are like nerds who don’t realize the political correct aspects of the nuclear issue {they are not dem “knowledgable”}. Of course there small number dem are anti-semitic who are likewise “lacking Dem knowledge” {dems don’t want lose the Jews nor they want to lose anti-nuclear faction of their party}.
    Rather than lack “dem knowledge” both pro nuclear and anti-semitic could be the imagining they trying to steer Dem party in the “right direction”. But Dems have coalition by deliberately avoiding any real difference of opinion {real conversation} within the party. Instead they focus on is how evil Reps and/or big oil and evil corporations and handing out free stuff. Though last couple of years, everything is hysterically and constantly, about orange man, bad.

    I notice Scott doesn’t appear to ever mention James Hansen. The person who was Al Gore’s brain on climate {though filtered a D student on science- with Earth core being million degrees and etc.
    But James Hansen was main scientific advocate of global warming in US. Or all political global warming advocates depended “their science” from Hansen.
    Anyways, James Hansen for last few years has advocating the nuclear energy is only way to reduce CO2 emission.
    Probably if either Booker or Yang get anywhere {and they won’t] Hansen might endorse them. But small peanuts.
    The fun is where orange man bad, takes on this political play.
    And Scott probably getting message out too early {and Trump is like, shh, I want to surprise them}

    • captain droll says:

      Man – are you ok?

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Child – are you OK?

        Cheers.

      • gbaikie says:

        Yup.

        But it is a bit cold- about 65 F and a bit windy.
        And I also need more coffee.

        • captain droll says:

          Maybe a good lie down would help.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Help what? It probably won’t help you appear any less childish.

            But go off for your afternoon nap if you think it will help.

            Cheers.

          • captain droll says:

            A good lie down might alleviate the affliction of being grievously off topic.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            cd,

            Don’t be silly. Your opinion is no more valid than his. It’s Dr Spencer’s blog. Maybe he cares what you think, maybe he doesn’t. If you believe someone is suffering from an affliction, based on nothing more than your opinion, then faith seems to be involved.

            What was the topic of the post, again?

            How are you going with the description of the GHE, anyway? Or do you believe such discussions are off-topic too?

            Cheers.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          g,

          Sorry – I was referring to the idiot captain droll.

          In the absence of facts, he just makes stupid and irrelevant comments.

          Cheers.

  46. m d mill says:

    Actually the increase due to an assumption of constant RH is only 30%, ie 1.3 C/2xCO2, as calcuulated here:

    http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/

  47. Rob Mitchell says:

    Arctic sea ice extent update –

    08 SEP 2019 – 4,297,000 Km^2

    09 SEP 2019 – 4,318,000 Km^2

    Looks like the Arctic sea ice extent is getting pretty close to the September minimum. And it is basically a certainty that it will close above the 2012 minimum of 3,387,000 Km^2. That will make seven years in a row of closing above the 2012 minimum.

    Is the mantra of the “Arctic ice falling off a cliff,” or “the Arctic will be ice free within a few years,” or “the Arctic ice is melting away, and will soon be all gone” beginning to ring hollow?

    Also, the average global sea ice extent back in 1979 was around 24,000,000 Km^2. Today, it is around 22,000,000 Km^2. Do the global warming alarmists here think that if it wasn’t for humans, the global sea ice would still be 24,000,000 Km^2?!

    2,000,000 Km^2 of global sea ice melt caused by humans. How about ocean currents? Poleward wind components compacting the ice, etc.?

    Do any of the human-caused global warming alarmists have the integrity to at least admit that maybe the Arctic sea ice melt is slowing down?

  48. Mike Flynn says:

    I note that some commenters are discussing sea level changes – supposedly due to AGW, the GHE, or other similar nonsense.

    The following may be interesting –

    “Mid-ocean ridges and seafloor spreading can also influence sea levels. As oceanic crust moves away from the shallow mid-ocean ridges, it cools and sinks as it becomes more dense. This increases the volume of the ocean basin and decreases the sea level. For instance, a mid-ocean ridge system in Panthalassa—an ancient ocean that surrounded the supercontinent Pangaea—contributed to shallower oceans and higher sea levels in the Paleozoic era.

    Panthalassa was an early form of the Pacific Ocean, which today experiences less seafloor spreading and has a much less extensive mid-ocean ridge system. This helps explain why sea levels have fallen dramatically over the past 80 million years.”

    Not only this, but magma intruding through the mid-ocean ridges is of unknown volume. It displaces water, and fairly obviously increases sea levels. Except that the volume of the fluid magma reduces as it cools, and this would result in a fall in sea levels. Not only that, but the reduction in the volume of the molten content of the Earth (as part is extruded above the existing surface at the mid-ocean trench crustal interface), means it all gets quite complicated. Incalculable, even.

    Even setting the unknowns to one side, various types of scientific fantasists promote nonsensical measurements of sea level, supposedly obtained by remote sensing from satellites!

    Just for starters, 0.1 mm is about 4/1000 of an inch. This is within normal human hair thickness. The pseudoscientific GHE true believers apparently don’t care about reality. For example, Jason-3, using the Ice-1 retracker, had a bias of 206 +/- 30 mm StD. Throw in a great heap of corrections based on models and assumptions, and great deal of climatological magic is required to come up with an accuracy apparently plucked out of some fevered imagination.

    Some people believe these climatological charlatans and knaves. I don’t.

    Cheers.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      mike…”Some people believe these climatological charlatans and knaves. I dont”.

      ROT…believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see.

    • gbaikie says:

      The longer you look back in time, sea level going to be more problematic.
      But Earth has not changed much in last 120,000 years, but obviously it’s changed a lot more in last 120 million years {roughly a 1000 times more}. Also when the impactor which killed the dinosaur occurs it tends to shake things up a bit.
      Which reminds there something in news about that event.
      I guess this is it:

      https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190909160102.htm

      The media saying something like this:
      “We fried them and then we froze them,” Gulick said. “Not all the dinosaurs died that day, but many dinosaurs did.”
      And:
      “10 billion atomic bombs {{of the size used in World War II}}”.
      The WWII atom bomb is quite normally people use hydrogen megaton
      nuclear bombs. But anyhow, main thing is:
      “Researchers estimate that at least 325 billion metric tons would have been released by the impact. To put that in perspective, that’s about four orders of magnitude greater than the sulfur that was spewed during the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa — which cooled the Earth’s climate by an average of 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit for five years.”
      Krakatoa didn’t emit a lot SO2, it did made sound which apparently heard around the world- and killed a lot people.
      325 billion tons is lot more than any other volcanic eruption in last few centuries.
      But what about a super volcano like say Yellowstone, hmm:
      “A Yellowstone eruption would eject more than 2,000 million tonnes of sulphuric acid”- wow a lot less than I thought
      Another:
      GREG ZIELINSKI: The concentration of the sulfuric acid was on the order of 2- to 4,000 megatons. That’s a lot. That’s a lot of material to be up into the atmosphere.”

      So, 325 billion metric tons of SO2 is hundred times more than anything happen in last 100,000 years.
      Ok, assuming they are right 325 billion metric tons of SO2 is a lot compared routine events ocurring over 100,000 or millions of years.
      I guess I was confusing the number the mass of the ejecta.
      But just because sulfur compounds were vaporized doesn’t mean it turns into SO2. You have high temperature plasma basically going suborbital and also chunks rock going suborbital {and small amount attaining escape velocity]. But maybe they did the math right.

  49. ren says:

    30-day loop of analyzed 50-hPa temperatures and anomalies. Each frame is an eleven-day mean, centered on the date indicated in the title, of 50-hPa temperature and anomalies from the NCEP Climate Data Assimilation System (CDAS). Contour interval for temperatures is 4 C, anomalies are indicated by shading. Anomalies are departures from the 1981-2010 daily base period means.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/temp50anim.gif

    Soon the polar vortex anomalies will reach the lower atmosphere.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JAS_SH_2019.png

  50. David Appell says:

    Dan, why haven’t you tried to publish anywhere?

    Until you do, your just posting blog junk that is amateurish and useless.

  51. Entropic man says:

    Dr Spencer

    ” the well-known physics part is the direct warming from doubling CO2, which is about 1 deg C. ”

    Agreed.

    The physics allows us to calculate that direct warming from doubling CO2 from the forcing equation.

    5.35ln(560/280)/3.7 = 1.0C.

    The problem comes when you calculate the warming to date and compare it with the observed ∆T.

    5.35ln(410/280)/3.7 = 0.55C

    The observed GISS annual average has increased from anomaly -0.16C in 1880 to 0.85C in 2018.

    That is an increase of 1.01C.

    Even ignoring lag that gives a climate sensitivity of 1.01/0.55 = 1.84.

    So where is that extra warming coming from?

    The consensus view is that this is coming from known feedbacks; extra water vapour, decreased ice albedo etc.

    If you want to explain it by other means you need to show that known natural forcings are warming, while measurement shows that they are neutral.

    Alternatively you need to show that unknown forcings are acting, which is unlikely since there are no large gaps in the energy budget.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Em,

      Thermometers react to heat – or more correctly radiation absorbed by the thermometer.

      Any increased warming comes from additional radiation from sources hotter than the thermometer.

      Radiative power in W/m2 is completely irrelevant if the temperature of the source is colder than the thermometer. For example, ice emitting 300 W/m2 will not raise the temperature of a thermometer reading even 1 C, whereas 300 W/m2 from the Sun at 5800 K most assuredly will.

      No GHE required. Just increased heat – for example, from burning stuff like coal, oil, gas etc. From using electricity, or from clearer skies, less pollution, more people, changing vegetation, making roads and all the rest.

      Seven billion people use more energy, and produce more heat than one billion people. Increased warming. Any questions?

      Cheers,

    • JDHuffman says:

      E-man believes: “The physics allows us to calculate that direct warming from doubling CO2 from the forcing equation.”

      E-man, that equation is bogus. It has NO mathematical derivation. The equation “creates” energy out of thin air. The equation violates the laws of physics.

    • David Appell says:

      Entropic man: Climate sensitivity refers to the *equilibrium* climate sensitivity — after all feedbacks have played out. That will take centuries.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      David, please stop trolling.

  52. bohous says:

    It must be very demanding to define the climate system so that it is in balance without anthropogenic CO2. I think that the models probably cannot take into account all vertical components of ocean currents, geothermal energy, CO2 dissolving in seawater of varying temperature, etc.

    • David Appell says:

      Why do you think climate models don’t take vertical movements of ocean currents?

      Why do they need to take into account geothermal energy? Is it changing from its long term baseline?

      Why do you think climate modelers don’t know Henry’s Law? They went to universities just like you (presumably) did.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      David, please stop trolling.

  53. Eben says:

    Climate shysters who seized the climate as a new means to global socialism by taking over all energy production thus the whole economy have to eliminate the natural climate driving causes from the picture
    You can see their relentless effort right here daily

  54. ren says:

    In January, sudden stratospheric warming is possible in the north, in the conditions of La Nina.
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/archive/20190903.nino_summary_6.png

    • captain droll says:

      No La Nina by November.
      …and only 1 bet that it will be El Nino.

      • Scott R says:

        captain droll… I believe there is 1 model saying La Nina. (NASA) 1 is saying El Nino BoM, and 6 neutrals. Note this is for JAN 2020.

        November isn’t very far away, so there is no chance of an official La Nina by then as you need multiple months in a row, and the 3.4 hasn’t gone below -0.5 for more than a day (so far).

        For us to have an official in January, October and November will have to be much colder than September has been so far.

        On the other hand, all the evidence I’m seeing points to La Nina building, and it is that part of the 11 year cycle, so there is a good chance. Nothing says we have to go into a La Nina by January or our theory is wrong. You can not set your watch by this cycle. Each was is uniquely different. The cold part of the cycle should start soon, and last multiple years with multiple La Ninas as we go into SC 25. (in theory) Course with the GSM, we really don’t know for certain what will happen here. Interesting times.

  55. gbaikie says:

    –From above.
    –Curious George says:
    September 8, 2019 at 9:41 AM
    My understanding is that for a dry planet we could compute how much warming an addition of CO2 would cause. Add water and we are left clueless

    Reply
    Roy W. Spencer says:
    September 8, 2019 at 1:08 PM
    yes, thats a good way to phrase it.–

    If you just add CO2 to dry planet, how do compute the amount of warming.

    Don’t you need 1 gee of gravity.
    Don’t need 1 atm of N2 and O2.
    Do need a 24 hour day?
    Do don’t you need about 1300 to 1400 of watts per square meter of Sunlight.

    If reduced Venus atmosphere by 1/100th, you have dry planet. Compute how much warming.

    • gbaikie says:

      Let’s give it whirl.
      Start length of day, Venus: “116d 18h 0m”
      https://www.universetoday.com/14282/how-long-is-a-day-on-venus/
      Next question, clouds.
      Venus has thick clouds. Do you have 1/100th clouds or do just remove
      99/100th of the gases?
      One aspect is I am unaware of qualitative measurement of Venus clouds.
      Let’s remove clouds. And maybe add them later.
      Atmosphere: “96.5% Carbon Dioxide (CO2), 3.5% Nitrogen (N2)
      Minor (ppm):
      Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) – 150; Argon (Ar) – 70; Water (H2O) – 20; Carbon Monoxide (CO) – 17; Helium (He) – 12; Neon (Ne) – 7 ”

      Assume rocky surface starts it’s current temperature.
      Assume air at surface starts at 50 C.

      I assume rocky surface will warm air and at some point it will stop warming air, then sunlight will warm rocky surface.

    • gbaikie says:

      “Add water and we are left clueless”

      Well, that what want to determine in regards to Mars.
      Add a tropical ocean and what happens.
      But not particularly concerned about Mars average global temperature, and a bit concerned about Mars tropical average air temperature. But main thing is will it alter things like the rate water evaporates in the tropics. And how would it effect/alter global dust storms or Mars amount dust in air and localized dust storms.

      As for adding water and clueless. One aspect with Earth is we have global water- Earth is water planet, or global liquid water planet.
      Or if Earth was 1/2 water and 1/2 ice, it might be easier.
      It might/should be unstable- not worried of Mars in terms of being unstable, because Mars would be “artifical” or there is human activity causing a tropical ocean and humans operate in short time periods than “nature”. Or what matters is costs to do something, and costs are a human thing.

      Anyway with Earth and clueless of water, a focus has to with water vapor. And Earth water vapor is dependent on ocean surface water temperature which average is 17 C. Or more precisely, tropical ocean average of 26 C and 60% of remainder ocean surface temperature being about 11 C.
      And the unknowable variable is the 60% surface which has average of about 11 C.
      And this 60% is largely controlled by volume average temperature of the ocean which is about 3.5 C.
      So clueless of water has to do with what changes the volume average temperature of the entire ocean.
      And in our current land and ocean configuration [use to plate tectonic activity] the average volume temperature varies from 1 to 5 C.
      And this variation is thought to be relate to the Milankovitch cycles.
      And also have volcanic activity and space rocks impacting Earth- both are related to tectonic activity.
      And roughly, Milankovitch cycles are shorter period events- hundreds of thousands of years.
      And average volume temperature of Earth is a + million year though flucations which affect humans is a 100 year change.
      Or we in our + million year Ice Age because the average volume temperature of ocean did cool and the interglacial and glacial periods are warming of our cold oceans and cooling of our cold oceans. And from time of Little Ice Age to present the ocean average volume temperature has increase by somewhere around .2 C
      and our ocean surface temperature has increased by about 1 C.

      And the “climate emergency” is really about a increase of ocean surface temperature by another 1 C and increase of ocean volume of about .5 C. Or the uncertainty of when this will occur in the future.
      And because it seems to me that since such increase has happened in the past- it might occur in the future at some point.
      I don’t think it can happen anytime soon.

  56. Gordon Robertson says:

    Roy…”With few exceptions, the temperature change in anything, including the climate system, is due to an imbalance between energy gain and energy loss by the system. This is basic 1st Law of Thermodynamics stuff.

    So, if energy loss is less than energy gain, warming will occur”.

    ***

    Roy…this is one of the few areas where I have to disagree with you. You insist on referring to the 1st law as energy in = energy out. It’s the 1st law of thermodynamics and it is about heat and work, not generic energy per se.

    I would appreciate you clarifying that. By energy, wrt the 1st law, do you mean heat? If so, what do you mean by ‘net’ energy.

    What you claim is technically correct but it lacks specificity. That lack of specificity leads to a gross misunderstanding of heat transfer.

    The only reason the 1st law works is because heat and work are equivalent. They don’t use the same units but one can be expressed directly as the other. The scientist Joule was the first to describe the relationship where 1 gram calorie of heat = 4.18 joules of work.

    Therefore if you do work on a system, you can express the work in calories. However, the 1st law is usually expressed in terms of work, wherein heat is converted to it’s mechanical equivalent of heat. That’s the only way heat and work can exist together in the 1st law, by converting one to it’s equivalent in the other.

    As Clausius explained, internal energy is the work done by atoms in a lattice as they vibrate. We know that adding heat to that lattice causes the atoms to vibrate harder hence they produce more work. If they do less work, the substance cools.

    That’s the derivation of your temperature. Temperature is the average kinetic energy of atoms and that is also the definition of heat. Temperature is a relative measure of heat, but it is not a measure of energy per se. Temperature is not a measure of mechanical energy, electrical energy, chemical energy or any other energy but heat.

    The only way to increase temperature is to add more heat. You can increase temperature by doing work on the system, but that’s because internally, the work is converted to heat.

    Work itself, has no direct relationship to temperature, it is heat that is related to temperature.

    I think this point is very important and not merely semantics. I have no particular desire to disagree with you since I agree with most things you say.

    I can figure it out for myself that heat is energy as is work. However, you and others have stated elsewhere that the 2nd law, also about heat, is satisfied by a net balance of energy. That is true only if you replace the word energy with heat. It is not true for any other form of energy.

    There is no point talking about energy in certain cases unless you specify the energy. Thermodynamics is about heat, not generic energy per se. The 1st law is about the external energies, work and heat, and the internal energy made up of work and heat. That comes from Clausius, who introduced the U term to the 1st law for internal energy.

    Clausius also wrote the 2nd law and in doing so invented entropy as a mathematical statement of the 2nd law. The law of entropy and the 2nd law are about heat and they say the same thing: heat can never be transferred by its own means from a colder to a warmer body.

    That statement has no amendments or qualifications, it is absolute. Heat can never, by it’s own means, be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body. Net energy has nothing to do with it.

    If you allow the use of a generic energy, then electromagnetic energy can become the basis of the 1st and 2nd law and that is where the misunderstanding of the 2nd law begins. It also opens the door for the illegal transfer of heat from a colder body to a warmer body, without compensation.

    Neither the 1st law nor the 2nd law cover electromagnetic energy and that was a weak point in the Clausius explanation of radiative heat transfer. He insisted that heat transfer by radiation (heat rays), which he and others thought was a transfer of heat through space as heat, must obey the 2nd law. Then he confused the issue by vaguely referring to a two-way heat transfer.

    He obviously did not mean that, he was referring to a two way flow of electromagnetic energy of which he had no understanding. It was not till 1913, the Bohr figured it out and hypothesized that electrons in atoms could absorb and emit EM under strict conditions. Electrons were not discovered till after Clausius died.

    When electrons emit EM, the kinetic energy of the emitters drop and that translates to a loss of heat. Therefore, EM does not transfer heat physically, it is its own unique form of energy that has no heat associated with it.

    If that EM is absorbed by a cooler body, the electrons in the body gain kinetic energy which means the body warms. The heating is local, it is produced in the absorbing body and does not come from the emitting body.

    The reverse process is not possible. If a cooler body emits EM and a warmer body encounters the EM, it cannot be absorbed.

    Roy, it’s not me claiming that, it came from Bohr. An electron will not absorb EM unless it meets certain stringent and quantum conditions.

  57. ren says:

    3D animation of the 2009 MMW (Major Midwinter Warming) event. Data is from ECMWF ERA-Interim Dataset.
    2009 is the year of the total solar silence.
    https://youtu.be/bminxfVGa5w

  58. barry says:

    Roy writes:

    “Then, they add the infrared radiative effect of increasing CO2, which does cause an energy imbalance. Warming occurs. They then say something like, “See? The model proves that CO2 is responsible for warming weve seen since the 1950s.”

    But they have only demonstrated what they assumed from the outset. It is circular reasoning. A tautology. Evidence that nature also causes global energy imbalances is abundant: e.g., the strong warming before the 1940s; the Little Ice Age; the Medieval Warm Period. This is why many climate scientists try to purge these events from the historical record, to make it look like only humans can cause climate change.”

    My understanding is that this is totally wrong. Attribution studies look at many different components that could cause global climate change. Whole chapters of the IPCC are devoted to attribution.

    Take chapter 9 of the AR4:-

    “The objective of this chapter is to assess scientific understanding about the extent to which the observed climate changes that are reported in Chapters 3 to 6 are expressions of natural internal climate variability and/or externally forced climate change. The scope of this chapter includes ‘detection and attribution’ but is wider than that of previous detection and attribution chapters in the Second Assessment Report (SAR; Santer et al., 1996a) and the Third Assessment Report (TAR; Mitchell et al., 2001)…..

    Simulations of global mean 20th-century temperature change that accounted for anthropogenic greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols as well as solar and volcanic forcing were found to be generally consistent with observations. In contrast, a limited number of simulations of the response to known natural forcings alone indicated that these may have contributed to the observed warming in the first half of the 20th century, but could not provide an adequate explanation of the warming in the second half of the 20th century, nor the observed changes in the vertical structure of the atmosphere….”

    The chapter assesses natural factors like solar variability, orbital forcing, volcanic ejecta, changes in clouds, etc.

    Does the IPCC reject the LIA and MWP?

    Same chapter:

    “External forcing relative to the present is generally small for the last millennium when compared to that for the mid-Holocene and LGM. Nonetheless, there is evidence that climatic responses to forcing, together with natural internal variability of the climate system, produced several well-defined climatic events, such as the cool conditions during the 17th century or relatively warm periods early in the millennium.”

    The chapter also notes that ocean-atmosphere variations can change the climate.

    What is this myth of climate science airbrushing out pre-industrial climate change? Why do you repeat it, Roy? That is a flat out falsehood, part of the cretinous skeptic narrative, and not worthy of your calibre.

    • JDHuffman says:

      barry you are trying to sound very reasonable, as you falsely accuse Dr. Spencer of being unreasonable.

      You only quoted one source, which was also trying to sound reasonable.

      Are you so naive that you don’t know about all the pseudoscience that has been published? Are you denying the “hockey stick”? Are you denying all the ongoing attemps to always claim “hottest (fill in the blank) ever”?

      If you could only forget your agenda and learn some physics….

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      barry…”What is this myth of climate science airbrushing out pre-industrial climate change? Why do you repeat it, Roy? That is a flat out falsehood, part of the cretinous skeptic narrative, and not worthy of your calibre”.

      There is none so blind as they who will not see.

      The IPCC supported the hockey stick to the nth degree and the hockey stick ‘airbrushed’ the LIA and MWP out of their proxy data to get a nice straight shaft on the stick.

      That means the IPCC speak with a forked tongue. They acknowledged the LIA and MWP is 1990 then supported a study that denied both. After the NAS report and the testimony of statistics expert Wegman, the IPCC restricted global warming to 1850 onward, scrapped the hockey stick, and produced the spaghetti graph, a graph so full of error bars it looked like spaghetti.

      It also reintroduced the LIA and MWP, making the hockey stick shaft look like a hockey stick shaft with serious bends and curves in it.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon, what data was “airbrushed” by the hockey stick?

        Show me a link to that data. Or at least a graph.

      • David Appell says:

        “In summary, we show that the curve used by IPCC (1990) was locally representative (nominally of Central England) and not global, and was referred to at the time with the word schematic.”

        “High-resolution palaeoclimatology of the last millennium: a review of current status and future prospects,” P.D. Jones et al, The Holocene 19,1 (2009) pp 3-49
        http://shadow.eas.gatech.edu/~kcobb/jones09.pdf

      • David Appell says:

        “Jones et al. (2009) explore the origins of this figure. They note that the figure caption specifically stated that it was a schematic diagram, and not an actual temperature reconstruction.

        “as far as palaeoclimatologists were concerned the diagram was nothing more than how it was originally described in the caption: a schematic.”

        “Jones et al. trace the schematic diagram back to a series used by H.H. Lamb, representative of central England, last published by Lamb (1982). However, Lamb is plotting 50-year averages here, and the final data point appears to be 1950.”

        https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=338

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        David, please stop trolling.

Leave a Reply