“Unreliable and harmful claims”: This website has been demonetized by Google

January 7th, 2022 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

DrRoySpencer.com has been demonetized by Google for “unreliable and harmful claims”. This means I can no longer generate revenue to support the website using the Google Adsense program.

From a monetary standpoint, it’s not a big deal because what I make off of Google ads is in the noise level of my family’s monthly budget. It barely made more than I pay in hosting fees and an (increasingly expensive) comment spam screener.

I’ve been getting Google warnings for a couple months now about “policy violations”, but nowhere was it listed what pages were in violation, and what those violations were. There are Adsense rules about ad placement on the page (e.g. a drop-down menu cannot overlay an ad), so I was assuming it was something like that, but I had no idea where to start looking with hundreds of web pages to sift through. It wasn’t until the ads were demonetized that Google offered links to the pages in question and what the reason was.

Of course, I should have figured out it was related to Google’s new policy about misleading content; a few months ago Google announced they would be demonetizing climate skeptic websites. I was kind of hoping my content was mainstream enough to avoid being banned since:

  1. I believe the climate system has warmed
  2. I believe most of this warming is probably due to greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning

Many of you know that I defend much of mainstream climate science, including climate modeling as an enterprise. Where I depart of the “mainstream” is how much warming has occurred, how much future warming can be expected, and what should be done about it from an energy policy perspective.

From the information provided by Google about my violations, in terms of the number of ads served, by far the most frequented web pages here at drroyspencer.com with “unreliable and harmful claims” are our (UAH) monthly global temperature update pages. This is obviously because some activists employed by Google (who are probably weren’t even born when John Christy and I received both NASA and American Meteorological Society awards for our work) don’t like the answer our 43-year long satellite dataset gives. Nevermind that our dataset remains one of the central global temperature datasets used by mainstream climate researchers in their work.

For now I don’t plan on appealing the decision, because it’s not worth the aggravation. If you are considered a “climate skeptic” (whatever that means) Google has already said you are targeted for termination from their Adsense program. I can’t expect their liberal arts-educated “fact checkers” to understand the nuances of the global warming debate.


946 Responses to ““Unreliable and harmful claims”: This website has been demonetized by Google”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Stephen Richards says:

    Beyond ridiculous.

    We all need to find a way of deleting all program from our phones and computers that are owned an run by these creeps.

    • scott Harder says:

      I wouldn’t doubt that their “fact checking” is similar to facebook. In court preceedings, they admitted that their fact checks were meerly opinion.
      Roy, please keep up the good work. i’ve been following you for years with many visits to your website. i just wish i could follow the math better. Maybe start publishing on rumble? Gotta be a host for your website that believes in free speech.
      soldier on!
      best regards,
      scott Harder (chemistry from UWM)

    • cohenite says:

      What has happened to Roy is symptomatic of the ideological basis of AGW. It is a pseudo religion which dictates policy in the West and one of the results of that is sceptics are punished.

      In Australia Dr Peter Ridd, an outstanding scientist, was fired and vilified by his university employer. Unfortunately after a first great result in court, when his matter went to the High Court, it was decided while he had a right to critique AGW, he could only critique AGW in a manner consistent with what his employer determined was acceptable. That is a classic give with one hand while taking away with the other situation. The government has promised to remedy this legislatively but since an election is imminent nothing will happen for the forseeable future.

      There is no point trying to reason with alarmists and their corporate supporters. They are acolytes and have no capacity to reason about their belief. That leaves legal and political action as the only recourse.

    • Frank A says:

      Congratulations, Dr. Spencer. Clearly your impact is far-reaching!

    • Former Believer says:

      If you want privacy and security but need most of the bells and whistles in terms of smartphone functionality you’ll need a “de-googled” phone. You’ll need to do a some research on how to get one.

      I suggest use Tails (Private and secure operating system on a USB stick) for general internet browsing on a PC. I recommend Metager.org as a search engine. I recommend Mullvad VPN. For operating systems I recommend Ubuntu, Debian or one of the Redhat related variants (note: Redhat itself is now owned by IBM).

      Rob Braxman gives quite a lot of useful info on understanding and navigating your way around the big-tech creeps:
      https://odysee.com/@RobBraxmanTech:6

  2. gbaikie says:

    “If you are considered a “climate skeptic” (whatever that means)”

    Good question. I don’t think it means being skeptical.
    Skeptical:

    1: not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations.
    or
    2 philosophy
    relating to the theory that certain knowledge is impossible.

    –Synonyms
    disbelieving, distrustful, doubting, incredulous, mistrustful, negativistic, questioning, show-me, suspecting, suspicious, unbelieving

    Antonyms
    credulous, gullible (also gullable), trustful, trusting, uncritical, unquestioning —

    It might be impossible to know what a “climate skeptic” means.

    • David Ramsay says:

      Aside from difficulty in the definition of those that do not blindly accept the alarmist faith the real crunch is coming. Here in Europe natural gas prices have shot up due to the September and October lack of wind which forced suppliers to scramble for gas generated electricity when there was not enough to go around. We are at the start of an energy crisis in Europe due to the virtue signalling alarmists like Google that demonise fossil fuel to the point the poor and the old are going to die. The public that has swallowed the false and erroneous overstated narrative of warming and its effects are going to wake up as inflation and shortages hit home.

      As an energy expert the looming storm has been identified and the gathering storm understood. Germany has volunteered to close 3 nuclear power stations at 5he end of 2021. The U.K. has just shut one die to end of its useful life and another goes in a few months. We will have only 10% of our electricity from nuclear this decade down from over 32% o& supply at its peak. All this while people buy electric cars that were cheap to charge and which will add to electric demanded as supply reduces…… there is a reckoning coming….

  3. Edward Hudgins says:

    Google and political ideologues are principal culprits in undermining the public understanding of what science is and confidence that it is the strongest approach to understanding the natural world. I have used your data on various occasions, noting that warming per decade over the past three decades has been around .14 C rather than the .3 C projected by the U.N. in 1990 or the .2 C projected in 2014. I noted a few days ago that going back four decades, your measured rate seems to be closer to .2 C. I was planning to ask you what the prediction is in the most recent U.N. report. This is called an intelligent, open discussion about the issue based on facts. Google more and more is highlighting the fact that its goal is not to allow access to all the knowledge of the world but, rather, to promote a “narrative” and never mind the facts. I say sue them.

    • Nate says:

      Social media in general, and 24h cable news has enabled the situation we have where there is no shared truth anymore.

      Every group has their own facts now, and trust in all institutional knowledge has declined.

      • WizGeek says:

        More accurately, Nate, each group selectively chooses a subset of facts that they embellish with unfounded allegations and unsupported leaps of faith to arrive at fodder for sensational headlines, regressive opinion pieces, and non-contextual sound bites–all in the name of click rates, ad revenue, fund raising, and, most egregiously, manipulation of public opinion to control the electorate.

      • Great wisdom in that comment.
        is this the old “Nasty Nate”,
        or a different Nate?

    • The science was being undermined in the 1980s when wild guess predictions of an imagined coming climate crisis got louder (they began in the pate 1950s), and the 1980s were before Google existed.

      • Nate says:

        It was not yet heavily politicized in the 1980s. The scientific community was not yet heavily demonized in the 1980s.

        • IPCC established in 1988

          Infamous James Hansen
          “triple prediction” (all wrong)
          global warming pitch to Congress
          in 1988 too.

          1988 was the launch of
          high confidence (unjustified)
          climate alarmism

          1988 is in the 1980s
          I was right
          and you were wrong
          nyah nyah nyah

          • Nate says:

            In a speech at NOAA.

            Fast forward to 2016, not one of a dozen R presidential candidates was free to acknowledge that AGW was real.

            Thus, the topic was much less politicized 30 y ago.

          • Nate says:

            This meant to be after below post.

        • Nate says:

          A Republican President said this in 1990.

          I reaffirm America’s commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention and it’s central goal, to stabilise atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate. Our immediate goal is to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions relative to the size of our economy.

          My administration is committed to cutting our nation’s greenhouse gas intensity – how much we emit per unit of economic activity – by 18% over the next 10 years. This will set America on a path to slow the growth of our greenhouse gas emissions and, as science justifies, to stop and then reverse the growth of emissions.

          This is the common sense way to measure progress. Our nation must have economic growth – growth to create opportunity; growth to create a higher quality of life for our citizens. Growth is also what pays for investments in clean technologies, increased conservation, and energy efficiency. Meeting our commitment to reduce our greenhouse gas intensity by 18% by the year 2012 will prevent over 500m metric tons of greenhouse gases from going into the atmosphere over the course of the decade. And that is the equivalent of taking 70m cars off the road.

          To achieve this goal, our nation must move forward on many fronts, looking at every sector of our economy. We will challenge American businesses to further reduce emissions. Already, agreements with the semiconductor and aluminum industries and others have dramatically cut emissions of some of the most potent greenhouse gases. We will build on these successes with new agreements and greater…”

  4. Simo Ruoho says:

    Totally ridiculous act from Google. I’d consider moving your whole blog to a WordPress site, as there’s no idea to provide content to Google if they are that subjective. Happy to offer help in the moving process, no fee due to your great openness policy regarding your data. Do contact if my help would be welcome.

    I’ve built Gindex to estimate upcoming months for Global Lower Troposphere, and your UAH-result was essential in the beginning of its development. I still follow its success comparing to UAH6 LT. So far.

  5. Tony says:

    They probably know that the global temperature will soon start to fall dramatically now when GSM is kicking in.

  6. Harves says:

    No doubt this decision by Google will be applauded by the usual crowd of alarmists on this forum. You know who you are.

  7. Wendell Davis says:

    Unbelievable. What is the climate expertise of the person that made this decision? A degree in social studies? Find a new home Dr. Spencer, it won’t be long before they censor you.

  8. Swenson says:

    Just another salvo from the anti-science brigade. This too will pass.

    No point taking legal action (particularly in the US). Like Facebook, Google will eventually just admit that “unreliable and harmful claims” are actually just “opinions”, and thus protected under the First Amendment.

    It may well be that Google is trying to punish you for allowing those such as myself to express opinions, and having the temerity to base opinions on facts.

    My sympathy extends to contemplating the previously unthinkable – a donation to ensure your blog continues

    All the best. Unfortunately, the ravening mob with their torches and pitchforks often get their way – for a while, at least.

  9. Swenson says:

    Found it.

    Might be appropriate –

    “First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you.”

  10. gbaikie says:

    Regarding climate, which is commonly regarded as synonymous with weather, there a lot to be skeptical about. But weather in terms of two day forecast, is pretty good.
    One could say we have got a lot infrastructure related to weather which allows forecasting for the next 2 days and lots of “good work” which allows this.
    I am not very skeptical, about it being roughly and mostly being “accurate enough”. Beyond two days, they can generally give a clue, 5 or 6 days is less of clue but useful enough to consider as more possible than not.
    And obviously, lifesaving in terms tornadas and dangerous things like that.
    But that still requires some skepticism- as does everything. As in simply, double checking things which you regard as important.

    Not being skeptical of climate, seems to merely to indicate ignorance.

    It also seems to be insisting that climate is not important.

    I think, weather is fairly important.
    And its elementary stuff, that we are living in an Ice Age.

    What climate means to some people, is the mystery.
    Some apparently don’t even understand what causes seasons,
    and it’s hard to understand, what world they are living in.

  11. tygrus says:

    Just remember that Facebook lawyers said their “fact checkers” write an “opinion” not “facts” according to submissions to the court.

    Would creating a new anomaly offset based on the early years of your data or some estimate of 100 years ago plicate their objections (make the headline numbers look bigger but trend remains the same)?

    Would disabling all public comments plicate their objections?

    Is it even possible to speak with a real person at Google (or the 3rd party contractor) to negotiate?

  12. Nate says:

    I don’t agree that this blog fits into their criteria, unless they include the Comments section.

    I think its a mistake.

    • coturnix says:

      i think it is a mistake for you to say that. Under the communist regime, correctly anticipating and towing the party line is a question of life and death. Juts saying what you said pretty much makes you a climate denier, how do you like that?

    • Nate says:

      Luckily this is not China.

      • coturnix says:

        not china *yet*

        • Denny says:

          not China yet.

          Exactly correct, and that is what is being missed by most everyone. The psychology of censoring free speech by moral Supremacists is the most insidious threat from this incident. Having an opinion and expressing it in any forum, should be sacrosanct. Defending the rights of individuals to express their opinion even when we disagree, should take precedence over concerns about any topic. This is shades of the Red Guard, Brownshirts and KGB.

          • Ron Graf says:

            “shades of the Red Guard, Brownshirts and KGB.”
            Exactly! There is no difference between fascistic and Soviet crack down. The First Amendment of the US constitution was first for a reason. Humanity’s biggest threat is not CO2.

          • Nate says:

            Maybe read the First Amendment before deciding it is relevant here.

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

        • Nate says:

          Censorship in China or in other authoritarian regimes is not the same at all as what is going on here.

          Censorship is a government banning publication of criticism of the government, information embarrassing or detrimental to the regime.

          In this instance, if a publisher chooses not to publish my speech, there is always another one who may choose to, or there is the public square.

          • Sean says:

            I think there is a reasonable fear of what google has become. They started as a search engine and now are a censorship engine. But they’ve monetized the web better than most through their add sales and that involves collecting information that can be sold to others, like add buyers. But can they record tremendous amounts of data and that data can potentially be used by political entities.
            There are two lessons from this action against this web site. A small amount of money stopped flowing to Dr. Spencer which is of little consequence. I suspect Google made as much if not more than Dr. Spencer from these same adds. But look at the news publishing industry as a whole. It is a shell that has been hollowed out by loss of add revenue but also because companies like google end up with half the online add revenue.
            I also fear that google has greater fear of regulation by Democrats than they do by Republicans. Censoring actions like this I suspect these gestures are bones they throw to the regulatory state to show they are a useful team player to the party in power. And wasn’t it just revealed that the Pelosi’s showed confidence in the continued success of the Silicon Valley tech sector by their stock purchases?
            google dropped its “don’t be evil” motto a few years back… Perhaps under the standard that it was misleading.

          • WizGeek says:

            Nate, when said “publisher” is a major economic engine that is aligned with a government ideology, whether willingly or by force, especially when that ideology currently holds a tricameral majority, it is evidence of a free society devolving into socialism. As for First Amendment applicability, the allegation that Google is acting as an agent of the Democrat party in deed supports the assertion that “Google Gov” is in fact “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” When the likes of Google, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook/Meta, Wikipedia, Snopes, MSM, and education sectors, supporting Democrat ideological goals, all conspire to censor free dialog, it now is a case that “there was no one left to speak for me.”

          • Nate says:

            “when said ‘publisher’ is a major economic engine that is aligned with a government ideology”

            Is it really hard to find right-leaning content on Youtube, Facebook, Twitter?

            Kinda hard to believe.

            Speaking of media empires aligned with one ideology, how bout Sinclair Media, who owns countless numbers of local TV and radio stations, and imposes politically conservative content on them.

            Anytime media becomes a near monopoly its not a good thing. Im in favor of breaking them up.

    • barry says:

      Agreed, Nate. This blog should not be demonetised.

  13. Harves says:

    I dont agree that this blog fits into their criteria, unless they include the Comments section.

    Oops Nate lets it slip. Clear supporter of Google censoring opinions he disagrees with.
    No doubt hed also claim to be a champion of free speech.

    • Nate says:

      You don’t seem to know what free speech means.

      If I send my book to a publisher, do they have to publish it? Maybe its crap. Thats not a free speech issue.

      If I send a letter to a newspaper, do they have to publish it?

      Are you saying an online publisher must publish my speech? And I should get paid for it? Otherwise its censorship?

      What happened to free enterprise?

      • Paul says:

        So the real question remains…. is Google a publisher or a platform? Should Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. have the same power and protections as the traditional print-publishers?

        • Richard says:

          I would have sympathy for Google and support their right to choose what they publish if they were not a defacto monopoly. But they are a monopoly. We have a legal framework for monopolies, it should apply here.

    • Bill Hunter says:

      Nate gave his answer obviously he believes it is OK for a public accommodation to discriminate and deny participation based upon a persons beliefs.

      Seems pretty darned anti-liberal to me. Free enterprise???

      Nate what in the world gives you the idea that free enterprise should get or even desires a free pass to discriminate? Only bigots desire that.

      Google is restricting free speech. They are neither an advertiser who may choose where to place their ads, nor are they a publisher of Roy’s website.

      All Google does is provide a public accommodation for advertisers to place ads (giving advertisers choices regarding where they desire to advertise) and also acts as a public accommodation to website publishers who desire ad revenue and also can select the type of advertising they desire.

      Google is just a middle man accommodator. This sort of behavior is repugnant if not down and out illegal. If it is not illegal it should be.

      But its definitely the sort of behavior one can expect when anybody becomes too powerful, whether it be government or enterprise.

      • Nate says:

        “Public accommodations, in the law of the United States, are generally defined as facilities, whether publicly or privately owned, that are used by the public at large. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments, and service establishments as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities, and service centers.”

        “Under U.S. federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the disabled and may not discriminate on the basis of ‘race, color, religion, or national origin.[1][2]’

        I don’t think any of that applies here.

  14. coturnix says:

    there’s gotta be other ad networks, i mean it is a free market, innit?

    >> and an (increasingly expensive) comment spam screener

    not very effective neether, haha

  15. Willard says:

    No more ads?

    Great success!

  16. Harves says:

    Oh Nate, so Google, Facebook and Twitter ARE publishers now? And to think theyve been telling us that theyre not. Whod have guessed? Cats out of the bag.

    • Nate says:

      True, it is a complicated as to whether and how much they are ‘publishers’.

      They want protection from being sued for libel as a newspaper can be.

      But on the other hand they have advertisers like TV or newspapers. Advertisers don’t want to have their ads posted adjacent to speech by neo-Nazis or Isis.

      They thus need to figure out how to prevent that. Are you saying they don’t have the right to this thing that keeps their business functioning?

      https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/17/google-ministers-quiz-placement-ads-extremist-content-youtube

      • Gras Albert says:

        I agree Nate, it is absolutely the right of Google (or any other faceless internet entity) to take any action it sees fit…

        Just so long as the decision making process and the names of the individuals responsible for making any decision are in the public domain.

        The only way to expose bias is to shine a light on it

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nate says:
        But on the other hand they have advertisers like TV or newspapers. Advertisers don’t want to have their ads posted adjacent to speech by neo-Nazis or Isis.

        They thus need to figure out how to prevent that. Are you saying they don’t have the right to this thing that keeps their business functioning?

        https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/17/google-ministers-quiz-placement-ads-extremist-content-youtube

        ====================
        LMAO! So now Nate is claiming drroyspencer.com is the equivalent of ISIS or Neo-Nazi content?

        Google uses technology to provide its customers and clients choices of advertising content (such as sexual content). There would be nothing wrong with also including other categories; but thats not what Google is doing. They aren’t even qualified to do what they are doing, nor do they have any mandate to go to the extremes they are taking.

        Nate you are just a plain old ordinary run of the mill goon.

        • Nate says:

          Typical Bill, loses again, and switches into ad-hom mode.

        • Nate says:

          “So now Nate is claiming drroyspencer.com is the equivalent of ISIS or Neo-Nazi content”

          Typical Bill slander.

          I already stated that I don’t think this blog fits their criteria.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            In a world where responsibility actually applies to at least some, by definition, what they do is their criteria.

            Others will simply claim a lack of responsibility. Admitting responsibility only occurs when the boom is dropped on them.

            Hiding behind the skirts of others and condoning, rationalizing, advancing, and/or giving into tyranny is what cowards do.

            And as to your claimed slander Nate. . . .you are the one that made the argument with conditions stated as ISIS and Neo-Nazi. I don’t hear you condemning what Google has done to any degree. All I hear you doing is making excuses for it and not-so-subtly supporting their actions.

          • Nate says:

            Sounds like if it was Isis or neo-Nazis youd be ok with Google demonetizing their blog?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            No actually I am not for Google defunding anything. Giving advertisers options to advertise or not I am completely for.

            As to organizations recruiting or encouraging people to commit crimes I would favor Google working with law enforcement to get the people arrested. Not defunding the site would seem to be the better strategy in not tipping the aholes off.

          • Nate says:

            Ok, so if you were CEO of Google you would enable neo-Nazi or ISIS blogs to be funded and have access to hundreds of millions of Google’s customers eyeballs? That’s your ‘morality’?

            Easy to say, but not easy to do with stock holders, the public and congressmen of both parties breathing down your neck.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Obviously Nate you are opposed to speech you don’t like. Its not Google’s call. People should not be deprived of liberties without due process.

            Now when ISIS has been blogging they are recruiting criminal activity. Thus they should be reported and law enforcement should get involved.

            The reason you are a complete jerk is you think your eyeballs and your intelligence is superior to the general population. You are the perfect fit as a Nazi.

          • Nate says:

            “Its not Googles call. People should not be deprived of liberties without due process.”

            Don’t be daft.

            You have no ‘liberty’ of free access to space on Google’s hard drives nor to receive income from this company.

          • Nate says:

            “Now when ISIS has been blogging they are recruiting criminal activity. Thus they should be reported and law enforcement should get involved.”

            Sure, we’ll just send some cops over to wherever they are to arrest them, dimwit.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Gee Nate are you really so stupid that you can’t actually think of a single alternative?

            You just like Google, Facebook, and Twitter doing it as they are the corporate supporters of your particular brand of fascism.

            The results are a perfect example of how fascism works.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:
            ”Don’t be daft.

            You have no ‘liberty’ of free access to space on Google’s hard drives nor to receive income from this company.”

            what a fking moron! Google ads aren’t free dimwit!

          • Nate says:

            Bill, You are spinning out of control.

            Seems like you want to impose your will, your beliefs, your so-called ‘morality’ onto a company and force them to conduct their business how YOU think they should-to force them to post ALL content without restrictions on their servers.

            Conservatives and libertarians, and the SCOTUS will have a problem with that.

            Now, if a company like Google goes too far in restricting content they risk pissing off a bunch of customers.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            Bill, You are spinning out of control.

            Seems like you want to impose your will, your beliefs, your so-called ‘morality’ onto a company and force them to conduct their business how YOU think they should-to force them to post ALL content without restrictions on their servers.

            Conservatives and libertarians, and the SCOTUS will have a problem with that.

            Now, if a company like Google goes too far in restricting content they risk pissing off a bunch of customers.
            ———————–
            Wholly Krap! You don’t have a clue about what you are talking about!

            Google Ads isn’t a content provider! Your mouth is moving and nonsense is pouring out.

            And the Supreme Court would not need 5 minutes to realize how ridiculous your argument is.

            Its like a cake store. If you sell cakes to the public you have sell to everybody. If you personally make cakes and sell them then you don’t necessarily have to make certain cakes if it violates your beliefs. Google sells ad space like cakes but they don’t make or own the space or the ads.

          • Nate says:

            “Its like a cake store. If you sell cakes to the public you have sell to everybody. If you personally make cakes and sell them then you don’t necessarily have to make certain cakes if it violates your beliefs. Google sells ad space like cakes but they don’t make or own the space or the ads.”

            Well at least this part is an attempt at civil dialogue and logic, Bill. If you can keep it civil, I’ll keep discussing.

            Analogies to a publisher or a baker are not perfect here.

            The baker case ” Craig and Mullins filed a complaint to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission under the state’s public accommodations law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating against their customers on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation”

            But recently SCOTUS ruled that a baker did not have to serve the customer, and provide a cake for their gay wedding celebration.

            And conservatives applauded this. It was an infringement of the business owner’s First Amendement Rights.

            But I DO think that this is a contradiction, by conservatives, and by your earlier argument .

            Google “acts as a public accommodation to website publishers who desire ad revenue and also can select the type of advertising they desire.

            Google is just a middle man accommodator. This sort of behavior is repugnant if not down and out illegal. If it is not illegal it should be.”

            Google owns Youtube which hosts content. They also facilitate the posting of ads and the income stream to Google and then to the poster.

            As I pointed out earlier people do not want their ads next to extremist content. That is quite reasonable. It is reasonable, IMO, for Google to demonetize extremist content to make their business work and to meet the demands of Congress and the public.

            But again, I dont agree that Roy Spencer’s blog fits the bill.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ”Google owns Youtube which hosts content. They also facilitate the posting of ads and the income stream to Google and then to the poster.”
            ———————-
            Still you don’t understand that ‘hosting’ content isn’t even remotely similar to ‘providing’ content. Our cake company was a custom cake maker/provider. The fact they no doubt had regular cake designs they also sold that they are required to sell to anybody isn’t relevant at all.

            =
            =
            =
            =

            Nate says:

            ”As I pointed out earlier people do not want their ads next to extremist content. That is quite reasonable. It is reasonable, IMO, for Google to demonetize extremist content to make their business work and to meet the demands of Congress and the public.”
            ———————-

            I pointed out Nate that yes Google can provide categories where advertisers can select the type of site their ads will display and website owners can select certain types of ads they don’t want. They already provide that service to both websites and advertisers.

            They are out of place making the decisions themselves.

            That is purely politically motivated. And as you well know comparing what they are doing to Roy has absolutely nothing to do with ISIS or Neo Nazis. Yet you choose to make that comparison as your primary line of argument.

            I don’t know when they stopped teaching kids in school that free speech involves tolerating speech you don’t like. There are obvious reasons for that that perhaps are a bit too complex for you to grasp.

            Though the argument here is in regards to an entirely different issue. You have chosen to ignore that issue because you know you can’t make a case for it.

            =
            =
            =
            =

            Nate says:

            ”But again, I dont agree that Roy Spencer’s blog fits the bill.”

            Well since the only ”bill” you have so far described is ISIS and Neo Nazis that 1) seems way to abundantly obvious; and 2) Says absolutely nothing that even marginally distinguishes you from the usual tactics of those very same ISIS and Neo-Nazi idiots.

          • Nate says:

            Bill, You did very well at keeping it civil up until

            ” seems way to abundantly obvious; and 2) Says absolutely nothing that even marginally distinguishes you from the usual tactics of those very same ISIS and Neo-Nazi idiots.”

            None of these issue are as cut-and-dried and obvious as you portray them. That I have a different opinion than you does not make me evil, Bill.

            Not even the cake case was obvious for SCOTUS.

            The SCOTUS majority opinion stated they would have ruled in favor of the gay married couple, had the Colorado Civil Rights Commission “remained religiously neutral in their evaluation”

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ”None of these issue are as cut-and-dried and obvious as you portray them. That I have a different opinion than you does not make me evil, Bill.”

            I never said it did Nate. What I said is your response didn’t at all demonstrate that you aren’t virtually the same.

            When one draws a line so extreme you suggest everything short of that line is OK. You said that you think Roy’s blog doesn’t qualify but you continue to defend Google’s right to decide if Roy went over the line.

            In the end this approach is indistinguishable form the early actions of the Nazis and ISIS punishing people without due process. Actions that continually became worse and worse over time.

            I would say next we will see political litmus tests in hiring decisions but I am afraid we are already there.

          • Nate says:

            “In the end this approach is indistinguishable form the early actions of the Nazis and ISIS punishing people without due process. Actions that continually became worse and worse over time.”

            Every argument like this ends up with someone being called a Nazi…

            Again you guys applaud when a business aligned with you applied an ideological litmus test to the customers USE of their product, without ‘due process’ in the case of the cake baker.

            You seem to feel businesses do have rights to do this. You make a tortured argument about why that case was different, but even SCOTUS is equivocal. And in that instance the customer was in a specific group protected undrr the law. .

            So you have your opinion, I have mine. Enough with hyperbolic ad homs!!

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            Every argument like this ends up with someone being called a Nazi…

            ——————————-

            Nobody called anybody a Nazi Nate. The thing about Nazi’s is never forget what, who, and how they came to be.
            =
            =
            =
            =

            Nate says:

            Again you guys applaud when a business aligned with you applied an ideological litmus test to the customers USE of their product, without ‘due process’ in the case of the cake baker.

            You seem to feel businesses do have rights to do this. You make a tortured argument about why that case was different, but even SCOTUS is equivocal.
            ———————————-
            again you fail completely to see the distinction. If Google were a custom cake maker they as a Company would have no protection of the law against being ‘personally’ being forced to build a cake that violated their religion. However, individual employees would and that was decided in a different case where the Company demanded work from Muslim employees in a situation the Company could have worked around. . . .i.e. it wasn’t the only job they did.

            And it was not in regard to the customer ‘use’ of the product at all. It was about actually building a custom cake that was a violation of the religious laws of the actual person building the cake.

            I don’t know all the details of the case and perhaps this particular cake maker would have lost the case if the lower courts had found the company had an employee whom would not object to making the cake. So in that case they weren’t truly protecting individual freedom of religion and instead were deciding for their employees. Using corporations as surrogates of the state is exactly what fascist nations found as a fantastic avenue to their objectives.

            But the case brought in front of them was on the basis of religion. . . .obviously a ‘Company’ cannot have a religion. . . .maybe that was the mistake of the State regulator as mentioned by the SCOTUS.

            It is truly distressing these principles are no longer taught in school. It seems we are building entire generations of ignorant individuals for the precise purposes of serving Government authority.

            That is what Fascism is and is only what it is.

            Do you also think the Nazi’s had a Conscientious Objector exemption? Or ISIS for that matter either? Not hardly could you call it an exemption. . . .it is more like an execution.

            As Mussolini was famously noted for in a speech. ”Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State”

            Protecting individual freedoms is the only thing that stands between us and fascism. And that is why so many immigrants want to come here and today we have a major political party that wants to regulate the air we breathe on the sole basis of some fantastic wholly projected disaster scenario. This is the sort of krap I have been working against for decades.

            =
            =
            =
            =

            Nate says:
            ”And in that instance the customer was in a specific group protected undrr the law. .”

            ———————–

            Indeed! The fact that the law is incomplete in that it doesn’t envision all groups equally remains a continuing problem still in need of resolution. We now have the Government officially endorsing discrimination by race for the sole purpose of winning votes from bigots.

          • Nate says:

            Bill,

            It seems to me that the distinctions you are making between the rights of different types of businesses to reject customers (ok if it was a custom cake for a gay marriage) are rather legalistic, nuanced and poorly qualified. You even admit you dont know the details.

            Yet you feel righteous in your certainty that this kind of thing, poorly defined as it is, will lead to the equivalent of facsism?!

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            It seems to me that the distinctions you are making between the rights of different types of businesses to reject customers (ok if it was a custom cake for a gay marriage) are rather legalistic, nuanced and poorly qualified. You even admit you dont know the details.

            Yet you feel righteous in your certainty that this kind of thing, poorly defined as it is, will lead to the equivalent of facsism?!

            ——————————-

            The only thing certain Nate is you are incapable of reading and understanding what I wrote.

            I rather clearly stated that conscientious objection is not limited to fighting in a war. It also covers not be required to bake a certain kind of cake.

            But Google can’t tell the government they can’t draft any of their employees because the owners of Google are pacifists and are conscientious objectors (hypothetically).

            So if even you have a business baking and designing customs cakes and you can only claim the right for you yourself to not bake the cake and not for your whole company. If its a one man shop then the company will not be required to bake that cake.

            But if the company has employees who bake cakes that aren’t conscientious objectors then the owner of the company cannot exempt them simply because he owns the company.

            If they don’t have employees who object then the business cannot be required to bake the cake anymore than the telephone company could be required to bake the cake.

            When I said I don’t know the details of the case, I don’t know if the business should have been required to bake the cake. And I don’t know that because the enforcement commission was too incompetent to make an enforceable and reviewable case that would require the company to bake the cake. Which is a fact you already noted.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:
            ”Again you guys applaud when a business aligned with you applied an ideological litmus test to the customers USE . . . .”
            ——————–

            Nate you are such a fascist tool! You fail to understand completely what a conservative stands for.

            ”you guys” is some invented strawman whose characteristics have been sold to you by your daddy. Right out of the Joseph Goebbels playbook!

            As carefully explained above conservatives (especially the conservatives on the Supreme Court!!!!!!!!!!) stand for individual rights, not the rights of corporations! Conservatives simply understand that free enterprise is absolutely a necessity to prevent the accumulation of absolute power by the government.

            But there is still an incredibly great danger of fascism when you have corporations doing the bidding of the socialists whom to a man are either completely ignorant of the need for individual freedoms or are in on the scam and plan to benefit greatly from the power they plan to accumulate.

            There are only two possibilities. Either you are ignorant of that or you are in on the scam. Many people do have one foot on the personal freedom dock and the other foot on the socialist ferry they believe is headed to Utopia. . . . but always turns out to be Fascist Hell.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:
            Every argument like this ends up with someone being called a Nazi…

            Again you guys applaud when a business aligned with you applied an ideological litmus test to the customers USE of their product, without ‘due process’ in the case of the cake baker.
            ———————-

            Seems Nate has run away. To be clear I am not calling anybody a Nazi or a Fascist. And it seems those who are calling ‘fascist’ don’t even know what a fascist is.

            One can review the 26 points of fascism and recognize that the key attribute is what the inventor of the term, Benito Mussolini, defined it as: ”Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State”

            https://archive.org/stream/Twenty-sixPointManifestoOfTheSpanishFalange/ProgramOfTheFalange_djvu.txt

  17. JR says:

    I agree with much of The good Dr’s opinion and will use Duck-Duck Go as my browser and have removed my fb app (try posting a link).

    I disagree with the assumption that the people behind this are liberal arts majors. There are plenty of Information technology and other science tech majors that tow the sky is falling line and some liberal arts majors who disagree.

  18. Able says:

    Since that would mean that Android and Apple IOS must be deleted from our phones……can you tell me a simple Linux based degoogleed phone operating system? The we could drop them, I already deleted FartBook and Twitter.

  19. m d mill says:

    I am routinely censored/blocked here (by google?), but if you need money to continue this vital site of freedom of speech please let us know. Thank you Roy.

    • Bindidon says:

      No one is ‘censored/blocked here’.

      Simply avoid comments (and within them, especially links) containing problematic character sequences, like
      – ‘d’ immediately followed by ‘c’
      – ‘p’ immediately followed by ‘t’.

      As an example, Roy Spencer can publish his own links to UAH data

      http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncd c_lt_6.0.txt

      whenever he wants, but we – and… you – can’t do that because the link contains ‘d’ immediately followed by ‘c’ (separated here by a blank, of course – otherwise the comment wouldn’t become posted).

      • m d mill says:

        If this is true i thank you for the advice,
        but why in the hell should such a sequence be problematic???

        • m d mill says:

          let me test this by fixing “HAD.CRUT”

          “Also, the HAD.CRUT temperature record for 1910-1945 indicates a global warming roughly the same as 1970-2005, even though the CO2 increase rate was 4 times greater in the latter period. What caused this warming?
          [see: https://www.pnas.org/content/110/6/2058 ]
          The alarmist propagandists will never acknowledge this difficulty.

          I am not saying the 3C/doubling ECS high sensitivity is wrong, simply that there is observational and theoretical evidence that it could reasonably be wrong. The question is not settled. This reasonable possibility will never be acknowledged by alarmist propagandists , as you would expect.”

      • m d mill says:

        Hurray it worked. Thank you Bindidon for taking the time to help me.
        Does everyone know this? does Roy?
        Are there any other sequences to be avoided?

        • gbaikie says:

          Roy knows about, tried to fix it, but was unable to fix it.
          Most posters know about it, and other gitches.

        • barry says:

          The regulars here know about these things (and more), and for some of them Roy is mystified why they occur.

          The d c thing is purely because of a banned commenter and their numerous sock puppets. Why putting p and t together voids comments in unknown. Someone may know why certain characters turn into gobbledygook when copied and pasted, but I haven’t seen it articulated.

          In short – you are not being censored, the website has glitches.

        • Bindidon says:

          m d mill

          Glad to have helped a little bit.

          No other problematic sequences are known to me.

          But… another undocumented problem was that if you tried to post a comment containing more than 4 links, it simply disappeared.

          Nowadays, the comment is placed ‘under moderation’ (but is never published), so at least you can modify it if you had forgotten to save it in some text editor before.

        • barry says:

          Not sure about the link thingy – I believe that might be more to do with what is contained in the url string. I’ve never had a problem with posting more than 4 links, but I usually have at least 3 tinyurls among them.

          Eg, posted 6 links with no moderation here a couple days ago.

          http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/unreliable-and-harmful-claims-this-website-has-been-demonetized-by-google/#comment-1118751

          • Bindidon says:

            barry

            In theory, it’s IMHO IMHO really trivial to understand: all your 6 links are using the HTML anchor feature, and thus hide http[s]//: off the stream processed by the blogs probably ugly scanner, what prevents it from counting the number of links.

            I tried 8 successive anchors, but that didn’t work.

  20. Phil Berardelli says:

    Awful, just awful! Your work has been impeccable for decades and reflects the best of the scientific community — and, unfortunately, the small kernel of objectivity and honesty that remains in the climate science community. That Google considers your consistently well-reasoned and civil postings “unreliable and harmful” speaks volumes about mental disorder afflicting their staff and so much of Big Tech. They have no clue how much damage they are doing to science and to the country.

    So unfortunate this has happened, but if you relocate, wherever you go, I will follow. Godspeed!

  21. angech says:

    Banning people is usually due to one of two reasons

    They are so big and powerful they can

    Or

    The content is making them look foolish.

    Probably a combination, hopefully just the latter.

  22. Evan says:

    I stopped using Google search and Chrome a few years ago. Good to know that I made the right choice. Never again.

  23. Captain Climate says:

    Heres a prescription: dont use Google, use DuckDuckGo. Dont use Twitter, use GETTR. Dont use YouTube, use Rumble and Odysee.

    These Marxists will not stop until they are deprived of their economic power.

  24. Captain Climate says:

    I think you should find an organization that will sue on your behalf. This has to stop. Theyre violating their own terms of service, with real harm as a result.

  25. Eben says:

    Today if you are not spouting the world is gonna end in 10 years and we have to eat the babies you are in the denier camp

    https://youtu.be/oBJlzD0BFXI

  26. Entropic man says:

    Probably nothing to do with Google.

    This site has very eccentric filters. Words like absor*bed will get a comment blocked.

    So will the letter d followed by the letter c, legacy of an awkward long-gone commenter. For example, references to the National Sea Ice Data Centre (NSID*C) tend to be blocked.

    Recommended strategy. Copy your comment before submitting. If it is rejected, submit it again one paragraph at a time until you find the problem.

  27. Entropic man says:

    I’ve been banned by WUWT, Tallbloke and Bob Tisdale. Should I be reinstated?

    • Eben says:

      You should go to Appel’s Quark soup and just stay there

      • Entropic man says:

        Double standards,Eben?

        You complain when Dr. Spencer’s right to free speech is compromised, but want to do the same to me.

    • stephen p anderson says:

      Don’t understand why WUWT banned you? You’re too easy to debunk.

      • Entropic man says:

        To the contrary.

        I suspect I was banned because I found them too easy to debunk.

        Bob Tisdale banned me because I kept showing that his views made no sense when you considered the energy flows required.

        • Willard says:

          Linky or it does not exist, EM.

        • stephen p anderson says:

          I suspect it was because you were being disrespectful, like Arple was banned on this site. He was very disrespectful to Berry too on his site. Berry crushed him. You can’t argue against math. When Arple couldn’t refute the math he succumbed to insults, somewhat as he did with Spencer.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Arple is funny, not funny, funny, but nutso funny. He returned to Berry’s site under another name but Dr. Berry didn’t pick up on it. I picked up on it immediately because Arple is so obvious. You can’t disguise a warped brain.

          • I assume you mean Mr. Apple?
            Yes he is disrespectful
            However he also understands basic climate science.
            While Berry is a crackpot “sciemtist”.

            Apple’s problem is he also believes the future climate can be accurately predicted, can only get worse, and will be a catastrophe. That’s after 120 years of inaccurate climate predictions. And maybe there were some inaccurate predictions in the 1800s too.

            Those predictions can not be based on data, because there are no data for the future. Predictions are a mix of unproven theories and speculation — that’s not real science.

            So even knowing a lot about basic climate science does not mean you know anything about the future climate. Mr. Apple does not agree. But at least he does not rewrite basic climate science like Berry does.

    • gbaikie says:

      I have never been banned from anywhere, and I am probably
      quite annoying.
      But they complained I posted too much at
      https://selenianboondocks.com/
      So, I have been restraining myself, there.
      Also talking about pipelaunchers is seems to annoy
      people.
      I like to talk about it- so it can be annoying, but I want someone to show how I am wrong.
      Which main reason post anywhere, it’s about learning, stuff.

      Anyhow, pipelauncher is huge pipe which very tall, for instance,
      10 meter diameter and 100 meter tall. Which has one end capped.
      And put in water, and it will float vertically.
      And put rockets on top of it.
      But with the tall and massive Starship, it seem also have
      to rocket inside of it, rather than on top of it.
      And it accelerates the rocket at blast off.
      It seems to easier to use it lift rocket around 800 tons or less,
      or gets too complicated with something like the Starship.

      • gbaikie says:

        What need to do, is add air inside it. Use a lot air in fairly short time period [seconds}, but that easy, because liquid air is explosive if dropped in water.
        And one can also add warmer water [which floats] so need to use less tons of liquid air.
        Liquid air is air [nitrogen/oxygen, and maybe argon} or we mine Earth’s atmosphere and separate the nitrogen and oxygen and Argon and other trace gases. But you don’t have to separate it- or Liquid air, and it’s cheap {particularly if buying by ton}
        You could use less air, if warm it up to 90 to 100 C, but it seem better to design it, so uses less air. Which I call a staged pipelauncher, or is less simple.

  28. Ivan says:

    Keep up the great work Roy.

    All empires fall one day Googles monopoly will too.

  29. stephen p anderson says:

    I’ve reduced my use of Google (DuckDuckGo), GMAIL (no longer), Chrome (no longer), and android, although I still use Youtube. I stopped using Facebook, canceled Twitter, and all other social platforms. I still use Yahoo (mail) to get a good hoot at the leftist propaganda.

  30. Alex says:

    George Orwell: “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

    Big Brother is here, and his name is Big Media and Comrades. George Orwell was prophetic. The new tyrants must have read Orwell’s book not as an educating exercise but as a user’s guide how to rule the world.

    • Willard says:

      Exactly, Alex:

      stephen p anderson says:
      January 8, 2022 at 10:56 AM

      Don’t understand why WUWT banned you? Youre too easy to debunk.

    • Entropic man says:

      It’s not new. The American government has the bad habit of trying to shut down public opposition to policy.

      Consider McCarthy.

      The US was in the Cold War with Russia and anyone supporting communism was seen as an enemy and fired or censored.

      Consider the Vietnam war and how many opponents of the war ended up fired from government posts, censored or exiled to Canada.

      Now government policy is climate change mitigation and they’re trying to shut down the opposition.

      Have fun.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        The leftists want to find another way to defeat capitalism. The Democrats want to tax it.

        • Entropic man says:

          Another old story.

          The Left want to redistribute the wealth until it’s all gone.

          The Right don’t want to redistribute it at all.

          • Billyjack says:

            Always amused by the indoctrinated “woke again” flock that worship the government who post the sermon they have been preached. Never an original independent thought only the government gospel that they believe without question.

          • Entropic man says:

            History doesn’t repeat but historical situations recur.

          • Swenson says:

            EM,

            I agree.

            Have you also noticed that if you point out that adverse outcomes have occurred in the past, people often say “Ah, but it will be different, this time!”

          • barry says:

            Currently amused by the political right (mainly in the US) now spouting the same stuff the left was warning about decades ago.

            Used to be that the left warned against the corporate sector, now the right is bright-eyed and loud saying similar stuff but for different reasons.

            The left warned about big brother, and the right used to say if you’ve done nothing wrong there’s nothing to worry about. Surveillance keeps us safe, they said, and only criminals railed against all those cameras and pesky government intrusions into cyberspace. Gov access to personal data helps them catch pedos, right?

            Yep, it is interesting and amusing to see political factions change their spots when they imagined they’re under siege.

  31. CO2isLife says:

    They don’t censor or try to undermine those of who they are beating in a debate. Censorship is nothing more than an admission of defeat. If you can’t win the debate, end the debate by preventing the other from being heard. Cowards, all of them.

  32. gbaikie says:

    Sunspot number: 38
    What is the sunspot number?
    Updated 08 Jan 2022

    Spotless Days
    Current Stretch: 0 days
    2022 total: 0 days (0%)
    2021 total: 64 days (18%)
    https://www.spaceweather.com/
    Thermosphere Climate Index
    today: 7.77×10^10 W Cool
    Max: 49.4×10^10 W Hot (10/1957)

    Oulu Neutron Counts
    Percentages of the Space Age average:
    today: +9.1% High
    48-hr change: +0.2%
    Max: +11.7% Very High (12/2009)
    Min: -32.1% Very Low (06/1991)

    It’s got some activity, but it has not really entered Solar Max
    yet.
    Space radiation is still high, and thermosphere is still cool.

    • Entropic man says:

      Isn’t a bit early to be expecting the solar maximum. It’s an 11 year cycle, so the max isn’t due for another 4-5 years.

      • gbaikie says:

        No, it’s predicted to end in 4-5 years.

        But it is, early and could actually be solar Max in few months, in sense of warming thermosphere and reducing the radiation in Space.
        It’s sort of acting like last one, with its double peak.
        The Max also expands the thermosphere, causes orbits to decay faster, or reduces space junk in LEO.

        • gbaikie says:

          It was predicted by some to be like the last one and follows the notion that we could be entering a Grand Solar Minimum.
          Actually, less people think it will be unlike the last one.
          But probably because it was predicted wrong, last time.
          And if it does, certainly would not “prove” we are entering Grand Solar Minimum.
          For better proof, one probably will get some useful data from the Parter Solar Probe- and/or other space missions.
          http://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/

          • Entropic man says:

            This is NOAA,s data and projection.

            Minimum in 2019 from the data and peak projected in 2025.

            https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression

            Haven’t seen anything yet to expect a different outcome.

          • gbaikie says:

            Right I said when end, should have said when peak.

            Though such a peak might be unrelated to period when there is lower space radiation {GCR} and/or Solar Max where Earth atmosphere produces more drag in LEO.
            I am interested in when in the solar Max these effects start taking effect.
            Though also interested in when, they stop occurring- which might/could occur long after the solar Max peak.

            Or I think or imagine this will start soon.

            I suppose I could search when is GCR the lowest.

            But I would expect it would say during solar Max.
            {we in beginning of solar Max}
            Google: when if GCR radiation the lowest:
            during solar maximum
            or
            “The GCR fluence rate varies with solar activity, being lower when solar activity is higher. At solar minimums, due to lower solar magnetic field shielding, the fluence is significantly higher than at solar maximum.”
            https://www.radiation-dosimetry.org/what-is-galactic-cosmic-radiation-gcr-definition/
            Or it’s mostly related to my interest in space exploration, but GRC are also supposed have some effect on cloud formation on Earth.

  33. angech says:

    Unreliable and harmful claims: This website has been demonetized by Google

    Unreliable and harmful claims: This website has been demonized by Google.

    Google is behaving in a very malicious fashion.
    hope more people get the word out that they are defunding science sites from reputable scientists and the behaviour is abhorrent.

    • gbaikie says:

      Google is bureaucracy.
      Bureaucracies tend to filled with idiots.
      It’s job of CEO to control the idiots he/she creates.
      When the idiots are excessively unaccountable it’s
      like being infected with virus, which will kill it.

      The question is, is Google already dead or still fighting
      the virus.

      • Willard says:

        Right on:

        Elon Musk’s Tesla recently asked China to use its censorship powers to shut down criticism of its products on social media, according to a report in Bloomberg Businessweek.

        https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/07/19/tesla-asked-china-to-censor-admitted-business-failures/

        • gbaikie says:

          I think the bigger issue, is Tesla car factory being in China.

          [And NOT about the cars, all being powered by coal.
          Maybe he imagines China will quickly transition to nuclear power: that, is rather overly, optimistic- even for Musk.]

          [[But on smaller scale of wrongheadedness, is having Tesla made in Germany {another coal burning country] which could have future potential issues.
          Though maybe both China and Germany are going to get a lot of natural gas from Russia. One could say, it might be one or the other- and its just covering both bases.]]

          • stephen p anderson says:

            I agree, G. But, those complaining Tesla employees were probably Communist Party members, not Elon Musk himself. Also, you really don’t know what’s going on there. There are all kinds of deception and subterfuge in China; the real story is never heard.

  34. Swenson says:

    “French regulators have hit Google and Facebook with 210 million euros ($237 million) in fines over their use of “cookies”, the data used to track users online, authorities said Thursday.”

    – France 24

    Google anD Facebook have been demonetised by France.

    A rich new income source for countries which aren’t the USA. Oh well, maybe Google and Facebook can refuse to have anything to do with the 95% of the world’s population which doesn’t reside in the USA, and refuse to accept money from anyone who disagrees with their opinions.

    They should stand up for their principles! If it means they go broke, that’s the price they have to pay for upholding the moral high ground. A worthy sacrifice to maintain truth, justice, and the American way!

    What goes around, comes around.

  35. gbaikie says:

    Artemis Generation Wants To Go To The Moon. Apollo Generation: Not So Much
    “”The new poll found 61% of adults surveyed wouldn’t be interested in taking a trip to the Moon even if money weren’t a factor.”

    Keith’s note: The title of this article is accurate. It is also misleading. 52% of people aged 18-34 said they’d go. And they are all tax paying, voting age adults. Just sayin’.”

    http://nasawatch.com/archives/2022/01/artemis-generat.html

    I am Apollo Generation, I don’t want to go to the Moon.
    I rather have someone else go to the Moon.
    I don’t even want to go on an sub-orbital trip.
    If I was younger, I might.
    If we have sub-orbital travel, I might want to go faster to some destination. Or I would go into space to travel faster to somewhere else on Earth.
    And added danger is not much of issue. Though sub orbital could become safer than current air travel, but don’t imagine, any sub-orbital travel happenning soon, would not expect early suborbital travel being safer- it would at least, have to long enough track record that one could say that.
    Early adoption fits better with younger people. One could argue, it actually has more value to them.
    But I could change my mind about it.
    Another thing is what on the Moon or what is on Mars.
    And there would a lot work to go to the Moon or suborbital flight.
    Though the prep, might be more interesting than the flight:)

  36. Entropic man says:

    Not too keen to travel by rocket.

    An aircraft is fail safe. If the engines fail you can glide and have a reasonable chance of surviving the landing.

    A rocket is not fail safe. If the rockets on a Starship fail during landing you explode.

    Watching videos of Starships landing has not improved my confidence.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LFPhnnsKkgc

    With my not-so-little pink body aboard I would expect a rather safer system.

    • gbaikie says:

      The two rocket companies currently sending people to space as joyride:
      https://www.virgingalactic.com/
      {it does not need rocket to land and an airplane carries up from runway take off}
      https://www.blueorigin.com/new-shepard/
      {Does not need a rocket to land}

      Starship has not come close to being used to carry passengers, and has not launched yet
      Falcon 9 which carries crew to ISS, lands in ocean with parachute, and has abort mode, for launch into space {like rockets which have carried crew in space- other than the Space Shuttle].

      The Starship is mostly about going to Mars- and Mars has thin atmosphere- typical ways would not work.
      But airplanes most dangerous time is take off and landing.
      The most critical aspect about Starship, is reuse of first stage.
      Or if reuse first stage, it will best rocket ever made, though it reuse the second stage, it’s even better. So, Musk, wanted to reuse entire rocket, and Starship a way thought to be a way to do this.
      And going to Mars, probably lift off will be the least dangerous aspect of it. Anyways, for Starship to fly anyone, it will have to go thru a process, like Virgin Galactic and Blue Orgin did.
      And climbing Mount Everest has killed far more people than space flight. Neither Virgin Galactic or Blue Orgin approved for travel in similar way as airline travel- it’s more taking jet fighter for a joyride- or like jumping up a plane, is regarded as dangerous. So people are allowed to do stuff like jumping off a cliff with parachute.
      I don’t need to do it, either.

  37. Matt says:

    You just picked up a new reader. Google is demanding groupthink. It’s anti-American.

  38. AaronS says:

    Roy and John,
    Thank you for integrity for so many years. The great awakening to this censorship is starting but takes time. This is another example for the records of history of science as a candle in the dark, and the darkness coming from those seeking political control. Just please keep the data going to keep shinning the light into the dark.

    I wonder if R:S:S also got censorship?

  39. William Flood says:

    This is getting scary, like the behaviour of totalitarian regimes. It all started with the word “denial” which is associated with history’s darkest moment and has no place in science. I remember I once asked a really dumb question of you and you patiently answered it. At that point I decided you were one of the good guys with the white hat. Keep going and keep telling it as it is. (I am reading the paper by Lacis at this time and I am having real difficulty trying to make sense of it. All these arts graduates have drawn conclusions while being totally unable to understand the science. No doubt about it.

    • Willard says:

      You might like:

      https://climateball.net/but-denier/

      Before fainting on your couch, don’t forget that Roy speaks of “Climate Nazis.”

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Oh, so you know Roy, Mr. Anonymous?

        • Willard says:

          You’re conflating pseudonimity and anonymity, Troglodyte.

          It’s not as easy as to find Roy’s Donate button, but you know, had you read that blog as Bender implored regarding the Auditor’s, you should know the answer to your silly question:

          https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/time-to-push-back-against-the-global-warming-nazis/

          • stephen p anderson says:

            You’re such a wordsmith. You’re conflating cuteness with intelligence.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Also, a pseudonym or a pen name isn’t necessarily intended to maintain anonymity. You, posting here, under Willard, is. And, you don’t identify yourself at Climate Ball either. Chihuahua.

          • Entropic man says:

            Stephen

            A lot of academics, including a number of climate scientists, participate in blog discussions using a nom de plume.

            This allows them to participate off the record, without the professional constraints of communicating on the record under their professional names.

          • Willard says:

            Dear Troglodyte,

            When the police receives an anonymous tip, the tip is usually unsigned. When the group Anonymous releases information, they sign their drops with “Anonymous.” The only time when anonymity and pseudonymity might be synonymous is for that group’s name.

            If you think there’s no distinction, try to sign your comments by pretending you’re from Anonymous, then see how this works for you.

            To me, “Troglodyte” is good enough for you. That you sign your comments with a name that looks real does not tell me anything about you. If your comments were libelous, I would not sue you, but Roy.

            In the end, Roy is responsible for every single comment on this website.

          • Swenson says:

            Whacky Wee Willy Idiot,

            You wrote –

            “If your comments were libelous, I would not sue you, but Roy.

            In the end, Roy is responsible for every single comment on this website.”

            If my bicycle had three wheels, it would be a tricycle. You are a slimy little grub. You have no intention of suing anyone, nor could you.Your implied threat (presumably to scare Dr Spencer into banning people with whom you disagree) is typical of deranged, vicious, climate cranks.

            Look at the results of the fake, fraudster, scofflaw and deadbeat (Michael Mann), suing Tim Ball. What a loser – and having lost, Mann refuses to comply with the court’s decision! That would be your stance, would it?

            You’re a whiny little Warmist worm, Wee Willy.

            Go on, wheel out some more of your slimy attempts to get your way. None seem to have worked too well so far, have they?

            Good luck with convincing a court anywhere that an anonymous claimant could succeed in libel litigation. Whose reputation was damaged? Mr Anonymous? You don’t actually think before you start banging away at the keyboard, do you?

            What an idiot you are – typical nasty, gutless, climate crank.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, My Favorite – Sock puppet, that is.

            Have some legalese:

            https://wordpress.com/tos/

            Check section 4.

            You’re dumb, but at least you’re innoffensive.

            Oh! Oh! Oh!

          • stephen p anderson says:

            You’re a Chihuahua. Sue me.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Oh, wait! You name call. What a conundrum? Ankle biter.

          • Swenson says:

            Whining Wee Willy,

            Your silly link looks like WordPress Terms of Service.

            Go off and try and get Dr Spencer banned, fool!

            If that doesn’t work, have a tantrum, threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue, and run to your Mommy!

            You idiot – “legalese”? Pathetic. Try another pointless slimy threat, grub.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Massacred Finding – WP’s servers are under the laxest of laws. You could suggest that Roy’s botched installation resides in a stricter jurisdiction if you please. That won’t help your case, but then it never stopped a sock puppet like to to double down.

            Speaking of which, here’s one about your favorite Tim:

            The self-styled Canadian climate change expert, Dr. Tim Ball, has abandoned his libel suit against University of Lethbridge Professor of Environmental Science Dan Johnson. Ball dropped the suit without conditions, but also without acknowledging that Johnson’s original comments were accurate and were reported in good faith.

            https://www.desmog.com/2007/06/14/ball-bails-on-johnson-lawsuit/

            Seems that your guru has no qualms against libel threats!

            Cheers.

          • Swenson says:

            Whickering Wee Willy,

            Trying to change the subject, much?

            You post a link to something irrelevant, saying “here’s some legalese”, and “Check Section 4”, showing you are ignorant as well as stupid.

            Now you write –

            “WPs servers are under the laxest of laws. You could suggest that Roys botched installation resides in a stricter jurisdiction if you please.”

            I am suggesting nothing – it is obvious you are a slimy little rat who has been caught out, and is now trying to avoid being held to account for your idiocy. It seems that Ball is smarter than Mann, by your account. Mann lost, Ball didn’t. Don’t you bother thinking before you start hammering away on your keyboards?

            Rhetorical question, of course. You don’t appear to think at all.

            Carry on being an impotent, powerless grub.

          • Entropic man says:

            “stephen p anderson says:
            January 9, 2022 at 11:51 PM
            Youre a Chihuahua. Sue me. ”

            Sounds a good idea. You’ve made a number of comments which might qualify as libellous. Please reprise your comments in a published source to qualify them as libellous.

            Also make your true name and address public so that you can be served.

          • Swenson says:

            Worrying Wee Willy,

            So sue me too, you ignorant idiot.

            You have no intention of suing anybody. Anonymous retarded dimwits like you claiming your reputation has been damaged by comments directed at you?

            You just demonstrate how disconnected from reality you are.

            Got any more implied threats, you slimy little Warmist worm?

            [chortles]

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Masterminding Frailty – you were the one who mentioned Tim Ball, an old crank who pretends to hold the first climatology PhD in Canada. Since you still pretend not being Mike Flynn after being evidence for months, no wonder you might feel for him!

            Furthermore, you state:

            “I am suggesting nothing”

            Of course you are, my little sock puppet bully.

            In fact that’s all you can do!

            Do continue.

            Long live and prosper.

          • Swenson says:

            Wonky Wee Willy,

            The faker, fraud, scofflaw and loser (Michael Mann) sued Tim Ball.

            Michael Mann lost, even against a person you categorise as an “old crank”. How incompetent is that?

            Feeling bullied, are you? That’s because you are a gutless sack of slime, with no backbone. As the old saying goes, take a spoonful of cement and harden up (or stiffen up, if you prefer that saying). Whining about bullies – especially people whom you claim are really a conspiracy of others just created to annoy you, just shows how pathetically insecure you are.

            Pretending to read my mind might impress a gaggle of retarded climate cultists, but any rational person might just laugh derisively at your pretensions.

            Carry on trying to convince the universe that you can make thermometers hotter with either CO2 or your awesome mental powers.

            Idiot.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Marginalized Foolhardy – here’s a more accurate way to put it:

            In reality, the court tossed the case in what appears to be an act of pity for Tim Ball. As a statement from [Mike]’s lawyer explained, Ball’s request to terminate the lawsuit “relied heavily on his alleged state of health” and because, per [Tim]’s defense team, his claims are “given no credibility by the average, reasonable reader.” (An assessment bolstered by the fact that in a similar suit, a judge ruled that “a reasonably thoughtful and informed person… is unlikely to place any stock in [Tim]’s views.”)

            https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/8/28/1881956/-Tim-Ball-Pleads-For-Mercy-As-An-Irrelevant-Sick-Old-Man-Gets-It-Declares-Victory

            Are you an informed person, my favorite sock puppet?

            Pray tell us about John’s novel.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

        • Entropic man says:

          “So sue me too, you ignorant idiot.”

          Says Swenson smug in his anonymity.

          I was sued once myself, so I know the routine. I have enough money.

          Two problems.

          1) It would probably have to be done inthe UK, like being sued under Canadian law.

          2) I need to know who to serve. Anonymous troll is not a sufficient address.

          Chicken.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Eman,

            Stephen P Anderson is my actual name, and you’re an ignorant twit.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            You’re also a Climate Nazi, very apropos. (Thanks for the link, Chihuahua.)

          • stephen p anderson says:

            BTW, very hard to claim libel in the US. That damn first amendment. I know you Brits hate that. But, we still keep running and saving your asses every 50 years or so.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            I don’t put you in the same category as Chihuahua. You’re in the BGDWX, B4 Category. You’re mainly Utopianists, but don’t think you’d go Himmler on us. I think this worldwide depression we’re heading into will solve your FF emissions problem.

          • Willard says:

            > Stephen P Anderson is my actual name

            So you say, Troglodyte.

            And considering the quality of everything you say here, that does not mean much.

            Prove it.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Really? If I were going to post under a pseudonym, it would be Brutus, my hero.

          • Entropic man says:

            Stephen

            I raised the issue over lunch at my club.

            The consensus was that if you were a public figure with published articles it might be worthwhile. If you were just an anonymous troll, then why bother?

            The other problem was identity. I found half dozen possibilities; an artist, a judge, a couple of businessmen and a couple of minor academics.

            Overall a suit would only be likely to go ahead by mutual agreement. Care to dance.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Neither of us would get very far. I don’t have the time to waste. Do you?

            I’d rather spar in the arena of ideas? Care to dance?

            I’m curious about your “club.” Do they all think like you? Leftists?

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Eman,

            Also, it’s kind of creepy that you’re trying to stalk me. I must be putting a dent in your beliefs.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            LOL, Eman and his little leftist goony birds are huddling around trying to find ways to shut Berry up. This intimidation isn’t aimed at me. It is aimed at Berry. They are terrified of Berry’s work. They can’t refute it, and they know it. Won’t work, Little Eman.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Dr. Spencer,

            Here are your culprits: Eman, Chihuahua, and their leftist myrmadons. They’re fat, dumb and happy, and emboldened.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Sorry, myrmidons.

          • Entropic man says:

            My club is halfway between gentleman’s club and local chamber of commerce. Mostly businessmen with a few other professionals. I’m not sure what the American equivalent would be. A good place for a discussion.

            You asked to be sued. Twice.

            stephen p anderson says:
            January 9, 2022 at 11:51 PM
            Youre a Chihuahua. Sue me.

            “Swenson says:
            January 10, 2022 at 6:20 AM
            Worrying Wee Willy,

            So sue me too, you ignorant idiot.”

            I’m trying to oblige, but you are making it difficult.

          • Entropic man says:

            “myrmidons”

            I’ll take that as a compliment. The Myrmidons were the elite Thessalian troops who fought beside Achilles.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Now you’re getting me and Swenson confused. We’re brothers in arms but not the same person. I only demanded to be sued once. Leftist myrmidon isn’t complimentary. You should spend more time at your club, and less time on this board. Difficult to believe you’re a businessman. I would have pegged you as a government bureaucrat.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            >Ill take that as a compliment. The Myrmidons were the elite Thessalian troops who fought beside Achilles.

            Yes, very robotic.

          • Entropic man says:

            Stephen

            Robotic?

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

            Ah,I see. Congratulations, that’s insulting with style. You’re definitely not Swenson.

            I’m not a bureaucrat. Retired biologist and teacher. I even did some climate research back in the days when the best tool for measuring past temperature was a peat bog.

            Boys grow from the top. The deeper you go, the older the layers of peat and the pollen they contain. Counting the different types of pollen tells you which plants grew around the bog when that layer grew.

            Trees have definate limits to their spread defined by upper and lower average temperature limits. In 5000 year old peat you might find pollen from a cold climate willow species with an upper limit of 6C and a temperate willow with a lower limit of 5C. You can then infer that the average temperature around the bog was between 5C and 6C.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Scotland?

          • Entropic man says:

            Wales

            Borth bog near Aberystwych, now known as Cors-fochnu.The counting was done in London.

            https://naturalresources.wales/days-out/places-to-visit/mid-wales/dyfi-national-nature-reserve-cors-fochno/?lang=en

          • Entropic man says:

            Most of the counting I did ended up in the data tables here.

            https://www.amazon.co.uk/Peatlands-Peter-D-Moore/dp/0236154737

          • Willard says:

            > Really?

            Look, Troglodyte.

            Grown-ups support their claims.

            You said it was your real name.

            Support your claim.

            Do you think you’re the only “Stephen P Anderson” in the universe?

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Wales, wow! You sure have fallen far from your roots. I enjoyed reading about the Welsh coal miners who became soldiers in “Fall of Giants.”

          • stephen p anderson says:

            I guess, take a bog, wait a few million years, it becomes charcoal. Wait tens of millions of years and it becomes coal. Is that correct?

          • Entropic man says:

            Pretty much.

            Borth is currently at sea level. Raise the sea level or drop the land and it would be buried by sediment. The peat is already mostly carbohydrates like cellulose and lignin soaking in acid water. Bury it deep enough, heat and pressure will convert it to coal in time.

          • Swenson says:

            EM,

            You wrote –

            “I need to know who to serve. Anonymous troll is not a sufficient address.”

            Get over yourself. Imagine the laughter when you are asked to provide a basis for your action. “Oh, I am offended because an anonymous person disagreed with some anonymous remarks I made.”

            Go on. Waste your money trying to get your legal representative to draft the necessary documents. Oh, you won’t do that because you’re not that stupid?

            Pity. I was hoping you might have been. As they say, a fool and his money are soon parted.

            Next meaningless, threat, please.

        • stephen p anderson says:

          Amazon UK doesn’t offer a looky-loo. Probably a pretty interesting book. Some of my ancestors are from the UK (Scotland). I enjoy reading about UK history. Local knowledge of the bogs helped the Welsh win many battles.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            >Look, Troglodyte.

            Grown-ups support their claims.

            You said it was your real name.

            Support your claim.

            Do you think you’re the only “Stephen P Anderson” in the universe?

            Chihuahua,

            I know. Ask Dr. Spencer. He can verify I’m Stephen P. Anderson. I just donated to him. Paypal. Now, how about you. Are we going to find out who the real Chihuahua is?

          • Entropic man says:

            I’m afraid Peatlands is rather boring if you’re not into mosses or palynology.

            I’ve left a souvenir at Borth which might fossilise. I once stepped into a sphagnum lawn (looks like short grass, actually moss floating on water) and sank in to the hips. While getting out I lost a Wellington boot which is now well buried.

            If you want to know about Welsh warriors read about Owain Glendwr. There’s also a lot of history regarding the Scottish highlands clans and depressing days like the massacre of Glencoe or the battle of Culodden.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            I’d love to visit the Culloden battlefield.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            We met a couple from Cardiff while on vacation in Orlando a few years ago. They both worked for the NHS. He was an administrator, and she was a nurse—eight weeks of leave every year. My kids spent a lot of time with their kids swimming at night. Nice family. They said without a doubt that US healthcare is the finest in the world, not even close. Socialism is not going to produce top healthcare. But, socialism is inculcated into the fabric of Great Brittain. They believed socialism provided more even healthcare. (Everybody gets the same shitty healthcare.) They said that when visiting Great Brittain, you better have an insurance card. If bleeding on a gurney in the emergency room and you don’t have insurance, then you will bleed to death. This is the compassion of socialism.

          • Willard says:

            > Ask Dr. Spencer.

            Sorry, Troglodyte. You don’t get to hide under Roy’s dress. He wears big boys pants.

            Anything online from you we can read, besides your compendium of ankle biting?

          • Entropic man says:

            ” If bleeding on a gurney in the emergency room and you dont have insurance, then you will bleed to death. ”

            I don’t recognise that description. I was a haematolgy technician for six months after leaving teaching. Patients in my hospital went straight into “Accident and Emergency” for triage. If in immediate danger of death they went straight into surgery. If less serious, they joined the queue.

            The paperwork comes later. UK citizens pay for health care through taxation so it is “free at the point of delivery” .

            US citizens get immediate free emergency treatment in the same way as UK citizens, but for recovery care and other medical treatment you would be charged a fee. That’s why travel insurance would be a good idea.

            https://uk.usembassy.gov/u-s-citizen-services/medical-information/

            If I had a serious accident, or needed insulin for my diabetes while visiting the US, how would it work?

          • Nate says:

            “They said without a doubt that US healthcare is the finest in the world, not even close. Socialism is not going to produce top healthcare. But, socialism is inculcated into the fabric of Great Brittain. They believed socialism provided more even healthcare.”

            Uhhh.

            I was noticing on Worldometer that UK had extremely high peak number of COVID cases this month, but not much of a peak in deaths at all, about 1/10th of their previous peak last winter.

            Whereas in the US, the number of cases has shot up similarly as in UK, but the number of deaths is now about 1/2 of the previous peak last winter.

            Why 1/10 in UK and 1/2 in US?

          • Nate says:

            “They said without a doubt that US healthcare is the finest in the world”

            I think the point is, at its best, it is the best.

            But at its average, it is below average for developed countries.

            If you are lower income in the US, then you will get hardly any preventative care at all and die relatively young.

            That is why our life expectancy in the US is way down the list, 40th in the world.

            And one of the worst for improvement in life-expectancy with only 1.8 y increase in the last 20 y.

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

  40. AberdeenJ says:

    That they should attack a website like yours is truly shocking. Fortunately, its unlikely to influence anyone who is likely to read your excellent content.

    Attacks on free expression of ideas, in general, are the reason why I avoid using Google and other, biased, Big Tech/media output whenever possible.

  41. Matt says:

    It’s not social media or 24 hour news. It’s an authoritarian attack on a free society by people in a position to – and increasingly eager to – take advantage of the steadily increasing capabilities of information control. The internet was supposed to be an information freeing technology but it is rapidly becoming a technology for stifling independent thought and freedom of information. The old methods of dispersal are both controled, directly or indirectly, by centralizes oligopolies as well, and anyway act too slowly to compete with the digital world.

    There has been an arrogance that has allowed it to get as far as it has, and a failure of education, also borne of the same arrogance, that is creating the impetus to plow ahead into an authoritarian dysyopia.

    And no, companies don’t care if their ads run on a climate website that doesn’t fully embrace the narrative of the IPCC. This is coming from google andtheir employees. The only way the companies would care is if those same forces push hard enough to get the companies also thrown in a “poor social credit score” and banished from the walled tech garden. And that would just be another turn of the same spiral of authoritarian control and poor education.

    If we don’t identify the problem then we can’t fight it.

  42. Matt says:

    They are “climate nazis”. “You dare bring data to oppose us? We will make sure you are defunded. No climate discussion for you!”

    • barry says:

      Roy is still free to post his views – the demonetisation (which I think is wrong) does not impact his ability to do that.

      Keep your shirt on.

  43. John Boland says:

    Dr. Spencer,
    If it makes you feel any better, I demonetized Google a while ago.

  44. Brian Barnett says:

    Dr Spencer, I have tried to navigate the IPCC website to find out what its temperature data was compared to what you and Dr Christy provide with your monthly global averages. I can’t seem to find any data. All the IPCC seems to offer is supposition and projected outcomes, no real data. From your published temperatures, my calculations suggest the temperature has risen about 0.16 deg over that past 6 years. I can’t compare yours to the IPCC because I can’t find any of its published temperatures. Is their much or any difference to yours, and if so where might those temperatures be published. If I may so bold to ask.

    • barry says:

      IPCC doesn’t create any data. They collate information and assess.

      Some main groups who provide global temperature data are…

      Lower troposphere:

      Remote Sensing Systems

      Surface air temperature:

      UK Meteorological Office
      Goddard Institute for Space Sciences
      National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
      Berkeley Earth
      Japan Meteorological Association

      • stephen p anderson says:

        They created their data for their Carbon Cycle Model, and Berry falsified it, Barry.

      • barry says:

        IPCC does not create climate models or data, or do original research. They collate and assess the work of international researchers.

        You have no idea what you are talking about.

        • Swenson says:

          b,

          And what qualifications does the IPCC possess?

          Please don’t tell me that the “members” of the IPCC collate and assess their own work. How completely stupid would that be? The supposed “experts” are all appointed by Governments who supposedly know nothing about “climate”, but are expected to appoint “climate” experts to tell them what to do about “climate”!

          Lunacy, and putting the inmates in charge of the asylum.

          Just how gullible are you? Do you really believe the mathematician Gavin Schmidt is a world famous climate scientist? If so, he said of the IPCC a couple of months ago “”You end up with numbers for even the near-term that are insanely scary — and wrong,” Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Science.”

          Who to believe?

          • The IPCC collects whatever information supports their goal — proving global warming is man made and dangerous.
            Contrary information is not wanted.

            The media just repeat IPCC press releases like trained parrots.

            Some people do read the Summary For Policymakers,
            which is written by scientists, activists and politicians.

            the summary has to be approved by activists and politicians, so is not a scientific document. The scientific backup material is usually released months later, so no one will compare the two. They are NOT the same. For example, back up documents include uncertainty.

            The IPCC participates in climate science fraud.

            Their goal is repeated predictions of climate doom.
            not climate science — the predictions are climate astrology.

            Anyone who takes IPCC predictions seriously should have their heads examined The organization suffers from severe confirmation bias.

            The climate models are obviously programmed to scare people — not to make accurate global average temperature predictions, which they have never done.

            Model accuracy has not improved in 40 years, and the Russian INM model gets no special attention, in spite of the fact that it over predicts global warming by the least amount.

            IPCC = a political organization
            spinning a coming climate crisis hoax,
            using climate computer games as props,
            for their climate astrology nonsense.

        • stephen p anderson says:

          >IPCC does not create climate models or data, or do original research. They collate and assess the work of international researchers.

          Sure they do. They create the narrative to fit their agenda.

          • The IPCC collects information to support their narrative.
            They start with their conclusion.
            That’s politics, not science.

            Every IPCC report can be summarized as follows:

            Assuming global warming is man made and dangerous, we predict future global warming will be man made and dangerous.

            That’s circular reasoning for gullible leftists, based on fake “science”, bought and paid for by leftist governments.

      • Brian Barnett says:

        Thanks Barry.

        • barry says:

          You’re welcome. IPCC reports of the past have generally relied most on the UK Met Office global temperature data. In more recent reports they compare various (GISS, and NOAA as well as Met Office for surface temps). If you use those three you will be using the right data for IPCC surface temps.

          • aryIPCC spends much time writing about the imagined future climate, for whisch there are NO DATA.

            Past climate data gets less reliable before 1979 and are especially unreliable before 1920, with few Southern hemisphere measurements.

            Past climate data are constantly being revised..
            A global cooling of near 0/5 degrees C. from 1940 to 1975, as reported by NCAR at the time, is currently reported as nearly no global cooling at all by NASA-GISS.

            Arbitrary revisions of climate history are science fraud … and you love it when inconvenient climate history is rewritten !

          • barry says:

            “A global cooling of near 0/5 degrees C. from 1940 to 1975, as reported by NCAR at the time, is currently reported as nearly no global cooling at all by NASA-GISS.”

            Assuming you mean 0.5 C, where did NCAR ever report that for global temps? What does “at the time” mean?

            I’ll bet either that you don’t furnish the specific reference, or if you do we will discover it isn’t for global temps.

          • Nate says:

            ” of climate history are science fraud ”

            Lets face it, claiming the data is fraudulent is where a losing ideological argument must go when it has otherwise run out of supporting facts.

  45. AaronS says:

    https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abj9341

    Still working through this paper, but note they provide PCO2 in figure 4 from ice core data showing CO2 was very low back into the Pliocene, which is broadly considered the “warm earth conditions” with elevated sea level. This is prior to the extensive glaciers on Norther Hemisphere. In rocks I have studied you can see sea level was greatly elevated then.

  46. Walter LeCompte says:

    I am thankful that there men of integrity like you who do honest scientific research.

  47. Dirk McCoy says:

    We can only hope the expected midterm shift brings Congressional members interested in having Google testify regarding their editorial decisions and search manipulation as a monopoly. And many of us will continue to use Bing or Duck Duck Go and GoDaddy instead of Google search and gmail.

  48. gbaikie says:

    “Over two decades researchers collected enough micrometeorites (ranging from 30 to 300 micrometers in size) to be able to calculate how much extraterrestrial dust falls to Earth each year.

    The scientists estimated that a total of 15,000 tons (13,600 metric tons) of cosmic dust rains down on the Earth annually, though most of the material is lost on entry as it burns up in Earth’s atmosphere. This leaves 5,200 tons (4,700 metric tons) of interplanetary dust to settle on the surface of our planet each year.

    The culprit for a majority (around 80%) of this interplanetary dust is the Jupiter family comets. These cosmic snowballs of frozen gases, rock and dust primarily originate in the Kuiper Belt, just beyond the orbit of Neptune.

    Whilst the rest of the space dust is thought to come from asteroids; the small rocky bodies leftover from the formation of our solar system.”
    5,200 tons of space dust falls on Earth each year, study finds
    By Daisy Dobrijevic published April 16, 2021

    Not “news” I was just wondering are much dust is near Earth, so, googled- and got how much hits Earth.
    I was wondering how much dust is ejected from the Moon, but apparently, according to this, none. 🙂
    Anyhow, they always giving different estimates over the years, but maybe this the most accurate.

    • Entropic man says:

      You’ve made a good start.

      You know the mass of dust swept up by Earth in a year.

      Now calculate the volume swept by the Earth in a year and divide the mass by the volume to get the density.

      Cross section of the Earth is π 6000^2 = 113 million square kilometres.

      It sweeps a path equivalent to the circumference of its orbit, which is 150 million*2π = 942 million kilometres.

      The swept volume is 113 million * 942 million = 1.06 * 10^17 cu. Km.

      The density of the dust is 5200/ 1.06 * 10^17 = 4.9 * 10^-14 tons / cubic kilometre.

      1 gram of dust for every 4.9 * 10^20 cubic kilometres.

      To put that into perspective, a sphere the diameter of the Moon’s orbit would contain 2.5 * 10^-10 grams.

      (Warning. This commenter is notoriously bad at powers of ten calculations. Please check the numbers. Smile emoji)

      • Entropic man says:

        Yep. Got it wrong again.

        Make that :-‘

        1 gram of dust for every 4.9 * 10^8 cubic kilometres.

        To put that into perspective, a sphere the diameter of the Moons orbit would contain 24 grams of dust.

      • Swenson says:

        According to NASA, an asteroid 10 km high, by 10 k diameter is around 4 x 10^15 kg.

        A strike normal to the surface, impact velocity 1 x 10^4 m/s, would generate about 2 x 10^23 watts.

        Don’t be near the impact site if you wish to avoid serious personal injury.

        In the meantime, feel free to worry about global warming.

        • Entropic man says:

          The lastimpact that size finished wiping out the dinosaurs and let the mammals take over.

          I wonder who will replace us next time.

  49. David Holloway says:

    This is sad, but not surprising.

    I go out of my way to avoid anything made in China, and anything that enriches Google. Big tech are a menace.

  50. Giacomo says:

    The same people, who fight against discrimination and defend minorities, are afraid of ideas different from their own. This is the magical world of mainstreaming, where everyone apparently has the right to be different but they have to think the same way.
    Go straight on your way, Dr.
    Thanks for your site.

  51. patrick healy says:

    Well Dr Spencer,
    what can a humble no-body add to all the learned commentators above?
    Your work and integrity are beyond dispute.
    The only caveat I have is when you state you are NOT skeptical of mans contribution to the minuscule temperature rise resulting from our fortunate exit from the last ice age.
    It is blindingly obvious that weather will do what weather will do and vary.
    If by your adherence to the man made global warming crap, you may be hoping the crocodile will spare you till last, I am sorry you are not far enough down the queue (or line as you might have it) to evade consumption for very long.

    • gbaikie says:

      “The only caveat I have is when you state you are NOT skeptical of mans contribution to the minuscule temperature rise resulting from our fortunate exit from the last ice age.”

      Roy says:
      -I was kind of hoping my content was mainstream enough to avoid being banned since:

      1 I believe the climate system has warmed
      2 I believe most of this warming is probably due to greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning
      Many of you know that I defend much of mainstream climate science, including climate modeling as an enterprise. Where I depart of the mainstream is how much warming has occurred, how much future warming can be expected, and what should be done about it from an energy policy perspective.-

      You said, since last ice age.
      Maybe you meant since the “little ice age” which is not an ice age.
      We are in an Ice Age.
      We will not leave this Ice Age.
      Ice Ages informally mean a glaciation period, that was about 20,000 years ago. There is very large temperature difference between a glaciation period and the peak temperature of an interglacial.
      Anyhow, everyone expects that we are going to re-enter a glaciation period- people have different predictions of when.
      And since we will re-enter a glaciation period, we are still in an Ice Age [we are between glaciation periods {ie, in an interglacial period- which called the Holocene interglacial period, which had a peak global temperature over 5000 years ago, called Holocene climatic optimum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
      Our Ice Age is called: Late Cenozoic Ice Age
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Cenozoic_Ice_Age

  52. Tim S says:

    It is just completely wrong for a competent, honest, and experienced scientist, who contributes objective content, to be treated this way. The UAH satellite data represents essential data in any analysis of climate science, and sadly, probably would not be published anywhere else. Maybe that is the real objective of the people at Google who should be aware of the truth, and know better. RSS is a compliment, not a substitute.

    • barry says:

      The UAH satellite data is not affected by google’s decision. Nor is Roy prevented from posting his opinions here.

      I think google erred in demonetising the forum, but that doesn’t necessitate histrionics.

      • Tim S says:

        Sometimes posting spin comments solely for the sake of argument just make a person seem stupid. I will not attempt to defend your strawman, other than to point out that it has nothing to with my comment. Most of the people who post here to share honest opinions can easily see that. By the way, RSS is a complement, not a compliment. My bad.

  53. Jorge says:

    Put in my Facebook, just to show my closest how the world is getting away of science, and how lucky we were to have this window of liberty we enjoyed
    Thanks Roy you are one of the great small persons I know

  54. Swenson says:

    It’s a good thing people like Tycho Brahe were rich enough to ignore the small minded idiots who criticised their data gathering.

    Sir Isaac Newton said he stood on the shoulders of giants. Today, he would have been trampled by a baying mob of retarded midgets.

    Luckily, reality just keeps on keeping on, much to the annoyance of people like climate crackpots and ankle-biters generally.

    • Entropic man says:

      Perhaps writing propaganda leaflets for Donald Trump was a mistake.

      • Swenson says:

        EM,

        I’m guessing you didn’t get paid for them, anyway. You aren’t very good at propaganda, are you?

        Try climate crackpottery. You should do well.

        You don’t need to thank me.

      • Tim S says:

        Was there any false content?

        • Entropic man says:

          Not deliberately false. More misleading, selective, casting doubt etc. All the tools developed by the leaded petrol lobby, refined by the tobacco lobby and now used by the fossil fuel lobby.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Eman,
            Petrol is good. Coal is good. Capitalism is good. Big oil, cheap energy, God is good.

          • Tim S says:

            Or, maybe just facts and opinions you do not like.

          • Entropic man says:

            “Or, maybe just facts and opinions you do not like. ”

            Lots of opinions about that I don’t like. Lots of people don’t like my opinions. Opinions can be sound of absurd. You expect that in life.

            Facts are different.

            Data can be checked. Observations and experiments can be replicated. If Willie Soon says that the Sun is warming you can check (Its not). If Ed Berry says that most of the extra CO2 increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is natural you can check (It’s not).

            Now why would Soon and Berry publish inaccurate information? Two main possibilities.

            1) They are incompetent.

            2) Their publications serve a political agenda, which makes what they publish propoganda.

            Consider this article from Ed Barry’s website.

            https://newswithviews.com/Berry/ed115.htm

            The title is “WHY OUR CO2 EMISSIONS DO NOT INCREASE ATMOSPHERE CO2” .

            We”‘ll leave the science for later. This is how his objective, fact based scientific presentation starts.

            “Give Al Gore an A for marketing and an F for science. But, hey, we all know the sale is in the marketing. The genius of Al Gore was to make his invalid myth simple:

            1. Our CO2 emissions increase Atmosphere CO2, and
            2. Atmosphere CO2 heats the Earth.

            What could be simpler? Al Gore assumed his two invalid claims were true. His marketing job was to make you believe bad things happen when Atmosphere CO2 rises.

            Everybody believed Al Gore. Well, almost everybody. His simple, inaccurate description of how our climate works created a generation of science deniers, some with PhDs. Al Gore turned climate science into a political-environmental movement.

            The alarmists goal is to scare you into believing our CO2 causes climate change. Once scared into an invalid belief, you will tend to hold that invalid belief forever.

            Those who believe Al Gores marketing believe they can make the Earth cooler by reducing our CO2 emissions. Al Gore has sold them a bridge to nowhere.

            Climate alarmists are like the Aztecs who believed they could make rain by cutting out beating hearts and rolling decapitated heads down temple steps. ”

            Propoganda?

          • gbaikie says:

            “Data can be checked. Observations and experiments can be replicated. If Willie Soon says that the Sun is warming you can check (Its not). If Ed Berry says that most of the extra CO2 increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is natural you can check (Its not).”

            That your opinion. Not a fact.
            Do I agree with Willie Soon and/or Ed Berry?
            No.
            But they have their theories.
            Earth carbon cycle is large. I can’t say how large it is.
            I would say, no one can. But it’s very large.
            It’s possible Ed Berry is somewhat correct, but as far as I know, he has provided enough evidence. If he would give me accurate number on Earth Carbon cycle, I might find it interesting.
            I read some things of Willie Soon, I don’t have particular objection, but I have my own opinions.
            As said, the big question for me, is what caused cooling of the Little Ice Age.
            I would guess neither addresses this, so not it’s very important to me.
            But compared to Greenhouse Effect theory- which not even theory,
            they have far less objectional points.

  55. Tom Graham says:

    Why not allow subscription business model? Google ads are obnoxious and distracting. You do valuable interesting work. Go Brandon! Any parallel to f^*k Google?

  56. Swenson says:

    Whining Wee Willy wrote –

    “> Ask Dr. Spencer.

    Sorry, Troglodyte. You dont get to hide under Roys dress. He wears big boys pants.”

    Oooh! How manly! Wee Willy demonstrates his impotence, yet again.

    Wee Willy obviously lives in a fantasy where he gets to direct what people can and can’t do, all the while whining about being bullied! Unfortunately for him, reality decrees otherwise.

    What a dropkick! For those wondering, I believe “dropkick” came from rhyming slang, where the phrase “dropkick and punt” was taken from football usage. If anyone wants to associate the full phrase with Wee Willy’s character, they are free to do so.

    Wee Willy claims mind reading abilities, so I don’t need to enlighten him.

    • Willard says:

      Mike Flynn, Monstruous Formidability – you are commenting at Roy’s since 2013 at least and now are hiding under a silly sock puppet. While your vulgar display of powerlessness can easily be understood, the reasons why you constantly show off your dishonor might always remain unfathomable.

      As long as you are having a bit of fun, suit yourself!

      Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        Wee Willy Wanker,

        The contents of your fantasy do not affect reality, you know.

        I’m not sure what you mean by “While your vulgar display of powerlessness can easily be understood, the reasons why you constantly show off your dishonor might always remain unfathomable.”

        Neither are you, I suggest. Are you sure you are not using random nonsense generating software? Some of it, like SCIgen, writes nonsense papers which have passed peer review, editorial review, and have been published in prestigious journals!

        Would you be silly enough to believe a paper titled “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature.” Is not a spoof? Looks like a nonsense computer generated paper to me.

        So off you go, Wee Willy. Batter on about vulgarity and dishonour. It still won’t give CO2 the magical properties you so desperately want it to have.

        • Willard says:

          Mike Flynn, Malady of Feelings – you’re trying too hard. Here you are, a sock puppet. Pretending to fail to grasp a very simple point. Why are you constantly making a fool of yourself: because you’re having a bit of fun?

          Fair enough.

          Do continue!

          • Swenson says:

            Whinging Wee Willy,

            You idiot. Your fantasies about being able to read my mind are not reality.

            All of your opinions (plus $5) will probably get you a cup of coffee.

            Carry on, dropkick. It’s a possibility that someone, somewhere, cares for your opinions. Maybe you can find them, if you try really hard. Let me know if you do. I’ll make sure to keep out of the way of such a person, as they are obviously suffering from a severe mental deficiency.

            You never know, if you throw in a fact from time to time, rational people might think you are not such a complete wanker. A faint hope, but miracles might still occur. Who knows?

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Mysterious Fart is that you or your sock puppet that we can smell?

            Elderberries, I say!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

    • Swenson
      The phrase “Whining Wee Willy”
      is not polite, and harms
      the reputation of this website.

      Please try to be polite
      in your future comments
      by changing your salutation
      to “Mister Whining Wee Willy”

      Thank you in advance for improving
      the standards of this fine website.

  57. Swenson says:

    “Just as 2021 closed out, the Kremlin massively escalated its pressure campaign against American tech companies by issuing its largest-ever fines of U.S. tech firms: $100 million to Google and $27 million to Facebook for what it called a “systemic failure to remove banned content.””

    Google and Facebook can do as they wish. It’s called capitalism.

    Russia, the UK, France, the EU, Australia, China, . . . , can enforce their laws. It’s called sovereignty.

    On the other hand –

    “Despite Google’s whining about iMessage, it seems to have learned nothing from its years of messaging failure.

    Whining Wee Willy will probably claim that I wrote that (masquerading as Mike Flynn or something), and whine “Look everyone! Someone used the word “whining”! Evidence that Swenson is really Mike Flynn!”

    Both Google and Wee Willy whine and threaten others to try to get their way. And of course, Google is attempting to bully Apple into doing Google’s bidding. Like Wee Willy’s attempts, Google doesn’t seem to be doing too well.

    Oh dear!

  58. Eric Bleeker says:

    It is a pity that big tech companies start to behave like activists and with that try to limit science debate.
    Keep up the good work Dr. Spencer because your work is a objective beacon in a sea of manipulated datasets.

  59. Mr. Spencer wrote:
    I believe the climate system has warmed
    I believe most of this warming is probably due to greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning

    I would define Mr. Spencer as a luke-warmer.

    Apparently Google will not even tolerate luke-warmers.

    But … congratulations on upsetting Google — that is a badge of honor among Climate Realists.

    That means you have been credible and an effective communicator of REAL climate science.

    Your UAH temperature compilation, in my opinion, is a check and balance on the surface temperature numbers — I believe they would show more warming if UAH did not exist.

    But I do have one criticism.

    Why would you “do business” with Google (or Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube)?

    They all hate conservatives, libertarians. Republicans and everyone else who favors free speech.

    And then whine when they get deleted or de-monetized ?

    Give us a break !

    For privacy reasons,
    I have never “done business” with Facebook or Twitter.
    Not once have I visited their websites.

    I stopped using Google searches after the Hunter Biden censorship before the 2020 election. I do have three blogs on Blogspot.com, which I later found out that Google owns, but I can’t more my archives elsewhere. The blogs are free and I’m stuck with them.

    I stopped providing a YouTube link once a week, to my favorite song, on one of my blogs.

    Don’t support or do business with any company that hates you unless there is no other choice.

    • gbaikie says:

      –I would define Mr. Spencer as a luke-warmer.

      Apparently Google will not even tolerate luke-warmers.–

      I am lukewarmer, except generally lukewarmer has meant about 2 to 3 C of warming by 2100. I don’t think it CO2 will cause 2 to 3 C of warming by 2100 AD. I used to think this was possible.
      I don’t we will have increase of 2 C, by any means by 2100 AD.
      We had about .14 C per decade, times 8 = 1.12 C.
      It seems to me, everyone is lukewarmer, and I think it’s unlikely we get 1.12 C of warming before 2100 AD.
      But I am lukewarmer, in sense it seem possible CO2 increases could cause global warming. And I think it’s 0 to .5 C if we double CO2 levels before 2100 AD.
      But I tend to think a lot of things going to happen before 2100 AD.
      I am pretty certain that Governments are not going to do much, as they have done little so far. But people have, and they will continue to change our world.
      Anyhow I don’t think any thinks global air temperature will warm more than 3 C before 2100 AD.
      So, we are all lukewarmers.

      • gbaikie says:

        Btw, anyone want to guess when China will reach peak coal.

        I going to give a number, when Chinese coal reaches $300 per ton.

        Anyone want to guess when Chinese coal reaches $300 per ton?
        Anyone want to give another number, like $1000 per ton?
        $2000 per ton??

      • Gbaikie

        You seem to believe the future global
        average temperature can be predicted
        in the long term, with no evidence
        that is possible.

        You believe the
        long term trend
        has to be warmer
        with no evidence
        that is true.

        You talk about predictions with no data
        but not much about past climate change
        based on data

        You do mention warming since 1979
        but that is data mining.

        CO2 has been added to the atmosphere
        for over 120 years. Not only since 1979.

        There was very little warming
        from 1900 through 1975 and that warming claim is based on
        very inaccurate global average temperatures in the early 1900s
        with very few Southern Hemisphere measurements.

        So what you are is
        a modest climate alarmist.

        Unlike a Climate Realist who knows
        100 year predictions are meaningless,
        and always have been.

        You apparently have not learned that yet.
        You are a believer in climate predictions.

        The track record of wrong predictions
        is not something one should promote.

        Real climate science requires data
        There are no data for the future
        Just unproven theories and speculation
        about the future climate.

        That’s all “climate change” is
        = scary predictions.

        We are NOT all luke-warmers.

        No one alive today KNOWS if the average temperature
        in 2100 will be warmer or colder than today.

        Some of us are intelligent enough to say
        “no one knows what the climate will be like in 2100”.
        You, apparently, think you know better.

        • gbaikie says:

          “You seem to believe the future global
          average temperature can be predicted
          in the long term, with no evidence
          that is possible.”

          I can’t predict weather.
          Global temperature is the temperature of the entire ocean
          which is about 3.5 C.

          “You believe the
          long term trend
          has to be warmer
          with no evidence
          that is true.”

          Hundred year trend is about 1 C
          5000 years trend is slight cooling
          We are still recovering from Little Ice Age.
          The peak Holocene temperature was during:
          “The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period that occurred in roughly the interval roughly 9,000 to 5,000 years BP, with a thermal maximum around 8000 years BP.” – wiki

          Tropical ocean stays constantly warm in Interglacial or Glaciation period.
          We in icehouse climate.
          Coldest time of our Ice Age was last 2 million years.
          We unlikely to return global warm period of Holocene Climate Optimum within 100 years.
          Sea level rise has been about 7″ over last 100 years.
          It seems to me unlikely we will get another 7″ rise within
          80 years.
          I made no prediction about cooling, but seems unlikely to cool to temperatures below, UAH start temperature, within 30 to 40 years.
          But it’s possible to have quite cold northern hemisphere temperature- bad cold weather. Could recover Artic polar sea ice, within 30 years. Or in terms of warming, doesn’t seem we will have ice free polar sea ice in the summer, within 30 years.

          “So what you are is
          a modest climate alarmist.”

          Other than I wish we would get warm enough to green the Sahara Desert, even vaguely like what happened in Holocene Climate Optimum. And average global air temperature of about 15 C, is obviously, cold.

          “Unlike a Climate Realist who knows
          100 year predictions are meaningless,
          and always have been.”
          The ocean has been about 3.5 C for thousands of years, and probably be close to that temperature in another 1000 years.
          So, I can predict global climate much longer than 100 years, but I can’t predict global weather, next month.

          But don’t know what caused cooling of Little Ice Age, it seems sea levels fell and ocean might have cooled by as much as two tenths- which is a lot. And we had all those glaciers, also.
          But also, it seems, it took centuries.

          “Real climate science requires data
          There are no data for the future
          Just unproven theories and speculation
          about the future climate.”
          There is lack data of how much cold water is falling into the Ocean. And that is something one needs data on.
          And our ocean is unexplored.
          And we don’t know what the temperature of ocean, nor the surface air temperature.
          But everyone know the temperature of ocean determines global climate, our cold ocean is why we are in icehouse climate, and during our 34 million year Ice Age, the last 2 million years has had the coldest ocean within our Ice Age.
          I don’t think we had a 5 C ocean within the last 2 million years.
          And 5 C ocean is much warmer world.

          • There were no accurate ocean temperature measurements
            until the use of ARGO floats about 20 years ago.

            How can anyone know the average ocean temperature in the past without a large margin of error, whether in 1950, or 1850?

            Climate reconstructions are certainly no more accurate than
            +/-1 degree C. and I’m being very optimistic with that guess.

          • gbaikie says:

            –Richard Greene says:
            January 12, 2022 at 9:53 AM
            There were no accurate ocean temperature measurements
            until the use of ARGO floats about 20 years ago.

            How can anyone know the average ocean temperature in the past without a large margin of error, whether in 1950, or 1850?

            Climate reconstructions are certainly no more accurate than
            +/-1 degree C. and I’m being very optimistic with that guess.–

            The 3.5 C is given commonly and well before ARGO floats.
            ARGO is good for what does but doesn’t measure the entire ocean.

            Not is science papers, but commonly the ocean is said to be: 90% of ocean is 3 C or colder.
            But “about” 3.5 C is given in old references.

            And I agree with you, 3.5 ocean or 15 C global air is not a precise number.
            I go with average global land surface air is about 10 C, and average global ocean surface air is about 17 C.
            The ocean surface temperature is likewise old, the “about” 10 land is somewhat recently with Berkeley Earth “estimate”.
            And northern Hemisphere land and ocean average is warmer than southern hemisphere. And has been argued about in term of “why” for more than a century. Or Southern Hemisphere has more ocean and ocean should be warmer and we closer to sun when tilted south. Obviously due to Antarctia being a cooling effect.
            And I say as general thing, oceans warms and land cools.
            Or agree with everyone, the ocean warms our world.

          • gbaikie says:

            “Obviously due to Antarctia being a cooling effect.”

            But there are other factors, one discussed is southern ocean warming northern oceans, which seems part of it, also.
            But I would tend to say this is not necessarily a permanent thing, or Antarctia location the basic element, and such ocean currents could be more of variable factor over decades to centuries of time.
            More of global weather thing, rather than global climate.

            I would be interested in whether the southern hemisphere has been warmer than northern. Or seems to something related oscillation in this regard but I would guess southern Hemisphere is more stable and northern is more variable, southern hemisphere only gets warmer, when northern hemisphere gets warmer.
            Or southern hemisphere only follows rather than leads, though in terms of analogy, southern hemisphere is anchor or “bedrock” of our icehouse global climate.

  60. Entropic man says:

    Dr. Spencer

    ” I cant expect their liberal arts-educated fact checkers to understand the nuances of the global warming debate. ”

    Agreed.

    Most Liberal Arts graduates would be unable to recognise the scientific merit of the UAH dataset.

    Hoever, liberal arts include history, political science, sociology, psychology and media study. A normal part of their curriculum is the recognition, workings and purpose of propoganda. They would have no problem recognising propoganda when they see it.

    https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/propaganda-misinformation-and-histories-of-media-techniques/

    The pamphlets you organised for the Trump government may have been a mistake.

    It is quite possible that Google demonetised you because they now regard you as a propogandist.

    • stephen p anderson says:

      >They would have no trouble recognizing propaganda when they see it.

      LOL-So sayeth the propagandist.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Eman,

        What do you think about “An Inconvenient Truth” or “12 years until the world ends.” I wonder if Gore’s or AOC’s accounts have been restricted? What about the UN? They publish a falsifiable report on Climate, but we still give them money and promote their work. I wonder if Google has interfered with any of their proclamations or demonetized myriad sites that regurgitate their garbage?

        • Entropic man says:

          “What about the UN? They publish a falsifiable report on Climate, ”

          It is indeed falsifiable, like any good science, but no competent scientists have yet done so.

          That is why most scientists accept the AGW paradigm.

          It is also why most nations and about half the US population accept that climate change is a problem and some policies to mitigate it would be welcome.

          It is also why Dr Spencer’s political activities have become regarded as “unreliable and harmful” and he has been demonetised.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            So, what about Berry’s work makes it incompetent?

          • stephen p anderson says:

            I want specifics.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            >That is why most scientists accept the AGW paradigm.

            Too bad for you that science isn’t a popularity contest.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Someone who comes on here and calls Spencer a propagandist and then calls Berry incompetent and himself is too much of a COWARD to debate Berry and call him out on his site is a propagandist of the first order.

          • Entropic man says:

            I was on Berry’s site.

            https://newswithviews.com/Berry/ed115.htm

            The two of you have remarkably similar styles.

            Am I already debating with Ed Berry?

          • Willard says:

            Ask Troglodyte about the Revelle factor, EM.

          • Entropic man says:

            Why not?

            Would you care to comment, Stephen/Ed?

            https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-3-4-2.html

          • stephen p anderson says:

            So you do realize the Revelle Factor has nothing to do with Berry’s hypothesis? Chihuahua will lead you down a rabbit hole. Why don’t you ask Berry? Coward.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Ballantyne et al. found “there is no empirical evidence” that the ability of the land and oceans to absorb atmospheric CO2 “has started to diminish on the global scale.”

          • Swenson says:

            Ooooh!

            Another climate cultist convinced people aren’t who they claim to be!

            Who cares? Facts are superior to speculation or fantasy.

            Cultists try to find any excuse to avoid facing facts. Just look at the response if they are asked to show an experiment demonstrating that CO2 can make thermometers hotter!

            Or for that matter, trying to get a clear scientific description of the GHE.

            Weird Wee Willy crows about playing “silly semantic games”, and “making” commenters “waste space”. Typical climate cultist refusing to accept reality.

            Sad and pathetic, but true.

          • Willard says:

            Troglodyte confuses the fact that Ed ignores the Revelle Factor with irrelevance.

            If Ed forgot that there is a limit to how much CO2 can be dissolved in the oceans, then so much the worse for his “paper.”

          • Willard says:

            > Ballantyne et al. found

            Where?

            i WaNT spEciFicS.

          • Swenson says:

            As usual, whacky Wee Willy tries confusion and diversion (notice the “if”) –

            “Troglodyte confuses the fact that Ed ignores the Revelle Factor with irrelevance.

            If Ed forgot that there is a limit to how much CO2 can be dissolved in the oceans, then so much the worse for his “paper.””

            And if he didn’t”?

            Wee Willy still can’t accept the reality that nobody, anywhere, has managed to make a thermometer hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between the thermometer and a heat source!

            All this blathering about “CO2, it’s CO2, I tell you!”, is just irrelevant nonsense without experimental support – and, of course, experimental support is notable by its absence.

            How hard can it be? Professor John Tyndall did experiments which showed CO2 reduced the temperature of thermometers, when interposed between the thermometers and a heat source. Surely some “climate scientist” can show that Tyndall was mistaken?

            Only joking. Of course they can’t. Hence delusional idiots like Wee Willy Willard.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Marathon of Feloniousness – TL;DR.

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy Idiot retreats into fantasy.

            Plaintively bleating “i WaNT spEciFicS” rather than doing his own research, Wee Willy manages to avoid addressing the reality that nobody has yet managed to heat anything using CO2.

            Poor Wee Willy. No respect, no science, no power and no clue.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Maladroit Firecracker – the “I want specifics” mimicked Troglodyte’s sammich request.

            Have you noticed how he always makes demands without ever giving us anything? A bit like you, in a way.

            Oh! Oh! Oh!

          • Swenson says:

            Witless Wee Willy,

            Trying to involve others in your “sammich” fantasy? What the hell is a “sammich”?

            Have you considered learning how to write English?

            You are obviously to stupid to figure out why nobody accords you respect, so I’ll tell you – you are a delusional dimwit.

            Have you considered talking about science, or is that beyond your intellectual ability?

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn, everyone!

            *The crowd falls asleep.*

          • Swenson says:

            Wonky Wee Willy’s definition of a crowd – Wee Willy.

            Has difficulty staying awake – at all times. Probably as a result of diminished mental acuity.

            [chortles]

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Chihuahua,

            The Revelle Factor is a myth. It doesn’t exist. The current “myth of the day” cultists use to support their other legends like humans caused the CO2 rise or global warming will destroy the planet.

          • Nate says:

            “So you do realize the Revelle Factor has nothing to do with Berrys hypothesis?”

            Stephen we discussed this and you had no sensible explanation whatsoever about why Revelle Factor can be ignored!

            Berrys model is math that doesnt apply to the real world, and wont until he includes real world constraints in his math.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Chihuahua,

            If the IPCC states that turnover time is somewhere around 3.5 years, and, it has stayed 3.5 years for the past 250 years. Then, how can the Revelle Factor or any other carbon uptake myth be relevant?

          • stephen p anderson says:

            You too, Nate, yes we discussed this. Answer the question.

          • Entropic man says:

            “If the IPCC states that turnover time is somewhere around 3.5 years, and, it has stayed 3.5 years for the past 250 years. Then, how can the Revelle Factor or any other carbon uptake myth be relevant?”

            Turnover is the exchange of CO2 between the three CO2 reservoirs, land, ocean and atmosphere. The 3.5 year turnover time is the average time a random C02 molecule spends in the atmosphere before moving to another carbon sink.

            Exchange between land and atmosphere and land is mostly biological, by photosynthesis and respiration. Exchange between ocean surface and atmosphere is mostly by diffusion, which is where Revelle comes in.

            The three sinks try to remain in equilibrium, with about 50% of the total circulating carbon as CO2 in the atmosphere, 25% as DIC and DOC in the ocean and 25% as carbon compounds on land. Apart from gradual weathering and the odd volcano the total amount of carbon remains constant.

            Think of the sinks as three water tanks. The largest tank has a water surface of two square feet, the other two one square foot. Label the larger tank Atmosphere and the others Land and Ocean. Add siphons connecting the Land and the Ocean to the Atmosphere and half fill the tanks with water. The area of the tanks represents the proportion of carbon partitioned to each tank. The volumes represent the amount of carbon in each sink, and the total volume the total circulating carbon. In a short time the siphons will bring the three tanks to equilibrium at the same water level.

            Now we can experiment. In a normal preindustrial year there is a net transfer of carbon from atmosphere to land in Summer by photosynthesis, returning to the atmosphere all year by respiration. You see it in The Keeling curve as an annual cycle. You can represent this by pouring a mug of water from Atmosphere to Land. You get a temporary decrease in the amount of water in the Atmosphere tank, followed by a recovery as water siphons back from the Land. The total volume has not changed.

            Human emissions come mostly from fossil fuel burning and cement making, adding extra carbon from outside the three sinks. This is released into the atmosphere. Half remains in the atmosphere and half transfers to the land and ocean sinks. The total carbon in circulation increases year on year.

            Simulate a year’s emissions by adding a litre jug of water from the tap to the Atmosphere tank.

            Initially you get a rise in level and volume in the Atmosphere tank. The siphons then transfer water to land and Ocean. When you reach equilibrium the water levels are equal, the volume in the Atmosphere tank has increased by 0.5l and the Land and Ocean tanks by 0.25l each. The total volume has increased by 1l.

            Finally, over very long time scales (centuries up to millions of years) weathering and sediment formation traps carbon and removes it from circulation. This is why over centuries CO2 concentrations are expected to drop back to preindustrial levels as the amount of circulating carbon gradually decreases. In our tanks this might be represented by evaporation.

            “So, what about Berrys work makes it incompetent? ”

            His maths does not match reality in two basic ways.

            Somehow human carbon emissions disappear from the system without accumulating in any of the sinks. This is equivalent to adding a jug of water and then removing it again.

            He also misrepresents the equilibrium, partly by ignoring processes like the Revelle effect. The result is that he is spontaneously moving carbon from land and ocean to the atmosphere. This is equivalent to pumping water up the siphons from Land and Ocean to the Atmosphere tank against a pressure gradient.

          • Governments love climate fear porn — they love a scared population demanding that the government “do something”.
            Leftists never let a “crisis” go to waste.

            The “coming crisis” does not have to be real
            — it only has to be believed.

            The coming climate crisis is not real — it is imaginary, and has been imagined since the late 1950s. Meanwhile, the current climate is the best climate in over 325 years.

            You remain oblivious to climate reality.
            Your thinking ability is distorted by the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy and the belief that consensus science is real science. And your mother wears Army boots.
            Please have your head examined.
            Hopefully, they will find nothing.
            Which would explain your comment.

          • Entropic man says:

            Stephen

            “Why dont you ask Berry? ”

            His site is closed. You have to join and log in.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Your long-winded reply didn’t answer my question. Since turnover time is around 3.5 years according to IPCC, and turnover time has not changed since 1750, (which specifically applies to the atmosphere to land and surface ocean exchange) how is Revelle Factor relevant to the discussion? Also, go to Berry’s site, click on “paper” and you can ask any question on the message board. Berry will reply.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            >He also misrepresents the equilibrium, partly by ignoring processes like the Revelle effect. The result is that he is spontaneously moving carbon from land and ocean to the atmosphere. This is equivalent to pumping water up the siphons from Land and Ocean to the Atmosphere tank against a pressure gradient.

            So are you saying the IPCC’s carbon cycle model is incorrect?

          • stephen p anderson says:

            >Somehow human carbon emissions disappear from the system without accumulating in any of the sinks. This is equivalent to adding a jug of water and then removing it again.

            You obviously didn’t read his paper. He accounts for all the fossil fuel emissions from 1750. They became part of the fast carbon cycle. It is the IPCC who wrongly accounted for fossil fuels and they violated conservation of mass. Can’t do that.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            A couple more things, in order to make their Carbon Cycle Model work, they claimed nature can distinguish between a human carbon and a natural carbon after human carbon enters the fast cycle and they also claimed carbon uptake is a non-linear process while also demonstrating in their carbon cycle model that it is linear. There is no evidence that the conservation of carbon is a non-linear process. Can you provide any? (You’ll need to change all the atmospheric textbooks if you can.)

          • Entropic man says:

            I put a comment on Berry’s site inviting him to join us here.

            I hope you read and understood my “long-winded” post and now understand that the carbon cycle describes three carbon reservoirs continually exchange carbon. That 3.2 years is the time it takes for CO2 molecules in the atmosphere to turn over between reservoirs and has very little to do with the long term increase in total circulating carbon.

            Now for the Revelle factor. This is going to be long-winded again.

            In physical chemistry, Henry’s law is a gas law that states that the amount of dissolved gas in a liquid is proportional to its partial pressure above the liquid.

            This is an equilibrium. For a given atmospheric concentration you should get a given amount of dissolved CO2. Individual molecules keep crossing back and forth while the concentrations above and below settle to constant values.

            Henry’s Law is not the whole story.

            When CO2 dissolves some of it reacts with water to form carbonic acid H2CO3.

            Some carbonic acid decomposes to bicarbonate ions HCO3- and protons H+.

            Some bicarbonate decomposes to bicarbonate ions CO3– and more protons H+.

            These reactions also have an equilibrium. If you add extra CO2 the reactions run towards carbonate and some of the extra CO2 is converted to ions. If you reduce the amount of CO2 the reactions convert ions back towards more dissolved CO2. (If you know your chemistry this will sound familiar. Sodium bicarbonate/ sodium carbonate buffer is used to stabilise pH)

            The overall effect is to buffer the concentration of CO2.

            For a given increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration the dissolved CO2 increases less than expected from Henry’s Law because it is converted to bicarbonate. The ocean continues to absor*b and store CO2 in greater quantities than Henry’s Law would predict.

            Revelle’s factor measures the degree of buffering. It is the factor describing the difference between the amount of CO2 absor*bed according to Henry’s Law and the actual amount absor*bed. A smaller Revell’s factor indicates a higher buffering capacity.

            If Berry did not included Revelle’s factor in his model, the model would show less removal of CO2 to the oceans and overestimate the amount of CO2 increase in the atmosphere. In turn, this would make the apparent CO2 increase larger than explainable by human emissions and give the illusion that some CO2 must be coming from natural sources.

          • Willard says:

            > in order to make their Carbon Cycle Model work, they claimed nature can distinguish between a human carbon and

            Be specific, Troglodyte: provide chapter and verse.

            Speaking of mythology, how do you reconcile Ed’s and Christos’ work?

          • Entropic man says:

            “He accounts for all the fossil fuel emissions from 1750. They became part of the fast carbon cycle. ”

            Berry and IPCC got human emissions right.

            Berry’s problem is that his model overestimated the increase in atmospheric CO2, which created the illusion of an extra natural CO2 source.

            “So are you saying the IPCCs carbon cycle model is incorrect? ”

            The IPCCs carbon cycle model is correct. Berry’s is wrong.

            “In order to make their Carbon Cycle Model work, they claimed nature can distinguish between a human carbon and a natural carbon after human carbon enters the fast cycle”

            Not necessary. Just follow the totals. Accountants don’t need to record the number on every dollar passing through their accounts.

            “they also claimed carbon uptake is a non-linear process”

            That’s right. Revelle’s factor increases as the atmospheric concentration increases. A higher proportion of CO2 remains in the atmosphere and the rate of change accelerates. Look at the Keeling curve. It is getting steeper over time.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve#/media/File%3AMauna_Loa_CO2_monthly_mean_concentration.svg

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Almost everything you stated above is wrong. Are you going over to debate Berry?

          • stephen p anderson says:

            >Speaking of mythology, how do you reconcile Eds and Christos work?

            Geez, if you’d only read even one of Berry’s papers. He doesn’t address GHE in any of them. His papers only address the rise in CO2 from 1750 until the present.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            >The 3.5 year turnover time is the average time a random C02 molecule spends in the atmosphere before moving to another carbon sink.

            This is an incorrect definition of turnover time. The continuity equation is a first order LINEAR differential equation. The integral is its solution. This defines Te.

          • Nate says:

            Thats a nice explanation Entropic Man.

            I would also add to this part “Finally, over very long time scales (centuries up to millions of years) weathering and sediment formation traps carbon and removes it from circulation.”

            That also over long time scales (centuries) the excess carbon in ocean mixed layer will be removed to the deep ocean, which is a much larger reservoir. That time-scale is determined by the Revelle Factor, and other parameters.

          • Willard says:

            > He doesn’t address GHE in any of them.

            Ed might need a new Champion:

            There are no long-term effects of human CO2 emissions.

            What “effects” would that be, Troglodyte?

            DOI is 10.11648/j.ijaos.20190301.1, BTW.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        >If Berry included (fixed) Revelles factor in his model, the model would show less removal of CO2 to the oceans and overestimate the amount of CO2 increase in the atmosphere. In turn, this would make the apparent CO2 increase larger than explainable by human emissions and give the illusion that some CO2 must be coming from natural sources.

        So where would the Revelle Factor fit into his model? He used IPCC emission data and turnover time. He used the mass conservation equation published in countless atmospheric textbooks. He tested IPCC’s natural carbon cycle to his continuity equation (you know the one in atmospheric textbooks) and it fit perfectly. I know all about alkalinity relationships and you don’t need to teach me about Henry’s Law. I’ve been using both for years. You’re using a hypothesis to falsify a hypothesis. Science doesn’t work that way. Let’s see your data.

        • Willard says:

          [TROGLODYTE] Your long-winded reply didnt answer my question.

          [ALSO TROGLODYTE] So where would the Revelle Factor fit into his model?

          Dragon cranks have little more than abuse.

          • Swenson says:

            Oh, poor, poor, Witless Wee Willy!

            Abused, bullied, mistreated. How does he manage to survive?

            It’s a hard, hard, world for the slightly retarded climate cultists. Fewer and fewer people believe their claims that CO2 is the cause of the world’s ills. Reality is starting to rear its ugly head, which is just too much for cultists like Wee Willy.

            He can’t even find a fellow cultist who wants to play with his (Climate)balls. Well, maybe Ken Rice, but he’s about as thick as Wee Willy.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Miscalculating Folly – you might need to revise the size of your bandwagon:

            We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate changeexpressed as a proportion of the total publicationsexceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

            https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

            Oh, and you’re playing the “But Consensus” square of the Climateball Bingo:

            https://climateball.net/but-consensus/

            Well played!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

        • Nate says:

          “I know all about alkalinity relationships and you dont need to teach me about Henrys Law. Ive been using both for years. ”

          Then why, Stephen, do you ignore them?

          ” He tested IPCCs natural carbon cycle to his continuity equation (you know the one in atmospheric textbooks) and it fit perfectly.”

          Huh?

          What the hell is ‘IPCCs natural carbon cycle’?

          The IPCC refers to the Bern model, which was developed from observations of the carbon cycle. It involves both short and longer time constants.

    • gbaikie says:

      Promoting burning wood to lower CO2 levels is Propaganda.
      Saying we in crisis and not doing anything effective about the crisis, is solely propaganda.

      Propaganda is everywhere, talking about past Propaganda, is Propaganda, and selling ads is Propaganda.

      Offering contrary opinion is only way “fight” propaganda.
      But fighting propaganda by censorship, is sort of like stupidity promoting wood burning in order to lower CO2 levels.

      Saying we are in 34 million year Ice Age, is not propaganda, it can be not refuted, it is annoying to the Propagandist message that the world is too warm.

      Global warming is religion, and like any religion it has conflicting aspects. Part of the religion is concern about future energy- and burning wood, could seen as solving this, but it’s not about lower CO2 emission, as is it claims it is.
      But it’s a bad way to solve this concern of future energy. Burning Coal is better solution {and burning coal is not particularly a good solution- but also allowing coal to burn naturally is no solution- effort to stop unwanted burning of coal, have been a global failure, it said to be impossible to do- one could suspect there is some propaganda connected to this- no doubt it might be excessively expensive}

      The only way to defeat Propaganda is by education.
      Bad education is propaganda, we have bad education full propaganda.
      Solution, end educational unions, and promote competition in education.

        • gbaikie says:

          The world is going to end in 5 years, 12 years, 10 years, is without doubt, exactly a religion. And once owner of CNN, Ted Turner forecasting everyone being a cannibal, is a small sect/minority of this religion:
          Ted Turner: Global warming can lead to cannibalism:
          “Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals,” said Turner, 69. “Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state like Somalia or Sudan and living conditions will be intolerable.”

          One way to combat global warming, Turner said, is to stabilize the population.–
          https://tinyurl.com/yckrp7m4
          Fear of over population is another very old religion.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mys_AQjM4U0

          8 degrees of warming, 10, no 20 to 30 years.
          so …7 to 17 years from now.
          And he is billionaire- and he did nothing about it.
          Never apologized for lying.
          Though why should he, it’s what he believed.

        • Willard says:

          > The world is going to end in 5 years, 12 years,

          https://climateball.net/but-12-years/

          • Swenson says:

            Weepy Wee Willy,

            Haven’t you realised nobody wants to play with your balls except you?

            How many people have asked to play? None?

            Colour me unsurprised!

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn – you are replying to my comments.

            Cheers.

          • Swenson says:

            Weary Wee Willy,

            Oh, I see. You are delusional enough to believe that you can determine who comments on this blog?

            Here’s a hint – I can comment as I wish, subject to the wishes of the blog administrator – who happens not to be you, fool!

            Have I mentioned the words powerless and impotent (not to exclude delusional) in relation to your blathering?

            Carry on avoiding reality.

          • gbaikie says:

            “We indeed have a very short window of opportunity before too much carbon dioxide gets stuck in the atmosphere virtually forever.”

            Willard we have a cold ocean.
            Your “virtually forever” is a lie.
            No one can support forever or “virtually forever” unless you are fruit fly.
            It goes up and down every year, up and down over decades.
            Change your propaganda “number”.

          • Willard says:

            > Your “virtually forever” is a lie.

            Strong argument you got there, gb. The lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is a few centuries, plus 25 percent that lasts essentially forever. The next time you fill your tank, reflect upon this.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Chihuahua,
            Your problem is that Berry’s paper is out there. You nor the IPCC can do a damn thing about it. Got evidence?

          • Clint R says:

            “The lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is a few centuries, plus 25 percent that lasts essentially forever”…is a weird cult belief. Weird cult beliefs ain’t science.

            The reality is that CO2 gets sucked up by strawberry plants, and other hungry floral. What is not eaten by land vegetation goes into the oceans to furnish the food chain there. It all works to bring food to the starving children of the world.

            The next time you fill your tank, reflect upon this.

          • gbaikie says:

            “> Your virtually forever is a lie.

            Strong argument you got there, gb. ”

            Just admit your statement is feckless.
            Is invented, or do got someone else who would agree with you?
            We are in an Icehouse Climate. Our icehouse climate has
            a cold ocean and a cold ocean is why we have a very low global CO2
            level.
            It’s somewhat a wonder is how plants can live with this low level, it’s generally assumed 150 ppm can not support plant life.

            Our last 2 million years has brought close this death line.

            “The next time you fill your tank, reflect upon this.”

            It’s the thermostat level which cause more CO2 emission than cars.

          • Willard says:

            > Just admit your statement is feckless.

            That’s not my statement, and in fact it is not even controversial.

            As for your new step in your Gish Gallop:

            https://climateball.net/but-life/

          • Swenson says:

            The ever delusional Wasted Wee Willy wrote –

            “> Your “virtually forever” is a lie.

            Strong argument you got there, gb. The lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is a few centuries, plus 25 percent that lasts essentially forever. The next time you fill your tank, reflect upon this.”

            Wee Willy presents wild-assed guesses as fact, and the attempts the usual meaningless cultist “essentially” ass-covering weasel word.

            Wee Willy still can’t accept reality. The GHE is just another fantasy based assertion. No experimental support whatsoever. It cannot even described in any useful way.

            No wonder Wee Willy chooses fantasy over reality.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Microdosing Forbearance – here you go:

            https://climateball.net/but-abc/

            What were you saying again about that Climateball, that you got none?

            Oh! Oh! Oh!

          • Swenson says:

            Weepy Wee Willy,

            Still can’t name a single person who wants to play with your balls?

            Maybe you should talk about science, rather than your “silly semantic games”.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Materializing Forgetfulness – once again, Mike Flynn is the answer.

            If you have other questions, feel free to ask!

          • Swenson says:

            Wearisome Wee Willy,

            You really expect people to believe Mike Flynn wants to play with your balls?

            That’s about as demented as thinking that I would contemplate such a nauseating thought!

            But you are such an idiot you probably don’t know the difference. Go and play with yourself – your ejaculatory “Oh! Oh! Oh!” shows you do it often enough.

            Oh well, if no one wants to play with you, you can always take your balls home and play with yourself. Or you could play “silly semantic games” with yourself if you want to look even more like a loser.

            Finding the study of science a bit too much, are you?

          • 5 years or 12 years is baloney

            everyone knows real science
            requires at least three decimal places

            12.528 years would be real science

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn – speaking of ejaculation:

            Mike Flynn says:
            January 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM

            S,

            Ho ho! A capital jest!

            See how low the climatological pseudoscientific clowns have fallen!

            Science? Really?

            Cheers.

            Here’s the Bingo square:

            https://climateball.net/but-science/

            Ooooh!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Amen, G!

  61. Francis says:

    I must say that a search for the word “donate” in this discussion returned only three results and the button was not one of them. But look people, you can find the button.

    Now to donate, the very least I could do.

    Francis

  62. Steffan R. Helbig, P.G. says:

    I would be glad to contribute to ensure the continued good work by Dr. Spencer. How about an “old school” approach. Is there an address and official entity that could accept a check via the US mail? I don’t think that would be tracked or get us all cancelled.

    • Francis says:

      I am not in the USA I am in the UK and I don’t care who can track me so sending a small donation using the button was not an issue for me. If you are in the USA I am sure that you could find a way to send a check to Dr Spencer if you wanted to.

      Maybe you could find an address to mail to using Google!

      BTW I don’t donate to ensure that Dr Spencer continues his work, although I do hope that he will, I donate in support of Freedom of Speech and against those who seek to inhibit it.

  63. robert says:

    Do not call them liberal, they are fanatics.

    There is absolutely nothing liberal about these censure-loving dullards who fail to even realize that what goes around comes around.

    Guess, to give but one example, what spending four entire years yelling over and over “the elections were stolen” got them.

    Anyway.

    Please do not stop providing the monthly satellite data updates. The effort is truly appreciated

  64. Entropic man says:

    The US has had two disputed elections in a row.

    Clearly the wheels are coming off your constitutional system.

    Time for a change.

    Putin for King?

    • The 2016 election dispute was Hillary Clinton baloney
      The 2020 election dispute was real and unprecedented.

      • The two most inprecedented 2020 polling results:

        Trump won 18 of 19 bellwether counties, yet “lost” the election = extremely hard to believe there was no fraud top get such unprecedented results, and

        In the post-Election Census Survey, the sample of people polled claimed four million fewer votes than were actually counted.
        That was unprecedented.
        In all past polls people claimed to have voted when they actually did not vote. Several times the votes claimed in the polls were nine million MORE VOTES than actually counted.

        This result of 4 million fewer votes claimed in the poll, versus actual votes counted, was unprecedented.

        Joe Biden did his “best” with ballots arriving after midnight on Election Day in Detroit, Atlanta, Wisconsin and Arizona — all ion Democrat controlled cities.

        The Trump lead at midnight was erased by votes showing up after Election Day ended = very suspicious.
        There are videos of ballots arriving after midnight, using unmarked trucks in detroit, for one example.

      • Entropic man says:

        The common factor of the two elections was Donald Trump.

        • stephen p anderson says:

          You might occasionally try logic, inference, and deductive reasoning.

        • The uncommon factor was a huge increase
          of absentee ballots in 2020.

          • Entropic man says:

            “You might occasionally try logic, inference, and deductive reasoning. ”

            An excellent idea.

            “The uncommon factor was a huge increase
            of absentee ballots in 2020. ”

            The swing states Trump lost in 2020 had Republican electoral management. This usual result is that it is made more difficult for the poor (usually Democrats) to vote and easier for Republicans to vote.

            All sorts of tricks. Put fewer polling stations in poor areas and position them a long way from the housing blocks. Put more polling stations in Republican areas and make them front-end ( More republicans have cars). Require photo id. (More Republicans have photo-id). I could go on!

            (Note. I make no claims that Democrats don’t try to fiddle the system. Gerrymandering etc seem universal in the crappy American system. But in the 2020 election the swing states were run by Republicans.)

            As a result a higher proportion of Republicans vote in person and a larger proportion of Democrats use postal votes.

            On the day, the in-person votes are counted before the postal votes. At the end of the in-person count the % reflects the higher proportion of in-person votes among Republicans and will give an artificially high % for the Republican candidate at the expense of the Democrat.

            The postal votes were then counted. Since a higher proportion of Democrats used them the postal votes will reduce the Republican % vote until all votes are counted.

            In a state with a large Republican majority this has no effect on the result.

            In a state with a large Democrat majority this has no effect on the result.

            In a swing state the result is close enough that the difference in proportion between in-person and postal votes is enough to make the difference.

            Several swing states showed the same pattern. A small Republican majority after the in-person count and a small Democrat majority after the postal count was completed.

            Nothing to do with cheating, just the electoral system in action.

          • Entropic your response to my comment is complete malarkey.

            There was no discrimination against Democrat voters in 2020.
            Certainly not in cities controlled by Dumbocrats where the electors for the key battleground state were decided entirely by ballots arriving after midnight on election day.

            In case you didn’t notice, there were more Democrat votes than Republican votes for President. How were Democrats blocked from voting? You complained about the unfair voting procedure in Democrat controlled cities, nitwit !

            In the Congressional races, the Republicans did better than Democrats. Very unusual when the Republican presidential candidate also does not win his race.

            So we are stuck with Adolph Biden, king of the Biden crime family, and the first President with early dementia, which is probably why you love him. You are fact free on elections, probably also suffering from early dementia.

  65. Ed Berry says:

    Thank you, Entropic Man, for notifying me of the discussion about my paper herein.

    First, I am very sorry about what Google is doing to excellent websites like Roy’s. This will become a problem for all of us because Google will find us, and Google does not have the competence to understand climate physics.

    Second, the journal “Science of Climate Change” published my paper on December 14, 2021. You can link to, read, and comment on my paper here:

    https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-co2-temp/the-impact-of-human-co2-on-atmospheric-co2/

    Some comments above refer to a public article I wrote for another website in 2016. That is not the place to learn about my 2021 paper.

    So, if you really have comments or questions about my 2021 paper, now you know where to find me.

    Best wishes to Roy.

    Sincerely, Ed

    • stephen p anderson says:

      Eman,
      I readily await your debate with Dr. Berry on his website.

    • Willard says:

      Thanks, Ed.

      Do you have a DOI by any chance?

      Eagerly awaiting that Stephen (whom I affectionately call “Troglodyte” because, well, he’s one) shows any evidence he understands any of it,

      W

      • Swenson says:

        Woeful Wee Willy,

        Are you too lazy to look things up for yourself, or just outstandingly incompetent?

        Or maybe you are just being your usual grubby self, trying to make people waste their time, pandering to your idiotic desires.

        Tell me you really can’t find the DOI which you so stupidly beg for! I’ll enjoy the laugh at your expense.

        • stephen p anderson says:

          >Woeful Wee Willy,

          Are you too lazy to look things up for yourself, or just outstandingly incompetent?

          Or maybe you are just being your usual grubby self, trying to make people waste their time, pandering to your idiotic desires.

          Tell me you really can’t find the DOI which you so stupidly beg for! I’ll enjoy the laugh at your expense.

          Swenson,

          Chihuahua was pretty sycophantic toward Dr. Berry. Wonder why because he displays so much disdain towards him? Hey sycophant, I can send you a copy of the paper if you give me your email address.

        • Willard says:

          Mike Flynn, Miserable Freak – it should be easy for Ed to cite the official source of his paper, don’t you think?

          After all, he’s the one who touts about passing peer-review and being published.

          Cheers.

          • Swenson says:

            Whacky Wee Willard,

            Why should anybody at all care what you think?

            Who is Ed, anyway? You can’t provide a single reason why anybody should do anything at all for you, can you?

            If you wish to appear lazy and incompetent, bully for you. You’re a gutless ant-science slimeball, but at least you serve as an excellent object of derision.

            [derisive chuckling]

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn – you ask:

            Who is Ed, anyway?

            Very good question!

            Oh! Oh! Oh!

          • Swenson says:

            Watery Wee Willy,

            I suppose you are self-obsessed enough to think anybody cares whether you think a question is “good”?

            Oh dear, delusions of grandeur have you in their grip again, do they?

            No wonder you repetitively perform that activity which cause you to ejaculate “Oh! Oh! Oh!”

            Carry on Wee Willy, you can batter away at the keyboard using your other hand, I suppose.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Motorcycle Fratricide – you are replying to my comments.

            Aw diddums!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Dr. Berry’s going to have courses later this year that explains his papers to laypeople. He is charging for them. You’ve failed to indicate you’ve read one of them, Chihuahua. Ask me another foolish question?

    • Entropic man says:

      Thank you, but Stephen and I are doing well here. If we moved to your site we’d have to start again.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Berry can defend his paper much better than I can. Why are you so afraid?

        • Entropic man says:

          You tell me that I am a propogandist.

          Which site would a propagandist choose?

          • stephen p anderson says:

            If you can find an actual scientific problem with his paper, he will listen. He’s not a propagandist. He’s a real scientist, like Spencer.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Chic Bowdrie found a bunch of issues with his paper. Berry corrected them all. He is looking for truth.

  66. the so-called journal required a payment from Mr. Berry to publish his “paper:

    Source of essay below written by a science Ph.D.

    https://dailyinterlake.com/news/2016/apr/10/opinion-ungrounded-denial-of-climate-change-6/

    OPINION: Ungrounded denial of climate-change consensus
    by Jerry Elwood, Ph.D.

    In the words of the popular saying, “Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.” It’s also a major problem facing irrational people who cannot or won’t accept the logical conclusions derived from scientific evidence.

    This is a particular problem facing scientists, policymakers, and educators who are confronted by organized efforts enabled by fake experts to spread doubt, denial, and rejection of the scientific community’s consensus that humans are causing global climate change.

    It’s also a problem for a public unable to distinguish pseudoscientific opinions spouted by fake experts from established scientific evidence and facts produced by real experts.

    Denialists rationalize their rejection of scientific evidence by cloaking their factually ungrounded beliefs in a mantle of science without being restricted by or adhering to its requirements. This includes the requirement that conclusions about how nature works be rooted in evidence-based tests, not opinions or suppositions that lack an evidential basis. They also share other characteristics, including making logical fallacies that lead to invalid conclusions, and misrepresenting and ignoring any evidence that conflicts with their predetermined beliefs.

    These characteristics are demonstrated in Ed Berry’s response (Daily Inter Lake, March 6) to a guest opinion by Matt Bradley that pointed out Berry’s baseless and illogical opinions about climate-change science and the important effect of CO2 on climate. While Bradley freely admitted that he is not a climate expert, he understands the scientific method and is able, as a non-expert, to realize the preponderance of evidence that humans are causing climate change. Berry’s attempt to discredit Bradley was both illogical and unscientific. Berry doesn’t understand either climate science or modern biology.

    For example, he grossly misreports results of a study by John Cook et al. published in 2013 in Environmental Research Letters (https://iopscience.iop.org/article /10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024) that quantified the level of consensus in the scientific literature on climate science about the cause of global warming.

    Berry claims that only 64 of 11,944 peer-reviewed papers published over a 21-year period in scientific journals agree with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. But the actual finding of that study is that 3,900 peer-reviewed papers accept the consensus position, a number 60 times larger than that stated by Berry. The approximately 8,000 remaining papers analyzed in the study expressed no position on the cause of global warming because it was not germane to the issues addressed in those papers.

    In my opinion, the only reasonable explanation for the large difference in the level of consensus expressed in the scientific literature about the cause of global warming between what Berry claims and what the study actually shows is that he intentionally misreported the true number because he is unwilling, as a denialist, to acknowledge the high level of consensus among scientists actively engaged in and publishing results of climate change research that humans are causing global warming.

    Of course, he has every right to disagree with the findings and conclusions of any published study, but purposely misreporting the actual findings and ignoring other important results is scientifically irresponsible, casting doubt about his scientific honesty and integrity.

    Berry believes that people should simply accept as truth whatever he says about the cause of climate change because he proclaims himself an expert on climate science and it fits with the denialist culture that exemplifies the majority Republican thinking on the subject. An examination of his background and credentials, including his publication record, however, reveals that his self-proclaimed expertise on the subject is unwarranted.

    For example, his resume states that his Ph.D. thesis was about the science of rain formation, which is about a different subject, meteorology, not climate science. Further, based on the list of his published papers posted on Google Scholar, there is no evidence that Berry published anything dealing with climate science during his entire career as a practicing scientist. While he published papers in the mid-60s and early ’70s dealing with raindrop formation, none of his papers are about climate science, and he hasn’t published anything at all in the peer-reviewed literature since the 1970s, well before the vast majority of research on climate change has been conducted.

    To bolster his self-proclaimed expertise, Berry also brags about the continual citation of his raindrop (but not climate science) publications every month by other scientists, but none of his papers have been cited since the 1980s, an indication that his work has become irrelevant and that he misrepresents it. Thus, Berry’s claim of being a climate expert is not supported by information posted on Google Scholar about his publication record and the citation of his papers in the scientific literature.

    To further justify his climate denial position, Berry also likes to invoke the names of other fake experts, including Ivar Giaever (a Nobel laureate in solid-state physics) who also denies that humans are causing climate change. Some scientists, like Giaever, from non-climate fields believe they have sufficient expertise and knowledge to understand and comment on climate science despite not being familiar with the body of published scientific knowledge on the subject and having done minimal, if any, research on it.

    Both Giaever and Berry fit this mold. Their contrarian, uninformed opinions come from a position of extreme ignorance on the subject, which Giaever himself readily admits. He personifies the classic stereotype of the physicist who thinks he’s smarter than everyone else and understands all scientific fields of study, and therefore that everyone should heed his opinions. But the fact that someone is a Nobel laureate in a non-climate field does not mean he or she knows anything about climate science.

    Another characteristic of Berry’s denial is that his arguments may seem grounded in scientific evidence when, in fact, they are not. These falsehoods include his bizarre claims that water vapor and clouds keep the earth’s greenhouse effect constant when CO2 changes and would do so with or without any CO2 in the atmosphere, including even under conditions of increasing CO2.

    Those claims are illogical, pseudoscientific nonsense and are contradicted by both theory and data. If the addition of more water vapor from the vaporization of ice was necessary to maintain the current greenhouse effect in the absence of any CO2, then logical deduction alone tells you that CO2 has to be important to the overall greenhouse effect of our planet, which Berry denies.

    Secondly, Berry fails to explain how the addition of more water vapor to the atmosphere from vaporization of ice (referred to as sublimation) would occur in the absence of CO2 if the greenhouse effect remained constant. Under those conditions, it would be impossible for sublimation to increase and the capacity of the atmosphere to hold more water vapor above that already present unless the climate warmed, and that would not occur if the current greenhouse effect was maintained in the absence of CO2.

    In fact, physics of the greenhouse effect tells you the climate would cool without CO2, which would mean there would be less, not more, water vapor in the atmosphere from sublimation and evaporation.

    With regard to Berry’s claim that increasing CO2 causes water vapor to decline to maintain a constant greenhouse effect, Berry ignores data which shows that water vapor is increasing, not decreasing, and the greenhouse effect is increasing, not staying constant, with the increase in CO2. So Berry’s claim about the greenhouse effect remaining constant with or without CO2 not only defies logic but also is completely inconsistent with observational data, with well-accepted facts about the physics of the greenhouse effect, and with established knowledge about the factors that control the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.

    Lastly, results of a modeling experiment also refute Berry’s claim about a constant greenhouse effect with or without any CO2. An experiment to answer that question was conducted by Andrew Lacis and others at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and published in Science in 2010. The study’s conclusion is that earth’s greenhouse effect would collapse if the atmosphere contained no CO2, leading to a runaway glaciation that would produce an ice-ball Earth. So, Berry’s claim is also refuted by experimental evidence.

    The reality is that Ed Berry and other climate change deniers of his ilk have not provided any scientific evidence or theory that refutes the overwhelming scientific consensus of human-caused climate change. The important thing about this scientific consensus is that it isn’t a result of peer pressure or someone policing scientists’ opinions. It results from the scientific method.

    The contrarian opinions and ideas put forward by denialists like Berry about the cause of global warming have been tested and rejected because they fail to withstand scientific scrutiny. It is how science works.

    Jerry W. Elwood, of Kalispell, has a Ph.D. in environmental science. He is the retired director of the Climate Change Research Division in the U.S Department of Energy’s Office of Science.

    • stephen p anderson says:

      Again, science isn’t a popularity contest and none of this refutes Dr. Berry’s paper.

      • Entropic man says:

        “The contrarian opinions and ideas put forward by denialists like Berry about the cause of global warming have been tested and rejected because they fail to withstand scientific scrutiny. ”

        That is what refutes Barry’s paper. The predictions he makes, when tested, do not match observed reality.

        If you want to defend Barry’s paper scientifically you need to show that it is a better fit to the observed data than any of the alternatives. You haven’t even tried to do so.

        • Willard says:

          let-them-fight.gif

        • stephen p anderson says:

          >The contrarian opinions and ideas put forward by denialists like Berry about the cause of global warming have been tested and rejected because they fail to withstand scientific scrutiny.

          That is what refutes Barrys paper. The predictions he makes, when tested, do not match observed reality.

          If you want to defend Barrys paper scientifically you need to show that it is a better fit to the observed data than any of the alternatives. You havent even tried to do so.

          What the hell are you talking about? The only prediction Berry makes is that if all human CO2 emissions were to stop, CO2 level would tend back to about 390ppm by 2100 if natural emission stayed the same. That is human CO2 doesn’t hang around in the atmosphere for centuries.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            You’re not going to go over there are you, coward? You and Chihuahua.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Richard,
            I really enjoyed Berry and Elwood’s debate. I learned a lot from their debate. Most of the criticism that Elwood had were small details and semantics. Nothing regarding the major hypothesis of the paper. In the end, Berry answered every one of his criticisms and changed a number of things in his paper but it only strengthened his argument. It made the details more exact. The accounting, as Eman calls it.

      • Entropic man says:

        Scientific orthodoxy comes about when most scientists recognise it as the best explanation of a set of measurements.

        Science moves on to a better explanation when someone challenges the orthodoxy and is correct.

        Challenges such as Ed Barry’s are to be encouraged, but so far they’ve been wrong.

        This is normal. For every Galileo there are a thousand Fedyakins.

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

    • Clint R says:

      Elwood seems unable to identify anything wrong with Berry’s work, and I’m neutral as I’ve not seen any of it. But I am well aware of the signals of cultism. Elwood seems very frustrated, angry, and bitter.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Berry has three papers. You need to start with the first.

        • Clint R says:

          It’s important to debunk any IPCC nonsense. But isotopes and ice cores are not my areas of expertise. I prefer the easy ways, like pointing out the basic flaws — such as, Earth is not an imaginary sphere.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            This is basic physics and simple linear equations. If you can solve a linear integral you can understand it.

          • Clint R says:

            No problem with physics, it’s sorting though endless assumptions, estimates, guesses, opinions and “papers” on such that I avoid. More power to Ed, if he can do it.

            As I said, “It’s important to debunk any IPCC nonsense.”

          • The greenhouse effect and CO2 as a greenhouse gas are not nonsense.

            The nonsense starts after those two facts.

            mainly the predictions of rapid, dangerous global warming completely unlike the mild, beneficial global warming in the past 47 years.

            Warming since 1975 that most affected higher, colder latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere, mainly in the coldest six months of the year, and mainly at night. Beneficial warming. Warmer winter nights in Siberia. Nothing like the IPCC predictions (computer game climate astrology) since the late 1980s.

    • Swenson says:

      RG,

      A couple of things.

      Yes, journals charge to publish. For example Nature. “From 2021, the publisher will charge 9,500, US$11,390 or 8,290 to make a paper open access (OA) in Nature and 32 other journals that currently keep most of their articles behind paywalls and are financed by subscriptions.” – nature.com

      You didn’t know this?

      As to the rest, repeating a farrago of nonsense does not make it any more scientific.

      You cannot point to a scientific definition of the GHE, nor a single experiment which supports the delusional thinking that reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer (the consequence of increasing the amount CO2 between the thermometer and a heat source).

      Your appeal to the authority of a delusional propagandist falls a bit flat. He doesn’t seem to accept that climate is the statistics of past weather. A climate crackpot, given to preferring fantasy to fact.

      • Based on 25 years of climate science reading, I would estimate that at least 99.9% of climate scientists believe there is a large greenhouse effect, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

        (2) It appears that Mr. Berry and you disagree.

        Either (1) is right,
        or (2) is right,
        but not both.

        My money is on (1)
        — the climate scientists.

        You and Berry are alt-science tin-hat conspiracy nuts.
        A Ph.D. degree does not make Berry the bastion of truth.

        An estimated +200ppm of CO2 was emitted by fossil fuel burning in the past, and the atmospheric CO2 level increased bu +100ppm. That means nature absorbed about 100 ppm of the +200ppm increase.

        People who claim the +100ppm increase of atmospheric CO2 since the 1800s was NOT from burning fossil fuels, must then explain where all that +200 ppm of CO2 went, and what caused atmospheric COS to rise by +100ppm, if not the fossil fuel CO2 emissions. I believe you and Berry have never provided a believable alternative explanation, because there is not one.

        Therefore you and Berry are not credible in any way.

        And you are also dork for repeated character attacks of the Ph.D. scientist whose essay I posted, with no attempt to explain why he should not be believed.

        Your childish, generic character attacks are the tool of climate science mental midgets, and based on your comment, you are one.

        Have a nice day.
        Richard Greene
        Bingham Farms, Michigan

        • Willard says:

          > Your childish, generic character attacks are the tool of climate science mental midgets, and based on your comment, you are one.

          So beautiful.

        • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

          Richard,

          Almost everything you stated above is incorrect. Are you intentionally lying or just ignorant?

          • I guess you are in the 0.1% alt-science crowd.
            Dream on.
            It is you who are ignorant.
            In the extreme
            And rude too.
            A double loser.
            I wrote a comment so simple that a ten year old
            child would understand it. So go out and find
            a ten year old child to explain it to you.

        • gbaikie says:

          “People who claim the +100ppm increase of atmospheric CO2 since the 1800s was NOT from burning fossil fuels, must then explain where all that +200 ppm of CO2 went, and what caused atmospheric COS to rise by +100ppm, if not the fossil fuel CO2 emissions. I believe you and Berry have never provided a believable alternative explanation, because there is not one.”

          Well using natural gas, can lower amount CO2 emitted.
          Burning coal can lower amount of CO2 emitted compared to burning wood.
          And more people are breathing, now.
          Idiots want to subsidize wood burning. And subsidize wind and solar power, it seems government have increased CO2 emission not fossil fuels.
          There is nothing government has done to lower CO2 emission and a lot fossil fuel have done to lower CO2 emission.

      • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

        Here is Richard in 1906:

        -99% of the physics agree with Sir Isaac Newton
        -He’s just a patent clerk, are you kidding?
        -He married his cousin
        -He made poor grades in High School and barely got out of college
        -Equivalence? What the hell is he taling about?
        -Don’t forget, he’s a Jew, an atheist Jew at that
        -E=mc^2, LOL

  67. Rick Adkison says:

    Nothing surprises me anymore with the left wing Marxists who run Google, Twitter and Facebook. Either get on board with the narrative or you will ne silenced.
    Hell, I am currently restricted on FB due to a Jeffrey Epstein, Christmas Vacation meme of all things.

    Give Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity a call. They might want to hear about this nonsense.

  68. Ts says:

    Just stopped using Them for good. There are alternatives to BIG tech

  69. stephen p anderson says:

    Here is Nature’s editorial summary of Ballantyne et.al.:

    The current state of land and ocean carbon sinks has been the subject of intense debate, because it has implications for how the carbon cycle might respond to climate change. About half of the current carbon dioxide emissions are taken up by land and ocean carbon sinks. Model studies predict a decline in future carbon sinks, resulting in a positive carbon-climate feedback, and several recent studies have suggested that land and ocean carbon sinks are beginning to wane. These authors use a global mass balance approach to audit the global carbon cycle, focusing on well-constrained observations of atmospheric carbon dioxide and estimates of anthropogenic emissions and a rigorous analysis of uncertainties. They find that carbon sinks have actually doubled during the past 50 years and continue to increase significantly. There were no signs, as of 2010, that carbon uptake has started to diminish on the global scale

    • Entropic man says:

      “They find that carbon sinks have actually doubled during the past 50 years and continue to increase significantly. There were no signs, as of 2010, that carbon uptake has started to diminish on the global scale”

      We discussed this. If the ocean carbon sink only followed Henry’s Law , then the rate of increase in storage would increase linearly with atmospheric CO2.

      The buffering of oceanic CO2 by the carbonate pathway makes it nonlinear; the Revelle factor can be expected to increase slowly at first and rapidly later. If atmospheric CO2 continues to increase the graph will resemble an ascending rectangular hyperbola, with an initial near linear increase, then a flattening as the ability to absorb extra CO2 declines and an almost flat top as the ocean saturates.

      Ballantyne et al are correct that as of 2010 we have not reached the inflection point, but there is no guarantee that we never wiil.

  70. For the greenhouse effect deniers, and those who deny man made CO2 caused the last +100ppm increase of atmospheric CO2, here’s a new belief for you:

    There is no such thing as a global climate.

    And the global average temperature alone would not define a global climate, is there was a global climate.

    Not one person lived in the global average temperature.

    There is local weather.

    Since our planet is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, weather is always changing — warming trends and cooling trends — weather does not stay the same from year to year.

    If there is ever a climate crisis on our planet, the problem would be changes in local weather that affected crops and human health.

    That would include increases of the number and intensity of harmful weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes and heat waves.

    Fortunately, as more CO2 has been added to the atmosphere in the past 120 years, the number of harmful weather events has declined.

    And extra CO2 has greened our planet. Food production has boomed, partially from more CO2 in the atmosphere.

    For some examples:

    US major land falling hurricanes declining for over 100 years

    US major tornadoes declining since 1954

    US heatwaves and maximum temperatures peaked in the 1930s.

    Warmer winter nights in Alaska (also the Arctic and Siberia)

    Pacific Ocean typhoons formed declining since 1951

    Note:
    Minor hurricanes and tornadoes were often missed before the satellite era in the 1970s, so should not be included in these trends — including them would create an artificial rising trend from the pre-1970s counting errors.

    This adds up to a lot of good news for our weather in the past 60 years.

    In fact, the weather is the best since the late 1600s, during the coldest decade of the Maunder Minimum low solar energy decades.

    The only current problem with our weather is the bellowing leftists waving their arms and predicting a coming climate crisis

    … which they have been predicting since the 1980s, while their imaginary climate crisis never shows up.

    Perhaps all American leftists can be deported to Bulgaria, allowing the rest of us to enjoy our weather? Bulgaria, however, is asking for a lot of money to take our leftists, so we may be stuck with them !

    • Willard says:

      > The only current problem with our weather is the bellowing leftists waving their arms and predicting a coming climate crisis

      https://climateball.net/but-predictions/
      https://climateball.net/but-politics/

      By a guy who made his money in stock picking, no less.

      • The stock market tracks GDP growth and inflation.
        Growth in almost nine years of every ten
        Inflation in every year
        Those trends are your friends.

        Sometimes the average stock
        is very highly valued (now)
        and sometimes cheap
        (during recessions)

        No need to “pick stocks”
        Diversified very low fee
        ETFs are available
        and no load mutual funds.

        Hold more cash
        when people are over fearful
        and hold less cash
        when they are over confident.

        The hardest part is saving money
        for investments.
        Such buying a cheap Toyota,
        instead of an expensive Tesla,
        and keeping it a long time.

        • Willard says:

          Agreed, Richard.

          Now, apply the same common sense to AGW.
          And you’re good to go.

          Risk costs money.
          Insurance is your friend.
          Beware oil snake from think tanks.

          And so on and so forth.

          • I hav applied common sense to climate science since the 1990s

            CO2 is a greenhouse gas

            Increasing a greenhouse gas should cause some amount of global warming

            The amount of global warming is unknown because there are so many other variables that can cause climate change.***

            If one assumes all warming in the past 120 years was caused buy CO2 and trust the temperature measurements in 1900 (not actually accurate, the worst case is that CO2 caused mild, harmless warming. If that is the worst case, the debate over ECS barely matters.

            There is no climate emergency. I would say the climate change in the past 325 years has been very good news.i
            And we certainly want more warming in Michigan where I live.

            The following variables are known to influence Earth’s climate:

            1) Earth’s orbital and orientation variations

            2) Changes in ocean circulation,
            ENSO and others

            3) Solar Irradiance and activity

            4) Volcanic aerosol emissions

            5) Greenhouse gas emissions

            6) Land use changes
            (cities growing, crop irrigation, etc.)

            7) Changes in clouds and water vapor

            8) Variations of a complex, non-linear system

            9) Unknown causes of climate change

            The variables above are not all independent.

          • Swenson says:

            Whickering Wee Willy,

            More irrelevant nonsense.

            Try talking about science.

            Carry on with the diversions.

          • Willard says:

            > the worst case is that CO2 caused mild, harmless warming.

            See, Richard? That’s not common sense. That’s just you being yet another libertarian luckwarmer. As for your variables:

            https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/lots-of-theories/

            Why would you keep 20% in cash if not to pick stocks, BTW?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

      • Swenson says:

        Wee Willy Idiot,

        Trying to get people to fondle your balls, are you? Hoping you can crow about making people “waste space” again?

        Who cares who made money stock picking? Thats one of your more bizarre appeals to authority. Typical for a delusional anti-science crank.

        As Richard Greene implies, you are a nitwit.

        Learn some science – real science, not political, social, or climate science.

    • gbaikie says:

      “For the greenhouse effect deniers, and those who deny man made CO2 caused the last +100ppm increase of atmospheric CO2, heres a new belief for you:

      There is no such thing as a global climate.

      And the global average temperature alone would not define a global climate, is there was a global climate.”

      I would tell deniers, we in Icehouse global climate, and the clever humans have enriched the low levels of CO2 which is a serious problem with any Icehouse climates.
      And btw there is no shortage of C02, and in future we can mine it and make it, a lot cheaper.
      So, we are not really wasting this precious resource, and one could say we are increasing the market for it.

      “Since our planet is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, weather is always changing warming trends and cooling trends weather does not stay the same from year to year.”

      Our cold ocean causes thermodynamic equilibrium, but a warmer ocean or higher thermodynamic equilibrium, creates less extreme weather.
      Some people might be overly fond of extreme weather and having 1/3 of global land being deserts.
      Well, Mars is planet of a global desert, so there is actually no real shortage of desert and extreme conditions. And we can give Mars more thermodynamic equilibrium condition by creating lakes within this global desert of Mars. Or living in thermodynamic equilibrium conditions and explore the rough and dangerous wilds.

      But Mars largely about becoming spacefaring. An outpost to the universe, and in terms Earthling, using energy resources of our solar system. And most people don’t want a lot deserts and extreme weather.

  71. Entropic man says:

    From the abstract of Ed Barry’s most recent paper.*

    https://scc.klimarealistene.com/produkt/the-impact-of-human-co2-on-atmospheric-co2/

    “After the bomb tests, δ14C returned to its original balance level of zero , ”

    That turns out not to be the case.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb_pulse#/media/File%3ARadiocarbon_bomb_spike.svg

    The rate of decrease has been 4% a year and it will never go to zero because it is replenished by cosmic rays hitting nitrogen atoms.

    *Incidentally, is there an open access pdf available?

    • stephen p anderson says:

      Have you seen Harde/Salby’s recent paper on 14C? What Berry meant was it essentially returned to its zero level. It is exponential decay. So, the first 1/e time is 10 years, the second 1/e^2 is 20 years, the third 1/e^3 is 30 years, etc. The (1/k) tau time is 10 years for 14C. So, now there will be roughly 2% of the 14C left. The 14C curve fit D(14C)/dt=-k(14C) perfectly. You still don’t understand anything.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Sorry,

        d(14C)/dt=-k(14C)

      • stephen p anderson says:

        What’s your email? I’ll send anybody Berry’s paper if you don’t want to pay the $10. That’d be what 6 pounds? Salby’s is the same.

        • Entropic man says:

          Thank you, Willard.

          I was a bit long winded. It was necessary to supply the lurkers with enough information to understand the context of the discussion.

          If you don’t understand the carbon cycle there is no hope of understanding the relevance of Revelle’s factor.

          Carbon cycles used to be part of my professional competence, but that was a long time ago. : o ).

          Stephen

          Thanks for the offer, but I don’t give out my email. I once gave my identity to a sceptic who then publicised it, to the great inconvenience and annoyance of my children.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Here’s my email: [email protected].

            I won’t publish your information.

          • Willard says:

            Here’s Murry & Hermann’s paper:

            https://scc.klimarealistene.com/produkt/control-of-atmospheric-co2-part-1/

            If you look at the PDF, you’ll see a DOI:

            10.53234/scc202112/210

            If you enter the DOI at DOI.org, you’ll see “This DOI cannot be found in the DOI System.”

            Details like that don’t help Dragon Cranks.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            I have no trouble buying papers on the site.

          • Willard says:

            Papers that need to be bought are worthless to me.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            So all the papers that “Nature” requires you to buy are worthless?

          • stephen p anderson says:

            I don’t know of any scientific publication that gives its publications away for free.

          • Swenson says:

            Another pointless link from the diversionary and delusional Wee Willy Chihuahua.

            Wee Willy refuses to pay for scientific papers because it would be a waste of money. He is unable to understand scientific concepts, and prefers fantasy to fact.

            Strange lad is Wee Willy.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn, everyone!

            *The crowd starts a good fight.*

          • Swenson says:

            The crowd consists of Wee Willy Dimwit, himself, and him.

            That’s what he gets when he argues with himself?

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Midget Freakshow.

          • Entropic man says:

            Even journal publishers have to eat.

            In my day you went to the University Library and read the paper in the journal.

            If you knew the author he might post you a preprint.

            The authors did not have to pay to publish, but a Nature subscription was a hefty sum, which was why you went to the library.

            Then along came the Internet. Libraries still pay journal subscriptions, but a big part of a journal’s income is now from downloads.

            If an author wants his paper to be open source, the journal loses the download income on that paper, and charges the author for open access instead.

            Paywalling is annoying, but a normal part of the commercial environment publishers operate in.

            TANSTAAFL

          • Swenson says:

            From a peer reviewed article –

            “Against this background, it hardly comes as a surprise that the profit margins of corporate publishers are obscenely high (up to 40%) in the field of academic publishing compared to other sectors.”

            Ain’t capitalism grand?

      • Entropic man says:

        One slight error. Turnover will mix the 14CO2 into the three reservoirs, so you would expect 14C to decrease by half the addition in 3.2 years after a bomb pulse.

        This is in addition to the (14C)/dt=-k(14C) decrease.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb_pulse#/media/File%3ARadiocarbon_bomb_spike.svg

        You can see this accelerated decline in the first years after the PTBT pulse.

    • gbaikie says:

      “After the bomb tests, δ14C returned to its original balance level of zero ”
      Or it returned its original balance level.

      Or there has always been carbon 14.
      It was increased, with atmospheric nuclear bomb testing, it then returned to “its balance level”.
      Or I suppose it goes up and down and one can say that it roughly averages zero.

      • Swenson says:

        g,

        What difference does it make?

        CO2 has no effect whatsoever on thermometers. Just another diversionary tactic by reality denying anti-science climate cultists.

        • gbaikie says:

          “And in the late 1980s and early 1990s (and even today), evidence about the positive and negative effects of carbon dioxide on global climate was (is) controversial.

          Enter Richard Kerr, longtime global-warming writer at Science, the flagship publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He chronicled how the mainstream of climate science disputed James Hansen’s assertions of the arrival of global warming and the enhanced greenhouse effect as opinion rather than science.”
          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/13/hansen-vs-the-world-richard-kerr-on-uncertain-climate-science-in-1989/

          An opinion of a NASA bureaucrat,
          I would add.
          And still after billions dollar spend, no one knows how much warming has occurred due to CO2 levels- it’s still a matter of opinion.
          But It’s opinion, that Hansen not knowing why Venus was so hot is
          related to unfound worry about CO2 levels. NASA bureaucrats seem to think Venus and Earth are similar- and they are not.

          There was no Earth climate data to support it. And Earth climate data indicates we in an Ice Age.

          • gbaikie says:

            And I think Venus at Earth distance, would be colder than Earth.

            One thing related to topic of Space is habitable zones, thinking has something to with distance from the Sun. Such thinking is related to old information and doesn’t include the discovery life found ocean hot vents. Therefore we now have people imagining life on moons of Jupiter {not in habitable zone] and still think habitable zones actually make any sense.
            And those looking for ET, are interested in Habitable zones- and habitable zones make no sense, in terms spacefaring civilization or creation of simple life.

            My latest thinking of why they aren’t here, is our star is poor star to travel to and also there probably less than 1000 spacefaring civilizations in our Galaxy. Or very rare.
            Also if we ever make contact, they probably going to want deal with our governmental bureaucracies.
            And our governmental bureaucracies make cave men seem like geniuses.
            Who would want to talk with our governmental bureaucracies, there is no sane human, that does.
            And if aliens imagined Google was a government- it’s not much better than any governmental bureaucracy.

          • Entropic man says:

            I remember a short story suggesting why we haven’t heard anything.

            Briefly, any civilization advanced enough to have radio telescopes also has government bureaucracies, accountants and grants committees.

            Scientists request funding for a radio telescope able to send a signal powerful to reach another solar system and sensitive enough to hear a reply.

            The committee notes that 90% of the cost is in the transmitter. They suggest a compromise. Let the other solar system build a transmitter. We’ll build a receiver and build the transmitter once we have someone to talk to.

            Since bureaucracies are the same all over, every civilization in the galaxy is listening and nobody is transmitting.

        • CO2 has an effect on infrared thermometers.

          • Swenson says:

            RG,

            Well, yes. So does anything above absolute zero, ie. having a temperature.

            If you are trying to say that CO2 has some connection to a supposed GHE, but cannot articulate your thoughts clearly, then join the other climate cultists who apparently find the GHE so complicated that it cant be usefully described.

  72. Tom Welsh says:

    ‘Ive been getting Google warnings for a couple months now about policy violations, but nowhere was it listed what pages were in violation, and what those violations were’.

    Ah yes. In line with their usual condescending tone – much like a parent or teacher lecturing a disobedient child – they are implying, “You know what you did wrong”.

    In fact, you (and everybody else) do know that. Disobedience – that’s what you are guilty of. Just as when a child gets above himself, the answer is, “Because I’m the Mommy”.

  73. Entropic man says:

    Try here. Graphs of Revelle’s factor against time.

    https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-long-term-trends-of-sea-surface-sAlk-sDIC-Salinity-and-Revelle-Factor-in-the_fig5_342184641

    Note the increase in Revelles factor over time.

    Remember that a low Revelles factor indicates greater buffering and higher ocean CO2 uptake.The

    An increasing Revelles factor indicates a reduction in C02 uptake capability.

    Im cursing to myself because I found and then lost a graph of long term ocean uptake ability. It showed the rectangular hyperbola I described, flattening around 2100.

    Enough. Im off to bed.

    • stephen p anderson says:

      For one thing, you can talk about the increased alkalinity of the surface seawater, which makes sense, because it is in equilibrium with the atmosphere, but it is also in equilibrium with the deep ocean. But, it doesn’t tell you which way the net flow is. All that tells you because of Henry’s Law is that the surface is in equilibrium with the atmosphere. If the atmosphere is increasing then the surface ocean should be increasing and vice versa. Ballantyne et. al says sinks have increased. This also implies emitters have increased. If surface temperature has increased the surface is a net emitter.

      • Entropic man says:

        “Increased alkalinty”

        I think you are going the wrong way.

        Rather than getting involved in word games I tend to directly use pH change.

        Since the Industrial Revolution upper ocean pH has dropped from 8.18 to 8.07. That’s an increase of about 10% in H+ concentration. That is because of the bicarbonate/carbonate buffering we discussed earlier and it indicates that the amount of dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) has increased in the surface waters, and will in due course increase in the deep ocean, as Ballentyne et al say.

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

        “Henry’ Law”

        This is where it starts getting complicated. Too many interacting variables

        As we’ve already agreed Henry’s Law describes the equilibrium between pCO2 in the air and ocean. This is indeed affected by temperature. All else being equal a rise in air and ocean temperature reduces the solubility of CO2. The equilibrium shifts towards a higher pCO2 in the air and less CO2 in the ocean. Until things stabilise the ocean becomes a net emitter.

        Buffering also upsets the Henry’s Law equilibrium by turning dissolved CO2 into other ions. It keeps the CO2 below equilibrium concentration and keeps the ocean absorbing long after Henry’s Law would predict otherwise.

        Coming back to CO2, the buffering equilibrium is pH sensitive.

        https://www.zimmerpeacocktech.com/knowledge-base/faq/ph-co2-equilibrium/

        As you can see, below 8.0 pH buffering becomes less effective . This will raise the amount of dissolved CO2 and reduce the CO2 absorbed from the air according to Henry’s Law.

        Put together Henry’s Law, increasing temperature and decreasing buffering. The overall effect will be to make the ocean a less effective carbon sink.

  74. gbaikie says:

    Let’s review facts
    Urban Heat Island effect does cause warming in regional area.
    Most people live in urban area.
    Satellite measurement of global air temperature is little
    effected UHI effect- mainly because urban area is small
    portion of the world.
    Satellite measure global rather than local.
    UHI effect have been measured and the amount of
    warming is knowable, though not discussed much, or
    not much of public issue.
    Which different as compared to CO2 levels.
    No one can measure or know how much warming higher CO2
    levels have caused.
    The IPCC has said, very confident higher CO2 levels have caused
    at least .2 C in global warm.
    I would say it might cause .2 C in global warming- and much
    of global warming is warmer nighttime temperature.
    It certainly has not increase daytime highest temperature, but that is not what global warming is.
    UHI effect is mostly nighttime, but urban environments where measure air temperature can increase a daylight high measured temperature, and cities can have worse heatwave events.

    A human can’t feel the temperature change of 1C over 100 years, but humans can easily feel UHI effects.

    It said polar amplification is related to global warming. I would say polar amplification is global warming.
    I would also say polar amplification is largely affected by “natural variability”- Altantic and Pacific osculation/cycles, and natural variability more globally with El Nino type natural variability or roughly, global weather patterns.
    So, things arctic sea ice, is both global warming and natural variability, and even we get more arctic sea ice in the future
    it might not mean we have ended are recovery from the Little Ice Age, it could be more of changing of these natural cycles.
    Or things prove “global warming” is sea level rise [7″ in last 100 years], highest ever recorded daytime high ever measured being over 100 years ago, and less arctic polar sea ice.
    But in terms of facts, don’t know how warming is cause higher CO2, though it seems one can say higher CO2 levels, don’t cause global cooling.

    • gBalkie

      There is far too much accurate information and common sense in your 1/13 %:57 comment.

      This is in violation of internet Rule 2a

      You are hereby banned from posting for one week.
      Use your time off to create some character attacks,
      insults, nasty names, etc. for future comments.

      This is mandatory for internet comments according to
      Al “I invented the internet” Gore’s
      Rules of the Internet Guidelines.

  75. Clint R says:

    Richard Greene, you seem to be arguing with yourself here:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/unreliable-and-harmful-claims-this-website-has-been-demonetized-by-google/#comment-1125305

    Do you believe adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will increase Earth’s temperature?

    • I hope I won the argument.

      CO2 is expected to cause some warming.

      Actual CO2 warming can’t be measured.

      It can only be assumed.

      Lab experiments suggest CO2 over 400ppm
      is a mild greenhouse gas.

      One assumption would be blaming CO2 for all
      measured warming in the past 120 years.

      That worst case assumption says CO2
      is a mild, harmless greenhouse gas.

      There was no evidence of a water vapor positive feedback
      that might increase warming to potentially dangerous rates.
      that’s
      So we have a potential likely range of warming from CO2
      most likely a TCS in the range from zero to +1.5 degrees C

      I don’t pretend to know the correct TCS.
      But the entire likely range is harmless to humans and animals.

      We have hundreds of different guesses for TCS and ECS.
      I suppose one of them is right?

      Meanwhile, plants love the extra CO2 in the atmosphere
      — they would prefer 1000ppm.

      And quite a few people enjoy the warmer nights, from the warming since 1975. We sure do here in Michigan where I live.

      So, based on common sense, I prefer a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere, and warmer nights. So do my outdoor plants.

      We love global warming here in Michigan, and we are not happy that 2021 was colder than 2020.

      A climate emergency might be if the global climate got a lot colder.

      • Swenson says:

        “Lab experiments suggest CO2 over 400ppm
        is a mild greenhouse gas.”

        Really? You are just making this nonsense up as you go along, aren’t you? CO2 doesn’t affect thermometers at all.

        You can’t provide any evidence about these “lab experiments”, so I won’t bother asking for details.

        • I don’t make things up
          I rely on sources i believe are reliable.
          The lab experiments with Co2 use artificially dried air to avoid interference by water vapor, a much stronger greenhouse gas.
          the experiments are done with a closed system so there are no feedbacks. The process is spectroscopy. The first experiments were in the late 1800s. Back when CO2 was called carbonic acid.

          One can’t say that the lab spectroscopy experiments duplicate the actual effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, where there are varying percentages of water vapor change, and there may be feedbacks.

          One can say the first 100ppm of CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas … but after 400ppm the greenhouse effect is much less.

          Even the IPCC recognizes that CO2 alone is a mild greenhouse gas.

          They promote a climate catastrophe by claiming a water vapor positive feedback will amplify the claimed effect of CO2 alone by 2x to 4x.

          There is no evidence that our warming atmosphere has increased water vapor by more than a small amount.

          • Swenson says:

            RG,

            No, spectroscopy does not indicate that a GHE exists, or warms anything.

            Prof John Tyndall’s meticulous experiments in the 19th century showed that gases like CO2 placed between a heat source and a temperature sensor result in less radiation from the heat source reaching the sensor, with a concomitant drop in temperature.

            Climate cultists obviously cannot comprehend the written works of people such as Tyndall, far less appreciate the incredible accuracy of the instruments which Tyndall and others designed, built, calibrated (often taking months just for calibration), and then taking extreme precautions not to fool themselves with erroneous conclusions.

            I am unaware of a single “climate scientist” who has performed a single experiment showing the supposed heating powers of CO2, in any serious way.

            Given the billions of dollars poured into “climate research”, does this not appear odd to you?

          • Swenson
            Greenhouse gases don’t “heat” like the sun does.

            They form a partial barrier between Earth’s suface and the infinite heat sink of space.

            The greenhouse effect impedes Earth’s ability to cool itself every night, resulting in higher night time temperatures than would happen without any greenhouse gases.

            The planet’s surface is estimated to be 60 degrees F. warmer than it would be with no greenhouse gases. Meaning that outdoor plants would freeze every night.

            The greenhouse effect should increase by some amount from more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

            The exact effect from CO2 is unknown and unknowable.

            There is no evidence the last ++100ppm increase of CO2 has been harmful,’

            The next +100 ppm addition of CO2 will be even less effective as a greenhouse gas than the prior +100ppm addition.

            There is no known natural cause(s) that explain more than a small amount of the last +100ppm CO2 increase in the past 120 years.

            A small amount of CO2 comes from volcanoes and a small increase of water vapor comes from irrigation and a warmer troposphere that hold a little more water vapor.

            This is not complicated.

          • Swenson says:

            Richard Greene,

            You wrote –

            “They form a partial barrier between Earths suface and the infinite heat sink of space.

            The greenhouse effect impedes Earths ability to cool itself every night, resulting in higher night time temperatures than would happen without any greenhouse gases.

            The planets surface is estimated to be 60 degrees F. warmer than it would be with no greenhouse gases. Meaning that outdoor plants would freeze every night.”

            And, of course, they form a partial barrier” between the surface and the a sun, reducing temperatures accordingly.

            The atmosphere also reduces the amount of radiation reaching the surface, but climate cultists refuse to accept reality.

            Indeed! Prof Tyndall pointed this out more than 150 years ago. He also pointed out that without an atmosphere we would all boil to death during the day, but once again, climate nutters deny reality and science at every turn. I’m happy to go along with science and physics.

            You?

      • Willard says:

        >We have hundreds of different guesses for TCS and ECS.
        I suppose one of them is right?

        See, Richard? That’s how a stock picker thinks. A wiser one would pick an index. Here’s one:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#/media/File:Frequency_distribution_of_climate_sensitivity,_based_on_model_simulations_(NASA).png

        • I am not a stock picker, Willard the Dullard.
          I prefer low fee market ETFs and sector ETFs.
          I am in 100% cash this year because of ultra high stock valuations and the Fed needing to fight the inflation they caused. You are a nit picker, and a nose picker. Get lost.

        • Were you born a dingbat,
          Willard the Dullard,
          or was that something
          you worked on
          for many years?

          I wrote about ETFs
          in my comment
          as an alternative
          to stock picking,
          yet you keep bringing up
          stock picking.

          You are an inaccurate nitpicker.
          but an accurate nose picker.

          You are slow to learn,
          but compensate by being
          fast to forget.

          I can tell your mind is resting,
          so I won’t try to insert any facts.

          It appears that your mind
          has been greatly influenced,
          by many books you’ve never read.

          There has been an alarming increase
          in the number of subjects
          that you know nothing about.

        • Swenson says:

          Wee Willy Dimwit,

          Of course, you haven’t made any fortunes on the stock market, have you? Picking an index is just a lazy way of hoping someone smarter than you will put money in your pocket while you sit around trying to look intelligent. A fool and his money are soon parted, because they are too stupid to realise that operators of index funds are not clever enough to work their magic and get rich – buy the yacht and penthouse, the Bentley, champagne and cigars all round – but certainly clever enough to part the lazy and the greedy from their cash on an ongoing basis.

          That!s why they have to work for a living.

          Indexes are rigged, of course. The Dow Jones index of today bears no relationship to the index of even 25 years ago, because ill-performing companies are dumped, and replaced with the company de jour. This means that an index manager who actually has to buy and sell stocks making up the index is always behind, and stock prices are artificially inflated or deflated, as numerous fund managers buy and sell at the same time to reweight their holdings.

          To put it simply –

          “Moreover, owning an index does not mean you are immune from risk or losses if the markets take a downturn.” – from Investopedia, but can be verified by looking at returns when any market falls.

          So go out, borrow beyond your capacity to repay, practice all that nonsense you preach, and return to thumb your nose at doubters like me. Boast about your vast fortune.

          Alas, it’s all fantasy, isn’t it, Wee Willy?

          Carry on telling everyone how clever you are.

        • Willard says:

          > I am in 100% cash this year

          See, Richard?
          That’s not passive investing,
          Now, is it?
          So spare me the “I brought ETFs.”

          Luckwarmers are sensitivity pickers.
          Deal with it.

          ***

          > Picking an index is just a lazy way of hoping someone smarter than you will put money in your pocket while you sit around trying to look intelligent.

          You should have a word with Richard, Money Frustrated Mike Flynn.

          • Swenson says:

            Wonky Wee Willy,

            You wrote –

            “You should have a word with Richard, Money Frustrated Mike Flynn”.

            And why would that be, O stupid one? I should give a sh*t what you think because . . . ?

            Go away, dummy. Contemplate your stupidity.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Mincemeat Fabada,

            Either you do not know what an ETF is, or once again you are making a fool of yourself by butting in without reading. Which is it?

            Richard is the ETF guru here, not me. He tries to time his entries in them, which is one of the reasons why individual investors underperform markets in general, but he is the real McCoy. So go read his newsletter!

          • Enough chatter about the stock market !

            I retired at age 51, at the end of 2004, giving up a six figure income, to live a life of leisure with income from my investments. So I don’t need any lectures on investments.

            There is no need to be 100% invested at all times.
            I consider 2022 as one of those times.
            I’m too old to invest for the long run.
            ETYs eliminate the risk of stock picking.

            By the way, I earned a Finance MBA from the Stern School of Business at New York University, and also published a financial newsletter, with hundreds of subscribers, from 1977 through early 2000, when I decided to stop, to devote more time to my Climate Science and Energy Blog, which has had over 279,524 visits so far.

            In my spare time, I climbed Mount Everest in my bare feet, swam across the Atlantic Ocean, where I knocked out a 20 foot great white shark with a left hook to his “nose”, and trained for an Apollo moon mission, but had to drop out because of a blister on my finger.

            So, what have you been doing in your spare time?

          • Willard says:

            Impressive, Richard! As I was telling Mike Flynn, with whom you might wish to discuss ETFs, you’re the real McCoy! Speaking of which, you definitely need to alert the online world about one of your feats:

            In 2007, Hof climbed to an altitude of 7,200 metres (23,600 ft) on Mount Everest wearing nothing but shorts and shoes, but aborted the attempt due to a recurring foot injury.

            https://bikehike.org/has-anyone-climbed-everest-barefoot/

            A man of such power surely knows better what climate sensitivity should be than the average climate scientist!

  76. gbaikie says:

    Questions:
    How long does warming effect of increase CO2, take to occur?
    With increase of 100 ppm of CO2, how long does it take to get 50%
    and 95% of any expected warming.

    I say doubling of CO2 is zero to .5 C but I limit the time period to
    be within 100 years.
    Zero means we will never be able to measure it. And .5 C is hard to measure but it seems possible.
    Or I am hopeful that at some time, within decades, the warming effect from CO2, is possible.

    • Clint R says:

      “I say doubling of CO2 is zero to .5 C”

      Did you leave off the minus sign?

      • Swenson says:

        Clint R,

        He could have just stopped typing after the zero.

        That would have been a good start.

        Compared to the airless Moon, the atmosphere provides enough insulation that maximum surface temperatures are about 30 K less on Earth, compared to the Moon.

        Good thing, or we would be consumed by that particular Sky Dragon (the lack of an atmosphere).

      • gbaikie says:

        Some people believe CO2 is cooling effect with Antarctica- I don’t.

        • Entropic man says:

          Depends on the temperature.

          Once the surface temperature in the high Antarctic goes below -53C it is cooler than the tropopause. The greenhouse effect reverses and heat flows upward increases due to CO2 rather than decreasing. It is not a strong enough effect to cause runaway cooling, but it does contribute to making the Antarctic plateau the coldest place on the planet.

          • Swenson says:

            EM,

            I think not. Heat flows from hot to cold. And, like everywhere else on Earth, the surface is hotter than “outer space”, nominally 4 K or so.

            No GHE, reverses or otherwise. Just the laws of the universe in action.

          • gbaikie says:

            –Swenson says:
            January 14, 2022 at 4:51 PM
            EM,

            I think not. Heat flows from hot to cold. And, like everywhere else on Earth, the surface is hotter than outer space, nominally 4 K or so.”–
            Well LEO is quite hot and effectively has no temperature.
            Or it’s long distance from low LEO to “outer space”.

            But tried to post about this:
            “Once the surface temperature in the high Antarctic goes below -53C it is cooler than the tropopause. ”
            and didn’t post, try again:

            “The average temperature of Canada is -3.5 C
            The average elevation of Canada is 487 m
            Per 1000 meter above where you are measuring is about 6.5 C
            colder.
            I don’t think anyone knows what average temperature of say arctic
            ocean surface is. When covered by polar sea ice, it can be quite cold and would be at sea level.”
            [[That was the gist of it]]

      • gbaikie says:

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/14/nearly-140-scientific-papers-detail-the-minuscule-effect-co2-has-on-earths-temperature/

        Not that read this pile of stuff
        But I think saying .1 to .5 C is probably better than saying 0 to .5 C

  77. stephen p anderson says:

    A new study in Health Physics corroborates Berry’s work. Their study concludes human contribution is 23%. Berry concluded 25%. You should be able to get this DOI, Chihuahua.

    https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Fulltext/2022/02000/World_Atmospheric_CO2,_Its_14C_Specific_Activity,.2.aspx

    • stephen p anderson says:

      It is the Skrable, Chabot study.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        No, I misstated. Their article is a little confusing. The total anthropogenic component in the atmosphere according to their study is 47ppm. So, this would be 37% of the rise. 63% of the rise is natural. Berry’s work is 25%.

        • So where did the +200ppm [email protected] from burning fossil fuels go?

          Fossil fuels still have the same d13C composition as when they were formed, many millions of years ago. 12C and 13C are stable isotopes.

          Now, as we burn fossil fuels, the ratio of C13 to C12 is going down.

          The declining C12 / C13 ratio is evidence it went into the atmosphere.

          The 13C/12C ratio is decreasing in the atmosphere and in the upper oceans, over about 150 years, since mankind was using fossil fuels in increasingly amounts.

          The interesting point of d13C ratio’s is that there are only two known sources of low d13C, that are fossil fuels and decaying vegetation.

          All other known sources (volcanic degassing, deep oceans, ocean surface, carbonate rocks,…) have slightly negative to slightly positive d13C values.

          Since about 1990 we have oxygen measurements (at the edge of analytical possibilities), which are accurate enough to see the small difference between oxygen use from fossil fuel burning and the oxygen use/production of vegetation decay/growth.

          This revealed that (at least) since 1990, somewhat less oxygen was used than calculated from fossil fuel burning.

          Vegetation produces more oxygen than it uses.

          Because vegetation growth prefers 12C over 13C, more 13C is left in the atmosphere.

          Vegetation is not the cause of the d13C decline

          As fossil fuel burning is the only known source of 13C depletion in the atmosphere left, it probably is entirely responsible for the whole d13C decrease

          Even during natural variations, the d13C decrease from the emissions by far dominates the change in ratio’s, that is why you don’t see a difference between short term and long term variations in d13C.

          This alt science fraud from Berry is tiresome.

          • Swenson says:

            Richard Greene,

            What’s wrong with CO2?

            Just putting back what nature took out – before everything dies!

            And you are opposed to humanity surviving because . . . ?

            Are you mad, or just stupid?

          • Bindidon says:

            Richard Greene

            Thanks.

            Don’t bother with this Swenson guy who has nothing relevant to say and is therefore constantly obsessed

            – to say something unimportant
            – to insult anyone who says something relevant.

          • Nothing wrong with CO2
            It is the staff of almost
            all life on our planet

            I’d like a lot more in the atmosphere,
            and so would my plants — they’d like
            about 1000ppm.

            When I tell leftist climate zealots
            we are recycling CO2 that had been
            temporarily stored underground
            as carbon in oil, coal and natural gas,
            that was once CO2 in the atmosphere,
            they go berserk. Especially after I tell
            them we love warming here in Michigan
            and want a lot more warming ubtil we
            cab retire our snow shovels.
            10 degrees F. this morning !

          • Bindidon says:

            Richard Greene

            ” I’d like a lot more in the atmosphere,
            and so would my plants — they’d like
            about 1000ppm. ”

            Very certainly they wouldn’t.

            You seem to confound tomatoes in a greenhouse with the entire Globe’s vegetation.

            *
            I think it would be better to let people who are 20 years old now what will be good for them in 50 years.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        The source is Health Physics.

        • Willard says:

          Were it not for Ed you would never have found this paper in a radiology journal by a guy who has gone emeritus and just happened to be the buddy of its previous editor-in-chief.

          Here’s a version of the paper:

          https://www.radsafety.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Skrable-article.pdf

          Note the website. Also note sentences such as “The word delta represents the change or difference of a quantity from some reference quantity” and Bulwer Lytton Fiction Contest paragraphs such as this one:

          This claim by the authors has no foundation. It is disputed by our analysis of the underlying equation for the d13C statistic in section 2.3.1, the values of quantities in columns F through L in rows 21 through 27 in Table 1 that might be affected by changes in values of the d13C statistic from one year to the next, and the sensitivities and relative sensitivities of the d13C, D14C, and S(t) statistics for the detection of changes in the anthropogenic-fossil component, CF(t). It is a clear example of the misuse of the d13C
          statistic as a means to validate fossil fuels as the major source of increases in atmospheric CO2.

          Here’s the resource it tries to criticize with its curve fitting:

          https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/isotopes/mixing.html

          That’s not serious stuff.

          • Swenson says:

            Deranged Wee Willy,

            From memory, this would be NOAA telling lies for children, quoting Dr Seuss and blathering about bank balances.

            You are right. Not serious stuff at all. Quite laughable, in fact.

            Don’t you realise that CO2 Is the basis of human existence? The staff of life?

            Because you are deranged, you want to exterminate all life on Earth! More CO2, more photosynthesis, more wheat, more food for man!

            And you hate mankind because . . . ?

          • stephen p anderson says:

            That isn’t how science works, Chihuahua. It has to be falsified, not criticized.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            You’ll need to spend a little time at it. Can’t do it overnight. I know you’ve hung your hat on the whole CO2 is “bad” mantra. Maybe H20?

          • Willard says:

            Pay me and I will, Troglodyte. Otherwise it’s your job to show that you understand a rant that should have been desk rejected.
            You obviously don’t.

            All I need to know is that it does not cite *any* paper that it alleges to refute. Here could be one:

            A decrease in the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2 has been documented by direct observations since 1978 and from ice core measurements since the industrial revolution. This decrease, known as the 13C-Suess effect, is driven primarily by the input of fossil fuel-derived CO2 but is also sensitive to land and ocean carbon cycling and uptake. Using updated records, we show that no plausible combination of sources and sinks of CO2 from fossil fuel, land, and oceans can explain the observed 13C-Suess effect unless an increase has occurred in the 13C/12C isotopic discrimination of land photosynthesis. A trend toward greater discrimination under higher CO2 levels is broadly consistent with tree ring studies over the past century, with field and chamber experiments, and with geological records of C3 plants at times of altered atmospheric CO2, but increasing discrimination has not previously been included in studies of long-term atmospheric 13C/12C measurements. We further show that the inferred discrimination increase of 0.014 ± 0.007‰ ppm−1 is largely explained by photorespiratory and mesophyll effects. This result implies that, at the global scale, land plants have regulated their stomatal conductance so as to allow the CO2 partial pressure within stomatal cavities and their intrinsic water use efficiency to increase in nearly constant proportion to the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

            https://www.pnas.org/content/114/39/10361

            Welcome to the Mike Tyson conception of science – everyone has an idea of it until it punches you in the face.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            We will see, won’t we?

          • stephen p anderson says:

            We will see, won’t we? I’m referring to the word “plausible.”

          • stephen p anderson says:

            By the way, I don’t have a lot of time to look at this. Why don’t you post this over on Berry’s site and await his response?

          • Willard says:

            More ankle biting, Troglodyte?

            Have another cookie:

            We consider whether the Anthropocene is recorded in the isotope geochemistry of the atmosphere, sediments, plants and ice cores, and the time frame during which any changes are recorded, presenting examples from the literature. Carbon and nitrogen isotope ratios have become more depleted since the 19th century, with the rate of change accelerating after ~ad 1950, linked to increased emissions from fossil fuel consumption and increased production of fertiliser. Lead isotope ratios demonstrate human pollution histories several millennia into the past, while sulphur isotopes can be used to trace the sources of acid rain. Radioisotopes have been detectable across the planet since the 1950s because of atmospheric nuclear bomb tests and can be used as a stratigraphic marker. We find there is isotopic evidence of widespread human impact on the global environment, but different isotopes have registered changes at different times and at different rates.

            https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2053019614541631

            Why isn’t this discussed by your gurus?

            Answer the question.

            I want specifics.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Obviously, his study is a refutation of past isotopic carbon studies that have promoted this view that humans caused all the CO2 increase. WE KNOW THAT. Again, why don’t you post these on Berry’s site and await his response? REPEAT.

          • Willard says:

            Obviously Troglodyte has no idea what the lichurchur on the question looks like, which is understandable considering that his gurus don’t cite any of it. He obviously misrepresents Ed’s work since one does not simply refute a model with another one. So his whole You-and-Him-Fight schtick amounts to a very simple Climateball move:

            https://climateball.net/but-debate-me/

            Has Ed ever contacted the researchers he does not even cite?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Obviously slimy sock puppet Willard has no idea what he’s talking about. He never does. He just links to stuff he doesn’t understand, hoping that someone out there will be fooled into thinking he’s onto something. What a slimy little sock puppet he is.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Chihuahua doesn’t have the courage of his convictions. He would instead remain anonymous, obfuscate, and burn through the pages of his thesaurus.

          • Swenson says:

            Weird Wee Willy,

            You quoted –

            “We find there is isotopic evidence of widespread human impact on the global environment, but different isotopes have registered changes at different times and at different rates.”

            Gee. Name anyone who doesn’t believe that life of any sort doesn’t change the environment in which it lives, if you can.

            That’s how living things live.

            Do you you go out of your way to to find “authorities” who make witless statements, just so you can appeal to them?

            Maybe you could spend time trying to find someone, anywhere, who claims to have made a thermometer hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between it and the Sun, but you know that this would be impossible.

            No wonder nobody can describe the GHE in any way that involves the known laws of physics.

            Carry on trying to get people to follow your stupid links inviting them to play with your balls. Don’t be amazed if they don’t accept a second invitation.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Mediocre Fool –

            Why do you keep trying to bait me with your silly pet topic?

            Do you believe your ankle biting will work this time?

            Have you ever realized how silly your cafetaria bully act looks to everyone who knows you’re hiding behind a sock puppet?

            Ha!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            "A sock puppet is an alternative online identity or user account used for purposes of deception"

            The only one using their alternative online identity for purposes of deception would be universally hated, slimy sock puppet Willard! What a universally hated, slimy sock puppet!

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Chihuahua,

            Now that I have a little more time, did you read the Skrable paper? NOTHING you linked refutes or even addresses the Skrable paper. He uses NOAA data. He acknowledges the Suess Effect. He acknowledges that there is anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. He uses published C14 specific activity, C14/C12, and C13/C12 data. He uses linear conservation of mass equations. He uses the IPCC natural carbon cycle and the Keeling curve. He shows based on using published data, the Suess Effect, and conservation of mass that anthropogenic CO2 is only 46ppmV.

          • Willard says:

            Our slimiest sock puppet does not seem to appreciate to have been found out:

            J Halp-less says:
            December 30, 2017 at 6:30 AM
            You see, Norman, this *rotation on your axis with respect to inertial space*, as you see it, has a much simpler name. Its called *orbiting*, and it is one of two possible motions the bodies can make. Rotating on their axis being the other motion. The moon does the former, not the latter. The reason? It is tidally locked.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-278090

          • Willard says:

            > Now that I have a little more time, did you read

            Troglodyte does not always have a little more time, but when he does he’s not doing the reading himself.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Typical! Slimy little sock puppet Willard wants to try to shift the focus onto someone else! He clearly doesn’t understand that everyone around here realizes he is the only one looking to deceive others! What a universally hated, slimy little sock puppet!

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Who’s doing the reading, Chihuahua? You’re paranoid.

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy Slimeball,

            Oh, dear! Feeling bullied, are you?

            Poor precious petal.

            Maybe you are feeling a bit peeved because I wrote –

            “Maybe you could spend time trying to find someone, anywhere, who claims to have made a thermometer hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between it and the Sun, but you know that this would be impossible.

            No wonder nobody can describe the GHE in any way that involves the known laws of physics.

            Carry on trying to get people to follow your stupid links inviting them to play with your balls. Dont be amazed if they dont accept a second invitation.”

            How are your science studies going? Found any CO2 with magic heating properties recorded by anyone, anywhere, anytime? Models, and the sheep-like bleating of climate cultists, or the contents of your own fantasies, are not valid statements of fact.

            Carry on feeling impotent, powerless, and trodden down. It suits you, grub.

          • Willard says:

            > Who’s doing the reading

            Certainly not you, Troglodyte.

            What are you afraid of?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Nothing the slimy little sock puppet says even makes any sense! What a grubby, disgusting, lying, pathetic, slimy little sock puppet!

          • Willard says:

            As I see it there are two options:

            1) Our slimiest sock puppet was a genuine commenter, willing and interested to learn more about Dragon Crank stuff.

            2) He played the part of a genuine commenter, willing and interested to learn more about the subject. In reality he only played this part to string people along who, in their good nature, wish to help others. He abused this trait in others in order to drag out lengthy conversations in which he can sow as much confusion as possible, so that other people reading along (those who are genuinely ignorant of such matters, but who wish to learn) will be led astray.

            Let me just say now that our slimiest sock puppet thinks the person no 2 is not a good person

            Our slimiest sock puppet does not pretend to be 2 anymore.

            Progress!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Slimy little sock puppet Willard is still trying to shift focus away from himself! Just because everybody here knows that he is not genuine, that he is only here to further an agenda, and he wants to try to project his own failings onto others! What a disgusting, slimy little sock puppet!

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Third option,

            You were afraid to read the publication and instead resorted to your usual spray and pray.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Fourth option,

            Maybe you’re just lazy.

          • Willard says:

            Our slimiest sock puppet soldiers on, feeling the emptiness of a month without the argument he lost:

            OK, I am done talking about the moon [sic.], for this month.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1121428

            It’s been four years and Kiddo can’t even write “Moon” correctly.

          • Willard says:

            Fifth option, Troglodyte – you haven’t paid me to be your monkey.

            You can always try to read it to me. Should be fun!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Slimy little sock puppet Willard just can’t take what he dishes out, always trying to pass the buck onto somebody else! Sorry you slimy little sock puppet, just because you’re a universally hated slimy little sock puppet doesn’t give you the sock puppet excuse to pass on your sock puppet abuses onto better people!

            Listen, sock puppet – you know you’re a sock puppet, I know you’re a sock puppet, even Captain Sock Puppet knows you’re a sock puppet! So just sock puppet it up and get on with it.

            Sock puppet.

          • Willard says:

            Our slimiest sock puppet lies about me in the hope that nobody will notice that he’s one of three sock puppets that have been running a Dark Triad circus show at Roy’s for years.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Lies about you!? So now you’re calling me a liar! Slimy sock puppet Willard wants to call me a liar! What a slimy little sock puppet! You are the one with the intent to deceive, slimy sock puppet Willard, so you are the one that meets the definition of a sock puppet! Sock puppeting around here with your sock puppet-y ideas, like you’re the sock of the walk! Socking hell, Sockard, you are the biggest sock puppet we’ve ever had at this blog! Just sock off…

          • Willard says:

            And of course our slimiest sock puppet continues to slime and lie.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            "A sock puppet is an alternative online identity or user account used for purposes of deception"

            Who has the intent to deceive, slimy little sock puppet Willard? It’s you, you slimy little sock puppet!

          • Willard says:

            “alternative”

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Oh, slimy sock puppet Willard…"alternative", is it? Is that the part of the definition of "sock puppet" that you object to? You’ve always used the same pseudonym (as far as we know), therefore it’s a huge insult to be called a sock puppet!? Is that right? You see, I thought it might be the "used for purposes of deception" that you would object to! But I guess you acknowledge that part of it just fine. No point you trying to pretend you’re not out to deceive others, I suppose…

            …you slimy little sock puppet.

          • Willard says:

            “Sock puppets” are the scourge of online discussion. Multiple accounts controlled by the same user can dominate comment forums and spread fake news. But now there’s a way to unmask the puppeteers.

            A study of nine websites that use comment service Disqus to let readers post responses to articles found that sock puppets can be identified based on their writing style, posting activity and relationship with other users.

            https://www.newscientist.com/article/2127107-sock-puppet-accounts-unmasked-by-the-way-they-write-and-post/#ixzz7I07FT47n

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            So that is the part you object to, huh sock puppet?

          • Willard says:

            … our slimiest sock puppet soldiers on.

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy Idiot will go to any lengths to avoid discussing the physics of the atmosphere, or the mythical GHE.

            Unfortunately for Wee Willy, all his bizarre efforts are merely likely to encourage onlookers to examine atmospheric physics (or physics in general) and draw their own conclusions, as is right and proper.

            I am quite happy to continue “feeding the troll” (as is said), to allow others to see what a delusional, dimwitted, impotent and powerless (yet bitter) climate cultist looks like, when allowed to show his true nature.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, it’s fine, slimy sock puppet Willard! If you’re happy to admit that the only difference between you and a person "using a sock puppet" is that you have never changed pseudonym, for absolutely any reason at all, but you acknowledge that your intent is to deceive others with the online identity you do maintain, who am I to stand in your way? Carry on.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Chihuahua lost his job as a forum moderator.

          • Willard says:

            Troglodyte has no time to read us his Dragon Crank papers.

            Sadz.

          • Swenson says:

            Is Wandering Wee Willy a first class manipulator, or a world class masturbator?

            He’s a science denying fact avoider, that’s for sure!

            Physics? A deep mystery to dimwits like Wee Willy. He is so incompetent he cannot even get himself, let alone anyone else, banned.

            Poor Wee Willy. He just has to remain bitter, powerless and an object of derision. He isn’t even effective as a troll! Pathetic attempts to get people to waste their time at Wee Willy’s behest don’t seem to be working all that well.

            That’s because Wee Willy Asshat is an idiot.

            At least he has stopped whining about being bullied – nobody was paying attention. There’s a lesson for Wee Willy Numbnuts in there, I surmise.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Mayonnaise ‘n Fries.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Slimy sock puppet Willard, please stop trolling.

        • Swenson says:

          Whinnying Wee Willy talking in tongues again.

          Good little fanatical cultist is Wee Willy. Avoid discussing science at all costs, even at the cost of appearing as stupid as you are!

  78. Swenson says:

    “Mark Zuckerbergs Meta is being sued for 2.3bn in a class action lawsuit that claims 44 million Facebook users in the UK had their data exploited after signing up to the social network” – Guardian.

    Ain’t freedom grand?

  79. Mark Heidenreich says:

    Agree that google can ban what they want but the real question is what is the rationale behind the action? Dr Spencer is a real scientist and his position is very scientific. So google is being driven by non-science motivations. Just like the fascists and communists and all of the totalitarians of the past. So everyone should know google doesnt stand for science, they are biased and wrong. So to me that is what should be conveyed. Google stands for oppression and silencing dissent.

    • Entropic man says:

      ” So google is being driven by non-science motivations. ”

      It is, of course political. Since the climate change debate became polarised along party lines Democrats have been making life difficult for coolists and Republicans have been making life difficult for warmists.

      Wearing his lukewarm scientific hat Dr Spencer was regarded as a neutral.

      Once he hitched his horse to Trump’s coolist wagon he became a political target for Trump’s opponents.

      • gbaikie says:

        That was the whole point of Trump the destructor.
        And Trump is done.
        The greatest president ever.
        Trump, the New York Democrat, was summoned by the press or if you like, the establishment; and he came, and he won.
        And the People won.

    • Entropic man says:

      Americans have a habit of demonizing their own citizens.

      Think of the Salem witch trials, the Red Scare of 1919, McCarthyism.

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

  80. Carbon500 says:

    Swenson: I nearly joined Facebook some time ago – until it came up with a display that gave me details of people it suggested I might enjoy contacting. Among these were relatives that (tellingly) don’t have my surname, and various other people with whom I’d only had fleeting dealings. Clearly all this information had been obtained electronically without my consent.

  81. Entropic man says:

    Just for fun this warmist is linking to an interesting paper about peat bogs mentioned on a coolist website.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/14/rising-atmospheric-co2-concentrations-globally-affect-photosynthesis-of-peat-forming-mosses/

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-02953-1

    It illustrates the amount of work, the thousands of papers and millions of man-hours that go into constructing a quantitative carbon cycle.

  82. Randy Kelly says:

    Not sure I’m in a position to state “the truth” of what is causing climate warming but NONE of us can figure that out or even consider a mitigation unless we pay attention to the actual data. I commanded an organization once with a significant simulation complex, and during a staff meeting, some of our engineers were upset because they couldn’t construct a flight test profile where the resulting data matched the simulation and wanted to cease the effort. I could scarcely believe my ears and had to remind them of George Box’s famous saying (..”all models are wrong…”) and the fact their task was to use the validated flight test data to improve the model to make it “more useful” so we could make our manned testing safer and more efficient. Ignoring the correlation of 43 years of spacecraft sensed data (and tens of thousands of years of geologic data) because it conflicts with somebody’s model (that matches a certain political goal) is certainly not “science”. (Regardless of the model’s outcome, “accrediting” the model for some purpose before verifying or validating the model is backwards application of the modeling and simulation process.)

    • Entropic man says:

      “Not sure Im in a position to state the truth of what is causing climate warming but NONE of us can figure that out or even consider a mitigation unless we pay attention to the actual data. ”

      None of us know “The Truth”, that’s not how science works.

      Reality runs by rules. Science is about collecting data and working out the rules.

      You then test the rules by experiment and models.

      The first model is a simulation using your first guess at the rules. It will be wrong, giving results different from reality.

      The full quote is “All models are wrong, but some are useful”.

      The errors in the first model help you refine your rules.
      It is recursive. You use the model to refine the rules and the updated rules to refine the model. Round and round you go and eventually you get a model as close to reality as it’s simplified nature allows.

      Just as the map is not the territory, the model is not the reality. It does allow you to go places that would be difficult in reality.

      In your example it might guide a test pilot venturing into the U2’s “coffin corner”; the maximum altitude situation in which there is a 3 knot wide airspeed sweet spot between stalling and Mach buffet.

      In climate change it allows you to venture into the future and estimate the outcome of different policies.

      Stay on this site for a while and you will get great entertainment from people who don’t understand models and even more entertainment from those with eccentric ideas about the rules of physics.

      • Clint R says:

        Ent, don’t forget that you believe passenger jets fly backwards.

        It’s called “Full disclosure”.

      • Swenson says:

        EM,

        “In climate change it allows you to venture into the future and estimate the outcome of different policies.”

        Which a 12 year old child (given 30 minutes of my excellent tutelage) can do as well, if not better, at far less cost.

        I am prepared to wager as much as you would like (you pay for the legals) that you cannot predict future climate better than I, given objective verifiable measurements being involved.

        Gavin Schmidt leapt in, in another arena to demolish a similar challenge, but smartly ran away when the conditions were explained. You would need to look carefully at what I wrote, before you start making claims about climate models and the future, and wagers thereon.

        In the meantime, you might be able to point to a single instance of any benefit accruing to humanity as a whole, as a result of climate change modelling.

        • Entropic man says:

          Swenson

          “In the meantime, you might be able to point to a single instance of any benefit accruing to humanity as a whole, as a result of climate change modelling.”

          They keep eejits like you posting here, rather than inflicting your weird ideas on the rest of the population.

          • Swenson says:

            EM,

            That would mean you can’t point to a single instance of any benefit accruing to humanity as a whole, as a result of climate change modelling, would it?

            I know reality is an inconvenience for climate cultists, but it won’t go away just because you don’t want to accept it.

    • In simpler language:

      The climate models predict what the programmers want predicted.

      The scientists who use the models are paid by governments, in salary or with grants, to predict rapid dangerous global warming.

      So their computer games predict rapid dangerous global warming.

      The predicted global warming is always coming far in the future, so there is no way to verify the accuracy of the models.

      One could look at the first few decades of a 100 year climate prediction, but the models didn’t actually project the warming would be the same in every decade for the next 100 years, so that argument does not work that well.

      The big problem with predictions is there are no data for the future. Only unproven theories and speculation. The precise causes of present and past climate change, which do have data, are not yet known. That’s why predictions can not be “accurate”, except by chance.

      There is no evidence the climate predictions have become more accurate over the past 40 years. In fact,it appear the latest CMIP6 models are predicting faster global warming, than the prior batch of CMIP5 models, which over predicted the global warming rate, so far, by about 100%.

      In addition, the one model that least over-predicts global warming, the Russian IMN model, gets no individual attention — it is merely averaged with several dozen other models, all of which over predict global warmer by an even greater amount.

      Always wrong predictions from computer games
      are not real climate science — they are nothing
      more than climate astrology !

  83. Kerem Oner says:

    Outrageous censorship. We need more scientists, not more tools of the state who will sell their souls for the almighty dollar. Hang in there Dr. Spencer.

  84. Do not use Google search. Change your default search agent to DuckDuckGo.com or some other search engin.

  85. Bob Gulliver says:

    Keep up the good work Roy. Its disheartening to see this rubbish happening. In a world where Greta Thunberg and Leonardo Di Capprio are listened to ahead of people like yourself its hard not to feel a bit depressed at the total lack of any sort of analysis by the general public. When someone tells me “just look at the science” I point them to your website but I fear very few actually go and have a look. The world needs people like you, I always love to hear what you have to say.

    • Greta Thunberg was the 2021 Climate Buffoon of the Year at my climate science and energy blog. She also won in 2019 for her climate scaremongering. But in 2021, Greta won for her political incompetence. So now she is both a climate science dingbat, and a political dingbat.

      She attacked COP26 proceedings (the Climate Liars Annual Party, or CLAP, whose final report is called The Claptrap Report”).

      And the whole world heard Greta bellow “Blah, Blah, Blah” about COP26. Of course that was true, and said it too, but leftists listen to Greta (I don’t know why).

      Greta has become so angry and radical that she is openly attacking the people leading her Coming Climate Crisis Religion.

      She is saying things that should not be stated in public unless she deliberately wants to harm “the cause”.

      Of course “Nut Zero” is not feasible, and will never happen, so there is nothing the green zealots can do to satisfy Greta Thunberg … which will make her more and more hysterical.

      Climate Realists like us get no attention, but Greta is a master at getting attention.

      Leftists ruin everything they touch, and then get angry with each other. That’s happening now.

  86. Swenson says:

    Earlier Wee Willy Slimeball wrote (complete comment) –

    “And of course our slimiest sock puppet continues to slime and lie.”

    Hmmm, as they say. The eminently witless one cannot define the GHE, cannot provide any experimental support for his indefinable GHE (unsurprising), and believes that he is amazingly powerful and authoritative, capable of using his awesome intellectual powers to create fact from fantasy.

    Alas and alack, associating himself with frauds, fakers, scofflaws and deadbeats of the ilk of Michael Mann, or delusional fantasists like Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen, merely leads others to believe that the fool using the pseudonym of “Willard” (and known as Wee Willy), is just another science denying, bitter, climate cultist – with precisely nothing to offer relating to the study of the atmosphere.

    But, hey ho!, it’s a free world.

    At the very least, Wee Willy Wanker’s conniptions show the mental state of a devoted climate cultist, disconnected from reality.

    Others, of course, are free to leap to Woeful Wee Willy’s defence. I await the droves of the dimwit’s supporters providing verifiable facts to show that Wee Willy is not, in fact, completely off with the fairies, living in a fantasy world of his own.

    I fear my wait will be a long one.

    • Willard says:

      You said the magic word, Mike Flynn:

      Mike Flynn says:
      September 23, 2017 at 6:13 PM

      […]

      So your statement that you wouldnt respond either, puts you in the company of scofflaws who are funded by the Government, but do their best to avoid complying with the laws of the Government which employs them!

      https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/the-11-year-major-hurricane-drought-much-more-unusual-than-two-cat-4-strikes/#comment-264597

      Congratulations!

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Horse kicks tree, farts on dogs, then runs away.

        • Swenson says:

          Wee Willy can’t talk about science, so fondly imagines himself to be The Great Detective, for some bizarre reason known only to himself.

          Wee Willy resembles Chief Inspector Clouseau of Pink Panther fame, rather than Sherlock Holmes or Hercule Poirot. All fictional, of course, like Witless Wee Will’s estimation of himself.

          At least it allows Wee Willy Idiot to avoid addressing anything at all of a scientific nature.

          What a clown he is!

          Maybe one day, I will explain the reason for his confusion, but he is so wedded to his conspiracy fantasy, he would refuse to accept the facts. Best let him carry on, demonstrating the stupidity and avoidance tactics of the fanatical climate cultist.

      • Swenson says:

        Woebegone Wee Willy,

        I don’t follow your links, but I suppose in your deranged state, you believe that If I use words which have been used by others, then I must be those others!

        There are people in power who work on the same premise, and see conspiracy and threat at every turn. You would no doubt subscribe to the idea that Sir Francis Bacon wrote the plays attributed to one William Shakespeare – based on, amongst “coded references” in Shakespeare’s plays, which indicated that Bacon was the “real” author . . .

        Shakespeare and Bacon used the same words at times! How spooky is that?

        I write as I wish. You can write what you wish. Mike Flynn may write what he wishes.

        It doesn’t make you any the less the science denying, fact avoiding, slimy little grub that you are. I give thanks that you are at least powerless and impotent. As stupid as you are (and some of your comments indicate that you imagine yourself to be intelligent, wise, and respected – the fanciful notions of a stupid person), it would be terrifying if you could actually influence facts.

        So carry on with your nonsense. Pointless, meaningless, and irrelevant, but if you think nobody will notice you are avoiding bring up anything involving fact or science, you are even more stupid than I assume.

        • Willard says:

          Mike Flynn, Mastiff Fence.

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy Nitwit,

            Carry on.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Moss Florist.

          • Swenson says:

            Weary Wee Willy,

            I wrote previously –

            “So carry on with your nonsense. Pointless, meaningless, and irrelevant, but if you think nobody will notice you are avoiding bring up anything involving fact or science, you are even more stupid than I assume.”

            I’ll rephrase slightly. You are demonstrably as stupid as I assume.

            Carry on with the demonstration.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Mannakin Fizz, you said it alright –

            Mike Flynn says:
            May 27, 2018 at 5:42 PM

            […]

            There is nothing to critique – you are stupid and ignorant. Your supposed equations are meaningless thrashing around – completely irrelevant and pointless.

            Carry on.

            Cheers.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/sea-level-rise-human-portion-is-small/#comment-304772

            Cheers.

          • Swenson says:

            Witless Wee Willy,

            I agree with Mike Flynn, even if I might express those sentiments in slightly different ways.

            You are indeed stupid, ignorant, and irrelevant. If you had an equation it would probably be meaningless, irrelevant and pointless, and you would no doubt thrash around wildly, trying to escape the consequences of your folly.

            So carry on, dummy. Keep quoting people who think of you as I do.

            You can always hope that someone will leap to your defence. Someone who thinks like you perhaps? I use the word “think” loosely” of course.

            How is your study of physics going? Not well, I gather.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Misbehaving Franklin – when you say “I agree with Mike Flynn,” you in fact are agreeing with yourself.

            Teach us some physics if you dare.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            It is very easy to spot the propagandists. They don’t understand anything. Lots of cut and paste.

          • Swenson says:

            Whacky Wee Willy,

            You wrote –

            “Teach us some physics if you dare.”

            I assume that would be you, and yourself?

            Gladly. Just tell me what physics you need to be taught, your current level of understanding, and convince me you have made strenuous efforts to overcome your lack of knowledge.

            Otherwise, I, and others, might assume you are just being your usual idiotic self, trying to make others waste their time at your behest.

            Your “silly semantic games” don’t appear to be achieving much (apart from making you look like a dimwitted troll), do they? Apropos of Mike Flynn, are you still of the firm conviction that when Mike Flynn commented here recently, it was really someone else pretending to be him? Exactly how did you come to that conclusion? Mental telepathy? Tinfoil hat?

            Carry on being silly, Willy.

          • Willard says:

            It’s easy to recognize Troglodyte and Mike Flynn – the first pretends to talk about science but never really does, and the second still denies being Mike Flynn, just like he denies that the greenhouse effect exists.

            Mike Flynn should teach us some physics, and Troglodyte should read us the two papers to which he courageously handwaves.

            That’d be instructive.

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy Wanker,

            You suggested again -“Mike Flynn should teach us some physics, . . .”, and I assume that in the depths of your tinfoil hat fantasy, you really mean myself.

            As I wrote before “Gladly. Just tell me what physics you need to be taught, your current level of understanding, and convince me you have made strenuous efforts to overcome your lack of knowledge.”

            I realise this upsets your little trollish game, but that’s life. You just want me to waste time on a completely pointless task, whereas I believe it is up to me to determine how I spend my time, and there is not a damn thing you can do about it.

            I suppose you could try whining, moaning, or bleating about the unfairness of it all, but this might just make you look like an ineffectual and incompetent troll. As usual, you attempt to cover your complete ignorance of science by accusing me of denying something that does not exist. Dimwit, if the GHE existed you could at least describe it, and tell where it might be observed, measured and quantified. Of course you can’t, because you are just another emotionally retarded climate crank.

            Off you go now, like a good little troll. You really need to try harder.

          • Willard says:

            So no physics again, Mascerpone Flammekuche Mike Flynn?

            Do your bit about how an IR measuring device responds to a heat source reflected in a mirror.

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy Peabrain,

            More nonsense.

            If you have something to say, why not say it?

            Because you’re a slimy little grub, is that why?

            Tell us all about how IR reflects, peabrain. Show your knowledge of physics, dimwit.

            Or just deny science altogether, as slimy little cultist grubs do!

            [chortle]

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Manque’ as a Futurist – do your bit about night temperatures.

          • Swenson says:

            Weepy Wee Willy,

            You wrote –

            “Mike Flynn, Manque as a Futurist do your bit about night temperatures.”

            Maybe you should ask Mike Flynn – or better still, quote him if you can, and support any disagreement you might have with anything he says.

            I’m sure night temperatures exist. What about you, peabrain?

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Macaroni of Fibs.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Slimy sock puppet Willard, please stop trolling.

        • stephen p anderson says:

          Here’s the continuity equation Chihuahua:

          dL/dt= I-O

          It’s a first-order, homogeneous, differential equation. I studied it in Pchem. Reaction kinetics.

          • Willard says:

            Very good, Troglodyte.

            Pray tell more, and don’t forget to quote and cite, even if according to your logic that would make you a propagandist.

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy Wanker,

            Not even a good effort at baiting.

            Try harder next time. Have you considered going back to troll school, or can’t you meet the entrance requirements?

            What form of mental instability leads you to the conclusion that any rational person would value your opinion? After trying to help you – once, of course.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Frantically Masturbating.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Slimy sock puppet Willard, please stop trolling.

        • Entropic man says:

          You are mistaken.

          Shakespeare’s plays were written by Elizabeth I.

          Before you complain that no woman could have written Shakespeare’s plays, this is proof that Elizabeth I was a man.

  87. Swenson says:

    Earlier, Richard Greene wrote –

    “Based on 25 years of climate science reading, I would estimate that at least 99.9% of climate scientists believe there is a large greenhouse effect, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas.”

    A couple of points. Climate is the statistics of past weather. 12 year old child standard arithmetic. Not much science there!

    Belief is no substitute for fact.

    Believe away, but don’t expect me to find your belief, nor to feel sympathetic if you discover you’ve been fooled.

    Maybe you could name a “climate scientist” who has actually advanced knowledge of the statistics of past weather?

    Only joking, of course. Climate science is more of a joke than political science or social science, which are both probably less important than astrology to members of the public.

  88. Entropic man says:

    Testing

  89. Entropic man says:

    Finally!

    Stephen

    I think I’ve falsified Berry.

    I’ll use ppm equivalent for convenience.

    First to describe one year using Berry’s model and the IPCC model. Seasonal exchanges cancel out.

    Berry

    Atmospheric CO2 increases by 2ppm/year.

    59% comes from human activity. That is 1.2ppmm.

    41% transfers from Land and ocean to atmosphere. That is 0.8ppm.

    Land and ocean show a net decrease of 0.8ppm/year.

    IPCC

    Human activity releases enough to raise atmospheric CO2 by 4ppm/year.

    Atmospheric CO2 increases by 2ppm/year.

    Land and ocean absorb 2ppm/year from atmosphere.

    Land and ocean show a net increase increase of 2ppm/year.

    Not the different predictions.

    The Berry model predicts that the amount of carbon in the land and ocean will decrease.

    The IPCC predicts that it will increase.

    What is happening?

    The pH of the ocean is decreasing as the ocean takes up more CO2 and buffering converts more carbon to bicarbonate and carbonate. This releases more H+. Ballentyne et al concur.

    The Land is greening as vegetation stores more CO2 removed from the air.

    Land and ocean are net absorbers of cO2 as predicted by the IPCC but not by Berry.

    Berry is falsified.

    • Entropic man says:

      I put this on Dr. Berry’s website. Awaiting a reply.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        You have a response:

        “Dear Entropic, Thank you for your comment because I always like challenges.

        However, you will have to do much better than your comment to have any impact on my paper. Your comment, as made above, is simply full of sweeping assumptions with no connection to data or physics.

        You need to show the sources of your numbers and your calculations. And you need to point to the parts of my paper that you challenge. You have not shown that there is any error in my paper.

        Have you even read my paper?”

        • Entropic man says:

          Thanks, DREMT.

          This was my reply:-

          Are you sure you aren’t Stephen P Anderson? You sound very like him, right down to the uninformative debating style.

          The IPCC model comes straight out of the literature. The numbers come from them.
          The only significant assumptions for both models are that seasonal exchanges cancel out over the annual cycle, that except for human input the total circulating carbon remains constant and that the equilibrium distribution of carbon between land, ocean and atmosphere remains constant unless disturbed.

          This is sufficient for our purposes since we are discussing the fast carbon cycle, not the slow cycle.

          I have read your paper, courtesy of Willard and the Berry model is based on it.

          The 59% human emissions and, and 41% natural emissions figures are yours. If they are wrong, then please indicate what they should be, how much you expect the land and ocean reservoirs change each year and in what direction.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Dr Berry responds:

            "Dear Entropic, You say, “I have read your paper, courtesy of Willard and the Berry model is based on it.”

            That won’t work because you don’t give a reference for Willard and the data you claim are mine are not my data.

            So please get a copy of my paper and read what it says before you claim there is an error in my paper. Are you too cheap to spend $10?"

          • Willard says:

            Perhaps our slimiest sock puppet will go remind Ed that his paper has been published online?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You seem to have a big problem with me. Don’t know why.

        • stephen p anderson says:

          I keep telling Eman to read his paper first. I even posted my email address, and I will send him the paper. Eman, Dr. Berry is very nice, but that was about a third-grade level of understanding. Eman, William Happer couldn’t falsify Berry’s paper. Do you think you can?

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Also, thank you very much for thinking I’m Dr. Berry. Dr. Berry is an intellectual giant. I’ve got a really high IQ but Berry is at least 20 points higher. I’m not even close to him.

          • Willard says:

            In fairness, Troglodyte, your debating style is at least 20 EQ points higher than Ed’s.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Eman,

            For you to insult scientists like Berry and Spencer is psychopathic. To post something so idiotic on his site is delusional. He was very nice to you.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            I think Dr. Berry quickly concluded that you are a loony bird.

          • Willard says:

            Ed’s honor needs your defense not far from here, Troglodyte:

            Berry is a crackpot “sciemtist”.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/unreliable-and-harmful-claims-this-website-has-been-demonetized-by-google/#comment-1121637

            Beware that our Real McCoy could climb up a spacecraft naked, with you attached to the hair on his back.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Richard is all over the place. I try to leave seniles alone.

          • Willard says:

            How courageous of you, Troglodyte.

            What if I told you that the scientific community did the same with Ed?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard slimes Berry. What a slimy little sock puppet Willard is!

          • stephen p anderson says:

            I would tell you Berry has three papers out there. None have been falsified.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            I would also tell you there is a new independent paper by Skrable et al. that corroborates Berry’s papers.

          • Willard says:

            Repeat after me, Troglodyte:

            One does not simply falsify a model.

            Falsification happens at the level of theories. Since all models are wrong, one could argue that they’re eo ipso falsified. Besides, falsification is not as easy as you presume:

            Popper draws a clear distinction between the logic of falsifiability and its applied methodology. The logic of his theory is utterly simple: a universal statement is falsified by a single genuine counter-instance. Methodologically, however, the situation is complex: decisions about whether to accept an apparently falsifying observation as an actual falsification can be problematic, as observational bias and measurement error, for example, can yield results which are only apparently incompatible with the theory under scrutiny.

            Thus, while advocating falsifiability as the criterion of demarcation for science, Popper explicitly allows for the fact that in practice a single conflicting or counter-instance is never sufficient methodologically for falsification, and that scientific theories are often retained even though much of the available evidence conflicts with them, or is anomalous with respect to them.

            https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#BasiStatFalsConv

            That’s a common, yet fairly basic mistake.

          • Entropic man says:

            My latest response at Dr Berry’s.

            This is getting boring. Your paragon of scientific excellent hasn’t yet written anything scientific. I’m doing all the work and he’s doing eff all. If he wants respect, let him earn it in debate.

            In my day scientific debate took place in seminar rooms. It was the custom for one party to make their point and back it up with evidence. The second party reciprocated and they played evidence tennis until time ran out of one prevailed. So far Ive given you a basic argument but got nothing back.

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

            Lets start at the beginning.

            The first two sentences in your 2019 abstract read:-O
            The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees human CO2 is only 5 percent and natural CO2 is 95 percent of the CO2 inflow into the atmosphere. The ratio of human to natural CO2 in the atmosphere must equal the ratio of the inflows.

            The first sentence is about right. The second sentence is nonsense.

            First may I remind you of the difference between gross flow and net flow. In a year the land absorbs x Gt of carbon by photosynthesis and returns x Gt by respiration. The gross flow is the sum of the two flows. The net flow is zero. Similarly the oceans exchange considerable CO2 with the atmosphere in a year, but the net flow is zero.

            In a year the net contribution of the natural sinks to increasing atmospheric CO2 is nothing. The only contribution to increasing CO2 is human emissions.

            Now the third sentence:-

            Yet IPCC claims human CO2 has caused all the rise in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm, which is now 130 ppm or 32 percent of todays atmospheric CO2.

            Correct.

            The total circulating carbon is located in three reservoirs. About half is in the atmosphere and the other half in the land and ocean. They are in equilibrium, so if you are 2xGt of carbon to the Atmosphere from an outside source such as fossil fuels, x remains in the Atmosphere and x transfers to the land and ocean over the next few years.

            You can get the total emissions from records of total fossil fuel burn and cement manufacture. That figure is enough to increase total carbon in the atmosphere by twice the observed atmospheric 130ppm. Half of the emissions stay in the Atmosphere and the other half transfer to the land and ocean.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Chihuahua,

            You could falsify Berry’s Physics Model by providing evidence that turnover times have increased to decades or centuries. Another way to falsify would be to provide evidence that nature can distinguish between natural and human CO2. A third way to falsify his model would be to show evidence that conservation of carbon mass is a non-linear process. A fourth way to falsify his model would be to provide evidence that outflow isn’t proportional to level using Henry’s Law and the Ideal Gas Law.

            Eman,

            You’ll need to show evidence that nature can discriminate between human and natural CO2 and that uptake is not proportional to the level (concentration).

          • stephen p anderson says:

            In order to do this, you’ll need to contradict the IPCC and also the Equivalence Principle. (Do you understand the Equivalence Principle?)

          • Willard says:

            That’s, how should I put it gently, not how it works, Troglodyte.

            Pray tell: is the current carbon cycle in a steady state, or not?

          • stephen p anderson says:

            What do you mean by “it?” The fast carbon cycle is described by the continuity equation. “Steady State” would not be an apt description.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            The slow carbon cycle is described by the continuity equation also (conservation of mass). Linear, homogenous differential equations. However, it has much longer turnover times.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Eman,

            After your comment about Shakespeare, I think you’re joking and wasting everyone’s time, especially Dr. Berry’s. I doubt he gives you any more of his time. He can tell you’re either not serious or a fruitcake.

          • Willard says:

            > What do you mean by it?

            The “it” refers to how we would refute Ed’s toy model in particular and how science works in general, Troglodyte.

            Take Ed’s strawman about treating human and natural CO2 differently. To establish that fact would in fact caution Ed’s strawman. It may not refute Ed’s model. From different assumptions different conclusions may follow.

            Think of it this way. Suppose my budget consists in two main sources of income: a salary, and some ninja gigs. My salary does not increase, yet at the end of the day, I have more money in my bank account. Would you say that the nature of my money is different?

            No. That’d be absurd. Yet that’s what Ed argues with his silly strawman. Where did he got that weird idea, BTW? Rooting for Ed is all well and good. At some point you’ll have to quote and cite properly.

            As for the “steady state” term, don’t sweat it: a simple yes or no would do. And no need to handwave: I have the paper. What I want to know is if you read it.

          • Entropic man says:

            “Youll need to show evidence that nature can discriminate between human and natural CO2 ”

            Whatever for?

            Once they mix all molecules behave in the same way.

            For example, if I add 10Gt of humans emissions to the atmosphere it upsets the equilibrium. To restore it, 5Gt is absorbed by the land and ocean reservoirs.

            That 5Gt is not going to be from human emissions only or natural CO2only. It will be whatever molecules happen to be absorbed.

          • Swenson says:

            Weird Wee Willy,

            You wrote –

            ‘And no need to handwave: I have the paper. What I want to know is if you read it.”

            And anybody at all is supposed to care about what you ” . . . want to know . . .”, because . . . ?

            What a stupid attempt at a gotcha! If you have some evidence to support whatever point you are trying to make, why not just say what it is?

            Because you are a slimy pea brained ineffective troll, perhaps?

            By the way, thanks for the flattery. I notice you are using words like “slimiest”, obviously doing your best to imitate my style. Or does that mean you are really the estimable Mike Flynn, because you think I am he, and you are using the same types of words to make people think Wee Willy is really Mike Flynn pretending to be Swenson, or vice versa, or something? Gets real confusing real fast, but I can arrange a tinfoil hat for you, if you think Mike Flynn is stealing your brainwaves!

            More Mike Flynn quotes, please. I might get some useful words or quotes that I can use.

            You really are stupid, aren’t you?

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Macabre Marginalization.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Slimy sock puppet Willard, please stop trolling.

    • Ken says:

      I like Ed Berry’s theory.

      The glaring problem is about the source of the CO2. What might be causing the small change in the natural carbon cycle so that the CO2 level in the atmosphere is increasing as it has apparently not done before?

      • stephen p anderson says:

        That’s not a problem for Ed’s theory unless you can show that it is a problem. It is a problem for the IPCC.

        • Willard says:

          You can’t be serious, Troglodyte!

          How about the claim that:

          Continued constant CO2 emissions do not add more CO2 to the atmosphere.

          ?

          • Swenson says:

            Well, how about it, dummy?

            Got something to say?

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Moribund Fissiparousness.

          • Swenson says:

            Well, that certainly demonstrates your intellectual capacity, doesn’t it?

            Carry on, peabrain.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Marauding Futilely.

          • Swenson says:

            You are getting good at four word idiocy, aren’t you?

            Most impressive.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn – I’m glad you ask.

            I finally reached 200 Words-that-start-with-M-and-Words-that-start-with-F.

            I’m tempted to try to find others, but if you keep recycling the same lame lines, I might reciprocate.

            Hope you like that kind of responses, for soon enough that’s all you’ll get!

            Carry on, my favorite sock puppet!

          • Swenson says:

            Wonky Wee Willy,

            You wrote –

            “Im tempted to try to find others, but if you keep recycling the same lame lines, I might reciprocate.

            Hope you like that kind of responses, for soon enough thats all youll get!”

            You may do as you wish. I do.

            Reciprocate, masturbate – what difference does it make to me? You can hope in one hand and pee in the other if you want – I can make a guess as to which will fill up first.

            Off you go now, grub. Dream up some more pointless comments. What an impotent and powerless troll you are! Go and threaten one of your fellow chihuahuas, or a small child, if you think it will make you feel important.

            [long chortle at impotent and powerless troll]

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Macarena Fan, I think you distilled the essence of your character –

            “Reciprocate, masturbate what difference does it make to me?”

          • Swenson says:

            Whacky Wee Willy,

            And anybody is supposed to care what you “think” because . . . ?

            Carry on with your threats to reciprocate (or masturbate, if you think that might terrify horses and small children more).

            Have you considered threatening to hold your breath until you turn blue?

            Oh dear, well all be put in our places then, won’t we? That’s sarcasm, in case you’re too slow to work it out for yourself.

            How are the science lessons going? Have you learned why insulators are used to keep things cold? Probably a bit advanced for a peabrain like you.

            Carry on.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Macer Fraud.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Slimy sock puppet Willard, please stop trolling.

      • Entropic man says:

        That’s the problem.

        He claims that the atmosphere is gaining CO2 from the land and ocean. He also tells me that my calculation showing that the land and ocean sinks are decreasing is false.

        Logically that means that CO2 is entering the system from some other natural source. I’ve been reading his 2019 paper and can’t find where it’s coming from.

        • stephen p anderson says:

          Continued constant emissions imply dL/dt=0.

          He doesn’t comment on where the increase in natural emissions is coming from. Salby says it is due to a rise in surface temperature. Salby provides evidence for it, and we’ll see it in future papers.

          Also, Berry cites Ballantyne et al. (Nature 2018) that sinks are increasing.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Just as an aside, have you guys read any of Berry’s papers on cloud droplet formation? The guy is a giant in the field of meteorology. His research on cloud droplet formation was used to write rain prediction software. He is an atmospheric physicist of the first order. He has published in the Journal of Physics, Atmospheric Sciences, and others. The National Science Foundation has sponsored him. He is uniquely qualified to address CO2 flow through the different reservoirs.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            You guys challenging his qualifications would be like you challenging Aristotle in the field of Philosophy. You two come off as a couple of loony birds. So does Jerry Elwood.

          • Entropic man says:

            Carbon molecules do not spontaneously create themselves.They have to come from somewhere.

            The current sources are the atmosphere, the land reservoir, the ocean reservoir, fossil fuels and limestone used to make cement.

            Selby and Berry must have found a new source. What is it?

          • Entropic man says:

            “Just as an aside, have you guys read any of Berrys papers on cloud droplet formation? The guy is a giant in the field of meteorology. ”

            And a midget in the field of carbon cycles. Nothing so pitiful as an old scientist trying to work outside his field.

          • Willard says:

            > The guy is a giant in the field of meteorology.

            I saw two papers cited more than 400 times, one written in the 60s and the other in the 70s. Do you have his H-index?

            Here’s one you might wish to pass on to Christos:

            Lee (1973) suggests that the so-called greenhouse effect for a real greenhouse is not primarily a result of the radiation imbalance caused by the spectral [A-Word] of the glass but rather the difference in the convective losses for the glass-enclosed space. The purpose of these comments is to indicate a possible error in Lee’s analysis and to show that the radiation greenhouse effect is indeed a result of the spectral properties of the glass. (WDM)

            https://www.osti.gov/biblio/7249785

          • Swenson says:

            Oooooh! Goody! A fight about who can quote the most “authority”!

            Who cares? What difference does it make?

            Without the atmosphere, we would all boil (literally) during the day, and all turn into meat popsicles at night.

            No warming properties for CO2 – none.

            And as far as “but insulation . . .”, the dummies that bleat this mantra seem totally unaware that their refrigerators would be useless for keeping their contents cold without insulation, and firemen couldn’t get as close to fires as they do without the benefit of the highly technical insulating clothing they wear.

            Reality and science are frightening prospects to be avoided at all costs, by the fanatical climate crackpot. These idiots even spout nonsense like “Stop climate change!”, without realising how stupid they are. Intelligent and rational?

            Bumbling buffoons.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Mountebanks’ Finest, you ask – “who cares”?

            Here’s one who does:

            Dr. Berry is an intellectual giant. I’ve got a really high IQ but Berry is at least 20 points higher. I’m not even close to him.

            You’ll have to settle that one with Troglodyte.

            Oooooh!

          • Swenson says:

            Weird Wee Willy,

            You wrote –

            “Youll have to settle that one with Troglodyte.

            Oooooh!”

            And why would I “have” to do that? You really are stupid, aren’t you? Detached from reality.

            Hers’s a hint, peabrain – I do as I wish. There is not a damned thing you can do about it, so get used to it. Oh dear, feeling bullied again, are you? Poor diddums!

            Run to Mommy. Have a good cry, and maybe maybe Mommy will kiss it better.

            Then you can come back and tell me what I “have” to do again. Be prepared to burst into tears once more.

            Idiot.

            [snigger}

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Miserly Fancy-Ass.

            Troglodyte is the one who cares about Ed’s authority.

            I definitely don’t.

            So why don’t you ask him that question?

            Oh! Oh! Oh!

          • stephen p anderson says:

            I’ve concluded you two are (1) not serious, (2) loony birds, or (3) dumber than a box of rocks. Berry’s unfalsified papers are still out there. So is Skrable, et al.

          • Willard says:

            If by unfalsified you mean not even wrong, Troglodyte, then you got a point!

          • Swenson says:

            Whining Wee Willy,

            you wrote –

            “So why don’t you ask him that question?”

            Are you as thick as a short plank, or as thick as two short planks?

            What business is it of yours? Why do you want to know? Is it because you are so stupid that you think that I care what you think?

            Get over yourself, Wee Willy. Or not, as you wish.

            If I feel like justifying my actions to you, I will. If I don’t, you can go and bay at the Moon for all I care.

            In the meantime, how are going with your physics lessons? I offered to teach you, but you haven’t shown that you have made any effort to help yourself in this regard. I help the needy, not the greedy, and particularly not lazy, incompetent, slimy little grubs.

            Have you learnt why CO2 has no magic warming properties, or why the surface cools in the absence of heat?

            I thought not.

            Carry on.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Cristos.

          • Willard says:

            Right. Cristos.

            Sorry, Cristos.

          • Willard says:

            Wait:

            Christos Vournas says:
            January 14, 2022 at 1:07 PM
            Ok!

            Is there anything about which you can be trusted, Troglodyte?

          • Swenson says:

            Witless Wee Willy,

            Is there anything you say that any rational person gives a toss about?

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Maccaboy Function.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Slimy sock puppet Willard, please stop trolling.

      • gbaikie says:

        –Ken says:
        January 15, 2022 at 3:24 PM
        I like Ed Berrys theory.–

        What is Ed Berrys theory?

        • Entropic man says:

          Basically that a large proportion of the 145ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 observed since 1880 comes from natural sources rather than human fossil fuel emissions.

          • Willard says:

            In Ed’s words:

            Human CO2 has little effect on atmospheric CO2.

            https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-co2-temp/contradictions-to-ipccs-climate-change-theory/

            Not sure where he gets the idea that the “the IPCC model cannot replicate the data.” It’s not clear what he means by that as the argument in section 3.3 is “all over the place,” to borrow from Ed’s biggest fan’s wordology.

          • Willard says:

            To give you an idea of how Loopy things can become with Ed, try to follow his “Bern (13) predicts.” That should lead you here:

            https://doi.org/10.1260/095830509787689123

            I doubt the IPCC’s position rests on a paper from 2009, who has been written by a single author whose name is not Bern.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Read the Berry JAOS 2019 paper, Section 4 on the IPCC Bern Model. That should resolve the confusion you display in both your comments here.

          • Willard says:

            EM,

            I’m sure you know, but perhaps Troglodyte doesn’t realize that Ed’s citation for his “Bern (13) predicts” is a paper in Energy & Environment:

            Energy & Environment (E&E) is an academic journal “covering the direct and indirect environmental impacts of energy acquisition, transport, production and use”.[1] Under its editor-in-chief from 1998 to 2017, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, it was known for easygoing peer-review and publishing climate change denial papers.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_%26_Environment

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            "Not sure where he gets the idea that the “the IPCC model cannot replicate the data.”"

            Actually, that would be Section 5…Figure 9, for instance.

          • Willard says:

            EM,

            Also note that the author is Tom Quirk

            Thomas Quirk is a corporate director of biotech companies and former board member of the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian conservative think-tank for which he has written numerous articles and papers and provided comments to the media.[1] Quirk joined the board of therapeutics company Sementis in 2011 as a non-executive director.[2] Quirk is an occasional speaker on the topic of innovation in Australia, and has written extensively on subjects of energy policy and climate change.[3] He is a former member of the Australian Climate Science Coalition’s Scientific Advisory Panel, of which Ian Plimer was a fellow member.[

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

            So yeah – Ed cited a known contrarian as a source for the Bern model!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yeah, but if you read through Section 4, as I said, you’ll soon see he uses all sorts of references in his explanation of the Bern model. It certainly doesn’t all come down to this one paper, as you are trying to assert.

            P.S: I’ll stop now. I know first-hand how frustrating it is when someone you have said you will not respond to starts writing comments addressed to you. I get that all the time. Got it with you, too, Willard, when I tried to ignore you. Of course, you wouldn’t stop, because you have no honor. I will stop, proving I’m the better man, once again.

          • Willard says:

            EM,

            It is important to note that Ed’s citation to “(13)” in the blog post does not lead to the same “(13)” in his published paper.

            In the 2019 paper (from now on B19) we can read:

            Bern (13) predicts 15 percent all human CO2 entering the atmosphere stays in the atmosphere forever, 25 percent stays in the atmosphere almost forever, and only 32 percent flows freely out of the atmosphere.

            That leads to Beck 2007, 180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods. You can still find it here:

            https://21sci-tech.com/Subscriptions/Spring%202008%20ONLINE/CO2_chemical.pdf

            I could not find any reference to the Bern model in that paper. At least Ed kept to Energy & Environment. So in the end all is well.

            However, as you can see, we should expect Ed’s paper to mostly be a Climateball fog of war.

          • gbaikie says:

            Well, I think everyone agree, but that doesn’t mean human C02 emission didn’t increase natural emissions.

          • Willard says:

            I don’t know about you, gb, but to me human influence is kinda human. Land use, for instance, shows that the distinction should not be constructed like a dichotomy. At the end of the day, either we can explain the CO2 we got with all natural processes, or we can’t.

            So far Ed’s fog of war indicates that he’s more into creative accounting than physics. Which is fine. He had a good career. He had success. He can indulge into a cranky hobby to his heart’s content.

            * * *

            Looking for Beck 2007 led me to this page:

            https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/anti-agw-papers-debunked/

            A great resource I forgot to add to my repertoire:

            https://climateball.net/repertoire/

            There are a few references that counter the paper. Most of them have deprecated URLs. Here’s the DOI of the main one:

            https://doi.org/10.1260/0958-305X.18.5.635

            DOIs are more persistent than other kinds of URLs.

            In any event, Beck 2007 is clearly not the proper source to the so-called Bern model.

          • gbaikie says:

            –Basically that a large proportion of the 145ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 observed since 1880 comes from natural sources rather than human fossil fuel emissions.–

            Let’s do this again.
            It would disprove, CO2 emitted humans stays in atmosphere “virtually forever”, but no one is saying this.
            But doesn’t disprove that by adding CO2, human have not increased the amount of CO2 in Earth’s carbon cycle {which is huge- and was huge before humans existed}.

            Now there may be more the argument. But you wouldn’t expect to find much of human emitted CO2 staying in the atmosphere.
            It seems it would or should be complicated proving what causing the CO2 increase.
            Some things are known, we living in icehouse climate and icehouse climate have very low amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.
            And our ocean is still very cold.

          • Willard says:

            > It would disprove

            So you say, but you say a lot without showing much.

            Suppose Ed gets 5 bucks each time he sells his “peer-reviewed paper.” Assume that all his other sources of income have not budged since last year. Same for all his expenses. His bank account shows that he’s 40 bucks over this year.

            While we could argue that selling eight copies of that paper took a supernatural effort, a buck is a buck is a buck, don’t you think?

            PS: I lost a longer comment, but that one will have to do for now.

          • gbaikie says:

            From linked paper:
            –Abstract
            Aims: Test the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) theory that human CO2 has caused all or most of the rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1750 or above 280 ppm.–

            Well we don’t know what Global CO2 levels were in 1750 AD.
            It is assumed [or agreed] the Little Ice Age ended in 1850 AD.
            I assume, the Little Ice Age, was coldest time period in over
            10,000 years. And no one knows why.
            Though we had gradual cooling for 5000 years.
            And our Holocence thermal maximum was during what is called the thermal maximum:
            Holocene Climatic Optimum:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

            So, one could say that Little Ice Age, was not “unexpected”.
            And we had similar warm and cold periods in last 5000 years.
            It seems to me, ice core record, all show the interglacial thermal maximum. It’s steep rise following a glaciation period.
            This steep rise was called “global warming” or in this definition of global warming, we had it about 10,000 years ago.
            Anyhow, no one apparently understands what causes this global warming {though it seems obvious to me}. What is known, is it’s not caused by CO2 levels.
            One could argue we not in interglacial period, but that seems quite unpopular, but it more popular to say are interglacial period appears, odd. But it’s very fashionable to discuss this at the moment.
            What I call the cargo cult, seems to be making the argument that we going to have a double peak. I would call this “quite optimistic” or even unable to accept, bad news.
            But I am optimistic about it, also, for various reasons.

            So, anyhow, it seems one would have lower CO2 levels when it’s colder, and LIA seemed to have a slightly colder ocean and sea levels lowered during this time. And so I expect CO2 levels to lower during the coldest period in 10,000 years.
            Now, it 1750, humans were burning wood.
            Today, a lot energy use is related to warming buildings- despite greater understanding of insulation. Starting around 1800 the US was keeping stats on how much coal was being used. And was much lower than England, US exceeded coal use of England somewhere around the American Civil War.
            Anyhow, a lot of this CO2 mania, is related to counting. And having a government count, was sort of became an American thing. Counting coal use was a way to predict the future. Anyhow, it didn’t work as far as predicting the future, but it was something useful for a government to do. But then and now, governments don’t count very well. Considering the end of world mania, it counts very poorly. Next:

            “Methodology: Derive a simple Physics Model that makes only one assumption: outflow is proportional to the level (or concentration) of CO2 in the atmosphere. Compare and evaluate the Physics Model and the IPCC model.”
            But that rather silly, we know it’s not following proportional.
            But we also are not counting CO2 emission correctly.
            But though those doing the poor counting know what is counted is inversely proportional {and imagine, it could “turn around”].
            Or they are dingbats and have cargo cult religion.

          • Willard says:

            > One could argue

            One could indeed. One could ramble too.

        • gbaikie says:

          –Willard says:
          January 16, 2022 at 4:22 PM
          I dont know about you, gb, but to me human influence is kinda human. Land use, for instance, shows that the distinction should not be constructed like a dichotomy. At the end of the day, either we can explain the CO2 we got with all natural processes, or we cant.–
          The dichotomy of Man vs Nature is a religious view.
          Human is obviously natural. Is interacting and dependent on Nature.

          Some might imagine humans were implanted on this planet, thereby “unnatural”, but that would count as a religious view.
          The idea that human can’t effect nature, is an oddball or perhaps wildly insane religious view.
          Nature effects Nature.

          –So far Eds fog of war indicates that hes more into creative accounting than physics. Which is fine. He had a good career. He had success. He can indulge into a cranky hobby to his hearts content.–
          I don’t know much about Ed.
          But I would hear about his views from his “fans” – and not interested in climate issues. My cranky hobby relates to space exploration.
          All I can get from climatic fans, is they don’t know how to terraform Mars. And don’t realize that Venus at Earth distance would be much colder than Earth.
          So, impress, me.
          Prove that it’s not some crazy cargo cult.

          • Willard says:

            Cranking up with stronger claims may not terraform your argument by assertion into a stronger argument. Corporations sell their earning reports to shareholders using the same logic as the IPCC. Unless you are willing to call profits a religious concept, you might wish to pipe down a bit.

  90. Because someone says Google should not censor websites, it does not mean they believe the government should enforce this opinion at gunpoint. I understand that Democratic Socialists and Liberal Democrats have trouble understanding this distinction.

    Avoid Google. I google on DuckDuckGo. Use DuckDuckGo, Rumble, Odyssey, etc. Google is an enemy of free thought.

  91. Ken says:

    What effect will Tonga Hunga have on climate? Is it large enough to compare to Pinatubo?

  92. Entropic man says:

    Testing again.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      Dr Berry’s latest response:

      “Dear Entropic,

      You wax poetic about how to conduct a scientific debate. Then you break all your own rules.

      You have not read my paper. You have not referenced any part of the body of my paper. You are not even talking about my 2021 paper.

      Your elaborations agree with much of my paper, but you assume my paper disagrees with your elaborations.

      You are not debating my paper. You are debating your constructed strawman of my paper. I don’t have time for your nonsense.

      If you want to debate any part of my paper, give section number and quote, or give equation number.

      I will give you one more opportunity to make a intelligent comment. If you fail, I will block you from further comments.”

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Eman has had a good week. First, he insulted Spencer on his web page. Then he goes over and insults Berry on his page. He’s building quite a legacy.

        • Entropic man says:

          That would be the fourth denialist site to block me. It might even be worth it for the bragging rights. : o )

          Actually Dr Berry was a great disappointment. You promised me a scientific debate, but I got nothing. Indeed I’m getting a better defence of Berry’s views from you.

          He demands that I pay $10 to buy his paper, but from what I’ve read so far it is mostly either trivially obvious, wrong or meaningless and not worth $10. I’m coming round to Willard’s view that it is unfalsifiable because it’s not even coherent enough to be wrong.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “but from what I’ve read so far…”

            You are funny, Entropic Man. So you haven’t read the paper, but you think you can refute it! No wonder he threatened to ban you. I haven’t read it either, but I’m neither challenging it nor accepting it. He repeatedly asked you to quote the specific parts of his paper which you disagreed with, which is a completely reasonable request. It is an especially reasonable request that you should actually read it before criticizing it. Just to be clear, if this is why you get banned from places, it seems like you might deserve it. Why not read the paper, do as he requests, and have the scientific discussion he seems to be trying to arrange and encourage, but you seem to be refusing (whilst blaming it all on him, on his own blog)?

          • Entropic man says:

            I’m partway through the 2019 paper, trying to understand Figure 5.

            Dr Berry shows the exchange between the land/ocean reservoirs and the atmosphere as balanced as it should be.
            He also shows all the emitted human emissions as absorbed by the land/ocean reservoirs and his examination makes no sense.

            Physically one would expect his 4.6 to partition between the reservoirs. Among other things his version of reality violates Henry’s Law.

            Perhaps you or Stephen could clarify.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I have no idea. Haven’t read any of his papers and I’m not here to defend them.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Precisely, that’s the point that Berry is making. That is the IPCC human carbon cycle. It doesn’t make any sense.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            OK, you’re looking at the paper from JAOS. Of course, it makes sense. The 4.6ppm human emissions become part of the fast carbon cycle. There is no differentiation between human and natural CO2.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            The thing with Eman is he goes over there to Berry’s page and makes comments like “this is getting boring,” as if he’s made a coherent comment, and Berry has failed to respond. He hasn’t made one logical point yet. I can see him back in 1905 reading Einstein’s paper. “This is getting boring. You’re not making any sense. You’re a patent clerk.” Einstein and Berry respond as if flicking a gnat.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Eman,

            You were a biology teacher. It is a very noble profession. But, don’t you think you might be a little out of your realm?

          • Entropic man says:

            “The 4.6ppm human emissions become part of the fast carbon cycle. There is no differentiation between human and natural CO2. ”

            Exactly. But Berry claims otherwise. His figure 5 implies that natural CO2 partitions between reservoirs while human CO2 all leaves the atmosphere.

            Barry’s claim that the IPCC distinguishes between human and natural CO2 after release is a straw man. He is the one doing so.

          • Willard says:

            EM has more than enough competence to solve what looks like a simple accounting problem:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/unreliable-and-harmful-claims-this-website-has-been-demonetized-by-google/#comment-1128581

            You had no response to this pickle, Troglodyte. Why is that?

          • Entropic man says:

            Paul

            “You were a biology teacher. It is a very noble profession. But, dont you think you might be a little out of your realm? ”

            Would “patronising” he the correct term for that statement?

            You can be a physical chemist without knowing any other science except what impinges on your specialist subject.

            A biologist cannot. To properly understand living organisms requires a broad understanding of a wide variety of other sciences.

            Consider Henry’s law. It applies to gas exchange between air and fluid in a lung just as it applies to exchange between air and ocean. Even the CO2 buffering is relevant.

            Consider the exchange of carbon between land and atmosphere. This is primarily through two biological processes, photosynthesis and respiration. Who better to understand the subtleties than a biologist? Carbon cycles are part of my professional expertise.

            Overall I would not claim to match your expertise in your own area of expertise. I would bet that my understanding of the Earth and the universe as working systems is considerably broader than yours.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            >“The 4.6ppm human emissions become part of the fast carbon cycle. There is no differentiation between human and natural CO2. ”

            Exactly. But Berry claims otherwise. His figure 5 implies that natural CO2 partitions between reservoirs while human CO2 all leaves the atmosphere.

            Barry’s claim that the IPCC distinguishes between human and natural CO2 after release is a straw man. He is the one doing so.

            No, it doesn’t. You’re misunderstanding the diagram. The 4.6ppm human emissions become part of the fast cycle and then the 4.6 ppm exchanges with land and oceans as does the 98ppm natural CO2. 98 + 4.6=102.6ppm. He’s showing there is no differentiation as does his physics model. Also, I continue to insist that I will send you the newest paper. What is the issue?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            "His figure 5 implies that natural CO2 partitions between reservoirs while human CO2 all leaves the atmosphere."

            Having now completed one brief read-through of the 2019 JAOS paper, I can’t see how you are getting that from his figure 5. Still not here to defend his papers, necessarily, more just concerned they’re being misrepresented by the usual suspects. I am not decided either way on who is right yet or anything as I’ve only just started to learn about it. So more than willing to accept I could be wrong.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            >EM has more than enough competence to solve what looks like a simple accounting problem:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/unreliable-and-harmful-claims-this-website-has-been-demonetized-by-google/#comment-1128581

            You had no response to this pickle, Troglodyte. Why is that?

            There’s no validity to anything he said. We’re discussing it now. The 10Gt becomes part of the fast cycle and outflow is proportional to level. Carbon achieves a new balance level. Berry isn’t saying human emissions haven’t raised the balance level. It has. But, all the math shows human emissions have only raised it 30ppm. Nature has raised it 100ppm.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            You’re looking at it correctly DREMT. Also, all the stuff in the JAOS paper is in the new paper plus the falsification of the IPCC carbon cycle. Gladly send it to anyone. [email protected].

          • Willard says:

            > We’re discussing it now.

            You’re not discussing Ed’s claim that the nature of the CO2 matters in the Bern model, Troglodyte. It’s a mere accounting exercise. Ed’s Goalpost Moving Model has nothing to do with physics. It’s pure rhetoric.

            Have you find a proper citation for that model yet?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I guess that would be discussed beginning here:

            "The IPCC Bern model that evolved from models like [31] artificially partitions human CO2 into four separate bins. The separate bins prevent human CO2 in one bin from moving to a bin with a faster e-time. This is like having three holes of different sizes in the bottom of a bucket and claiming the smallest hole restricts the flow through the largest hole. The IPCC Bern model is unphysical. It begins with the assumption that human CO2 causes all the increase in atmospheric CO2. Then it creates a model that supports this assumption. The Bern model fails Occam’s Razor because it is unnecessarily complicated. "

            and

            "The four terms in (13) separate human (but not natural) CO2 into 4 bins. Each bin has a different e-time. Only one bin allows human CO2 to flow freely out of the atmosphere. Two bins trap human CO2 for long times. One bin has no outflow and traps human CO2 forever. Figure 6 shows the size of the four Bern-model bins in percent and the amount of human CO2 that remains in the atmosphere 8 years after an artificial pulse of human CO2 enters the atmosphere."

          • stephen p anderson says:

            We’ve gone through that. The Bern model is not an accurate mathematical descriptor. The Bern model implies turnover times are additive so that K=K1 + K2 + K3…… which implies turnover time is slower than the slowest time. 1/K1 + 1/K2 + 1/K3 describes tau. The total turnover time is faster than the fastest turnover time. Think of a large water of tank with a 5-inch drain. Now add a 2-inch drain. Does flow speed up or slow down?

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Salby, in this lecture, demonstrates how the Bern model, as IPCC uses it, incorrectly partitions CO2. The Bern model could be correctly used if it was applied correctly.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtIgMftbUuw&t=3635s

          • Willard says:

            > The Bern model implies turnover times are additive

            That description is incompatible with Ed’s strawman, according to which in the Bern model nature can discriminate between human and natural CO2. Purely additive models usually don’t distinguish types of entities they contain. They only need to add what shares the same units: one pile of CO2 plus one pile of CO2 equals two piles of CO2.

            Have you found Ed’s source for the Bern model yet?

  93. argusmanargus says:

    Dr Spencer, anything about Tonga to post? You’ve posted some cool stuff about volcanoes in the past.

    • gbaikie says:

      Ocean waves traveled at about 400 mph and reached US west coast.
      In Northern New Zealand damaged boat docks and sunk some boats.
      Some say it could affect global temperature like other large volcanic eruptions.

    • Bindidon says:

      This satellite image

      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FJJDdjKXEAMwZGP?format=jpg&name=900×900

      tells us that the eruption’s plume propagated under the tropopause and hence did not breach it.

      A strong spread of SO2 in the lower stratosphere however is a prerequisite for a large volcanic influence.

    • Bindidon says:

      Maybe I’ll have to retract my previous comment: newest satellite images (I couldn’t provide for any) seem to show that the Tonga plume reached an altitude of 30 km.

      And… if the explosion could be heard in northern Alaska and registered by acoustic instruments in Germany: then it might well have been something stronger than VEI2 suggested.

  94. Entropic man says:

    Just for comparison.

    This is what the Earths carbon cycle looks like.

    https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_cycle-cute_diagram.svg#/media/File:Carbon_cycle-cute_diagram.svg

    This is what your own internal carbon cycle looks like.

    https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/666955026040516601/

    This is the simplified version. Also remember that each arrow is an enzyme and each enzyme requires three genes to inform and control it’s synthesis.

    Perhaps you can understand why I find climate science rather simple. By comparison with your own body chemistry it is.

    • stephen p anderson says:

      Yeah, that one looks a little outdated. It is showing land and oceans as net emitters. Also, it is not accounting for the human carbon cycle fully. The human carbon becomes part of the fast cycle and exchanges with land and ocean.

      • Entropic man says:

        I think there was a typo in my first link. Try this one.

        https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/04/can-we-rebalance-the-carbon-cycle-while-still-using-fossil-fuels/

        At the time

        Natural output 60+60+1.6+90=211.6

        Natural uptake 121.3+0.5+92=213.8

        Net uptake 213.8-211.6=2.2.

        Human emissions 5.5

        Net output and increase in atmospheric CO2 =5.5-2.2=3.3Gt/year.

        I have a more recent but simplified version here.

        https://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle

        Natural output 120+90=210

        Natural uptake 123+92=215

        Net uptake 5

        Human emissions 9

        Net increase in atmospheric CO2 9-5=4Gt/year.

        • Swenson says:

          EM,

          Even if your figures are correct (it should be more), what a wonderful thing that we are trying to replace the CO2 removed from the atmosphere by nature.

          More plants means more food. And, unless you want to indulge in a spot of genocide from time to time, that seems like a good thing to me.

          I am sure you can justify your wish to maintain current levels of poverty, starvation, and disease, but I’m content to let nature take its course. As it will, whether you like it or not.

          Hopefully, you are not one of those idiots who think that removing CO2 from the atmosphere will stop the climate from changing!

          Climate science is rather simple – climate is the statistics of past weather, and anyone who thinks that is “science” is rather simple as well.

          • Willard says:

            I need to work on that one:

            https://climateball.net/but-the-poor/

            Perhaps Mike Flynn’s comments might prove useful.

            There’s always hope!

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy Dimwit,

            You wrote –

            “Perhaps Mike Flynn’s comments might prove useful.”

            I’m sure they would. Why don’t you provide some? I assume you have spent quite some time collecting his comments, so why not share them with others if you regard them so highly?

            On the other hand, you might think his comments are factually incorrect, in which case you should post some, and provide factual correction for the benefit of others.

            Oh, and not Facebook style “fact checking”, which Mark Zuckerberg admitted was only “opinion” covered by the First Amendment, and therefore not required to be factual in nature.

            Off you go now Witless Wee Willy, quote your favourite obsession, and see what good it does you. Same as before, I suppose. No good at all.

          • Swenson says:

            Witless Wee Willy,

            I’m sure they would.

            Post a few from your vast collection. We will all benefit from them, if past history is any guide.

            Or have you finally realised that, and are too frightened to post anything that can be checked as to factual support?

            Have at it. The result should be amusing, at the very least.

          • Entropic man says:

            That turns out not to be the case. A few plants like tomatoes have higher yields with increased CO2.

            Some crop plants have had a million years to adapt to 200ppm. Given 400ppm they produce more cellulose and lignin and less sugar, starch or protein. The biomass goes up but the food value per acre actually decreases.

            Some are not limited by CO2, but by light, temperature of mineral nutrients. Increased CO2 does nothing to increase their yield.

            Overall, increased CO2 leads to lower food production. Counterintuitive, but true.

            https://www.factcheck.org/2017/08/co2-friend-foe-agriculture/

          • Willard says:

            > his comments

            They’re your comments, Mack Face Mike.

          • Swenson says:

            Weird Wee Willy,

            So you are frightened to post comments from the anonymous Mike Flynn because you think they were written by some other anonymous commenter? Or because they were written by Mike Flynn, and seem to be factual, making you look like a complete idiot if you post them?

            You really are a delusional, reality avoiding, science-denying, little slimeball, aren’t you? Be a man – Mike Flynn cannot harm you, or make you look stupid. You are perfectly capable of doing that with no outside assistance.

            [laughs out loud]

          • Willard says:

            Mad Fabulist Mike Flynn will do as he pleases. Unless we do as our Mike Flynn orders, we’re scared.

            No wonder Mike Flynn is a Mad Fabulist.

          • Swenson says:

            Whacky Wee Willy wrote –

            “Mad Fabulist Mike Flynn will do as he pleases. Unless we do as our Mike Flynn orders, were scared.

            No wonder Mike Flynn is a Mad Fabulist.”

            Wee Willy Dimwit excels himself.

            Threatens to post comments from Mike Flynn, then realises this not be the smartest plan of attack. Waffling Wee Willy seems upset that anybody choosing to do as they please, can possibly be allowed to do so!

            As usual, the slimy grub known as Willard runs away, blubbing like a baby! “We’re scared!” Oh, the terror!

            Ah well, the dummy might eventually realise that everybody is free to do as they wish, and that their actions may attract adverse consequences. Luckily, Worried Wee Willy is completely powerless to compel anyone to do anything at all. Just another anonymous impotent fool, free to batter on about anything he wishes.

            And, of course, people are perfectly at liberty to value the opinions of a delusional climate nutter like Wee Willy Willard. It’s a free world (sort of), much to the dismay of dimwits like Wee Willy and some of his ilk.

            Freedom!

          • Willard says:

            Magistrally Fizzling Mike Flynn misreads the following phrase:

            [I]f you keep recycling the same lame lines, I might reciprocate.

            Hence Mike Flynn’s response magistrally fizzles.

            Let’s thank him for this variation on “Magistral Fizz”!

          • Swenson says:

            Whining Wee Willy,

            Here’s a hint for the mentally challenged climate crackpot like you – I do as I wish, and there’s nothing you can do about it, is there?

            If you were powerful, influential, wise and respected, your opinion might mean something to me.

            But you aren’t, so it doesn’t.

            Name someone who values your opinion, if you like. I will do my best to ignore their fantasies, too.

          • Willard says:

            Main Fatwa Mike Flynn reveals another side of his personality.

            That’s why we love Mike so much.

          • Swenson says:

            Wonky Wee Willy probably sees himself at the head of a mighty army of “climate warriors”, like that other nitwit, the faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat – Michael Mann!

            Either that, or he has delusions of grandeur, and is using the Royal “we”.

            In any case, Wee Willy would be hard pressed to get anyone else to admit to being complicit in his fantasies and delusional thinking. Given more than seven billion other people on Earth, that’s a wee bit sad, even for a bumbling incompetent like Wee Willy.

            Even an autistic strange teenage girl like Greta Thunberg attracts more followers than Wee Willy.

            How sad is that?

          • Willard says:

            Majestic Fetish Mike Flynn,

            Did you know that Newton, Tesla, Turing, and Einstein, were most probly on the spectrum? About Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or Elon Musk? How about Dan Akroyd?

            Dan Akroyd, Mike!

            Come what may, you are neither more nor less intelligent than you really are, which says a lot.

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy Dimwit,

            What are you blathering about?

            Are you attempting some obscure gotcha, or are you really deranged?

            Why should I care about your opinions? You obviously have an inflated sense of your importance to me. I have no impact on your thoughts, nor do I claim mind reading ability.

            You are perfectly free to spout any delusional nonsense you wish, and I am perfectly free to ignore it, or laugh at it, as I wish. Surely you support freedom of expression?

          • Willard says:

            That’s Major Floridity Mike Flynn right there!

    • Willard says:

      While carbon cycle models are usually fairly rudimentary {1}, the accounting involved in the carbon budget can get daunting, e.g.:

      https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-8-605-2016

      Without its budget, a carbon cycle isn’t worth much. In B19, there are two hits for “budget,” both in citation 40. This lone citation is the following URL:

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/a-simple-model-of-theatmospheric-CO2-budget/

      This leads to a 404. Here is the correct URL:

      https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/a-simple-model-of-the-atmospheric-co2-budget/

      Roy’s “budget” isn’t the same kind of exercise as the ESSD paper I cited.

      Ed should definitely have hired an editor.

      {1} They’re rudimentary, but up to a point: double accounting techniques are fairly recent as it dates back to the MWP.

      • Swenson says:

        Woeful Wee Willy,

        You wrote –

        “Ed should definitely have hired an editor.”

        Two things – who cares for your opinion about the past, and who cares for your opinion about the past.

        Oh, a third thing.

        You’re a slimy little troll, and endlessly trying to divert attention away from the fact that the GHE cannot be shown to exist, indicates that you are also a reality denying, anti-science slimy little troll.

        That’s quite a big thing, I suppose.

        Carry on with your trolling.

  95. Entropic man says:

    “outflow is proportional to level. ”

    Which level?

    Consider what is happening.

    Atmospheric CO2 is increasing.

    Because of buffering dissolved inorganic carbon is increasing but dissolved CO2 is staying relatively constant.

    Plug this into Henry’s Law.

    The system is drifting further from equilibrium towards net uptake by the ocean. The higher the atmospheric CO2 the greater the uptake.

    The amount of uptake is not proportional to either level, it is proportional to the difference between them.

    It is also inversely proportional to atmospheric concentration. As the atmospheric CO2 and the gradient increase uptake to the ocean increases. Output is negative and getting more negative.

    • Swenson says:

      EM,

      Presumably, you have some good reason for demanding that human food supplies be reduced by lowering the amount of CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere.

      This doesn’t seem terribly logical or rational to me, but I’m sure you can propose a good science-based reason for ensuring that others should suffer starvation, disease, and poverty because this is what you think is of benefit to mankind.

      Or maybe not.

      You might be at your best playing guessing games – about the amount of carbon in the system (unknown and unknowable), or maybe the future (again, unknown and unknowable). What do you think?

      • Entropic man says:

        See my 6.18 post above.

        • stephen p anderson says:

          “outflow is proportional to level. ”

          Which level?

          Total level. The level we see at Mona Loa.

          Consider what is happening.

          Atmospheric CO2 is increasing.

          Because of buffering dissolved inorganic carbon is increasing but dissolved CO2 is staying relatively constant.

          Dissolved inorganic carbon in what form?

          Plug this into Henry’s Law.

          The system is drifting further from equilibrium towards net uptake by the ocean. The higher the atmospheric CO2 the greater the uptake.

          This bolded text is the only thing you’ve said that is correct.

          The amount of uptake is not proportional to either level, it is proportional to the difference between them.

          This statement is in direct conflict with the mathematical solution to the continuity equation (linear homogeneous differential equation). You are arguing with mathematics. This is reaction kinetics which is in every PChem and Calculus class in Wales.

          It is also inversely proportional to atmospheric concentration. As the atmospheric CO2 and the gradient increase uptake to the ocean increases. Output is negative and getting more negative.

          Again, this is in direct conflict with the solution to the continuity equation. There is no evidence this occurs.

        • stephen p anderson says:

          outflow is proportional to level.

          Which level?

          Total level. The level we see at Mona Loa.

          Consider what is happening.

          Atmospheric CO2 is increasing.

          Because of buffering dissolved inorganic carbon is increasing but dissolved CO2 is staying relatively constant.

          Dissolved inorganic carbon in what form?

          Plug this into Henrys Law.

          The system is drifting further from equilibrium towards net uptake by the ocean. The higher the atmospheric CO2 the greater the uptake.

          This bolded text is the only thing you’ve said that is correct.

          The amount of uptake is not proportional to either level, it is proportional to the difference between them.

          This statement is in direct conflict with the mathematical solution to the continuity equation (linear homogeneous differential equation). You are arguing with mathematics. This is reaction kinetics which is in every PChem and Calculus class in Wales.

          It is also inversely proportional to atmospheric concentration. As the atmospheric CO2 and the gradient increase uptake to the ocean increases. Output is negative and getting more negative.

          Again, this is in direct conflict with the solution to the continuity equation. There is no evidence this occurs.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            You’re contradicting yourself.

            In one statement you say the higher the atmospheric CO2 the greater the uptake.

            In another statement you say uptake isn’t proportional to level but the difference between them.

            This is contradictory and nonsensical.

          • Willard says:

            > You are arguing with mathematics.

            Ed’s Troll Bridge Model ain’t mathematics, Troglodyte.

          • Swenson says:

            Some fool wrote –

            “> You are arguing with mathematics.

            Ed’s Troll Bridge Model ain’t mathematics, Troglodyte.”

            Looks like a climate crackpot trying to appear clever, but failing miserably. It may have meaning to another mystic, but maybe not.

          • Willard says:

            Perhaps Magnificient Fiasco Mike Flynn dislikes models because he treats them as mere mathematical abstractions. Perhaps he does not.

            Who cares!

          • Swenson says:

            Wasted Wee Willy,

            Certainly not me.

          • Willard says:

            Don’t be so humble, Mike.

          • Swenson says:

            Wondering Wee Willy,

            My sense of self is exceeded only by my overwhelming humility.

            You are an idiot, which is why I am taking no notice of your stupid advice.

            What happened to your “Mike Flynn” delusion? Only fifty percent as deluded as you were, hence “Mike” instead of “Mike Flynn”?

            C’mon Whacko Wee Willy, hold on to your delusion as tightly as you can. Don’t let anyone convince you that you are more of an ineffectual, incompetent, fool, than you are in reality!

            That’ll fix ’em!

          • Willard says:

            You’re not a delusion, Mike.

            You’re a real human bean.

        • Swenson says:

          EM,

          An opinion piece by a journalist is not fact, regardless of whether the sponsoring organisation calls itself “factcheck.org”.

          You claim to know something about biology, so hopefully you will agree that photosynthetic plant life dies without light, water, or CO2.

          In the extreme, removing all H2O and/or CO2 from the atmosphere wipes out humanity.

          I have seen studies in Nature which cry about the deleterious effects of providing additional plant food in the form of CO2, resulting in reduced growth for those plants, and trying to skip over the fact that the plants surrounding them grew like crazy, gobbling up the extra CO2 like mad. Result – total output increased when additional food was made available.

          It’s called competing for available resources, and you should be aware that all living things tend to look after themselves first.

          Looking at other peer reviewed papers, it’s amazing the lengths to which people will go, to try to show that the indisputable “greening” of the Earth is a terrible disaster because it is due to increased CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere, which some people claim are deadly poisons!

          I suppose that you, having wide knowledge, realise that burning hydrocarbons releases H2O as well as CO2 into the atmosphere, and you would be able to calculate the additional plant mass that this would create on soils previously plant free due to a lack of CO2 and H2O – other nutrients being available, of course, (otherwise the plants would not be able to grow). Even NASA measures increases in plant cover apparently due to increasing CO2 levels, and NASA doesn’t seem to be a hotbed of CO2 and H2O enthusiasts.

          Or you could just appeal to your own authority, and claim that the additional plant growth due to increased CO2 and H2O is a “bad thing”!

          • stephen p anderson says:

            You keep stating Henry’s Law and then incorrectly interpret and use it. Henry’s Law is simple. It states that the amount of dissolved gas in a solution is directly proportional to its partial pressure above the solution. This does not affect the continuity equation. It is independent from Henry’s Law or Revelle Factor. It is a HOMOGENEOUS differential equation. Do you understand that? The solution is not the Bern solution. Go to reaction kinetics in physics and Pchem textbooks and calculus books. YOU CAN’T CHANGE SCIENCE BECAUSE IT IS NOT GIVING YOU THE ANSWER YOU WANT.

          • Willard says:

            Ed should sell is solution to soft drinks companies.

            Imagine the amount of energy they would save!

          • Swenson says:

            Ah, the idiot bobs up again.

            “Ed should sell is solution to soft drinks companies.

            Imagine the amount of energy they would save!”

            Cryptic, obscure, irrelevant and pointless into the bargain. Climate nutters obviously flock to his standard, being of similar deranged mentality.

          • Willard says:

            Either Magazine Fad Mike Flynn fails to see the connection between soft drinks and Henry’s Law, or he’s playing dumb.

            But why not both?

          • Swenson says:

            Whacko Wee Willy wrote –

            “Either Magazine Fad Mike Flynn fails to see the connection between soft drinks and Henry’s Law, or he’s playing dumb.

            But why not both?”

            Here’s the idiot’s original comment –

            “Ed should sell is solution to soft drinks companies.

            Imagine the amount of energy they would save!”

            Weasely Wee Willy doesn’t have to play dumb. It comes naturally, whenever Witless Wee Willy tries to show how clever he is.

          • Willard says:

            O Mike Flynn. You good ol’ Mail Fanboy.

          • Swenson says:

            As demonstrated by the following meaningless gibberish –

            “O Mike Flynn. You good ol’ Mail Fanboy.”

          • Willard says:

            Keep on giving, Mike.

            Love.

          • Swenson says:

            “Keep on giving, Mike.

            Love.”

            Ah, unrequited love. I’m sure Mike will be suitably unimpressed. Yuck, or maybe not.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn said it best:

            “Reciprocate, masturbate – what difference does it make to me?”

            So true, Mike – what difference does it make to you?

          • Swenson says:

            Whimsical Wee Willy,

            You may reciprocate, masturbate, masticate or prevaricate to your heart’s content.

            Maybe you could go for a record, and try to simultaneously perform the lot!

            What form of mental affliction leads you to think I care? Nothing to do with me, is it? You may do as you wish – I have no influence over your actions, nor you over mine.

            Off you go now Wee Willy. Try complaining about being bullied, or something. You might have difficulty finding a small enough bag to store all the sympathy you’re likely to get.

            That’s the trouble when you’re a slimy little grub like you – you could poke yourself in the eye with a needle and roll around on the floor screaming in agony, and nobody would care.

            [merriment ensued]

          • Entropic man says:

            Stephen

            “YOU CANT CHANGE SCIENCE BECAUSE IT IS NOT GIVING YOU THE ANSWER YOU WANT. ”

            That should be tattooed on your forehead, Dr Berry’s forehead and the forehead of every climate change denialist.

            Gregory Benford identified two types of thinking.

            Human-level thinkers put themselves at the centre. The universe is expected to conform to their beliefs and is there to give them what they want. Any evidence and science which contradicts their beliefs is automatically assumed to be wrong.

            Universe-level thinkers do not put themselves at the centre. The universe is what it is, systems which follow rules. Human beliefs and wishes are irrelevant. Any opinions of beliefs which contradict the evidence and the science are automatically wrong.

          • Nate says:

            “This does not affect the continuity equation. It is independent from Henry’s Law or Revelle Factor. It is a HOMOGENEOUS differential equation. Do you understand that? The solution is not the Bern solution. Go to reaction kinetics in physics and Pchem textbooks and calculus books. ”

            Nope, I don’t understand why you think this simple kinetic equation applies to the not-so-simple Earth? Nor why it should not incorporate the Revelle Factor?

            This is pure assertion, not a fact.

  96. Willard says:

    EM,

    Your customers will never find the Bern model.

    Should I give it to them?

    • Swenson says:

      Who cares?

      • Willard says:

        Madonna Fanbase Mike Flynn cares. He really does.

        • Swenson says:

          Weak Wee Willy,

          Did you ask him? Or are you just claiming mind reading powers?

          You are an idiot.

          • Willard says:

            Everyone knows you’re Roy’s Care Bear, Mike.

          • Swenson says:

            Wastrel Wee Wily,

            What are you blabbering about?

            Roy? Care Bear? Mike?

            Your descent into complete mental disintegration is fascinating to watch.

            More please.

          • Willard says:

            Oh, Mike.

            Here, just for you.

            <3

          • Swenson says:

            Another link to ignore?

            How clever is that?

            Well, it is Witless Wee Willy, you know.

          • Willard says:

            Sweet dreams, Mike Flynn.

            Time for your afternoon nap.

          • Swenson says:

            Wonky Wee Willy,

            Is it Mike or Mike Flynn?

            Added another member to your fantasy, have you?

            You wrote –

            “Sweet dreams, Mike Flynn.

            Time for your afternoon nap.”

            What fresh nonsense is this? What are you trying to say?

            You are an idiot.

          • Willard says:

            It’s Mike Flynn, Mike. This is who you are, always, forever. Which is a good thing – I love you just the way you are.

            Good night.

          • Swenson says:

            Whinnying Wee Willy wrote –

            “It’s Mike Flynn, Mike. This is who you are, always, forever. Which is a good thing – I love you just the way you are.

            Good night.”

            What a strange lad is Wee Willy. One of these days he might make sense, although it seems unlikely, given his repetitive delusional disorder.

            Oh well, I suppose he has his love of Mike Flynn to give him solace, in lieu of the lack of interest I show in regard to his opinions.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn everyone!

            What a performance!

            *The audience gives a standing ovation.*

          • Banjo says:

            W

            Admit it W, you are just jealous. You love them standing ovations.

          • Willard says:

            Everybody secretly wishes to be Mike Flynn, Pozzo.

            Confidence. Charisma. Comedic timing.

            The perfect clown.

            Alas, there’s only one Mike Flynn.

    • Entropic man says:

      My customers, Willard?

      Surely, as the owner of this madhouse, they are Dr Spencer’s customers.

      Nevertheless a proper link to the Bern model might help.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Scroll down and open your eyes.

      • Swenson says:

        EM,

        And yet, you love it. Harry S Truman supposedly said “If you can’t stand the heat stay out of the . . . ” – kitchen madhouse, or something.

        Apparently, a “madhouse” is where some people’s opinions differ from yours. Life is a madhouse, by that definition. Luckily, facts don’t care about opinions.

        If you have some new facts, trot them out. My views change if I become aware of new facts.

        What about you?

      • Willard says:

        EM,

        There are many Bern models. The relevant one to Ed’s claim should at the very least be cited in Ed’s IPCC reference:

        https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/TAR-03.pdf

        That’s [2] in B19.

        If you look at the first hit for “Bern” in that document, you get:

        Two simplified, fast models (ISAM and Bern-CC) were used to project future CO2 concentrations under IS92a and six SRES scenarios, and to project future emissions under five CO2 stabilisation scenarios.

        That’s on page 186. The quote should have been enough for Ed to infer a few things.

        First, the IPCC use more than one model.

        Second, some of them are simplified for computational expediency.

        Third, the “Bern” name is missing something. What he’s looking for is “Bern-CC.”

        The Bern-CC model is described in Box 3.7. You should see that it has many components. The box-diffusion type ocean carbon model is called HILDA. It has many versions. The three citations they give are:

        – Siegenthaler and Joos, 1992;
        – Joos et al 1996;
        – Joos et al 1999b

        The last one includes “the effect of sea surface warming on carbonate chemistry is included,” as it says on the tin.

        The specification continues, but that should be enough to get your ankle biters up to speed.

        Enjoy your day.

  97. Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

    https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijaos.20190301.13.pdf

    “The Joos [33] Bern model is an integral equation rather than a level equation. It is necessary to peer inside IPCC’s Bern model. To deconstruct the integral version of the Bern model…”

    Ref [33] is:

    F.Joos, “Parameters for tuning a simple carbon cycle model”. 2002. https://unfccc.int/resource/brazil/carbon.html

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      In that second link we find:

      “CO2 concentration approximation The CO2 concentration is approximated by a sum of exponentially decaying functions, one for each fraction of the additional concentrations, which should reflect the time scales of different sinks. The coefficients are based on the pulse response of the additional concentration of CO2 taken from the Bern model (Siegenthaler and Joos, 1992).”

      That Siegenthaler and Joos, 1992 reference is also listed in Berry’s 2019 paper, as Ref [30].

      https://climatehomes.unibe.ch/~joos/papers/siegenthaler92telb.pdf

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Berry writes:

        “The four terms in (13) separate human (but not natural) CO2 into 4 bins. Each bin has a different e-time. Only one bin allows human CO2 to flow freely out of the atmosphere. Two bins trap human CO2 for long times. One bin has no outflow and traps human CO2 forever. Figure 6 shows the size of the four Bern-model bins in percent and the amount of human CO2 that remains in the atmosphere 8 years after an artificial pulse of human CO2 enters the atmosphere. Bern (13) predicts 15 percent all human CO2 entering the atmosphere stays in the atmosphere forever, 25 percent stays in the atmosphere almost forever, and only 32 percent flows freely out of the atmosphere.”

        Note that (13) refers to Equation 13, not Ref [13].

        • Entropic man says:

          Where do I start? Berry has made a number of conceptual errors.

          “The four terms in (13) separate human (but not natural) CO2 into 4 bins.”

          False. There is no separation between human CO2 and natural CO2. Once released into the atmosphere human CO2 becomes part of the common pool. From then on all transport and e-times between the four bins refer to all the molecules involed.

          “Only one bin allows human CO2 to flow freely out of the atmosphere. ”

          False. CO2 can flow freely from the atmosphere into the LS(low latitude ocean surface), HS(high latitude ocean surface), and biomass bins.

          “Figure 6 shows the size of the four Bern-model bins in percent and the amount of human CO2 that remains in the atmosphere 8 years after an artificial pulse of human CO2 enters the atmosphere. ”

          This comes back to Berry’s misconception that humans and natural CO2 can be separately followed once they are mixed in the atmosphere. For example, if you add a pulse of 4.6 Gt of human CO2 to the atmosphere it increases the CO2 content of the atmosphere by 4.6Gt.
          Part of the 4.6Gt increase in atmospheric CO2 will gradually redistribute between the boxes as the whole system returns to equilibrium. Note that this is NOT the same as saying that only the human CO2 molecules are redistributed.

          “Bern (13) predicts 15 percent all human CO2 entering the atmosphere stays in the atmosphere forever, 25 percent stays in the atmosphere almost forever, and only 32 percent flows freely out of the atmosphere.

          Once again Berry fails to realise that Bern refers to bulk flows of molecules and not flows of human CO2 molecules. The percentages refer to the changes in total CO2 in the atmosphere, not the precise molecules introduced.

          Berry misinterprets timescales. Bern is discussing the fast CO2 cycle. In this context a decade is a short time, a century is almost forever and a millenium is forever.

          Been is saying that the extra ppm CO2 will be around for a while even if we stop emitting. It will take years to decades for the atmospheric CO2 to reach a new equilibrium with the biosphere, LS and HS. It will take centuries to reach equilibrium with HD(the deep ocean) and 10,000 to 100,000 years for the slow carbon cycle to return concentrations to the pre-industrial level of 280ppm.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Again, as I said earlier, I have only just read the paper. I am completely new to the subject, so I’m not going to sit here and pretend I understand the intricacies of the Bern model. Berry seems to think that the Bern model treats human CO2 separately to natural CO2, whereas he is arguing that in reality there is no separation between human and natural CO2. So you are not going to refute him by pointing out that in reality there is no separation between human and natural CO2, because that is also what he is arguing. What you need to do is show that the Bern model does not treat human CO2 as separate to natural CO2.

            I would add that Berry argues:

            "If applied to natural CO2, the Bern model predicts 15 percent of natural CO2 sticks in the atmosphere. Then in 100 years, 1500 ppm of natural CO2 sticks in the atmosphere. This clearly has not happened. Therefore, the Bern model is invalid."

            He also goes on, in Section 5, to compare how his model and the Bern model fare in fitting 14 C data (Figures 8 and 9). Those sections (5.3 and 5.4) seemed particularly damning of the Bern model. But again…what do I know?

          • Entropic man says:

            DREMT

            “Berry seems to think that the Bern model treats human CO2 separately to natural CO2, whereas he is arguing that in reality there is no separation between human and natural CO2. ”

            Everybody, Berry, Bern, the IPCC, all the scientists competent to hold an opinion and the dogs in the street agree that there is no separation.

            For some reason Berry has built a straw man claiming that Bern and the IPCC are treating human and natural CO2 separately. The GFSM alone knows why.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            This might be a clue, from a pre-print of the new paper:

            "IPCC’s Box 6.1 bases all its conclusions on its assumption that the natural CO2 level has remained at 280 ppm. This assumption requires human CO2 to have caused all the CO2 increase, which in turn requires human CO2 to have a long turnover time. However, human CO2 and natural CO2 must have the same turnover times because all 12C carbon atoms are identical."

      • Entropic man says:

        DREMT

        Thanks for the link.

      • Nate says:

        Any journal that lets an author call his basic mathematical model ‘The Physics Model’ obviously has very little, if any, peer review.

        “Figure 3 shows the Physics Model system for atmospheric
        CO2. The system includes the level (concentration) of CO2 in
        the atmosphere and the inflow and outflow of CO2.”

        Whats shown is the most basic single-box kinetic model. A proper physics model would include the real-world constraints of the system, the Earth’s Carbon cycle.

        This one does not.

        While the original Siegenthaler and Joos paper DOES include the real-world constraints that had been observed prior to the paper, such as the Revelle Factor.

        In order to model the actual carbon cycle, that paper showed that a multi-box model was required. This meant a much more complicated kinetic equation than Berry’s.

        Berry’s insistence that the Carbon-cycle must be MUCH SIMPLER, with a much shorter e-time, than had been understood 30 y ago is simply not credible, and not based on any new evidence.

        • stephen p anderson says:

          Any journal that lets an author call his basic mathematical model ‘The Physics Model’ obviously has very little, if any, peer review.

          He presents it in opposition to the non-physics model that IPCC used.

          Whats shown is the most basic single-box kinetic model. A proper physics model would include the real-world constraints of the system, the Earth’s Carbon cycle.

          Berry applies the physics model to the entire carbon cycle in the third most recent paper.

          Berry’s insistence that the Carbon-cycle must be MUCH SIMPLER, with a much shorter e-time, than had been understood 30 y ago is simply not credible, and not based on any new evidence.

          It is the IPCC who have published the short e-times in all of their AR’s. Also, the short e-times have been determined through numerous studies.

        • Nate says:

          Discussion of eqn 1. term that involves buffering action of the ocean.

          “If the atmospheric CO, content increases by x percent, the resulting relative increase of oceanic CO, (including carbonate) will in equilibrium only be x/chi percent. This buffer action of the sea water is taken into account by multiplying the excess CO, content n, by chi in the expression for the flux from the mixed layer to the atmosphere (of. Bolin, 1960). (For a further discussion of [ see chapter 7.1.)”

          This sort of constraint, among others, is simply missing from Berry’s ‘The Physics equation’, with no sensible explanation.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            This does not constrain ocean uptake. You’ll need to show evidence that it does.

          • Nate says:

            Why not? You’re supposed to be the chemist.

            So then their equation is not the same as Berry’s, is it?

        • Nate says:

          “It is the IPCC who have published the short e-times in all of their ARs. Also, the short e-times have been determined through numerous studies.”

          FALSE. Show us what you are talking about.

          Berry wants people to think that there is only one e-time, but in reality there are at least two. And he misleads people by mixing them up.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            No, it isn’t false. Read the ARs. You can’t say natural carbon e-time is short and human e-time is long. Nature can’t differentiate between human and natural carbon. If so, you’ll need to show how.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            All carbon dioxide in the fast cycle has one e-time.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            This is what we’ve been discussing, Nate. IPCC incorrectly uses the Bern model.

          • Nate says:

            “Nature cant differentiate between human and natural carbon. ”

            Yes, that is the mantra of Berry. But no one is claiming that. We have explained this to you several times.

            If the IPCC is referencing residence time, then that is not the same as concentration decay time.

            If you are claiming that the IPCC mixes up residence time and concentration decay time, as Berry does, No.

            IPCC simply references papers such as the Bern papers, which clearly do not agree that the e-time for concentration to decay is short.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            That’s exactly what they’re saying. For their Bern model to be correct human carbon would have to have one turnover time and natural carbon would have to have another turnover time. So if a human carbon emits into the atmosphere and becomes a “fast carbon” molecule, how do the sinks differentiate between it and the natural carbon molecule? (hint: They can’t.)

          • Willard says:

            > their Bern model

            You’re not paying attention much, do you?

  98. Stephen P Anderson says:

    Name calling doesnt falsify Salby. Thats not how science works. Youll need to falsify Salby with evidence.

    • Willard says:

      How about:

      Establishing the link between atmospheric CO2 concentration and anthropogenic carbon emissions requires the development of complex carbon cycle models of the primary sinks, the ocean and terrestrial biosphere. Once such models have been developed, the potential exists to use pulse response functions to characterize their behaviour. However, the application of response functions based on a pulse increase in atmospheric CO2 to characterize oceanic uptake, the conventional technique, does not yield a very accurate result due to nonlinearities in the aquatic carbon chemistry. Here, we propose the use of an ocean mixed-layer pulse response function that characterizes the surface to deep ocean mixing in combination with a separate equation describing air-sea exchange. The use of a mixed-layer pulse response function avoids the problem arising from the nonlinearities of the carbon chemistry and gives therefore more accurate results. The response function is also valid for tracers other than carbon. We found that tracer uptake of the HILDA and Box-Diffusion model can be represented exactly by the new method. For the Princeton 3-D model, we find that the agreement between the complete model and its pulse substitute is better than 4% for the cumulative uptake of anthropogenic carbon for the period 17652300 applying the IPCC stabilization scenarios S450 and S750 and better than 2% for the simulated inventory and surface concentration of bomb-produced radiocarbon. By contrast, the use of atmospheric response functions gives deviations up to 73% for the cumulative CO2 uptake as calculated with the Princeton 3-D model. We introduce the use of a decay response function for calculating the potential carbon storage on land as a substitute for terrestrial biosphere models that describe the overturning of assimilated carbon. This, in combination with an equation describing the net primary productivity permits us to exactly characterize simple biosphere models. As the time scales of biospheric overturning are one key aspect to determine the amount of anthropogenic carbon which might be sequestered by the biosphere, we suggest that decay response functions should be used as a simple and standardized measure to compare different models and to improve understanding of their behaviour. We provide analytical formulations for mixed-layer and terrestrial biosphere decay pulse response functions which permit us to easily build a substitute for the Bern carbon cycle model (HILDA). Furthermore, mixed-layer response functions for the Box-Diffusion, a 2-D model, and the Princeton 3-D model are given.

      https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0889.1996.t01-2-00006.x

      Note the “HILDA” name.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Berry falsified this in his most recent paper.

        • Willard says:

          So you say.

          You say a lot of stuff and show little.

          That is not how science works.

          I want specifics.

          Etc.

          • Swenson says:

            Witless Wee Willy,

            So you want specifics, do you?

            I want world peace, and a cure for cancer. Who is more likely to get what they want?

            Think about it, if you wish.

            Etc.

          • Willard says:

            You are right, Mike Flynn.

            To expect anything else than a word salad from Troglodyte might be too much.

            Against all odds, I still wish him to try to provide falsifying evidence..

            Just like I expect you to teach us physics!

            Hope springs eternal, autumn leaves grey.

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy Idiot,

            What form of mental retardation leads you to think that anyone to whom you refer to as Troglodyte, would pay attention to your witless wishes?

            He probably couldn’t be bothered give you the time of day if you were on fire. Maybe you have an inflated view of your importance and influence, but please feel free to try to convince me otherwise.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Makeup Featurette – I was replying to Troglodyte, and I referred to him enough times as “Troglodyte” that I am referring to him.

            You’re such a blatant buffoon!

          • Willard says:

            > that I am referring to him.

            That he knows by now that I am referring to him, of course.

          • Swenson says:

            Worrisome Wee Willy,

            As I asked, what form of mental retardation leads you to think that anyone to whom you refer to as Troglodyte, would pay attention to your witless wishes?

            He probably couldnt be bothered give you the time of day if you were on fire. Maybe you have an inflated view of your importance and influence, but please feel free to try to convince me otherwise.

            You can’t even be bothered reading your own comments before you post them, can you?

            Maybe you think your importance is such that other people must waste their time trying to figure out what you mean, and then comply with your desires!

            You were saying “blatant buffoon”? Maybe you should add sloppy, incompetent and impotent, when you castigate yourself in the mirror.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Maladroitness Felt.

  99. Entropic man says:

    Stephen

    “This does not constrain ocean uptake. Youll need to show evidence that it does. ”

    “Name calling doesnt falsify Salby. Thats not how science works. Youll need to falsify Salby with evidence. ”

    I think Nate already has.

    Henry’s Law says that air and ocean reach pCO2 equilibrium at equal partial pressures. If they are out of equilibrium a net flow occurs between them in the direction necessary to restore equilibrium.

    At present atmospheric CO2 is 50% above preindustrial and the ocean is buffering pCO2 much closer to preindustrial. They are a long way from equilibrium. The expected restoring action is net flow from atmosphere to ocean.

    Selby and Berry predict net flow from ocean to atmosphere.

    When you measure transport across the ocean surface you get net uptake by the ocean.

    This is as predicted by Henry’s law. It is the opposite of the Selby and Berry predictions.

    This is how you falsify a hypothesis, by showing that it’s predictions do not predict reality.

    Salby and Berry are falsified.

    • stephen p anderson says:

      You have a gross misunderstanding of Henry’s Law. The only thing that affects the solubility of CO2 in water is temperature and pressure. The solubility constant of CO2 affects the form.

      • Willard says:

        Mind probing doesn’t falsify EM. That’s not how science works. You’ll need to falsify EM with evidence.

        • Swenson says:

          More incomprehensible garbage from Wonky Wee Willy, attempting to appear intelligent, but failing miserably.

          • Willard says:

            Troglodyte surely has understood the reference, as most of these words are his.

            Instead of playing the hard of hearing, Major Failure Mike Flynn should do his bit about the transmittance of the atmosphere.

          • Swenson says:

            Weak Wee Willy,

            Who cares what you think? You suffer from a delusional condition, which keeps you detached from reality.

            I see you are telling Mike Flynn what he should do.

            Only a delusional dimwit like yourself would assume that Mike Flynn likely to do as you request.

            As to the transmittance of the atmosphere, what are you blabbering about? Why not just quote whatever it is you are not prepared to face? Be a man Wee Willy, don’t be scared to face reality. If you are concerned about the transmittance of the atmosphere, convince me you have made sincere efforts to learn about it, and if you still cannot comprehend the physics involved, I can no doubt help you.

            I will follow your example, and expect to be handsomely paid. How much are you prepared to pay, dummy?

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn,

            You say –

            “I see you are telling Mike Flynn”

            That’s imprecise.

            I am telling you, Mike Flynn!

            Have you ever seen the movie Gaslighting?

          • Swenson says:

            Wobbly Wee Willy,

            Still as delusional as ever, I see.

            No matter. Just repeating your fantasy won’t make it become reality.

            Why do you ask me which movies I have watched? Are you quite mad, or do you make a practice of asking random anonymous strangers random and pointless questions?

            Get a grip, Wee Willy. Movies?

            You really have lost it, haven’t you?

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn everyone!

            *Golf clap.*

    • Nate says:

      Stephen,

      Revelle and Seuss showed 65 y ago that the buffering effect does indeed restrict the ocean uptake of CO2, and explains why the atm CO2 rose as quickly as it did.

      The history explained well here:

      https://history.aip.org/climate/Revelle.htm

      And every successful carbon cycle model since, has included this effect.

  100. Willard says:

    EM,

    For some reason I can’t post this reference. Search for “The Bern Simple Climate Model (BernSCM) v1.0”

    It’s not the latest, but it’s recent enough, and it’s both open access and open source.

    If only climate scientists could switch their impulse response functions with Ed’s impulsive ones, everybody would save time.

  101. Stephen P Anderson says:

    Already done. But he has a gross conceptual misunderstanding. I didnt call him a fraud, Chihuahua.

    • Entropic man says:

      Explain.

      • Entropic man says:

        Stephen

        Now that I have access to a free copy of Berry’s 2021 paper I can do a few calculations.

        As one of his proofreaders you will be familiar with Fig. 1 showing the IPCC carbon cycle.

        It shows an increase of 4Pg CO2/year, a net flow of 2.3 into the ocean and a net flow of 2.0 from the surface into the deep ocean.

        Berry’s 2019 paper, referenced on page 32 of the 2021 paper estimates that the human contribution is 17ppm out of 135ppm since 1880.

        On that basis Berry’s model projects that the annual natural contribution to the Atmosphere is 0.5 Pg from human emissions and 3.5 Pg naturally.

        The last paragraph of the 2021 paper says

        “Finally the D14C balances remained near zero even as the 14CO2 and 12CO2 levels changed, which shows the ocean is the primary source of the natural 12CO2 increase.”

        If that is correct the flow should be a net outflow from the ocean of 3.5Pg whereas the value calculated from measurements is an inflow of 2.3.

        If the IPCC data is correct, then Berry is falsified.

        To show that his model based hypothesis is correct Berry needs to find measurements showing that the ocean emits a net 3.5Pg of CO2.

        • stephen p anderson says:

          Eman,

          You do realize the data in the two papers is only estimates. The 2019 paper was a paper that he introduced his physics model. There were two papers he used to present his physics model. The 2019 paper was just a generalized estimate of data. The 2021 paper used his physics model to falsify the IPCC carbon cycle model using their assessments of the natural carbon cycle and the human carbon cycles. Do you understand how he did that? Some damn chihuahua keeps biting my ankle. Do you know who owns it?

          • Entropic man says:

            I realise that he has a hypothesis based on a model of his own creation.

            He has no evidence to support it and it contradicts a large body of experimental evidence about carbon flow accumulated by many workers over many years.

            It has become obvious that the biggest flaw is that his hypothesis requires a net CO2 flow from ocean to atmosphere, when both theory and measurement expect and show a net flow from atmosphere to ocean.

            His hypothesis fails the ultimate test. Its predictions do not match reality.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Eman,

            If I can give you a hint on how to falsify his model. His only hypothesis is outflow is proportional to Level. Everything else flows from first-order kinetics. You have to falsify his hypothesis. If you can’t falsify that, you can’t falsify his model.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            No, it doesn’t depend on net flow. It depends on the hypothesis. Outflow is proportional to Level. (Another hint: You’ll need to physically explain how outflow isn’t proportional to Level.)

          • stephen p anderson says:

            You’ll also need to disprove LeChatlier’s Principle and the Ideal Gas Law while you’re at it.

          • bobdroege says:

            If CO2 didn’t react with water, he might have a case.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Henry’s Law says the concentration of gas in water is proportional to its atmospheric partial pressure. What if it is a completely inert gas? No hydrogen bonding and weak Van Der Waals forces? It doesn’t matter. If its partial pressure goes up its concentration in water goes up.

        • Entropic man says:

          Exactly.

          As the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the amount of dissolved CO2 in the ocean should increase as well. This requires a net flow from atmosphere to ocean.

          Salby and Berry’s hypothesis requires a larger flow from ocean to atmosphere against the flow due to Henry’s Law They do not explain what mechanism is causing this and show no experimental evidence that it is happening.

          As you said earlier

          YOU CANT CHANGE SCIENCE BE