22 Very Inconvenient Climate Truths

Here are 22 good reasons not to believe the statements made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

22-inconvenienttruths-on-global-warmingGuest essay by Jean-Pierre Bardinet.

According to the official statements of the IPCC “Science is clear” and non-believers cannot be trusted.

Quick action is needed! For more than 30 years we have been told that we must act quickly and that after the next three or five years it will be too late (or even after the next 500 days according to the French Minister of foreign affairs speaking in 2014) and the Planet will be beyond salvation and become a frying pan -on fire- if we do not drastically reduce our emissions of CO2, at any cost, even at the cost of economic decline, ruin and misery.

But anyone with some scientific background who takes pains to study the topics at hand is quickly led to conclude that the arguments of the IPCC are inaccurate, for many reasons of which here is a non-exhaustive list.


The 22 Inconvenient Truths

1. The Mean Global Temperature has been stable since 1997, despite a continuous increase of the CO2 content of the air: how could one say that the increase of the CO2 content of the air is the cause of the increase of the temperature? (discussion: p. 4)

2. 57% of the cumulative anthropic emissions since the beginning of the Industrial revolution have been emitted since 1997, but the temperature has been stable. How to uphold that anthropic CO2 emissions (or anthropic cumulative emissions) cause an increase of the Mean Global Temperature?

[Note 1: since 1880 the only one period where Global Mean Temperature and CO2 content of the air increased simultaneously has been 1978-1997. From 1910 to 1940, the Global Mean Temperature increased at about the same rate as over 1978-1997, while CO2 anthropic emissions were almost negligible. Over 1950-1978 while CO2 anthropic emissions increased rapidly the Global Mean Temperature dropped. From Vostok and other ice cores we know that it’s the increase of the temperature that drives the subsequent increase of the CO2 content of the air, thanks to ocean out-gassing, and not the opposite. The same process is still at work nowadays] (discussion: p. 7)

3. The amount of CO2 of the air from anthropic emissions is today no more than 6% of the total CO2 in the air (as shown by the isotopic ratios 13C/12C) instead of the 25% to 30% said by IPCC. (discussion: p. 9)

4. The lifetime of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is about 5 years instead of the 100 years said by IPCC. (discussion: p. 10)

5. The changes of the Mean Global Temperature are more or less sinusoidal with a well defined 60 year period. We are at a maximum of the sinusoid(s) and hence the next years should be cooler as has been observed after 1950. (discussion: p. 12)

6. The absorption of the radiation from the surface by the CO2 of the air is nearly saturated. Measuring with a spectrometer what is left from the radiation of a broadband infrared source (say a black body heated at 1000°C) after crossing the equivalent of some tens or hundreds of meters of the air, shows that the main CO2 bands (4.3 µm and 15 µm) have been replaced by the emission spectrum of the CO2 which is radiated at the temperature of the trace-gas. (discussion: p. 14)

7. In some geological periods the CO2 content of the air has been up to 20 times today’s content, and there has been no runaway temperature increase! Why would our CO2 emissions have a cataclysmic impact? The laws of Nature are the same whatever the place and the time. (discussion: p. 17)

8. The sea level is increasing by about 1.3 mm/year according to the data of the tide-gauges (after correction of the emergence or subsidence of the rock to which the tide gauge is attached, nowadays precisely known thanks to high precision GPS instrumentation); no acceleration has been observed during the last decades; the raw measurements at Brest since 1846 and at Marseille since the 1880s are slightly less than 1.3 mm/year. (discussion: p. 18)

9. The “hot spot” in the inter-tropical high troposphere is, according to all “models” and to the IPCC reports, the indubitable proof of the water vapour feedback amplification of the warming: it has not been observed and does not exist. (discussion: p. 20)

10. The water vapour content of the air has been roughly constant since more than 50 years but the humidity of the upper layers of the troposphere has been decreasing: the IPCC foretold the opposite to assert its “positive water vapour feedback” with increasing CO2. The observed “feedback” is negative. (discussion: p.22)

11. The maximum surface of the Antarctic ice-pack has been increasing every year since we have satellite observations. (discussion: p. 24)

12. The sum of the surfaces of the Arctic and Antarctic icepacks is about constant, their trends are phase-opposite; hence their total albedo is about constant. (discussion: p. 25)

13. The measurements from the 3000 oceanic ARGO buoys since 2003 may suggest a slight decrease of the oceanic heat content between the surface and a depth 700 m with very significant regional differences. (discussion: p. 27)

14. The observed outgoing longwave emission (or thermal infrared) of the globe is increasing, contrary to what models say on a would-be “radiative imbalance”; the “blanket” effect of CO2 or CH4 “greenhouse gases” is not seen. (discussion:p. 29)

15. The Stefan Boltzmann formula does not apply to gases, as they are neither black bodies, nor grey bodies: why does the IPCC community use it for gases ? (discussion: p. 30)

16. The trace gases absorb the radiation of the surface and radiate at the temperature of the air which is, at some height, most of the time slightly lower that of the surface. The trace-gases cannot “heat the surface“, according to the second principle of thermodynamics which prohibits heat transfer from a cooler body to a warmer body. (discussion: p. 32)

17. The temperatures have always driven the CO2 content of the air, never the reverse. Nowadays the net increment of the CO2 content of the air follows very closely the inter-tropical temperature anomaly. (discussion: p. 33)

18. The CLOUD project at the European Center for Nuclear Research is probing the Svensmark-Shaviv hypothesis on the role of cosmic rays modulated by the solar magnetic field on the low cloud coverage; the first and encouraging results have been published in Nature. (discussion: p. 36)

19. Numerical “Climate models” are not consistent regarding cloud coverage which is the main driver of the surface temperatures. Project Earthshine (Earthshine is the ghostly glow of the dark side of the Moon) has been measuring changes of the terrestrial albedo in relation to cloud coverage data; according to cloud coverage data available since 1983, the albedo of the Earth has decreased from 1984 to 1998, then increased up to 2004 in sync with the Mean Global Temperature. (discussion: p. 37)

20. The forecasts of the “climate models” are diverging more and more from the observations. A model is not a scientific proof of a fact and if proven false by observations (or falsified) it must be discarded, or audited and corrected. We are still waiting for the IPCC models to be discarded or revised; but alas IPCC uses the models financed by the taxpayers both to “prove” attributions to greenhouse gas and to support forecasts of doom. (discussion: p. 40)

21. As said by IPCC in its TAR (2001) “we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” Has this state of affairs changed since 2001? Surely not for scientific reasons. (discussion: p. 43)

22. Last but not least the IPCC is neither a scientific organization nor an independent organization: the summary for policy makers, the only part of the report read by international organizations, politicians and media is written under the very close supervision of the representative of the countries and of the non-governmental pressure groups.

The governing body of the IPCC is made of a minority of scientists almost all of them promoters of the environmentalist ideology, and a majority of state representatives and of non-governmental green organizations. (discussion: p. 46)


Appendix

Jean Poitou and François-Marie Bréon are distinguished members of the climate establishment and redactors of parts of the IPCC fifth assessment report report (AR5).

Jean Poitou is a physicist and climatologist, graduated from Ecole Supérieure de Physique et Chimie (Physics and Chemistry engineering college) and is climatologist at the Laboratory of the climate and environment sciences at IPSL, a joint research lab from CEA, CNRS, and UVSQ (*). He has written a book on the Climate for the teachers of secondary schools

François-Marie Bréon at CEA since 1993, has published 85 articles, is Directeur de recherche at CNRS, and author of the IPCC report 2013; he has been scientific manager of the ICARE group (CNES, CNRS, University of Lille), and of the POLDER and MicroCarb Space missions

 

***********

The somewhat abusive language of J. Poitou and F. M. Bréon (“untruths that exasperate”, “an obvious attempt to deceive”, “the climate-skeptics who are trying to deceive the public”, “such an outrageous statement should completely disqualify its author”, “once more a gross nonsense”, “does the author say that the greenhouse effect does not exist ? The author of such statements should loose any credibility in the eyes of readers with some scientific background”, “again and again a string of nonsense”) requires a careful examination of the arguments put forward by J.P. Bardinet and by the authors of the rebuttal, with all the relevant references and graphics.

We ask for the indulgence of the reader as there are some lengths and repetitions; the huge economic impact of the climate regulations and of the energy market distortions striking both the industries and the households require that no ambiguousness, no uncertainty be left.

This notice is made up of 22 almost independent “cards”.

********

(*)

ISPL – Institut Pierre Simon Laplace des sciences de l’environnement

CEA – Commissariat à l’énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives

CNRS – Centre national de la recherche scientifique

UVSQ – Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines

CNES – Centre national d’études spatiales


Truth n°1 The Mean Global Temperature has been stable since 1997, despite a continuous increase of the CO2 content of the air: how could one say that the increase of the CO2 content of the air is the cause of the increase of the temperature?

[Poitou & Bréon] The causality is built upon a physical basis. The greenhouse phenomenon is well understood since more than hundred years and can be grasped by anyone with some scientific background. It has been clearly proved that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that if its concentration in the atmosphere increases the temperature will increase. This increase is not instantaneous as there are many other drivers likes aerosols, sun, volcanic eruptions and also the natural variability of the climatic system. It is to be noted as well that due to the inertia of the system the heating of the lower atmosphere is by force delayed with respect to its cause, the same way heating a home takes some time to materialize after the central heating has been switched on

To discard observations (like the “pause” of the global mean temperatures since 1997 shown on the appended figure 1-A) the IPCC folks put forward a hypothesis (“the greenhouse effect well understood since more than hundred years“) but do not provide any definition of their “greenhouse effect“. As if this word had magical properties that no one should be allowed to investigate.

Let’s take a closer look and check whether it is well understood since more than hundred years. A handbook for university students co-written by the chairman[1] of the French National Research Council explains it’s the equivalent of a glass window transparent in the visible spectrum and opaque in the thermal infrared spectrum; but this “analogy” has been, in 1909, experimentally proven wrong by a famous specialist of optics, the professor Robert Wood of John Hopkins University[2]. After 1909, the assumptions and computations made by Arrhenius have been considered erroneous by the physicists[3] and forgotten until the forerunners of the IPCC resuscitated them without mentioning that this has no relation either with the real atmosphere or with the horticultural greenhouse where the glass panels keep the warm and humid air inside the greenhouse.

Two German professors of physics the Prof. Dr Gerlich[4] and Tscheuschner have analyzed some tens of definitions of the greenhouse effect and found that all of them are contrary to basic physics. Their 115 pages long article in the International Journal Of Modern Physics has been left open to discussion during two years on the arXiv site[5]; no one has been able to write a consistent definition of the greenhouse effect.

Two other physicists, specialists of the atmosphere[6], have shown that the ideas of the radiative-convective equilibrium and the definitions of the greenhouse effect are absurd w.r.t elementary physics. Their conclusion is Based on our findings, we argue that 1) the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect cannot be proved by the statistical description of fortuitous weather events that took place in a climate period, 2) the description by American Meteorological Society and by the World Meteorological Organization has to be discarded because of physical reasons, 3) energy flux budgets for the Earth-atmosphere system do not provide tangible evidence that the atmospheric greenhouse effect does exist. Because of this lack of tangible evidence it is time to acknowledge that the atmospheric greenhouse effect and especially its climatic impact are based on meritless conjectures”.

As a matter of fact the radiation flow from the surface absorbed by the air is within a few percent equal to the radiation of the air impinging on the surface: that is very different of the greenhouse glass panel in the vacuum that absorbs all of the thermal infrared radiation from the surface and emits half of it upwards and half of it downwards back to the surface.

Hence all those greenhouse “pane of glass” analogies are baseless.

The radiative heat flow from a body A to a body B is: (radiation from A absorbed by B) minus (radiation of B absorbed by A).

It is about nil between the air and the surface; it would be exactly nil for an (hypothetical) isothermal atmosphere at the temperature of the surface.

There is no “radiative heat trapping” as the net heat flow is nil between surface and air. And air does not “warm the surface”!

As the air is very opaque (due to the water vapor optical thickness, except of course in the so called “water vapor window”) the radiation from the air impinging on the surface originates mostly from a very thin layer above the surface[7].

The heat lost by the radiation from the top of the air toward the cosmos is not at all fed by the radiation from the surface, but by water vapor condensation and by the solar infrared (or UV) absorbed by trace gases.

The solar heating of the surface is mostly carried away by evaporation, with some convection and some radiation arriving to the cosmos after escaping absorption by water vapor and clouds, for a global average of about 20 W/m².

Hence all the radiative-convective “models” since Manabe (1967) which assume a “radiative cooling of the surface” and forget evaporation are baseless: 71% of the surface of globe is covered by oceans, and an additional 20% of the surface covered by vegetation, driving evapotranspiration.

A recent article (2011) written by Dufresne & Treiner [8] is titled “the greenhouse effect is more subtle than generally believed“; it states that the model of the greenhouse glass panel is “doubly inexact and wrong” and that the absorption by CO2 is saturated.

Another “definition” [9] is quite different: it is G= (radiation from the surface) minus (outgoing longwave radiation (OLR)).

That G is said to measure the “heat trapped by greenhouse gases“. Ramanathan explains [10]Reduction on OLR : At a global average surface temperature of about 289 K the globally averaged emission by the surface is about 395 +/- 5 W/m² whereas the OLR (outgoing longwave radiation) is only 237 +/- 8 W/m². Thus the intervening atmosphere and clouds cause a reduction of 158 +/- 7 W/m² in the longwave emission which is the magnitude of the total greenhouse effect denoted by G in energy units. Without this effect the planet would be colder by as much as 33K [11].

Why is this complete nonsense? Because, the heat transfer between surface and air is (radiation from the surface absorbed by the air) minus (radiation of the air absorbed by the surface); G is not a heat transfer surface to air; while at the top of the air the radiation received from the cosmos at 2.7 K is negligible, the radiation of the air impinging on the surface is equal to the radiation of the surface absorbed by the air, resulting in a zero W/m² net balance.

Radiation is a diagnostic of the temperatures! The temperature lapse rate of the troposphere g/(Cp +|Ch|) is related to the gravitation (g=9.81 m/s²) and to the heating Ch of the top of the air by condensation of water vapor and by absorption of the solar infrared by water vapor and by liquid water (if any in clouds …).

All the authors who say that G is a measure of “heat trapped“, Berger, Ramanathan, Rocca, and the IPCC, apparently do not know that the equations of ideal polytropic gases show that the lapse rate equation of the troposphere T(z) = T0 + g/(Cp +|Ch|) (z-z0) is strictly equivalent to the relation between temperature and pressure T(P)/T0 = (P/P0)(R/µ) / (Cp+ |Ch|) whose exponent is 0.19 on Earth (R=8.314; µ=0.0289 is the mass of a mole of air) and 0.17 on Venus. Referring {T0, P0} to the upper layer of the air that radiates toward the cosmos {T0, P0} is {255 K, 0.53 atm} on Earth and is {230 K, 0.1 atm} on Venus.

It is not the infrared emission that cools the surface as in the so-called radiative equilibrium models because the net radiative heat transfer surface to air is about nil, but the evaporation whose thermostatic effect cannot be overstated: increasing the surface temperature by +1°C increases the evaporation by 6%; where evaporation is 100 W/m², this removes an additional 6 W/m² from the surface.

Hence we cannot accept that the “greenhouse phenomenon is well understood” as there is not a single physically consistent definition.

There is no ground to discard almost two decades of high quality satellite observation of the temperatures of the lower troposphere.

And if the “radiative forcing” is supposed to have been perfectly working over the 1975-1997 time span, with no delay, why did it stall afterwards?

Let’s now take a closer look at the CO2 content of the air on figure 1-A: the slope d[CO2]/dt is roughly constant; this hints to a relation like:

Slope of the CO2 content of the air = d (CO2)/ dt = k (T(t)- T0) where t is the time.

Such a relation has been proved by several authors (Beenstock & Reingewertz, Salby, Park[12]) using quite different methods; notice n°17 will come back to this most important topic. The Henry law of degassing is well known to amateurs of sparkling drinks which are tastier when kept cool. The CO2 content of the air is a consequence and a follow-up of the temperatures

Figure 1-A HadCRUT4 serie of the surface temperature anomalies and Mauna Loa CO2 series 1997 to end 2012

from the web site www.pensee-unique.fr .

clip_image002

Conclusions:

The observations of a global mean temperature “flat” with no linear trend since 1997 cannot be discarded.

Those observations do contradict the conjecture of a “greenhouse effect” for which there is no physically admissible definition at hand: there is no “heat trapping” between surface and air as the net radiative heat flow between those bodies is about nil

The main features of the atmosphere both on Earth and on Venus are easily deduced from the basic polytropic equations of the ideal gases.

The observations show that in the last decades as in geological times the CO2 content of the air is a consequence of the temperatures and cannot be their cause.
Truth n°2 57% of the cumulative anthropic emissions since the beginning of the Industrial revolution have been emitted since 1997, but
the temperature has been stable. How to uphold that anthropic CO2 emissions (or anthropic cumulative emissions) cause an increase of the Global Mean Temperature?

[Note 1: since 1880 the only one period where Global Mean Temperature and CO2 content of the air increased simultaneously has been 1978-1997. From 1910 to 1940, the Global Mean Temperature increased at about the same rate as over 1978-1997, while CO2 anthropic emissions were almost negligible. Over 1950-1978 while CO2 anthropic emissions increased rapidly the Global Mean Temperature dropped. From Vostok and other ice cores we know that it’s the increase of the temperature that drives the subsequent increase of the CO2 content of the air, thanks to ocean out-gassing, and not the opposite. The same process is still at work nowadays]

[Poitou & Bréon] See previous point 1. Regarding the analysis of the Vostok ice cores it is quite obvious that anthropic CO2 was not the driver of the climate changes. But it is well understood that the CO2 has been amplifying the warming due to the changes of the orbital parameters of the Earth. Without this effect the contrast between glacial and interglacial periods would have been much smaller.

For the Vostok ice core is there really a “well understood’ amplifying effect of CO2 during deglaciation? The delay between temperature changes and CO2 changes has been [13] found to be a few centuries: this is the minimum observable time in those ice cores because the closing time of air paths between ice crystals of the firn, several centuries, acts on the CO2 record as a frequency low-pass filter whose time constant is some centuries.

Oceanic cores show that the warming near the poles takes place before that of the inter-tropical surface[14]. Jeffrey Glassman [15] has found that the non-linear Henry law of degassing can be spotted on the Vostok deglaciation data, underlining again that the CO2 in the air is a consequence of the temperatures, not their cause.

An explanation of the surprisingly quick deglaciation with respect to glaciations [16] has been provided by Prof. O. G Sorokhtin. [17]

Figure 2-A HadCRU T3 series of the monthly Global Mean Surface Temperature anomaly w.r.t. the mean over 1961-1990 and its best approximation by the sum of three sinusoids of periods 1000 years, 210 years and 60 years.

Note the great El Niños of 1878, 1939-40, 1941-42 and 1997-98 that started a change of sign of the slope.

Nota: 150 years of observations do not fully constrain the optimization and the red curve is a heuristic example

clip_image004

The truth n°2 is important because IPCC (AR5 summary for policy makers, 2013, page 15 § D2 figure SPM 10) states that the temperature increase is a simple function like (2 CAE/1000)°C of the Cumulative Anthropic Emissions (CAE) that were 153 Gt-C end 1978 at the beginning of the global satellite lower troposphere temperature measurements, 257 Gt-C at the beginning of the “hiatus in the warming” and 402 Gt-C end 2014. This graphics SPM10 is supposed to “prove” that in order to keep the warming below 2°C w.r.t 1870 the cumulative anthropic emissions must be capped to about 1000 Gt-C. But if the temperature has been stable while the cumulative anthropic emissions increased by 57%, is the graphics SPM10 of IPCC AR5 believable?

Lets take a closer look at the temperature records: Figure 2-A suggests natural cycles of periods 60 years (found as well by Macias et al [18]), 210 years and 1000 years plus modulation by the El Niño events and by some volcanic events (Krakatoa 1883, Katmai 1912, ..). Figure 2-B suggests that since 1979 there has been a jump of at most 0.3°C during the great El Niño of 1997-98; (see figure 15-A showing that El Niño paces the global temperatures as the water of the warm pool is redistributed to the oceanic surface layer at higher latitudes).Those oscillations exist since millennia and are not related to CO2.

Hence we can say that no CO2 effect on the temperatures has been observed since 1978 despite an increase of 263% of the cumulative anthropic emissions (263% = 402 Gt-C /153 Gt-C).

Figure 2-B: RSS MSU lower troposphere global average temperature January 1979 to Sept 2014.

Best Linear Fits: 0,029 °C + 0,007 (t- 1997) before January 1997 and 0.24 °C – 0,0006 (t-1997) afterwards.

http://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt clip_image006

Moreover the life-time of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is about 5 years because 5 years is the ratio of the stock of CO2 in the air to the yearly absorption of CO2 by the plants and the oceans[19].

Hence there were no more than 24 ppm = 5 years x 10 Gt-C / 2.12 (Gt-C/ppm) of anthropic emissions in the air at the end of 2014, and 5 ppm = 5 years x 2.1 Gt-C / 2.12 (Gt-C/ppm) at the end of 1958. Such a small anthropic content of the air cannot have any effect on the temperature even we believed in the Myrhe formula of IPCC : T”- T’= 5(°C) ln ( CO2″ / CO2′).

The most obvious tricks on the IPCC/2013/SPM10 figure are:

* the averaging of the temperatures over ten calendar years (like 2001-2010) discards all evidence of natural cycles and makes the El Niño disappear as both the main pacemaker and the cause of temperature jumps

* the Pinatubo dust veil effect (1992-1993) is, thanks to this averaging, morphed into a CO2 related temperature increase

* the small anthropic emissions of 1870-1950 are assumed to be the only cause of the significant temperature fluctuations since the end of the little ice age !

* the very idea of a cumulative effect of anthropic emissions is (akin an infinite lifetime) not consistent with the evidence of a five year life time of CO2 molecules in the air, equal to the ratio stock/(yearly absorption).

 

Truth n°3 The amount of CO2 in the air from anthropic emissions is today no more than 6% of the total CO2 in the air (as shown by the isotopic ratios 13C/12C) instead of the 25% to 30% said by IPCC

[Poitou & Bréon] This statement is very obviously wrong as shown by the Vostok ice core and by other cores from the Antarctic. Indeed over the last 800 000 years the CO2 content of the air never exceeded 300 ppm; today its 400 ppm. If the 100 ppm difference – a quarter of the present concentration- is not due to anthropic activities, which is its cause that never occurred over the last 800 000 years

There is no need to fetch glimpses of a distant past from the Vostok ice core. Today’s observations are unambiguous!

The delta13C is a linear function of the ratio of the number of atoms 13C to 12C; the delta13C of a mixture is the quantity-weighted average of the delta13C of the components of the mixture. The delta13C of the anthropic emissions has been changing with the proportion of coal, oil and natural gas in the energy mix and went from -26 pm (pm= per mil) for the mostly coal and oil economies of the 1950s to -29.5 pm near year 2000 and back to -28.5 pm with the revival of the coal since 2003-2005.

6% (-28.5 pm ) +94% (-7 pm) = (-8.3 pm) which is the observed value (figure 3-A)

The 6% are: (lifetime 5 years) x (yearly anthropic emissions 10 Gt-C) /(total CO2 in the air of 850 Gt-C)

IPCC writes page 10 § B.5 of the Summary for Policy Makers: “From those cumulative anthropic emissions 240 [230 à 250] Gt-C have accumulated in the atmosphere”

As (240 / 840) = 28% and as 28% (-28 pm) + 72% (-7 pm) = ( -13 pm) the IPCC statement is grossly wrong: the observations are quite different of the (-13) per mil, as shown figure 3-A below.

Figure 3-A Monthly observations of the delta13C in per mil (pm) as a function of time at the south pole (blue), at Crozet Island (red), at the passage of Drake (magenta) and the envelope (yearly max and yearly min) of the observations at Mauna Loa (19°30N and 3400 m) (black)

clip_image008

Note that the non-anthropic (or natural) delta13C becomes very slowly more negative (from -6.5 per mil preindustrial to about -7 per mil now) with the replacement of CO2 molecules absorbed by the vegetation by molecules out-gassed from soils by the oxidation of the organic material of plants grown years to centuries before: the delta13C of the air was then slightly less negative. The same long delays apply to the degassing from the oceanic upwellings that recycle carbon absorbed at higher latitudes tens of years before.

The comment by Poitou & Bréon assumes that the air inclusions recovered in the ice cores have the same CO2 content as the air on the surface at the time of the closing of the last air paths between ice crystals: this is unlikely and debated.

 

Truth n°4 The lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 5 years instead of the 100 years said by IPCC

[Poitou & Bréon] Where does IPCC say that in its 2013 report or in the AR4, about the lifetime in the air? No such thing has been said.

This is again the mark of an obvious misunderstanding of the atmospheric phenomena.

Can you explain what is the cause of the increase of the CO2 content of the air that never occurred in the 800 000 years before.

Climate-sceptics who claim the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than 10 years built upon the ratio stock/ (yearly absorption). Such a computation is only valid for a given equilibrium. The 4 to 5 Gt-C that accumulate in the air kick the system out of equilibrium. The CO2 lifetime then involves exchanges between surface ocean and deep oceans and residence times become much longer beyond a century.

 

IPCC “says it” in AR4 with the Bern formula page 213 note a, table 2-14.

The probability of survival of a molecule expressed as exp(-t/u) where u is the mean lifetime can be deduced from the identity

d[CO2]/dt = foutgassing(t) + fanthropic(t) – fabsorbed(t)

Let’s assume u = [CO2]/ fabsorbed be constant, then

[CO2](t) = exp(- (t-t0) /u) [CO2](t0) + òt0t ( foutgassing(t’) + fanthropic(t’) ) exp(-(t-t’) /u) dt’

This derivation of [CO2](t) does not assume any given equilibrium between ingress and egress; the only hypothesis made is that the absorption grows with [CO2] due to fertilization of the air by CO2: more food, bigger plants and quicker growth, more leafs and so on; see on notice n°2 in the footnotes the references of some observations made during the last fifty years.

The monthly increments d[CO2]/dt computed for dt= 12 months from the Mauna Loa series of [CO2] are displayed on figure 4-A; they have no resemblance to the much smoother series of the anthropic emissions, but mimic very well the series of the inter-tropical temperature anomalies T(t); indeed for the non anthropic part:

foutgassing(t) – fabsorbed(t) = k (T(t)- T0)

(see references on card n°1 and more details on card n°17).

Figure 4-A Monthly increments over the last 12 months of the CO2 content in ppm measured at Mauna Loa observatory (altitude 3400 m; 19°30 N)

clip_image010

 

Can you explain what is the cause of the increase of the CO2 content of the air? Indeed foutgassing(t) – fabsorbed(t) = k (T(t)- T0)

The year to year increase of the anthropic content of the air is

òt0t fanthropic(t’) exp(-(t-t’) /u) dt’ – òt0t-1 fanthropic(t’) exp(-(t-t’) /u) dt’ =

òt-1t fanthropic(t’)) exp(-(t-t’) /u) dt’ – (1 – exp(-1/u)) òt0t-1 fanthropic(t’)) exp(-(t-1-t’) /u) dt’

that is the difference between the emissions of the last year and (1/u) times the cumulative weighted emissions of the previous years.

Please note that due to the 5 years lifetime, what is “accumulating in the air” is not the anthropic emissions themselves but roughly their increase over the last five years; for instance during the last years the yearly increase of the emissions was about 2%/year that is 2% 10 Gt-C = 0.2 Gt-C or 0.1 ppm; with u = 5 the increase of the anthropic content of the air was about 5 years x 0.1 ppm = +0.5 ppm/year as can be checked by a direct computation.

Can you explain what is the cause of the increase of the CO2 content of the air that never occurred in the 800 000 years before.

The low pass frequency filtering due to the century long compaction time of the snow crystals in the firn and the effects of the pressure on the air inclusions (both during the closing of air-paths in the firn and during the withdrawal of the ice core) significantly change the amplitude and phase of the CO2 content of the ice core with respect to the isotopic content of the surrounding ice.

Figure 4-B compares the Bern formulas that, according IPCC, say the part of the anthropic emissions still in the air after t years

(21.7 + 25.9 exp(-t/172.9) + 33.8 Exp(-t/18.51) + 18.6 Exp(-t/1.186)) % (in black) or

(18 + 14 exp(-t/420) + 18 exp(-t/70) + 24 exp(-t/21) + 26 exp(-t/3.4) ) % (in red)

Those expressions are obviously best fit transfer function between the series of anthropic emissions and the Mauna Loa series, with six or eight freely adjustable parameters.

IPCC AR5 2013 SPM § B.5 says that “240 [230 to 250] Gt-C from the anthropic emissions have accumulated in the atmosphere” from 1750 to 2011. This fits well with the Bern formulas but not at all with the isotopic delta13C ratios (card n°3).

Figure 4-B Fraction of anthropic emissions remaining in the air for both Bern formulas (black and red)

The magenta line is at 1/e= 36,8%. The blue curve is exp(-t / 5.5 years)

The orange curve is exp(-t / 100) and intersects the Bern curves at about t= 100 years

Formula 21.7% + 25.9% exp(-t/172.9)+… in black: 36,4% remaining in the air after 100 years

Formula 18% + 14% exp(-t/420) + in red: 33.5% remaining in the air after 100 years

clip_image012

Applying the Bern formula to the series of the anthropic emissions of coal, oil and gas (plus cement factories) since 1750, with a rough estimate of the delta13C of those emissions (from -26 pm for the mostly coal and oil economies to -29.5 pm near year 2000 and back to -28.5 pm with the revival of the coal between 2003 and 2012) leads to a delta13C of the air drawn in blue on figure 4-C; the measured values are in red.

Figure 4-C) Blue: delta13C of the air computed according to the Bern formula of IPCC (AR4 page 213) starting in 1750 from -6,5 pm and 277 ppm as “preindustrial” Red: observations (Mauna Loa)

clip_image014

 

Historical Note: The “much longer, beyond a century ” residence times arose in papers by Bert Bolin, first chair and co-founder of the IPCC [20]. He assumed that the Revelle factor used to describe the ionic equilibrium inside the ocean between the total dissolved carbon and carbonic acid should apply as well between air and ocean, assuming the equality of the partial pressures in the air and in the ocean. There is no such thing! Out-gassing zones (mostly inter-tropical) and absorption zones (mostly high latitudes) of the ocean are different and distant (notice n°17).

The completely different decay times in the two Bern formulas (172.9 years or 420 years? , 1.186 or 3.4 years ? etc.) show that those tales about the transit into the depths of the oceans are pure obfuscation without physical meaning.

Addendum about the relation d[CO2]/dt = foutgassing(t) + fanthropic(t) – fabsorbed(t): the IPCC hypothesis is foutgassing(t) = fabsorbed(t) within a few percent with very little change since the little ice age; the observations suggest fabsorbed(t) /[CO2] = constant = 1/lifetime.

Changes from IPCC AR4 (figure 7-3 p. 515) to IPCC AR5 (figure 6.1 page 471): the absorption by the oceans went down from

92.2 Gt-C = 70 (preindustrial) +22.2 Gt-C to 80 Gt-C = 60 (preindustrial) +20 Gt-C while the absorption by terrestrial vegetation went up from 122.6 Gt-C= 120 (preindustrial) + 2.6 Gt-C to 123 Gt-C = 108.9 (preindustrial) + 14.1 Gt-C; the change from 2.6 to 14.1 reflects a reassessment of the fertilization by the additional CO2 in the air since the 277 ppm assumed for the “preindustrial” , but is still a factor 2 or 3 lower than the observations between 1960 and 2010 related by the papers of Graven & Keeling, Myneni, Donohue, Pretzsch, Hansen and Sun referenced at the end of card n°1 (footnote 19). The numbers for the oceans are roughly consistent with a constant lifetime since “preindustrial”, but the absorption by terrestrial vegetation should be corrected to about 120 Gt-C = 83 (preindustrial) +37 Gt-C.

Truth n°5 … The Global Mean Temperature curve displays a 60 years period that may be related to the motion of the sun around the centre of mass of the solar system. We are at a maximum of the sinusoid and the next years should be cooler, as it has been the case after 1950

 

[Poitou & Bréon] We would like an explanation of the link between the position of the sun w.r.t the centre of mass of the solar system and the temperature on Earth. As the motion of the sun w.r.t the centre of mass is linked to the planetary motions, the author has just invented the climatic astrology

Climatic cycles are well documented on all proxies of paleo-temperatures. The relation between the 60 years cycle and the position of the sun has been discussed by many authors (for instance professor Scafetta [21]) in tens of books and papers.

Assuming that the Earth moves around the centre of mass of the solar system, the insolation in January and July may change in opposition by up to more than 1% [22]

Those 60 years cycles are prominent on the HadCRUT (figure 5-A) curve used by IPCC as they are in the reconstructions of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation for the past millennium.

Figure 5-A HadCRU T3 series of the monthly Global Mean Surface Temperature anomaly w.r.t. 1961-1990 average anomaly and its best approximation by three sinusoids of periods 1000 years, 210 years and 60 years. Note the great El Niños of 1878, 1939-40, 1941-42 and 1997-98 that started a change of sign of the slope.

150 years of observations do not fully constrain the optimization and the red curve is an heuristic example

clip_image015

The physical explanation of 1000 year cycles of the paleo-temperatures may be an open question: they are prominent on figures 5-B and 5-C.

Figure 5-B [23] Reconstruction [Christiansen & Ljundqvist; 2013] of the extratropical temperatures of the Northern Hemisphere in °C, as anomaly w.r.t. the 1880-1960 average. The thin black curve is from the annual values; the smoothed red curve is a 50 year average with the 2.5% probability quantiles as dashed lines. The yellow curve is the instrumental temperature averaged only over those cells (5° latitude 5° longitude) which have at least one proxy

clip_image017

The little ice age (1360-1860) is exemplified by many observations in China, and on figure 5-C by the advances and retreats of the longest European glacier: there are about 1000 years between the Minoan (1300 BC) , Roman (100 BC), Medieval (950 AD) and Contemporary optima. Most (about 2/3) of the recent recession of the glacier occurred between 1860 and 1957 and cannot be ascribed to the anthropic emissions of CO2 which were then insignificant: 0,083 Gt-C in 1859, 1,3 Gt-C in 1940 and 2,2 Gt-C in 1956 with an assumed CO2 content of the air -from Law Dome ice core- of 286 ppm in 1859, 310 ppm in 1940 and 314 ppm in 1956.

Figure 5-C Lower limit of the great glacier of Aletsch (Switzerland) (length 23 km) from 1500 BC to 2000 AD ( from Holzhauer)

On the left years 1859 to 2002, on the right meters w.r.t. the maximum extension of the glacier during the little ice age

clip_image019

Truth n°6 The absorption of the radiation from the surface by the CO2 of the air is nearly saturated. Measuring what is left from the radiation of a broadband IR source (like a 1000°C black body) after crossing the equivalent of the CO2 content of the air (6 kg/m²) shows that the strong bands of absorption by CO2 near 4.3 and 15 microns have been absorbed and replaced by the emission of the trace gas at its own temperature.

 

[Poitou & Bréon] This kind of statement proves that the author has not understood the basis of the greenhouse effect. It is because the air has a vertical temperature lapse rate and a thickness much above the average infrared photon path length that the greenhouse effect exists and increases with the concentration of the greenhouse gases: see “The atmospheric greenhouse effect is more subtle than you believe” in La Météorologie (n°72 February 2011)

 

Almost the same text as in La Météorologie (” … more subtle than you believe”) has been published by the same authors in the periodical La Découverte[24]. There, it is written that the absorption of surface radiation by CO2 is saturated and that the decrease in the global outgoing longwave emission due to more CO2 in the air is only due to the “higher and cooler” emission level of tropospheric CO2 radiating to the cosmos.

Let us look at those radiative effects. The cm-1 is a unit of frequency used in optics which is 29.9792 GHz (GHz = giga Hertz).

The transmission of diffuse infrared radiation by a layer of optical thickness t is the special function 2E3(t) which is approximately exp(-t)/(1+0.65 t); transmission is 20% for t=1.07, 1.8% for t=3 and 7 10-6 for t=10.

If the temperature of the air as function of the optical thickness is smooth, then 80% of the photons radiated by the air and reaching the cosmos originate from a layer of thickness 1.07 near the “top of the air”.

And 80% of the photons radiated by the air to the surface come from a layer of optical thickness 1.07 near the surface.

Figure 6-A shows that the water vapour of the air is very opaque over almost all the thermal infrared spectrum, from radiofrequencies at some cm-1 up to 2220 cm-1, except in the 350 cm-1 wide “water vapour window” from 770 cm-1 to 1180 cm-1.

CO2 is opaque from say 580 cm-1 to 750 cm-1, over 170 cm-1, about a tenth of the spectrum where water vapour is opaque.

Figure 6-A Optical thickness t of the atmosphere as function of the optical frequency for the two main trace gases: water vapour (blue) and carbon dioxide (red)

25 kg/m² is about the global average of water vapour on the air that goes from 1 or 2 kg/m² (extreme winter polar conditions) up to 80 kg/m² (near the equatorial convective “chimney” at the confluence of the trade winds)

clip_image021

Figure 6-B is a zoom on the spectrum relevant for CO2 : the water vapour content of the air is very sensitive to the temperatures [25] and is concentrated in the lowest layers: 80% of it is in the first 250 mbar, below 2.3 km; the CO2 is “well mixed” and its bulk does not see the surface radiation that has already been absorbed by water vapour and by the low clouds.

What would be the effect of doubling the CO2 content of the air?

Transmission will be reduced from 2E3( twater vapor + tclouds + tCO2) to 2E3( twater vapor + tclouds + 2 tCO2) that is about

2E3( twater vapor + tclouds) f(tCO2)

where f(tCO2) is maximum at (1/4) for tCO2 = 0.42 and is negligible if tCO2 is small or large (say tCO2 >2).

Hence some additional absorption of the surface radiation may occur between 750 cm-1 and 800 cm-1 if (twater vapor + tclouds) <2.

For a mid latitude summer reference profile this additional absorption is about 0.8 W/m² and of course the radiation of the air to the surface increases by about the same amount (or even somewhat more): the radiative heat transfer between surface and air becomes then even more negligible.

Hence less than 0.8 W/m² radiated from the surface do no longer reach the cosmos[26] and are carried away by the evaporation associated with a minuscule temperature increase of the surface: for evaporation at +6W/m²/°C, the required temperature increase would be 0.13°C spread over the 200 years it would take to double the CO2 content of the air at the rate of +2 ppm/year.

The global outgoing longwave radiation will not be changed as this latent heat will feed the radiation to the cosmos of the water vapour … where the condensation takes place.

The saturation of the absorption can be said because 0.8 (W/m²) / 400 (W/m²) = 0.002, two thousandths!

The article quoted (“… more subtle …”) says: ” … the result is unexpected ad raises a crucial interrogation… for carbon dioxide the absorption by the atmosphere of the infrared radiation [from the surface] does practically does not change.” Indeed!

Figure 6-B Zoom on the optical thickness t of the air near 15 µm or 666 cm-1 (left magenta, right red) and of water vapour (in blue)

The level corresponding to an optical thickness 1 from the top of the air is for CO2 at about P(atm) = (1/tCO2 )(1/1.45) that is at or above the tropopause (0.2 atm) for tCO2 =10

clip_image023clip_image025

The altitude where the radiation to the cosmos takes place with the associated cooling of the top of the air is near t=1 from the top of the air, that is at a pressure (1/ tmax H2O) (1/4.5) or (1/ tmax CO2) (1/1.45); the line by line computation of figure 6-C is a morphing from figure 6-A.

Figure 6-C Heating and cooling of the air in milli-K/day/cm-1 as a function of pressure and of optical frequency; tropical case with a tropopause at about 100 mbar; pale blue is were the cooling is negligible (from Brindley & Harries 1998, Sparc 2000: see Andrew Gettelman Observations from AIRS and applications to climate and climate modeling )

clip_image027

Let us now consider the “higher and cooler” argument. According to Ramanathan et al. (1987) and Hansen et al. (2011) [27]: »The basic physics underlying this global warming, the greenhouse effect, is simple. An increase of gases such as CO2 makes the atmosphere more opaque at infrared wavelengths. This added opacity causes the planet’s heat radiation to space to arise from higher, colder levels in the atmosphere, thus reducing emission of heat energy to space. The temporary imbalance between the energy absorbed from the Sun and heat emission to space, causes the planet to warm until planetary energy balance is restored.«

The level P1.07 of the optical thickness t=1.07 from the top of the air, is the lower limit of the layer sourcing 80% of the photons lost to the cosmos; this level is the solution of 1 = tmax H2O P1.07 H2O 4.5 or 1= tmax CO2 P1.07 CO2 1.45: see figure 6-C and the more sketchy figure 6-D. Doubling tmax CO2 uppers the CO2 level from P1.07 CO2 to P”= 0.62 P1.07 CO2 as shown on figure 6-D. There are about 40 cm-1 near 610 cm-1 and near 730 cm-1 where CO2 would radiate from a cooler and higher layer after an instantaneous CO2 doubling with all temperature and humidity of the troposphere kept FIXED.

Figure 6-D) Pressure (in atm) of the level above which 80% of the photons radiated by the air and reaching the cosmos are produced

Solutions of tH2Omax P 4,5 = 1.07 (for w= 25 kg/m² and 50 kg/m²) and of tCO2max P1,45 = 1.07 and 2 tCO2max P1,45 = 1.07

clip_image029

Let’s now see the man-traps of the “higher and cooler” argument

* CO2 doubling is not instantaneous but, at +2 ppm/year, would take about 200 years; hence there is plenty of time for convection and water vapour to restore the “ emission of heat energy to space” as they do every day and night

* If CO2 radiates from higher and cooler (In the troposphere only !) there will be more cooling of the 250 mbar layer (near 610 cm-1 and near 730 cm-1) and less cooling at 350 mbar: this is likely to be erased by convection

* the water vapour content of upper layer of the air (in blue figure 6-D) will change by about 12%/K near the tropopause and is reduced by the enhanced cooling of the 250 mbar layer; hence the water vapour radiation will the be from a “lower and warmer” level, with a very significant spectral leverage of a factor of ten (400 cm-1 for the water vapour w.r.t to 40 cm-1 for the CO2).

The above quoted statement by Ramanathan et al. ignores the difference between CO2 and the phase changing water vapour and the inherent instability of the “more cooling above, more heating below“.

 

Truth n°7 In some geological periods the CO2 content of the air has been up to 20 times today’s content and there has been no runaway temperature increase! Why would our CO2 emissions have a cataclysmic impact? The laws of Nature are the same whatever the place and the time.

 

[Poitou & Bréon] At the Carboniferous the CO2 content was much less than 25 times today’s and the solar radiation was significantly lower. At the end of the Carboniferous the temperature was very low at high latitudes (glaciations), warm in the tropics and the CO2 content was comparable to todays as see on the figure below

clip_image031

Glaciations with some ice caps occur every 140 million years: this has been related to the crossing of a galactic arm by the solar system, with the hypothesis connecting strong cosmic rays impinging the Earth and enhanced low cloud coverage.

See:

N. Shaviv, “Cosmic Ray Diffusion from the Galactic Spiral Arms, Iron Meteorites, and a Possible Climatic Connection”, Physical Review Letters 89, 051102, (2002).

N. Shaviv, “The spiral structure of the Milky Way, cosmic rays, and ice age epochs on Earth”, New Astronomy 8, 39 (2003)

Veizer, Ján “Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle” Geoscience Canada volume 32 Number 1 March 2005 pp -13-28

Shaviv, N.J. and Veizer, J., 2003, “Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?” : GSA Today, v. 13/7, p. 4-10

Svensmark, Henrik Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc April 2012

Sorokhtin O. G., G.V.Chilingar, L.F. Khilyuk “Global Warming and Global Cooling Evolution of the Climate of the Earth” Elsevier 2007, 313 pages

Truth n°8 The sea level is increasing by about 1.3 mm/year according to the data of the tide-gauges (after correction of the emergence or subsidence of the rock to which the tide gauge is attached, nowadays precisely known thanks to high precision GPS instrumentation); no acceleration has been observed during the last decades; the raw measurements at Brest since 1846 and at Marseille since the 1880s are slightly less than 1.3 mm/year.

[Poitou & Bréon] The reader will see there an obvious attempt to deceive. Why use the Brest tide gauge as representative of the world’s oceans, the sea level is very well measured by satellite, and those measurements show unambiguously a rise by 3 mm/year. Compiling data from tide gauges around the globe clearly suggest an accelerating trend. The sea level rise is by no means uniform: sea is not flat. Currents play an important role in the geographical distribution of the sea level rise. The French measurements are related to a minute share of the oceans.

A “clean” International Terrestrial Reference Frame recalibration of the GPS data [28] leaves +1.3 mm/year for a representative set of tide gauges over the world. For the protection of the coasts it is the tide-gauges and the highest sea level during tempests and high tides that are relevant!

For France the tide-gauges of Brest (n°1 of the psml.org database) and Marseilles are relevant: figure 8-A from a recent thesis [29] show yearly averages of the levels of the mean high water and mean low water (1846-2007). The 18.6 years lunar cycles are prominent and have sometimes been mistaken for short-time accelerations of the mean sea level.

Figure 8-A (Nicolas Pouvreau) Yearly average levels of the mean high water and mean low water (1846-2007) at Brest. The vertical lines are the time of the minimum declination of the Moon while the dotted vertical lines are those of the maximum declination of the Moon (from Pugh 2004)

clip_image033

The monthly averaged sea levels since 1807 (figure 8-B) show +19 cm over two centuries (difference of the averages of the 120 first months of data and of the 120 last months of data).The highest monthly average peaks, all in winter, are likely due to storms: 12 hours of strong wind (80 km/h) mean +1 m at the coast in addition to the 1 cm/mbar effect of the depression.

Figure 8-B Monthly levels at Brest since 1807: main maxima are Dec. 1821 (7225 mm), Nov. 1852 (7233 mm), Dec. 1876 (7322 mm), Feb. 1966 (7422 mm) and Dec. 2000 (7426 mm) http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.data/1.rlrdata clip_image035

In August 1986 the German weekly Der Spiegel pictured on its cover the cathedral of Colognes half under water, under the title “Klimakatastrophe”, while in 1998 James Hansen warned about a sea level rise of + 3m in New-York in 2030.

The satellites teams (Topex-Poseidon and following experiments) have manufactured a surprising change of the slope since 1993 from 1.3 mm/year to 3 mm/year and more, which has been shown to be entirely due to recalibrations [30] in the processing of the raw data!

May be, this has been done to give consistence to the myths of the accelerated melting (or calving) of the Greenland ice cap[31] or of Antarctica and of a noticeable thermal expansion of the depth of the ocean.

360 Gt water are needed to uplift the global sea level by 1 mm; there are “reconciled (averaged) estimates” [32] over 2000-2011 of yearly losses of 211 Gt for Greenland and of 87 Gt for the Antarctica contradicting reliable observations of an average yearly mass gain of 49 Gt for Antarctica[33].

The non sense forecasts collated and edited by the IPCC have been debunked in many books and posts.

On the “very surprising” recalibrations of the ENVISAT data which were morphed from being flat over 2004-2011 into a sea level rise of 2.3 mm/year see the post[34].

Of the +1.3 mm/year some 0.5 mm/year or more may in the last decade have come from the net depletion of groundwater that in some countries are pumped in excess of their refilling[35]; the rest comes from glaciers (mostly the arctic glacier) and from Greenland.

Compiling data from tide gauges around the globe clearly suggest an accelerating trendNot at all! For the Pacific islands to the northeast and east of Australia said to be “drowning” the observed (tide gauge) levels have been “flat” since 1992 (see figure 10 of http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60102/IDO60102.2011_1.pdf) [36] and the year to year changes are within +-20 cm.

For some more interesting forecasts see http://climatechangepredictions.org/category/sea-level

Truth n°9 The “hot spot” in the inter-tropical high troposphere is, according to all “models” and to the IPCC reports, the indubitable proof of the water vapour feedback amplification of the warming: it has not been observed and does not exist.

 

[Poitou & Bréon] Who is supposed to forecast what? This point put forward by the Climate Sceptics has been proved wrong since more than ten years

The question “Who is supposed to forecast what?” has well documented answers. The hot spot is, since the beginning of the 3D models 35 years ago, quite prominent in all the forecasts: it has been described at length in the IPCC 2007 report (pp. 674-676 and figures 9-1, 9-2). It was prominent in the publications of Hansen since 1981, as on figure 9-A of http://www.agu.org/books/gm/v029/ of 1984

Figure 9-A Effect of the doubling of the carbon dioxide content of the air: note on the lowest graphic the 7°C hot spot at 250 mbar and on the middle graphic +12°C in winter on the rim of Antarctica and on the arctic polar cycle, +5°C over the Sahara, +4°C over the whole Pacific ocean. source: Hansen 1981 & 1984

clip_image037

The hot spot is the key component of the supposed water vapour feedback amplification of the warming; hence a closer examination is well deserved: figure 9-B compares models (with a warming of up to +4°C/century at 10 km that is supposed to propagate down to the surface with the almost constant lapse rate) and observations. The lack of hot spot is shown [37] by figures 9-B and 9-D.

Figure 9-B Left Comparison of observations and of models (IPCC 2007) in °C/decades (from Douglas et al 2008)

Right a modern picture of the “hot spot”

clip_image039clip_image040clip_image042clip_image043

Figure 9-C Comparison of the trends in °C/decades according to 22 so called “models” between surface and 100 hPa 1979-2005

clip_image045

A refined statistical analysis has been performed in 2010 [38] shown on figure 9-D.

Figure 9-D Comparison of the trends in °C/ decade of the models with the temperatures series of the high troposphere from satellite microwave units as assembled by UAH and by RSS and with radio-sondes (Mc Kritrick et al. 2010)

clip_image047

Truth n° 10 The water vapour content of the air has been roughly constant since more than 50 years but the humidity of the upper layers of the troposphere has been decreasing: the IPCC foretold the opposite to assert its “positive water vapour feedback” with increasing CO2. The observed “feedback” is negative.

[Poitou & Bréon] IPCC has foreseen an increase of the water vapor content of the air and this has been observed. Climate Sceptics who are trying to deceive the public often show the water content of the high troposphere as if it was the whole atmosphere. The trend in the high atmosphere which is very dry is of course different of the trend for the whole atmosphere

 

The outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) of the globe to the cosmos is about 233 W/m² (figure 14-A below) sum of 20 W/m² from the surface [39], 20W/m² from the stratospheric ozone and carbon dioxide and of 193 W/m² from the radiation of the water vapour, that contributes about 83% of the OLR. This radiation originates mostly from the highest layer of optical thickness 1.07 which is the source of 80% of the photons reaching the cosmos[40].

As shown on card n°6, it’s the water content of the high troposphere above 600 mbar that drives the OLR, not the total water content. IPCC 2013, § D3 of the Summary for Policy Makers, writes that anthropic influences have contributed to the increase of the mean water content of the air, with a caveat: medium confidence or may-be an equal likelihood for the statement to be false or true! [41] The water vapour content of the air between the top of the air and the altitude of pressure P (atm) is decreasing roughly like P4.5 [42] : hence 80% of the total water vapour is between P=1 and P=0.75 near 2.3 km, and the total water content of the air closely follows the surface temperature.

Figure 10-A Plot of the water vapor content of the air 1988 2009 (global average) from the M VAP-M archive in kg/m² or mm of water https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/project/nvap/nvap-m_table drawing by http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4871

clip_image049

If there is slightly less water vapour in the upper troposphere near 300 mbar then the OLR from water vapour will originate from a lower and warmer layer and the OLR will increase. Hence while the bulk of the water vapour in the lowest layers (2.3 km) closely tracks the temperature of the surface, it’s the water vapour content of the high troposphere that controls the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) and the global balance of the absorbed solar radiation with the OLR.[43]

Prof. Ole Humlum (www.climate4you.com) has drawn the estimates of the water vapour content (0.28 g/kg to 0.24 g/kg) for the 300 mbar layer from Jan 1948 to June 2014 (figure 10-B) [44]

Figure 10-B quantity of water vapor in the air at three levels in g/kg at 300 mbar (9 km), 600 mbar (4.2 km) at 1000 mbar, Jan. 1948 to June 2014 https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/noaa20esrl20atmospericspecifichumidity20globalmonthlytempsince194820with37monthrunningaverage1.gif

clip_image051

The relative humidity suggests as well that the OLR from the water vapour in the spectral regions where figure 6-A shows high optical thickness has been slowly increasing, as the source of radiation to the cosmos moved to slightly “lower and warmer” layers.

Figure 10-C Relative Humidity since 1948 from balloon borne soundings at 700 mbar, 600 mbar, 500 mbar, 400 mbar & 300 mbar.(see also http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl from reanalyzes)

clip_image053

 

Truth n° 11 The maximum area of the Austral ice pack is increasing

 

[Poitou & Bréon] And then what? This is not contrary to what the IPCC says. This information is in its last report. Those records figures are for the end of the austral winter. This ice disappears almost completely in summer. A more relevant information would be the yearly average of the mass of the ice pack.

There are many good “ice pages” like http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

or https://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

According to the “climate models” a decrease of the Antarctic ice pack should have occurred since 1981 (see notice n°9); models forecast about +5°C at 60°S for CO2 doubling. From a recent assessment by Turner et al. [45] over the last 30 years, models say for the 1979-2005 time span a decrease of the ice pack area by -13.6%/decade [46] in February and by minus 0.4 M km² in September.

Observations are a steady increase from 14 M km² (1986) to 16 M km² for the recent years (up to 16.8 M km² on day 261 of 2014)

Note: There is no significant trend in the UAH-MSU lower troposphere monthly time series for 60°S-85°S (end 1978-2014), albeit the peak-to-peak range of the temperature anomaly is about (-2°C, +2°C)

 

Truth n°12 The sum of the areas of the arctic and austral ice packs which are phase-opposite is nearly constant; the total albedo of the cryosphere has not changed much

[Poitou & Bréon] Here are an error and an irrelevant information. The error is the statement that the albedo of the cryosphere does not change. There is an unmistakable decrease of the snow covered areas during the spring and snow is part of the cryosphere.

The irrelevant information is the area of the ice pack: what in important is the mass or volume of the ice, not its surface. And the mass is continuously and quickly decreasing

 

The ice pack albedo is said to be an important positive feedback of the carbon dioxide warming possibly leading to a “tipping point” followed by a “runaway warming“.

The statement of P&B is somewhat odd as the high-latitude marine areas are almost continuously covered by low clouds; and for the cloudless case the Fresnel formulas show that the light from a Sun low over the horizon is reflected almost as much by water than by the irregular surface of the ice pack.

Figure 12-A from Prof. Ole Humlum (www.climate4you.com) displays the extent of the northern and southern ice packs for the last 35 years; they are indeed phase-opposite .

Figure 12-A Extents in M km² of the Arctic and Antarctic ice packs October 1979 to April 2014 with a 12 months moving average

Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/index.html

clip_image055

Poitou & Bréon put forward the spring snow-cover as does IPCC 2013 SPM § B3: “over 1967-2012 the extent of the snow-cover a decreased by 1.6% per decade for March and April and 11.7%/decade for June”.

The figure 12-B shows the Northern Hemisphere snow coverage data for each of the months since 1966 for: 6 months of the year have seen a stable or increasing snow cover, the other 6 months a decreasing snow cover.

The means of the first 12 years (1966-1977) and of the last 12 years (2002-2014) of the records are as follows, in M km² November to October: {Nov., 34.1, 34.6}, {Dec., 43.6, 44.6}, {Jan., 47.3, 47.8}, {Feb., 46.4, 47.0}, {March, 41.3, 40.3}, {April, 31.1, 29.6}, {May, 20.7, 17.6}, {June, 12, 7.5}, {July, 5.7, 3}, {Aug., 3.8, 2.5}, {Sept., 5.5, 5.2}, {Oct., 19.4, 19.1}, again an increase in winter months and a decrease for the months June to August.

According to figure 5-A the effect of the natural cycles has been of about 0.5°C on the HadCRUT4 series between the means of the same 12 years. Whether the snow feedback June to August along the Arctic coast has an effect on the global temperatures has yet to be said. It has been said the winter temperatures went up in the years 1975-2005 (despite the somewhat increased snow cover), while summer temperatures did not.

Poitou & Bréon do not explain why the ice pack volume would be relevant for the albedo; according to Haas (2005) [47]the changes of the thickness of the sea ice are small since they are correctly measured by an airborne radio apparatus, only over the Arctic.

Figure 12-B For each month November (11) to October (10) snow cover from 1966 to 2015 over the Northern hemisphere with (likely meaningless) linear trends http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/files/moncov.nhland.txt

Note the different vertical scales on each of the plots

clip_image057 clip_image059 clip_image061

clip_image063 clip_image065 clip_image067

clip_image069 clip_image071 clip_image073

clip_image075 clip_image077clip_image079

 

Truth n°13 The observations from the 3000 ARGO floats may suggest, since 2003, a very slight cooling of the oceans and almost no increase of the ocean heat content.

[Poitou & Bréon] Over the first 700 m there is surely no decrease of the oceanic heat content, even if the recent warming is less than the warming of past decades: on the figure below in green, the time span since 2003 carefully selected by sceptics to support their talks

clip_image081

But why stay at 700 m? Here the ocean heat content up to 2000 m depth from the data

http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/heat_3month/

clip_image083

The vertical units of the graphics shown above are 1022 J= 10 ZJ; over 1990-2004 the order of magnitude of the “warming” is 100 ZJ/15 years/(509 1012 m²) = 0.4 W/m². The time span since 2005 is that of Argo buoys: about half [48]of the data collected has been deleted to suppress an inconvenient cooling said to be due to defective devices.

A 2013 update [49] shows that the increase of the ocean heat content is restricted to the 20°S-60°S oceans.

Figure 13-A Argo floats change of the ocean heat content 60°N-20°N, 20°N-20°S, 20°S-60°S down to 2000 deci-bar in 1022 J

clip_image085

As there are no known mechanisms by which infrared radiation can heat the bulk of liquid water (infrared radiation is absorbed by the first few tens of microns of liquid water), it’s likely that all of the increase in the southern oceans heat content is related to changes of the albedo, that is to changes of the cloud cover. Another example is the North Atlantic (figure 13-B).

Figure 13-B Ocean Heat content of the North-Atlantic (30°N-65°N) from 1955 to 1st Q 2014. from www.climate4you.com

1 GJ/m² over 30 years are 1.05 W/m² and if spread over 700 m of sea water +0.18°C

The recent decrease may be about – 0.5 GJ/m² over 6 years that is equivalent to a (negative) “forcing” of -2.6 W/m²

clip_image087

On the 2000 meter depth graph over 2006-2014 of Poitou & Bréon, the yearly minima increased from 10 units to 16 units of 1022 J that is 0.41 W/m²; but there is every year some oceanic heat storage during six months and a release of this heat the following six months: the maximum of the global outgoing longwave radiation is in July, shifted by 6 months w.r.t. the solar flux hat is maximum in January (1412 W/m²) and minimum in July (1321 W/m²).

Disregarding those quarter to quarter oscillations, according to Levitus (2012) “The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 +/- 1.9 x 10^22 J corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W/ m² (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09 deg C” and “The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–700 m layer increased by 16.7 +/- 1.6 x 10^22 J corresponding to a rate of 0.27 W m^2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.18 deg C.”

But again such global averages are of little value: regional observations should be related to the regional cloud coverage and albedo and possibly to changes of the strength of surface currents.

Figure 13-C Model Forecasts and redistribution of heat in the depths of the ocean (in green are Levitus world-average observations above 700 m) in °C/decade Source : http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/08/deep-ocean-temperature-change-spaghetti-15-climate-models-versus-observations/

clip_image089

IPCC SPM 2013 p. 13 §D1 states that The observed reduction in surface warming trend 1998 to 2012 …is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from natural internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence [or 50% chance to be true and 50% chance to be false ? ]). Figure 13-C shows that this redistribution is beyond the grasp of the models.

 

Truth n° 14 The outgoing longwave radiation from the upper atmosphere is larger than what models say: there is no “blanket” effect du to Greenhouse gases

[Poitou & Bréon] It is quite obviously wrong to say there is no blanket effect due to the tropospheric greenhouse gases. Saying such awful things should disqualify the perpetrator. The total of the outgoing solar and thermal infrared radiations is lower than the incoming solar flow.

 

The last sentence of P&B refers to the global imbalance that should have been seen in the oceanic calorimeter: but the observed geographically selective effect (notice n° 13) does not fit well with the assumption of a uniform infrared radiative forcing due to more CO2. As already said, the radiative heat transfer surface to air is the radiation of the surface absorbed by the air minus the radiation of the air absorbed by the surface: it would be exactly zero for an isothermal atmosphere and is nearly zero for an opaque atmosphere (figure 6-A).

The “blanket” [50] is supposed to reduce the radiative cooling of the surface. But as the radiative transfer of heat between the surface and the air is about nil (see notice n°1) it is still zero for “doubled CO2“; a fraction of a W/m² is no longer is lost by the surface by direct radiation to the cosmos but by a slightly enhanced evaporation with condensation (and radiation to the cosmos) somewhere else (see notice n°6).

There is no relation between the radiation flows exchanged by surface and air (whose net balance is about zero) and the radiation from the top of the air lost to the cosmos some kilometres above the surface; the cooling of the “top of the air” at mid and high latitudes is compensated by advection of humid air from mid latitudes.

The radiation emitted is a diagnostic of the temperature of the trace gases of the air; the temperature in the troposphere is T(P) with T(P) /Ttop = (P/Ptop)R/(Cp+ Cpi); Ttop and Ptop “summarize the position of the “top” of the air; surface temperature is driven by the ratio (Psurface / Ptop)0,19 where Ptop is characteristic of the latitude and of the season and R = 8.314/(molar mass).

As obvious on figures 6-A and 6-B, Ttop and Ptop are determined by the water vapour that radiates over some 1900 cm-1 much more than the 40 cm-1 of the tropospheric CO2 near 614 cm-1 and 718 cm-1.; stratospheric radiation to the cosmos is not very important because the cooling of each layer is exactly equal to its heating mostly by UV absorbed by Ozone.

“Models” forecast a “blanket effect ” with a reduced radiation to the cosmos: forty years of observations of the Outgoing Longwave Radiation (1974-2014) do not show any such thing.

Figure 14-A Monthly global average of the Outgoing Longwave Radiation in W/m² plotted against the CO2 content of the air in ppm per Mauna Loa series, for the same month, (1974-2014). Note the seasonal cycles of the vegetation growth. The red line is the linear trend of about +2 W/m²/century; there is no apparent “heat trapping” due to the increasing CO2.

The black line what should have been seen according to Myrhe’s logarithmic formula.

source http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Outgoing longwave radiation global

clip_image091

See as well https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/21/the-magnificent-climate-heat-engine/ for a map of the CERES data: the changes in the cloud cover and the transfer of heat from the tropics to the high latitudes explain the fluctuations of the OLR.

The radiative imbalance of the Earth stated by Hansen et al. has been discussed by Kramm & Dlugi [51] whose conclusion iswe may conclude that a planetary energy imbalance of 0.58 +/- 0.15W/m² claimed by Hansen et al. (2011) for the period 2005-2010 is not justifiable. The same is true in case of the planetary energy imbalance of 0.8 +/- 0.15W/m² claimed by Hansen et al. (2005).

 

Truth n° 15 The Stefan-Boltzmann formula does not apply to gases which are neither black bodies nor grey bodies; why does the IPCC community use it for gases?

[Poitou & Bréon] It is not the IPCC but the whole scientific community competent on those topics that uses Stefan Boltzmann law for gases, and that since tens of years. IPCC is only quoting from the scientific literature. The Stefan Boltzmann law applies to any body that absorbs electromagnetic radiation and hence to infrared absorbing gases.

The Stefan-Boltzmann σT4 formula only applies to a black body, not to a gas. The absorption spectrum of the main trace-gases are on figures 6-A and 6-B: at the temperatures of the air CO2 radiates significantly only between the optical frequencies (or wavenumbers) 595 cm-1 to 740 cm-1 where its optical thickness is at least 2; it does not radiate over the whole thermal infrared spectrum (100 cm-1 to 2500 cm-1) relevant for the temperatures of the Earth’s atmosphere.

Poitou & Bréon amazingly confirm that the “climate community” uses, since tens of years, a very inappropriate formula! Let’s remind that a grey body formula ε σ T4 is sometimes used to describe the radiation of trace gases at a uniform temperature: Hottel has given some charts, usable only for a uniform temperature[52]. We shall see in annex 15-A an another example of an erroneous use of ε σ T4

A rough computation of the thermal diffuse infrared radiation flows is not complicated: it’s like summing over the whole air column the quantity k(ν, P, T) π B(ν, T) ρtrace dz = π B(ν, T) dt weighted by the attenuation of the diffuse radiation between the source at P and the point of observation: k(ν, P, T) is the absorption coefficient, B the Planck function, ρtrace the mass of trace gas per unit volume.

For instance the down-welling radiation from the air observed at a distance t from the top of the air is the integral of

(2 E2(t-t’) π B(ν, T(t’)) dt’ between t’=0 and t’=t . Those expressions can, as shown by S. Chandrasekhar [53] in 1950, be computed with some additions and multiplications thanks to Gauss formulas for the numerical computation of integrals.

The correspondence between t and P(atm) (or altitude z ) is deduced from relations like

dt = k(ν, P, T) ρtrace dz = k(ν, P, T) ρtrace dP/ (ρair g) = (k(ν, P, T) /g) (ρtrace / ρair ) dP

t(ν, P) = ttotal gas trace (ν) Pa where the exponent a summarizes the changes of (k(ν, P, T) /g) (ρgaz trace / ρair ) ~ Pa-1 as a function of altitude or pressure and temperature with T(P) ~ P0.19 . The spectral shape of ttotal trace gas (ν) is displayed on figures 6-A to C.

Why this fondness for the σT4 blackbody radiation formula? Because it appears in innumerable books and papers as the cornerstone of the following “demonstration“:

1) the “blanket effect” reduces the average outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) of the Earth by some 3.7 W/m² or 4 W/m² for an instantaneous doubling of the CO2 content of the air with FIXED tropospheric temperature and humidity

2) to restore the OLR the air must warm from T to T’ with σT’4 = σT4 + 3,7 W/m² and hence T’ = (6,525 107 + T4)1/4; for T-273 = -20°C or 0°C or 15°C or 30°C we get T’- T values of +1°C or +0,8°C or +0,7°C or +0,6°C ; this is said to be the direct effect of the doubling of the CO2 content of the air [54]

3) then any warming can be deduced thanks to the hypothesized “amplifying water vapor feedbacks

Card n°14 has shown that the “blanket” effect is not to be seen in the observations of the OLR; card n°10 has shown that observations do not show any increase of the upper air water vapour content, dispelling point 3); card n°9 has shown that the hot spot and the “amplifying water vapor feedback ” were not observed either.

The σ T4- is indeed a decoy to avoid handling properly and separately the four components of the OLR seen on figure 6-C for a cloudless sky, and to avoid explaining the automatic compensations between those four components:

1* the water vapor radiating mostly from the troposphere (say 190 W/m²),

2* the radiation from the surface that has escaped absorption by water vapor, clouds and CO2 (global average 20 W/m²),

3* the CO2 and the ozone radiating from the stratosphere (say 20 W/m²),

4* the CO2 from the troposphere near 618 cm-1 and 720 cm-1 for a CO2 “doubling” (figure 6-B right).

But CO2 doubling does not occur “instantaneously” and at FIXED temperature and humidity: going from 400 ppm to 800 ppm at today’s rate of +2 ppm/year would take 200 years!

If CO2 increases there is more cooling at say 250 mbar and less cooling below: such a setting is likely to be erased by convection; and by a slight reduction of the water vapour content of the upper troposphere that will restore the OLR.

 

Annex 15-A Example of an abuse of the expression ε σ T4

Lets follow W. Eschenbach’s [55] discussion of an often quoted article of Stephen E. Schwartz [56] Heat capacity time constant and sensitivity of Earth’s climate system Journal of Geophysical Research June 2007. The change of the heat content of the globe (mainly in the oceans) is dH/dt = S (1-a) – E, where S is the solar radiation, a the albedo, E the global infrared emission; such a relation is likely and there are historical series for H (figure 13-A), E (figure 14-A) for S and a; whether global averaging makes sense is debatable.

The next assumption is dH/dt = C dTsurface/dt where C is a suitable thermal capacity; this is incorrect; we shall see why.

Last assumption is E = ε σ Tsurface4 ; this is incorrect. Then by adding a so-called forcing F we get an equation in Tsurface

C dTsurface/dt = S (1-a) – ε σ Tsurface4 + F

For dT/dt =0 if ε decreases (less OLR) or if F is positive Tsurface must increase.

The transient response to a forcing F applied at time t =0 is Tsurface (t) – Tsurface (0) = F τ /C (1- exp(-t/τ)), or for a time increasing F(t)= F1 t Tsurface (t) – Tsurface (0) = F1 τ /C (t – τ (1- exp(-t/τ)))

Lets look at the Ansatz and hypotheses used:

* dH/dt and dTsurface/dt are said to be proportional. W. Eschenbach compares those values quarter by quarter and year by year: there is no correlation over the last 50 years (1955-2009) for which some estimates of the ocean global heat content are available

Moreover if the surface temperature of the oceans determines the temperature of the air, it is not the temperature of the air but the insolation and the clouds that drive the changes of the ocean heat content.

* Second conjecture: there would be a ratio ε between the radiation from the surface and the OLR; this is nonsense[57] as said on card n°1: the radiative heat flow from a body A to a body B is: (radiation from A absorbed by B) minus (radiation of B absorbed by A). It is about nil between the air and the surface; it would be exactly nil for an (hypothetical) isothermal atmosphere at the temperature of the surface.

* Implicit hypothesis: S and a are constant while changes in cloud coverage change a, H and ε.

Let’s look now at the conclusions of St. E. Schwartz:

* regressing the series of Hocéans and Tsurface leads to a thermal capacity C of 14 W/m²/year/K equivalent to 110 m of water; C is taken as 17 W/m²/year/K for the whole planet b y addition of 5% for molten glaciers, 5% for the heat content of continental masses and 4% for changes of the temperature of the air

* The autocorrelation of the mean surface temperatures (1880-2004) leads to a time constant τ of 5 years

* The “climatic sensitivity” is then τ /C = 5/17 = 0.3 K/(W/m²) [58].

* over the 20th century the observed warming of 0.57°C would imply a radiative forcing of 1.9 W/m² that is 2.2 W/m² for greenhouse gases[59], – 0.3 W/m² for the changes of the aerosols … and nil for the climate cycles prominent on figures 5-A to 5-C (among other cycles of 1000 years, 210 years and 60 years) and the El Niños (figure 2-C and 15-A).

The graphic figure 15-A shows the Earth’s pulsed central heating, the El Niños and their “tele-connections”; figure 2-B shows the latitude-averaged temperature that drives the CO2 increments of figure 4-A. Those natural effects drive all of the temperature changes observed without the super-natural “forcing” F that should be uniform all over the globe.

Figure 15-A Temperatures of the lower troposphere as a function of time and of latitude (source RSS)

http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_data_monthly.html click on history

clip_image093

Truth n° 16 The trace gases absorb the radiation from the surface and radiate at the temperature of the air, which is at some height, most of the time slightly lower that of the surface. The trace-gases cannot “heat the surface“, according to the second principle of thermodynamics which prohibits heat transfer from a cooler body to a warmer body.

[Poitou & Bréon] This is another big stupidity. Does the author deny the existence of the greenhouse effect? It’s a physical phenomenon well understood since several centuries! Such statements should immediately strip their author of any credibility for readers who know some science. If the author was correctly using the second principle of the thermodynamics he would have seen that it is indeed the surface that delivers heat to the emissive trace gases, which are also the absorbing gases. Those gases prevent the surface from loosing some of the heat brought by the sun

To send the heretic to the stake Poitou & Bréon charge him of atheism, of “denying the existence of the greenhouse effect”. That kind of argument has been used since almost two millennia “All men, except a few very ones who are very depraved and vicious, believe in the dogmas and myths of my community, which have been revealed centuries ago; hence my dogmas are true and my prophecies are undisputable”.

Since several centuries” is likely to refer to Fourier whose memoir of 1824 does not say anything on a “greenhouse effect” [60] (see also card n°1) or to Arrhenius whose tentative explanation of glaciations[61] and de-glaciations by a radiative effect of the CO2 has been proved wrong (a) because in ice cores the CO2 content follows the temperature by some centuries and (b) because redoing his computations with the correct absorption spectra gives a warming of 0.2°C for a doubling of the CO2 content of the air (cf card n°1).

As said on cards n°1, n°6 and n°15, for an atmosphere in a gravitation field, the tropospheric lapse rate is dT/dz = – g/(Cp+ |Ch|) where g=9,8 m/s², Cp= 1005 J/kg , and Ch summarizes the effect of the heating of the air (1) by absorption of the solar infrared by water vapour or liquid and (2) by the condensation of the water vapour. This is exactly equivalent to T(P)= Ttop (P/Ptop)R/(Cp+ |Ch|) where R = 8,314 / 0,02896 = 287.

There is no need of heat to “warm the surface” because its temperature is a consequence of the gravitation and of the mass of the air, both on Earth and on Venus. The lapse rate (despite the temperature inversions near the surface at night and in the winter polar regions) insures that the radiation of the air absorbed by the surface is slightly less than the radiation of the surface absorbed by the air. Hence the air cannot warm the surface as the net balance is about zero or slightly positive from surface to air. [62]

The surface cools mostly by evaporation (order of magnitude 100 W/m²), by convection (20 to 30 /m²) and for about 20 W/m² by direct thermal infrared radiation reaching the cosmos after escaping absorption by water vapour and clouds.

Amazingly Poitou & Bréon state that “absorbing and emitting gases prevent the surface from losing some of the heat brought by the sun”; they should have said that the radiative heat transfer surface to air is almost negligible and stay so for changes of the trace gas content of the air around today’s values.

Notes

(1) The pseudo explanation about “preventing the surface form losing heat” is typical of what has been summarized by Pfr Gerlich & Tscheuschner : ” The main strategy of modern CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to hide themselves behind more and more pseudo-explanations, which are not part of the academic education or even of the physics training. A good example is the radiation transport calculations, which are probably not known by many. Another example is the so-called feedback mechanisms, which are introduced to amplify an effect which is not marginal but does not exist at all. Evidently, the defenders of the CO2-greenhouse thesis refuse to accept any reproducible calculation as an explanation and have resorted to unreproducible ones

(2) The ravings by some proponents of the greenhouse effect to circumvent the second principle of thermodynamics are illustrated by R. T. Pierrehumbert Infrared radiation and planetary temperature Physics today January 2011 p.38: “The planetary warming resulting from the greenhouse effect is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics because a planet is not a closed system. It exchanges heat with a high temperature bath by absorbing radiation from the photosphere of its star and with a cold bath by emitting into the essentially zero temperature reservoir of space … the greenhouse effect shifts the planet’s surface temperature toward the photospheric temperature by reducing the rate at which the planet loses energy at a given surface temperature …” This statement does not apply to “air warming the surface” or to statements like :” “The energy that is available to the Climate system consists of the absorbed solar energy, the greenhouse effect thermal energy as well as several sources of nonsolar energy (i.e., geothermal, tidal, and waste heat)” (Lacis, Hansen et al. Tellus, 2013, p.16) as if the air produced energy!

Truth n° 17 The temperatures have always driven the CO2 content of the air, never the reverse. Nowadays the net increment of the CO2 content of the air follows very closely the inter-tropical temperature anomaly

 

[Poitou & Bréon] Again a poorly digested discourse from the climate sceptics. If CO2 is following the temperature by some months how is it possible to have a continuous increase of the CO2 content of the air while the author explains that there has been no increase of the temperatures since 1997?. The slow changes of the CO2 content of the air are driven by plate tectonics and silicate weathering. The greenhouse gases have played an essential role in the great climatic changes of the geological eras (see figure on card n°7)

 

There are two sets of observations: those of the last 50 years and those from the ice cores.

A) For the last fifty years the increments of the CO2 at Mauna Loa (19°30N) and at the South Pole are coincident (figure 17-A) As it takes some semesters for the air to go from the Northern Hemisphere to the South Pole, a common source is likely inter tropical out-gassing.

figure 17-A Monthly increments of the CO2 content of the air d[CO2]/dt for dt= 12 months: in blue at Mauna Loa (with a weighted moving average {1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 2, 1, 1}) and in red at the South Pole (up to 2008)

clip_image095

Subtraction of the anthropic increments computed for a 5 years life-time in the air from the observed d[CO2]/dt for dt= 12 months leaves the increments shown in blue on figure 17-B; those natural increments coincide most of the time with the purple curve which is a linear function of the inter-tropical temperature anomaly of the lower troposphere T(t); this is a direct proof of the relation d[CO2]natural /dt = k (T(t)- T0) where dt = 12 months to avoid the seasonal fluctuations due to the growth of the vegetation. Note the effects of volcanic dusts in 1982-85 (El Chichon) and 1991-94 (Pinatubo).

figure 17-B Blue curve: monthly values of the natural increments over dt = 12 months for the Mauna Loa series (referenced to the last month of the 12 months)

Purple curve: monthly values of 1,45 +1,6 ATUAH MSU intertropical shifted by 0.6 years where AT is the anomaly of the inter-tropical lower troposphere (anomaly w.r.t the mean over 1981-2010 of the same UAH-MSU series)

clip_image097

This is a simple and direct check of the published results referenced to at the end of card n°1.

This relation d[CO2]natural /dt = k (T(t)- T0) is consistent with the results of Beenstock & al. that the [CO2](t) series must be differentiated once before attempting a correlation with the series of the temperatures T(t). The out-gassing zone relevant for the Mauna Loa can be seen on figures 17-C and 17-D and has been detailed by Prof. J. Park (2009) (see card n°1).

Let us summarize that the CO2 content of the air is made of two parts, as explained on cards n°3 & 4

(1) a natural part proportional to the time integral of the temperatures ò (T(t)- T0) dt as shown on figure 17-B; it was 310 ppm in 1958 and is now 376 ppm; the difference between 376 and 310 is exactly the sum of the twelve months increments.

(2) an anthropic part roughly equal to the cumulative anthropic emissions weighted by exp (t’-t)/u) where t’ is the time of the emission and t the time of observation, u is the life time of about 5 years perfectly consistent with delta13C isotopic observations; this anthropic part is (end 2013) about 6% of the CO2 content of the air (cards n°3 & 4).

Figure 17-C is a map of the absorption and of the out-gassing of the ocean for a non El Niño year, according to Takahashi.

Figure 17-C Map of the net flows between air and ocean ain 1995 according to Takahashi

clip_image099

Figure 17-D hints at the very strong spatial variability of the CO2 content of the air and of the surface waters; exchanges between air and ocean are proportional to the difference of the pressures times the cube of the speed of the wind.[63]

Figure 17-D [64] CO2 content of the air (in ppm) and of the surface water (in µatm)

clip_image101

B) For the ice cores the progressive closing of the diffusion paths between the surface and the “air bubbles” of a layer of the firn is tantamount to a temporal low-pass filter which smoothes the transitions faster than several centuries (in Antarctica where the precipitation of ice is a few mm/year, it’s the time it takes for some 50 m of water to accumulate). Some references to observations of a delay of several centuries between temperature increase (or decrease) and the following CO2 increase (or decrease) have been listed on card n°2.

It is now easy to answer the question of Poitou & Bréon: “ If CO2 is following the temperature by some months, how is it possible to have a continuous increase of the CO2 content of the air while the author explains that there has been no increase of the temperatures since 1997?

As said on card n°1 d [CO2]/ dt = k (T(t)- T0) means

constant increase of the [CO2] content of the air = temperatures stable w.r.t to the reference T0

Conclusion: The CO2 content of the air is a consequence of the temperature(s) and can not be their cause

 

Note: Despite the increase of the yearly increment of the anthropic content of the air due to the “Chinese” coal surge since 2003 from about +0.3 ppm/year near 2000 to +0.55 ppm/year near 2012 (figure 17-E, right), the yearly increments d [CO2]/ dt (natural plus anthropic) have been slightly diminishing (figure 17-F). Hence the natural d [CO2natural]/ dt has been somewhat decreasing, in line with the life-time weighted out-gassing formulas on card n°4.

Figure 17-E left: anthropic emissions in Mt-C during the last 20 years(http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_ 2010.ems and BP 2014) (black coal, blue oil and red natural gas)

Right: yearly increments of the anthropic ppm for a 5.5 years life time in the air; increased use of natural gas since 1980 reduced it to +0.3 ppm/year before the recent coal surge

clip_image103clip_image105

The observations of figure 17-F dispel the myth that all the increase of the CO2 of the air is from anthropic origin; the anthropic emissions remaining in the air for a 5 years life time have surged since 2003 while the overall the CO2 growth rate has been slowly decreasing!

Figure 17-F Figure 2 of Francey et al. Atmospheric verification of anthropogenic CO2 emission trends Nature Climate Change, 10 February 2013 Observations of the growth of the CO2 in the air

a) Slowing CO2 growth (dC/dt) blue points are annual differences in monthly mean CO2 concentration. The smoothed 1.8-yr and 5-yr (thick red) curves are derived from the monthly values. The light-blue dashed line is an extrapolated linear regression fitted to 50 yr of South Pole dC/dt.

b) d[CO2]/dt at Cape Grim (Tasmania) ( blue curve), at Mauna Loa (yellow) and at Alert ( 817 km from the North Pole I n the Canadian Arctic) (grey curve) en Gt-C/an. The red curve is from a.

clip_image107clip_image109

Truth n° 18 The CLOUD project at the European Center for Nuclear Research is probing the Svensmark-Shaviv hypothesis on the role of cosmic rays modulated by the solar magnetic field on the low cloud coverage; the first and encouraging results have been published in Nature

[Poitou & Bréon] The first results published in Nature (2011 and 2013) then in Science (2014) have identified some chemical compounds that are present in the air and may lead to cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) in quantities similar to those observed. But the cosmic rays contribute only to a small fraction of the CCN. This has been discussed in the last IPCC report

The historical coincidences of deadly cold episodes with famines and plague with times of strong cosmic rays flows registered in the 10Be and 14C records have been firmly assessed. A strong production of those isotope signals minima of the sun and a lesser deflection of the (galactic) cosmic rays, possibly along de Vries 215 years cycles.

During the Ort sunspot minimum, Seine, Rhine and Po were frozen (Rhine from Nov. 15, 1076 to April 7, 1077); during the minimum of Wolf, the 1315-1316 famine reduced western Europe population by more than 5% and the subsequent great plague (1347-1350) by 30% to 50%; the Maunder minimum saw in France an excess death of 1.3 M on 22 M habitants (1693-1694); in the following years 30% on the Finnish population (1696-1697), 25% of the Scottish population (1696-1699) and 10% of the French population (1708-1709) died.

A possible link between cloudiness (that went down from 66% to 62%) 15°S-15°N and mean global surface temperature may be guessed on the figure 18-A.

Figure 18-A Monthly values of cloud coverage over 15°S-15°N and mean global surface temperatures from December 1983 to December 2009 (Ole Humlum www.climate4you.com)

clip_image111

Low cloud coverage went from 29% in 1986 to 25% in 2007 according to The International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP); more on http://www.pensee-unique.fr/theses.html and on www.climate4you.com.

Figure 18-B Cloud coverage for the three types of clouds and mean water content of the air: July 1983 to December 2009

clip_image113

Truth n° 19 Numerical “Climate models” are not consistent regarding cloud coverage which is the main driver of the surface temperatures. Project Earthshine (Earthshine is the ghostly glow of the dark side of the Moon) has been measuring changes of the terrestrial albedo in relation to cloud coverage data; according to cloud coverage data available since 1983, the albedo of the Earth has decreased from 1984 to 1998, then increased up to 2004 in sync with the Mean Global Temperature.

[Poitou & Bréon] Again a long list of nonsense in those statements. Project Earthshine started in 1999; the Earthshine measurements cannot show that the albedo of the Earth is mainly driven by the cloud coverage. This is a known fact that Earthshine measurements integrating over the globe do not allow to differentiate between clouds, aerosols or snow. Those measurements have significant error bars that prohibit linking albedo and the mean global temperature of the recent years. Recent climate models reproduce well the observed tends of the cryosphere; they have uncertainties about future clouds that appear in the uncertainties displayed on the results of the models.

 

The poor quality of the modelled Cloud coverage has been discussed since tens of years; here is an example of 1999

Figure 19-A Cloud coverage as a function of latitude according to 30 different models used by IPCC [65]:

Figure 5 of http://www.grims-model.org/front/bbs/paper/bams/BAMS_1999-4_Gates_et_al.pdf

clip_image115

Figure 19-B shows a 2013 test case from Bjorn Stevens & Sandrine Bony [66] .

Figure 19-B Comparison of the results of four models on a test case aqua-planet. Where and how much do the cloud radiative effects and the rain change for a given warming?

clip_image117

The caption of the figure by Stevens & Bony is: “Wide variation. The response patterns of clouds and precipitation to warming vary dramatically depending on the climate model, even in the simplest model configuration. Shown are changes in the radiative effects of clouds and in precipitation accompanying a uniform warming (4°C) predicted by four models from Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Inter-comparison Project (CMIP5) for a water planet with prescribed surface temperatures”.

Figure 19-C is an example of covariation of the mean temperature of August with the number of hours of insolation, according to the data of the German DWD. Other examples are in the references of the footnote [67].

Figure 19-C Mean temperatures for the month of August versus number of hours of sun (Germany 1951 to 2012: data from the DWD site)

clip_image119

The warming in Western Europe since about 1995 can be related to an increase of about +1°C of the surface temperature of the North Atlantic – following an equivalent cooling over 1970-1995- and an increase of the insolation with less aerosols. R. Vautard, P. Yiou, G. J. van Oldenborgh [68] analyzed data from 342 European met stations (selected from 4479) over 10°W-30°E & 35°N-60°N; figures 19-D show that a day with a good visibility receives about 100 W/m² more than a day with mist, and (right) that the cloud cover significantly impact the temperature at day (black) and at night (red)

Figure 19-D (R. Vautard et al. 2009)

Left: mean winter downward solar and infrared radiation (350 à 320 W/m² at night) as a function of the visibility distance and at four times of the day: 09 h, 15 h, 21 h and 03 h

Right: changes of the temperatures by day (black circles) and by night (red circles) according to the cloud coverage (the zero cloud coverage is at the right end of the abscissa scale)

clip_image121 clip_image123

The trends of cloud cover and of visibility for summer and winter over 1978-2007 bring as well some explanation of the observed warming.

figure 19-E Western Europe 1978-2007: red curves number of days with a total cloud coverage (TCC) above ½ or equal to 1 ; green curve number of days with a low cloud coverage (LCC) equal to 1; grey curves number of days with a visibility below 2 km, 5 km and 8 km (R. Vautard et al. 2009)

clip_image125

Regarding the Earthshine project the clouds are indeed making the bulk of the albedo observed (see slide 25/29 of Enric Pallé [69]); the varying longitudinal cloud coverage can be seen thanks to the rotation of the Earth.

There is consistence [70] between the estimates of the ISCCP, the global albedo, the insolation measured at the surface and the length of the daily insolation observed in many places: all of them are likely to explain the temperature changes.

Figure 15-A has shown the global pacing by the El Niños (and their tele-connections) of the temperature changes of the lower troposphere as function of both time and latitude; this pacing may be due to the coming to the surface, at high latitudes, of warm water from the Pacific warm pool, as they move to higher latitudes on the western rim of the oceans after an El Niño.

The quick tempered reaction of Poitou & Bréon: “Again a long list of nonsense in those statements” may suggest that they don’t like that clouds and insolation drive the temperatures and the heat content of the upper ocean (card n°13).

 

Truth n°20 The forecasts of the “climate models” are diverging more and more from the observations. A model is not a scientific proof of a fact and if proven false by observations (or falsified) it must be discarded, or audited and corrected. We are still waiting for the IPCC models to be discarded or revised; but alas IPCC uses the models financed by the tax payers both to “prove” attributions to greenhouse gas and to support forecasts of doom.

 

[Poitou & Bréon] There are no models of the IPCC; the are models of the community of scientists whose conclusions are accepted by the IPCC. Contrary to what the author says the climate models have made some forecast that happened to be true. And not all model forecasts are leaning to the alarmism for instance the diminution of the arctic ice pack has been much quicker than forecast

The models are made for Climate that is averages over long periods. The fluctuations around this average are noise for the models

 

The verified forecasts are of the type “it’s warmer in summer than in winter“. The relevance of the models does not appear on the following figures which summarize forecasts and “hind-casts” by 73 models used by IPCC AR5 2013 for the inter-tropical zone (figure 20-A) and for the globe (figure 20-B). There is an obvious disagreement between the CO2 driven models and the observations[71].

Figure 20-A Temperature of the mid troposphere 20°S-20°N. Comparison of the results of 73 models of 2012 and of the observations: even the back-prediction does not replay the observations of the weather balloons or of the satellites

clip_image127

Figure 20-B Surface temperatures (mean global) comparison of 90 CMIP models used for the IPCC AR5 2013 and the series HadCRU T 4 (surface) and UAH MSU (lower troposphere)

Note that the jump (0.2°C to 0.3°C) related to the great El Niño of 1997-98 and the dips in the temperature curves related to volcanic dusts from El Chichon and Pinatubo explain most of the warming since 1983

clip_image129

The credibility of climate models has been checked w.r.t. to regional observations by Pfr Koutsoyiannis[72]

Figure 20-C Comparison of observations and of back-predictions Paris, France temperatures of the warmest and coolest months 1850-2005. Observations are plotted in blue

clip_image131clip_image133

Figure 20-D Comparison of observations and of back-predictions United States temperatures of the warmest and coolest months 1850 – 2005. Observations are plotted in blue

clip_image135

It may happen that one of the models hind-casts correctly one of the parameters of interest for one the seasons, but never all significant parameters like the min and max temperatures and the seasonal precipitations for all seasons.

Poitou & Bréon say “Fluctuations around the mean are noise for the models” This statement that there are natural fluctuations built in the models and that a mean trend can be computed by averaging over many runs of one model or over many runs of different models has no justification in numerical analysis.

IPCC AR3 2001 Paragraph 5 section 14.2.2.2 states “In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

This “unbecoming” statement has not been disproved since 2001.

Conclusion:

The growing divergence between models and observations even on a global average, and the lack of mathematical foundation to the statement that the fluctuations between runs of the same models and between runs of different models “are noise[73] forbids their use as justification of economic or political decisions.

 

Truth n°21 As said by IPCC in its TAR (2001)we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” Has this state of affairs changed since 2001? Surely not for scientific reasons…

 

[Poitou & Bréon] It is because the climate is a chaotic system that models can forecast the Climate for conditions very different of todays. Chaos does not mean “anything” and the domain over which the system is running is perfectly bounded by the conditions at the limits. That’s why one can forecast the climate states to which we are going to but not the path that will be lead us to those states.

Indeed the mean state of a chaotic system can be defined by the forcings. For instance albeit the atmosphere is chaotic, we can forecast with a high degree of confidence that the next month of July will be –on average- warmer than April. In the same ay we can forecast that despite the chaotic character of the climate a higher concentration of greenhouse gases leads to higher temperatures.

It’s amazing that the author who pretends to have some knowledge of the physics does not understand this.

 

The climates have been defined by the geographers since Wladimir Köppen (1846-1940) and his Handbuch der Klimatologie (1930) with a few simple parameters which define the vegetation at the first glance: Mediterranean climate with no rain during the summer, monsoon climates with rains only during the summer monsoon or equatorial rain forest or tundra look quite different. 30 climates have been defined.

Figure 21-A The climates according to Köppen and Geiger (from Rubel & Kottek) 1901-1925 http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/

clip_image137

The latitudinal limits between those climates are shifting northward or southward according to cycles as seen on figure 21-B for the USA [74] ; this may explain the fear, expressed in the 1970s in many periodical and books, of an imminent glaciation; that fear faded after the reversal of the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) in 1977. [75]

Figure 21-B Decadal Limits between the climates C and D of Köppen in Midwest of the United Sates during the 20th century from 1900-1910 to 1990-2000

clip_image139

 

… the mean state of a chaotic system can be defined by the forcings

The very existence of the forcings by trace gas is unproved: the cumulative forcings said by the IPCC since 1955 is about 1200 ZettaJoule while the oceanic calorimeter (card n°13) shows regional divergences and an increase of the ocean heat content of only 140 ZJ to 170 ZJ.

IPCC AR5 WG1, page 67, thematic focus element TFE.4. figure 1 explains away this discrepancy (a factor 6 to 7 !) by the assumption of an increased outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) of about 3 W/m²: this is not seen on the records (figure 21-C)

Figure 21-C outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) 1974-2014 monthly values of the global average: from data provided by the Royal Dutch Meteorological Office KNMI http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/inoaa_olr_ 0-360E_-90-90N_n.dat

clip_image141

In addition the forcings have been upped by almost 50% from 1.6 W/m² in AR4 (2007) to 2.3 W/m² in AR5 (2013) with little ground.

“Indeed the mean state of a chaotic system can be defined by the forcings… forecast with a high degree of confidence that the next month of July will be –on average- warmer than April”

Do we need meshed models with about 80 adjustable parameters and thousands of nodes to forecast that? And by the way in regions of summer monsoon (tagged Aw pale rose on figure 21-A) the temperature is lower during the summer rains than in April!

Figures 20-A to 20-D , 19A and 19B show that the meshed models performance for hind-casting, despite the discretionary use of “cooling aerosols”, forbid and disprove statements like “ That’s why one can forecast the climate states to which we are going”

Let’s also quote a conference by P. Morel, physicist and former director of the WMO observation programme: “It is written in the technical documents of international bodies that the climate meshed models “embodies the laws of the physics”. This statement proves illusory because those models are indeed decoupled from the fundamental physical principles defined at the microscopic scale by a hiatus, the meteorological processes at the small and medium scales [or synoptic processes] which are not described in their physical reality. That is why the climate forecasts have little credibility for the intense phenomena (cumulonimbus, tornados, hurricanes, blizzards, etc.), for the rains and precipitations, for the hydrological processes and for the regional consequences of the future global changes. Those meteorological [synoptic scale] processes are handled only with empirical formulas (or parameterizations) which are not logical consequences of the physical laws. Nevertheless some modellers like to believe that their models are based on fundamental laws, as this belief excuses them for not validating each of the formulas they put into the models”.

The natural cycles should be understood and identified before discussing the supposed chaotic effects. The well known cycles (60 years, 215 years, etc.) and the El Niños are nowhere seen on the outputs of the IPCC models.

The use of long time series with algorithms like SSA-caterpillar provides sensible forecasts and good hind-casts from the identified quasi-periodicities[76].

There are other methods for using several data series when the physics of a system is too complex; they avoid dealing with “models embodying the laws of physics … with parametrization of the water vapor cycle” and provide convenient checks.

The methods of Black Box Model Identification applied to an energy balance model provide directly the so called “equilibrium sensitivities” with respect to three inputs: CO2; solar and volcanic activities; this is shown by Prof. de Larminat in his book “Climate Change: Identifications and projections[77] where Identification techniques well known in industrial processes, are applied to 16 combinations of historical reconstructions of temperatures (Moberg, Loehle, Ljungqvist, Jones & Mann ) and of solar activity proxies (Usoskin-Lean, Usoskin-timv, Be10-Lean, Be10-timv) for the last millennium, with some series going back to year 843.

A careful analysis of the confidence intervals and domains leads to the (here outrageously summarized) conclusions:

(1) it cannot be shown that observations “prove” the anthropic origin of the observed warming; the climate sensitivity or even its sign cannot be said confidently,

(2) the solar activity is the main driver of the “climate change”; its role (sensitivity in °C/(W/m²) is understated by IPCC by a factor 10 to 20; IPCC argues from “physical considerations” to restrict the role of the Sun to the sole total solar irradiance (TSI). But the black box models applied to the series give a much higher sensitivity than the ones said by the IPCC, and Solar activity explains most of the warming since the exit from the little ice age.

In other words Philippe de Larminat has shown that:

(a) the warming that led to the ongoing warm period is due essentially to the combined effects of solar activity and of the natural variability of climate (such as the 60 year cycle prominent in the residues)

(b) the contribution of human activity, if any, does not differentiate sufficiently from the aforementioned effects to allow pretend that it is significant with the high degree of certainty as claimed by the IPCC.

While uncertainty calculations and tests of the hypotheses provide all the suitable academic validations, somewhat more visual proofs are the agreement between the results and the observations and the predictive capability of the “black box” model: blind simulations, not incorporating any information about temperatures beyond year 2000 predict with an amazing accuracy the “plateau” in global warming. For short term predictions, the method uses the classical “state estimation” (Kalman filters), whereby the “state” reflects combinations of heat quantities accumulated in the thermal inertia of the oceans.

Beyond the evaluation of the sensitivities, the method also provides a rigorous calculation of the probability for a parameter to be within a given interval, without all the subjective “confidence” or “likelihood” statements which adorn every paragraph of the IPCC WG1 reports.

Another type of “black box” analysis, called non linear self organized dynamic modelling [78], has been applied to the most recent and reliable data sets (1980-2007) available like global mean temperature, CO2, ozone, solar spots, radiative cloud fraction, aerosol index, etc this software has many uses in all kinds of domains for the processing of big data sets; it avoids the a priori manufacture of a “physical model” to connect the quantities documented by the different time series. This identification programme has, in 2007, delivered forecasts for the next ten years: the forecast mean global temperatures have proven consistent with the observations 2008-2014: see www. knowledgeminer.eu; http://www.climateprediction.eu/cc/Main/Main.html.

Note that the variable “CO2 concentration” is classified by knowledgeminer not as a driver but as a consequence! This is quite in line with the findings of cards n°1, 3, 4, 17 and with those of Prof. Ph. de Larminat.

Let us remind that self-organized fully dissipative systems can be modeled robustly from the maximum entropy production “principle”[79] which avoids detailed computations of the fluid dynamics and their inherent sensitivity to initial conditions.

Truth n°22 Last but not least the IPCC is neither a scientific organization nor an independent organization: the summary for policy makers, the only part of the report read by international organizations, politicians and media is written under the very close supervision of the representative of the countries and of the non-governmental pressure groups.

The governing body of the IPCC is made of a minority of scientists almost all of them promoters of the environmentalist ideology, and a majority of state representatives and of non-governmental green organizations

 

[Poitou & Bréon] The persons who decide the redaction of the Summary for Policy Maker are the scientists who have led the writing of the big report and representative of the states. Nothing can be written in the summary if scientists don’t agree.

There we would like examples of topics of the SPM that would not be in accordance with the complete report written by the scientists

 

To dispel the statements by P&B it’s sufficient to read the submission by Donna Laframboise, investigative journalist, Canada titled: The Lipstick on the Pig: Science and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, submission to Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee, UK Parliament hyperlinked and footnoted version December 10, 2013: https://nofrakkingconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/laframboise_uk_parliament_submission_dec2013.pdf

Let’s quote the conclusion of this submission:

“The IPCC was not established – and is not controlled – by science academies. Rather, it is a child of one of the most politically driven bodies known to humanity, the United Nations.

As a UN entity, the IPCC’s primary purpose isn’t to further scientific knowledge but to provide scientific justification for another UN entity – the 1992 treaty known as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Evidence of this is in plain sight. At a 2008 event celebrating the IPCC’s 20th anniversary, chairman Pachauri told a group of IPCC insiders: “The UNFCCC is our main customer.”

Similarly a 2011 presentation by vice chair van Ypersele ends this way: “Conclusion: IPCC is eager to continue serving the UNFCCC process.”

An international treaty is a political instrument. This makes it impossible for any reasonable person to conclude that the IPCC is about science for science sake.

This is science for politics sake.”

The submission by Donna Laframboise shows as well how the schedule and the wording of the reports are ordered and very tightly controlled by IPCC bureaucracy; let’s quote from the paragraph INTERNATIONAL POLITICS of the submission by Donna Laframboise:

“IPCC authors spent years writing the 14 chapters that comprise AR5’s Working Group 1 report. Sixty-five of those authors were then selected (by the bureaucracy) to write a précis. Needless to say, reducing 14 chapters of material to 31 pages involves a great deal of fallible human judgment.

If the IPCC was even a facsimile of a scientific body, matters would have ended there. The 31-page précis – called the Summary for Policymakers – would have been released to the public. But that’s not what happened. Instead, those 31 pages were merely a draft. The final version of the document only emerged after a four-day meeting in which the political significance of every sentence had been thoroughly dissected.

 

Delegations from more than 100 countries were involved in the four-day, behind-closed-doors, barred-to the-media meeting. Politicians, diplomats, and bureaucrats argued about phrasing – and about which tables, graphs, and illustrations should be included. When they were done, the Summary for Policymakers was five pages longer than the draft but contained 700 fewer words.

At a press conference in late September 2013, the IPCC released its new improved version of the summary. This is the only AR5 document most policymakers and journalists are ever likely to read. Rather than being the unadorned words of IPCC scientists, this statement reflects a politically-negotiated view of reality.

 

Shortly afterward, the IPCC released a document titled Changes to the Underlying Scientific/Technical Assessment. It includes 10 pages of “corrections” the IPCC intends to make to AR5’s first 14 chapters. Turning normal procedure on its head, the IPCC doesn’t expect its summary to be consistent with the underlying report. Rather, this organization has a long history of adjusting its reports so that they accord with its politically-negotiated summaries.

 

In the words of the first paragraph of this document, IPCC personnel “have identified some changes to the underlying report to ensure consistency with the language used in the approved Summary for Policymakers” (italics added).

Directly following this quote, we are assured that these changes “do not alter any substantive findings.” Since these are the same people who insist the IPCC is a scientific body, that it writes objective reports, and is “never policy-prescriptive,” such a claim should be taken with a grain of salt. “

 

An in depth analysis of the true nature of the IPCC, showing it is a highly political body pretending to be a scientific group of experts, is to be found in Drieu Godefridi’s book LE GIEC EST MORT, vive la science! (Texquis, 2010) (http://giec-est-mort.com/) and in its conference [80] at the Académie Royale.

Science is trying to describe the reality while a norm -moral or legal- says what should be allowed or forbidden.

Scientism [81] pretends to deduce logically the norm from the science: it’s a blunder in reasoning as a norm or law expresses value judgments, not scientific facts.

If IPCC WG1 report looks “scientific” (despite being based on shameless distortions of facts and on a fancy pseudo-physics as shown by the discussion of the truths n°1 to n°21), WG2 and WG3 reports are based on value-judgements, culminating in the WG3 list of recommended norms and regulations that every state must endorse and implement.

As all and every human activity even walking outside or growing vegetables produces either carbon dioxide or some of the other “greenhouse gases” (a very long list from laughing gas N2O to methane), all and every human activity is in the scope of IPCC.

WG3’s proposal disguised as “science” is for “rich countries” to transit to negative growth and to decline and misery, and for “poor countries” to limit their growth while getting hundreds billions of dollars transferred from the “rich” countries via international agencies managing “green funds”.

“Rich countries” should learn, as told by IPCC WG3, to disconnect economic growth and the feeling of well-being, mankind must learn that there are non-human values, etc.

This is not a balanced “scientific assessment” but a very radical political agenda reflecting all of the dangerous and homicidal fantasies of the “deep ecology”, published since the well known reports of the club of Rome and its satellites and promoted by some well known pressure groups and non-governmental organizations.

The fake “global warming science” (models, forcings, etc.) of WG1 is a smoke screen used to justify to the very long list of policy prescriptions, norms and regulations of WG3. As policy prescriptions are not science but politics, IPCC is a political body.


[1] Delmas, Mégie, Peuch, Physics and Chemistry of the Atmosphere Belin 2005, 639 pages. This textbook spends only a short paragraph (page 417) on the greenhouse effect: “the absorption by the air [of the radiation of the surface] and the reemission by a cooler layer allows keeping a surface temperature of 288 K. This is commonly called greenhouse effect”. Afterwards the handbook provides the equations of the window in the vacuum between the surface and the cosmos with a air-to-surface radiation flow half of what it is in reality. And modeling a convective gas, one the very best carrier of heat, by the wall of a thermos (or Dewar) bottle is a bizarre idea.

[2] Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse. The London, Edinburgh and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 1909, Vol. 17, pp. 319–320. He compared two small boxes one with a window opaque to infrared, the other one with a NaCl window transparent up to 17 µm and did not smeasure significant differences.

[3] Arrhenius used very inaccurate spectral infrared data for H2O and CO2; NaCl is transparent to the infrared radiation up to 17 µm; the dispersion of the NaCl prism used to calibrate the infrared wavelengths was for Arrhenius n(λ)= 1,5191 -0,00312 (λ – 5) instead of the modern n= (5.174714 + 0.0183744 /(λ²- 0.015841) – 8949.52 /(3145.695 – λ²) )0,5.

Both Hans Erren (2005) and to Jean-Louis Dufresne (habilitation thesis, 2009) found that the use of correct spectral data reduces the warming as computed by Arrhenius to about 0.2°C for the doubling of the CO2 content of the air, instead of some +5.5°C said by Arrhenius !

Hans Erren : http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/index.html gives a complete set of facsimiles and a detailed report

Jean-Louis Dufresne L’effet de serre : sa découverte, son analyse par la méthode des puissances nettes échangées et les effets de ses variations récentes et futures sur le climat terrestre Paris 2009 (117 pages)

[4] Prof. Dr. Gerhard Gerlich was at Institut für Mathematische Physik, Technische Universität Braunschweig

[5] Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics International Journal of Modern Physics B 2009 http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf 115 pages, 205 references. The paragraph 3-3 compares and discusses many erroneous and nonsensical definitions of the greenhouse effect. This article has been criticized for many poor reasons http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/05/on-the-miseducation-of-the-uninformed-by-gerlich-and-scheuschner-2009/

Reply to Comment on Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics by Joshua B. Halpern, Christopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith, Jorg Zimmermann 41 pages http://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.0421.pdf&embedded=true December 2010

[6] G. Kramm, R. Dlugi Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact Natural Science Vol.3, No.12, 971-998 (2011) doi:10.4236/ns.2011.312124 (108 references)

[7] 80% of the photons reaching the surface come from a layer of air of optical thickness 1,07 above the surface; the total optical thickness of the water vapor of the air is displayed on figure 6-A

[8] L’effet de serre plus subtil qu’on ne le croit revue Découverte n°373 Mars-Avril 2011, pp. 32-43; a slightly different paper has been published with the same title in La Météorologie 2011.

[9] Berger A., Tricot Ch., 1992. The Greenhouse Effect. Surveys in Geophysics, 13, pp. 523-549.

Cargèse 2009 summer school http://www.lmd.ens.fr/wavacs/ Rémy Rocca slides 71 à 83 writes (slide 72) “The difference is due to the greenhouse effect: the trapping of infrared radiation by the atmosphere. Surface is heated by the presence of the atmosphere (lucky us!)” [sic !].

As a matter of fact there is no radiative trapping but the surface temperature is higher because of the pressure-temperature relation. The “lucky us” reflects a religious state of mind: the existence of the greenhouse effect should not be put to scrutiny because it is natural and good and rises the average temperature of the surface of the globe from -18°C to +15°C.

Those numbers are meaningless as the average temperature of the surface of the Moon is between 80°C on the lit face and -200°C on the dark face and averaged over a lunar day it’s 98 K at the poles and 206 K at the equator.

The -18°C assumes there are no greenhouse gases, no water vapor but nevertheless that clouds produce an albedo of 0.3 !

[10] http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr72.pdf V Ramanathan Trace-Gas Greenhouse and Global Warming Volvo environmental Prize lecture 1997

[11] This 33 K difference between 288 K and 255 K said to be the global average temperature of an airless Earth is an additional nonsense: an Earth without atmosphere and water vapour would have no clouds and its albedo would not be 0.3 but possibly 0.12 like the Moon. In addition the global average temperature of an airless Earth should be about that of the Moon, maybe about 200 K.

[12] Kuo C. et al Coherence established between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature Nature 343, 709 – 714 (22 February 1990); doi:10.1038/343709a0 this paper of Bell Labs uses telecom signal processing techniques of the two series CO2 content of the air and temperatures to prove that CO2 content is driven by the temperatures

Park, J. (2009), A re-evaluation of the coherence between global-average atmospheric CO2 and temperatures at interannual time scales, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L22704, doi:10.1029/2009GL040975 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL040975/abstract Frequency domain techniques are used to prove that d[CO2]/dt = k(T(t)-T0) and to map the areas where outgassing and absorption are relevant for the Mauna Loa (figure 4 and figure 15 of http://people.earth.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Park/Park_2011_CO2coherence.pdf )

M. Beenstock, Y. Reingewertz, N. Paldor Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming Earth Syst. Dynam., 3, 173–188, 2012 To avoid spurious correlations the statistical tests show that the [CO2] serie must be differentiated once before being compared to T(t) hence the only possible relation is between d[CO2]/dt and T(t)

Murry Salby states a similar relation between d[CO2]/dt and T(t)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0 à Hamburg 2013; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVCps_SwD5w&index=3&list=PLILd8YzszWVTp8s1bx2KTNHXCzp8YQR1z in Sidney 2012 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YrI03ts–9I in Sidney 2011

http://www.skyfall.fr/wp-content/2013/08/autour-de-salby-et-du-co2.pdf

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/06/on_why_co2_is_known_not_to_hav.html#more on outgassing and Henry law.

D. Wunch et al The covariation of Northern Hemisphere summertime CO2 with surface temperature in boreal regions http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/9447/2013/acp-13-9447-2013.pdf

[13] Hubertus Fischer, Martin Wahlen, Jesse Smith, Derek Mastroianni, Bruce Deck, “Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 around the Last Three Glacial Terminations,Science, vol. 283. no. 5408, pp. 1712 – 1714 (12 March 1999) “High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.”

J. P. Severinghaus, E. J. Brook Abrupt climate change at the end of the last glacial period inferred from trapped air in polar ice Science (286) pp. 930-934, 1999

Nicolas Caillon, Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, Jean Jouzel, Jean-Marc Barnola, Jiancheng Kang, Volodya Y. Lipenkov, “Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III ,” Science, vol. 299, no. 5613, pp. 1728 – 1731 (14 March 2003)

[14] Lowell Stott, Axel Timmermann, Robert Thunell Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming 27 September 2007 on Science Express DOI: 0.1126/science.1143791 and supporting online material 1143791S.

[15] http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html#more Jeffrey Glassman (PhD) has been the scientific director of the missiles at Hughes Aircraft

[16] Roe, G. In defense of Milankovitch, Geophys. Res. Lett., 2006, 33, L24703, doi:10.1029/2006GL027817 compares the time derivative of the ice volume dV/dt and the 65°N insolation; the match is very good except at the onset of deglaciations.

[17] Sorokhtin O. G., G.V.Chilingar, L.F. Khilyuk Global Warming and Global Cooling Evolution of the Climate of the Earth Elsevier 2007, 313 pages

[18] Diego Macias, Adolf Stips, Elisa Garcia-Gorriz Application of the Singular Spectrum Analysis Technique to Study the Recent Hiatus on the Global Surface Temperature Record PLOS ONE 1 September 2014 , Volume 9 Issue 9 e107222 (free access)

[19] The airborne carbon stock is about 850 Gt-C (2014) and the absorption by ocean and vegetation is 170 Gt-C/year. The most important feature is that due to CO2 fertilization of the air, plants grow bigger more quickly, have more leafs and absorb more: hence the yearly absorption increases like the stock of the air.

Graven HD, Keeling RF, Piper SC, et al., 2013, Enhanced Seasonal Exchange of CO2 by Northern Ecosystems Since 1960, Science, Vol:341, ISSN:0036-8075, pages 1085-1089 (the amplitude of the seasonal vegetation effect measured aboard planes (3 km to 6 km) has, north of 45°N grown by 50% w.r.t airplane observations carried late 1950s beginning 1960s.)

Prof. Ranga B. Myneni (department of Earth & Environment Boston University USA), The Greening Earth, Probing Vegetation Conference From Past to Future July 4‐5, 2013 Antwerp, Belgium

Donohue Randall et al. Deserts ‘greening’ from rising CO2 (CSIRO, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Australia’s national science agency. 3 July 2013 http://www.csiro.au/en/Portals/Media/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2.aspx GRL 2013

Pretzsch, H., Biber, P., Schütze, G., Uhl, E., Rötzer, Th Forest stand growth dynamics in Central Europe have accelerated since 1870., (2014) Nat. Commun. 5:4967, DOI:10.1038/ncomms5967

James Hansen, Pushker Kharecha and Makiko Sato Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain 2012 Environ. Res. Lett. 7 044035 Full text PDF (631 KB) suggest that the “chinese coal”has much increased the productivity of the plants

Ying Sun, et al. Impact of mesophyll diffusion on estimated global land CO2 fertilization PNAS 2014

[20] Bolin, B. & Eriksson, E. (1959): Changes in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere and sea due to fossil fuel combustion. In: Bolin, B. (Ed.): The atmosphere and the sea in motion. Scientific contributions to the Rossby Memorial Volume. The Rockefeller Institute Press, New York, 130-142

[21] Scafetta Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 72 (2010) 951–970 http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf

Mazzarella A. and N. Scafetta, 2012. Evidences for a quasi 60-year North Atlantic Oscillation since 1700 and its meaning for global climate change. Theoretical Applied Climatology 107, 599-609. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1206/1206.5835.pdf

[22] I.E Frolov et al. Climatic changes of the Eurasian ice shelf (in Russian) Saint Petersburg Naouka 2007 pp. 106-110

he finds a peak to peak modulation of the solar constant of up to 30 W/m² with a non sinusoidal wave shape

[23] http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf and http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/multiproxy/shi_2013.pdf

[24] Jean Louis Dufresne & Jacques Treiner “L’effet de serre atmosphérique plus subtil qu’on ne le croit” (Découverte n°373 Mars-Avril 2011, pp. 32-43)

[25] as the saturation partial pressure is like exp(6400/T) T – 5.31

[26] as the solar infrared radiation at 2.5 µm and 4.3 µm are slightly more absorbed by the “doubled” stratospheric CO2 (about 0.4 W/m² as 24 hours average) the required additional cooling of the surface by evaporation will be only 0.4 W/m²

[27] Ramanathan, V., Callis, L., Cess, R., Hansen, J., Isaksen, I., Kuhn, W., Lacis, A., Luther, F., Mahlman, J., Reck, R., and Schlesinger, M.: Climate-chemical interactions and effects of changing atmospheric trace gases, Rev. Geophys., 25, 1441-1482, 1987

Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P. and von Schuckmann, K.: Earth’s energy imbalance and implications, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 13421–13449, http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/13421/2011/, 2011.

[28] G. Wöppelmann, B. Martin Miguez, M.-N. Bouin, Z. Altamimi Geocentric sea-level trend estimates from GPS analyses at relevant tide gauges world-wide Global and Planetary Change 57 (2007) 396–406 made a correct recalibration with the ITRF (International Terrestrial Reference Frame) defined by the International Earth Rotation Service

[29] Thesis of Nicolas Pouvreau Three hundreds years of tide gauge measurements: tools, methods and components of the sea level at Brest http://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/35/36/60/PDF/ThesePOUVREAU.pdf

Baart T.F. Van Gelder, P.H De Ronde, J.; Van Koningsveld, M., Wouters, B., 2012. The effect of the 18.6-year lunar nodal cycle on regional sea-level rise estimates. Journal of Coastal Research, 28(2), 511–516. They find for the Netherlands over 1900-2005

h(t) = 1,9 mm/year t + 12 mm sin(2 π t/18,6 + x) with no acceleration, a peak in Feb. 2005 and a subsidence of 0.4 mm/year

[30] A. Cazenave 2,8 mm/an, Le risque climatique, numéro spécial, dossiers de la Recherche, 2004, pp. 46-51. 2004

The drawned worldsThe Guardian (11/09/2004) with only the top of the Dutch windmills emerging from sea water in 2020.

[31] About Greenland IPCC SPM § B4 states: “we can say with a very high confidence level that the maximum mean sea level during the last interglacial (129 ka to 116 ka) has been at least 5 m above today’s seal level…. but this occurred under significantly different orbital forcing conditions ” This is to make us believe that a global mean temperature could drive the melting or calving of the Greenland; but the Eemian diminution of the Greenland ice cap is by no means related to an average global temperature but to the local summer insolation that during the last interglacial was up to 30 W/m² to 60 W/m² stronger than today’s. see:

van de Berg Willem Jan et al. Significant contribution of insolation to Eemian melting of the Greenland ice sheet, Nature Geoscience 4 Sept. 2011 DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1245 http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~broek112/home.php_files/Publications_MvdB/2011_vdBerg_NatGeo.pdf

Robinson A., H. Goelzer The importance of insolation changes for paleo ice sheet modeling The Cryosphere Discuss., 8, 337–362, 2014 www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/8/337/2014/ doi:10.5194/tcd-8-337-2014 . This paper corrects a previous one of

A. Robinson, R. Calov, and A. Ganopolski Greenland ice sheet model parameters constrained using simulations of the Eemian Interglacial Clim. Past, 7, 381–396, 2011 www.clim-past.net/7/381/2011/ doi:10.5194/cp-7-381-2011

[32] Andrew Shepherd et al. A Reconciled Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance Science 338, pp. 1183-1189 (2012)

this reconciliation is an averaging of a set of estimates including outrageous ones fabricated in advance of the Copenhagen Conference of Parties

[33] H. Jay Zwally et al. Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120013495 SCAR ISMASS Workshop, July 14, 2012 “During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change

this is significantly different … “

[34] http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/man-made-sea-level-rises-are-due-to-global-adjustments/ de Frank Lansner

[35] Wada, Y., L. P. H. van Beek, C. M. van Kempen, J. W.T.M. Reckman, S. Vasak, and M.F.P. Bierkens (2010), Global depletion of groundwater resources, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 37, L20402, doi:10.1029/2010GL044571, 2010,

Leonard F. Konikow Contribution of global groundwater depletion since 1900 to sealevel rise GRL VOL. 38, L17401, doi:10.1029/2011GL048604, 2011

Y. Wada et al. Past and future contribution of global groundwater depletion to sea-level rise, Geophysical Research Letters may 2012

[36] an up to 50 cm deep minimum occurred during the great El Niño of 1997-98; this provides the food for nonsensical “EXCEL” linear trends over 1992-2012: as the early part of the curve is depressed, the linear trend computed over 1992-2012 is steeply increasing; in reality “trends” are flat both before and after that great El Niño.

[37] David Douglass Ocean Heat Content and Earth’s radiation imbalance Heartland conference N.Y. March 2009

David H. Douglass, Robert S. Knox Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance Physics Letters A 373 (2009) 3296–3300

Douglass, Christy et al.: A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology, 2007 http://www.scribd.com/doc/904914/A-comparison-of-tropical-temperature-trends-with-model-predictions?page=6

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3058

[38] Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Chad Herman Panel and Multivariate Methods for Tests of Trend Equivalence in Climate Data Series Atmospheric Science Letters 2010

[39] S.Costa and K. Shine Outgoing longwave radiation due to directly transmitted surface emission http://plutao.sid.inpe.br/col/dpi.inpe.br/plutao/2012/11.28.19.31.24/doc/Outgoing%20Longwave%20Radiation%20due%20to%20Directly%20Transmitted%20Surface%20Emission-1.pdf

[40] the transmission of diffuse infrared radiation across a layer of optical thickness t is 2E3(t) that is 20% for t=1.07 and 6% for t=2

[41] http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-6.html

[42] pvap = RH(P) Evap sat(P); assuming a relative humidity RH ~P0.75 , inserting T(P) = Tsurface p0.19 and ρair = P/ (R T) ~ P0.81 in Evap sat leads to Evap sat(Pa)= 1.331 1026 exp(-6816/Tsurface) Tsurface-5.13 P -1.0947+ 1451.8 /Tsurface

H2Oair) ~ P0,75 P-1,0947+ 1451,8 /Tsurface / P = P-1.34 + 1452/Tsurface = P3.7 for Tsurface= 288 K

ρH2O(P) ~ pvap / P0.19 = P0.75 -1.09 + 1452/Tsurface -.19 = P4.51 for Tsurface = 288 K and 80% of the fraction of the total water vapor between P=1 and P=0.75 atm (near 2.3 km) is (1-.755.51) = 80%

The differential dt of the optical thickness of a layer of thickness dz, is thanks to the barometer equation dp= – ρair g dz

dt = k(ν, P, T) ρgaz trace dz = k(ν, P, T) ρgaz trace(-101325 dP/(g ρair )) = – k(ν, P, T) (ρgaz traceair ) (-101325 /g ) dP

hence dt ~ P3.7 dP; and the optical thickness of water vapour cumulated from the top of the air is about tH2O(ν, P) = tH2Omax(ν) P4.7

tH2Omax(ν) for 25 kg/m² is shown figure 6-A.

[43] a 1 W/m² unbalance would, if left in the air, after one year, heat the air by 1 W/m² x 365.25 x 86400 /( 10328 kg/m² x 1005) = +3°C

[44] a reduction of 1/7 of the water vapour content of the air near 300 mbar pushes down by a factor 1/(1-1/7)4.7 =1.03 the P80% level and the P80% temperature increases by a factor 1.030.19 = 1.006 that is by about 1.5 K for the radiation temperature over the far infrared spectral range

[45] John Turner, Tom Bracegirdle, Tony Phillips, Gareth J. Marshall, J. Scott Hosking An Initial Assessment of Antarctic Sea Ice Extent in the CMIP5 Models Journal of Climate 2012 ; e-View doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00068.1

[46] hence over 30 years, in 2009 the maximum ice pack area should be 64 % = (1-0,136)3 of its 1979 value instead of the observed increase by 15% or more

[47] Christian Haas Auf dünnem Eis Eisdickenänderungen im Nordpolarmeer pp. 97-101 of Warnsignale aus den Polarregionen Wissenschaftliche Auswertungen Hamburg 2006

see www.climate4you.com sea ice/ Arctic sea ice thickness and displacement

[48] YAN Chang-Xiang, ZHU Jiang The Impact of “Bad” Argo Profiles on Ocean Data Assimilation Atmospheric and oceanic science letters , 2010, VOL. 3, n° 2, 59−63 for list of “grey” floats: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/argo/grey_floats.htm

[49] Dean Roemmich, Scripps Institution of Oceanography Argo and Ocean Heat Content: Progress and Issues http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/STM/2013-10/14_Global_averages.pdf

[50] a blanket around the Earth http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ http://www.whrc.org/resources/primer_greenhouse.html: Greenhouse gases act like an insulator or blanket above the earth, keeping the heat in. Increasing the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere increases the thickness of this insulator, therefore increasing the atmosphere’s ability to block the escape of infrared radiation.

[51] Gerhard Kramm, Ralph Dlugi Comments on the Paper ‘Earth’s energy imbalance and implications’ By J. Hansen, M. Sato, P. Kharecha, and K. von Schuckmann http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.1289

[52] see any thermal transfer handbook like Taine et al. Transferts Thermiques Dunod 2008 page 222-226 §7-7 Hottel hemisphere which details the limits of those simple computations .

[53] S. Chandrasekhar Radiative Transfer Oxford University Press 1950, 393 pages Dover NY 1960

[54] The shape of the optical thickness of the water vapour (figure 6-A) is such that almost all the layers of the troposphere are cooling over some part of the spectrum (figure 6-C); hence we can not tell where the air must warm to restore the OLR.

[55] Willis Eschenbach The Cold Equations January 28, 2011 https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/28/the-cold-equations/

[56] https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080307100910AAWZb2f paper at http://www.pensee-unique.fr/HeatCapacity.pdf.

[57] This ratio goes from 0.9 for cold high latitudes with little water vapor (some kg/m²) to 0.75 in the tropics with up to 75 kg/m² of water vapour. It is about Ptop 4 x 0,19 = Ptop0,76 ; possible examples of {Tsurface, Ptop, , σTsurface4 , σTsurface4 Ptop0,76 } are {300 K, 0,42 atm , 460 W/m², 237 W/m²} for inter-tropical conditions , {285 K, 0,55 atm, 374 W/m², 237 W/m²} for mid latitudes summer , {253 K, 0,85 atm , 232 W/m², 202 W/m²} for high latitudes winter

[58] that means for the assumed reduction of the OLR of 3,7 W/m² for CO2 doubling a temperature increase of (5 x 3,7 / 17)= 1,1°C

[59] As shown on the cards n°1 to n°4, [CO2]natural is the integral of k(T(t) – T0), is an effect of the termperatures and cannot be their cause.

[60] On page 586 of this text there are some sentences on the apparatus of de Saussure, a forerunner of the tools used to measure the solar constant, apparatus made by Pouillet in 1838. At that time there was not much understanding of the electromagnetic waves discovered 40 years later, and Fourier likely believed in some solid ether carrying the light like an elastic wave, and carrying the heat according to Fourier heat conduction theory.

[61] see the paper of 1906 (facsimile in Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics International Journal of Modern Physics B 2009 115 pages, 205 references) where it is said that the disappearance of the carbonic acid would cause a 18.7% increase of the surface radiation to the cosmos and a decrease of the average surface temperature to 288 K (1-0,187)1/4 = 273,5 K. A quick look at figures 6-A to 6-C shows that it is not the surface that radiates to the cosmos, but mostly the top of the water vapour.

[62] see the graph comparing surface radiation absorbed by the air and radiation of the air to the surface in Dr. Ferenc M. Miskolczi Physics of the planetary greenhouse effect International conference on global warming, New York, March -4, 2008. The data are from the TIGR (Tiros initial Guess Retrieval) archive.

[63] Rik Wanninkhof, W. R. McGillis A cubic relationship between CO2 air sea exchange and wind speed GRL, 26, n°13 pp

1889-1892 July 1999

[64] James P. Barry, Toby Tyrrell Lina Hansson, Gian-Kasper Plattner Jean-Pierre Gattuso Atmospheric CO2 targets for ocean acidification perturbation experiments pp. 53-66 in Guide to best practices for ocean acidification research and data reporting Edited by U. Riebesell, V. J. Fabry, L. Hansson and J.-P. Gattuso. 2010, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

[65] Gates, W. L., J. Boyle, C. Covey, C. Dease, C. Doutriaux, R. Drach, M. Fiorino, P. Gleckler, J. Hnilo, S. Marlais, T. Phillips, G. Potter, B.D. Santer, K.R. Sperber, K. Taylor and D. Williams, 1999: An overview of the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 80, 29-55

[66] Bjorn Stevens, Sandrine Bony What are Climate models missing ? Science 340, 1053 (2013) http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6136/1053.full.html

[67] see references in http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/nov/23nov2011a5.html

K. C. Wang, R. E. Dickinson M. Wild S. Liang Atmospheric impacts on climatic variability of surface incident solar radiation Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 9581–9592, 2012 www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/9581/2012/ doi:10.5194/acp-12-9581-2012

Y.-M. Wang, J. L. Lean, and N. R. Sheeley, Jr.Modeling the sun’s magnetic field since 1713 Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 9581–9592, 2012

Fangqun Yu and Gan Luo Effect of solar variations on particle formation and cloud condensation nuclei Environ. Res. Lett. 9 (2014) 045004 (7 pp) doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/4/045004

[68] R. Vautard, P. Yiou, G. J. van Oldenborgh Decline of fog, mist and haze in Europe over the past 30 years Nature Geoscience Letters vol. 2, Feb. 2009, pp 115-119

[69] Enric Pallé Decadal variability in the Earth’s reflectance as observed by Earthshine http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2004ScienceMeeting/SORCE%20WORKSHOP%202004/SESSION_4/4_12_Palle.pdf http://iloapp.thejll.com/blog/earthshine?ShowFile&doc=1367577059.pdf

[70] http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2004_Science.pdf

[71] Se the books of Robert Tisdale http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/ for many analyses of the ocean surface temperatures continuously observed by satellites since 1982 and extensive comparisons of model outputs with observations

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/25/new-book-by-bob-tisdale-climate-models-fail/

[72] Koutsoyiannis, D., A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis, and A. Christofides, On the credibility of climate predictions, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4), 671–684, 2008 http://itia.ntua.gr/en/byauthor/Koutsoyiannis/0/

G. G. Anagnostopoulos , D. Koutsoyiannis , A. Christofides , A. Efstratiadis & N. Mamassis (2010) A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55:7, 1094-1110, DOI: 10.1080/ 02626667.2010.513518 and the thesis of G.G. Anagnostopoulos

[73] In the study of non linear self organized totally dissipative systems it’s the fluctuations that are the relevant information.

Computing Navier Stokes equations on thousands of nodes may be relevant for short term weather forecast with small meshes but discrete models unstable w.r.t initial conditions cannot be used for long term predictions, as said by IPCC AR3 2001.

[74] Suckling, P.W. and Mitchell, M.D. 2000. Variation of the Koppen C/D climate boundary in the central United States during the 20th century. Physical Geography 21: 38-45. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/04/solar-neutrons-and-the-1970s-cooling-period/

[75] The start of the global warming frenzy can be dated to papers of Manabe (1967) and of St Schneider (1975) On the carbon dioxide- climate confusion. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 32, pp. 2060 – 2066 ; four years before the same Schneider (Science, 1971 vol 173, pp. 138-141) was forecasting the imminent glaciation due to the aerosols from the guilty human industry

[76] Nina Golyandina, Anatoly Zhigljavsky Singular Spectrum Analysis for Time Series Springer Briefs in Statistics, 2013, 119 pages

[77] Philippe de Larminat Climate Change: Identifications and projections ISTE editions London 2014 (139 pages)

available on line http://iste-editions.fr/products/changement-climatique

[78] Madala H.R., Ivakhnenko A.G., Inductive Learning Algorithms for Complex System Modeling, 1994, CRC Press, ISBN: 0-8493-4438-7., 350 pages http://ruthenia.info/txt/pavlo/mc/madala_ivakhnenko_1994.pdf

[79] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-equilibrium_thermodynamics)

Paltridge, G. W. (2001), A physical basis for a maximum of thermodynamic dissipation of the climate system Q.J.R. Meteorol. Soc., 127: 305–313. doi: 10.1002/qj.49712757203 /// G. W. Paltridge, “Stumbling into the mep racket: A historical perspective,” in Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics and the Production of Entropy: Life, Earth, and Beyond (A. Kleidon and R. Lorenz, eds.), ch. 3, Springer Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2005 /// Paltridge G. W. Global dynamics and climate- a system of minimum entropy exchange. Quart J Royal Meteorol Soc . (1975) 101: 475-484. /// Paltridge G. W. The steady-state format of the global climate Quart. J.R. Met. Soc. (1978), 104, pp. 927-945 http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/models/paltridge.1978.pdf

G. W. Paltridge, G. D. Farquhar, and M. Cuntz, “Maximum entropy production, cloud feedback, and climate change,” Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 34, 2007

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2014/06/01/le-chatelier-and-his-principle-vs-the-trouble-with-trenberth/ June 2014 by E.M. Smith

[80] http://belgotopia.blogs.lalibre.be/archive/2015/03/12/climat-pourquoi-le-giec-doit-etre-demantele-1140970.html

Critique épistémologique du Groupe d’experts intergouvernemental sur le climat (GIEC), un cours-conférence du Collège Belgique donné par Drieu Godefridi 28 Avril 2015

[81] A prototypal example of scientism is the “science of the dialectical and historical materialism” based on the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin; it was supposed to lead to a higher level of mankind and has been put forward to justify the “dictatorship of the proletariat” and the mass murders perpetrated by Lenin, Trotsky … up to Pol Pot and Kim Il Sung.

586 thoughts on “22 Very Inconvenient Climate Truths

    • This is the most comprehensive list of debunked skeptic talking points I’ve seen. Thanx Mr Watts.

      • Perhaps you’ll provide a list to the “debunking” of each of these points.

        Hint, linking back to you saying they are debunked is not adequate.

      • Tell you what, get back to me when Senator Snowball starts a House investigation into the Great Global Warming Hoax, Until then, all this is just noise.

      • So then you won’t post anything backing up your claim of all this being debunked.

        Gotcha.

      • Just who has debunked Geocarb III, and where is it published? AFAIK, Geocarb III is the standard in geology for atmospheric chemistry estimates.

      • People that write thanks as “thanx” tend to be true believers in CAGW. Or is it buhleebers?

      • Thank you for so discrediting the alarmist side. I couldn’t have done it better had I been paid to.

      • @Lee grable

        Please provide a coherent point-by-point explanation of what you refer to as “debunked”. This most necessary to many of us.

      • So, by pointing out that Senator Inhofe doesn’t think this site is credible, somehow that discredits the Climate Scientists and AGW?

        That’s some logic.

        LOL.

      • Ah well. Picking on morans gets boring after awhile.

        Adeiu. That’s french, don’t cha know.

        Probably not.

        [?? .mod]

      • @Lee grable

        I don’t understand why you want to discredit AGW by coming across as an ignorant troll.

        I think you are a denier pretending otherwise. Please prove me wrong by providing a coherent explanation for your words.

      • Climate scientists and AGW are already discredited, regardless of what Sen. Inhofe thinks of this site.

        Really, is that the best you can do?

      • I notice you refuse to provide any evidence that the “talking points” have actually been discredited.
        That is just like all the true believers that just know evidence that man is causing dangerous global warming is out there somewhere, but they never seem to be able to produce it. Or thy think telling one to read the entire IPCC report is citing evidence.
        Show us the evidence or quit pretending there is evidence.

      • Lee: Please debunk point 21. (if you can the Clay Institute has a $1 million prize waiting for you).

      • Debunking by use of appealing to authority, circular logic, using a web site run by a cartoonist as a source, ridiculing the author, pointing at made up data, and “because me and my pals said so” isn’t cutting it with most of the public anymore. More people are getting wise to the warmest tricks.

      • This guest blogger might be wrong on some pretty important points. He says outgoing longwave radiation is increasing. But that is not what satellite data are telling us:

        Trenberth et al (2009) – http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1 -Hansen et al (2005) – http://meteora.ucsd.edu/cap/pdffiles/Hansen-04-29-05.pdf
        Loeb et al (2012) – http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/full/ngeo1375.html
        Allen et al (2014) – http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060962/abstract
        Trenberth et al (2014) – http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00294.1

        He says the mean global temperature has not increased. 2014 was the hottest year in recorded history (arguably), and he is not including ocean heat content. That, of course, means the temperature has not been stable since 1997 (a blatant mischaracterization).

        The concentration of CO2 has increased in nearly linear fashion since beginning to record it in 1958. The guest poster says CO2 has a residence time of only 5 years. But then he says that 57% of CO2 emissions have been emitted since 1997. That would clearly make an exponential increase in CO2 concentration, not linear.

        He talks about the 60 year cycle, but fails to note that the crest of each cycle is significantly higher than the previous one, despite natural variation favoring a decline in global temperatures.

        He says sea level rise is only about 1.3 mm/yr. But that is not what observers see: http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2635.epdf?referrer_access_token=yZz-7GGgLdvf1C_KDFYqz9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0N5fzwNWDzDlsPEy1vw729c4ZHGeJIdooaQD8emODM1CV5ESMhXrGAyrxDvOFoRDzWKMyJvDXzL2iS-INIdWm8DSKxD_pr0597drjXflvabAppQHt5hlEGrcG2lU-gDc35LwjwJvCz1KEU8dy7w7sUJ__kJYLKMYXIr2xvk1XMUb8fzor74BBIrW8bzOjx0FGM%3D&tracking_referrer=news.sciencemag.org

        He says water vapor content has been roughly constant for 50 years, but that is contradicted here: http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf

        The increase in Antarctic sea ice extent has been discussed numerous times before in this group. It is well accounted for – increasing Antarctic ice melt and changing wind circulation patterns.

        Ocean heat content has not been decreasing: ftp://www.lib.noaa.gov/pub/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat12.pdf
        http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/website-archive/trenberth.papers-moved/Balmaseda_Trenberth_Kallen_grl_13.pdf

        The atmosphere is not saturated WRT CO2:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/

        He has a weak discussion on the divergence of models and observations. What has diverged for a longer time period and to a greater degree than anytime in the last 1150 years according to proxy data is solar luminosity and global temperatures. No skeptic scientist has come up with any explanation of this that doesn’t include the addition of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
        Earth’s Global Energy Budget
        Kevin E. Trenberth, John T. Fasullo, and Jeffrey Kiehl, 2009: Earth’s Global Energy Budget. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 90, 311–323. doi: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1

      • Oh my God,

        Besides several good points, there are a few stupid ones, which will give the “warmistas” a field fest…

        – Point 3 is right but completely irrelevant: even if only 1% of all CO2 in the atmosphere was originally human, that doesn’t say anything about the cause of the increase in the atmosphere.

        – Point 4 is right but completely irrelevant: the residence time as described by the IPCC too is 5 years, but that is the average time that a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere resides, before being swapped with a CO2 molecule from another reservoir. That says next to nothing about how long an extra shot CO2 needs to be removed back to equilibrium (which needs ~40 years half life time).

        – Point 5 is right, but ignores the underlying trend (which is small but significant).

        – Point 8 is wrong: sea rise is currently around 3 mm/year, but somewhat decelerating.

        – Point 17 is pure nonsense, based on the variability around the trend, not on the trend itself.
        It repeats the dCO2/dt = k(T-T0) from Salby and Bart, which violates Henry’s law for the solubility of CO2 in seawater and violates even the most elementary knowledge of a feedback process:
        If you add CO2 into the atmosphere, you suppress the CO2 influx from the atmosphere and increase the outflux into the oceans. That makes that:

        dCO2/dt = k(T-T0) – ΔpCO2
        where ΔpCO2 is the increase in CO2 pressure in the atmosphere since t = 0

        It is a transient function: if the temperature of the ocean increases, more CO2 is entering the atmosphere, but as the CO2 pressure increases, the influx is reduced and outflux enhanced and dCO2/dt reduces ultimately to zero, that is when:
        ΔpCO2 = k(T-T0)

        where k = ~8 ppmv/K

        That is what Henry’s law says…

        Sorry, but this story is far too long and diverse to give a full comment. As I had a quite intense discussion at Dr. Curry’s blog in the past days specifically on the same above points, I have not much enthusiasm to repeat that again here. I still have (sometimes) another life than pointing some skeptics to some grave errors in their reasoning… If some want to look there:
        http://judithcurry.com/2015/05/06/quantifying-the-anthropogenic-contribution-to-atmospheric-co2/

      • REPLY to the comments made by Francisco May 13, 2015 at 6:21 am
        Many thanks for the references; none of them disprove the data shown in the post.

        QUOTE: “This guest blogger might be wrong on some pretty important points. He says outgoing longwave radiation is increasing. But that is not what satellite data are telling us: Trenberth et al (2009) –… Trenberth et al (2014) – http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00294.1
        ANSWER: quote from Trenberth 2014 conclusion: “From the estimates discussed here, it is clear that the net energy imbalance at TOA varies naturally in response to weather and climate variations, the most distinctive of which is ENSO. It also varies with the sunspot cycle. Moreover, the net TOA energy flux is profoundly influenced by volcanic eruptions (not new) and almost simultaneously, but with some blurring, so too is OHC. All of these influences occur superposed on the climate change signals associated with changes in atmospheric composition.”
        In other words, they are plenty of excuses for our prophecies to be proven wrong by the observations ! This paper does not consider the OLR but only some “net” Short Wave (solar) minus Long Wave (thermal).
        The OLR – which should be reduced by the supposed “enhanced greenhouse effect” is depicted on figures 14-A and 21-C of the post.

        QUOTE: “He says the mean global temperature has not increased. 2014 was the hottest year in recorded history (arguably), and he is not including ocean heat content. That, of course, means the temperature has not been stable since 1997 (a blatant mischaracterization).”
        ANSWER: It is what IPCC calls a “hiatus”; it proves the models are wrong despite some 52 or more “excuses”; regarding the temperature of the ocean keep in mind that 1 W/m² over ten years over 2000 meters is +0,038°C/(decade) not a huge “warming”. About half of the 2003-2006 Argo records have been deleted as the suggested an annoying cooling; this may be related to a defect of some apparatus … or not.

        QUOTE: The concentration of CO2 has increased in nearly linear fashion since beginning to record it in 1958. The guest poster says CO2 has a residence time of only 5 years. But then he says that 57% of CO2 emissions have been emitted since 1997. That would clearly make an exponential increase in CO2 concentration, not linear.
        ANSWER: see truth n°17 the CO2 increase is mostly natural and is a consequence of the simple equation relating the derivative of the natural part of the content of the air d(CO2)/dt and the temperature T(t).
        As explained below figure 4-C, the roughly constant lifetime of CO2 molecules in the air is: stock / (yearly absorption) which has been more or less constant since 1960. The derivation if as follows: there are four datasets : (1) and (2) anthropic emissions and their time varying delta13C, (3) CO2 content of the air (since 1958) and (4) its delta13C (since about 1977 with some measurements before)
        To CO2 content of the air is made of an anthropic part (about 6% now, much less in 1958) and of a natural part (94% now, 98.4% in 1958); the delta13C of the natural part is slowly shifting from the -6.5 pm of the little ice age (from corals and other proxies) to about -7 pm; is it this shift in the natural part that constrains the lifetime: non realistic values are obtained for too short and too long lifetimes.
        Instead of 57% please read 37% on truth n°2 ( numbers of Gt-C are reminded on page 8)

        QUOTE: He talks about the 60 year cycle, but fails to note that the crest of each cycle is significantly higher than the previous one, despite natural variation favoring a decline in global temperatures.
        ANSWER: the strongest cycle is the 1000 year cycle displayed on figures 5-B and 5-C.

        QUOTE: He says sea level rise is only about 1.3 mm/yr. But that is not what observers see: http://www.nature.c
        ANSWER: See psmsl.org data base and the paper quoted as reference 28 (Wöppelmann) for a GPS correction of subsidence. The paper quoted is discussing only from “reprocessed” satellite data that have been shown to be frauds or quasi frauds (see many papers by Prof. Mörner).

        QUOTE: He says water vapor content has been roughly constant for 50 years, but that is contradicted here: http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf
        ANSWER: the quoted paper by Santer considers only the TOTAL water vapour content. For the outgoing longwave radiation as explained at length in the post what is important is the location of the surface at an optical thickness one from the top of the air; this is related to the water vapour content above 600 mbar and as shown figure 6-D is driven mainly by the 300 mbar level.

        QUOTE: The increase in Antarctic sea ice extent has been discussed numerous times before in this group. It is well accounted for – increasing Antarctic ice melt and changing wind circulation patterns.
        ANSWER: The “increasing Antarctic ice melt” is localized in the peninsula and as shown by Orr, Sommeria and al. Characteristics of Summer Airflow over the Antarctic Peninsula in Response to Recent Strengthening of Westerly Circumpolar Winds (s. J. Atmos. Sci., 65, 1396–1413.) (and other papers of Sommeria) is a local effect due to wind deflection by the mountain crests.

        QUOTE: Ocean heat content has not been decreasing:
        ANSWER: see figures 13-A and 13-B ; the “regional” decrease out side 20°S-60°S” should be explained !

        QUOTE: The atmosphere is not saturated WRT CO2: http://www.realclimate.org/
        ANSWER: this red herring is discussed at length in truth n°6; Dufresne and Treiner members of the AGW establishment write it is satured, Pierrehumbert wrote it is not; the truth is 0,8 (W/m²) / 400 ( W/m²) = 0,002 or two thousandths for the closing of the 750 cm-1 border of the window by doubling the CO2 content.
        Much, much less than the hour to hour changes at a given point, not to speak of seasonal changes!

        QUOTE: He has a weak discussion on the divergence of models and observations. What has diverged for a longer time period and to a greater degree than anytime in the last 1150 years according to proxy data is solar luminosity and global temperatures..
        ANSWER: please read the end of truth n°21 page 45; identification methods used in engineering show that the sun’s influence has been reduced by a factor 10 to 20 by the IPCC (who consider luminosity and not the magnetic field !) with respect to what it is in reality, and that the greenhouse gases have no obvious effect.
        I recommend reading the book of Professor de Larminat (reference 77) and many papers by Prof. Le Mouel, Courtillot Banter and Kossobokov (2005-2011) correlating long series of temperature and magnetic effects. (for instance: A solar pattern in the longest temperature series from three stations in Europe Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2009)

        QUOTE: No skeptic scientist has come up with any explanation of this that doesn’t include the addition of anthropogenic greenhouse gases
        ANSWER: no warmist has come up with an explanation of the Holocene optimum and of the medieval optimum (figures 5-A to 5-C)
        The temperatures were about 3°C higher during the Holocene optimum see IPCC AR1 figure 7-5; and even on the bottom of the Indonesian straights (about 920 m) as shown by Yair Rosenthal
        for more references see
        https://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/dont-panic-the-arctic-has-survived-warmer-temperatures-in-the-past/
        Yair Rosenthal et al.) (http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/rosenthal-2013-figure-2c-annotated.png)
        ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/jiang2015/jiang2015-md99-2275.txt
        http://climateaudit.org/2015/01/08/ground-truthing-marcott/ fichier uahmsu 2014-1.nb

  1. I was unable to open this ‘Read more of this post’ MG From: Watts Up With That? To: mickgreenhough@yahoo.co.uk Sent: Tuesday, 12 May 2015, 11:01 Subject: [New post] 22 Very Inconvenient Climate Truths #yiv6732152950 a:hover {color:red;}#yiv6732152950 a {text-decoration:none;color:#0088cc;}#yiv6732152950 a.yiv6732152950primaryactionlink:link, #yiv6732152950 a.yiv6732152950primaryactionlink:visited {background-color:#2585B2;color:#fff;}#yiv6732152950 a.yiv6732152950primaryactionlink:hover, #yiv6732152950 a.yiv6732152950primaryactionlink:active {background-color:#11729E;color:#fff;}#yiv6732152950 WordPress.com | Guest Blogger posted: “Here are 22 good reasons not to believe the statements made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Guest essay by Jean-Pierre Bardinet.According to the official statements of the IPCC “Science is clear” and non-believers cannot be ” | |

    [problem exists on your end, update your browser, get more ram, get software updates, whatever, thousands of people have no problems reading WUWT, those that do usually have issues of their own making – mod]

    • The message ‘Read more of this post’ is coming from an RSS or other syndicated feed, which is apparently unable to process this post due to its rather large size. To verify this, first reboot your computer, and then just click on this direct link:
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/12/22-very-inconvenient-climate-truths/
      If that works then it is definitely the RSS feed which is clipping or truncating the link.

      If that still didn’t work then you might have other issues too: try another browser (Firefox, Chrome, etc).

  2. …the least terrifying list you’ll ever see…

    Not so for Craig, and all the ‘climate scientists’. It means they will have to give up lying and living off state grants, and go out to work for a living…

  3. 5. The changes of the Mean Global Temperature are more or less sinusoidal with a well defined 60 year period. We are at a maximum of the sinusoid(s) and hence the next years should be cooler as has been observed after 1950.

    I recall positing the sinusoidal process on a discussion at the Daily Telegraph last year and got trolled off the board for my sins. Apparently, to the true believers, if you claim a sine wave pattern they take it literally to mean something like the 50/60 Hz AC form. Duh.

    • @Harry Passfield – The oscillation is clear to see I agree. It is something I have been pondering regarding the use of anomalies, which are measured against the accepted “climatology” for a given site. So is this oscillation accounted for in the datum “Climatology”? I just have niggling doubts about the calculation of anomalies and their supposed universal comparison. I am just not at all sure they are actually meaningful, given an oscillating background datum.

  4. Is a PDF version of this post available?
    This is great work! However, it is elephantine.
    A printable version would be appreciated.

    • You could easily copy it into word and save as a pdf and, providing it is for your own use, there may not be any copyright issues. A mod might like to chime in here.

      • The original article (in French) can be accessed by clicking on the author’s name at the top. It’s only 3 pages there, though, ending with the 22nd point. A “print” button is available at the top [Imprimer], so it seems there is no prohibition on printing that.

    • MAKING YOUR OWN PDF from a selection on a webpage.

      You may be able to make your own PDF. For Windows there are free “print to PDF” available on the Net. (I can’t speak to other Operating Systems, but I’d bet so.) Install one (after checking it with a virus scanner), then select what you want included in the PDF. For instance, I clicked on the “H” of “Here are 22 good reasons…” at the top of the article, moved without clicking to the end of last word I wanted included in the PDF, then held the shift key and clicked (in this case, on the period following that last word). What you want in the PDF should then be selected. Hit Ctrl-p. Make sure to change the printer driver to your PDF printer. Make sure the result includes only the selection you made. (Mine has a print option, ‘Selection only’.) Let ‘er fly.

    • Robert: If you use Chrome there’s an app that lets you transfer the article (minus comments) to your Kindle (assuming…etc).

  5. A must read by everybody. Alarmists, Skeptics, media ect. The replies by those two “Climatologists” are absolutely pathetic. The writer wins 100 to 0. You should send this to Booker (telegraph) and to Judith Curry. It shows that in a debate the skeptics wins hands down. No wonder the alarmists do not want this to come out. Its a complete fraud and they know it. The most significant posting by WUWT ever.

    • No doubt that this is an outstanding scientific rebuttal of the politically – driven propaganda being regularly served up to the politicians and the populace for years.
      But neither of these groups will fathom this sophisticated science. To reach the wide audience that is constantly targeted so successfully by the ‘settled science’ crowd, this also needs to be translated into easily digested terms that the masses and their leaders can easily understand. They are all time-poor people and not prone to reading volumes.

      IMO it needs to be sent out in mass press releases to the media in language that reaches the general public and their busy servants.

      Unfortunately it has become more a PR war than a scientific one.

      • Exactly. The first bit is OK for an educated non-scientist, but the stuff after that, giving the supporting details, is full of wriggly lines and very hard mathematics. Makes my brain hurt.

        Whereas people like that nice Mr. Flannery can keep it fairly simple by saying “Scientists say we are all totally, horribly, apocalyptically, run-screaming-through-the-streets-while-civilization-collapses-around-us doomed.”

        Much easier for me to understand. And I’m a lot brighter than most politicians.

    • Yeah, the replies from the climatologists seemed to always be in the tone of “Your are stupid. You are lying. You are stupid”

      • ” You are lying. You are stupid”

        Yup.
        And in the case of some of the more prolific warmista apologists on WUWT, they often manage to say it in 20,000 delightfully pedantic words or less.

  6. Science is not a search for “truth”, that’s for philosophers, theologians and politicians; those disciplines do indeed create different “truths”. Science is making observations, collecting and organizing facts, developing explanations for those facts, and then testing the explanations.

    My expert is better than your expert is not a scientific argument, actually it is not an argument of any kind, it is an appeal to authority. Those that have found the “truth” can relax since all they have to do is to remember to periodically light a candle at the AGW altar. Those that who have not found the “truth” still have a lot of work in pursuing the science.

    • I know what you’re saying, but I still have to take issue with your first sentence (perhaps it’s semantics). Sometimes, when science reveals or develops an explanation, it is the ‘truth’. If science states a theory about dark matter, for example, then that’s just a theory, and not necessarily the truth. But there are indisputable truths in science; the ‘laws’ of physics, for example, the 2nd law of thermodynamics being a case in point on this forum; the arrow of time pointing only in one direction; that large bodies in space will always be spherical. So I would say that science IS a search for truth; though very often it’s a search for the best explanation, sometimes it is about an absolute truth.

      • Jim, I don’t think your interpretation is correct (and I agree we may be arguing semantics here). The laws of physics are only true because we have not observed them to be false. There is no objective truth the laws are adhering to. As Feynman would say, mother nature can do what she wants. It is a strict interpretation but also a necessary one, IMO. When you get lose with these things then how do we know where to draw the line? That the laws of physics are true is a safe (and useful!) assumption as long as you are aware you are making an assumption.

      • Yes, I know what you’re saying, but isn’t it like saying, “We’re not sure 2+2 always equals 4, because no one has ever done the sum over and over.”? I know scientists are loathed to say that anything is ‘true’, but if the laws of physics are the same all over the Universe, then I think it’s safe to say it. Does that make sense (I’m not a scientist)?

      • Ghost, the Law of Gravity has its problems, which is why the dark matter hypothesis was floated to begin with, and also why the alternative of Modified Newtonian Dynamics was advanced. Laws in science are not “truths” in the philosophical sense. In fact, in symbolic logic, an argument can be “true” even if the premises are all false. Science really has to do with understanding the external world well enough to know what to expect. At scales far smaller and far larger than human scales the action of scientific “laws” becomes equivocal.

      • Duster’s comment is something I have been trying to explain to folks for years. Well put!

      • Duster is spot on. A useful lesson I learned was in a phi of sci class where the professor asked the class what the purpose of science was. Everyone answered on que along the lines of understanding, knowing why etc. etc. The prof came back and said, science is only about improving your ability to predict, everything beyond that is faith.

        Different laws of physics is actually not a very foreign subject in today’s quantum mechanics. Separate universes with alternate laws of physics is a common idea that string theorist love to throw around in shock jock fashion. Which reminds me of another important lesson I learned, the mathematicians can do anything but mother nature is picky.

      • At 2:48 pm on 12 May, Galane speculated:

        There’s more likely than not a supermassive rocky planet out there with an insanely fast rotation. It would be discus shaped, assuming its tensile strength and gravity could hold it together. Whether or not it’s populated with centipedelike, methane breathing sapients

        I frequently encountered Harry Stubbs (“Hal Clement”) at East Coast science fiction conventions during the last decades of the 20th Century, when he commonly led panel discussions and seminars on the techniques of “world-building,” the process of speculatively devising “…environments very different from our own. In general, the story is designed to display the features of that environment.” [Stephen Baxter, SFWA, 1995].

        Planetary astronomy has been a big deal in “hard” SF since…well, forever. For this reason (among others), it’s been difficult to peddle the alarmists’ allegations about how anthropogenic carbon dioxide could – by way of the “greenhouse gas” effect – cause any significant (or even measurable) effect on the Earth’s climate among the hard speculative fiction aficionados.

        Since the academic budgets of a great number of people depend on the continued Global Warming Consensus, there is a conflict of emotions among the climate scientists. It will be interesting to see how that plays out. We’ll have a longer discussion shortly, but my conclusions haven’t changed: we don’t have a climate model reliable enough to bet trillions on. We know the Earth has been both warmer and colder in historical times, and the earlier climate shifts are unlikely to have been caused by human influence. Clearly human activities can affect climates – we all grew up learning that the desertification of much of North Africa was due to goats, and we know that some local climates are determined by human activities in the region – but human activity is unlikely to have caused the Viking period warming, the great cooling after 1300, the Little Ice Age, and such; and the warming beginning in 1800 or so is very unlikely to have been caused by human activities. Until the Believers stop denying the existence of the Viking Warm, the Roman Warm, and the Little Ice Age, we aren’t going to learn much from those models.

        Jerry Pournelle
        (17 September 2013)

    • “Science is not a search for “truth”, that’s for philosophers, theologians and politicians”

      As a philosopher, I have to say I’m a bit miffed at being lumped in with those other frauds.
      Theologians are only interested in the “right kind” of truth, and politicians don’t even understand the concept.

      • In the English vernacular and in the literature of global warming climatology “science” is polysemic. Thus, when used in making an argument, “science” must be disambiguated.

  7. The best evidence that the climate scare is unsubstantiated ever presented.
    How will Watts and Spencer react to Truth No 15 and 16?
    The plant nutritionCO2 makes the world GREEN, and increase plant end food production. Coal energy should be the ultimate choice for “greens”.

  8. “There is no need of heat (from DWIR) to “warm the surface” because its temperature is a consequence of the gravitation and of the mass of the air,”

    Correct, I’ve been pointing that out for ages.

    “The surface cools mostly by evaporation (order of magnitude 100 W/m²), by convection (20 to 30 /m²) ”

    Not quite.

    Downward convection beneath high pressure cells (half the atmosphere at any given moment) warms the surface by inhibiting convection and increasing transparency by dissipating clouds ( a greenhouse roof is transparent and prevents convection). That is the true greenhouse effect which makes the Earth’s surface 33K warmer than the S-B figure of 255K.

    • See later in the article about the absurdity of 33K Greenhouse claim.
      Apart from that, happy to see another person acknowledging the role of gravity and mass in determining temperature.

  9. “The latitudinal limits between those climates are shifting northward or southward according to cycles as seen on figure 21-B for the USA [74] ; this may explain the fear, expressed in the 1970s in many periodical and books, of an imminent glaciation; that fear faded after the reversal of the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) in 1977. [75]”

    I’ve been saying that since 2007. The latitudinal shifting is the negative system response to ANY forcing whether from GHGs or otherwise but in reality mostly from solar and oceanic variability with that from CO2 not measurable.

    • Galane

      Define what you think the tilt of the earth’s axis is, and how much that tilt is changing over the course of a year, a decade, and a century.

  10. Please do not move this posting “main” for a few days at least. It needs to be read by thousands if possible.

  11. But, but Al Gore flew in on his Gulfstream and gave a really scary talk. And I saw Obama on Jimmy Fallon and he was hipster cool. So none of this can be true.

    • Sadly, that pretty much sums it up. I work with a few young and fairly talented mechanical engineers, and they absolutely refuse to even look at anything skeptical?

      • Tell them that they are not professional engineers if they have no practical experience and prove basic engineering technology. Get them to read the chapter on radiation heat transfer (by Prof Hoyt Hottel) in Marks Mechanical Engineering Handbook. If they can understand it, they will realise that AGW is just a political scam based on made up hypotheses which are wrong and even lies.

      • Thanks cementafriend, I’ve tried a few attempts with facts, it’s now just a taboo lunch topic.

        The stumbling block with calling AGW “just a political scam” is the scope of involvement, it’s world wide. And the duration of the “scam”. And the underlying motivations for each group of participants, scientists, media, activists, politicians, etc. All must have have different objective, no?. Even I find it hard to believe they’re all complicit. How did they all align so well, flocking behavior?

      • Exactly my thought.
        Unfortunately, the believers do not and will not read this or anything else that contradicts what they have chosen to believe.
        They seem to be the most closed minded and mentally inflexible crowd of people I have ever encountered.

        And the low information types could not be bothered and could not understand in any case.
        It is going yo be a very tough slog.
        I believe elections are the best hope in the short term. Medium term, years of cooling will dissolve any serious regard for CAGW among the informed, and long term, the warmista high priests will have their names enshrined in the language, as being synonymous with fraud, chicanery, duplicity, prevarication…etc.

      • Using magical ‘black box’ sophisticated engineering software tends to encourage faith in magical ‘black box’ sophisticated climate modelling software, I guess. Bring back sliderules and drafting tables!

      • They can’t be very talented if they are not investigating to honestly understand what is happening. Does their salary depend on their viewpoint?

        A talented engineer should question and challenge everything and everyone. (Same for parents raising kids..)

      • Even those who wouldn’t normally be considered “low information types” have fallen for the scam.
        They have been convinced that only stupid people, and or conservatives don’t believe in AGW, and since they are desperate to be seen as a member of the kool kids, they wouldn’t dare say or do anything that might get anyone to think they don’t also believe.

      • My brother in law has a PhD in chemistry and whole heartedly believes in AGW. Is it because he’s looked at the evidence? No, he just whole heartedly believes in the peer review system and the IPCC…He also believes non scientist have no clue what they are talking about so won’t listen to anyone who isn’t. Every scientist he knows is in agreement on AGW so it’s happening as far as he’s concerned. He will admit none of them have spent any more time than he has looking at the evidence.

        Might as well go talk to a brick wall about AGW than him. FYI, he now avoids the topic by walking out of the room any time it is brought up in a family discussion.

      • At 12:05 PM on 12 May, Darrin writes:

        My brother in law has a PhD in chemistry and whole heartedly believes in AGW. Is it because he’s looked at the evidence? No, he just whole heartedly believes in the peer review system and the IPCC…He also believes non scientist have no clue what they are talking about so won’t listen to anyone who isn’t. Every scientist he knows is in agreement on AGW so it’s happening as far as he’s concerned. He will admit none of them have spent any more time than he has looking at the evidence.

        Might as well go talk to a brick wall about AGW than him. FYI, he now avoids the topic by walking out of the room any time it is brought up in a family discussion.

        Confirmation bias. Extreme. Physicist Jeffery D. Kooistra discussed something along these lines in his science column “Lessons From the Lab” in the November 2009 edition of Analog (in which he discussed the preliminary report of Mr. Watts’ Surface Stations project):

        I have long wondered why most of my fellow physicists haven’t been as skeptical of global warming alarmism as I have been. I think one reason, perhaps even more important than their politics affecting their judgment, is that they naturally assume other scientists are as careful in how they obtain data as physicists are. I’ve been a global warming skeptic for some time now, and it didn’t even occur to me that most of the time the thermometers would be “sited next to a lamp.” What’s really ironic is that, if someone claims to see a flying saucer, which hurts no one and costs nothing, debunkers come out in force. But let a former vice-president claim environmental apocalypse is upon us, and suddenly we’re appropriating billions and changing our lifestyles.

        Cripes.

        Your brother-in-law may be making a similar assumption, to the effect that the “consensus quacks” are adherent to the ethical and methodological standards governing scientific investigation.

        They’re not, and the Climategate information confirms this.

        Facing that fact is hitting your brother-in-law with cognitive dissonance he may not be able to overcome.

      • Hi Paul, as mechanical engineer I am saddened that any mechanical engineer would so easily forget the courses they took in thermodynamics…. Seems it is true that progressivism is a mental disease.

        Cheers,

        Joe

      • “Bring back sliderules and drafting tables!”

        My Dad used those. When he designed a building, it damn well stayed up!

      • @MarkW

        There are all kinds of stupid.

        In fact, when appraising intellectual capacity, I often find myself as struck by the stupidity of the intelligent as marveled by the intelligence of the stupid.

  12. Conclusion:

    The growing divergence between models and observations even on a global average, and the lack of mathematical foundation to the statement that the fluctuations between runs of the same models and between runs of different models “are noise” [Monckton, 29 July 2014] forbids their use as justification of economic or political decisions.

    An excellent and necessary summary of the science – the hard science as opposed to the political “science” – pertinent to global climate change.

    There are so many sub-issues to discuss in the context of climate change, it’s hard to have a rational discussion. When issues get artificially complexified like this I like to look for some single game-changing fact: One that puts the whole thing into a context for which the appropriate response is “Ah … sanity at last. Now we know what we’re dealing with”. I have found three such facts, all of which weigh against your professed “conversion”. Have you really considered them?

    The first, I’m happy to report, is one you appear to be familiar with: CO2 is very good for the environment, in practically every way, up to levels far beyond any reasonable participant in this discussion is predicting. You can find enormous amounts of supporting data for this over at co2science.org . Did you know this, though: Most plants’ photosynthesis shuts down altogether around 200 PPM (yes there are exceptions for which lower levels are tolerable). If you compare the pre-industrial CO2 levels to the global levels during earth’s history on a geological timescale, as plants evolved, you will find it hard to escape the impression that, at around 280 PPM CO2, for the last few thousand years the world has teetered on the brink of ecological disaster, in which much of the biosphere was close to shutting down out of starvation from this essential nutrient.

    From this perspective, the anthropogenic influx of CO2 into the environment in the last 100 years has been a boon and may have averted a looming catastrophe. Those who study food production, for example, see our “Carbon Footprint” as a very good thing, and it’s signal is quite evident in the increase in agricultural productivity over the latter part of the 20th Century. It is hard to find a downside to this, which is what is so amazing about the global AGW movement; the unbelievably dogmatic adherence to the notion that CO2 is some environmental toxin and that the 0.6 C warming that, at the highest reasonable estimates can be attributed to CO2 over that period somehow means CO2 is, on balance, harmful.

    My second game changer is the ice core data (it has many facets — temperature proxies, CO2 correlation, etc etc, all worth looking at). It is fully analyzed and largely noncontroversial. And it is publicly available. Check out both the Greenland and the South polar data for a complete story. Let us start any conversation about climate change with this data. Here’s a lovely presentation that makes all the necessary points, posted ages ago at wattsupwiththat.com : https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/ . If you don’t want their spin … fine, just look at the graphs, which are taken straight from NOAA data. Make sure you understand what each one is showing, and how each is related to the one before it. Then come back and tell me that you still think the current warming trend is something to get worked up about. Nothing like reality to kill a lovely scary story. Sorry to do so just as we’re getting ready for Halloween.

    The third is less widely known but should be front-and-center: It is well-known among people who study such things that, human civilization has seen several warm periods and several cold periods all within the span of recorded history and the archeological record timeframe, so we have a pretty good understanding of what each kind of climate change bodes for mankind.

    Long story short, history is unequivocal on the matter: Warm periods, on balance, are VERY good for civilization (fewer wars, less extreme weather, better crops, lower frequency of plagues, more stability to cultures, advancements in civic and technological sophistication etc.). And cold periods, on balance, are very BAD for civilization (the opposite of the above parenthetic comment).

    R. Cragen (3 October 2012)

    • Good idea, Charlie.

      But I have some doubts about the ability of the politicians to understand other voices than the IPCC claims…

      I have sent to all of our representatives a very very light version about AGW, and another about energy. Not a single response….Awful

    • But if you’re not holding your breath you’re contributing to the CO2 problem! Oh noes!

    • I guess politicians in the UK must be more honest than here in the US. Here, the CAGW meme is simply a means to advance an agenda, the actual facts don’t matter. That’s why all of the solutions to global warming also just happen to be in line with Marxist philosophy.

    • I second that. And third it. Maybe not a year but having it on top will generate more comments which can be just as valuable as the post. I hope all with Apples will bookmark this for rereading and redigesting multiple times. Great stuff.

  13. Great post, lots of ideas to debate, plenty of references and all presented as a convenient reference document.

  14. I would pick bones with several points in the list given, but the most prominent bone is that there is some good reason in the data to doubt that the Greenhouse effect per se is operational. This is for two reasons. One is that the physics of the GHE is pretty sound. The second is this:

    It is simply not factually correct to state that there is some sort of disagreement between the simple predictions of the Greenhouse model and observation over the last 165 years, unless and until you successfully impugn the data itself, e.g. HadCRUT4 in this figure. There are reasons to impugn the data, mind you, but taking the data at face value the fit to the log of the CO_2 concentration is impressive even without adding a single 67 year period sinusoidal with an amplitude of around 0.1 C.

    With the sinusoidal, the “pause” is arguably “explained”, or would be if we had a prayer of explaining the sinusoidal itself, but we don’t at this time. The curve clearly indicates, for example, that the temperature increase in the first half of the 20th century was not independent of CO_2 concentration, it was partly driven by it — about a third of the overall increase was due to CO_2 and the rest from the rising half-cycle of the sinusoid. Similarly around 0.3 C of the late 20th century rise was from CO_2 (according to this model) and the remaining 0.2-3 C was from the sinusoid rising half-cycle.

    The greatest sin of the modelers (aside from asserting that the hodge-podge of nonsense produced by super-averaging the divergent results from many broken chaotic models together and calling it a “projection” that should be taken seriously since calling it a prediction is too laughable even for the IPCC to stomach) is to choose the worst possible reference period to normalize/fit their model parameters, and to seriously overestimate the contributions of both aerosols and water vapor in opposite directions to increase the relative sensitivity of CO_2 in the result. Normalizing across the rising half-cycle of an unexplained periodic fluctuation is about as dumb as it gets in model building.

    Now, is this model unique? Of course not. The authors demonstrate an alternative model up above, for example, involving the sum of three sinusoids. One can fit the data a literally infinite number of ways. The difference between the two is [that] my model directly fits known physics initially, and has excellent explanatory power without using a sinusoid at all in an effectively one-parameter fit across the entire range of the data. Throw in the sinusoid and the model fit is as perfect as a 4+1 parameter model could ever be expected to be, far better than the 9+1 parameter three-sinusoid model displayed above. The raw log fit is not, I repeat not, making an elephant wiggle its trunk, but the three sinusoid fit has the elephant tap dancing in a tutu.

    There are other sins, but I have to teach in a very few minutes and have no time to go into them. Overall, though, many of their observations are apropos, but it weakens their fundamental proposition to make incorrect assertions about the GHE itself. (BTW, my 1+1 parameter model does not contain a lag and its general success plus the observations of substantial fluctuations around the mean it predicts suggest that the Earth is never substantively in radiative imbalance with some sort of serious lag. The relaxation time is almost certainly much smaller than the timescale of the secular change, order of (IMO) five years or less for surface temperatures as suggested by the short-period spectrum and regression time.)

    • One is that the physics of the GHE is pretty sound

      Actually, even Judith Curry has moved away from cartoon like and pseudo scientific explanations like “back radiation” (please note that anyone in their right mind knows that everything with a temperature radiates.)

      Ref: http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/02/best-of-the-greenhouse/

      Please pay attention to the excellent summary of Curry and the explanations of Maxwell and Nullius.

      If you don’t have time to read all that, here are the best parts:

      But almost universally, when they try to explain it, they all use the purely radiative approach, which is incorrect, misleading, contrary to observation, and results in a variety of inconsistencies when people try to plug real atmospheric physics into a bad model

      Well said. This is what many of us have been saying for years, and got ridiculed for it.

      The G&T paper in particular got led down the garden path by picking up several ‘popular’ explanations of the greenhouse effect and pursuing them ad absurdam.

      IOW, G&T were not wrong on the science. They were correct in analyzing the kind of “popular” explanations that several people here are also asserting. They were not claiming that actual reality violates the 2nd law, and claiming they did is sneaky way to criticize them anyways.

      As Nullias says:

      Back radiation exists, … but it does not control the surface temperature/blockquote>

      • Thanks for the excellent Curry link.

        Point #16 of the 22 points above says:

        The trace-gases cannot “heat the surface“, according to the second principle of thermodynamics which prohibits heat transfer from a cooler body to a warmer body.

        Anybody who is misled by the quote above should read and re-read the Curry post until they “get it”. Back radiation exists. Most of the time it isn’t particularly important. Sometimes it is:

        I should mention for completeness that there are a couple of complications. One is that if convection stops, as happens on windless nights, and during the polar winters, you can get a temperature inversion and the back radiation can once again become important.

        It is misleading to say that a cooler object cannot warm a warmer object. What does happen is that the cooler object can cause the warmer object to lose heat less quickly. As a result the warmer object will be warmer that it would be if the cooler object were not present. The net heat exchange is always from the warmer object to the cooler object. That’s true …. as far as it goes …

        The formula that describes radiation from a warm object (the Earth) immersed in a cooler medium (the atmosphere) is:

        Qradiation = S·A·( Ts4 – Ta4 )
        http://help.solidworks.com/2012/English/SolidWorks/cworks/Stefan-Boltzmann_Law.htm

        Where:

        Qradiation is the energy radiated by the warm object
        S is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
        A is the surface area of the warm object
        Ts is the absolute temperature of the warm object (the Earth)
        Ta is the absolute temperature of the surrounding medium (ambient temperature of the atmosphere)

        This isn’t scientific speculation, it’s engineering.

      • VikingExplorer,

        please note that anyone in their right mind knows that everything with a temperature radiates.

        Anyone in their right mind also knows that radiation is absorbed by everything as a function of its own material properties and angle of incidence, not the temperature of the emitting body.

      • Darn formulas didn’t work. (<sup> and <sub> tags were ignored)

        where:

        S is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
        A is the surface area of the warm object
        is the absolute temperature of the warm object (the Earth)
        is the absolute temperature of the surrounding medium (ambient temperature of the atmosphere)

      • AARGH! Apparently <img src=”http://latex.codecogs.com/svg.latex?\large T_a” border=”0″/> doesn’t work either.

        Does anyone know how to make formulas work on this blog?

      • Dear CommieBob (odd name, BTW:-):

        $ latex P = \sigma \epsilon A (T_h^4 – T_c^4)$

        if you remove the leading space between the $ and the word latex, produces:

        P = \sigma \epsilon A (T_h^4 - T_c^4)

        which is, indeed, the Stefan-Boltzmann formula for net power radiatively transferred to/from a hot reservoir at temperature T_h to a cold reservoir at temperature T_c across a vacuum between to facing plates of area A and emissivity \epsilon. It accounts for both the forward emission from the hotter plate and the back radiation from the cold plate.

        In reply to people above who want to argue that the GHE isn’t real, or can’t work on the basis of a “trace gas”, or because the air above is colder than the surface below — all I can say is “piffle”. The GHE isn’t only a radiative effect and while one can easily build toy problems to demonstrate that any sort of interpolated absorber/emitter layer at all between the hot and cold plate will slow the rate of heat transmission away from the hot plate and hence “warm” it relative to what its temperature would be without the interpolated layer, in the atmosphere it is a mix of ALR, radiation and absorption by CO_2, transfer of the energy to and from the bulk non-trace atmosphere, vertical and lateral convection, and the variation of pressure broadening with height. That doesn’t stop this “trace gas” from being able to cause warming, and the curve I generate above is hardly evidence against the GHE being precisely what physics predicts it to be, a general increase in mean temperature with the log of the CO_2 concentration. This is, after all, a very slow variation — each doubling of CO_2 produces a fixed increment of mean warming.

        Outside of this baseline behavior, the atmosphere may well experience natural variation far larger than this, and feedbacks within the highly nonlinear atmosphere/ocean climate system may cancel, augment, or overwhelm in either direction this baseline effect. The Earth has experienced an ice age with CO_2 10 to 15 times higher than it is today in its comparatively recent geological past, and has experienced several such ice ages with CO_2 2 to 3 times higher than it is today within the last two hundred million years.

        It never ceases to amaze me that scientists on both sides claim to be certain that they know exactly how all of this stuff works and that their pronouncements concerning whether we will experience runaway warming or start the next glacial episode are correct. This is the most difficult problem in physics, AFAIK, that humans have ever attempted to solve, one far, far beyond our ability to reliably compute. And yet everybody claims to solve it in their heads! “Trace gases cannot heat the Earth’s surface by a radiative GHE and we’re going to start the next glacial episode as the solar minimum starts.” “Doubling CO_2 will cause a temperature increase of 5 to 6 C and melt the ice caps with water vapor feedback.” These are both equally stupid pronouncements. Nobody knows whether either one of of these statements is true (well, we are pretty sure that trace gases can heat the surface via the GHE, but we we don’t know and cannot reliably compute more than an estimate for the magnitude of the effect, somewhere in the ballpark of 1 to 2 C, likely around 1.5C per doubling, and we are clueless about the feedbacks and natural variation).

        The whole point of climate models is that while simple ones, like the one I plot, seem to work but ignore a lot of stuff that ought to be important, complicated ones that try to take the important stuff into account don’t work at all. We cannot solve this problem at this time, and need to stop pretending that we can. But the debate is not well served by “denying” that the GHE itself is real, or by making absurd and obviously incorrect statements about trace gases not being able to help the Earth maintain its surface temperature well above its greybody value, or make irrelevant statements about “cold being unable to heat hot” (which is not what happens) or simply incorrect statements about the first or second law of thermodynamics somehow being violated by the GHE (which is absolutely trivial to demonstrate as purely false and silly besides, by doing a (gasp) actual computation of the entropy changes).

        rgb

        [Thank you for your time and effort replying here . .mod]

      • It is misleading to say that a cooler object cannot warm a warmer object. What does happen is that the cooler object can cause the warmer object to lose heat less quickly. As a result the warmer object will be warmer that it would be if the cooler object were not present.

        You’re correct to say that a (warmer than usual) cooler object will cause the hot object to lose heat less quickly. The key point is the word “Quickly”. It’s a temporal effect. At some point during the day, the air temperature will be warmer than it would have been, without the extra GHG. So, looking at the area under the curve of the temperature profile for a single day, it’s greater with more GHG. So, technically, GHG did cause a warmer environment. However, the time affected would probably be some small fraction of the day, somewhere between dusk and midnight.

      • radiation is absorbed by everything … not the temperature of the emitting body.

        You misunderstand completely. It’s not the emitting body that matters. It’s the receiving body. Look at it this way, if a soccer ball is traveling toward the goal. A player tries to get to the ball to accelerate it towards the goal. However, the player is traveling slower than the ball, and can’t catch up. What you are saying, in effect, is that slow players can catch up to fast soccer balls to accelerate them.

        Is it theoretically possible for a stray photon from a colder object to be absorbed by a warmer object? Yes. However, to claim that on average energy can flow from a lower energy state to a higher energy state would violate Gibb’s law. If you believe that energy does flow uphill, you have created your own imaginary world, contrary to all known science.

      • commieBob,

        You seem to have very selectively read the posting by Judith Curry. You say “Anybody who is misled by the quote above should read and re-read the Curry post until they “get it”. Back radiation exists”. First of all, no one has said that back radiation doesn’t exist, so that’s a tired straw man. Everything with a temperature is radiating. You need to re-read that article and try to understand the point that a micro effect cannot violate the macro science.

        Thermodynamics is literally the science of temperature. There are many micro effects at the molecular level that may or may not happen. Thermo is a probabilistic summary of all those effects. If you were to take a course in thermo, you would be doing problems to calculate the temperatures of various components as functions of time. This is done by writing a system of differential equations that involve delta temperatures and thermal conductivities.

        You say “[SB] isn’t scientific speculation, it’s engineering”. You’re right that under certain circumstances, that equation is valid. However, your mistake is thinking that SB replaces all of Thermo. Radiation is just one of many micro effects that are summarized into the science of thermodynamics.

        Take a course in thermodynamics (or look at a syllabus), and you’ll see that SB isn’t part of it. SB is normally taught in Astronomy courses, not in Thermodynamics. SB deals with “effective temperature” vs. “thermodynamic temperature”.

        In the thermosphere and below, as implied by the name, thermodynamics rule, and micro radiative effects are minor and irrelevant to the solution. Above the thermosphere, radiative effects dominate.

        As Judith Curry says:

        the purely radiative approach, which is incorrect, misleading, contrary to observation, and results in a variety of inconsistencies when people try to plug real atmospheric physics into a bad model

      • VikingExplorer

        Take a course in thermodynamics (or look at a syllabus), and you’ll see that SB isn’t part of it. SB is normally taught in Astronomy courses, not in Thermodynamics. SB deals with “effective temperature” vs. “thermodynamic temperature”.

        Actually, a quick google produces undergrad thermodynamics courses which do cover SB. The formula which I tried to reproduce describes net energy transferred by radiation.

        This thread is in the post “22 Inconvenient Climate Truths”. Point number 16 is:

        The trace-gases cannot “heat the surface“, according to the second principle of thermodynamics which prohibits heat transfer from a cooler body to a warmer body.

        Although it is true that net heat will not transfer from a cooler body to a warmer body (absent a heat pump), the statement is at least misleading. It’s usually used to argue against the GHG theory. As at least one other poster has pointed out, including it in the 22 Inconvenient Truths is a real credibility killer.

        rgbatduke – Thanks for the help with latex. re. the name: I really like public education. Also, given the choice between dealing with the government or dealing with an HMO, the choice is really easy.

        But the debate is not well served by “denying” that the GHE itself is real, or by making absurd and obviously incorrect statements about trace gases not being able to help the Earth maintain its surface temperature well above its greybody value, or make irrelevant statements about “cold being unable to heat hot” (which is not what happens) or simply incorrect statements about the first or second law of thermodynamics somehow being violated by the GHE (which is absolutely trivial to demonstrate as purely false and silly besides, by doing a (gasp) actual computation of the entropy changes).

        Amen.

      • Although it is true that net heat will not transfer from a cooler body to a warmer body (absent a heat pump), the statement is at least misleading

        Thermodynamics is all about NET heat transfer. In fact, Heat has NET built into it’s definition. Therefore, it’s redundant to say “net heat transfer”, and the statement is not only not misleading, it’s literally true. It would be quite misleading to claim trace gasses can directly heat the surface.

        That’s the idea that G&T thoroughly falsified. However, this was quite annoying to the likes of Dr. Curry, because apparently, she never believed in that “popular” simple-minded explanation. The mainstream of GHE community thinking (of which she is a pillar) hold that the thickening of the atmosphere will reduce the effective radiating temperature of the TOA.

        To explain this better to lay people, imagine if there is a person shining a bright flashlight or laser out of a window in a house. A person outside would have to shield his eyes. However, imagine if the clear window was replaced with an opaque window. Now, the person outside can tell that there is a light from the inside, but no longer needs to shield his eyes.

        The mainstream of GHE community then believes that since there is less energy escaping, it will somehow result in the earth eventually warming up “to restore radiative balance”. I’m also skeptical of this idea, but at least it’s a reasonable position to take. It’s a view that honest people can disagree about.

        To claim that trace gases can heat the surface is like saying the opaque window will make the flash light brighter.

        However, some people around here have not gotten the memo, and are still arguing for the pseudo science idea that a cold component can heat a warmer component. This would imply that energy can run up hill, which is an idea recently demolished by G&T, and by many of the most famous scientists from the last 150 years.

      • VikingExplorer,

        However, some people around here have not gotten the memo, and are still arguing for the pseudo science idea that a cold component can heat a warmer component.

        Let me spell it out for you: the Sun heats the surface.

      • Let me spell it out for you: the Sun heats the surface

        Exactly, and the surface temperature is limited by several things. The biggest factor is the rate of Heat flowing laterally in the surface. The thermal conductivity of the surface is much larger than air (ground-dry: 15x, ground-moist: 63x, rock: 90x – 318x, water: 26x). The hot spot caused by high noon moves along at a 1000 mph. The lateral Heat flows are like a short circuit compared to surface-air Heating.

        Once the hot spot has moved on, the delta T between surface and air causes Heat flow. The difference in thermal mass between the surface and the air right above the surface means that the air is the thermodynamic slave of the surface. It’s always in near equilibrium. A bigger delta T opens up between surface air and higher air and Heating occurs.

        However, if we now thicken the atmosphere with GHGs, it increases the temperature of the atmosphere. This of course does NOT Heat the surface, but it does reduce the delta T between the surface and the air. The surface is cooled down slower. During that slower cool down period (after dusk), the surface is warmer than it would have been. This warmer surface would cause a higher delta-T with lateral surface material that is further away from the hot spot. The daily high temps and daily lows are not affected.

        The bottom line is that although the GHE is theoretically plausible in the abstract, it is most likely negligible when the whole thermodynamic system is considered. As Nullius in Verba says:

        If an increase in back radiation tried to exceed this temperature gradient near the surface, convection would simply increase until the constant gradient was achieved again. Back radiation exists, and is very large compared to other heat flows, but it does not control the surface temperature.
        http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/02/best-of-the-greenhouse/

        As I explained on CA many years ago: Imagine a house with R12 insulation in the walls, the heater on full blast, with all doors and windows wide open. How do we warm up the house on a cold, windy winter night?

        AGW believer: Switch to R13 insulation.

        Skeptic: Close the doors and windows.

    • According the thermodynamics, all bodies emit radiation in accordance with their temperature. The hotter they are, the more they radiate.
      What they are radiating [towards] is of no importance and doesn’t show up anywhere in the equations.

      Image a scenario where a single object at 500K is sitting alone in the universe, background radiation at 0K.
      The object has an constant, internal energy source sufficient to keep that object at 500K for as long as the experiment runs.

      Now lets place a second object near the first object. This object is at 100K and has an energy source sufficient to keep it at that temperature.

      Both objects radiate energy. For both of them, some of that energy hits the other object.

      The 500K object has the energy from it’s internal source, plus it is now getting some energy from the 100K object. The result will be that the 500K object will now warm up enough so that the amount of energy it radiates will balance the energy from it’s internal source, plus the amount being received from the cooler object.

      Lo and behold, the cooler object has warmed the hotter object, and at no time have any of the laws of thermodynamics been violated.

      • It is a common mistake to think that GHG theory requires a cooler object (the troposphere) to heat a warmer object (the surface). It doesn’t. The surface receives its heat from the sun. There is always a net transfer of heat from surface to troposphere. GHG theory addresses variation in that net transfer of heat.

      • dbstealy: That would be true, if the objects are touching. However if the objects are radiating at each other, then yes, a cooler object can warm a hotter one, by the mechanism I just described.

      • “A cooler object cannot warm a hotter object.” Laser diodes would seem to be the disproof of that notion. Otherwise, how can a chip with a Tmax of 150C ignite a match, or burn a ‘pit’ in a CD? (or ruin your eye by overheating the retina if you are not careful with it!)

        I suppose the answer there is that the radiation source is not thermal in nature. But then, neither is the radiation source producing CO2 emissions.

      • Yes, a perfect example, but you will never convince people that cannot actually do the math. I’m a bit surprised at dbstealy, though. He should know better. db, the cooler object does not “heat up” the warmer one — if you read the problem statement, it has an internal heat source producing heat at a fixed rate. The only question is what its surface temperature is going to be when this open system reaches dynamic equilibrium where the heat it radiates away balances the power produced by the heat source. This is not “thermal equilibrium” of the entire object.

        The colder object simply acts as an additional source of power for this first object, and the dynamic equilibrium temperature of the first object has to increase to balance its total power input. The net transfer of power is still from the warmer body to the cooler one, and entropy of the system still increases, and no laws of thermodynamics are harmed by this example. You, I am certain from your many other posts, are capable of doing the math. Do it, because with all due respect, you are dead wrong here.

        rgb

      • Lo and behold, the cooler object has warmed the hotter object, and at no time have any of the laws of thermodynamics been violated

        That’s true, no laws of thermo were violated, because Thermo is a macro view of how molecules act. Without molecules, thermo doesn’t apply.

        It’s just like Ohm’s law, which describes the behavior of millions of molecules. With only a single molecule, Ohm’s law doesn’t apply. Saying that the behavior of single molecule does or doesn’t violate Ohm’s law isn’t saying much at all.

        The point is that Earth does have enough molecules for the 2nd law of thermo to apply. In this case, thickening the atmosphere (adding thermodynamic mass) will reduce the delta T between land/sea and surface air. This will not cause the land/sea temperature to increase steady state. It will change the temperature gradient to be shallower at lower altitudes, and steeper at higher altitudes.

      • According the thermodynamics, all bodies emit radiation in accordance with their temperature. The hotter they are, the more they radiate.

        It’s a nitpick, but as an EE, I’m finding it hard not to clarify. It should say:

        According to electromagnetics, all atoms with a temperature emit radiation.

        Explanation: An electron creates an electric field E. A moving electron creates a magnetic field B. All magnetic fields are caused by moving electrons.

        These are vector fields that are 90 degrees to each other. In yet another example of fine tuning, the laws of electromagnetism are such that under certain circumstances, they are self propagating, meaning that a changing electric field causes a changing magnetic field which causes a changing electric field, etc. (Let there be light)

        An atom with a temperature is vibrating with kinetic energy. This vibration is also reflected in the electrons orbiting the nucleus. Thus, a vibrating electron is a moving electron which creates a magnetic field. The faster the vibration (i.e. kinetic energy, i.e. temperature), the higher the frequency of the EM field.

        Thermodynamics is a completely different subject.

    • I have real life experience where a thin veil of high cirrus, which I am fairly certain are colder than the ground, led to an almost immediate and quite welcome warming of the ground temp, during radiation cooling events here in Florida.
      These are generally the nights that lead to frozen citrus, damaged plant nurseries and trees farms, strawberry farmers getting wiped out, etc.
      As a person who’s entire livelihood has been wrapped up in the value of one crop or another at various times, I k now how to obese and record what is happening and why.
      On nearly windless nights, when the sky is clear and humidity is low, the temperature will drop to the dew point which, if that dew point is below freezing, will lead to bad and/or expensive things happening and absolutely zero sleep being had for thousands of growers.
      The temp will drop very rapidly after sunset, but as the ground air temperature gets lower, the rate of cooling will slow. One reason is that the RH is going up I suppose, but another (main reason) is due to heat flux from the ground. These events are usually short term things, one or several nights, and frequently are preceded by a period of above level warmth. For these and other reasons, such as that it is very sunny when the sky is clear ;P) the ground is almost always fairly warm.
      The flux of heat from the ground, however, cannot keep up with radiation cooling if the sky is clear. But under trees the temperature is several degrees warmer than out in the open. Around paved surfaces or stone structures the air stays warmer, and objects are also warmed by radiation from these. I have had the very dramatic experience of having expensive trays of seedlings be completely destroyed, while other ones a few feet away were undamaged because they were under a tree or sitting on a concrete block or slab. Sometimes right next to each other, on bare ground…dead…on concrete, unharmed.

      So anyway, there have been times (numerous) where me and my various partners and friends and associates were taking turns walking outside to monitor the thermometers, and had a sudden reversal of cooling due to high clouds drifting overhead. And I am not talking about a degree or two…more like five or more, and it did not take long…minutes at the most, for the clouds to somehow allow the ground temp to rise.

      I am not a radiation physicist, but I can tell you that this is a very real, observable and oft repeated process.
      Make of it what you will. I would be very happy to get a thousand opinions on this.
      Or even just one.

      • Menicholas

        I have real life experience where a thin veil of high cirrus, which I am fairly certain are colder than the ground, led to an almost immediate and quite welcome warming of the ground temp, during radiation cooling events here in Florida.
        These are generally the nights that lead to frozen citrus, damaged plant nurseries and trees farms, strawberry farmers getting wiped out, etc.
        As a person who’s entire livelihood has been wrapped up in the value of one crop or another at various times, I k now how to obese and record what is happening and why.
        On nearly windless nights, when the sky is clear and humidity is low, the temperature will drop to the dew point which, if that dew point is below freezing, will lead to bad and/or expensive things happening and absolutely zero sleep being had for thousands of growers.

        This LW radiation phenomena exits, it is real. I’ve felt it also on clear nights under cold skies. It’s mentioned tens of thousands of times across various “science” web sites – but …

        But what is the equation?
        Surface temperature = ?
        Relative humidity? Or percent cloud clover? High or low cloud percent?
        T_sky? Or T_Space? T_Air (2 meter air temperature instead?)
        Wind speed?

        What are the factors used? I’ve not found the equations for the coefficients – and am not sure why it is not as common in the literature as convection and conduction losses. Sure – Tens of thousands of “perfect black bodies radiating into a perfect black cold space with an infinite visibility factor and no other losses in equilibrium … etc. In other words, just a useless physics-textbook problem of no real world value.

        Because physics textbooks and climate models live only in the sterile classroom – and are defeated by nature’s blood on tooth and fang.

    • “Throw in the sinusoid and the model fit is as perfect as a 4+1 parameter model could ever be expected to be,”
      I notice that your model also doesn’t show the present pause.

      • The model shows that the present pause is directly correlated with the turnover in the 67 year cycle, and otherwise is well within the five year “normal” variations in the data plus the given confidence intervals in the data itself. But the turnover suggests strongly that the pause has the same “cause” as the related “pause” from the 40’s to the 70’s — the downward half-cycle of the 67 year periodic variation that I have no explanation for.

        Note well, BTW, that I’m not actually advancing this as “the” predictive model for the future. I do predictive modelling in high end, high dimensionality problems professionally and am not so stupid as that. I’m merely pointing out that the physical model of greenhouse gas induced warming over the last 165 years is an excellent fit to the data, one that is even better when one adds an purely empirical “natural” variation on top of it.

        If you are asserting that it is the CO_2-only model that doesn’t predict the pause, if you look at the data the CO_2 only model doesn’t predict any of the “pauses” or “upswings” but it does a damn good job of interpolating them. The secondary model just shows that those variations are strictly bounded by around 0.1 C on either side of the CO_2 only model, and appear to have a strong fourier component across this admittedly absurdly short interval.

        I frankly doubt that this model can be extrapolated into either the past or the future, and the data uncertainties are so large (and almost certainly underestimated and/or systematically biased in HadCRUT4) that the sensitivity could easily be either larger or smaller than the best fit observed here — if you like, I get a TCS of around 1.8 C plus or minus maybe a whole degree. If the pause continues for another decade, it might pull the best fit down to 1.4 C per doubling, for example, and still produce a pretty good fit but with larger “natural” excursions due to physics and phenomena the model obviously does not include.

        What it is not is evidence against the assertion that CO_2 increases warm the mean planetary temperature. Nor does it in any way justify the assertion that a 20 year pause means that the greenhouse effect itself is incorrect or nonexistent. It is silly to make these assertions — that just because temperature hasn’t gone up for 20 years, the GHE itself doesn’t exist and is “wrong”. What the GHE isn’t is alone. It isn’t the only thing going on. It may not even be the most important thing going on.

        But hey, I can’t solve the set of coupled Navier-Stokes equations on this oblate spheroidal tipped spinning ocean covered inhomogeneous surfaced ball as it eccentrically orbits its rather variable star in my head either, so I can’t refute any assertions you care to make with perfect certainty about what “the pause” means or doesn’t mean, especially when they aren’t accompanied by even as much math as I provide in either the physics based or semi-heuristic models above.

        rgb

    • I’m sorry but to say your your empirical model fit uses “known physics” is plain BS. There is no “known” physics for the multiple arbitrary constants you use. Of course with the number of degrees of freedom you have introduced the fit looks good but to show an extrapolation of the fit is absurd and not a mistake I would expect of an undergraduate.

      • The number of degrees of freedom? Are you daft, man? I have two parameters, one of which is the arbitrary zero of a temperature anomaly! The climate sensitivity is predicted by physics to be in the ballpark of 1 to 2 C — usually around 1.5 C in line by line computations. I get a best fit of 1.8 C! That is totally within the expected error in any sense of the term.

        And I don’t assert that the extrapolation is predictive, because I’m not an undergraduate, I do professional predictive modeling with highly advanced tools I built/invented myself. And this is not the product of the use of those tools, and I’d hesitate to assert that they are capable of fitting a chaotic system like the Earth’s climate. It’s a hard problem! But it is surely sufficient to show that any assertion that there is no reason to think that the GHE is real is false, and it clearly demonstrates the absurdity of claiming that “the pause” refutes it because CO_2 has gone up but the temperature hasn’t. There are obviously other sources of variation of at least 0.1 C amplitude — I invent an heuristic fit to them!

        The point is that I do better than the authors of the article at the top with far fewer parameters and actual physics at fitting the exact same data. R is very, very happy with my fit(s). As I said, I’m not fitting an elephant, but they are fitting an elephant and making it wiggle its trunk and dance a jig. That doesn’t make me right and them wrong, but there is no reason at all to think that their fit is meaningful, with a complete lack of explanation for any of the sinusoidal terms. At least I can justify — hell, derive — the form I’m fitting and numerically compute an estimate for its magnitude, as is done in many places in the literature.

        rgb

    • HadCRU’s pack of lies cannot and should not be used as “data”. Before anything at all can be said about the history of “surface station” (including under the surface of the sea) observations over the period of its coverage, the whole corrupt, anti-scientific, unverifiable charade will have to be tossed. A reliable, transparent record needs to be made from scratch by disinterested scientists and statisticians. HadCRU and GISS are useless, any, worse than worthless for any purpose but to get their perpetrators continued funding.

      GISS especially needs to be shut down or at least taken out of the climate business.

      • As IMO would anyone who has seen how the GASTA “data” set sausages are made, information which had to be dragged kicking, screaming and holding onto furniture out of the gatekeepers’ grasp via FOIA, public shame and humiliation and congressional action. That’s for instance how the people found out that the previously secret Algore-ithm to adjust for the UHI effect actually made the observations hotter rather than colder.

      • Galane,

        That is why I called for transparency. Each adjustment should be justified openly. Some are needed, but usually just as a one-off, as for instance for the switch to electronic thermometers. But HadCRU and GISS keep going back and cooling the more distant past while warming the more recent past and present, totally without justification, and warming the oceans so as not to be out of whack with the unwarranted, “man-made” warming of the land station “record”.

      • I’m not arguing with this. I have my own bones to pick with them. But still, that’s the name of the game, unless you want to confine yourself to a 30 to 50 year stretch of modern data, and you still have the issue of how it was averaged and kriged.

        rgb

      • rgbatduke
        May 13, 2015 at 5:31 am

        Which is why IMO the world needs a clean slate attack on the problem of acceptable surface records since at least 1850. This might mean offering separate land and sea records, since the observations would have been acquired so differently. Maybe include the best oceanic island records in the land station average, but how to adjust for that?

        You’re also right that the satellite data have problems, too. But I feel their adjustments have been less for advocacy and more for justifiable technical reasons. I regard them as data rather than political make-believe.

  15. I’m surprised at the lack of another point: that lower stratospheric temperatures have NOT cooled in 20 years. Lower stratospheric cooling is a sure sign of surface warming (so we were led to believe), and it did cool…up until 1995, but nothing since. I am always surprised that nothing more is made of this point. When I used to argue on the old BBC forums about climate change, I was continually reminded (by warmists) that the lower stratosphere was cooling. Well, now it isn’t. 2013 data (last available) actually shows a small increase in temp!
    https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/inline_all/public/stratanom_1958-2013.gif?itok=e3kGJ5sc

    I would appreciate others’ comments on this.

      • comment for Fritz 5:22 am, and Phil 3:36 am
        Please read carefully the texts of n°, 4 and 17
        As explained below figure 4-C, the roughly constant lifetime of CO2 molecules in the air is: stock / (yearly absorption) which has been more or less constant since 1960.
        The derivation if as follows: there are four datasets : (1) and (2) anthropic emissions and their time varying delta13C, (3) CO2 content of the air (since 1958) and (4) its delta13C (since about 1977 with some measurements before)
        The CO2 content of the air is made of an anthropic part (about 6% now, much less in 1958) and of a natural part (94% now, 98.4% in 1958); the delta13C of the natural part is slowly shifting from the -6.5 pm of the little ice age (from corals and other proxies) to about -7 pm; is it this shift in the natural part that constrains the lifetime: non realistic values are obtained for too short and too long lifetimes.

        This stock / (yearly absorption) analysis avoids all the pitfalls of the assumed equilibrium between absorption and out-gassing that is postulated by all the compartment models with constant inputs and outputs that lead to a set of linear equation and by Laplace transform to expressions like the Bern or Hamburg formulas; there is no equilibrium because as said more CO2 implies more green plants eating more and so on ; the references in note 19 show even James Hansen and Francey (figure 17 F) admits (now) that their carbon cycle is wrong !

        Instead of 57% please read 37% on truth n°2 ( numbers of Gt-C are reminded on page 8)

  16. This is Sky Dragon stuff. It would be more appropriate on Principia Scientific. Of course, it has obvious appeal to those who don’t understand it.

    It’s a pity in way, because there are some good points but, when I read “Trace-gases cannot “heat the surface“, according to the second principle of thermodynamics”, I know I am reading rubbish.

    There is no point picking it apart. Anyone from a scientific background knows they are reading rubbish after a few lines and, if you don’t, no amount of explanation is going to help.

    But it’s not a total loss, the comments by Poitou & Bréon are worth something . On the other hand, this is the sort of pseudo-science that gives all sceptics a bad name.

    • Mike B: I have to agree that this is Sky Dragon stuff. I stopped reading when I saw the “gases aren’t grey bodies”. I’m also saddened that Nick Stokes was modded. Much as I disagree with him, he is generally not trollish, so I don’t see any benefit other than giving the impression that contrary opinions are not welcome.

      (Reply: The moderator who removed Nick Stokes’ comment was not following Anthony’s Rules For Moderators. We all make an occasional error. -mod.)

      • mod,

        (Reply: The moderator who removed Nick Stokes’ comment was not following Anthony’s Rules For Moderators. We all make an occasional error. -mod.)

        I’d think the proper thing to do then is to restore Nick’s comments in full.

        [Reply: Sorry, but when a comment is deleted it is gone forever, unless the moderator has saved it somewhere. That mod was notified, so there probably won’t be a repeat. ~mod.]

      • Although I am a sceptic, Nick Stokes brings knowledge, insight. And this is how we sceptics learn to improve our arguments. I don’t know what he said, because it was untimely removed, but I suspect it was more sensible than the original article.

        [he chose only the datasets that represented the viewpoint he wanted -mod]

      • I forgot to add, I am an absolute believer in free speech, I hate to see it suppressed, it diminishes us all. I find the following very moving. I would only hope to aspire too it.

      • “he chose only the datasets that represented the viewpoint he wanted -mod”

        My now removed comment said:

        “The Mean Global Temperature has been stable since 1997”
        Falls at the start. The trend of Mean Global Surface Temperature Anomaly since Jan 1997 was:
        HADCRUT 4: 0.725 °C/century
        GISS : 0.915 °C/Century
        NOAA: 0.678 °C/Century

        I listed, as said, all the major surface data sets. It was the guest author, saying baldly
        “The Mean Global Temperature has been stable since 1997”
        who was highly selective with datasets, not even mentioning that he was referring to the lower troposphere rather than surface. I just pointed out there was other data.

    • Mike and John,

      I don’t think the article is “Sky Dragon stuff”. Just about every separate point has been thoroughly discussed here for many years. There may be a few disagreements from some readers among the 22 points discussed, but almost everything in this article has withstood scrutiny. Over all, it effectively refutes the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ conjecture that underlies all climate alarmism.

      Mike B says “there is no point in picking it apart”, and that it’s “pseudo-science”. Please ‘pick apart’ anything you consider to be “pseudo-science”. It’s always best to cut and paste the words you’re responding to. For example, trace gases retain warmth in a particular layer of the atmosphere, but the authors are correct in saying that trace gases are not “heating” the surface.

      This is a good, comprehensive article that refutes the basic claims of the IPCC and most government-employed scientists, all in one place. It shoud start a good discussion in order to see whatever points withstand scrutiny. Only those points that remain standing after all the smoke clears should be accepted as the current state of climate knowledge. That is how the scientific method works.

      But based on past experience, responses if any will consist of pot-shots from the peanut gallery, and/or a wholesale dismissal as ‘denialist nonsense’. Science and the public would benefit from a thorough discussion of each point made by the authors. But since an honest and comprehensive debate would most likely result in a public rejection of the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ conjecture, then as usual there won’t be any real debate.

      This is an excellent article, IMHO. I personally don’t disagree with much if any of it. Many skeptics of ‘dangerous MMGW’ have discussed each point in detail for many years here. It’s good to see it all put together like this in annotated bullet points.

      • dbstealey – here I’m very much in agreement with you : Science and the public would benefit from a thorough discussion of each point made by the authors. But I groan at some of the points, since I am convinced that they are badly wrong. The thermodynamic law infringement, the source of increased CO2, the CO2 molecule lifetime argument, and the ‘saturation’ argument, for example. But some points being wrong does not automatically invalidate all the other points. They are largely independent and each should be treated on its own merits. There is enough valid argument in the article to demolish CAGW many times over.

      • The catastrophic anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (CAGW) hypothesis has four components.
        1.
        The observed recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2.
        2.
        The observed recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration will cause the global temperature to rise.
        3.
        Feedbacks in the climate system are net positive and will increase the rise in temperature to levels whereby the elevated temperature will have costly effects.
        4.
        The costs of adapting to the effects of the rising temperatures would be more than each of the costs of (a) eliminating the anthropogenic CO2 emissions and (b) the effects of the rising temperatures.

        If any one of the four components is refuted then the entire CAGW hypothesis is refuted.

        There are reasons to dispute each of the four components. Importantly, the so-called ‘pause’ refutes that either or both of the components listed as 2 and 3 can be correct.

        1) is almost certainly true. The arithmetic works out. The assertion that it is not true above is almost certainly false.

        2) is almost certainly true, and in no way does the pause refute it. As I repeatedly point out this is a hard problem. We do not know, nor do we have any theory capable of even estimating, the range of natural variation of the climate on multidecadal timescales. We cannot hindcast or even retroactively understand the global temperature record over the last 1000, 10000, 100000, or 1000000 years, and the best we can say is that CO_2 almost certainly contributed some unknown amount of the warming of the last 100 years, but the range on the “unknown amount” is uncertain by almost the amount itself. It is a difficult multivariable problem. Just as it is a mistake for warmists to assert that all warming we observe is due to CO_2 with irrelevant fluctuations around it, it is a mistake for skeptics to assert that just because there is a pause, that increasing CO_2 is not slowly increasing net solar forcing. The simple fact of the matter is that geologically, the climate is capable of average temperature variation at least the same order as not only that expected from the observed forcing but much greater than the (so far) observed forcing, on similar timescales. One of the biggest and most unsupportable assertions of the SPM of the various ARs is the bit where they — invariably — claim that over half of the observed warming is due to the increase in CO_2 “with high confidence”.

        Piffle. In order to have any confidence at all, one requires a predictive theory with statistical skill sufficient to make the assignment of confidence meaningful in an objective and defensible way. There is no such predictive theory, and such “theory” as there is in the form of models too coarse grained to have a prayer of working has the opposite of predictive skill. But it is piffle both ways! Of course CO_2 driven forcing could be increasing and yet we could have a 20+ year “pause”. It could be that natural variation takes a century to overcome, or that nature is trying hard to make the planet plunge into a glacial episode but is being blocked by CO_2! Since we cannot predict what the global average temperature would be without CO_2, we cannot tell what fraction of the current global average temperature is due to CO_2, especially not with the shotgun blast of results produced by each model in CMIP5 independently.

        3) If one takes the straight-up CO_2-only expected warming and applies it to e.g. HadCRUT4 taken at face value as being an accurate representation of the average surface temperature — that is, if one completely ignores all other possible contributions to the physical variation of temperature — one gets agreement within the mutual error bars in the data and the predicted climate sensitivity. Therefore we have zero evidence for forcing feedback either way. It could be positive but not yet be resolved. It could be negative. It could be overwhelmed by dynamics in neglected degrees of freedom either way. The proper answer to 3) is “we don’t know what the feedback is, but the evidence at face value suggests it is very small either way”, but it is absurdly early days still as far as reliable data accrual is concerned.

        4) is still a conditional problem. IF temperatures rise by 5 C, as claimed by Hansen on days when he thinks nobody capable of judging the scientific merit of the claim is looking, then it might well be more expensive to do nothing than to try to mitigate. IF temperatures rise by < 2 C, as appears centrally likely based on current re-estimates of climate sensitivity using improved analysis of aerosols and taking into account the pause and the general lack of tropospheric warming, then it is more likely to be more expensive to mitigate. However, either way it is probably wisest to do nothing expensive yet to fix the problem, because we simply don’t have the technology yet to fix it without pissing away vast sums of money at a huge cost now in human misery. We should be investing in the science and technology needed to fix or live with 2 C of warming, and spending a lot, lot less on study after study of the conditional effects of absurdly unlikely 5 C warming.

        In the meantime, to date the additional CO_2 has been overwhelmingly beneficial, and is directly responsible for feeding roughly 1 billion people today that would otherwise be starving or else living in a radically different world. It has been produced creating more wealth and health and general prosperity than the world has ever seen. We might have chosen to deliberately raise the CO_2 to 400+ ppm if we knew 100 years ago what we know today. So regardless of the long term problem, the short term benefits of continuing to burn coal for energy are literally incalculable, and the amortized benefits over the next century, plus interest, are a tough bundle to beat.

        rgb

    • dbStealey
      Yes, it would indeed be very nice to have a sensible debate. But to do so constructively requires some knowledge of accepted scientific facts on both sides, otherwise the conversation descends into a slanging match which amounts to no more than gainsaying what the other person said (to borrow from Monty Python) and, if you can’t see that (some of) this is absolute tosh, then that’s likely to happen.

      It reminds me of a posting on the Bishop Hill site called “Niceness at Home and Abroad”

      Shub Niggurath is bemoaning the lack of venues in which there can be conversations across the lines of the climate debate.
      Good discussions used to take place, on occasion, at WUWT or BH. There were brief periods when the old Collide-a-scape blog and Bart Verheggen’s site provided such moments. They are hard to come by now. Maybe the consensus and conspiracy poison spread mindlessly and artlessly throughout the blogs by certain people is to blame.
      He’s right of course. I have struggled long and hard to make BH the venue where that can happen, but it seems that a visit from, say Richard or Tamsin is guaranteed to get some people riled, with the result that moderation becomes a full-time occupation. I can’t afford to spend that amount of time on it.

      http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/12/2/niceness-at-home-and-abroad.html

      Now, with respect, I don’t know what you know or what you accept. We could start with ‘Do you accept that the Greenhouse effect is real?’ and ,if the answer is no, then we would need to go right back to basics (conduction through a Planar Wall, perhaps) and neither of us has time for that.

      • MikeB,

        The “basics” can be reduced to the following question:

        Is dangerous man-made global warming happening?

        Everything else is incidental. The answer to that question can be Yes or No.

        If Yes, then action is required, within the constraints of cost/benefit analysis.

        If the answer is No, then no more public monies should be wasted on a non-problem.

      • “Is dangerous man-made global warming happening?”
        I don’t think so, but that wasn’t the question.
        You avoided answering the question. This is what happens, talking past each other. That is not a debate, it is arguing.
        By the way, basics are not ‘reduced’ to anything; basics are the starting point.

      • dbstealey

        I write to support and to expand on your point viz.

        The “basics” can be reduced to the following question:

        Is dangerous man-made global warming happening?

        Everything else is incidental. The answer to that question can be Yes or No.

        If Yes, then action is required, within the constraints of cost/benefit analysis.

        If the answer is No, then no more public monies should be wasted on a non-problem.

        The catastrophic anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (CAGW) hypothesis has four components.
        1.
        The observed recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2.
        2.
        The observed recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration will cause the global temperature to rise.
        3.
        Feedbacks in the climate system are net positive and will increase the rise in temperature to levels whereby the elevated temperature will have costly effects.
        4.
        The costs of adapting to the effects of the rising temperatures would be more than each of the costs of (a) eliminating the anthropogenic CO2 emissions and (b) the effects of the rising temperatures.

        If any one of the four components is refuted then the entire CAGW hypothesis is refuted.

        There are reasons to dispute each of the four components. Importantly, the so-called ‘pause’ refutes that either or both of the components listed as 2 and 3 can be correct.

        Richard

      • dbstealey: Any answer of yes or no, unless backed up by science, is nothing more than a naked assertion.
        Without the science to back up your answer, your answer is just another piece of noise added to an already to raucous debate.

      • Richard, you comment about refuting one of the 4 points is valid. But how do you do that?
        The only way to do it is by talking about the science.
        Therefore science can never be an incidental.

      • MarkW

        You say to me

        Richard, you comment about refuting one of the 4 points is valid. But how do you do that?
        The only way to do it is by talking about the science.
        Therefore science can never be an incidental.

        I did not say, I did not suggest, and I did not imply that “the science” could be “incidental.

        On the contrary, I explained that the “4 points” are the components of the CAGW hypothesis; they ARE “the science”.

        And I said

        If any one of the four components is refuted then the entire CAGW hypothesis is refuted.

        There are reasons to dispute each of the four components. Importantly, the so-called ‘pause’ refutes that either or both of the components listed as 2 and 3 can be correct.

        The reason for this is that climate sensitivity derives from “the components listed as 2 and 3”. And ‘the pause’ demonstrates that climate sensitivity is less than 1.5°C for a doubling of CO2.

        Please note that this ‘boils down’ to being a ‘No’ answer to dbstealey’s question; i.e.

        Is dangerous man-made global warming happening?

        Richard

      • richardscourtney: Your “Four Components” summary of the main factors in the climate debate is excellent — very useful, clear and to the point. It should be sent to all media clowns, political clowns, NOAA clowns, etc.

      • Mark W and Mike B,

        I think you’re losing sight of the fact that everything being discussed here has its basis in the “dangerous man-made global warming” (MMGW) conjecture.

        That conjecture belongs to the climate alarmist crowd. They own that conjecture.

        The job of skeptics is to tear down scientific conjectures. All conjectures. In the case of MMGW, skeptics have totally annihilated that conjecture. Destroyed it completely. There may be details, but they are not central to the ‘dangerous MMGW’ conjecture. Measurable MMGW is simply not happening. And CO2 is simply not doing as predicted. In fact, it is a net benefit. More is better, and it is a completely harmless trace gas.

        You forget that in science, DATA IS EVERYTHING. Measurements are data. But you have no measurements quantifying MMGW! You say it’s there? Show us.

        You keep forgetting that skeptics have nothing to prove. We did not promote a MMGW scare, which has now been thoroughly debunked. Honest scientists will simply admit that their conjecture was wrong, and try to figure out why. Skeptics will certainly try to help, because skeptics and honest scientists want knowledge more than being right about something. But all the alarmist crowd does is argue incessantly.

        The whole thing has turned into a political/religious narrative. if it were just science being debated, the discussion would be over long ago. So the ball is in your court. You can’t even produce a measurement quantifying something you want everyone to believe is there, causing a climate catastrophe! That amounts to saying, “Take our word for it that dangerous MMGW exists. Trust us!”

        Why should we?

      • MikeB,

        Sorry. To answer your ”greenhouse’ question, I’ve written many, many times over the years that I think a rise in CO2 will cause a rise in global temperature. I’ve never said anything else.

        MarkW wrote:

        Any answer of yes or no, unless backed up by science, is nothing more than a naked assertion. Without the science to back up your answer, your answer is just another piece of noise added to an already to raucous debate.

        That’s just a deflection. I think you know very well what I was asking. Let me put it this way: do you believe there is dangerous man-made global warming happening right now, that we have to alter Western industrial civilization to correct, by reducing CO2 emissions below 350 ppm? Or can we sit back for a few years, and watch the situation without spending gobs of money on what apparently isn’t a problem?

        Pick one. If you can. Or argue about the question. Then we’ll know your answer anyway.

      • Well, to toss in two cents from a new voice, I want to say I am baffled by these disagreements concerning backradiation, downwelling, whether these exist, if there is or is not a greenhouse effect, etc.

        To me it is a point of consternation to witness people who are all in the skeptic camp going back and forth on these questions, sometimes very heatedly.
        At times I have to say that both seem to be very sure of what they are asserting, and both seem to be very knowledgeable.
        I sure would like to have some experiment devised to test what the reality is, one way or the other.
        I also think that DB’s point about it being somewhat beside the point has much validity, and that what really matters is the measured data.
        Because, it seems apparent that questions of this sort are not going to be resolved by rhetorical means. That much must be obvious by now to everyone. There is some underlying and very basic disagreement regarding a seemingly fundamental aspect of physics, and knowledgeable people on either side of the question believe they know they are correct.
        So the question can only be truly settled by observations and/or experimentation.

        Or does anyone think we are one good yelling match away from getting it ironed out?

      • BTW, I wonder if part of the resolution to this matter may be related to quantum effects, spooky action at a distance (recent experiments regarding quantum entanglement appear to prove Einstein was wrong on this question), or related to properties of photons which give rise to some very peculiar optical effects, in which it seems that the photons somehow know where they are going before they get there?
        Photons travel at the speed of light, and thus arrive at their destination at the same moment that they leave their source. They do not have to travel back in time to know where they will end up before they get there…to the photon, both events happen at the same time.

      • MarkW and dbstealey, I would like to take up your conversation as I think it has merit.
        Do you accept that the Greenhouse effect is real? Yes.
        Is dangerous man-made global warming happening? No.
        The answers to those two questions are so obvious that it seems unnecessary to provide supporting arguments, but I will do so if requested.
        Now, what’s the next question?

      • Richard, stop being so sensitive.
        I did not say that you had claimed science was incidental, that was from dbstealy’s comment that you were replying to.

      • Richard,
        dbstealey commented that all that mattered was the question, is global warming happening? Everything else is incidental.
        You replied that you need science to answer the question of whether global warming is happening.
        I responded agreeing with you and concluded that science is never “incidental”.

      • db,
        What I believe is meaningless. What I can prove is all that matters. And that takes science.

      • MarkW

        Please stick to the issues. Any “sensitivity” is either yours or is in your imagination.

        I replied to your saying to me in total

        Richard, you comment about refuting one of the 4 points is valid. But how do you do that?
        The only way to do it is by talking about the science.
        Therefore science can never be an incidental.

        I was not being “sensitive”. You implied I had claimed something I did not; i.e science could be “incidental”. I said your implication is wrong, then explained what I did say and both how and why it is supportive of the point made by dbstealey.

        Richard

      • icouldnthelpit,

        The two statements are not mutually exclusive. I’d explain, but I really don’t think you would understand. So take an aspirin, lie down, and try to think happy thoughts. These discussions are too complicated for a delicate flower like you.

        For other readers, there is a relationship between T/CO2. Each affects the other, as in numerous other examples in the real world (eg: a battery can be both charged and discharged). But there is no measurable evidence found in the temperature record showing that ∆CO2 is the cause of ∆T — while there is extensive empirical evidence showing that ∆T causes ∆CO2.

        Thus, the effect of CO2 on temperature is too small to make it the “control knob” of the climate. The minuscule effect of CO2 on T at current concentrations is explained by this chart, which clearly shows why we cannot even measure the change in T from CO2:

        And this chart shows that temperature changes cause changes in CO2.

        So each affects the other. But the effect of temperature on CO2 is huge, while the effect of CO2 on temperature (at current CO2 concentrations) is too minuscule to even measure.

        I recall that comment from 2006 that ‘icouldnthelpit’ searched for and found. The consistency is 100%; I would write the same comment today. Events over the 9 years since then have shown it to be accurate. Nothing whatever has changed during those nine years. There has been no global warming, despite the steady rise in CO2. And the alarmist clique is as wrong today as they were back then.

        Anyway, it’s nice to know that ‘icouldnthelpit’ is so fixated on my comments. He is either feverishly combing every past comment he can find, even one 9 years old, or he is saving them in a little ‘dbstealey’ folder. Sort of like a prepubescent girl collects movie star autographs. Everyone likes to have their own personal entourage. Now it turns out that I have one, too! Life is good.

        I would advise ‘icouldnthelpit’ to get a job, a girlfriend, and a life. But I can think of likely reasons why he isn’t interested in any of those things.

        Keep at it, boy. We both enjoy your fixation.

        +++++++++++++++++++++

        Next, Mike Jonas asks about these questions:

        Do you accept that the Greenhouse effect is real? Yes.
        Is dangerous man-made global warming happening? No.

        My response is in the comment to my entourage above. Yes, according to the theory of radiative physics, CO2 has an effect on temperature. But at current concentrations (≈400 ppm), that effect is too tiny to measure, thus it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes. There isn’t any verifiable empirical evidence showing the effect. But I think it exists, and that it adds a fraction of a degree of warming — it’s just too small to measure.

        But there are plenty of verifiable real world measurements showing the effect of temperature on CO2. Those measurements are on time scales from months, to hundreds of millennia. So ∆T has a large effect on CO2 levels. When someone says, “Look, global temperatures are going up because CO2 is rising!”, they are getting cause and effect confused. It is mostly the rise in T causing the rise in CO2, not vice versa. But each affects the other at all times.

        ========================

        Finally, ‘menicholas’ says that a photon leaves an atom and is reabsorbed by another atom in the same instant (from the photon’s perspective). That has always seemed to be the case as I see it. Even after traveling over tens of billions of light years, to a photon the trip is instantaneous. That doesn’t have a lot to do with the article. But it’s interesting. The only quibble regards mass. If a photon has any mass at all then it can’t travel at light speed. But photons are said to be massless particles, even though they possess energy. Anyone know how that works?

        This was a very good article, in that it generated a lot of discussion, and it taught the author how real peer review works — and basically it once again falsified the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ conjecture. With some re-writing to address the legitimate points raised by various commenters, the author has a winner, IMHO. Most of his points were accurate, and needed to be said.

      • icouldnthelpit says:

        Your refusal to explain yourself doesn’t surprise me.

        Your inability to understand my detailed explanations amuses me. Oh how I laughed when you tried to say I was a Dragon Slayer. But I don’t want to lose my entourage of one, so I’ll keep my snickering at you to a minimum.

        You ask:

        The thing that bothers me about people who think that CO2 has never influenced Temperature is how do they then explain how we exited snowball Earth conditions?

        Don’t let it bother you that you can’t understand. Some folks are simply not capable of following detailed explanations. The rest of us know that rises in CO2 are not the reason the planet emerges from the great stadials. We may be uncertain of the exact reasons. But we are sure that rising CO2 is not the cause. That nonsense is thoroughly refuted in the geologic record: your ‘snowball earth’ claim that CO2 causes ice ages to end is flatly contradicted by a mountain of evidence.

        As a member of the MMGW religious cult you will believe any factoid that confirms your bias, and no contrary evidence can penetrate your catechism. But I don’t mind. Since you’re my entourage of one and I can’t spare you, you get a free pass on your religious climate beliefs.

        Now please just go back to what you do best: bird-dogging my comments like a good member of my entourage, and leave the thinking to the adults here. If you think too much, your head might explode. Then where would I get my amusement? I would have to find a new jester. This site has lots of very intelligent commenters, so that might be a little difficult.

      • (Another very long, but ultimately wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

      • Icouldntunderstandit

        Funny how the earth enters the snow ball cllimate without a decrease in co2 levels?

      • DB,
        I doubt I could tell you anything you do not know re physics (Found out in college I was not one for basement labs or rooms full of blackboards, which ended my long-time plan to be a nuclear physicist :-) ), but just in case, and for anyone else:
        According to the Standard Model, photons are gauge bosons, which means that they are force carriers. They mediate the electromagnetic force between charged particles.
        Beyond that, best to just read up on quantum electrodynamics. (As opposed to quantum chromodynamics, which describes the interactions of particles such as quarks which interact via the Strong Force)

        I do not believe, though, that you will find a particularly satisfying answer to the question of how photons carry energy but have no mass. But they have no mass.
        Gauge invariance is supposed to be the reason,

        But the point I was making is a subtle one, and my quantum brain spends about half the time somewhere else. Sooner or later I will figure out a way to describe what I am thinking bout but do not know how to put in words. I was hoping if I threw the ball out there, someone would pick it up and run with it.

    • [[he chose only the datasets that represented the viewpoint he wanted -mod]
      Hey , doesn’t everone?

  17. While I agree with much of the blog, there are some problems with part of it. I will only address one point, but it is a major one. The authors make a statement that shows that they do not understand the basis of the atmospheric effect called the atmospheric greenhouse effect, which is a real effect. They claim that the atmospheric absorbing gases that radiate cannot heat the surface since they are cooler than the surface, due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I have written extensively on that point and agree they cannot transfer heat (which is the NET energy transfer) to the surface. However the atmosphere does transfer energy to the surface. However, this results in a net decrease in radiation from the surface, which causes the average altitude of radiation to space to increase, and at higher altitude, the air would be colder due to the lapse rate. If the atmosphere did not change, the outgoing radiation would be less than incoming. This unbalance results in the entire atmosphere warming until the outgoing again matches incoming solar radiation, and this results in the surface temperature increasing. This is effectively an insulation like effect, but more complex.

    • Rubbish! Occams Razor for you:

      “The main features of the atmosphere both on Earth and on Venus are easily deduced from the basic polytropic equations of the ideal gases.”

      • wickedwenchfan, the basic polytropic equations of the ideal gas result in a temperature GRADIENT, not level of temperature. Somewhere along the gradient (the surface if all outgoing energy directly radiated to space, or the AVERAGE altitude of outgoing to incoming energy balance for a real atmosphere), an absolute temperature has to be determined to give the rest of the slope actual temperatures. The defined average altitude is not a real location, due to the mix of energy transport within the real atmosphere, but if all contributions at all altitudes are known on average, an effective average altitude can be determined by integrating the pieces, and this can be used to calculate the temperature needed from that altitude to balance incoming and outgoing energy. This specific value of temperature and the lapse rate and altitude give the effective surface average temperature. This approximation is artificial, but does a good approximation of a very complex process.

      • So you say. And yet as one decends into any atmosphere of any planetary body after the atmospheric density surpasss a given point temperature rises with pressure. One can use basic arithmetic to calculate with great accuracy the function of incoming energy combined with atmospheric pressure to determine temperature. It is common practice to use such arithmetic to calculate the temperatures of the Gas giants Jupiter and Saturn, for example at various depths. In this link of a bog standard astronomy website they give Jupiter’s temperature at 20 times Earths atmospheric pressure as 20C, for example:

        http://www.universetoday.com/15097/temperature-of-jupiter/

        Yet for some reason people persist in saying the surface temperature of Venus, which is closer to the sun and has an atmospheric pressure 96times that of Earth at sea level, is the result of “a runaway Greenhouse Effect”. Poppycock and balderdash sir! Simplify your thinking and aquire some common sense!

      • The main problem with the whole proposition of a ‘raised ERL’ mechanism of surface warming is that no planet holding an atmosphere actually emits its heat to space from some particular level or some specified temperature surface. It radiates from the full extent of a dynamic 3D volume, not from some hypothetical, static (rigid) blackbody 2D surface. Hence, there is no radiating level to raise. The whole idea originated and only works on a blackboard.

        Earth’s total/final radiant heat flux to space isn’t tied to any one physical temperature at all. It is ONLY tied to the absorbed flux from the Sun. This happens to be 240 W/m^2. Consequently, the outgoing flux needs to be 240 W/m^2 also. And it is. The 255K is simply arrived at by calculating backwards from these measured/estimated fluxes. It is purely a mathematical construct, not a real radiating temperature.

    • I agree that point 16 (2nd law of thermodynamics) is a poor one. And it should be a matter 9 common knowledge. A blanket doesn’t need to be warmer then you to keep you warm, It just can’t warm something itself. It’s a change in heat transfer.

    • Actually they go into “the average altitude of radiation to space to increase, and at higher altitude, the air would be colder due to the lapse rate. If the atmosphere did not change, the outgoing radiation would be less than incoming…” in fair detail in their response, demonstrating that the do understand, weather you agree with their summary is a different matter, but they specifically address this, and their statement regarding the second law does not appear to differ from yours.

      What I am trying to better understand is their contentions regarding the net flow between the atmospheric and the surface. They stipulate that in an isotropic non GHG world, the net would be zero, as the mean conduction flux would equalize, but in our earth it is still nearly zero.

      Are they stating that much of the atmospheric heat is due to absorption of insolation from the sun and conducted energy from the surface, vs absorption of LWIR from the surface ? In other words, are they stating that atmospheric absorption of solar insolation, plus conduction from the surface makes the net flow between the surface and atmosphere nearly zero.

      • “in an isotropic non GHG world, the net would be zero, as the mean conduction flux would equalize, but in our earth it is still nearly zero”
        if the atmosphere were isothermal at the same temperature as the surface then exactly the downwelling radiation absorbed by the surface would be equal to the radiation of th surface absorbed by the air (or rather by its trace gases) and both numbers would be (1-2E3(t(nu))) pi B(nu, T) where t(nu) is the optical thickness, B the Planck function, nu the optical frequency and T the temperature; as the flow from the air absorbed by the surface is equal to the flow from the surface absorbed by the air, the radiative heat transfer is zero between surface and air.
        In the real world, the water vapour transparency window (8µm to 12 µm) may bring some reduction in the radiation of the air absorbed by the surface with respect to the radiation of the surface absorbed by the air; nevertheless F. Miskolczi a from hundreds of profiles (Tiros Initial Guess Retrieval) shown with line by line calculation that it is still true that the radiation of the air absorbed by the surface equals (more or less) the radiation of the surface absorbed by the air; and clouds “close the window” for a quite significant part or the time.

        It is not “conduction” but exchange of radiation; if you keep your hands parallel at a distance of some cm the right hand does not (radiatively) “warm” the left hand or vice versa albeit at 33°C skin temperature they exchange some hundreds of W/m² (about 500 W/m²)
        The solar radiation reaching the surface (for 71% of the surface, the oceans) is lost by evaporation (or evapotranspiration of the vegetation), plus some convection (20 W/²) and some radiation reaching the cosmos directly through the window 8µm to 12 µm (about 20 W/m² “global” average ); only the radiative heat flow surface to air (absorbed by the air) is negligible (plus or minus) ; the non radiative (latent heat , sensible heat ) are transferred for surface to air and compensate for a part of the heat lost to the cosmos by the upper layer of the water vapour displayed on figure 6-C
        .

    • “Greenhouse Effect” is an unfortunate term, since greenhouse interiors typically have no wind and not all of them use CO2 as a growth assist.

    • Leonard Weinstein, I am completely satisfied that your argument re the 2nd law of thermodynamics is correct, and that the article is badly wrong on this point. Also that some other points are wrong at least to some extent. Unfortunately that made it too easy for “I stopped reading at that point” commenters. All points are debatable, and I think it would be very helpful to have a series of debates here, point by point.

    • Can’t some Brainiac 5 devise some actual experiment to measure what we need to know to settle this, and do it in an empirical way, using the real earth and the real atmosphere?
      We have the satellite profile of the CO2 distribution, so we can find points on the earth with different CO2 levels, and various amounts of WV at each level of CO2.
      And then we can bounce a tunable photonic microwave laser (“maser”? cue the Dr. Evil air quotes) off of that reflector dealio we have up there on the moon, and measure the return signal. Do this for various wavelengths in the relevant parts of the EM spectrum, get some actual numbers, and move the conversation along. Huh?
      Or something. Come on all yuz brainiacs, devise an experiment instead of spending your lives arguing, ad nauseum.
      Tired, sleepy time now.
      Peace.

  18. This has only ever been about taxing a lifestyle and making a few people very rich (like Al Gore)

  19. Thank you….this could take some time to take in.
    I’m off to a darkened room with a coffee machine!

  20. But, Brother Jean-Pierre. You may be very good at what you’re trained at, and what you do for a living – Engineer ENSEM Nancy (National School of Electricity and Mechanics). But why should I believe that you are an expert in Climate Science, while those who are trained and do it for a living are all wrong?

    Don’t get me wrong. I’d let you wire a plug for me – but when your supporting references read like a who’s who of you know what, well…,

    • The document has been elaborated by myself, an other engineer (Polytechnique) , and a physicist.

      Now, the best way is to read the document carefully, without any ideology. The facts, only the facts are important, not the cursus of the authors.

    • That is all you got? This is all the warmist got??? Pathetic. Their argument ends at point #1.

      • mark,

        Their argument ends at point #1.

        No, that’s where the strawman construction, supported by narrowly selected data, begins.

      • “The source is all important”

        Believing this to be true means you are immune to actual truth, logic, or reason.

      • idiot says: “The source is all important”

        Thanks idiot, you have provided valuable insight into the mind of the CAGW zealot.

    • Idiot,

      Why is Michael Mann an expert in climate science, or trees for that matter? Did he have a degree in dendrology? No. How about botany? No. Does he know anything about trees? No. Does he have a degree in atmospheric physics? No. What about James Hansen? He has degrees in physics, astronomy, and mathematics. What makes him an expert in climate science? What about Gavin Schmidt, head of NASA GISS? He has a B.A. and PhD in mathematics. So he’s a climate expert?

  21. This is a Tour de Force.

    Everyone should read this carefully and slowly. Real scientific facts that are not available in a climate science textbook.

  22. “The main features of the atmosphere both on Earth and on Venus are easily deduced from the basic polytropic equations of the ideal gases.”
    THANK YOU!!! Please, “Luke Warmers” who run this site take notice!

    • +10. The only thing more mind numbing than the 33oC charade is the absurd mathematical gyrations and flawed DWLIR experiments used to try and justify it. Every person that has ever flown in a jet plane knows that air pressure and air temperature decreases with altitude, yet they can’t grasp the elegant simplicity of this observational model in explaining the temperature profile from the tropopause to the near surface.

      http://www.atoptics.co.uk/highsky/htrop.htm

      If AGW climastrology is a religion with CO2 as its god, “luke warmers” are the deists who believe in it, but see its involvement as minimal.

  23. If only we could see this published where people (other than the converted) could find and read it. Something must be done wrt MSM refusal to publish alternative research and opposing views. Why must they continue to use Orwell’s “1984” novel as an operating manual?! GK

  24. I thought satellite data was the most accurate there is?

    You thought correctly. Now apply the satellite data to global T. You will see that there has been no global warming since at least 2002, and probably not since 1997.

    What does that tell you about the IPCC’s CO2=AGW conjecture?

    • As usual, you once again avoided answering my question. The satellite data that you admit is the most accurate shows no global warming for many years. My question to you was:

      What does that tell you about the IPCC’s CO2=AGW conjecture?

    • Multiple satellite data shows there is no acceleration in sea evel rise:

      Thus, real world data proves that Jean-Pierre Bardinet is right, and your source is wrong.

      Now, quit deflecting and answer the question:

      What does that tell you about the IPCC’s CO2=AGW conjecture?

    • Ah. So the same small fluctuations that happened in 1993, 1997, and 2012 are used to argue that sea level is “accelerating”. FAIL.

      That claim is just a combination of rent-seeking and desperation.

      Now, quit your endless deflecting, and answer the question I’ve repeatedly asked.

      You aren’t answering because if you answer honestly, you will be forced to admit that the alarmist CO2=CAGW scare has been debunked. So you keep deflecting.

    • The satellite sea level trends are at least 2 times too high.

      The number of processing algorithms required to turn the satellite data into sea level change is so large that it requires many assumptions to achieve a result. The assumptions chosen reflect what they want it to show, which is a high sea level rise number.

      The tide gauges combined with co-located GPS receivers are more accurate (real data) and produces a value around 1.3 to 1.8 mms/year of sea level rise over about 150 sites across the world.

    • Well, one could point out that the sea level rise before 1990 was a lot slower. See for

      examplehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1870-2008_(US_EPA).png

    • Bill Illis,

      Thanks for that comment. It reminded me of the late, great John Daly, whose 1841 sea level mark carved into Tasmanian rock is still visible. There certainly has not been much sea level rise in a century and a half, so any “adjusted” sea level charts must be taken with a big lump of salt.

      Real world data flatly contradicts the climate alarmists’ narrative. So each individual must decide for himself whether to believe those whose livelihood, status, and in some cases fame, depends on promoting the man-made global warming scare — or or whether to believe what Planet Earth is telling us.

      They cannot both be right.

    • Prof. Bunny gets through, but Nick Stokes’ comments vanish without a trace? WTF WUWT?

    • Bill Illis,

      The number of processing algorithms required to turn the satellite data into sea level change is so large that it requires many assumptions to achieve a result.

      Except when satellites are inferring temperature from microwave sounding units, in which case the fixed locations on the surface taking direct measurements with thermometers have had their real data manipulated to achieve a desired result. Never mind that SST measurements, and by extension land/ocean anomaly timeseries, show net cooling adjustments. That’s different.

    • Brandon Gates, sea level is 21,700,000.00 mms higher at the equator than at the poles.

      And then, do you really think the satellites at a height of 1,330,000,000.00 mms (and vary in orbit by 10,000.00 mms at any one time) can really measure sea level change to the _________3.16 mms per year. Its baloney and wasted money.

    • The example of Brest, France is an apt one since it has the designation of #1 on the PMSL international tide gauge tracking system. It is determined to have the longest reliable record of any station.

      Sea level rise at Brest +1.06 mms/year since 1807.

      http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/1.php

      Co-located GPS station (operating for 18 years now and, hence, provides a very reliable solution, only about 5 years is required) indicates that the Brest station is subsiding by -1.14 mms/year.

      http://www.sonel.org/spip.php?page=gps&idStation=642

      ie. Zero actual sea level rise.

    • “And then, do you really think the satellites at a height of 1,330,000,000.00 mms (and vary in orbit by 10,000.00 mms at any one time) can really measure sea level change to the _________3.16 mms per year.”

      And they are not measuring a smooth lake on a windless morning. The ocean almost never smooth and flat and wave-less.
      There are ripples on the waves, and multiple motions occurring simultaneously. Getting an average ocean height may be as straightforward as getting an average temperature of the atmosphere.

    • Bill Illis,

      … sea level is 21,700,000.00 mms higher at the equator than at the poles.

      Measured … how?

      And then, do you really think the satellites at a height of 1,330,000,000.00 mms (and vary in orbit by 10,000.00 mms at any one time) can really measure sea level change to the _________3.16 mms per year. Its baloney and wasted money.

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378383913000082

      The average trends of the 456 and 90 gauge sets (3.26 and 2.68 mm/year, respectively) agree reasonably well with the global trend average of the satellite data (3.09 mm/year). Average trends for the 456 tide gauges are also in good agreement (within 95% confidence limits) with trends based on satellite data within the 1° satellite proximity criterion (3.26 and 3.31 mm/year, respectively).

      I think that when the remote sensing method broadly agrees with the in situ instruments that it lends some confidence to both methods, especially since mean sea level is responsive to more than just the amount of water in the oceans at any given time. Church et al. (2008) goes into those dependencies, and does a satellite to tide gauge comparison as well: http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/hastindw/MS1410-001_FA08/handouts/2008SLRSustain.pdf

      The example of Brest, France is an apt one since it has the designation of #1 on the PMSL international tide gauge tracking system. It is determined to have the longest reliable record of any station.

      By both tide gauges and satellite, we know that SLR is not uniform in all locations. I think that arbitrarily cherry-picking the “most reliable” dataset is the hallmark of someone who doesn’t want to believe what 455 other tide gauges + satellites with a greater coverage density are telling him.

    • Menicholas,

      And they are not measuring a smooth lake on a windless morning.

      Gee, what ever would the world do without you to point out the glaringly obvious?

      The ocean almost never smooth and flat and wave-less.

      Funny thing about waves — the peaks are offset by troughs. Do you understand the concept of a normal distribution in statistics?

      Now, given a long enough fetch, the wind itself does tend to cause water to “pile up” on a lee shore … and there’s no longer fetch in the world than the tropical Pacific. Thing is, we keep track of what the trades are doing in addition to various sea state parameters. Figuring out how those things all come together is not a trivial undertaking, but it’s not at all mysterious or insurmountable to someone with the relevant knowledge and skill set to do it. You know, the sort of folks who really don’t need to be told that oceans are windy with lots of waves.

    • “You know, the sort of folks who really don’t need to be told that oceans are windy with lots of waves.”

      OK, I am convinced. They are very smart, and it is very easy to do.
      So, instead of being incorrect, they must be intentionally lying.

      Being the simple minded sort, I do not understand a lot of things.

      Like, for example, how a person could be so naively credulous, and buy into so many obvious lies, hook line and sinker.
      I will never be smart enough to understand that.

    • Menicholas,

      OK, I am convinced. They are very smart, and it is very easy to do.

      Let’s read again what I actually wrote: Figuring out how those things all come together is not a trivial undertaking, but it’s not at all mysterious or insurmountable to someone with the relevant knowledge and skill set to do it.

      Nothing about “very easy to do” in there. Nothing at all.

      So, instead of being incorrect, they must be intentionally lying.

      After having twisted my words around to mean something they don’t, you’ll pardon me if I don’t exactly consider you the paragon of truth-telling.

      More to the salient point, I don’t consider it lying to provide estimates based on uncertain observation so long as those uncertainties are communicated. Literature is full of papers openly discussing the problems inherent in obtaining reasonably reliable estimates of sea level changes.

      Being the simple minded sort, I do not understand a lot of things.

      Like, for example, how a person could be so naively credulous, and buy into so many obvious lies, hook line and sinker. I will never be smart enough to understand that.

      After spending several paragraphs detailing how the truth cannot possibly be determined due to the difficulty of obtaining reliable measurements, you now talk about obvious lies. I think that kind of confused rhetoric is far more the sign of an easy mark.

      That I believe something you don’t is not. Nobody is smart enough to understand why a complete stranger does what they do with only their words over the Internet as evidence. A good start would be to read what I actually write instead of putting your words in my mouth.

    • Eli writes “Well, one could point out that the sea level rise before 1990 was a lot slower. ”

      You could claim that but unfortunately it blows away any “hidden heat in the ocean accounting for the lack of warming” argument.

    • I -PIT,

      you say: “Nobody is smart enough to understand why a complete stranger does what they do with only their words over the Internet as evidence.”

      and you ask: “Why does he insist on using The Brest tidal gauge to calculate sea level rise when there is satellite data available?

      WHY are asking us? based on your other stated belief we can’t understand possibly understand why he does what he does or did what he did. As such your question must be rhetorical….

      db’s question to you wasn’t rhetorical … will you respond?

  25. A veritable tour-de-force. I saved it as a web archive file .mht

    Point 15 is interesting, I had missed that.

  26. Strike #16

    The 2nd Law does not preclude a cooler radiating body from slowing the cooling of a warmer radiating body.

    • adding a “radiating body” also add more conduction and then more heat lost.
      If adding a “radiating body” slows the cooling, then dewar flask’s walls should be filled with gases instead of void.

      • It’s void to avoid losses by conduction, not to avoid losses by radiation. Filled with a greenhouse gas, the radiation losses would be lower, however you would have losses by conduction, and they would be higher than what you stopped radiating away, meaning poorer insulation.

      • Added a radiating element can of course cool its sorroundings (so that would be the atmosphere, not the surface) but it’s equipartition of energy that determines the general flow of energy between kinetic, vibration, and radiation in the gas.

      • It seems like this could be settled very quickly with an experiment. Put two orbs (or something like that) in a vacuum chamber. Heat object A up, and let it cool. Do that a bunch and measure various things. Then, heat object A up, but heat object B up as well (perhaps maintaining its temperature). See what happens to A’s temperature during this time.

        Surely this must have been done already as a demonstration of radiative heat transfer?

      • So why don’t they make a dewar with one part vacuum, surrounded by another layer containing CO2? Maybe it wouldn’t much matter in keeping coffee hot. But when cooling helium down to a millionth of a degree above absolute zero, they use every tool they can get.

        But they don’t use CO2. Why not? Unless…

      • To Mark: Gases conduct heat, just not very well, but in a dewar you want to limit the heat transfer between the inner and outer walls as much as possible so a vacuum is better. Sometimes, when you cannot maintain a vacuum, argon is used between the inner and outer walls as in double paned windows.

        To db: When you are cooling with liquid helium you have an outer dewar that is cooled with liquid nitrogen to 77K.

        There are also metal (thermal) radiation shields sitting intermediately between the inner very cold area and the outside which limit the heat flow from the outside, much as greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, limit the rate at which the surface cools. The link below shows the construction of a typical liquid low temperature cryostat

        http://www.nanoscience.de/group_r/mfm/instrumentation/

      • Eli, you are being willingly obtuse.
        The point is not about comparing (1) the heat conserving power of CO2 as a “radiating body” (the main beef of the “greenhouse theory”) to the insulating power of a metal coated surface but to (2) the heat losing power of CO2 by conduction.
        If (1) is higher than (2), then a Dewar flask wall should be filled with plenty of CO2 instead of void.
        So no, the AGW meme “adding polluting-heat-trapping-CO2-greenhouse-gas to the atmosphere can only add more heat” is not automatically true.

      • Jean, you made an assertion about how a dewar works. Eli pointed out that a dewar works by limiting heat flow from the inside to the outside by convection, conduction and radiation. Pulling a vacuum between the inner and outer walls leaves no molecules to transfer heat by convection or conduction. Radiative heat flow is limited by silvering both walls (silver is a very good reflector in the IR). If you put a gas between the two walls, ANY gas, you will have significant convective heat transfer between the walls and thus your coffee (or tea, taste varies) will cool pretty fast.

        Your statement that if a radiating body slows cooling, then dewar flask walls should be filled with gas instead of void does not take convection into account. Styrofoam is an excellent insulator. Styrofoam insulation works by immobilizing air molecules in small bubbles in the foam. Most other insulation, such as fiberglass bats works the same way. This cuts off convection.

        Radiation is an interesting case. Assume you fill the void with CO2. To have any effect, you need enough CO2 that the average distance an IR photon travels before being absorbed would have to be a very small fraction of the distance between the walls. That would require a lot of CO2, at least an atmosphere, which, in turn, would increase convection. Moreover, since gas molecules don’t absorb IR across the spectrum but only on molecular lines, cutting off the radiative heat flow would not be nearly as effective as simply silvering the walls and pulling a vacuum in the void between the walls.

        So Jean, in simple terms that is how a dewar works and why your analogy is fallacious.

      • It seems like this could be settled very quickly with an experiment. Put two orbs (or something like that) in a vacuum chamber. Heat object A up, and let it cool. Do that a bunch and measure various things. Then, heat object A up, but heat object B up as well (perhaps maintaining its temperature). See what happens to A’s temperature during this time.

        Surely this must have been done already as a demonstration of radiative heat transfer?

        This isn’t even contended physics any more, it is mere engineering. If you accept:

        a) The first and second laws of thermodynamics

        and

        b) The Stefan-Boltzmann law, or any reasonable variation thereof

        and

        c) Kirchoff’s Law for absorption/emission of radiation

        and are even 1st year intro physics class competent at mathematics and algebra, one can see that interpolating a radiative absorber/emitter layer between two vacuum-separated reservoirs at different temperatures will slow the rate of radiative heat transfer between them by finding a dynamical equilibrium temperature itself that is necessarily in between the temperature of the two reservoirs. Since the rate of heat loss of the hot reservoir is monotonic in the temperature difference of the cold reservoir it is coupled to, since this difference is smaller, it loses heat more slowly. It literally can do nothing else that does not violate one of these very, very, simple laws — where physical laws, recall, are the parts of physics that pretty much always work and are enormously well understood and validated by experiment after experiment.

        The twin consequences of this are a) the hotter body cools more slowly; and b) if the hotter body was at a dynamical equilibrium temperature that was maintained relative to the colder body by some constant input of heat, interpolating the absorber layer will force its temperature higher so that it can maintain the same rate of energy loss and remain in dynamical equilibrium.

        It’s that simple. This isn’t up for debate. This is a prelim question in thermodynamics — literally, it is in a book of prelim questions that I happen to own. It has been presented and beated half to death on this list. “Denying” it is dragonslayer level stupidity. Denying it while making noises about how the 1st or 2nd law of thermodynamics are somehow violated by it simply reveals that the denier is appallingly ignorant of physics and unwilling to sit down, draw a picture to represent what is going on, implement the problem in equations, and solve it, just like any other related problem in physics is solved. I just finished teaching my 50th or 60th class of intro physics students their first pass at this basic problem-solving rubric, and it is just as useful for physics Ph.D. researchers as it is for non-major intro-physics students. To try to argue about this in words is a bloody waste of time, especially when the arguers obviously don’t know what things like “the second law of thermodynamics” actually says or how it applies to the problem at hand.

        As for “experiments” — your clothing is an experiment. The walls of your house are an experiment. “Space blankets” are an experiment. Dewar flasks are an experiment. Low-E glass windows are an experiment. EZ-Bake ovens are an experiment. This is engineering and the principles have been known since before there was even physics. You can photograph LWIR — literally — coming off a hot object with and without an interpolant layer. The photograph — which measures the integrated brightness associated with heat loss by the object in the direction of the camera — is an experimental result. You can see this — photographs and commentary on radiative heat loss of humans (the subject of the IR photographs) on Wikipedia pages — it is just plain kiddy science.

        This is precisely the kind of thing that gives skeptics a bad name, and hence gives warmists a very compelling logical fallacy to use in the debate.

        Oh, and Anthony presented an entire video series of the experiment on this very list, using his own IR thermometer.

        So it would be simply lovely if people would never again say crap like “cold cannot heat hot” on this list as if that either describes the GHE correctly or is in any way relevant, invariably in the complete absence of anything like a problem presentation. I know, this will never happen. If they actually knew the physics and could actually do the math, why would they be spouting mathematical nonsense? If they owned, and read, Grant Petty’s lovely book they could even learn the math and the physics in the presentation in chapter six. But it is so much simpler to just repeat a nonsense phrase as if repetition will somehow make it true.

        rgb

  27. The start of the explanation of Truth n°2 is hidden in a block of bolded text, and missing a blank line before it.

  28. I am waiting for the studies that show the optimum climate for the current biosphere. Is the current climate above or below that optimum? Bonus study topic: to what extent is the biosphere self-optimizing?

    The convergence that I observe in climate science is far more on what statist solutions must be imposed via bigger government, and less personal liberty rather than on an accurate model of the climate system.
    Given how climate science seems only to exist to justify statist public policy, this is ideology-by-other-means than it is science.

    • I would assume that since most measurements are always compared to preindustrial levels, whether CO2, temperature, sea level, whatever, that then must have been their idea of a climate optimum. You know, during the little ice age.

    • schitzree,

      Why cherry-pick the LIA? Because that fits your confirmation bias believing that dangerous man-made global warming is happening?

      Since you seem to know the optimal global temperature, care to tell us what it is?

      • Sorry. I assumed that pointing out it was during the LIA and hence a period when few found the Climate ‘Optimal’ that I didn’t need to add the (sarc) tag.

      • schitzree,

        My apologies for assuming I knew what you meant. Anthony says we should add a “/sarc” tag — something I don’t always do myself.

    • “Optimum climate” is philosophy not science. Do you prefer dressing like an Inuit or a nudist? That defines “optimal.” The geological evidence indicates that far from being self-optimizing, the biosphere draws carbon out of circulation. The imbalance is only rectified by massive extinctions. Green plants are slightly over-efficient and across long time spans (100 MY) deplete available CO2 faster than “natural” sources, volcanism mostly, can restore it.

  29. I have a problem bringing up “22 inconvenient climate truths”. You need to look into this.

  30. I take issue with statement 12. I agree that the net sea ice is pretty close to constant. However Antarctic ice is further from the pole than is arctic ice, as a result it receives sunshine for more of the year and it receives sunshine at a higher angle. On net, it will have a greater impact on total albedo than does arctic ice.

    • I agree, that’s one of the items I noticed which was sloppily worded at best, and likely to be wrong.

    • Indeed as as MarkW has said the extension during the austral winter of the surface of the antarctic ice up to 20 M km² and 60°S would deserve a computation of the total albedo of (floating ice + snow cover) (over the southern and the northern hemispheres), with due account of the elevation of the Sun and of the clouds. I do not know if such a computation has been made, or if short wave CERES data on the “reflected” sun light could help.

      • amille

        Indeed as as MarkW has said the extension during the austral winter of the surface of the antarctic ice up to 20 M km² and 60°S would deserve a computation of the total albedo of (floating ice + snow cover) (over the southern and the northern hemispheres), with due account of the elevation of the Sun and of the clouds. I do not know if such a computation has been made, or if short wave CERES data on the “reflected” sun light could help.

        We are doing that now, here at WUWT, for the 22nd of each month. Yes, from 2014-2015 year, the Antarctic is reflecting 1.68 times the energy absorbed by the Arctic Ocean due to the reduced sea ice up north. For 8 months of the year, reduced arctic sea ice increases heat loss from the Arctic Ocean due to increased convection, conduction, and evaporation and radiation losses.

        Net effect over the year? The planet is cooling.

  31. Too bad that each of these 22 points can easily be picked apart. For starters…
    1-2: It’s called interdecadal oscillations (e.g., PDO). The oceans are still warming, and land ice is melting. Wait until the next PDO shift (it may be coming soon). And in any case, 2014 was the warmest year on record.
    3: Even a 6% increase in a greenhouse gas is enough to shift the heat balance and equilibrium temp. of the planet.
    4: “Lifetime” is a vague term. Once CO2 is emitted, its EFFECT (due to cycling of heat between the atmosphere and oceans) is on the order of at least decades.
    5: See 1-2. (And why is the sinusoid tilted upwards?)
    6: Incomprehensible…
    7: Geological time periods (millions of years) are irrelevant with respect to rapid changes affecting billions of people on decadal time scales
    8: Oops.. obviously not up on the latest research: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sea-level-rise-speeds-up/
    9: Stating the obvious: “All models are wrong.” This does not refute basic scientific principles. If it does, please present a better model that explains observations though basic principles (not curve fitting).
    10: No details provided, and probably referring to decades-old science. Refer to #8 — the science has advanced.
    11-12: Naive (or intentional) confusion here between land ice and sea ice.

    • I’m almost speechless at point 5. It sort of fits the sum of three sinusoids? You can probably fit just about anything with the sum of three sinusoids. This is truly embarrassing.

    • other Phil,

      Only you has mentioned ‘3 sinosoids’. So you set up a strawman and argued with it…

      Next, Barry posts a litany of misinformation. One perfect example is his reliance on Scientific American as a credible source. SciAm claims that sea level rise is "accelerating".

      So, Barry, who should we believe? German/greenie-owned SciAm? Or six separate data sources showing NO acceleration in SL rise?

      And lately I’ve notice the ‘vanishing sea ice’ narrative is now morphing into a ‘land ice’ narrative. That’s just more moving of the goal posts because once again, an alarmist prediction has failed.

      Barry, it’s just as easy to refute the rest of your comments. It’s just not worth the wasted time.

      • Do you have any idea why the linear fit is so strikingly good?

        It looks like Hansen knew this all beforehand when he projected +25000 mm by 2100. / sarc

      • Huh? Did you miss “its best approximation by the sum of three sinusoids of periods 1000 years, 210 years and 60 years”

        I didn’t make up the three sinusoids, they are right there.

      • Schitzree is correct. Cherry-picking one very small fluctuation does not negate the long term linear rise. To assume that sea level rise is suddenly accelerating is engaging in wishful thinking.

        The same small fluctuations are visible in other parts of that chart, from the very beginning on. Anyone can see them.

        Here is another satellite view. Notice what’s happening right now:

      • These two graphs have incredibly — literally — differences in their slopes. The Aviso graph has a slope almost a full centimeter per decade larger than the graphs reconstructed from seven other independent sources, one showing a full inch and a half a decade instead of just over an inch a decade. Neither of these rates are “alarming” in the slightest degree, and I say that sitting here looking out at the Atlantic from my chair, unafraid that my boat dock is about to be submerged by global warming.

        If Hansen’s absurd and alarmist claims of 5 meter rise by 2100 were true, of course, I would need to be. That’s a spectacular rate of a couple of inches a year, and the docks in the water I’m looking at would be underwater at high tide within no more than three or four years. As it is, they might be underwater at spring tide by 2060 or 2080. Or would be if docks lasted that long, and if the sea level keeps rising at all.

        rgb

      • icouldnthelpit,

        That chart directly contradicts the Aviso chart you posted previously, and it has no relation to the real world.

        Next time, don’t get your charts from imgur.com.

      • It contradicts your other chart. Which one should we use? Let me guess: the one from imgur.com, showing fake acceleration.

        The fact is that sea level rise is not accelerating. Want some more facts? The Arctic ice isn’t going away. The ocean isn’t ‘acidifying’. Polar bears aren’t disappearing. Dangerous man-made global warming isn’t happening. Global warming stopped many years ago.

        I could go on. But why bother? YOur side has been flat wrong about everything.

    • “And in any case, 2014 was the warmest year on record.”

      Well…they were only 38% sure of that, right?

      • After massive adjusting, dropped stations, homogenization, and lord only knows what other massaging it took to get the numbers they want. Oh, and no correction for UHI, even though many stations are in/on one.

    • 1-2: Funny how interdecadal oscillations are counted as part of AGW when they are increasing, but irrelevant when they are decreasing.
      3: Nobody said it wasn’t, it’s the amount that is being debated.
      4: It’s relevant because if we stopped putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, things would quickly return to their prior industrialization levels. If the lifetime doesn’t matter, why do the warmists constantly go about telling us how the CO2 we put in the atmosphere is going to be there for thousands of years?
      5: See 1-2.
      6: You really shouldn’t be so eager to advertise your ignorance.
      7: The point is to show that CO2 levels have been higher without the catastrophic consequences claimed by your team.
      8: Thinking Sci Am is authoritative
      9: The models aren’t based on first principles.
      10: Love the way the warmists actually try to believe that the only science out there, supports their wishes.
      11-12: Inability, or perhaps deliberate attempt to avoid dealing with the subject.

      • “If the lifetime doesn’t matter, why do the warmists constantly go about telling us how the CO2 we put in the atmosphere is going to be there for thousands of years?

        Some say that it is sure to last for many hundreds of thousands, even if we stopped adding more tonight after dinner. Then again, some apparently believe they know what would have happened with out any anthropogenic CO2.

    • Here are some elements for your information; your text is in ” ”
      “1-2: It’s called interdecadal oscillations (e.g., PDO). The oceans are still warming, and land ice is melting. Wait until the next PDO shift (it may be coming soon). And in any case, 2014 was the warmest year on record.”
      ANSWER: as the “greenhouse effect” is supposed to occur in the troposphere the satellite temperature series which have a complete global coverage (up to 85°N and S) and are homogeneous since end 1978 are relevant; they do not suggest that 2014 has been the warmest.
      Moreover if you recognize the major impact of PDO and of El Nino as shown on figure 15-A then you should recognize that the other cycles are as important and that all of the warming of the last decades is related to the stepwise effects of the El Ninos over the longer cycles

      “3: Even a 6% increase in a greenhouse gas is enough to shift the heat balance and equilibrium temp. of the planet.”
      ANSWER: according to Myrhe’s formula it’s 5.35 ln(1.06) = 0,3 W/m²or possibly at most 0,1°C

      “4: “Lifetime” is a vague term. Once CO2 is emitted, its EFFECT (due to cycling of heat between the atmosphere and oceans) is on the order of at least decades.”
      ANSWER: you may have meant cycling of carbon dioxide ..; the main point as explained at the end of truth n°4 is that the ratio : absorption to total air content
      is about constant and is the lifetime of a molecule, according to basic calculus. This is in line with observations reminded on card n°17

      “5: See 1-2. (And why is the sinusoid tilted upwards?)”
      ANSWER: The 60 years sinusoid is on top of the 1000 year cycle and of the 215 year cycle well documented (figure 5-B, 5-C )

      “6: Incomprehensible…”
      ANSWER: figure 6-A to 6-D explain the basic physics of the radiative effect of trace gas in the air; cards n° 14, 15, 16 explain further the basics that are supposed to be understood by anyone speaking or writing about radiation in the air.

      “7: Geological time periods (millions of years) are irrelevant with respect to rapid changes affecting billions of people on decadal time scales”
      ANSWER: this is a hint to the non existence of the runaway greenhouse effect: see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uxfiuKB_R8 (James Hansen prophetizing boiling oceans…)

      “8: Oops.. obviously not up on the latest research:https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sea-level-rise-speeds-up/
      ANSWER: for protection of the coasts the tide gauge are relevant ; please browse http://www.psmsl.org

      “9: Stating the obvious: “All models are wrong.” This does not refute basic scientific principles. If it does, please present a better model that explains observations though basic principles (not curve fitting).”
      ANSWER: there is ample literature on the hot spot which has been described in great details by IPCC AR4 (and by Hansen 1981)… but does not exist in the observations

      “10: No details provided, and probably referring to decades-old science. Refer to #8 — the science has advanced.”
      ANSWER: 2013 measurement (figures 10- B and 10-C) are not decade old science

      “11-12: Naive (or intentional) confusion here between land ice and sea ice.”
      ANSWER: what you name “land ice” is the snow coverage relevant for the albedo; refer to WUWT web site snow and ice pages

    • Barry,

      Most of the points are accurate. Anyone can ‘pick apart’ anything. It doesn’t mean you’re right.

      You’ve been wrong about every alarming prediction ever made. Who’s gonna believe you now?

  32. On point #3. Maybe I am not reading this right but as I understood 4 to 5% (close to the 6% stated value) of CO2 is related to the total amount of CO2 produced on earth by humans. Most of the CO2 is also absorbed by natural processes but the net amount of CO2 is increasing and the man made percentage of the net increase was about the 28 to 30%. Something like that.

    The man made portion of the mixture of CO2 in the atmosphere could be 6% but the amount of the man made CO2 relative to the total increase of CO2 can also be in the 30% range.

    I think there is some confusion with the mixture % and actual increase % and the point #3 is not clear.

    I maybe wrong. This is not my field but it was something I learned via this web site.

  33. What a pack of unscientific drivel. Claim #2 “57% of the cumulative anthropic emissions since the beginning of the Industrial revolution have been emitted since 1997” is a bald-faced lie.

    • 40% is more accurate. Total Carbon emissions since 1750, 402 GTs. Total from 1997 to 2014, 164 GTs. Not a big difference from 57%.

      • Bill Illis,

        400 ppm CO2 now, 367 ppm in 1997, 280 pre-industrial. 33 is 27% of 120. The percentage of cumulative emissions might be somewhat different, but that would be quibbling since what matters is what is in the atmosphere.

        Your claim that 40% is not much different from 57% pretty much pegs you as someone who is indifferent to facts.

      • Mike M.

        400 ppm CO2 now, 367 ppm in 1997, 280 pre-industrial. 33 is 27% of 120. The percentage of cumulative emissions might be somewhat different, but that would be quibbling since what matters is what is in the atmosphere.

        Your claim that 40% is not much different from 57% pretty much pegs you as someone who is indifferent to facts.

        And, in 1985, CO2 was 345 ppm. Where do you wish to start? 1945, as temperatures cooled slightly as CO2 was added to the air?

        1650 – when temperatures began to rise when CO2 was not being added to the air?
        1250 – before temperatures began to fall while CO2 was not being added to the air?
        1880?
        1915 – 1945? When temperatures rose just as quickly, just as much as 1976 – 1998, but CO2 was far lower in concentration?

    • I think “cumulative anthropic” are the operative words. That’s different from “total” emissions. Also, the author doesn’t make clear whether it is ‘carbon’ or CO2. They are often used interchangably, but they’re not the same.

      It’s true that it isn’t a big difference. He could have been more precise, that’s all. But that certainly doesn’t justify labeling it as “unscientific drivel”.

      • Most of the 22 “truths” are false, some are merely misleading. I only cited #2 as the most egregiously obvious falsehood.

    • 2014 was the warmest year on record. Where’s the rest, Mike?
      You say “bald-faced lie”, yet you provide no refutation.

      You’re a loud-mouth.

      • And like most warmists, he appears to believe that the way to win a scientific argument is by yelling the loudest.

      • “2014 was the warmest year on record.”
        According to Dr. Spencer on April 28:
        1st 1998 0.463
        2nd 2010 0.333
        3rd 2002 0.195
        4th 2005 0.181
        5th 2003 0.166
        6th 2014 0.151
        7th 2007 0.144
        8th 2013 0.113
        9th 2006 0.098
        10th 2001 0.095

    • Please accept apologies for this horrific misprint.
      The numbers given on the same card n°2 (153 Gt-C end 1978, 257 Gt-C end 1996, and 402 Gt-C end 2014, from CDIAC and BP statistical review ) could be slightly increased to take into account the voluntary (non natural) forest fires and wood burning (which is nevertheless said to be a renewable)

      As 402/257 = 157% it is a 57% increase of the cumulative anthropic emissions since end 1996

      And almost 37% (or 36%) of the cumulative fossil fuel and cement plant emissions since 1750 have been emitted since 1997

    • If you factor in the fact most of the older emissions would be sequestered by now it probably makes sense that the more recent emissions are the ones still in the atmosphere. Not sure how they computed their number as I haven’t read the details, but it makes sense.

  34. “8. The sea level is increasing by about 1.3 mm/year according to the data of the tide-gauges (after correction of the emergence or subsidence of the rock to which the tide gauge is attached, nowadays precisely known thanks to high precision GPS instrumentation); no acceleration has been observed during the last decades…”

    More bad news for ‘the sea level isn’t rising much’ department:

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2635.html

    “Second, in contrast to the previously reported slowing in the rate during the past two decades1, our corrected GMSL data set indicates an acceleration in sea-level rise (independent of the VLM used), which is of opposite sign to previous estimates and comparable to the accelerated loss of ice from Greenland and to recent projections, and larger than the twentieth-century acceleration.

    (Note to Mr Mod: Please release my previous post..there are no policy violations in it..)

    • Village idiot,

      Ah. An “adjusted” sea level, purportedly claiming “acceleration” in the natural sea level rise since the LIA.

      Instead, let’s look at the real world, in raw data from six (6) separate instrumental sources, including data from several different satellites:

      There is no acceleration in the natural sea level rise.

      The paper you linked to is simply trolling for grant money. If you want honest measurements instead of “adjusted” nonsense, then look at the real world data.

      But I doubt that you’re interested in empirical measurements, since your mind is already made up.

      • Ha, ha. I love the entertainment in this Village. Still in the dark ages, Laws of Physics suspended, argumentation self-contradictory, looking glass logic. Lewis Carrol couldn’t make this stuff up ;-)

        dbs: “let’s look at the real world, in raw data…honest measurements instead of “adjusted” nonsense”

        Would that also be as in satellite temperature ‘measurements’?

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/

        Adjusted results are Ok when they fit the agenda, eh – “since your mind is already made up”

      • Village idiot,

        Try to keep up. This particular discussion is about sea levels, and your fictitious “acceleration”.

        In deference to your screen name, I won’t do more than point out that there is not one word about sea level in your link.

        There is a good temperature graph, though. It shows that there hasn’t been any global warming for many years now:

        It’s a beta version, though, so we won’t bother with it until it’s official.
        ‘K? Thx.

        Now, try not to bother the adults any more with links that have nothing to do with the discussion. TIA.

  35. I hereby proclaim that points 1 thru 22 above are correct, indisputable, 97% consensus, and settled science, and that those not in complete agreement are vile deniers and will not go to heaven. Ya gotta fight fire with fire.

  36. There is also a solar influence not mentioned. The sun seems to be finishing a ~100 yr active cycle. The next solar cycle (or several) may suppress any aCO2 GHE warming. And cold is far more detrimental to the ecosystem and humanity than is warmer.

    aCO2, its warming and plant greening effects, is simply sound insurance against a LIA-like episode.

  37. I’ve only skimmed so far, but this is a terrible document, full of holes, poorly worded, and misleading. I expect the warmists to have a field day.

    • The other Phil,

      In other words, you’ve only “skimmed” the article, but you’ve made up your mind that it is “a terrible document, full of holes, poorly worded, and misleading.” But you give zero details.

      You add that warmists will have a field day. Look a few comments upthread at the village idiot’s post, and the response. Now tell us who’s having a field day.

      When making a critique, it’s best to cut and paste anything you disagree with, and reply to that. Doing it that way makes your response appear much more credible.

      • Yes, when you look at a long document with 22 points, and find egregious problems with several of the early ones, it is fair to conclude it is a terrible document. If you scroll up, you’ll see that I have made specific comments about several specific items.

        If you can’t be bothered to do that, I’ll put one here:

        Fitting three sinusoids to a short set of data points will make anyone with math skills cringe. They have a weak arguments for the 60 year cycle (I’d like to see more support) but none is even offered for the other two. This is data mining in the worst sense of the term.

        I want cogent arguments explaining the science, not a fling of spaghetti at the wall, hoping something sticks.

  38. If the climate change narrative should fail scientists seeking funding and power and politicians seeking power and control will replace climate change with a new scare narrative. Count on it.

  39. I quote: “…since 1880 the only one period where Global Mean Temperature and CO2 content of the air increased simultaneously has been 1978-1997.”

    This is untrue. Mean temperature stayed the same from 1979 to 1997, in an 18 year stretch. This makes it another hiatus/pause comparable to the one we are living through now. The ENSO oscillation was present at the time and produced a wave train of five El Ninos, with La Nina valleys in between. The center line of these ENSO waves was a horizontal straight line as I showed in figure 15 of my book “What Warming: Satellite view of global temperature change” in 2010. No way can this be a period of warming as shown in the official temperature curves. The fraud involves cooperation between GISTEMP, HadCRUT, and NCDC. They evened out their differing temperatures by using common computer processing. But unbeknownst to them their computer left traces of its operation on all three publicly available temperature curves, These comprise sharp upward spikes near the beginnings of years, all in exactly the same locations in all three curves. I have been drawing attention to this periodically for the last five years and have been ignored, both by warmists and by global warming critics. No one seems to be doing their homework these days with the result that much important information in my book is unknown to most climate scientists. One result is that worthless data gets treated as real and is used to draw wrong conclusions about temperature history. The period in question has been designated a “late twentieth century warming” that simply does not exist except on imaginary temperature curves cooked up by unethical operators in a cave behind IPCC offices.

    • “This is untrue. Mean temperature stayed the same from 1979 to 1997, in an 18 year stretch”
      ===============================================================
      No T rose from 79 to 97. In the old non agenda data sets. The NH had a .6 degree cooling, and global was 4 degrees. They had to get rid of the 1940 blip, and they did.

    • comment on Arno Arrak 8:26 am
      in truths n°2 and n°5 the main point is that a periodic waveform should not be approximated by a straight line, and that one should at least try a sum of sinusoid with as little free parameters as possible (in this case only the amplitude and phase of the 210 and 60 years sinusoids, as the Hadcrut series is too short for a Fourier or wavelet decomposition see as well the paper of Macias reference 18); the figure 15-A shows the step wise changes of the temperature paced by the El Nino events: this has been shown in detail by Bob Tisdale.
      For an interpretation of the El Nino and of the atmospheric circulation see the books of the late Prof. Marcel Leroux like: Global Warming – Myth or Reality?: The Erring Ways of Climatology 2005 http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783540239093

      Thank you for the reference to your book I shall read.

  40. Voici donc Jean-Pierre Bardinet qui recycle ses excréments outre-Atlantique…

    Sorry for those who do not understand French, it is between JPB and me.

    • Between JPB, you, my O level French and Google Translate as a check of my memory of la belle langue [which actually was close enough] …

      Here, Jean-Pierre Bardinet who recycles his dung overseas …

      Très charmant!

    • Commentaire stupide et sans valeur. Peut mieux faire.
      Stupid comment, without any value. You can do better, dear Mano

      Nevertheless, I am very glad to irritate you…

      • “Stupid comment, without any value”

        This is called projection.

        And don’t worry about me, I am far from being irritated by you, actualy I am rolling on the floor laughing out loud at seing your nonsense dispensed here.

        And I am pleasantly surprised to see that some commenters are not fooled by your crap.

  41. Communists at the UN already admitted that this was a hoax designed to overthrow Democracy and Capitalism. All I can figure is that they must have been looking at bad Soviet science when they dreamed this up.

    And the reason why they’ve been demanding immediate, emergency action (for decades) is because they feel like masked gunmen standing in front of a bank, holding bags of taxpayer cash, with sirens approaching.

    • Oh come on Larry. Surely, it is a coincidence that all of the solutions to global warming come straight from the pages of the manifesto. /sarc

  42. “does the author say that the greenhouse effect does not exist ? The author of such statements should loose any credibility in the eyes of readers with some scientific background”,

    Did they really use “loose”. LOL! The author of THAT should lose credibility with anyone with an ounce of intelligence.

    • “They” are French, therefore “loose” is the translation that I assume was made by the author, so you are right, he has lost any credibility (actually he never had any credibility, hence he didn’t even lost it)

    • So a typo invalidates the whole paper? Wow! Brilliant logic!

      BTW in your post shouldn’t there be a question mark after “loose”?

  43. 1) anthropogenic CO2 is trivial
    2) CO2’s impact on the climate is trivial.
    3) IPCC’s models don’t work.

    The rest is unnecessary noise.

    • 1 The proportion of anthro-CO2 added to the annual global biogeochemical cycle is 3 percent.
      2a Total atmospheric CO2 infrared energy (OLR) is at most 5 percent of the so called greenhouse surface heating, H2O is 95 percent.
      2b Atmospheric CO2 is vital to global life via photosynthesis. From the point of view of life on Earth, adding CO2 to the atmosphere is overwhelmingly beneficial.
      3 The IPCC is an arm of the United Nations, therefore it produces only politically motivated propaganda, it has nothing to do with science on any level.

      The rest is a media freak show.

    • This doesn’t make any sense. The argument is that the SLR is greater than measured by the coastal tidal gauges because of land movements. But if the land is rising at the same rate as the sea what is there to worry about. It could be equally argued the LLR (Land Level Rise) is also accelerating.

  44. I really don’t have much to offer with respect to the post, other than the fact that we know the CO2 garbage is just that- garbage. So what have we concluded after reading the worlds longest post? Nothing!

    The answer doesn’t or hasn’t changed just because we keep dumping more and more info into the face of the alarmist on behalf of the skeptic.

    I guess that’s why my time spent here is slowly diminishing.

    Unless I see more on issues like geo-engineering and theft of property in the name of climate change/global warming……… then I guess its just treading water.

  45. No. 16 is wrong, the greenhouse effect stops the surface from cooling quite so much at night, so the average temperature is higher, relative to no greenhouse gases. Thus, nights in the humid tropics are warmer than nights in deserts.

    • ” Thus, nights in the humid tropics are warmer than nights in deserts.”
      Problem is daily mean temperature is the same. Look up two places at the same latitude and altitude, you’ll find the same daily or yearly temperature (say Bangkok and Tombouctou). That’s a massive fact that contradicts the “greenhouse gases” theory.

      • I was comparing night time temperatures, i.e. daily minimum temperature. Daily MEAN temperature is an abomination that hides crucial information. Who cares about the MEAN temperature (e.g. 25C) of a desert, when its 0C at night and 50C (max) at noon?

      • @climanrecon
        “Who cares about the MEAN temperature ”
        the greenhouse theory is all about the MEAN temperature, not only daily but annually, not only locally but globally. So if you don’t care about it, you are not talking about the greenhouse theory but something else without being aware of it.
        And you avoid to address the inconvenient fact that despite its massive “greenhouse effect” (due to much higher humidity), Bangkok is not hotter, temperature-wise, than Tombouctou.
        Otherwise, I think we agree : the notion of mean (daily, annually) temperature as fetished by the IPCC, especially so minuscule anomalies (another orwellian term for deviation) means nothing physically and biologically.

  46. I can’t believe that the two IPCC eminences have stated in written records that : “the Stefan Boltzmann law applies to any body that absorbs electromagnetic radiation and hence to infrared absorbing gases”. That’s the sort of blunder that would get a college freshman a D- in thermodynamics.
    I lack words to describe the incompetence of warmists, especially the most publicly vocal of them.

    • Dear Jean

      The reason that the “the Stefan Boltzmann law applies to any body that absorbs electromagnetic radiation and hence to infrared absorbing gases” is that the S-B law is

      E = ε(frequency) σ T^4

      The emissivity ε is a function of wavelength/frequency. The emissivity (absorptivity) of a gas is zero at frequencies the gas does not absorb at and only positive at frequencies the gas can absorb at, and the S-B law as written above applies

      Best

      • “and the S-B law as written above applies ”
        The S-B law doesn’t apply at all, since the emissivity is introduced as a fudge factor. If the S-B law did apply, you would be able to give us the emissivity of CO2. But you can’t and you know you can’t.
        This emissivity is what determines CO2 sensitivity (forcing for a doubling of CO2) and the IPCC is still looking for a way to narrow the range of sensitivities which has not improved since the sleight of hand of the Charney report 4 decades ago (3°C +- 1.5°C, talk about the “settled science”!).

        So on the one hand, eminent warmists declare “the S-B law applies to any infrared absorbing gases”, on the other hand, nobody can provide the S-B law’s emissivity for CO2. Typical of make-believe science à la IPCC.

      • To say that Jean, requires that you also deny the validity of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics

        Only a true black body has unit emissivity across the entire spectrum. True black bodies are idealizations, that is they don’t exist. One can determine the emissivity of a materials by measuring the difference between the ideal black body curve and the thermal emission of the substance, including gases. One can also determine the emissivity of a substance by measuring the absorption spectrum

        Emissivity from all substances is wavelength dependent. The MODIS UCSB Database is a fine place to look for the emissivity of water and soils

        http://www.icess.ucsb.edu/modis/EMIS/html/em.html

        The emissivity and absorptivity of small molecules like CO2 and H2O follow the structure of their line absorption spectrum.

      • “Emissivity from all substances is wavelength dependent.”
        I didn’t say otherwise. But it’s the Planck’s law, not S-B law.
        If the S-B law applies to CO2, then, what is CO2’s emissivity, Eli ?
        Why is CO2’s sensitivity, directly derived from the S-B, can’t be determined ?
        As always, you won’t answer precise questions, you’ll change subject, wonder why…

      • I thought I would note that “clouds” indeed act as a perfect blackbody.

        Low cloud cover provides a perfect blackbody emission curve when looking up, no CO2 emission lines, no methane line no H20 lines, a perfect blackbody.

        And how often are clouds present, 65% of the time, low clouds 30%.

    • Jean Demesure,

      “I can’t believe that the two IPCC eminences have stated in written records that : “the Stefan Boltzmann law applies to any body that absorbs electromagnetic radiation and hence to infrared absorbing gases”. That’s the sort of blunder that would get a college freshman a D- in thermodynamics.”

      An intelligent statement. If only you had stopped there.

      “I lack words to describe the incompetence of warmists, especially the most publicly vocal of them.”

      In other words, you believe that which is unbelievable, just because you read it in the internet. Thus you torpedo the impression of intelligence.

    • With regards to Truth No.14: From what I gather the argument is that the SB law does not apply to gases. So all the stellar physics and radiative transfer I learned in my stellar physics classes is wrong! Stars, which I always thought were composed of hot gas and clearly followed the SB law since that law describes them very, very well, are really have solid surfaces! How could we have let NASA spend billions and billions of dollars on ground and space telescopes and cosmology and not even realized this simple truth!

      • Stars spectral curves do not fit a black body spectrum. Their temperature is calculated as though it were a black body but that is an approximation and is used for simplicity. Due to the long photon emission time (every photon is absorbed and re-emitted many times) the star photosphere is at a pseudo equilibrium allowing a black body approximation for mean photosphere temperature. Hence the sun black body temperature is about 5777 K but the actual photosphere ranges between 4500-6000 K. If the sun were a true back body it would have no apparent surface detail.

      • “If the sun were a true back body it would have no apparent surface detail.”

        Yeah – and it would be black!

  47. I don’t know, I think this sums up the pariah position very well. Of course there is violent disagreement. That’s the whole point isn’t it? We do, they don’t.

  48. This is pretty much a biggie in more ways than one.
    Some things make my head hurt then again so do some of the comments.
    It is indeed a must read and something to chew on for a while.

  49. You shot yourself in the foot by including #3, #4, and #16. Especially 3 and 16. Those are unsupportable positions. It doesn’t matter if the CO2 is acutally the molecule that was emitted or a different one in equilibrium. That’s a non-argument. Human emissions are the cause of the CO2 rise. In fact, by raw emissions, we should have caused a far higher rise. A lot was absorbed into the various different mechanisms and non-air-sources. To argue that we are not the source is nonsense.

    16 is willfully ignorant of what the laws of thermodynamics actually say. You can do better than that.

    • Ben of Houston: exactly so….
      “#16 is willfully ignorant of what the laws of thermodynamics actually say. You can do better than that.”
      Well he can’t as this is just the “Dragon-slayer” bit.

      The GHE is not “heating the surface”. It is slowing the cooling of the surface.
      Maybe Mons Bardinet can explain how it is that the photons (of back-radiated terrestrial IR) know that they are not allowed to impinge back onto the earth’s surface again, and b###r of somewhere else? I’d love to know.

      • That’s a distinction without a difference and you know it. Slowing the cooling, warming, are for all purposes the same thing. At best, the point is splitting hairs while pretending they are moving mountains. At anything else, it’s deceitful.

    • “It does not matter if the CO2 molecule is that emitted or not… Human emissions are the cause of the rise”

      This contradicts very basic mathematics: see on card n°3: Addendum about the relation
      d[CO2]/dt = foutgassing(t) + fanthropic(t) – fabsorbed(t):
      the IPCC hypothesis is foutgassing(t) = fabsorbed(t) within a few percent with very little change since the little ice age;
      the observations suggest fabsorbed(t) /[CO2] = constant = 1/lifetime.
      There is no equilibrium as shown by the card 17, figure 17-B and figure 17-F; the mathematical (or statistical) proof by Beenstock et al. that the time series of T(t) and [CO2(t)] do not cointegrate and that the only possible correlation is between T(t) and d[CO2(t)]/dt is reinforced shown by the simple observations of figure 17-B and by the figures of Francey (2013) at the end of card n°17

      • Camille,

        Point 3. relates to the residence time of any CO2 molecule (whatever the origin) in the atmosphere, before being swapped with a CO2 molecule from another reservoir.
        That doesn’t change the CO2 content in the atmosphere one bit, as long as the inputs equal the outputs.

        The decay rate of an extra shot CO2 into the atmosphere (whatever the origin) needs far more time to reduce back to the equilibrium (“steady state”) for the current temperature which is ~290 ppmv. The e-fold decay rate of any surplus CO2 is slightly over 50 years, of a half life time of 40 years. Far longer than the residence time, which has nothing in common with the e-fold decay rate.

        Point 17. is completely bogus: if the CO2 levels in the atmosphere increase for whatever reason, the ocean-atmosphere carbon cycle reacts by reducing the input and increasing the output from/to the (deep) oceans. That is a matter of CO2 pressure difference (ΔpCO2) between atmosphere and oceans: the in or out fluxes are directly proportional to the CO2 pressure difference.
        Any increase in temperature will increase the pCO2 of the oceans with ~8 μatm, which increases the influx from the oceans and decreases the outflux. That gives an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. If the increase reaches 8 μatm (~ppmv), the equilibrium is restored and no further increase of CO2 will happen.
        The real formula is:
        dCO2/dt = k*(T-T0) – ΔpCO2
        where ΔpCO2 is the increase in pCO2 in the atmosphere since t=0.
        As ΔpCO2 increases over time, dCO2/dt reduces to ultimately zero when:
        ΔpCO2 = k*(T-T0)
        which is what Henry’s law for the solubility of CO2 in seawater says for a k = ~8 ppmv/°C.

        That means that the ~0.6 warming since the LIA is good for not more than ~5 ppmv CO2 increase over the past 55 years, while human emissions were ~170 ppmv and the increase in the atmosphere was ~80 ppmv in the same time frame…

        Thus no wonder that T(t) and CO2(t) don’t co-integrate, as near the whole increase is not caused by T but by human emissions. Only the small variability (+/- 1 ppmv) around the trend is caused by T variability…

      • Camille, you are overthinking this. Your math isn’t even wrong because it’s irrelevant. CO2 is in constant motion and residence time. Plants grow, plants die. CO2 is inhaled and exhaled from the ocean and every living thing. That is immaterial to the matter of global warming as the Carbon isotope doesn’t affect the absorption spectrum.

        Now, let’s use a swimming pool as a nice example. The CO2 concentration is relatively constant, but in constant motion. Let’s say you have a motor boat and exhaust some CO2 over it. As it contacts the water, this CO2 is going to be absorbed. At the same time, a number of already-dissolved molecules will be thrown off in a classic equilibrium dynamic.

        Instantly after exhaust, you have X molecules of CO2 over the pool. In a few moments, the exhaust molecules will be completely mixed with the CO2 molecules in the water. However, as the absorbed concentration is constant, the same number of CO2 molecules are emitted as absorbed, so you still have the same X molecules of CO2 over the pool. They are different molecules, and due to the difference in quanitites, the different C13 ratio won’t be detectable. However, you still have X molecules.

        The ONLY mechanisms that are important for CO2 reduction are those that remove additional CO2 from the atmosphere, either temporarily or permanently.

  50. 16. The trace gases absorb the radiation of the surface and radiate at the temperature of the air which is, at some height, most of the time slightly lower that of the surface. The trace-gases cannot “heat the surface“, according to the second principle of thermodynamics which prohibits heat transfer from a cooler body to a warmer body. (discussion: p. 32)

    … and here I stopped reading. Then I scrolled down for about 5 long minutes until I could reach the end of the “article”.

    Jean-Pierre… go write a book. This IMO is not the place nor the way for what you intended to communicate. Quality is not measured in number of lines of text, and when quality is not very high, the number of lines actually make people want to stop reading. And Anthony… well, this is your place, run it however you want. But pieces like this IMO reduce its value, and I am probably not alone with this opinion.

    • The scientific report of IPCC is more than 3000 pages. Quality is not [measured] in number of ,lines of text? Ok, therefore, my about 50 pages of text are of high quality, not?

      • “The scientific report of IPCC”.

        In this part of your comment the important word is “scientific”.

        And you are not a scientist.

      • The most important is the content of the document, not the author. To criticize the author’s profile is without any signification. If you want to be credible, than you must give consistent comments about the content.

      • Your about 50 pages of text should not be put together in an article in a web site. They should go to a PDF, and then you link to it to see the detail of the explanations, or they should be made several separate web pages each of them dealing with one of the topics. Go find me a web site that copies in a single piece of html the full 3000 pages of the full IPCC report.

      • Let me add, that they should be put in a PDF properly formatted and indexed. Something that we don’t have here. Should you want to check the supporting material of any one of the initial 22 “truths”, it takes a long time to find because all the text along the article looks exactly the same, headers are not highlighted enough, and there are no links to them from the initial display of 22 points.

        The format chosen is a bad one, for the same reason that writing the whole text in a single paragraph would be a horrible choice, wrong in the same way, just taken to the extreme for you to understand the idea.

      • No, as you compare apples with oranges.
        The IPCC is summing the knowledge acquired by the world’s experts in the field of climate science.
        I suspect Mons Barbinet that that knowledge extends a tad further than yours.
        Your *critique” here does nothing more than trawl throgh the usual mistruths and myths of sceptics. Many clearly demonstrating that you have not a clue of radiative physics.
        Your 22 *points* if correct ( or even one of them) mean either that you are omniscient and know more than said world experts. Or even more bizarrely that those experts are “having a larf”.
        A few on here do have the incite required to overcome their scepticism and call you out. The majority, including the usual attack-wolves make themselves even more divorced from the rational world by defending the undefencible.

      • “The IPCC is summing the knowledge acquired by the world’s experts in the field of climate science.”

        Please can you define “expert in climate science”, trace a limit of what is included and what is not, and tell me why such experts working / providing opinion to the IPCC are more trustworthy of other experts of the field who do not?

      • Toneb

        You write

        No, as you compare apples with oranges.
        The IPCC is summing the knowledge acquired by the world’s experts in the field of climate science.

        NO! That is completely untrue and if you do believe it then you are very mistaken.

        The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only exists to produce documents intended to provide information selected, adapted and presented to justify political actions. The facts are as follows.

        It is the custom and practice of the IPCC for all of its Reports to be amended to agree with its political summaries. And this is proper because all IPCC Reports are political documents although some are presented as so-called ‘Scientific Reports’.

        Each IPCC Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published. After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice when prior to the IPCC‘s Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed,

        We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.

        This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then.

        This custom and practice enabled the infamous ‘Chapter 8′ scandal so perhaps it should – at long last – be changed. However, it has been adopted as official IPCC procedure for all subsequent IPCC Reports.

        Appendix A of the most recent IPCC Report (the AR5) states this where it says.

        4.6 Reports Approved and Adopted by the Panel

        Reports approved and adopted by the Panel will be the Synthesis Report of the Assessment Reports and other Reports as decided by the Panel whereby Section 4.4 applies mutatis mutandis .

        This is completely in accord with the official purpose of the IPCC.

        The IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science and it does not.

        The IPCC is only permitted to say AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to accept that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can be selected as political polices and the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”.

        This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC.
        These are stated at
        http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

        Near its beginning that document says

        ROLE

        2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

        This says the IPCC exists to provide
        (a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
        and
        (b) “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.

        Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”. Any ‘science’ which fails to support that political purpose is ‘amended’ in furtherance of the IPCC’s Role.

        The IPCC achieves its “Role” by
        1
        amendment of its so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to fulfil the IPCC’s political purpose
        2
        by politicians approving the SPM
        3
        then the IPCC lead Authors amending the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to agree with the SPM.

        All IPCC Reports are pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions; i.e.Lysenkoism.

        Richard

    • This, of course, is a usual misunderstanding of the second law. The surface and the atmosphere exchange energy by convection and radiation (conduction is so small it need not be considered). The net flow of thermal energy is from the surface to the atmosphere. Some choose to label only this net flow of thermal radiation as heat. Others also call the total flows of thermal radiation from the atmosphere to the surface and visa versa, heat. Either POV is defensible, as long as clearly described.

      The existence of the flow of thermal radiation to the surface is not a contradiction of the second law because the second law only governs the NET flow of thermal energy in a system.

      • There is no difference between convection and conduction for gas molecules, which simply move in straight lines until hit by another gas molecule or a photon or something else in the atmosphere. Also, you forgot to mention evaporation and condensation of water as a mechanism of heat transfer.

        I agree that the 2nd Law has been misapplied, all you’ve got is gas molecules and photons milling about randomly, they don’t stop and think what “The 2nd Law” expects them to do, some photons from the atmosphere DO get absorbed by the surface, making it warmer than it would otherwise be.

      • @climanrecon: Convection (either forced or thermal) is the bulk movement of gas (i.e., parcels containing many moles of gas in the atmosphere). Convection is a macroscopic phenomena. Think wind. Conduction is a microscopic phenomena, does not involve the bulk movement of gas (parcels stay in place) and in fact does not involve the coherent movement of gas particles in any one direction, each molecule’s motion being random. Think Brownian motion. Conduction and convection in gases are very different physical phenomena.

        [Convection differs in gasses and fluids, and conduction between fluids and solids as well. .mod]

      • “Please can you define “expert in climate science”, trace a limit of what is included and what is not, and tell me why such experts working / providing opinion to the IPCC are more trustworthy of other experts of the field who do not?”
        No, you try applying common sense and use Google to discover the very long list of experts (people who have studied their specialty and practise it professionally).

        Now name those that are contrary to those. Bar the usual tiny minority.
        You imly that the minority of “Coctrarians” are correct and the rest not. The balance of probabilities says overwhelmingly not. who contribute to the IPCC AR’s.
        If you wish to cite Mons Bardinet as an example of those that are “correct”……
        I cite point #16 as exhibit a).
        Do you, or anyone else on here believe that to be true? And if you do please explain why and as a corollary, why the world’s experts have not spotted such a basic and AGW stumping fact that goes against basic physics.
        Sorry it only takes one stupid statement to reveal the veracity of the total.

      • Toneb

        Do you, or anyone else on here believe that to be true? And if you do please explain why and as a corollary, why the world’s experts have not spotted such a basic and AGW stumping fact that goes against basic physics.
        Sorry it only takes one stupid statement to reveal the veracity of the total.

        How many UN and UK and OZ and EU climate “scientists” and politicians and college and institution bureaucrats can you buy for 2.3 trillion in increased taxes per year and 30 trillion per year in Enron-created carbon trading schemes?

      • You have skipped my question:

        “Please can you define “expert in climate science”, trace a limit of what is included and what is not, and tell me why such experts working / providing opinion to the IPCC are more trustworthy of other experts of the field who do not?”

        I must assume you can not. That’s what i wanted to make clear.
        Bye.

    • Nylo says:

      Anthony… well, this is your place, run it however you want. But pieces like this IMO reduce its value, and I am probably not alone with this opinion.

      Well, you may not be alone, but you certainly seem to be in the minority.

      I thought this was a very good article. I’m sure the author is experiencing some real peer review anguish here; something that many, if not most scientists don’t encounter in their world. Often their superiors are administrators rather than working scientists. They may not be specialists in the specific field, and if they have tenure then criticism only serves to step on toes — something their pals in the ivory tower tend not to do. And of course, readers here know how the climate pal review system works.

      It’s my hope that the author will take all honest criticisms to heart, and re-write his paper to correct any problems. There are a few. But over all, it is good work. There aren’t many problems considering its length.

      Those criticizing should submit an article of their own here, and see what happens. It is not easy to write a perfect paper the first time, especially an article this long and involved. Certainly the author shows that most of the cherished beliefs of the climate alarmist clique are wrong.

      Finally, ‘sofianmannonen’ says:

      “The scientific report of IPCC”. In this part of your comment the important word is “scientific”. And you are not a scientist.

      That makes me wonder about sofianmannonen’s credentials. The very first definition in my handy online dictionary defines “scientist” as: a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.

      Based on the extensive footnotes and knowledge displayed in the article, it’s clear that the author fits the definition. So I would challenge sofianmannonen, or anyone else tempted to make ad hominem comments like that, to submit their own article. Let’s see how much they know. If they decline, then they are probably just one of the millions of head-nodders who have read their ‘science’ in Scientific American or the NY Times, etc., and then think they understand the subject.

      • Well of course Nylo is iin a minority, on this blog at least. But, amongst the small sub-group that understands any Science at all, he is not, and when have sceptics ever relied on consensus?

        Science is NOT an opinion poll of the ignorati.

      • MikeB says:

        …when have sceptics ever relied on consensus?

        Good point. You are right, we don’t rely on consensus. We don’t have to anyway, since the true consensus is so heavily on the side of skeptics. No group of climate alarmist scientists has come anywhere near the OISM’s numbers. So the comment that ‘amongst the small sub-group that understands Science’ is provably wrong.

        And of course, the ‘ignoratii’ only matter in politics and religion… oh, wait…

        But ‘consensus’ numbers don’t matter. Data matters. In fact, data is everything in science. And measurements are data. But there are no testable measurements of AGW. What does that tell you?

        (My usual disclaimer: I think AGW exists. But it’s just too tiny to matter.)

        The ball is now back in the middle of MikeB’s court.

      • RACookPE1978:

        “How many UN and UK and OZ and EU climate “scientists” and politicians and college and institution bureaucrats can you buy for 2.3 trillion in increased taxes per year and 30 trillion per year in Enron-created carbon trading schemes?”

        I didn’t ask a political question. This thread is about science.
        I ask again…. are you or anyone else apart from some of the more elightened sceptics on here prepared to say honestly that they agree with Mons Bardinet’s version of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, as aplied to GHE theory?
        Because it is wrong, plain and simple – and therefore completely torpedoes credibility.
        So the answer is no I guess.

      • Toneb

        Because it is wrong, plain and simple – and therefore completely torpedoes credibility.
        So the answer is no I guess.

        Not true at all.

        The grossly simplified S-B relationship used in your counter-arguments are also wrong. NONE of the simplifications required to “create” the S-B equation from blackbody approximations needed for your statements are right. They are also not correct for the statements in the paper we are discussing.
        I can disagree with many specific points, or one point in particular, in any technical or “scientific” paper or textbook.
        Most specifically, I can disagree with any or all points of a politically-propagandized “report” as well.
        I can agree or support many individual items within a technical or “scientific” paper or document – and disagree with the final recommendation or conclusion as well.

        Those disagreements or agreements are based on individual analysis of each part of the total issue. As an engineer, only the final product safety, quality, accuracy, reproducibility and impact counts. Only in political arguments by simple approximations for the news media and press do your assumptions above matter.

        You, apparently, are not actually responsible for decisions that affect other people lives and properties where no “peer-reviewed article” or classroom and political “consensus” exist. Welcome to the real world.

      • At 6:10 AM on 13 May, Toneb posted:

        I didn’t ask a political question. This thread is about science.

        Like hell. This spectacular man-made global warming/ climate change/ climate “fragility” fraud has been about nothing except the “political question” ever since the SEEMING of “science” began to be used by the political left – emphasis on the “tranzi” transnational progressives – to perpetrate the pillage and destruction of industrial civilization more than thirty years ago.

        The “science” went utterly and irrevocably out the friggin’ window in 1988 when the IPCC was empaneled by the United Nations, and since that time the scientific method has been viewed by the “political” left as nothing more than an obstruction to be overcome.

        “Manmade Global Warming” is a collection of ideas that have been thoroughly discredited by real science for years. Yet you would never know it by observing the behavior of politicians, media personalities, and certain corrupt academics and scientists. There is not now, nor was there ever any scientifically respectable evidence for global warming. Like Lysenkoism, it is a complete and total fabrication, a hoax.

        Yet it continues to have a strictly political life because, just as Lysenkoism served Stalinism by backing up Marx’s flawed notions — Global Warming serves today’s collectivists by offering them an excuse to seize control, not merely of the means of production, but of each moment, every aspect of the lives of every individual under their thumbs.

        To be absolutely certain the opportunity isn’t missed, dissenters — meteorologists and others willing to dismiss Global Warming as the crock it happens to be — have found themselves intimidated, denied funding and tenure, even fired. Here and there you’ll even see demands that “climate change deniers” be prosecuted, imprisoned, or executed. Somewhere, the ghosts of Stalin and Lysenko are having a huge laugh together.

        — L. Neil Smith, “Lysenko’s Revenge” (30 August 2009)

      • Stealy, he’s not alone. I have to agree. Any inclusion or recognition of the “2nd law violation” nonsense undermines our entire position. Any undergraduate can see how that is a flawed interpretation of the law, and any child can disprove the claim that you can’t warm water via radiation with a light bulb and a bucket.

        You cannot support truth with lies,and we must come down HARDER on ourselves to prevent people from seeing such basic errors and concluding that our entire premise is flawed.

    • REPLY for Ferdinand Engelbeen May 14, 2015 at 1:47 am
      As shown on figure 17-D the regions for absorption and out-gassing are separate; there is no “global” equilibrium between the atmosphere and the ocean; carbon absorbed tens of years ago at high latitudes is resurfacing in upwellings; carbon absorbed by plants months to centuries ago is degassed by soils .

      For the oceans refer to Levy, M., L. Bopp, P. Karleskind, L. Resplandy, C. Ethe, and F. Pinsard (2013), Physical pathways for carbon transfers between the surface mixed layer and the ocean interior, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 27, 1001–1012, doi:10.1002/gbc.20092. who believe there is a subduction
      (and http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.fr/2013/09/new-paper-finds-oceans-are-net-source.html )
      “At temperate latitudes, the subduction of DIC and to a much lesser extent … At the global scale, these two large counter-balancing fluxes of DIC amount to +275.5 PgC yr–1 for the supply by obduction and –264.5 PgC yr–1 for the removal by subduction which is 3 to 5 times larger than previous estimates.”

      QUOTE: “any surplus CO2 is slightly over 50 years, of a half life time of 40 years. Far longer than the residence time, which has nothing in common with the e-fold decay rate” …
      ANSWER: This presupposes there is a global equilibrium but the stock / (yearly absorption) analysis shown in truths n° 3, 4 , 17 avoids all the pitfalls and assumptions of an equilibrium between absorption and out-gassing.
      Such an equilibrium is postulated by all the compartment models with constant inputs and outputs that lead to a set of linear equation and by Laplace transform to expressions like the Bern or Hamburg formulas or other half-lifetime of 40 years to 60 years; the “impulse response” supposes a linear model (akin an electrical RLC network).
      In reality there is no equilibrium because more CO2 implies more green plants growing faster eating more and so on ; the references in note 19 show that even James Hansen and Francey (figure 17 F) admit (now) that their carbon cycle is wrong !
      By the way 40/ln(2) = 40/0,693 = 58 years not the 100 years said by Berne formulas see figure 4-B

      • Again, you aren’t even wrong. Let me explain. 6*7 = 42 is right. 6*7=36 is wrong. 6*7=George Washington is a fundamental misunderstanding of the question. You are solving a nonsensical problem to prove a point to which it doesn’t apply.

        The issue is that fossil fuel CO2 mixes more or less evenly with all other CO2 in our system. However, this is all in equilibrium with the air and the entire freaking carbon cycle, just like you explained. HOWEVER, it is a cycle, and other CO2 molecules are released at the same rate as those that are absorbed (yes, it’s not precisely the same, but I’m working on generalities here so that the laymen reading this can understand). So claiming that the CO2 in the air is not due to mankind by isotope analysis is just plain wrong.

        Let’s compare a bank. I put in $2 million that we all supposedly got from the Kochs. After a few years, we check the bank, crack open the vault, and I find that only $500 worth of the bills in the vault have the same serial numbers as the ones I put in. Question: how much of the money in the vault am I responsible for? $500 or $2 million? Obviously $2 million. The other bills might have been lent out, but they were replaced with other bills. In total, I am responsible for the entire amount I put in, no more and no less.

      • Camille,

        As shown on figure 17-D the regions for absorption and out-gassing are separate; there is no “global” equilibrium between the atmosphere and the ocean; carbon absorbed tens of years ago at high latitudes is resurfacing in upwellings; carbon absorbed by plants months to centuries ago is degassed by soils .

        Sorry, there is a fundamental lack of knowledge of dynamic systems here: as long as the total of the CO2 influxes is the same as the total of the CO2 outfluxes, nothing happens in the atmosphere. That is the “steady state” or dynamic equilibrium for the ocean – atmosphere system.

        For any temperature in the oceans, there is a steady state level with the atmosphere, as dictated by Henry’s law for the solubility of CO2 in seawater. Historically over the past 800,000 years that was ~8 ppmv/°C over ice ages and interglacials or between the MWP and LIA.
        For the current average ocean surface temperature, Henry’s law gives ~290 μatm (= ppmv minus % water vapor). That is exactly the same 290 μatm which one would measure for a static system like a flask in a laboratory at the same temperature given sufficient time to equilibrate with the air above the liquid. Henry’s law is applicable as good for dynamic systems as for static systems.
        There were over 3 million pCO2 measurements of ocean waters in the past decades which confirm Henry’s law…

        Any increase in temperature gives 8 ppmv/°C increase in the atmosphere and then it stops. It is impossible that the dynamic system (which the ocean-atmosphere carbon cycle is) doesn’t react on the increased pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere after a warming, or a volcanic eruption or human emissions: at 8 ppmv extra in the atmosphere the ΔpCO2 between upwelling and atmosphere at one side and the ΔpCO2 at the sink side is restored to what they were before the warming with 1°C. The influxes and outfluxes are directly proportional to the ΔpCO2 between oceans and atmosphere at any ocean area. With the current ΔpCO2 between atmosphere and oceans, the net flux is from the atmosphere into the oceans, not reverse.
        See: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/maps.shtml

        The current net sink/source balance is exactly known from the mass balance: that is the difference between increase in the atmosphere and human emissions. You don’t need to know any individual or total influx or outflux, only the net result is necessary and that is known.

        As said by benofhouston and me: you are looking at the wrong rate: the residence time is completely irrelevant for the calculation of the decay rate of a single shot or continuous supply of CO2 in the atmosphere.

        It is like looking at the throughput of capital and goods through a factory (the turnover of capital and goods) to estimate the net gain or loss of your investment. You can double or halve the turnover, but that says next to nothing about what happens with the gain or loss of your capital at the end of the year…

        Here a graph which shows the effect of a one-shot 100 GtC human CO2 into the pre-industrial 580 GtC atmosphere:

        The human fraction in the atmosphere (FA) immediately increases to 14% but that is rapidly reduced by the residence time which replaces the original “human” CO2 molecules by “natural” CO2 molecules from other reservoirs, mainly the (deep) oceans. FL is the human fraction in the ocean surface layer and tCA total carbon and nCA natural carbon in the atmosphere.
        All original human CO2 is gone in about 60 years, while still about 10% of the original peak in CO2 (100% caused by humans) is measurable after 160 years…

        The measured response of the ocean-atmosphere carbon cycle in 1988 at 350 ppmv (60 ppmv above steady state) gives an e-fold decay rate of ~55 years:
        http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm
        The current net sink rate is ~2.15 ppmv for 110 ppmv above steady state which gives an e-fold decay rate of 110 ppmv / 2.15 ppmv/year = 51.2 years.
        Looks like a quite linear response to me…

        The Bern model differs from the above single decay model (which lumps all sinks together), as that splits the total response in different sink speeds for different reservoirs, each with their own saturation level.
        For the ocean surface that is right: the ocean surface is in rapid equilibrium with the atmosphere, but the ocean’s DIC does change only with 10% of the change in the atmosphere.
        Where the Bern model goes wrong is the expectation of a similar saturation in the deep oceans, for which is not the slightest sign.
        Vegetation is a lot slower in permanent uptake, but has no limit in uptake, as that is what we burn today…

      • Reply to Ferdinand Engelbeen post received 16 5 2015
        You can as well refer to
        Camille May 16, 2015 at 5:09 am REPLY TO Willis Eschenbach May 13, 2015 at 10:53 am and to
        Camille May 15, 2015 at 3:59 am REPLY to the comments made by Francisco May 13, 2015 at 6:21 am

        QUOTE: “As shown on figure 17-D the regions for absorption and out-gassing are separate; there is no “global” equilibrium between the atmosphere and the ocean; carbon absorbed tens of years ago at high latitudes is resurfacing in up-wellings; carbon absorbed by plants months to centuries ago is degassed by soils Sorry, there is a fundamental lack of knowledge of dynamic systems here: as long as the total of the CO2 influxes is the same as the total of the CO2 outfluxes, nothing happens in the atmosphere. That is the “steady state” or dynamic equilibrium for the ocean – atmosphere system. ”
        ANSWER: You mean that d(CO2 in the air) /dt= f out-gassed(t) + f anthropic(t) – f absorbed(t) is 0 if the right member is zero; thank you !
        But the steady state idea is a myth or a religious idea which contradicted by the observations as shown by figure 4-A where the monthly increments (computed over dt = over 12 months (to minimize seasonal effects) are anywhere between (about) minus -0.4 ppm and +3.7 ppm that is -1 Gt-C to +8 Gt-C

        QUOTE:”For any temperature in the oceans, there is a steady state level with the atmosphere, as dictated by Henry’s law for the solubility of CO2 in seawater. Historically over the past 800,000 years that was ~8 ppmv/°C over ice ages and interglacials or between the MWP and LIA.”
        ANSWER: There is not “A” temperature of the oceans but a constantly changing distribution of temperatures and of partial pressures of the gases; figure 17-D from the Publications Office of the European Union gives a global view with some time averaging: it is anywhere between 280 µatm and 430 µatm in the water !
        Please refer to figure 15-A that depicts, plotted according to latitude, month by month, the changing temperatures of the lower troposphere !

        QUOTE: “For the current average ocean surface temperature, Henry’s law gives ~290 μatm (= ppmv minus % water vapor). That is exactly the same 290 μatm which one would measure for a static system like a flask in a laboratory at the same temperature given sufficient time to equilibrate with the air above the liquid. Henry’s law is applicable as good for dynamic systems as for static systems.”
        ANSWER: As Henry’s law is strongly non linear, like exp(2587/T) for salty water, the use of an average temperature is a not possible; you have to use local temperatures and then, only then, compute averages … But again as shown on figure 17-D the CO2 in the air and in the oceans is far from being uniform: it is anywhere between 280 µatm and 430 µatm in the water, not uniform at 290 µatm !

        QUOTE:”There were over 3 million pCO2 measurements of ocean waters in the past decades which confirm Henry’s law…”
        ANSWER: You seem to refer to Takahashi’s data; as the exchange of CO2 between air and water is strongly dependent upon the speed of the wind (as the third power of the wind according to Wanninkof & McGillis 1999) it’s not Henry law !

        QUOTE:”Any increase in temperature gives 8 ppmv/°C increase in the atmosphere and then it stops. It is impossible that the dynamic system (which the ocean-atmosphere carbon cycle is) doesn’t react on the increased pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere after a warming, or a volcanic eruption or human emissions: at 8 ppmv extra in the atmosphere the ΔpCO2 between upwelling and atmosphere at one side and the ΔpCO2 at the sink side is restored to what they were before the warming with 1°C.”
        ANSWER: The d(CO2 in the air) /dt is plotted on figure 4-A; its integral is of course exactly the function (CO2)(t) !
        As already explained you have four time series at hand, (CO2)(t) and its delta13C(t), f anthropic(t) and its delta13C(t) to be computed form the coal, gas, oil and cement time series. In addition you know that the lifetime of a CO2 molecule in the air is in the range 3 to 7 years, and from statistical tests on the time series that the only possible correlation between the series CO(2) and T(t) is to be sought between d(CO2(t))/dt and T(t). The solution is explained on card n°17.

        Your 8 ppm/K seems to assume that the exchange is limited to a 50 m deep layer; if it was extended to 1000 m it would be 160 ppm/K may-be a more realistic value. Please refer to textbooks like the book of S.A. Thorpe The turbulent ocean, Cambridge University Press, 2005, 439 pages, for an explanation that the idea of a stratified ocean limited to a 50 m top layer is foreign to reality. Please refer to the paper by Levy et al.(2013), quoted in my preceding reply, for an order of magnitude (270 Gt-C per year) of the carbon down-welling and up-welling inside the ocean.

        QUOTE: “The influxes and outfluxes are directly proportional to the ΔpCO2 between oceans and atmosphere at any ocean area. With the current ΔpCO2 between atmosphere and oceans, the net flux is from the atmosphere into the oceans, not reverse. See: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/maps.shtml The current net sink/source balance is exactly known from the mass balance: that is the difference between increase in the atmosphere and human emissions. You don’t need to know any individual or total influx or outflux, only the net result is necessary and that is known.”
        ANSWER: Indeed we know d(CO2 in the air) /dt and f anthropic(t);
        f out-gassed(t) and f absorbed(t) are not known !
        The conjectured flows have been manipulated at will as shown by the huge changes in their values from an IPCC report to the following report.

        QUOTE: “As said by benofhouston and me: you are looking at the wrong rate: the residence time is completely irrelevant for the calculation of the decay rate of a single shot or continuous supply of CO2 in the atmosphere. ”
        ANSWER: If (CO2 in the air)(t)/ f absorbed(t) = lifetime is (more or less) constant, then you have a simple equation like dy/dt + y/(lifetime) = g(t) whose solutions are explained in elementary calculus textbooks.
        The lifetime is then constrained by the four time series as the CO2 outgassed now has been buried or absorbed tens of years ago; this means a slowly decreasing delta13C of the natural part of the CO2 content of the air.

        QUOTE: “It is like looking at the throughput of capital and goods through a factory (the turnover of capital and goods) to estimate the net gain or loss of your investment. You can double or halve the turnover, but that says next to nothing about what happens with the gain or loss of your capital at the end of the year…
        Here a graph which shows the effect of a one-shot 100 GtC human CO2 into the pre-industrial 580 GtC atmosphere:”
        ANSWER: The basic hypothesis for the use of linear network theory is that the network is linear !
        A 100 Gt-C “human” one-shot is likely to cause strong non-linearities and is a useless fantasy; in this fantasy-world the relation (CO2 in the air)(t) / f absorbed(t) = 5 years would not hold.
        Using such arguments you could “prove” that the Moon is about to fall on the Earth … unless you pay dearly to “save the planet” and forget common sense !

        QUOTE: “The human fraction in the atmosphere (FA) immediately increases to 14% but that is rapidly reduced by the residence time which replaces the original “human” CO2 molecules by “natural” CO2 molecules from other reservoirs, mainly the (deep) oceans. FL is the human fraction in the ocean surface layer and tCA total carbon and nCA natural carbon in the atmosphere. All original human CO2 is gone in about 60 years, while still about 10% of the original peak in CO2 (100% caused by humans) is measurable after 160 years…
        The measured response of the ocean-atmosphere carbon cycle in 1988 at 350 ppmv (60 ppmv above steady state) gives an e-fold decay rate of ~55 years:
        http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm
        ANSWER: What is to be considered is the simple problem (the equation at the top of this reply) constrained by the four monthly time series (CO2)(t) and its delta13C(t), f anthropic(t) and its delta13C(t). The solution is explained on cards n°4 and n°17. No need to make extravagant assumption(s) about “pulses “…

        QUOTE: “The current net sink rate is ~2.15 ppmv for 110 ppmv above steady state which gives an e-fold decay rate of 110 ppmv / 2.15 ppmv/year = 51.2 years.
        Looks like a quite linear response to me…”
        ANSWER: The current net sink rate is about one fifth of the CO2 content of the air according to
        (CO2 in the air)(t) / f absorbed(t) = 5 years.
        Due to obvious physical and biological effects this has been so since say 1860: see papers by Pretzsch (München) comparing the growth of European forest (not managed plots) in the 1960’s and now, with some hints to 19th century observations and other papers referenced-to in note 19.
        Its likely that f absorbed(t) went up from 315/5 = 63 ppm = 133 Gt-C in the 1960’s to 400/5 = 80 ppm = 170 Gt-C now; note that this f absorbed(t) does not take into account all the local absorption and respiration that take place inside the forest or in the field: the Mauna Loa observatory is at an altitude of 3400 m.

        QUOTE: “The Bern model differs from the above single decay model (which lumps all sinks together), as that splits the total response in different sink speeds for different reservoirs, each with their own saturation level.
        ANSWER: The compartment or reservoir models are nice toys but with many parameters (10 or more) unconstrained you can “prove” whatever you wish !
        The very notion of “sink” starts from d(CO2 in the air) /dt= f anthropic(t) – sink(t); it is easy to plot sink(t) which, by the way is
        sink(t) = f anthropic(t) – d(CO2 in the air) /dt = fanthropic(t) – k(T(t)- T0) – fanthropic(t) + CO2anthropic(t)/(lifetime)
        sink(t) = CO2anthropic(t)/(lifetime) – k(T(t)- T0) or from figure 17-B about 24 ppm/5 – (1.45 + 1.6 AT) ppm = (3.35 – 1.6 AT) ppm or 7.1 Gt-C when the temperature anomaly AT from UAH-MSU is zero
        Indeed (CO2in the air) = (CO2 anthropic) + (CO2 natural) and d(CO2in the air)/dt = d(CO2 anthropic)/dt + d(CO2 natural)/dt and
        d(CO2natural(t))/dt = k(T(t)- T0) and d(CO2 anthropic(t))/dt + (CO2 anthropic(t))/lifetime = fanthropic(t)
        But this simple exercise does not help to solve the constraints set by the delta13C time-series.

        I insist that CO2anthropic(t) is here the real anthropic CO2 (with its applicable delta13C signature) not the ghosts or phantoms coming back to air after a long travel in the afterlife through the many compartments or reservoirs hypothesized by the poets or the mystics like Dante who have been given a guided tour in the Afterworld.

        QUOTE: “For the ocean surface that is right: the ocean surface is in rapid equilibrium with the atmosphere, but the ocean’s DIC does change only with 10% of the change in the atmosphere.”
        ANSWER: This very amazing assumption that the Revelle factor that strictly applies inside the water apply as well to the atmosphere is obviously falsified by figures 17C and D !

        QUOTE: “Where the Bern model goes wrong is the expectation of a similar saturation in the deep oceans, for which is not the slightest sign. Vegetation is a lot slower in permanent uptake, but has no limit in uptake, as that is what we burn today…”
        ANSWER: That the Bern or compartment models are meaningless and disproved by observations has been recently written by no less than James Hansen (our Faustian Bargain: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130329_FaustianBargain.pdf) with poetical tones
        “We suggest that the surge of fossil fuel use, mainly coal, since 2000 is a basic cause of the large increase of carbon uptake by the combined terrestrial and ocean carbon sinks. One mechanism by which fossil fuel emissions increase carbon uptake is by fertilizing the biosphere via provision of nutrients essential for tissue building, especially nitrogen, which plays a critical role in controlling net primary productivity and is limited in many ecosystems. Modeling and field studies confirm a major role of nitrogen deposition, working in concert with CO2 fertilization, in causing a large increase in net primary productivity of temperate and boreal forests. A plausible addition of 5 TgN/year from fossil fuels and net ecosystem productivity of 200 k-gC per kg N yields an annual carbon drawdown of 1 GtC/year, which is of the order of what is needed to explain the post-2000 anomaly in airborne CO2.”

        Or translated into plain English: “all the carbon cycle myths we have been propagating since the 1960s are … “.

      • Camille,

        Please, if you look at a reference to an article on a blog, always look at the comments below the article. Mine under that article are quite relevant…
        The whole article was for pre-industrial times and mainly the carbon exchanges between middle layer and the deep oceans. The net result was a yearly loss of 0.5 GtC/year from the oceans to the atmosphere.
        The current atmosphere is 110 ppmv above steady state. That pushes ~1 GtC/year net into vegetation, ~0.5 GtC/year into the ocean surface and ~3 GtC/year net into the deep oceans…

      • Dear Camille,

        As others have already pointed out:
        The five years used throughout the whole points 3, 4 and 17 is residence time. Residence time has nothing to do with an increase or decrease of CO2 in the atmosphere: it is about how long in average it takes for a single CO2 molecule in general to be replaced by a CO2 molecule of another reservoir. That is in formula:
        residence time = amount in the atmosphere / throughput or
        800 GtC / 150 GtC/year = 5.33 years

        The e-fold decay rate is what your formula shows for some extra CO2 above equilibrium to bring back the total CO2 back to equilibrium (for a linear process):
        e-fold decay rate = driving force / net sink rate
        110 ppmv / 2.15 ppmv/year = 51.2 years

        You are using the 5 years residence time in all your calculations which doesn’t change the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere with one gram per year, while you should have used the e-fold decay rate.
        As Willis already said, that is such a fundamental error which shows a complete lack of understanding of a feedback system, which makes it very difficult to believe other points you did bring up, which may be quite valid.

        Further:
        You mean that d(CO2 in the air) /dt= f out-gassed(t) + f anthropic(t) – f absorbed(t) is 0 if the right member is zero; thank you !

        I did mean that the steady state is at:
        dCO2/dt = f out-gassed(t) – f absorbed(t)
        where f out-gassed(t) = f absorbed(t) and thus dCO2/dt = 0
        thus without human emissions.

        With f anthropic(t) or f volcanic(t) or f T(t) the steady state is disturbed and that will influence both f out-gassed(t) and f absorbed(t) and thus dCO2/dt, where the whole system tries to restore the dynamical equilibrium. For T(t) that is 8 ppmv/°C to reach a new steady state. That is all.
        The MWP-LIA cooling was good for a drop of ~6 ppmv CO2. The warming from the LIA to current times is thus good for ~6 ppmv extra in the atmosphere. That is all. By far not the 110 ppmv we see today.

        Steady state is simply the basic equilibrium where a process strives towards. Nothing to do with myths. It can be calculated and the net sink or source rate of such a process can be calculated according to the process characteristics and the height of the disturbance.
        For seasonal temperature changes, that gives about 5 ppmv/°C, mainly from NH extra-tropical vegetation
        For year to year variability (1-3 years), that gives 4-5 ppmv/°C, mainly from tropical vegetation
        For very long term changes (MWP-LIA, glacial-interglacial changes), that gives ~8 ppmv/°C, mainly from the deep oceans.

        There is not “A” temperature of the oceans but a constantly changing distribution of temperatures and of partial pressures of the gases
        and
        But again as shown on figure 17-D the CO2 in the air and in the oceans is far from being uniform: it is anywhere between 280 µatm and 430 µatm in the water, not uniform at 290 µatm !

        So what? One can calculate an area weighted average for the oceans, as was done by Feely e.a. over all seasons (which gives average 7 µatm more in the atmosphere than in the ocean surface). The weighted average over a year gives a net absorption of the oceans of several GtC.
        Of course the pCO2 of the oceans is not uniform, to the contrary: due to the large temperature/pCO2 differences there is a continuous CO2 flux between the equatorial upwelling zones and the polar sink zones of ~40 GtC/year. But that is mainly circulation. Only the difference between source and sink is important: currently quite more sink than source.
        Henry’s law for small changes in temperature is quite linear. The deviation for 1°C is less than 3%. The warming 1960-2015 was ~0.6°C…

        You seem to refer to Takahashi’s data; as the exchange of CO2 between air and water is strongly dependent upon the speed of the wind

        The ΔpCO2 between oceans and atmosphere is the driving force and that depends of Henry’s law. Wind speed only enhances the exchange speed, that doesn’t influence the equilibrium itself.

        The d(CO2 in the air) /dt is plotted on figure 4-A; its integral is of course exactly the function (CO2)(t)

        Of course that is, but the variability of dCO2/dt is directly caused by the variability of T, mainly its influence on vegetation (as the opposite CO2 and δ13C changes show). That is what gives the high correlation, even if there was no slope at al in one of the variables.
        T is not responsible for the offset and slope of dCO2/dt, as vegetation is a net sink for CO2 over periods longer than 2-3 years. The offset and slope is from a different process.

        As dCO2/dt(emissions) is twice the offset and increase of dCO2/dt(atmosphere), I think that human emissions are a better candidate:


        The integral of dT/dt is of course the increase in T (~0.6°C) and its influence on CO2 ~5 ppmv. That is all.
        and

        where the red line is the calculated increase in the atmosphere based on the net sink rate caused by the ΔpCO2 between atmosphere and oceans for the ocean temperature of each year.

        Henry’s law has little to do with quantities, it is based on pressure (differences). It doesn’t matter if you shake a bottle of Coke with 0.5 or 1.0 or 1.5 l content from the same batch: you will find the same CO2 pressure under the screw cap for the same temperature. Henry’s law says 8 ppmv/°C that is all at equilibrium (for a flask sample) or steady state (for the oceans). No matter if there is 100 times more carbon species in the (deep) oceans.

        f out-gassed(t) and f absorbed(t) are not known !

        No, but that has not the slightest interest:
        f out-gassed(t) minus f absorbed(t) is exactly known and that is all we need to know. The natural balance is already 55 years more sink that source. Thus nature is not the cause of the increase in the atmosphere. Humans are…
        It doesn’t matter if one year the natural balance was 150 GtC in, 155 GtC out and next year it was 210 GtC in, 214 out. In all cases it was more out than in, with some year by year variability. Besides a small influence of temperature, nature did contribute zero, nada, nothing to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere…

        A 100 Gt-C “human” one-shot is likely to cause strong non-linearities and is a useless fantasy; in this fantasy-world the relation (CO2 in the air)(t) / f absorbed(t) = 5 years would not hold.

        Camille, all what you demonstrate here is a complete lack of basic knowledge of control theory. It is quite normal to use a step response to see how a system responds. In this case I used a step response to show you the difference between the residence time and the e-fold decay rate for a one-time pulse of CO2 in the atmosphere, but I fear that you still don’t get it. I have done the same exercise with the human emissions over the past 160 years and the measured CO2 levels in the atmosphere:

        As the calculated and observed increase in the atmosphere are quite identical, I suppose that my interpretation of a linear response of the CO2 cycle (in the oceans) is not far off.

        The current net sink rate is about one fifth of the CO2 content of the air according to
        (CO2 in the air)(t) / f absorbed(t) = 5 years.

        That is the crux of the matter: the 150 GtC in and out is not the net sink rate it is the source rate and the sink rate of a cycle, which doesn’t change the CO2 content of the atmosphere. Only the net difference between released and absorbed does change the CO2 content of the atmosphere… No matter if the natural cycle has halved or doubled in the past decades…

        I insist that CO2anthropic(t) is here the real anthropic CO2 (with its applicable delta13C signature) not the ghosts or phantoms coming back to air after a long travel in the afterlife through the many compartments or reservoirs

        Camille, there is nothing magic about the dilution of the δ13C signal from human emissions: what goes into the deep oceans is the isotopic composition of today, what comes out of the deep is the isotopic composition of ~1000 years ago. That makes that only about 1/3rd of the original human emissions (in composition) remain in the atmosphere, the other 2/3rd is simply exchanged by CO2 from the deep oceans. Still 100% of the increase (in mass) is caused by human emissions… We can use that to calculate the deep ocean – atmosphere exchanges:

        This very amazing assumption that the Revelle factor that strictly applies inside the water apply as well to the atmosphere is obviously falsified by figures 17C and D

        Figures 17C and D don’t show anything about the Revelle factor. The work of Bates e.a. does:
        http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/27-1_bates.pdf
        Moreover, if you take the increase of DIC at the longest series (Bermuda and Hawaii), you can see that DIC increases with about 10% of the increase in the atmosphere over the same period.
        And some chemistry which shows the background of the Revelle factor:
        http://www.eng.warwick.ac.uk/staff/gpk/Teaching-undergrad/es427/Exam%200405%20Revision/Ocean-chemistry.pdf

        ———————-

        I am in a working group in Flanders/Belgium, which has good ties to the French speaking group which has published a similar manifesto in book form: “15 vérités qui dérangent”. I did comment on similar errors about the residence time as in your manifesto, which resembles each other. Are there some ties between the two groups (via Drieu Godefridi)?

  51. Not being a scientist, what would I know?
    But it’s quite clear that Poitou and Bréon got increasingly desperate as the paper went on. They were even reduced at one stage to “It’s a well-know fact …” usually the last resort of someone looking out from his corner across a sea of paint!

  52. dbstealey made a good point, and I am sorry my response was a little snippy.

    Point 5 is dependent on the fit of three sinusoids, then observing that we may be in for a colder period based upon the graph.

    This approach has several problems. First, note that the displayed graph doesn’t even purport to be the actual curve. It would be nice to see it.

    The authors didn’t provide a link (that I saw) to the derivation of the curve, so it is difficult to respond precisely. If they didn’t explain what they did, I have to make some, hopefully reasonable, assumptions, but it would be best if they could identify the analysis, so one doesn’t have to make guesses.

    A sinsusoid has three parameters, period, amplitude and slope. Are any of them constrained? One hopes the slope of the 60 year cycle is constrained to zero, but they do not say. If there are no constraints, we have nine possible parameters for the three sinusoids, plus three weights, for a total of 11 parameters (the weights add to one, so there are only two free wight paramters). It seems likely the period of the 60 year cycle is constrained, and I hope the slope, but I do not know. That means we have 9, 10 or 11 parameters. As John von Neumann famously said

    With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.

    The authors seem to have at least 9 parameters, of course they can fit the data. That doesn’t make it a great model.

    The authors suggest that the 60 year cycle comes from the motion of the earth relative to the center of the solar system. However, they do not state whether they derived the amplitude from a model of the process, or simply allowed the fitting process to determine the amplitude. It makes a big difference.

    When summing multiple curves, it is not unusual for one to dominate. The 60 year cycle appears to be the dominant one, but the 1000 year and the 210 year cycles contribute a lot. They concede they have no physical explanation of the 1000 year cycle, and I don’t see that they even mention the 210 year cycle.

    You simply cannot predict that temperatures are going to get colder based upon a model which is simply a mathematical fit of semi-arbitrary curves. If they are not arbitrary, then they need to show the evidence.

    There are justifications for using the sum of multiple curves without physical justification. The insurance industry uses a fit of ten exponentials for certain loss data. While I have some trouble with the approach, my concern is mitigated because they never, ever use them for extrapolation, only interpolation.

    This curve is being used for extrapolation. It needs far more justification than has been given.

    • Lets take a closer look at the temperature records: Figure 2-A suggests natural cycles of periods 60 years (found as well by Macias et al [18]), 210 years and 1000 years plus modulation by the El Niño events and by some volcanic events (Krakatoa 1883, Katmai 1912, ..). Figure 2-B suggests that since 1979 there has been a jump of at most 0.3°C during the great El Niño of 1997-98; (see figure 15-A showing that El Niño paces the global temperatures as the water of the warm pool is redistributed to the oceanic surface layer at higher latitudes).Those oscillations exist since millennia and are not related to CO2.

      Footnote 18 – [18] Diego Macias, Adolf Stips, Elisa Garcia-Gorriz Application of the Singular Spectrum Analysis Technique to Study the Recent Hiatus on the Global Surface Temperature Record PLOS ONE 1 September 2014 , Volume 9 Issue 9 e107222 (free access)

      Google search – http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0107222

      You may not have to believe everything on the Internet, but with a little reading comprehension it does not take much to find where they said it.

      • DD More, did you read the paper? It claims to find some cycles, but it does not support the 210 year or the 1000 year cycle. Unless I missed it in which case, point it out. The reference seems to be simply to the 60 year cycle, and event hat isn’t clear. I accept that there may be a 60 year cycle due to the moving center of the solar system argument, what I questioned before, and still question, is a natural explanation for a 210 or a 1000 year cycle.

    • You are wrong. A sinusoid has only 2 parameters -amplitude and period. The “weighting factor”you allude to is the amplitude. Three sinusoids plus a constant has 7 parameters not 9, 10 or 11.

      • It isn’t clear whether the slope has to be flat or not. I assumed it didn’t have to be (although the 60 year cycle better be so constrained.) All of this is speculation when they don’t identify the parameters, or the fitting routine. In any case, there are a lot of parameters for a relatively small set of data.

      • Plus, you ignored the weights. You have three weights, one constrained so two additional parameters.

  53. He did mention the satellite data. He also mentioned the Brest tidal gauge.
    Don’t you look stupid now.

  54. Inconvenient truth #12 is a good example of why this needs a lot of work.

    As stated:
    The sum of the surfaces of the Arctic and Antarctic icepacks is about constant, their trends are phase-opposite; hence their total albedo is about constant.

    It is roughly true that the trends are phase opposite. However, the claim that the “sum of the surfaces” (presumably, they mean area) is about constant isn’t correct. Check the excellent seas ice graphs linked in the reference pages here, The area ranges for about 18 to 27 million square kilometers each season, far lower than the variation of each hemisphere separately, but such a range cannot be characterized as “about constant”.

    It goes on to say “hence their total albedo is about constant” implying that the ice area is all that is needed to determine albedo. Even if we ignore the fact that an over 50% variation is not constant, one couldn’t even conclude that a constant combined area would imply constant albedo. As others have noted, the Antarctic ice extends further from the pole than the Arctic. In the discussion on page 25, the author notes the existence of low altitude clouds, which will affect the albedo. One hopes we have some satellites measuring this directly, but whatever the case, we need a citation for this claim, one cannot simply assert it.

    The eexchange between Bardinet and Poitou & Bréon adds to the confusion. For some purposes, volume may be more important than area, but not when discussing albedo. Poitou & Bréon refer to “spring” which is an understandable mistake from a lay person, not one I expect form a scientist. Surely someone working on global issues knows to avoid the hemiscentric confusing term.

      • Not necessarily when discussing the earth’s energy balance. It is the mean change of albedo that is relevant.
        Regarding Sea Ice, the SH increase overwhelms the NH decrease for numerous reasons.

  55. Monsieur Bardinet, that was an excellent tour de force.
    Can’t lose track of this post.
    Please list under: Climate Fail Files

    BTW. There is a star rating on each post. (average and number of ratings)
    Is there any way to list/search posts by average and number of ratings?

  56. Agree with several contributors here – very uncomfortable with the attempt to undermine our basic understanding of the greenhouse idea by appeal to some limited interpretation/misapplication of thermodynamic laws.
    Rather a pity, since at first read this is quite painstaking work well enough laid out to require step-by-step refutation, rather than the contemptuous dismissal it will likely receive.

    I don’t think many lukewarmers, and probably few out-and-out sceptics, will find much to use in this document, although taken individually there are some telling points (largely covered by other WUWT contributors). But – I think these authors deserve to be encouraged, rather than sneered at.

  57. “5. The changes of the Mean Global Temperature are more or less sinusoidal with a well defined 60 year period. We are at a maximum of the sinusoid(s) and hence the next years should be cooler as has been observed after 1950.”

    It is dominated by the AMO signal, which is more regularly a ~69yr envelope, and so it would be cooling from the mid 2030’s, and reaching the coolest point in the mid 2040’s. Scafetta is barking up the wrong tree on the planetary ordering of the solar forcing. The period is determined by a Jupiter-Saturn-Uranus quadrature series, which returns in four steps of 69yrs, and a single ~41.6yr step to resolve at the regular synodic 3 body return of 317.67yrs that Desmond King-Hele noted and studied. The effect of each quadrature can be confirmed by NAO status and CET temperatures in the few years around each event, including the remarkably warm 1686 in the middle of the Maunder Minimum.
    There is no 1000 yr cycle, and cycles do not exist as such beyond the sunspot cycle itself with regards to the solar forcing, it is rather an event series, with period and quasi period return periods of events. Like solar minima roughly every ten solar cycles. The frequency of colder stadial like periods through the Holocene like the LIA and Dark Ages are highly variable, so there isn’t even a periodic event return at that frequency.

  58. 23 There a UN body and therefore lie has natural has people breath
    24 Without CAGW they simply have no reason to exist , and turkeys do not vote for Christmas

  59. According to the official statements of the IPCC “Science is clear” and non-believers cannot be trusted.
    “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with observations it’s wrong.” – R.P. Feynman

  60. This was an excellent article and well worth the read. I did read all of the comments and with some exceptions found many the critics to be more interested in disparaging than informing.

  61. Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
    I believe my favorite is number seven: ” In some geological periods the CO2 content of the air has been up to 20 times today’s content, and there has been no runaway temperature increase.” Funny how the planet survived — if only they’d had computer models back then!

    • That one seems very solid. Coincidentally, I had been looking at long-term temp trends a few days ago, and had exactly the same thought.

  62. This is the finest essay I have ever seen at WUWT. Organized, defined, thoroughly supported; even before mentioning the interesting and informative and indisputable content. I applaud you, Sir, for the exemplary effort.

  63. jipebe29: Congratulations on this tour de force essay.

    May I ask with regard to “Truth No. 1” in the equation

    Tp/To = (P/Po)^[(R/u)/(Cp+Ch)]

    what is the value and derivation of Ch?

    I work the value of Ch as 255/288 = (0.53/1)^[8.314/0.0289)/(1/Ch)] = ~ 1500

    but could you tell me the source/derivation of this value for Ch of the heating of the top of the troposphere by condensation of water vapor & absorption of solar IR?

    • A polytropic process proceeds with an apparent constant heat capacity Ch and
      d’Q= Ch dT = Cp dT –R T dP/P
      When going from T0 to T the changes of the internal energy and of the enthalpy are Cv (T-T0) and Cp (T-T0) while the heat transferred to the gas is Ch (T-T0); it is zero for an adiabatic and RT ln(P/P0) for a constant temperature process.
      From Ch dT = Cp dT –R T dP/P we get T/T0 = (P/P0)^(R/(Cp-Ch)) where {T0, P0} can be the characteristics of the radiating layer at a distance of an optical thickness one from the top of the air or the characteristics of the surface like {288 K, 1 atm. or 1013 hPa}.
      As dP= – rho g dz or dP/P = – g/(R Tv) dz and taking T instead of the virtual temperature Tv of the humid air (a minor effect) we get
      (Cp- Ch) dT/T = R (-g / (RT)) dz = -g dz/T
      hence T(z)-T0 = -g/(Cp-Ch) (z-z0);
      for the usual gradient of -6.5 K/km g=9.8 m/s² Cp=1005 J/kg and Ch = -509 J/kg ; indeed the air is heated in altitude by the absorption of solar infrared by the water vapour and by the carbon dioxide (for a half say 1K/day) and by condensation of the water vapor for the second half (say 1K/day).

      That’s why we took absolute value of Ch in the formulas as |Ch|.
      Ch does not need to be constant and with more water vapor in the air there, there is more warming of the upper atmosphere and what the IPCC calls a “negative lapse rate feedback” is easily de deduced: if you increase water vapour content and |Ch| by 10%, then the gradient become 9.8/(1005 + 560), and the lapse rate decrease from 6,47 to 6,26 K/km ; assuming a constant temperature at about 5 km the surface temperature could decrease by 5 km x 0,21 K/km = 1,05 K.
      The saturated gradient between 4.5 K/km and 6 K/km is often mentioned in textbooks but is valid only inside the clouds.
      T0 can be taken as more or less constant near 255 K while P0 is latitude dependent near 400 mbar at the equator, and near the ground in the polar regions (as there there is very little water vapour and the optical thickness of the air on most of the thermal infrared spectrum is low ).
      Miskolczi has shown that both the medium infrared OLR and the far infrared OLR ( 10 to 720 cm-1) are somewhat independent of the latitude.

      About the polytropics see for instance p. 36 of V. A. Belinskii Dynamic Meteorology Ogiz Moscou 1948, The Israël program for scientific translations 1961, 592 pages or more recent textbooks
      and
      reference 17 Sorokhtin O. G., G.V.Chilingar, L.F. Khilyuk Global Warming and Global Cooling Evolution of the Climate of the Earth Elsevier 2007, 313 pages who uses those relations between temperature and pressure to successfully compute the unfolding of the glaciations and de-glaciations and the early climate of the Earth billions of years ago.

  64. Most of these points have been rebutted a thousand times. Apparently at least 1,001 are required.

    1. The Mean Global Temperature has been stable since 1997, despite a continuous increase of the CO2 content of the air: how could one say that the increase of the CO2 content of the air is the cause of the increase of the temperature?

    Three reasons:

    a) Temperature has risen since the beginning of the industrial revolution coinciding with a rise in CO2, and particularly since 1950 after which there was a marked increase in both the rate of emissions and CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.

    b) Time evolution of radiative forcing from CO2 has been observed directly from both satellite- and ground-based instruments in the spectral bands predicted by line-by-line radiative models fed data from laboratory analysis of CO2.

    c) Internal variability is still dominant over short-term (annual/decadal) timeframes.

    2. 57% of the cumulative anthropic emissions since the beginning of the Industrial revolution have been emitted since 1997, but the temperature has been stable. How to uphold that anthropic CO2 emissions (or anthropic cumulative emissions) cause an increase of the Mean Global Temperature?

    [Note 1: since 1880 the only one period where Global Mean Temperature and CO2 content of the air increased simultaneously has been 1978-1997. From 1910 to 1940, the Global Mean Temperature increased at about the same rate as over 1978-1997, while CO2 anthropic emissions were almost negligible. Over 1950-1978 while CO2 anthropic emissions increased rapidly the Global Mean Temperature dropped.

    See point (c) above. Add: it’s no mystery to climate literature that sometimes internal variability is additive to CO2 trends, sometimes subtractive. +/- 0.25 K deviations from long-term mean trends are indeed not unusual, nor are they fatal to the concept of CO2-driven AGW since they can be traced to well-documented, cyclical, pseudo-periodic ocean/atmospheric heat exchanges. AMO, PDO and ENSO are three of the most-often mentioned drivers of annual/decadal fluctuations which easily swamp CO2’s long-term external forcing signal.

    From Vostok and other ice cores we know that it’s the increase of the temperature that drives the subsequent increase of the CO2 content of the air, thanks to ocean out-gassing, and not the opposite. The same process is still at work nowadays] (discussion: p. 7)

    Yes, the outgassing process is still operative today because the laws of physics did not suddenly decide to change. What ice-core and other proxy temperature reconstructions also demonstrate by way of more complete analysis is that CO2 and methane outgassings amplify the temperature response to external forcings. In the case of the 100 kyr ice age cycles, that forcing is high northern latitude summer insolation driven by predictable changes in Earth’s orbital and rotational parameters — aka, Milankovitch theory — which has the intial effect of melting glaciers, thereby reducing albedo at those latitudes. Those changes alone do not provide a sufficient change in the planet’s radiation budget to cause the observed temperature swings. Nor do they fully explain the sawtooth-shaped temperature curves whereby it is observed that temperature increases over 10-20 kyrs tend to be far steeper — nearly vertical during major deglaciation events — whereas declines from such a peak tend to exhibit a shallower slope.

    The sawtooth wave form is particularly consistent with the so-called “greenhouse” effect due to thermal radiative gasses which reduce the rate of heat loss.

    3. The amount of CO2 of the air from anthropic emissions is today no more than 6% of the total CO2 in the air (as shown by the isotopic ratios 13C/12C) instead of the 25% to 30% said by IPCC. (discussion: p. 9)

    The notes for this argument are almost too confused for me to follow. First there’s this: Note that the non-anthropic (or natural) delta13C becomes very slowly more negative (from -6.5 per mil preindustrial to about -7 per mil now) …

    … which is THE signature of burning fossilized plant matter, followed by:

    … with the replacement of CO2 molecules absorbed by the vegetation by molecules out-gassed from soils by the oxidation of the organic material of plants grown years to centuries before: the delta13C of the air was then slightly less negative.

    … which argument is given without a whit of substantiation and not a proposed causal mechanism in sight.

    The notes conclude: The comment by Poitou & Bréon assumes that the air inclusions recovered in the ice cores have the same CO2 content as the air on the surface at the time of the closing of the last air paths between ice crystals: this is unlikely and debated.

    Unlikely? What in the heck else would be more likely trapped in those air inclusions? Debated yes … by people clutching at straws in an attempt to avoid the obvious.

    4. The lifetime of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is about 5 years instead of the 100 years said by IPCC. (discussion: p. 10)

    This conflates the average lifetime of a single molecule with the decay of atmospheric concentration following an increase above equilibrium levels. The notes on this point are self-contradictory: This derivation of [CO2](t) does not assume any given equilibrium between ingress and egress …

    … followed almost immediately by: foutgassing(t) – fabsorbed(t) = k (T(t)- T0)

    … which is an equilibrium formulation.

    5. The changes of the Mean Global Temperature are more or less sinusoidal with a well defined 60 year period. We are at a maximum of the sinusoid(s) and hence the next years should be cooler as has been observed after 1950. (discussion: p. 12)

    True, but fails to explain why the longer-term mean about which those cycles fluctuate is trending up other than curve-fitting an “approximation by three sinusoids of periods 1000 years, 210 years and 60 years,” and mentioning something about the position of the Sun relative to the centre mass of the Solar System. This is not an “inconvenient climate truth”, it’s data-mining.

    There are some not-bonkers researchers working on correlations of length of day (LOD) anomalies with AMO, PDO and ENSO, but those arguments are backed by plausible physical explanations … and constrained by them.

    6. The absorption of the radiation from the surface by the CO2 of the air is nearly saturated. Measuring with a spectrometer what is left from the radiation of a broadband infrared source (say a black body heated at 1000°C) after crossing the equivalent of some tens or hundreds of meters of the air, shows that the main CO2 bands (4.3 µm and 15 µm) have been replaced by the emission spectrum of the CO2 which is radiated at the temperature of the trace-gas. (discussion: p. 14)

    Oh dear. Radiation extinction over a given path-length is not “CO2 saturation”. Extinction is, however, the primary mechanism by which the so-called “greenhouse effect” operates.

    7. In some geological periods the CO2 content of the air has been up to 20 times today’s content, and there has been no runaway temperature increase! Why would our CO2 emissions have a cataclysmic impact? The laws of Nature are the same whatever the place and the time. (discussion: p. 17)

    However the configuration of the planet is not the same whatever the place and time.

    8. The sea level is increasing by about 1.3 mm/year according to the data of the tide-gauges (after correction of the emergence or subsidence of the rock to which the tide gauge is attached, nowadays precisely known thanks to high precision GPS instrumentation); no acceleration has been observed during the last decades; the raw measurements at Brest since 1846 and at Marseille since the 1880s are slightly less than 1.3 mm/year. (discussion: p. 18)

    And yet landed ice mass loss is accelerating. Where is the water going? Not into the atmosphere according to this article.

    9. The “hot spot” in the inter-tropical high troposphere is, according to all “models” and to the IPCC reports, the indubitable proof of the water vapour feedback amplification of the warming: it has not been observed and does not exist. (discussion: p. 20)

    The tropical tropospheric hot spot prediction is not based on water vapour feedback to warming, and it is especially not unique to warming due to any other GHG forcing. In short, it is not a “fingerprint” of AGW. However, it is an expectation of warming by any mechanism, including by way of natural mechanisms such as increased solar output. The primary mechanism is increased atmospheric convection from the surface. Observations of the tropical troposphere are not in good agreement with each other, so declaring this a fatal modelling flaw is not a tenable argument.

    Calling it a problem for CO2 radiative forcing is bizarrely wrong.

    10. The water vapour content of the air has been roughly constant since more than 50 years but the humidity of the upper layers of the troposphere has been decreasing: the IPCC foretold the opposite to assert its “positive water vapour feedback” with increasing CO2. The observed “feedback” is negative. (discussion: p.22)

    The notes to this argument state: Figure 10-A Plot of the water vapor content of the air 1988 2009 (global average) from the M VAP-M archive in kg/m² or mm of water …

    Water vapour content is largely a function of temperature, particularly ocean surface and near-surface temperature. The oceans are frigid at depth, and the rate at which those cool waters are exposed to the surface is not constant. The balance of the note goes on to ignore:

    [Poitou & Bréon] IPCC has foreseen an increase of the water vapor content of the air and this has been observed. Climate Sceptics who are trying to deceive the public often show the water content of the high troposphere as if it was the whole atmosphere. The trend in the high atmosphere which is very dry is of course different of the trend for the whole atmosphere.

    … by throwing up lots of plots showing wv content in the upper layers of the atmosphere.

    11. The maximum surface of the Antarctic ice-pack has been increasing every year since we have satellite observations. (discussion: p. 24)

    Every other mass of ice of equal or greater significance has been decreasing over the same interval.

    12. The sum of the surfaces of the Arctic and Antarctic icepacks is about constant, their trends are phase-opposite; hence their total albedo is about constant. (discussion: p. 25)

    Since 1950, NCAR/NCEP reanalysis data show Arctic albedo at or above 65N decreasing at twice the rate as the Antarctic is increasing over the same latitudes. Sea ice is not the only driver of albedo.

    13. The measurements from the 3000 oceanic ARGO buoys since 2003 may suggest a slight decrease of the oceanic heat content between the surface and a depth 700 m with very significant regional differences. (discussion: p. 27)

    Mention of significant regional difference may suggest more abject cherry-picking …

    Figure 13-B Ocean Heat content of the North-Atlantic (30°N-65°N) from 1955 to 1st Q 2014.

    … but it’s always good to check.

    14. The observed outgoing longwave emission (or thermal infrared) of the globe is increasing, contrary to what models say on a would-be “radiative imbalance”; the “blanket” effect of CO2 or CH4 “greenhouse gases” is not seen. (discussion:p. 29)

    Ponder the meaning of the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship mentioned in the next point: j = σεT⁴

    15. The Stefan Boltzmann formula does not apply to gases, as they are neither black bodies, nor grey bodies: why does the IPCC community use it for gases ? (discussion: p. 30)

    Black and grey bodies are theoretical constructs useful for teaching and for making approximations. When dead-nuts fidelity to reality matters, everyone — including climate modelers — remembers that ε is not constant for all materials at any given wavelength. Hence, non-grey radiative transfer codes which go line by line.

    16. The trace gases absorb the radiation of the surface and radiate at the temperature of the air which is, at some height, most of the time slightly lower that of the surface. The trace-gases cannot “heat the surface“, according to the second principle of thermodynamics which prohibits heat transfer from a cooler body to a warmer body. (discussion: p. 32)

    This has already been beaten to death in this thread by others. The short rebuttal is that the 2nd law does not preclude a warmer body from absorbing energy from a cooler one. It only stipulates that net energy movement will always be in the direction of the warmer body to the cooler one. The word NET is the key here.

    17. The temperatures have always driven the CO2 content of the air, never the reverse. Nowadays the net increment of the CO2 content of the air follows very closely the inter-tropical temperature anomaly. (discussion: p. 33)

    This is basically a repeat of previous points about Vostok ice cores.

    18. The CLOUD project at the European Center for Nuclear Research is probing the Svensmark-Shaviv hypothesis on the role of cosmic rays modulated by the solar magnetic field on the low cloud coverage; the first and encouraging results have been published in Nature. (discussion: p. 36)

    And the fatal problem for AGW is … what?

    19. Numerical “Climate models” are not consistent regarding cloud coverage which is the main driver of the surface temperatures. Project Earthshine (Earthshine is the ghostly glow of the dark side of the Moon) has been measuring changes of the terrestrial albedo in relation to cloud coverage data; according to cloud coverage data available since 1983, the albedo of the Earth has decreased from 1984 to 1998, then increased up to 2004 in sync with the Mean Global Temperature. (discussion: p. 37)

    This is a climate modelling issue, not a fundamental challenge to GHG radiative forcing. An aside: one of the reasons that clouds modulate temperature so effectively is not just the albedo increase which bounces dowelling short wave radiation back into space, but because they radiate IR back to the surface thus reducing the net rate of thermal radiative loss.

    20. The forecasts of the “climate models” are diverging more and more from the observations. A model is not a scientific proof of a fact and if proven false by observations (or falsified) it must be discarded, or audited and corrected. We are still waiting for the IPCC models to be discarded or revised; but alas IPCC uses the models financed by the taxpayers both to “prove” attributions to greenhouse gas and to support forecasts of doom. (discussion: p. 40)

    The IPCC is well aware of the limitations of the various models used in their publications. Those limitations are openly discussed not only in IPCC publications, but primary literature itself. They are constantly being “audited” and corrected in peer-reviewed literature.

    A forward-looking AOGCM is not used to “prove” CO2-driven AGW. Evidence of that comes mainly from past observation.

    21. As said by IPCC in its TAR (2001) “we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” Has this state of affairs changed since 2001? Surely not for scientific reasons. (discussion: p. 43)

    I’m not aware that anything has changed. That inherent unpredictability is one of the better arguments I can think of for a policy of no-change. But then again, I’m a rational thinking person who holds to the notion that greater uncertainty should be treated as an inherently greater perceived risk.

    22. Last but not least the IPCC is neither a scientific organization nor an independent organization: the summary for policy makers, the only part of the report read by international organizations, politicians and media is written under the very close supervision of the representative of the countries and of the non-governmental pressure groups.

    The governing body of the IPCC is made of a minority of scientists almost all of them promoters of the environmentalist ideology, and a majority of state representatives and of non-governmental green organizations. (discussion: p. 46)

    I don’t consider this one an “inconvenient climate truth”. To me it reads like opinion masquerading as fact.

    • 1) Only a few years ago, we were being told that CO2 had completely swamped all internal variations. This occurred at a time when many of us were claiming that at least part of the warming after the late 1970’s was from the warm cycle of the PDO and AMO.

      7) You really believe that a different configuration of the continents would be sufficient to completely compensate for CO2 being 20 times current levels? If that was true, then you have just admitted that CO2 is at best, a bit player in climate.

      9) The evidence that land ice loss is accelerating is marginal at best.

      I can only handle so much BS at a single sitting.

      • MarkW,

        1) Only a few years ago, we were being told that CO2 had completely swamped all internal variations.

        Every day, folks here make vague references to things they’ve “been told”.

        This occurred at a time when many of us were claiming that at least part of the warming after the late 1970’s was from the warm cycle of the PDO and AMO.

        Gee, I wonder where you got such ideas? Oh, here’s a thought — from climate modellers: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0493%281969%29097%3C0739:CATOC%3E2.3.CO;2

        Date on that paper is 1969.

        7) You really believe that a different configuration of the continents would be sufficient to completely compensate for CO2 being 20 times current levels?

        I believe that personal incredulity coupled with a strawman argument is not a good argument.

        If that was true, then you have just admitted that CO2 is at best, a bit player in climate.

        “Complete compensation” is your argument not mine. It’s REAL easy to “falsify” a position you’ve concocted for that express purpose.

        Not every temperature wiggle in the paleo record is understood in terms of what CO2 is doing, and indeed, not every temperature wiggle is understood, period. Further back in time the record goes, the greater the uncertainty gets. This is science of a very old and complex system which has undergone countless changes, not gradeschool chemistry lab. But let’s have a look. Here’s temperature over the past 500 million years:

        And here are the estimated CO2 concentrations over the same interval:

        Let’s do some math now. Average CO2 concentration from 1960-1990 was 333 ppmv. So for 8,000 ppmv 500 million years ago, we get 5.35 * ln(8,000/333) * 0.8 = 13.6 °C. The temperature plot shows ~14 °C.

        For today, that calculation is 5.35 * ln(400/333) * 0.8 = 0.8 °C (not a typo, just coincidence). HADCRUT4 for 2014 was 0.57 °C, or 0.23 °C shy of this too-simple, but illustrative, model.

        So, today and 500 million years ago according to these data, the relationship works pretty well. It’s not always the case everywhere because CO2 is not the ONLY player. And no, not THE dominant player when one considers events like large bolide impacts and other extraordinary events which are not happening today and therefore do not provide relevant, direct comparisons.

        9) The evidence that land ice loss is accelerating is marginal at best.

        And yet research showing CO2 20 times higher than present levels millions of years ago is not marginal. You believe proxy temperature reconstructions from 500 million years ago but not mass balance calculations derived by measurements taken with modern instrumentation …. why?

        I can only handle so much BS at a single sitting.

        Then you understand exactly my feeling as I responded to all 23 points in the OP.

      • Brandon,

        Here’s some arithmetic for you:

        Mean atmospheric CO2 content during the Cambrian Period: ~4500 ppm

        Mean surface temperature during the same: ~21 °C (~6 °C above present).

        Compute ECS.

        I’ll help you. That’s between three and four doublings of CO2 level. Since the sun was 4-5% weaker then, call it three doublings. Thus ECS for the 500 million year period studied is about two degrees C per doubling, on average, ignoring any compounding effect.

        Note also that global temperature wasn’t much different under 7000 ppm then than under 4000. In fact, it was colder early in the period when CO2 was higher.

        Lots of other factors go into global temperature, but this ball park, back of the envelope calculation shows that even IPCC’s lowered top estimate of 4.5 degrees is laughably preposterous. Hence, no risk of catastrophic, runaway “man-made” global warming.

        It didn’t happen then. It won’t happen now.

      • sturgishooper,

        Mean atmospheric CO2 content during the Cambrian Period: ~4500 ppm

        Mean surface temperature during the same: ~21 °C (~6 °C above present).

        Compute ECS.

        Similar to my calculations above: 5.35 * ln(4,500/333) * 0.8 = 11.2 °C, so “my” model is 5.2 °C too hot.

        Since the sun was 4-5% weaker then, call it three doublings.

        Ok, let’s call present-day TSI 1,361.5 W/m^2. 5% of that is 68.1 W/m^2. Divide by 4 for geometry gives 17.0 W/m^2. Multiply by 0.3 for albedo and 0.8 for the climate sensitivity parameter gives
        4.1 °C, leaving a 1.1 °C residual. We’re still talking about estimates from between 500 and 400 million years ago with error bars large enough to drive a herd of pre-Columbian buffalo through and you want to quibble about one degree Celsius. Bizarre.

        Thus ECS for the 500 million year period studied is about two degrees C per doubling, on average, ignoring any compounding effect.

        No. For this scenario using the assumptions you provided, I get 5.35 * ln(2) * 10.0/11.2 * 0.8 = 2.7 °C/2xCO2. By comparison, 5.35 * ln(2) * 0.8 = 2.97, a figure which should look familiar.

        BTW, if you’re “ignoring any compounding effect”, you’re not calculating ECS. Compare apples to apples, not apples to … something else.

        Note also that global temperature wasn’t much different under 7000 ppm then than under 4000. In fact, it was colder early in the period when CO2 was higher.

        You’re reading these plots as if they’re dead-nuts accurate. Why?

        Lots of other factors go into global temperature, but this ball park, back of the envelope calculation shows that even IPCC’s lowered top estimate of 4.5 degrees is laughably preposterous.

        As I mentioned previously, one of those other factors is distribution of continents:

        Completely different ball of wax, so to speak, so your back of envelope calcs are just as “laughably preposterous” as mine are: they’re based on too little other information. The canonical figure is still ~3.0 degrees per doubling because that’s what the preponderance of far more recent data suggests. Some studies (and models) suggest the 4.5 upper bound is plausible, i.e., cannot be ruled out. Good scientists communicate the range of plausible values, and the associated uncertainties in the range when that is appropriate.

        Hence, no risk of catastrophic, runaway “man-made” global warming.

        I don’t believe in, nor know of any current literature support for “runaway” warming.

        It didn’t happen then. It won’t happen now.

        Literature is full of past extinction events brought on by radical deviations from climate norms, both cooling and warming, over relatively short periods of time. A thousand years is an eyeblink in geological/evolutionary time. When talking about prior climate disruption, the mechanism is certainly of interest, but the salient point is that it’s just not a good idea to force the biosphere to adapt to rapid environmental changes regardless of cause. This is NOT about polar bears for me, it’s about organisms we depend on for food. Wreaking potential havoc on any significant part of the food chain upon which 7.125 billion human mouths are already feeding is not my idea of intelligent adult decision-making.

        We know what 280 ppmv and 1,360 W/m^2 solar output looks like for dead certain. If you want to gamble with certain odds at your own risk, go to Vegas. Playing uncertain odds at everyone’s risk is not something that I consider either rational or ethical behaviour. YMMV.

      • Brandon, I believe in the data. I also believe in instruments that have been calibrated against known standards and proven to be accurate.
        You unfortunately only believe in data that agrees with your religious preferences.

      • MarkW,

        I believe in the data.

        So you’ll be retracting this comment then? 9) The evidence that land ice loss is accelerating is marginal at best.

        I also believe in instruments that have been calibrated against known standards and proven to be accurate.

        Modern instrumentation did not exist 500 million years ago. Further, there is much evidence we have today and of the recent past which are not available to us in anything resembling any sort of fidelity five-hundred million years ago. 500,000,000. Count the number of goose-eggs after the five in that figure.

        You unfortunately only believe in data that agrees with your religious preferences.

        I absolutely do not want AGW to be real. Your mind-reading skills are even more feeble than your apparent ability to construct an argument which isn’t self-refuting.

      • Brandon,

        Take whatever time interval you want and whatever geologic period you want.

        There is no way to get the “canonical” (ie, made up) ECS of 3.0.

        The ball park estimate I made for the Cambrian to present would be more like 1.5 if I used the actual numbers for solar input and number of doublings.

        But let’s stick to the world as it is now. The continents were arranged virtually identically to now during the transition from the last glacial phase to our present interglacial. The world warmed by, let’s say, five degrees C, BEFORE CO2 increased across the Holocene transition. The gain from about 190 ppm to 280 ppm (if cores are to be believed) resulted from this warming. It didn’t cause it.

        Then, during the Holocene, global temperature fluctuated with only minor changes in CO2. It is not the driver of climate change, but the driven. Now humans have added some to the atmosphere, but during this 150 or more years long process, T has gone up while CO2 was going down, down while it was up and flat while both rising and falling. On balance it’s up because we’re naturally coming out of cold period c. AD 1400 to 1850, not because of the CO2.

        On longer time scales, the same lack of correlation is observed. The only correlation between CO2 and GASTA is that higher T causes higher CO2 eventually. There might be a slight positive feedback effect, but it’s much less than other factors.

      • Brandon Gates, CO2 sensitivity over the last 25 million years and the last 750 million years. +/- 40.0C per doubling or, in fact, a Null result as in CO2 has nothing to do with the paleo-climate at all.

        Calculated using ALL of the reliable CO2 estimates there are (2900) and using ALL of the dO18 isotopes (20,000) for temperature in the proper way. This chart is the highest resolution and the most accurate you will see.

      • Bill Illis,

        I’ve seen you post those plots before and IIRC I responded to them. I don’t recall what I wrote previously, and rather than dig through very old threads I’ll just go with the context of this particular discussion. As I wrote upthread, comparing CO2 alone to temperature over 750 million years now for these plots does not give us nearly a complete enough picture to draw any climate sensitivity on the basis of linear regression coefficients alone. We need to know more about things like continental distribution, ocean currents, ice sheet coverage, solar output, atmospheric composition for other relevant species — O3, CH4, and H2O just to name a few — not to mention dust, and aerosols.

        Then there are the difficulties in estimating both CO2 levels and surface temperatures themselves going back that far, which this graphic from New Scientist illustrates:

        If we must look at CO2 vs. T only, I don’t think we can do any better than Antarctic ice core data over the past 800 kyrs:

        800-2ka: 11.38 * ln(2) = 7.89
        1-1800 AD: 6.91 * ln(2) = 4.79
        2 ka-present: 2.67 * ln(2) = 1.85

        In the first case, an ECS of 8 K/2xCO2 is too high … obvious to me because I know that I didn’t take methane into account, which is a significant contributor, nor ice albedo feedback as a function of high northern latitude insolation cycles a la Milankovitch.

        The middle case makes more sense to me as is because it was a relatively stable period of CO2 concentration, the system was more or less at equilibrium, 2,000 years is just on the threshold of where orbital forcing becomes significant, etc. Yet, probably still too high for reasons already cited, plus leaves out the runup from the Maunder Minimum to the beginning of serious industrialization.

        The final case is the one I’m most confident in due to the fidelity and resolution of the data, particularly through the instrumental period. But that isn’t an ECS calculation, it’s somewhere between TCR and ECS, which is where we’re always going to be when CO2 is changing at a clip faster than thermal inertia of the oceans allows an equilibrium temperature response.

        In sum, nearly a million years is a pretty darn good representative sample of the planet more or less in the same configuration as today. Going back hundreds of millions of years and arguing that there’s no CO2 —> T causality relationship doesn’t impress: far too many changed variables and very sparse data with high uncertainties relative to what we get from ice cores. Frankly, it also conveniently ignores long-standing rock-solid radiative physics to boot.

        And no, that does not mean that I do not know that CO2 lags T in those data.

        Far more robust studies of ECS have been done, my go-to reference is Knutti and Hegerl (2008): http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf

        That I can get within striking distance with a simple linear regression impresses me. I’ve done more involved regressions taking insolation, ice coverage and other radiative gasses into account and gotten even closer results, which gives me confidence that K & H aren’t just making it all up. YMMV.

      • sturgishooper,

        Take whatever time interval you want and whatever geologic period you want.

        I’ve got a million years of data on my laptop …

        There is no way to get the “canonical” (ie, made up) ECS of 3.0.

        … and I’m thinking you probably don’t on yours. It really amazes me that people think they can tell me what I have not investigated in my own time, and seen with my own eyes as a result.

    • Something is logically awry with the author’s definition of “global mean temperature.” Under this definition, the change the global mean temperature between two points in time is multivalued with consequential violation of the law of non-contradiction.

      Proof:

      The trend line is desribed by the equation T = a * t + b where T is the temperature, t is the time, a is a constant and b is a constant. The values of the constants are established by fitting the line to a specified global temperature time series in a specified interval. Let the value of the time at the start of this interval be designated by t1 and let the value of the time at the end of this interval be designated by t2. A second interval lies within the first. Let the value of the time at the start of this interval be designated by t3 and let the value of the time at the end of this interval be designated by t4. t2, t3 and t4 are constants but t1 is a variable. Let the starting point for t1 be at the beginning of the recent “pause.” As t1 varies in the direction of negative time, the slope ‘a’ varies. The “global warming” is given by a * ( t4 – t3 ) and the value of it varies as t1 varies.

      Q.E.D.

      Also, the “global mean temperature” is a misnomer for a temperature is an example of a measure but this “temperature” lacks the property of a measure that is known as “additivity.”

    • Gates says: [ ” … “, ” … “, ” … “], etc., etc.

      That’s far too long of a comment to refute everything, but no need. Here’s just one example:

      a) Temperature has risen since the beginning of the industrial revolution coinciding with a rise in CO2…

      “Coinciding” is exactly the right word. It means the rise of both was coincidental rise, which describes the simultaneous rise in temperature and CO2.

      But of course, that coincidence ended almost twenty years ago.

      • Establishment climatologists have a dodge for the situation in which the two rises are not coincident. Supposedly the global temperature is the sum of “natural” and “anthropogenic” components. Thus, when the CO2 concentration rises and the global temperature doesn’t this state of affairs does not falsify the claims of these climatologists’ models. Analysis reveals that NOTHING falsifies the claims of these climatologists’ models, thus these claims are unscientific under a commonly understood definition of “scientific.” Establishment climatologists, however, have a different definition of “scientific.”

      • Terry Oldberg,

        Correct as usual, Mr. Logic.

        In addition, that dodge lets them off the hook regarding their perennial failure to produce any testable measurements quantifying MMGW.

        In science, data is everything. Measurements are data. But they can’t produce any measurements showing the fraction of total global warming that is presumed to be MMGW.

        No measurements = no data. No data = they’ve got nothin’.

        ‘Dangerous MMGW’ is nothing but a giant head fake.

      • I guess it’s just a coincidence that the earth cooled in the 70’s even while CO2 was rising.
        Brandon strikes me as a drowning man, grasping at any straw he can in order to keep on believing.

      • dbstealey,

        That’s far too long of a comment to refute everything, but no need.

        Pretty much what first responders said about the OP, about which you yourself made much ado. But that’s the whole point of a Gish Gallop, is it not?

        Here’s just one example:

        a) Temperature has risen since the beginning of the industrial revolution coinciding with a rise in CO2…

        “Coinciding” is exactly the right word. It means the rise of both was coincidental rise, which describes the simultaneous rise in temperature and CO2.

        Too overwhelmed by the TL;DR to include point (b) eh? The non-coincidental physical cause is pretty easy to suss out on an instantaneous basis by way of direct observation from satellite observation:

        Harries et al. (2001) provides a time-evolution for the mechanism: https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/physics/Public/spat/John/Increase%20in%20greenhouse%20forcing%20inferred%20from%20the%20outgoing%20longwave%20radiation%20spectra%20of%20the%20Earth%20in%201970%20and%201997.pdf

        Causation entails correlation. Certainly, the converse is not necessarily true, but repeating the “correlation is not causation” mantra as the last line of defence is the M.O. of wilfully ignorant folks (or in this case, paid hacks) who say blitheringly idiotic things like “tides come in, tides go out … nobody knows why” on national television. Don’t be like that guy and expect to be taken seriously by serious, rational, well-informed, intelligent people.

        But of course, that coincidence ended almost twenty years ago.

        Once again you trot out a thousand-times dead zombie argument which ignores data from below the surface:

        Not a pause in sight. Where’s the heat coming from, DB? Coincidental infestations of bottom-dwelling fire pixies?

      • Brandon Gates,

        The emission curve (looking down from space) for the tropical Pacific in “clear-sky” conditions (ie, ignoring the 65% of the time that clouds are present) tells an interesting story very similar to what the top post article says.

        CO2, emitting in the 600-700 wavenumber frequency, is coming out as if it were 220K, or -53C. Where in the atmosphere is it -53C, the lower stratosphere, the location where CO2 emits directly to space, cooling off the Earth, Without CO2 it is hard to imagine how the Earth would shed that extra heat.

        Data from 0-400 wavenumber apparently missing but this is where water vapor operates.

        Water vapor spectrum, continuing, in the 400-600 wavenumber spectrum, emitting as if it were -15C, this is convection of water vapor to the lower troposphere where is cools off and emits to space but does not form clouds or rain out since this is the 35% of the time that clouds are not present. Not a very representative sample one could say but is a huge amount of heat being emitting to space by just invisible water vapor convection.

        Atmospheric windows and water vapor emitting near the surface in the 750-1000 and 1100-1250 wavenumber spectrums. Again water vapor but also from the surface at 22C.

        Ozone in the upper stratosphere between 1000 and 1100 wavenumber. Here the Ozone is intercepting solar radiation and emitting that back to space at a relatively warm for the stratosphere 5C. Its warm here because Ozone is stopping solar radiation from getting to the surface but this heats up the Ozone. When a volcano goes off and destroys Ozone here, more of the solar radiation gets through to the surface and the Earth’s surface warms up. Ozone takes more than 25 years to rebuild so the volcanoes of El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991 are actually making this emission spectrum smaller here than it used to be and is actually causing warming at the surface. Always ignored by climate science.

        Now let’s change the scene and add low clouds to mix and look up from the surface (rather than down from space) using Modtran. The Dark Blue line at 298K or 25C is a perfect blackbody. There is no CO2 or Ozone to be seen anywhere.

        Now this is only the situation 65% of the time and is never, ever shown in any climate science textbook. Why we would ignore 65% of climate is beyond me.

      • Bill Illis,

        The emission curve (looking down from space) for the tropical Pacific in “clear-sky” conditions (ie, ignoring the 65% of the time that clouds are present) tells an interesting story very similar to what the top post article says.

        I don’t see any similarity at all between how I interpret that plot, and what the OP says: 7. In some geological periods the CO2 content of the air has been up to 20 times today’s content, and there has been no runaway temperature increase! Why would our CO2 emissions have a cataclysmic impact? The laws of Nature are the same whatever the place and the time.

        Indeed, unless we assume that physical laws don’t change in 500 million years’ time, this truly would be an exercise in futility. For truly comprehensive sceptical thinking, I like Max Planck’s philosophy: We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.

        CO2, emitting in the 600-700 wavenumber frequency, is coming out as if it were 220K, or -53C. Where in the atmosphere is it -53C, the lower stratosphere, the location where CO2 emits directly to space, cooling off the Earth, Without CO2 it is hard to imagine how the Earth would shed that extra heat.

        A point I’ve made from time to time in response to the oft-raised question, “How can a trace gas have any influence on surface temperature?” Atmosphere is a bunch denser in the lower troposphere.

        Data from 0-400 wavenumber apparently missing but this is where water vapor operates.

        A more complete view showing the absorption bands of several species of interest:

        Water vapor spectrum, continuing, in the 400-600 wavenumber spectrum, emitting as if it were -15C, this is convection of water vapor to the lower troposphere where is cools off and emits to space but does not form clouds or rain out since this is the 35% of the time that clouds are not present. Not a very representative sample one could say but is a huge amount of heat being emitting to space by just invisible water vapor convection.

        True.

        Atmospheric windows and water vapor emitting near the surface in the 750-1000 and 1100-1250 wavenumber spectrums. Again water vapor but also from the surface at 22C.

        It would be quite toasty without those windows. Of course, whatever life evolved in those conditions would have adapted to them instead, never knowing differently.

        And, no, not wv emitting in those bands but the surface itself.

        Ozone in the upper stratosphere between 1000 and 1100 wavenumber. Here the Ozone is intercepting solar radiation and emitting that back to space at a relatively warm for the stratosphere 5C. Its warm here because Ozone is stopping solar radiation from getting to the surface but this heats up the Ozone.

        That is my understanding as well.

        When a volcano goes off and destroys Ozone here, more of the solar radiation gets through to the surface and the Earth’s surface warms up.

        Once the sulfate aerosols precipitate out.

        Ozone takes more than 25 years to rebuild so the volcanoes of El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991 are actually making this emission spectrum smaller here than it used to be and is actually causing warming at the surface. Always ignored by climate science.

        Not ignored in the slightest: http://www.pnas.org/content/99/5/2609.full.pdf+html

        Now let’s change the scene and add low clouds to mix and look up from the surface (rather than down from space) using Modtran. The Dark Blue line at 298K or 25C is a perfect blackbody. There is no CO2 or Ozone to be seen anywhere.

        Sure, clouds are near-perfect emitters in those bands. That 418 W/m^2 DWLR is is impressive, no?

        Now this is only the situation 65% of the time and is never, ever shown in any climate science textbook.

        Here’s the original plot, which includes the top-down view of a thunderstorm anvil inline with the clear sky view:

        That particular figure, plus most of the others, are from Grant W. Petty’s 2006 textbook, “A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation”: http://www.sundogpublishing.com/shop/a-first-course-in-atmospheric-radiation-2nd-ed/ There’s a link at the bottom of the page pointing to a compressed archive of all the figures in the book.

        Why we would ignore 65% of climate is beyond me.

        Why you think clouds — one of the most talked about uncertainties in literature — are being ignored is quite beyond my ability to comprehend.

      • Gee Brandon Gates,

        I’d almost say you are “learning” about real science finally and not just parroting climate science myths/illusions/anecdotes/dogma.

    • Brandon…. Just when I think I know a bit about the science of AGW…. I read your comments and feel rather stupid/humble. Do you eat facts for breakfast?

      • I’m sorry DB, but Brandon’s comments are a lot more than that. Regurgitating facts is one thing. But making it entertaining and cutting is another. You can’t write like that without having a deep understanding of the subject. In a field where people write such utter bollocks on a daily basis, I find his comments a treat.

      • Simon:
        Your delight in regard to Brandon’s various arguments is unrelated to the issue of whether the conclusions of these arguments are true. Are some or all of the of them true? If so, what is your argument?

      • Simon,

        Do you eat facts for breakfast?

        I prefer cold pizza and Mt. Dew, but I have occasionally gone on a reading jag and forgotten about food until dinnertime. Your positive feedback goes a long way toward making it more worth my effort to have slogged through the OP point by point. Thank you.

      • dbstealey,

        They’re factoids, Simon. Regurgitated on demand.

        Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, donchaknow.

      • Terry Oldberg
        I think it should be fine to enjoy anyone’s writing here. and I think you can do so on a number of levels. One of the reasons WUWT is so popular (and it undeniably is) is every now and again you come across a debate where both sides of the argument are discussed in a variety of ways. Sometimes heated, sometimes polite, sometimes wrong and sometimes right. People like Brandon liven things up, put the cat among the pigeons so to speak. That’s entertaining.

        When you say “these” arguments do you mean Brandon’s or the articles? If you mean Brandon’s, I would have to say most of what he writes is fairly close to current thinking on the subject in the main stream. So yes, I very often think he is on the mark. If you mean the articles…. well that’s another story. I think Brandon carved up many of the ideas presented pretty well, which was fun to read.

        I’ll finish by saying he seems to take the hits from the attack dogs here (most of the time) with a level of dignity. He doesn’t seem to be easily ruffled. He sticks to the facts (as he sees them) and politely responds. I admire that.

      • Simon
        Thanks for sharing your views. In a recent article Willis Eschenbach pointed out that we could move the quality of the discourse here at wattsupwiththat to a higher level by submitting proofs of our assertions. Where appropriate one’s proof would be of a fallacy in someone else’s proof. This is the quality that we try to achieve within the peer-review system. Used within a scientific setting, this process quickly and efficiently exposes errors in the arguments that are being made if there are any.

        When this process is used in debate the characters of the debaters bcomes irrelevant. Thus, a debater neither disparages nor praises the character of his opponent. Debaters welcome exposure of errors in their arguments because the presence of them can result in the enactment of bad policies. Everyone in the debate is devoted to fostering good policies. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could move wattsupwiththat in this direction?

      • The are altered facts as well. The surface record used to show a .6 degree drop from the 1940s. They removed the 1940s blip. They did not like it. it was clearly a problem. Brandon shows ocean charts made of disparate methods of measuring. There is however a bottom line, neither the surface GMT by a significant factor, nor the oceans by a significant factor, nor the troposphere by an overwhelming factor, have risen as the climate models projected. These wrong models are the bases of CAGW claims. Those CAGW claims are failing to manifest. CO2 is, via the observational scientific method, a bit player.

        NH sea ice, both extent and thickness, is increasing for three years now. SH sea ice is at satellite data records. The SH oceans are unusually cold. The AMO is showing signs of turning. The bulk of the atmosphere is nowhere near as warm as 1998. There is peer reviewed evidence the UHI in the surface record distorts that record. Floods, droughts, Hurricanes, extreme weather events etc, are not increasing. Record crop yields per acre are happening regularly. CO2 saves water, grows more food on less water, makes t warmer at night reducing frost damage, supposedly warms the polar regions more then the tropics and sub tropics, creating less energy to drive extreme weather.

      • David A wrote:

        The are altered facts as well.

        We don’t trust the data …

        NH sea ice, both extent and thickness, is increasing for three years now. SH sea ice is at satellite data records. The SH oceans are unusually cold.

        … except when we trust the data.

        These wrong models are the bases of CAGW claims.

        It’s a pretty incompetent cabal of data manipulators who cannot get falsified observation to agree with the zillion-dollar video games with which they’re attempting to snooker us.

      • Brandon Gates says,
        David A wrote:
        “The are altered facts as well.”
        =====================
        We don’t trust the data … Brandon says, as if that is meaningful.
        =======
        Which data Brandon? Discussing the veracity of any data rationally is in the details. There was no “political agenda” about which books wee written discussing the climate history through 1979. There was no 1970s parallel to “climategate” with scientist in private admitting many cogent skeptic points, but in public attempting to marginalize all skeptic views. The documented problems with the surface data, and their increasing divergence from the troposphere, is extensive and involves many details. Do you wish a detailed discussion of the UHI affect, of the disappearing stations, the march of stations to airports, the ever more extensive (up to 40 percent recently for some months) of ignoring valid stations and infilling with other stations through hominization that is disputed in both rational arguments and peer reviewed publications?
        ===============================================================
        Brandon quotes me,
        “NH sea ice, both extent and thickness, is increasing for three years now. SH sea ice is at satellite data records. The SH oceans are unusually cold.”
        ———–
        … except when we trust the data. Brandon states, poorly attempting to make his first straw-man relevant.

        Remember Brandon, not all data is equal. There are reasons to trust some data, and distrust other. Or are you under the illusion that all data sets have equal error bars? The problems with determining a GMT through ever changing stations and methods and instruments over century timescales is daunting, even if one assumes honesty and ignore the power of monetary and political forces to corrupt. (You do agree that billions of dollars and political agendas can corrupt human being do you not? Have you read the books I recommended yet on this? So, as I was saying, GMT is difficult, satellite observations of sea ice extent have some complications, but not nearly of the same magnitude as GMT surface T records. Ice thickness is more difficult, and I would assign greater error bars, but the increase is quite remarkable, and, as Willis recently pointed out, while the exact m=thickness may be disputable, the method used is consistent, therefore the change documented is true relative to the past, even if the exact value is not known.

        Folks please notice how Brandon attempts to distract from the points of my actual comment with petty and cheap straw-man arguments.

        Brandon continues, ”
        “These wrong models are the bases of CAGW claims.”
        It’s a pretty incompetent cabal of data manipulators who cannot get falsified observation to agree with the zillion-dollar video games with which they’re attempting to snooker us.”

        Well Brandon, the “Cabal of manipulators” are not universal, neither are they omnipotent, no matter how much they wish to “change the peer review process” or beat up scientist who disagree with them, or make extensive use of non peer reviewed literature. They do not control John Christy, nor Spencer, nor thousands of other honest scientist who are skeptics. Neither is the “Cabal of manipulators” capable of reversing the arrow of time in an absolute way, as much as they try Honest folk remember the past, and hold them in check. Honest folk notice them making continues, often monthly .01 degree reductions to the past, with no explanation, over and over again.

        It is a pretty incompetent group of scientist who cannot even use their closest to observation models to estimate the predicted harms of CAGW, but instead use the modeled mean of the way to warm models to inflate the predicted but failing to manifest harms .As scientists, this is a science 101 fail. As political activists, it is quite a success.

      • Bubba Cow says:

        @ dbstealey
        You’ve been at this all day – thanks.

        My pleasure, Bubba. When you’re put out to pasture you will look for interesting things to do, too. This gives me an outlet for my decades of Metrology work experience (mainly designing, testing, calibrating and repairing weather-related instruments of all types).

        I’m retired now, after a long carreer in a closely related field, and taking care of my disabled wife. That gives me plenty of time to read and comment.

        But I’ve never figured out Brandon’s excuse. He writes more than I do. But he has never converted a single skeptic to his climate alarmism, from what I’ve seen. Although I have seen a pretty good number of former alarmists who say they are now skeptics of the ‘dangerous MMGW’ narrative, due in large part to reading WUWT articles and comments.

        There are always a few easily impressed head-nodders like Simon, but they can be disregarded. Religious belief is a very powerful force, impossible to overcome by evidence, facts, and logic.

        Terry O and David A hit the nail on the head. Veriifiable facts are what matter, and real world facts flatly contradict the alarmist narrative. Planet Earth is clearly, obviously, unequivocally falsifying the ‘dangerous MMGW’ scare. As it has turned out, the rise in CO2 is entirely beneficial, and completely harmless.

        If skeptical scientists (the only honest kind) were shown to be as wrong as the alarmist clique posting here, we would promptly admit it up front, and try to find out what was wrong with our conjecture. We would welcome any help with that from anyone, because our interest is in knowledge, not in being occasionally right about something or other.

        That is the central difference between skeptics, and the alarmist crowd. It’s a big difference.

      • At 10:36 AM on 13 May, dbstealey had written:

        But I’ve never figured out Brandon’s excuse. He writes more than I do. But he has never converted a single skeptic to his climate alarmism, from what I’ve seen. Although I have seen a pretty good number of former alarmists who say they are now skeptics of the ‘dangerous MMGW’ narrative, due in large part to reading WUWT articles and comments.

        Well, you’ve got his “excuse” pretty solidly.

        The purpose for which Brandon Gates posts in this forum is to offer a shred of plausibility – however tattered and insubstantial – to which the average climate catastrophe True Believer can turn as he visits this forum, the better to strengthen the confirmation bias upon which such cement-heads must necessarily rely as the alleged “science” of their beloved fraud is firehosed away from under their feet.

        He preaches to the faithful, desperate to prevent their conversion to responsible scientific skepticism.

        1) An agency receives biased funding for research from Congress.

        2) They issue multiple biased Requests for Proposals (RFPs), and

        3) multiple biased projects are selected for each RFP.

        4) Many projects produce multiple biased articles, press releases, etc,

        5) many of these articles and releases generate multiple biased news stories, and

        6) the resulting amplified bias is communicated to the public on a large scale.

        One can see how in this instance a single funding activity, the agency budget, might eventually lead to hundreds or thousands of hyperbolic news stories. This would be a very large scale cascading amplification of funding-induced bias.

        Climate Change Examples

        In the climate change debate there have been allegations of bias at each of the stages described above. Taken together this suggests the possibility that just such a large scale amplifying cascade has occurred or is occurring. Systematic research is needed to determine if this is actually the case.

        The notion of cascading systemic bias, induced by government funding, does not appear to have been studied much. This may be a big gap in research on science. Moreover, if this sort of bias is indeed widespread then there are serious implications for new policies, both at the Federal level and within the scientific community itself.

        — David E. Wojick and Patrick J. Michaels “Is the Government Buying Science or Support? A Framework Analysis of Federal Funding-induced Biases” (30 April 2015)

      • Tucci78,

        He preaches to the faithful, desperate to prevent their conversion to responsible scientific skepticism.

        Yeah … because I’m such an idiot I couldn’t find a better place to set up that particular soapbox than WUWT. You’re the one keeping similar company here, not me.

        With such bomb-proof “logic” as you display here, it’s probably best you didn’t attempt to substantively address any of my actual arguments.

      • In response to my observation that “He preaches to the faithful, [in his scrambling perseverative posts on WUWT] desperate to prevent their conversion to responsible scientific skepticism,” we get from Brandon Gates at 8:08 PM on 13 May:

        Yeah … because I’m such an idiot I couldn’t find a better place to set up that particular soapbox than WUWT.

        Precisely. This being demonstrably the most heavily frequented and therefore influential site on the Web with regard to the anthropogenic global warming/ climate change/ “climate fragility” fraud to which you’ve committed yourself, there is no better venue to which you can devote your attentions as regards the preservation of this preposterous bogosity’s persistence among the confused wool and low-information voters who’ve been suckered by your progtard Algorean “We’re All Gonna Die!” hokum.

        One of the most important questions ever posed by anyone on his journey rightward is, “Why are liberals so stupid?” It’s a bit perplexing. How can someone smart enough to correctly repeat a blizzard of global warming talking points actually think that you can purchase machine guns at military surplus stores? How dumb do you have to be to think Islam is feminist-friendly?

        — The Hateful Heretic, “Top Ten Liberal Beliefs That Came From Television” (8 April 2015)

      • David A,

        Which data Brandon?

        Your opening statement: The are altered facts as well. was in apparent reference to SST data from the WWII era when engine intake readings were preferred by merchant mariners to the bucket method for some fairly obvious reasons.

        Discussing the veracity of any data rationally is in the details.

        You don’t say.

        There was no “political agenda” about which books were written discussing the climate history through 1979.

        And pigs will sprout wings and fly when the fossil fuel industry complains that people are burning far too much of their products. I’m not sure you understand the concept of a zero-sum argument.

        Remember Brandon, not all data is equal.

        Here I was thinking that some are just more equal than others.

        Or are you under the illusion that all data sets have equal error bars?

        When the data are manipulated, I’d think error bars would be just for show.

        The problems with determining a GMT through ever changing stations and methods and instruments over century timescales is daunting, even if one assumes honesty and ignore the power of monetary and political forces to corrupt.

        Yet in the face of such admitted uncertainty you’re absolutely certain that more CO2 = better come what may.

        Folks please notice how Brandon attempts to distract from the points of my actual comment with petty and cheap straw-man arguments.

        Irony.

        Well Brandon, the “Cabal of manipulators” are not universal, neither are they omnipotent, no matter how much they wish to “change the peer review process” or beat up scientist who disagree with them, or make extensive use of non peer reviewed literature.

        Speaking of non sequiturs, what does this latest batch of ad hominem bile have to do with the cabal of surface temperature finaglers? You know, the group of scientists who publish their exact methods by which they run their scam? Who make available the before and after data at its most granular level? The ones who provide the adjustment source codes for John Q. Public to download, review, compile and execute themselves should they be so inclined?

        I’m not sure either, but it did look like a cathartic rant if my own experience writing them is any guide.

    • Brandon Gates’s commentary as in point 1) is based the premise that dangerous human-caused global warming requiring immediate radical mitigating action is occurring and has been since ~1800 and any observations that do not accord with or contradict that a priori assumption are airily dismissed by ‘that is the way CO2 induced warming occurs’.
      The rest follows.

      • Chris Hanley,

        Brandon Gates’s commentary as in point 1) is based the premise that dangerous human-caused global warming requiring immediate radical mitigating action is occurring and has been since ~1800 and any observations that do not accord with or contradict that a priori assumption are airily dismissed by ‘that is the way CO2 induced warming occurs’.

        Obviously the warming to date — ~0.8 °C according to HADCRUT4 — has not been disastrous. Considering that global temperatures were ~4 °C at the last glacial maximum, 5 °C warming by 2100 seems a radical difference best avoided at any reasonable cost. For the US, the first blindingly obvious starting point for my solution is to follow France’s historic lead and build more nukes to replace coal, which is orders of magnitude more harmful in the near-term, any and all CO2/AGW concerns aside. If that’s “radical”, then guilty as charged I suppose.

        I think that when people need to resort to conditions 500 million years ago to “refute” present-day directly observable radiative effects from CO2 and other IR-active atmospheric species — backed by solid, lab-tested physical theory — that I’m not the one with a problem airly dismissing a priori “assumptions”.

        The rest follows.

        Well sure, it’s easy when you make up my arguments as you go. When I want a spokesperson, I’ll solicit one.

      • Brandon says, “replace coal, which is orders of magnitude more harmful in the near-term, any and all CO2/AGW concerns aside”
        =================================
        I am likely in support of fourth gen nuclear considering the safety factors, the 90 percent reduced waste with a vastly reduced 1/2 life, etc, but I do not get how coal in modern plants is so harmful?

      • Brandon says, “I think that when people need to resort to conditions 500 million years ago to “refute” present-day directly observable radiative effects from CO2 and other”
        ==================================================
        A straw-man for the skeptics position. The 300 year to 800 year lag time of T rising first , before CO2 is supportive of the skeptical position, and works at time scales far more recent then 500 million years. The 40s blip was real and recorded in both the NH and globally. Peer reviewed literature supports the three most recent warming periods in the last 10,000 years as being as warm or warmer then the current warm period The NH and global drop in T from the late 1940s to 1979 or so was a well established part of the record. The blip was likely removed for political, not scientific reasons. There is extensive evidence of political motivation and influence of the post normal science of CAGW. I have give you books to read on the subject. The latest pause of no warming since 1998 (significant cooling of about .3 degrees if that was the start time) in the vast majority of the atmosphere is strong indication that CAGW climate sensitivity is wrong by a lot.

        If the AMO turns and the earth produces a decent La Nina, then all the warming since 1979 will likely vanish, and the Ice Age scare will commence again. This is called CGCYY. Catastrophic global climate yo yo.

      • David A says…
        “If the AMO turns and the earth produces a decent La Nina, then all the warming since 1979 will likely vanish, and the Ice Age scare will commence again. This is called CGCYY. Catastrophic global climate yo yo.”

        Are you really saying a La Nina would turn things around put them back the way we found them. If that were true why would it not have happened already? We have had La Ninas in the last 15 – 20 years, yet the temperature continues to climb… Noaa = hottest year to date 2014. Given we are looking to be heading into a significant El Nino, the opposite is far more likely I would think. And if 2015 is warmer the 2014, where will that leave the hardline skeptics who think we are still stalled?

      • David A wrote:

        I am likely in support of fourth gen nuclear considering the safety factors, the 90 percent reduced waste with a vastly reduced 1/2 life, etc, but I do not get how coal in modern plants is so harmful?

        Particulates: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

        A straw-man for the skeptics position.

        Not if your handle is MarkW or sturgishooper.

        The 300 year to 800 year lag time of T rising first , before CO2 is supportive of the skeptical position, and works at time scales far more recent then 500 million years.

        It does a bang-up job of confirming CO2’s solubility in water as a function of temperature, as known via too many lab experiments to count. Does not at all address CO2’s absorption/emission spectrum, nor does it refute Beer-Lambert law — both of which are undergraduate textbook material by dint of them also being the subject of once cutting-edge laboratory observation.

        Far be it, though, for me to point out that while all oranges are fruit does not make them comparable with apples to boot.

        Peer reviewed literature supports the three most recent warming periods in the last 10,000 years as being as warm or warmer then the current warm period The NH and global drop in T from the late 1940s to 1979 or so was a well established part of the record.

        Peer reviewed literature also supports the crazy notion that absorbed energy doesn’t just disappear into the aether, and is just as likely to be re-emitted in the general direction from whence it came as it is to be spat out in roughly the same direction it was going. Again, this is the stuff of basic physics texts.

        Something else which is no surpise to the climate consensus community is that the so-called Holocene Climactic Optimum was indeed warmer than both the MWP and LIA. You know this because they know this. Yet you staunchly refuse to let their concern for present trends bother you, even though they’re the ones with the background and experience to give you the information you don’t dispute. Why?

        The blip was likely removed for political, not scientific reasons.

        Silly me, I forgot that you’re a mind-reader and that when the scientific portion of your argument runs out of steam, imputing motive seamlessly takes over as if nobody will notice the switcheroo.

        If the AMO turns and the earth produces a decent La Nina, then all the warming since 1979 will likely vanish, and the Ice Age scare will commence again. This is called CGCYY. Catastrophic global climate yo yo.

        What do you mean Ice Age scare will commence again? It never died on this blog. I put it as the #2 bogeyman after “The UN commies are coming … halp halp, we’re being repressed!”

        More substantively, a 4/10 degree drop is the most I could see …

        … which puts us in 1990 territory, not 1979 …

        … and since I trust these data and you don’t, I’ll take that bet in a heartbeat. As Simon alludes, the odd look pretty long against your favour.

      • Regarding B Gates says,
        Brandon Gates
        May 13, 2015 at 12:19 am
        David A wrote:

        I am likely in support of fourth gen nuclear considering the safety factors, the 90 percent reduced waste with a vastly reduced 1/2 life, etc, but I do not get how coal in modern plants is so harmful?

        Particulates: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/
        ===============================================================================
        Brandon, you missed the operative word. “Modern” coal plants. The particulates are well controlled and mitigated, unless you accept the poor and much disputed EPA reports. However the article you linked to was heavily invested into the massive particulate problem in India and China due to older coal plants, and in many cases to wood fires and dung for fuel as well.


        David A says, “A straw-man for the skeptics position.” (regarding 500 million years ago CO2 levels disprove CAGW
        Brandon says, “Not if your handle is MarkW or sturgishooper.”
        =======================================================
        I do not think one comment represents their entire position, and my comment referred to the skeptics position in general.

        David A says, “
        The 300 year to 800 year lag time of T rising first , before CO2 is supportive of the skeptical position, and works at time scales far more recent then 500 million years.”
        Brandon says, ” My comments in (…) between his sentences.
        ” It does a bang-up job of confirming CO2’s solubility in water as a function of temperature, as known via too many lab experiments to count.” (Not cogent to my point or disputed, therefore another straw-man, and in no way does this support CAGW) Brandon continues, “Does not at all address CO2’s absorption/emission spectrum, nor does it refute Beer-Lambert law — both of which are undergraduate textbook material by dint of them also being the subject of once cutting-edge laboratory observation. (Not cogent to my point or disputed, therefore another straw-man, and in no way does this support CAGW)

        Brandon continues Again, my comments in (…) between his sentences.
        David A says, “Peer reviewed literature supports the three most recent warming periods in the last 10,000 years as being as warm or warmer then the current warm period The NH and global drop in T from the late 1940s to 1979 or so was a well established part of the record.” (Remember my point was that skeptic have no reliance on 500 million year old CO2 and T records)

        Brandon responds, “Peer reviewed literature also supports the crazy notion that absorbed energy doesn’t just disappear into the aether, and is just as likely to be re-emitted in the general direction from whence it came as it is to be spat out in roughly the same direction it was going. Again, this is the stuff of basic physics texts.” (Not cogent to my point or disputed, therefore another straw-man, and in no way does this support CAGW or address my point)

        Brandon continues
        “Something else which is no surpise to the climate consensus community is that the so-called Holocene Climactic Optimum was indeed warmer than both the MWP and LIA. You know this because they know this. Yet you staunchly refuse to let their concern for present trends bother you, even though they’re the ones with the background and experience to give you the information you don’t dispute. Why?”
        =======================================================================
        Thanks for the question, but what a failed paragraph. First who is the climate consensus community?. Specifically who are the CAGW atmospheric specialists scientist, (note, not earth scientist or biologist who use the IPCC modeled mean to project future harms) who have publically stated that anthropogenic CO2 will result in disasters, and who has tallied their numbers against he skeptical scientist? Second, you skipped the Roman warm period, and I am grateful that even the ” the climate consensus community” accepts that the “so-called Holocene Climactic Optimum was indeed warmer than both the LIA” What you fail to note is peer review literature supports the MWP, the coolest of the three warm periods, as being as warm as today, and NO, the ” the climate consensus community” did not even exist when this was known so they did not inform me of this.

        Brandon continues, ”
        David A says, “The blip was likely removed for political, not scientific reasons.”

        Brandon responds, “Silly me, I forgot that you’re a mind-reader and that when the scientific portion of your argument runs out of steam, imputing motive seamlessly takes over as if nobody will notice the switcheroo.
        ===============================================
        Poor Brandon, You have never heard of political forces monetary gain, personal power, billion of dollars, peer pressure, or confirmation bias influencing human actions? I have directed you to books to read on the subject, so your dismissal of corruption in government is intellectually vacuous and willfully uninformed.

        “David A continues, ”
        If the AMO turns and the earth produces a decent La Nina, then all the warming since 1979 will likely vanish, and the Ice Age scare will commence again. This is called CGCYY. Catastrophic global climate yo yo.

        Brandon says (My comments in (…..)
        “What do you mean Ice Age scare will commence again? It never died on this blog. (This blog has nothing to do with the Ice Age scare, which really happened, “https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/ https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/screenhunter_394-may-21-04-37.jpg
        and Mann recent poor paper on the slowing Atlantic current may be a prep for just such an event.) Brandon continues…
        More substantively, a 4/10 degree drop is the most I could see …
        … which puts us in 1990 territory, not 1979 …
        … and since I trust these data and you don’t, I’ll take that bet in a heartbeat. As Simon alludes, the odd look pretty long against your favour” (Regarding Simon, like you he ignored cogent and relevant points of my post. I said a La Nina, in conjunction with a negative AMO, not just a La Nina. More specifically I am talking about the reverse of the very strong 1998 El Nino with the positive AMO. however, feeling generous, I will accept your .4 degrees of cooling, which puts us below 1979 temperatures.

        I see about .3 degrees in the whole record, and sans the 1980’s el Chichon and 1990’s Mt. Pinatubo cooling, what have you got? CAGW? I think not. This would thoroughly decimate CS. to CO2, and likely elevate natural forces to their proper level.. AMO to NH temperature de-trended..
        https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/mean12.png.

        .

      • Chris Hanley says:

        Brandon Gates’s commentary as in point 1) is based the premise that dangerous human-caused global warming requiring immediate radical mitigating action is occurring…

        Brandon downplays that, but he stated very clearly not too long ago something just like it. He believes there is a serious problem occurring; that it is caused by human activity, and that major actions must be taken, in particular reducing CO2 to well below current levels.

        I understand beliefs. We all have them. But science and the Western-originated scientific method are designed to put belief in its place. Skepticism of any belief is required for scientific progress. Otherwise, we are back to the witch doctor era. No one questioned the witch doctor. Scientific skeptics are essential to correcting misinformation. They do it by trying in every reasonable way to tear down any conjecture, hypothesis, or theory. That is the scientific skeptics’ job description. When they are successful, there is progress.

        Skeptics point out that overwhelming evidence shows that the rise in CO2 has been a net benefit. There is no global harm identified due to the rise in CO2, which has been up to 20X higher in the past without ever triggering runaway global warming — the scare that started it all.

        The rise in CO2 has also been clearly beneficial, measurably boosting agricultural productivity and thus keeping food costs down; a huge benefit to the ≈two billion people in the world who subsist on $2 a day or less.

        If atmospheric CO2 was lowered to 350 ppm or less, there would be mass starvation. Is there any doubt? A plant growing in a pot doesn’t use soil to grow; as it gets bigger the soil level remains the same. Plant growth comes almost entirely from atmospheric CO2. More CO2 means more food, it’s that simple.

        We didn’t plan to raise CO2 levels. That was a byproduct of fossil fuel use, another great benefit to humanity. But planned or not, the rise in CO2 has been entirely beneficial, and completely harmless. And it has clearly not resulted in the endlessly predicted global warming. That turned out to be almost completely wrong.

        But still the alarmist crowd hangs their collective hats on demonizing CO2 (“carbon”). Take that away, and they’ve got nothing. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, they have decided to dig in their heels, and they adamantly refuse to admit that they were ever wrong about their CO2=cAGW conjecture.

        They are willing to cause mass starvation of folks on the other side of the world, rather than acknowledge that their original premise has been proven to be completely wrong.

        It’s hard to respect that.

      • David A,

        … you missed the operative word. “Modern” coal plants.

        That article was published June 10, 2012.

        The particulates are well controlled and mitigated, unless you accept the poor and much disputed EPA reports. However the article you linked to was heavily invested into the massive particulate problem in India and China due to older coal plants, and in many cases to wood fires and dung for fuel as well.

        Table of figures from the article:

        Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)

        Coal – global average 170,000 (50% global electricity)
        Coal – China 280,000 (75% China’s electricity)
        Coal – U.S. 15,000 (44% U.S. electricity)
        Oil 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)
        Natural Gas 4,000 (20% global electricity)
        Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)
        Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)
        Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity)
        Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)
        Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)

        Considering only estimated US coal mortality per unit energy and assuming US nuclear plants are NOT any less hazardous than the worldwide average:

        15,000 / 90 = 167

        According to the EIA [1], in 2014 the US generated 4.09 trillion kWh of electricity, 1.60 trillion kWh (39%) of that from coal. So:

        1.60 * 15,000 = 23,944

        If that energy had instead come from nuclear:

        1.60 * 90 = 144

        Which is better seen as annually accruing risk. So yeah, we’re far better off than China, but ~24 k premature deaths/year is nothing to sneeze at.

        ——————

        [1] http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3

        First who is the climate consensus community?

        Serously?

        Second, you skipped the Roman warm period, and I am grateful that even the ” the climate consensus community” accepts that the “so-called Holocene Climactic Optimum was indeed warmer than both the LIA” What you fail to note is peer review literature supports the MWP, the coolest of the three warm periods, as being as warm as today, and NO, the ” the climate consensus community” did not even exist when this was known so they did not inform me of this.

        The HCO is, by implicit definition, the warmest period of the Holocene. I didn’t “forget” anything.

        You have never heard of political forces monetary gain, personal power, billion of dollars, peer pressure, or confirmation bias influencing human actions?

        Greed is a universal human traits. Corruption is one all too common manifestation of it.

        I have directed you to books to read on the subject, so your dismissal of corruption in government is intellectually vacuous and willfully uninformed.

        How nice of you to once again assume you know what I actually think based upon things which I did not write. Ever hear of K Street? It’s not only environmental lobbyists who have set up shop there, you know.

        Regarding Simon, like you he ignored cogent and relevant points of my post.

        My view is that he and I addressed them directly, and concluded by an appeal to data that returning to 1979 temperature levels, on the basis of internal variability alone, is unlikely. A sharp downturn in AMO in conjunction with sustained solar output decrease — plus throw in the odd major volcanic eruption on the order of Pinatubo, Krakatau or even Tambora — and sure … physically plausible and then some. Difficult to put odds on those sorts of events and even hairier to estimate the magnitude.

        Why any of that should threaten the theory of radiative forcing due to CO2 is anyone’s guess — they are completely different physical mechanisms.

        More specifically I am talking about the reverse of the very strong 1998 El Nino with the positive AMO. however, feeling generous, I will accept your .4 degrees of cooling, which puts us below 1979 temperatures.

        The internal variability estimates I provided are based on HADCRUT4, not UAH or RSS. From 1979 through 2014, the decadal rate of change for each is:

        HADCRUT4 0.16
        UAH TLT (v6 beta) 0.12
        RSS TLT 0.12

        0.12/0.16 * 0.4 = 0.3. Which is roughly 1990 levels for UAH and RSS, not 1979.

      • David A,

        I missed some stuff first pass:

        ”It does a bang-up job of confirming CO2’s solubility in water as a function of temperature, as known via too many lab experiments to count.” (Not cogent to my point or disputed, therefore another straw-man, and in no way does this support CAGW) Brandon continues, “Does not at all address CO2’s absorption/emission spectrum, nor does it refute Beer-Lambert law — both of which are undergraduate textbook material by dint of them also being the subject of once cutting-edge laboratory observation. (Not cogent to my point or disputed, therefore another straw-man, and in no way does this support CAGW)

        1) Beer-Lambert law is THE cogent point supporting AGW. CAGW is an open question.
        2) The heck it isn’t disputed. Do you not read this blog? Have you not read THIS thread?
        3) Solubility of CO2 in water as a function of temperature is the red herring. No serious climate researcher I am aware of disputes it. This is a non-argument.

        David A says, “Peer reviewed literature supports the three most recent warming periods in the last 10,000 years as being as warm or warmer then the current warm period The NH and global drop in T from the late 1940s to 1979 or so was a well established part of the record.” (Remember my point was that skeptic have no reliance on 500 million year old CO2 and T records)

        Here’s MarkW: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/12/22-very-inconvenient-climate-truths/#comment-1932671

        7) You really believe that a different configuration of the continents would be sufficient to completely compensate for CO2 being 20 times current levels? If that was true, then you have just admitted that CO2 is at best, a bit player in climate.

        Here’s sturgishooper: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/12/22-very-inconvenient-climate-truths/#comment-1932768

        Mean atmospheric CO2 content during the Cambrian Period: ~4500 ppm Mean surface temperature during the same: ~21 °C (~6 °C above present). Compute ECS.

        Do you or do you not consider those two posters “skeptics”?

        Oh, and here’s you from elsewhere: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/12/22-very-inconvenient-climate-truths/#comment-1933704

        He apparently fails to realize that t CAGW is a single hypothesis, posed as a theory, and therefore skepticism of that is inclusive of every degree and manner of skepticism, competent or not.

        Here’s you from just above: Remember my point was that skeptic have no reliance on 500 million year old CO2 and T records.

        Feel free to make up your mind at any time.

        Brandon responds, “Peer reviewed literature also supports the crazy notion that absorbed energy doesn’t just disappear into the aether, and is just as likely to be re-emitted in the general direction from whence it came as it is to be spat out in roughly the same direction it was going. Again, this is the stuff of basic physics texts.” (Not cogent to my point or disputed, therefore another straw-man, and in no way does this support CAGW or address my point)

        Are you familiar with the saying, “The Devil may quote scripture when it suits his purposes”? Same principle, different epistemology. You accept, as do I:

        Peer reviewed literature supports the three most recent warming periods in the last 10,000 years as being as warm or warmer then the current warm period The NH and global drop in T from the late 1940s to 1979 or so was a well established part of the record.

        Yet you do not accept peer reviewed literature which says that continued warming is potentially hazardous.

        Cue the next barrage of partisan claptrap pretending that liberal greenies are the only people on the planet playing politics with this issue.

      • Brandon Gates

        You say in reply to MarkW

        Peer reviewed literature supports the three most recent warming periods in the last 10,000 years as being as warm or warmer then the current warm period The NH and global drop in T from the late 1940s to 1979 or so was a well established part of the record.

        Yet you do not accept peer reviewed literature which says that continued warming is potentially hazardous.

        This is typical of your posts.
        1.
        You do not address the point made which is that nothing unusual is happening as there are precedents for all recent climate behaviours.
        2.
        You present a ‘straw man’; i.e. you make the untrue assertion of “continued warming” when the warming stopped nearly two decades ago.
        3.
        You present a fatuous assertion by claiming “continued warming” (which is not happening) “is potentially hazardous” but everything is “potentially hazardous” including getting out of bed in the morning.
        4.
        You apply an untrue assertion to the presenter of the point you have evaded; i.e. there is no evidence that “peer reviewed literature” (which you do not cite) has not been “accepted” by MarkW and any sensible person would accept that this “literature” is trivial if it only asserts that warming which is not happening is “potentially hazardous”.

        Brandon Gates, you are a time wasting troll. All your posts fail to address the points made but introduce evasions, irrelevancies, ad homs ., and ‘straw men’ which would require pages of text to rebut.

        Richard

      • At 1:30 AM on 14 May, richardscourtney responds to Mr. Gates“Yet you do not accept peer reviewed literature which says that continued warming is potentially hazardous” with:

        Brandon Gates, you are a time wasting troll. All your posts fail to address the points made but introduce evasions, irrelevancies, ad homs ., and ‘straw men’ which would require pages of text to rebut.

        There is in such cases always a “cut to the chase” option that doesn’t oblige the respondent to treat with detailed rebuttal the sorts of dithering we keep getting from Brandon Gates. This route of consideration entails the inference of what we’ll call each respective warmist’s primary and secondary gain motivating his allegiance to this objectively insupportable (and factually unsupported) damnfool contention about the adverse effects of anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide and – much more importantly – the political measures being pushed by each such statist sumbeech in order to allegedly ameliorate the tissue-of-lies “externalities” nonsensically asserted to be associated with the complete combustion of petrochemical fuels upon which all of industrial civilization depends for its function.

        Mr. Gates‘ “science” is crap. We need not conduct a full lab analysis of his every bowel movement on this board (no matter how coprophically he presents it) in order to say that it’s crap. We’ve examined representative samples of his stool, and we’ve picked up the same pathological findings in each specimen, so it is appropriate parsimoniously to conclude that whether or not we get in there with a colonoscope and laboriously inspect every millimeter from the pectinate line to the ileocecal junction, we’re going to find nothing except Mr. Gates‘ peculiarly reeking dung.

        He’s not doing this for reasons of interest in the “science.” He’s a political animal entirely, and his politics are poisonous.

        What more need be said of him?

        My initial doubts about manmade global warming weren’t scientific, but … I guess you might say social. I am a novelist, and — when I’m not conversant on a particular subject — I’m inclined to depend on my judgement of the character of the actors involved. To some, I know, that may seem like a terrible confession, but others who write for a living will understand. The real question, after all, is “Am I being conned?”

        That’s a social question, not a scientific one.

        So,lacking other data, I looked at the character of those pushing the idea of Global Warming. They included leftist politicos I knew to be opportunistic liars in other contexts — particularly gun ownership — along with movie stars and other brain-dead celebrities that flock to any cause that attacks private industrial capitalism and individual liberty. Some may criticize me for ad hominem thinking, but when you don’t have reliable scientific information (which I didn’t back then), what else can you rely on but your understanding of the personalities involved?

        — L. Neil Smith, “This One’s for Holly” (3 May 2009)

        Oh, yeah. Not to mention the fact that there’s “peer reviewed” literature and then there are works which get into publication by way of broken-blinding “pal review.”

        Mr. Gates goes with the flaming jackwad idiot premise that all peer review actions (indeed, all indexed publications) are equal in terms of validity, honesty – heck, infallibility.

        Gotta wonder how much experience Mr. Gates has of the legitimate peer review process, either as an editor, reviewer, or author.

        Betcha it’s friggin’ zip.

    • Brandon shrieked, “Temperature has risen since the beginning of the industrial revolution coinciding with a rise in CO2, and particularly since 1950 after which there was a marked increase in both the rate of emissions and CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

      Except when it has not::

      http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1937/to:1981/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1937/to:1981/trend

      The above is over 40 years of cooling while CO2 concentrations accelerated.

      And according to the NOAA:

      “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

      Over 40 years would be considered a rather large discrepancy.

      The IPCC AR5 Technical Summary does not even mention the PDO, AMO or ENSO as being natural climate drivers during the industrial era. They state, “Solar and volcanic forcings are the two dominant natural contributors to global climate change during the Industrial Era.” I guess the IPCC did not get the memo regarding the PDO, AMO and ENSO.

      • Dear Skeptic, I once began a response to B.G as “Brandon bloviates” but his response became so personal (“reason had forsaken him, but he could still shout”) that I decided to regress from such strong attacks.

        However I did mean it as a sincere criticism. If you read my two recent responses to him just above, along with my initial comments you will see his miss-direction tactics clearly. Brandon often conflates an irrelevant quote regarding some physics pertaining to the direct affects of CO2, having nothing to do with the point made or the evidence against CAGW. (Yet he sounds informed and the point is true, but in no way does it counter the argument presented.) He also likes to make complicated subjects appear to be simple minded conspiracies of the paranoid (like the well documented political motivations of politicians monetarily supporting the CAGW movement, and the corruption of the IPCC , also well documented, or the general corruption of peer pressure, confirmation bias, and noble cause corruption, all studied as very real by social scientists).

        In doing the above he is competent in forcing a debating person to make long answers to poorly construed straw man arguments.

      • David A

        I understand your frustration, but I write to provide a slight disagreement.

        You rightly say of Brandon Gates

        In doing the above he is competent in forcing a debating person to make long answers to poorly construed straw man arguments.

        Your “above” implies that Brandon Gates posts information he understands. In fact, he often creates his straw men by copying&pasting to here long screeds which he does not understand.

        It is his lack of understanding of what he posts that induces, for example, as you observe

        Brandon often conflates an irrelevant quote regarding some physics pertaining to the direct affects of CO2, having nothing to do with the point made or the evidence against CAGW. (Yet he sounds informed and the point is true, but in no way does it counter the argument presented.)

        He “sounds informed and the point is true” because he copies from other places that are “informed” but his copying “in no way does it counter the argument presented” because he lacks understanding of both “the argument presented” and what he copies.

        He finds the stuff to copy by googleing so – although it is “irrelevant” – it has some relationship to the argument presented and, therefore, requires rebuttal.

        In summation, Brandon Gates is a time wasting troll: he is not even a useful troll.

        Richard

      • David A squealed, “Dear Skeptic, I ……” Just kidding.

        Thanks for the comments and tip. I’ll try to tone it down.

    • Brandon stated, “The short rebuttal is that the 2nd law does not preclude a warmer body from absorbing energy from a cooler one. It only stipulates that net energy movement will always be in the direction of the warmer body to the cooler one. The word NET is the key here.”

      I guess Clausius did not get your memo. The Second Law states:

      “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time”

      The term “net” is nowhere to be found. That is your invention.

      • SkepticGoneWild,

        I guess Clausius did not get your memo. The Second Law states:

        “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time”

        Here’s the expanded quote: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/20044#page/100/mode/1up

        This principle, upon which the whole of the following development rests, is as follows :–”Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time. Everything we know concerning the interchange of heat between two bodies of different temperatures confirms this, for heat everywhere manifests a tendency to equalize existing differences of temperature, and therefore to pass in a contrary direction, i. e. from warmer to colder bodies.

        Emphasis added. How does a warm object “know” when to stop transferring heat to a cooler object?

        The term “net” is nowhere to be found. That is your invention.

        It’s standard textbook thermodynamics. From the Wikipedia article on the 2nd law, immediately following the Clausius formulation:

        The statement by Clausius uses the concept of ‘passage of heat’. As is usual in thermodynamic discussions, this means ‘net transfer of energy as heat’, and does not refer to contributory transfers one way and the other.

        The Wikipedia article for black body radiation gives the following:

        The net power radiated is the difference between the power emitted and the power absorbed:

        Applying the Stefan–Boltzmann law,