America, We Have a Problem

curry-rebukesGuest essay by E. Calvin Beisner

Kindergartners are running the country. Or liars. Or both.

Honest.

That was my strongest impression during the nearly three-hour “Data or Dogma: Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth’s Climate” hearing by the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Space, and Competitiveness Tuesday, December 8.

Subcommittee chairman Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) set out to show that some “data” offered to support the purportedly consensus view that global warming is not only real but also mostly manmade and dangerous enough to justify spending $Trillions to mitigate it are suspect.

While he didn’t make the case as strongly as he could have, that wasn’t the problem.

The problem was the—ahem—quality of the objections.

I’m sure Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) thought he sounded erudite when he lectured the packed room, “We know by the law of the conservation of energy that additional heat cannot just magically disappear. Instead it causes our planet to get warmer.”

Congratulations, Sen. Peters. You have stated both the uncontested and the irrelevant.

The technical term among logicians for Peters’s first goof is ignoratio elenchi. In this case it would be nice if ignoratio translated to what it sounds like, but it doesn’t. Ignoratio elenchi is the fallacy not of being ignorant but of ignoring the question.

In layman’s terms, Peters changed the subject. He argued for a point Cruz and each of his witnesses accept. If he knew that and did it anyway, he’s dishonest. If he didn’t know it, he’s either uninformed or—well, you can fill in the blank.

His second goof, irrelevance, stems from the fact that while the law of the conservation of energy does say heat doesn’t just cease to exist, it doesn’t answer lots of other relevant questions that Peters should understand if he’s going to lecture on the laws of thermodynamics:

· What are the bandwidths at which CO2 absorbs infrared? (Answer: See the graph below and note that water vapor absorbs at far more bandwidths than CO2.)

clip_image002

· Is there lots of infrared left at those bandwidths to be absorbed, or little? (Answer: very little. Analogy: Have we already put enough coats of paint on the window that another won’t block any additional sunlight?)

· Is CO2’s warming effect logarithmic (declining with each added increment), linear, or exponential (increasing with each added increment)? (Answer: logarithmic, implying that each added increment warms the atmosphere less than the last. See the graph below.)

clip_image004

· Do other facets of climate respond by increasing the initial warming, reducing it, or leaving it unchanged? (Answer: There’s enormous debate about this among climate scientists, but one thing’s clear: the trend in peer-reviewed studies is to think the other facets respond to increase the warming less than previously thought, as illustrated in the graph below, or even to diminish it.)

clip_image006

On those questions hangs the entire debate over whether manmade warming is anything from slight and benign to huge and catastrophic—a point Cruz’s witnesses tried, to no avail, to get across to the minority members of the committee.

Global warming alarmists constantly portray their critics as “science deniers” who ignore basic physics. They don’t, of course. Instead, it’s alarmists like Peters and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) who ignore more advanced physics.

You know, the advanced physics that tells you if you drop a rock and a feather from the same height at the same moment they’ll land at the same moment—unless they’re not in a vacuum but in air, in which case the feather will descend slowly with lots of fluttering, or in wind, in which case it might blow up into a tree and never land.

Yes, that kind of very advanced physics. That’s the kind Peters and his ilk either don’t understand or deceitfully sweep under the rug.

For Cruz and his witnesses, and all scientists seriously grappling with how much warming comes from adding CO2 to the atmosphere, the interesting questions are, “How much, and with what consequences? A little, helpfully? A moderate amount, neutrally? A lot, catastrophically?”

Cruz presented four supporting witnesses: Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama and Dr. Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, climatologists who have been lead authors for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); Dr. William Happer of Princeton, one of the world’s foremost physicists, with extensive background in atmospheric physics; and opinion writer Mark Steyn, whose book about the famed “hockey stick” global temperature graph documents not only that the graph’s author badly mishandled data but also that hundreds of his fellow scientists have said so.

All testified that, as a prominent graph provided by Christy showed, IPCC’s computer climate models consistently simulate two to three times the warming actually observed (according to 4 balloon and 3 satellite datasets) over the relevant period, implying that CO2’s warming effect is likely much less than the IPCC has claimed, and therefore whatever risks it poses are proportionately less.

clip_image007

“Being off by a factor of three does not qualify in my book as settled science,” Christy said.

Freshman Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) demonstrated better understanding than the senior Democrats on the committee when he said, “We’re 7 billion people on the planet. Human activity is likely to have some element of causation with regard to climate change. But is it the main driver? I think the jury’s still out on that. ‘Oh, the science is settled!’ As you know, the real scientists never think the science is settled.”

Markey was having none of that, though, and went so far as to impugn the integrity of Christy and Curry.

Curry in turn was having none of that. She launched into a stream of “Are you aware” questions about climate data and theory that anyone even tolerably well informed would have been able to answer. Markey answered none but merely counterfactually repeated, trance-like, “the warming trend … is inexorable.”

Just who was the “science denier” now?

It wasn’t until fairly late in the question period that the real focus of the hearing came out.

Cruz showed charts of U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperature data adjustments that showed early data were adjusted downward, exaggerating the apparent warming trend.

clip_image009

Curry confirmed that and added that the error bars on NASA’s and NOAA’s datasets should be much larger than they are to reflect the low confidence in their accuracy, then added that the satellite data, which minority committee members had challenged, were nonetheless “the best we have.”

Many other illustrations of government agencies’ biased data adjustments could have been shown. For example, German scientist Friedrich-Karl Ewert recently published a paper with paired graphs, the left in each instance showing pre-adjusted data, the right adjusted “data,” like this pair by NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies. Of the pair below he wrote:

In Fig. 2 the left temperature curve very clearly shows the first warming phase of 1920 to 1940, which was then followed by cooling until, 1980 and then by the second warming period from 1980 to 1995. The first warming was stronger. The overall trend line shows a moderate inclination, indicating a rather small yearly warming.

The right temperature curve in Fig. 2 shows the opposite: the values of the first warming were lowered while those of the second one were adjusted upwards. The scale of the y-axis was modified as well, altogether producing a steeper overall trend line, i.e. a stronger warming. That alteration gives the appearance of a distinct warming for the entire USA.

clip_image011

But of course the lapdog media already knew the tune to sing.

For instance, Darren Goode, “reporting” for Politico, wrote that skeptics say, “Some satellite records show that global temperatures have barely budged since 1998,” an interesting case of cherry picking masquerading as correcting cherry picking.

The graph Cruz displayed showed that the satellite data showed no warming not since 1998 (an unusually warm year because of an unusually strong El Nino) but since February 1997, a significantly cooler year.

By the way, the trend line from 1998 through last month would show cooling, not zero trend, which would seem to the uninitiated to support the skeptics’ case all the better, but the skeptics don’t tout that because that would be the cherry picking with which the alarmists wrongly charge them.

clip_image013

The alarmists, either dishonestly or carelessly, keep “reporting” that the skeptics choose 1998 as the starting year and that that’s cherry picking because 1998 was exceptionally warm. But it’s the alarmists who cherry pick.

The skeptics, instead, ask, “Starting from the last full month of data, how far back can we go and still have a least-squares linear-regression trend that doesn’t differ significantly from zero?” And then they report that answer through the most recent month: 18 years and 9 months, to February 1997.

Why is that relevant? Because the longer the period is, the harder it is to reconcile the climate models with reality (and conversely, the shorter, the easier).

Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman called that “the key to science.” From your hypothesis you infer a prediction, and then you compare that with observation. If the observation contradicts the prediction, the hypothesis is wrong.

Markey predictably trotted out the mantra that 2014 was the hottest year on record (not mentioning that the record in mind goes back only to 1880) and 2015 will top it.

But Curry, prompted by Cruz, pointed out that NASA’s claim for 2014 was given with only 38 percent confidence, meaning it was more likely not hottest; that NOAA listed 2014 as in a statistical tie with four others for hottest; and that the UK dataset only goes so far as to put 2014 in the top 10. (Funny how that didn’t make it into Politico.)

No one, by the way, mentioned that according to the satellite data 2015 will likely be the third warmest year on record, behind 1998 and 2010, with 2014 only the seventh warmest, though 2016, as the second year of an El Nino pair, is likely to top even 1998.

clip_image015

Neither did anyone mention that the entire increase in global average temperature from about 1850 to today, about 1.4˚F, is a small fraction of the typical range from minimum to maximum at any given location on any given day, not to mention the range from midsummer to midwinter—temperature swings that humans, animals, and plants all seem to endure quite well.

So, to paraphrase MIT climatologist Dr. Richard Lindzen, “Is the earth warming, and is human activity contributing to it? Yes. So what?”

Christy, Curry, and Happer also testified that government funding of climate research biases subjects chosen for research (e.g., lots of focus on human causes of climate change and little on natural causes), and Steyn joined them in testifying that threats (by Rep. Raul Grijalva [D-AZ] and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI]) to investigate and prosecute skeptical scientists under RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) law had a “chilling effect,” undermining both First Amendment freedoms of speech and press and the free inquiry essential to scientific progress.

They recommended instead that the federal government should fund competing research teams in climate just as it has done on other issues. When the two teams critique each other’s work, both improve.

The “Most Ironic Comment Award” goes to Markey. Comparing today’s climate change challenge to the 1960s space race, he asked incredulously if, “the brightest minds of the United States of America who once figured out how to send a man to the moon can’t figure out how to” change America’s energy system to fight global warming,” and said,

“The Republicans’ message is, ‘Houston, we do not have a problem.”

The irony is that today a group of retired NASA scientists who worked on the Apollo, Skylab, and Space Shuttle programs, calling itself The Right Stuff Climate Team, has turned its expertise on the physics and engineering of radiative heat transfer, crucial to the success of their missions, to the question of how much warming comes from added CO2. Their conclusion? Not much, and it’s not a problem.

E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., is Founder and National Spokesman of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, a network of theologians, scientists, economists, and policy experts educating for Biblical earth stewardship, economic development for the poor, and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Advertisements

341 thoughts on “America, We Have a Problem

  1. The senator that basically attacked Curry’s character and then attempted to hide instead of letting her rebut, requiring someone else’s interference to give her a chance, is a special kind of coward. If a Republican senator had done that to a female expert wittness they’d be being crucified (and rightly so) for being a coward, a bully and maybe even a misogynist in the media. That it never got mentioned just goes to show you that even special interest group reporters seem to be caught up in “the cause”.
    If that is at all representative of what the US has to offer in terms of politicians America has fallen a lot further then I’d originally thought.

    • Senator Markey was in usual form. Wouldn’t it be useful if his campaign donations from companies profiting from his advocacy of energy and climate regulation were listed on a large board behind him.
      I also found his smear of Dr. Curry interesting when he stated “you beleive the warming is caused by God…” with emphasis on the word God. In saying that he was responding to statements based on an interpretation ofscience.
      He is what he is. A low individual willing to say and do whatever to advance the statist cause which is his core belief. That goal having lost in recent decades it’s rational and even theoretical sales pitches is being moved through climate change.

    • Yes, it is sad watching liberals bait women and belittle them. And then turn around and accuse Republicans of the same discourtesy.

    • americans really vote to put clowns like markey in a position of responsibility ? deary me ,you do indeed have a problem.

    • We have a majority in congress…that majority is dishonest, self searving, and criminally irresponsible. Payback ,if there ever is any, must come through the ballot box….and then before they get too established on the dark side they will again need to be sent packing.
      For the most part honest people shy from running for office hoping not to sully their reputations

  2. What is a sane person willing to l1e to get? Money.
    What is a sane person willing to look very stupid to get? A LOT of money.
    Unless one is being blackmailed, no sane person will l1e for little gain.
    Unless one is being blackmailed, no sane person will intentionally look stupid for little gain.
    Where is the money coming from? The promoters of: Big Wind, Big “Sustainability” (this false benefit is being used to sell dozens of products these days), and Sort of Big Solar.
    Money. The root of many kinds of ev1l.
    (and there are the brainwashed on AGW, the “insane,” and, no doubt, some just plain brain disordered (a.k.a. “mentally ill”) people, too — I just don’t think that completely explains the above lying / make myself look stupid behavior)
    **********************************************************
    (as has been said by others already on WUWT):
    Quote of the Day:

    Religion is belief without conclusive evidence.
    Denial is belief in spite of the evidence.

    • CO2 EMISSIONS UP. WARMING STOPPED.

      To deny, in the face of this fact, that AGW is purely fantastic speculation is either to l1e or to be in clinical denial (or very low IQ — even kindergarteners can understand that more pumping effort will not make their basketball fill up with air when there is a psi= nearly 0 hole in their hand-pump’s air hose…. and they will soon stop pumping …. and if you asked them why they don’t keep on pumping on that handle (just in case), they would say, “Are you CRAZY?”).

      • Hi, Simon Hopkinson,
        Try asking a moderat0r (can’t spell that one out or my comment would go into “moderation” — it’s how you can “summon” a moderat0r) which words are on the “bad word” list here. I’m not sure of what they all are, so I err on the side of caution and don’t spell out l1e or ev1l. I do know that sc@m is one of the words! It’s just about WordPress/WUWT rules for content. I think den1er may be one. Let’s see, oh! I remember now, “ab0rti0n” is one. And sometimes, there are commenters on moderation monitoring and if you use their names spelled out correctly, your comment will hit the spam bin. The moderat0rs are GREAT here, though. Usually, my messed up comments are posted within an hour of hitting the spam bin.
        Illuminati — lol.
        #(:))
        Have fun commenting!
        Janice

        • Don’t let them bait you Janice. Simon’s post would have ended up in moderation if he hadn’t lucked out with the quotation marks. But that doesn’t mean you have to be giving away the secret handshake, the bird call, or the emergency call sign woman! I would have gone with “WUWT hieroglyphics” myself and let the little conspiracy theorist mull it over for a while. 🙂 Illuminati is just so…..last decade…..:P

      • I use words like lie and evil all the time, and my comments almost always appear right away.
        Even words like scam and denier do not usually cause a problem.
        Just sayin’.
        Besides, who really cares if a comment does not post for a few minutes?
        I think that it breaks of the flow of a thought to have so many words encrypted…but that is just me.

      • Aphan
        Illuminati is just so…..last decade…..:P
        Hey what did you mean last decade… I still play Illuminati it is a hilarious cutthroat game.
        Note to self I need get some of the newer cards.
        michael

    • I disagree Janice (sorry).
      The money is coming from the people via governments. The promoters and profiteers of this scam are not going to put their own money into it. In Ontario over the past 8 years, we have spent some $37 billion more for electricity than necessary, due to the Ontario Green Energy Act, brought in by the current residents of Ontario and Canada government offices.
      Question: Where did the money go? Money can be created, but it is rarely destroyed.

      • Hey, Robert! 🙂
        I think we actually agree! The Warren Buffets and Enviroprofiteer entities (partnerships, corporations, and the like) of the world use their own money as seed corn to fund the campaigns (and other ventures, too, no doubt) of crooked politicians who then pass regs. that result in tax (or reliable power source rate surcharges) funds funding their Big Wind operations/corporations which then use some of those subsidies to continue to buy off the politicians.
        So! We sort of agree.
        The money ultimately goes into the pockets of the “investors” in windmill production (e.g., Siemens Corp’s via its wind turbines div.) and the like.

    • Money. The root of many kinds of ev1l. This is one of the most misquoted verses of the Bible. Here is what God’s word tells us: 1Ti 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. Money in itself is not evil nor is earning money honestly evil, but the LOVE OF MONEY is.

      • Yes. Mr. Ruby, I did not quote that correctly. Thank you for correcting me. I do not think money, per se, is ev1l at all. I wrote too hastily and messed that up.

  3. “The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation”
    “Biblical earth stewardship, economic development for the poor, and the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
    Yawn!

    • “Wagen” — sounds German. Why should I listen to a N@zi?
      (that is NOT what I really think — just touché to you)

    • Wagen:
      How lowbrow of you to insult ‘Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation’, without any evidence, just on the strength of your opinion and willingness to act shamefully.
      Got anything useful to state?

      • “Along with all the benefits we derive from economic use of energy, another consideration–a Biblical/theological one–points in the same direction. The stewardship God gave to human beings over the earth–to cultivate and guard the garden (Genesis 2:15) and to fill, subdue, and rule the whole earth (Genesis 1:28)–strongly suggests that caring for human needs is compatible with caring for the earth. As theologian Wayne Grudem put it, “It does not seem likely to me that God would set up the world to work in such a way that human beings would eventually destroy the earth by doing such ordinary and morally good and necessary things as breathing, building a fire to cook or keep warm, burning fuel to travel, or using energy for a refrigerator to preserve food.”
        Look up the principles of the Cornwall Alliance. Yawn^2

    • Thank you, John Hultquist (of my home state)!
      And, (wince) if you ever “wonder” about one of my comments, please do ask me. Your opinion of me matters (whether it should or not, it DOES). I often write a bit sloppily, leaving out underlying premises (foolishly (at times)), mistakenly assuming others will just “know” I meant, lol.
      And sometimes…. I am JUST BEING ZANY FOR THE FUN OF IT! 🙂

      • Why, A. D. Everard, how very, kind of you. Thank you, so much for taking the time to encourage me. Coming from you, one of WUWT’s classiest commenters (in both style and content), that is a compliment to treasure. And your kindness to me epitomizes the “sweetness and light” that are you.
        #(:))
        How’s the writing going? You were still valiantly plugging away at your book the last time we “spoke.”
        I’m glad you write HERE!
        Janice

      • Janice, now you flatter me (don’t stop, I like it)! My work is picking up after a lengthy delay – thank you for asking. I find I am nevertheless riveted to THIS unfolding story of green ideology vs civilization. I swear, if any of this appeared in fiction it would not be taken seriously. Nor should it be in real life. Amazing, huh.
        All the best to you and thank you for your kind words. Cheers! 🙂

  4. Science fiction writer Iain M Banks also gently mocked the “Zetetic Elench”. Possibly a bit too gently.

    • I thought Banks had a soft spot for the Zetetic Elench – and so did I. I also have a soft spot for old men who rant with religious text in hand on street corners. I also used to have a soft spot for the Greens when it was about woolly jumpers and stopping people clubbing seal cubs and saving whales. It’s only now that they have become would-be entire civilisation destroyers that I would vote for the cloven-hoofed one riding a 50 m high diesel powered robot tyrannosaur if I thought it would curb their hysterical lunatic influence at all.

  5. Good info. Good analysis. As most everyone knows, the supporters of the global warming scam are ideologues, people who are on the global warming dole or hope to be, the conservationist lobby, those who want to extend the power of the state, which includes both bureaucrats and elected officials, and quite a few others. That these people can so corrupt our established scientific organizations shows a failure of our society that bears comparison to some of the infamous societal failures of the last 100 years. I don’t know how government sponsored science recovers from this catastrophe. We now have established the two principles that the funding determines the science and that political power determines the funding.

    • Theo Goodwin, in case you were wondering (I was — so I carefully read your good comment for “bad” words, for I noticed that you were not above Peter earlier, then *POOF* there you were), the word you (I have done this so many times!) used was: sc@m.

  6. There is too much ego, and money, involved for any of the true believers to backtrack. they will do anything, say anything, to discredit the opposition, even if the only ones they convince they are winning is themselves.
    The real problem is not the science or the facts, it’s that the liberal media has decided that Denying Global Warming science is a major plank of the Republican party and they will fight tooth and nail to make sure they don’t get a chance to make political hay from any possible doubts that might be showing up in the scientific community.
    I’ve believed for a long time that the only thing that can harpoon this great white whale of a boodogle is for mother earth to slam dunk us into a multi-year deep freeze that no amount of weasel words can deny.

    • Until the Arctic Sea ice trend is too positive too ignore.
      Until the cold winters of the 60s-70s are too harsh to ignore.
      Until people’s electricity and heating bills are too high to ignore.
      Then the lying toolz like Markey and Grijalva will be forgotten.

    • I’m afraid you are so very right Peter. I’m getting pretty tired of shoveling snow and getting cold then listening to the nightly news about climate change. They do it with straight faces. It is getting very hard to take.

    • Here in Florida, the weather and the climate just keep samin’, when they’re s’posed to be changin’.

  7. Senator Markey was in usual form. Wouldn’t it be useful if his campaign donations from companies profiting from his advocacy of energy and climate regulation were listed on a large board behind him.
    I also found his smear of Dr. Curry interesting when he stated “you beleive the warming is caused by God…” with emphasis on the word God. In saying that he was responding to statements based on an interpretation ofscience.
    He is what he is. A low individual willing to say and do whatever to advance the statist cause which is his core belief. That goal having lost in recent decades it’s rational and even theoretical sales pitches is being moved through climate change.

    • Good catch. Watching the tape you can see that Markey didn’t deliver that theme with the expertise that his handlers showed him. He was taught to attach God to the natural variability claim because the Democratic voter assumes that the GOP is the know nothing religiously clouded voter … part of the emotional hook .. game. He bungled it.
      If his people are on top of their game they will school him or make it easier for him to deliver that attack OR read blogs like this and alter their strategy.

    • The League Of Conservation Voters seems to be one of his larger contributors, with over $300,000 in donations in the past few years alone.

  8. When Markey trotted out the mantra that 2014 was the hottest year on record, he was resorting to the same logical fallacy Peters did; ignoratio elenchi. It is just one of many of the Climate Liars tactics.

    • Bruce
      too which the stinging reply could be
      “Senator Markey, it is my understanding that you are the PROTECTOR of your constituency. Why are you scaring them with children’s stories of a runaway warming planet ?”
      :::: this forces him to defend his intent ::::
      Once he has to defend, then you can mount an attack
      “Yes Senator, I am happy that you take your responsibility so seriously. The data you constantly quote is wrong and you people deserve better. This is why it is wrong ….
      :::: 3 lines of evidence ::::

    • Plenty of liars tactics were not effectively dealt with during the hearing. When will the people who have a voice on the skeptic side start playing varsity ball?
      I was hopeful and watched about 95% of this hours long hearing. This hearing was quite a poor performance by Ted Cruz in my opinion. Why was there only one other Republican Senator asking questions? There were more Democrats asking questions than Republicans and they always went to Dr Titley who is an acolyte of the CAGW religion. Why was Senator Cruz so intent on tripping up Dr Titley to the point that the witness for CAGW got to spout untruths for much of the hearing rather than asking HIS witnesses questions to refute false statements and talk about Observations more? I was thoroughly unimpressed. In one fell swoop, Dr Titley reeled off a bunch of lies in his statement, AND HE BARELY GOT CHALLENGED ON THEM! Additionally, there were repeated claims by Democrat Senators about things getting worse, accelerating, more extreme weather, etc. that mostly went unchallenged.
      “Multiple independent sources of data show a rise in temperatures and rise in the ratio of record high temperatures to record low temperatures;…” [Titley]
      Wrong for 2014 for the US for example.
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/03/cold-year-2014-usa-temperature-record-lows-outpace-record-highs-nearly-2-1/
      “…the continued collapse in the area and amount of summer-time sea ice in the Arctic Ocean;…” [Titley]
      Wrong. Sea ice area is now about where it was back in 2003. And sea ice mass has increased over the last three years. I don’t even have to resort to the facts that Antacrtic sea ice is at records, Antarctic land ice mass is increasing, or that global sea ice is pretty much flat over the entire satellite record.
      http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
      http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png
      “…an acceleration of sea level rise;…” [Titley]
      Nope.
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/06/basic-geology-part-3-sea-level-rises-during-interglacial-periods/
      “…acidifying oceans;…” [Titley]
      This is simply alarmist, incorrect terminology that also misrepresents the data (e.g. models replace data early in the record, how do you get a global average ocean pH, alarmist change by 2100 is smaller than the DAILY change in a number of places, etc.)
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/27/the-ocean-is-not-getting-acidified/
      http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/oceans-not-acidifying-scientists-hid-80-years-of-ph-data/
      What a fail of a hearing in my opinion.

      • I also agree…
        However, it’s a start.
        Apparently “we” need a little more experience dealing with these deluded zealots.

      • I very much respect and agree with most of what I hear and read from Dr Christy, Dr Curry, and Mr Steyn as well. I own two of Mr Steyn’s books and support his cause against our favorite hockey player. I didn’t mean to imply otherwise, but simply wanted to point out that this hearing went better for warmists than it did for skeptics in my opinion.
        Senator Cruz tries to make the point repeatedly that all the Dems ignored his charts (on temperature adjustments and satellite data) while I don’t recall hearing a single comment from skeptics refuting Dr Titley’s chart on drastically increasing temperature correlating very nicely with the upward march of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Pot calling the kettle black? Mainstream media seems to have keyed in on the same thing.
        How long have we been hearing the “settled science” and the 97% consensus? Yet, all the skeptics in the room seemed unprepared to refute those tired old arguments and also unprepared to counter reasons brought up as to why observations championed by skeptics are just wrong or cherry picked. Sheesh!
        Time to start bringing the A-game, folks. Stop bringing switchblades to gunfights.

      • Boulder Skeptic: Your take reflects that of others on this thread. Except for Cruz’s summation, which saved the day, I’m afraid I have to agree. This was an opportunity missed. In the face of out numbered and amplified rhetoric by Democrats (Markey in particular), the voices of reason on the scientific panel were generally drowned out, more polite than effective.
        Hillary has already made this a major campaign issue. Today’s vacuous treaty only amplifies the rhetoric. If the Republicans hope to present a voice of reason and capitalize on the public’s loss of confidence in the drum beat, then they’d better get their act together. If they play their cards right, the November election
        will be a referendum on Americans’ belief in climate change. To succeed, however, Republicans will need to be more effective than in this hearing. Lacking was a scientific Joseph Welch – someone with broad command of the science (not to be confused with IPCC science) yet who is not afraid to call a spade a spade.

      • Both Republican and Democratic game players play the same game: they feed their own believers while colluding together in private. Think the GOP doesn’t drool at taxing thin air, too? So long as they can blame the Democrats for this, they love it.

  9. As a follower of Karl Popper I sadly note that true science in America has been put in a straight jacket and is therefore no longer relevant. Too many opportunists who either do not understand the scientific method or totally ignore it for selfish purposes. If we allow ‘climate science’ or any other discipline for that matter to be denigrated (politicized) we are on a slippery slope leading to mysticism and ultimate control by politicians without any scruples.

    • As Eisenhower warned.
      “Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields… ,” Eisenhower warned. “Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.”

  10. I was puzzled as to why the last exchanges from the invited witnesses involved only Dr. Curry and Mr. Steyn from the skeptic side. I would have thought that Dr. Christy would jump in to respond to the warmists’ bad mouthing the satellite record. Hard to keep a straight face to hear complaints about satellite adjustments from people who rely on the surface land measurements. But
    I don’t remember Dr. Christy responding. Had he left early?

    • Hi John,
      I’ve read but have no reference, the satellite record at the hearing was by RSS. That’s not to say that Dr. John couldn’t have explained a bit about it or the general issue, if he was still there, and had been asked. However, I think both he and Roy S. have a sense of humor and he might have thought the issue was funny.

    • Witnesses are supposed to be quiet unless asked a question. But Markey had called Judy a denier, so she interrupted. Markey said that he hadn’t asked her a question. Steyn said that she deserved the right to speak because Markey had questioned her integrity. Christy had no such justification to weigh in. Cruz should have had more GOP senators present who could have asked open-ended questions like, “Do you want to respond to ****?”

      • rogerknights:
        I am not an American so I make no comment on American politics, but as in a previous thread concerning the Hearing I write to comment on effectiveness.
        You make a good point when you say

        Witnesses are supposed to be quiet unless asked a question. But Markey had called Judy a denier, so she interrupted. Markey said that he hadn’t asked her a question. Steyn said that she deserved the right to speak because Markey had questioned her integrity. Christy had no such justification to weigh in. Cruz should have had more GOP senators present who could have asked open-ended questions like, “Do you want to respond to ****?”

        True, but when opportunity arose, the ‘skeptic’ witnesses were – not surprisingly – inadequate opponents of a blustering bully. As I said in support of my argument in one of my posts in the other thread.

        Markey clearly “won” in terms of immediate ‘point scoring’ that would convince uninformed onlookers. Such ‘point scoring’ is the business of politicians seeking votes so it is no surprise that an elected US Senator is better at it than a professional scientist and a journalist.

        Prior to any similar Hearing it would be useful if ‘skeptic’ witnesses were provided with briefings on effective tactics for use when confronted with points presented as aggressive questions in a public meeting.
        Some discussions in the other thread were consideration of such tactics. But if such tactics were agreed then somebody would need to be in a position to provide the pre-Hearing briefings.
        Richard

      • the Gop deliberately undermined Cruz. He is the only R candidate who is solid on the perverse scientism of global warming alarmism.

  11. I think someone has misspelled the good Senators name.
    malarkey
    Also found in: Thesaurus, Idioms, Wikipedia.
    ma·lar·key also ma·lar·ky (mə-lär′kē)
    n. Slang
    Exaggerated or foolish talk, usually intended to deceive: “snookered by a lot of malarkey” (New Republic).
    regards

  12. I’ve wondered a bit about the satellite and weather balloon data. A lot is made about the hiatus, which I agree is important.
    But this is what puzzles me…the satellites picked up increasing heat before the 1998 El Nino, didn’t they? And they pinpointed the 1998 peaks. So, they supported the warmist claims up until they began to diverge from the land readings after 1998.
    Isn’t this a more powerful refutation of the surface readings than just the period of the hiatus? Or do I not understand this issue?

    • No.
      The satellite data is essentially flat since launch (1979) through to the run up to the Super El Nino of 1997/98.
      See;http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1997/plot/uah/from:1979/to:1997
      There is a very slight positive trend (~0.005 degC annually), however bearing in mind the accuracy of the equipment and measurement errors inherent in the equipment and data set, the positive trend is not even statistically significant.
      This is one reason to suspect that much of the land based thermometer warming in the 1980s/early 1990s is due to UHI, station drops outs and questionable homogenisation.
      The satellite data suggests essentially flat temperatures from launch in 1979 to the run up to the Super El Nino of 1997/98, and then a step change in temperature coincident with that El Nino of about 0.27 degC whereafter the temperatures have been flat (slight negative trend but not statistically significant).
      Absolutely no correlation with CO2 in the satellite data set (ditto the radiosonde balloons)
      i

      • I think you’re overstating the case by just eyeballing the graphs. My guest post here shows that there was the trends prior to the Super El Niño were positive after 1990 and varied between zero and about .7 deg C per century. The whole record shows that the present rate is about 1.25 or there about. Interestingly enough (to me at least) when you start from the end and work backward you find that you didn’t need to include the Super El Niño to find negative trends.

    • Take a look at the purported warming trend that existed between 1915-1945 on a NOAA, HADCRU, GISS analysis. Now that trend exceeds anything discovered during the satellite records.
      The point is that, if the rate of temperature rise before the modern surge in CO2 emissions exceeds that which has been shown to exist in the last 30years – then Houston, we do indeed have a problem.
      The alarmist position can only be supported by an increase in rate above that discovered to have existed one hundred years ago. Don’t forget that we were warned of “runaway global warming” – not “the possible continuation of slight warming trends that have been common since the end of the little ice age”.
      Of course it tends to be warming. Just twenty thousand years ago, a glacial ice sheet over one mile thick covered New York state. Luckily for us, it has been warming, on average, since then. Rather than cooling.

    • Yes, you are essentially right Kathrine. The satellite data did match the ground station data up to the turn of the century. Furthermore, the HADCRUT3 dataset correlated closely with the satellite data until the UK Met.Office abandoned it a couple of years ago (it was diluting the message). The Met.Office then switched to a new method called HADCRUT4, which obediently showed some warming after 2000. The old HADCRUT3 dataset shows the warmest year ever to be 1998, just like the satellite data still does.
      Whether any of the land based datasets can be trusted after many retrospective manipulations requires a leap of Faith.

  13. My overall impression of your impression that they are either kinders or liars is that you have woefully underestimated your opponent. Your opponents talking points have been murder boarded and flushed out thru countless faux sessions and small time skirmishes.
    While you may have mastered the nuances of the science, they have mastered the delivery of their message. They are fighting with flame throwers while you are looking for a match. The skill they have mastered is the manipulation of risk communications.
    Watch tape, hire a pro. They identify 3 themes and hit you with 3 lines of evidence/theme. The blows are succinct and practiced in under 30 words. They tend to utilize an appeal to emotion in order to suspend critical review because the brain struggles to do both at the same time. They bludgeon from a position of authority because they know you think it is beneath your professionalism to hit them back. If you successfully challenge their authority they will try to hogtie you in a futile pursuit of perfection.
    They may be babes in the science, but masters of manipulation.
    If you are to beat them, you have to anticipate the attack.
    Google message mapping if you want to learn more.

    • I had imagined that Mark Steyn was there for that.
      Others calmly state from actual authority = no, the data shows temps are flat, polar bears are fine;
      Steyn brings the 25 words or less slam backs to alarmist talking points. His story is powerful but these come-backs are essential for those unfamiliar with the sciences and for deflating the propagandists. Plus, he has the verbal touch and the stage presence.
      So now, assemble the talking points and prep the come-backs.

    • Yes. Exactly my point in several previous threads. Skeptics think it is about science. No longer.
      It is just about politics. So, we need irrefutable simple short talking points to counter all of theirs. Get cracking like I have. 97%. Warmest ever. SLR acceleration. Satellite records are unreliable because (ignoring all the siting and UHI issues of terrestrial records, plus the hopeless trade route biases plus measurement inconsistencies of SST prior to ARGO)…

      • Rud Istvan, you add a lot of value to WUWT by your well-informed comments year after year. So! I think YOU deserve a little free publicity!
        Buy Rud Istvan’s book (lots of great “talking points and come-backs”)!
        here: http://www.amazon.com/Blowing-Smoke-Essays-Energy-Climate-ebook/dp/B00OJSOCNK/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1449971031&sr=1-1&keywords=Rud+Istvan
        “Blowing Smoke” by Rud Istvan (kindle edition available)
        http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51v8Jh8n5OL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

      • not that I have found
        ristvan’s list is good, but that still just reflects the few items that came up on that occasion
        ? polar bears = really good and iconic, ocean acidification, CO2 benefits (Idso’s and others), paleo records, sea ice, all of Willis’ interests including the tome on BC carbon taxes, clouds, models …
        Rud’s essays would add to any list and reference pages here.

      • Why, Bubba Cow (smile) — but, of course! 😉
        (and if I AM, indeed, in your intellectual class, that would be a wonderful thing!)

        • Mr Istvan
          You obviously got the memo and are on the right track. The primary overall strategy of the risk manipulator is to raise the concern when the monkey is unconcerned and dampen it when he’s hyper.
          You perhaps already know that one of POTUS key advisors, the deputy national security advisor for communications is the brother of a CBS upper level executive. Sharyl Attkinson wrote about this cozy relationship in her book Stonewalled. It should be no shock to you that messaging has become the central management theme throughout this administration. It is orderly and well distributed.
          Here’s an example of an NGO actively crafting an agency message http://freebeacon.com/issues/center-for-american-progress-helped-craft-epa-press-strategy/.
          And, just for kicks I wallowed over to that agency’s public webpage to see what graphics they use and their explanations for things commonly discussed here on WUWT and discussed at the Senate hearing. Low and behold much of Markey’s speaking points are pulled right off that webpage. http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html
          The message they gave you was that the science is settled and they have moved on to become the ever present authority for that settled science. They want to suck you into a debate about how to fix the problem and they sometimes do because scientists are such a curiously friendly lot. Don’t.
          One of the time tested flaws of goliath is arrogance. They expressed their arrogance in failed predictions and projections. It’s a classic overreach for the bully. You have an opening to debunk the settled science and the fear that they depend on. You can sense the desperation in the consistency of the message .. ie. the hottest evah.
          I’ll keep my eyes peeled for the evolution of a central location.
          It will serve as an updated version of what Jo Nova created in her guidebook.

      • knutesea asked : “Does WUWT/Climate Etc/JoNova have a central source for review of talking points and come backs ?”
        I’ve been following the JoNova web site for 6 years, and have referred to WUWT or ClimateEtc occasionally. I’m not aware of any such list at any of those web sites. For example, we are not as centrally co-ordinated as the alarmists on SkS. This is not surprising as traditional skeptics are independent thinkers.
        I assume you mean this list would be simply short bullet point responses. Such a list may lead people into taking a cook-book or canned-response approach to the climate debate, where people give stimulus/response automatic answers without understanding the evidence or logic behind the answer. That’s not to say such a list shouldn’t be assembled, but it would be rather late in proceedings to create such a list now, and it would have to come with warning labels on how to not misuse it. The appearance of climate skeptics copy-pasting canned responses would only decrease the credibility of the skeptic position. It’s much better if people translate the ideas into their own words to show they understand the topic.
        To convert someone’s opinion you have to build on top of deeper beliefs they already have. That requires gaining an actual understanding of the physics and then creating an equivalence mapping between your beliefs and the opponent’s beliefs. Simply repeating bullet points does not achieve either of those two critical steps in persuasion.

        • To convert someone’s opinion you have to build on top of deeper beliefs they already have. That requires gaining an actual understanding of the physics and then creating an equivalence mapping between your beliefs and the opponent’s beliefs. Simply repeating bullet points does not achieve either of those two critical steps in persuasion.

          Thanks for pondering the notion Andrew. There are several thoughts laid out in your post worth discussing but instead of cluttering a post with tying to address them all, I’ll take a stab at the above.
          I agree that building on deeper beliefs is important when looking to influence the opinion of another, but your focus is on conducting an educational seminar of building blocks. As often is the case concerning scientific discussion, the skeptic often underestimates the importance of knowing what emotional imbalance the listener brings to the discussion. If I am made to feel guilty for turning the world in a uninhabitable climate due to my consumption habits, I am not paying much attention to an education on the Milancovich cycles.
          Honey to my ears would be :
          “Excuse me Mr Markey, it makes me angry that you scare my wife, my children, and anyone else who trusts our conversation with horror stories about an out of control climate when you know full well that the history of man is full of climate changes that were both hotter and colder and we did quite well thank you”.
          “Well Mr Knute, I see you fancy yourself smarter than the 97%”
          “Mr Markey, please stop the schoolyard bully tactics and talk to people like me with respect. We are smart enough to know that the climate is not hurting us and WE want YOU to respect our ability to understand simple truths, so let’s stop this and give the people a transparent look at the facts, ALL the facts.
          At that point in the conversation the listener is rooting for you to stand up for them.
          You’ve effectively done a hand jam in the face of fear and the listener has a better chance to understand perhaps a long term chart of LIA, MWP, Milancovich cycles
          Hope those fews thoughts spur you to appreciate the emotional state of your listener and how they might be able to build NEW deeper beliefs.

      • “Skeptics think it is about science. No longer.”
        Something I’ve been thinking for a long time. It has never been about science. When you use slogans, emotion and moral blackmail to achieve your aims it is clearly politics. Ie, about exercising power.

      • “One of the time tested flaws of goliath is arrogance. They expressed their arrogance in failed predictions and projections. It’s a classic overreach for the bully. You have an opening to debunk the settled science ….”
        That’s why “the perfect squelch” to the claim that “97% of climate scientists agree” is “And they’ve been 97% wrong, so who cares what they agree on now?”

  14. The 2016 election will not only decide the fate of America, it will very likely decide the fate of the world !!

    • Steel went down, then autos, now fossil fuels and next electricity supply and that should just about finish off the U.S.
      The 2016 election will be a crucial election.

      • Barbara,
        The odd thing about your comment is the tone of pessimism and foreboding.
        I was born during WWII when the US was helping others. School and church encouraged us to help others. Missionaries from Africa and unknown places would visit and ask for money. Universities sought foreign students to send back home to help their people. We sent Peace Corps folks and many others to help. Some things may not of helped much but the idea was that we wanted them to.
        I’ve had family members work in the woods, in coal mines, gadget assembly lines, and a glass factory – the last is not steel but it is similar. Many of those sorts of jobs are gone. China, India, and even a few places in Africa are now into the transitions of those long-ago visionary Missionaries. What’s not to like?
        Now young members of my family work in firms in the top tier of American business; names on everyone’s watch list. The work is not boring, demeaning, nor dangerous. All good things.
        America became great because of liberty and entrepreneurship, and that can continue. So cheer up. And yes, …
        The 2016 election will be a crucial election.”

  15. Green money – where it comes from, where it goes. This is really simple – it comes from tax payers. It goes to Big Green, the Industrial/Political/Military Complex that appropriates and disperses Green Money into Big Green itself. It is a fleecing with several positive feedbacks. It can be though of as a simple redistribution of wealth, and except that it is propped up with an unfalsifiable lie (CAGW/CO2 is evil) it is indistinguishable from other redistribution of wealth schemes.

  16. E. Calvin Beisner,

    See the graph below and note that water vapor absorbs at far more bandwidths than CO2. Is there lots of infrared left at those bandwidths to be absorbed, or little?

    Oh dear. Radiation emitted varies as the 4th power of temperature. Radiation absorbed is a function of particle density along any given emission path. Counting relative number of emission lines between water and CO2 at present concentrations tells us pretty much zippo. What counts is the total amount of radiation absorbed across all wavelengths.

    Is CO2’s warming effect logarithmic (declining with each added increment), linear, or exponential (increasing with each added increment)?

    Approximately logarithmic of course which is why climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is given in terms of doubling of the mixing ratio. What’s the point?

    Do other facets of climate respond by increasing the initial warming, reducing it, or leaving it unchanged? (Answer: There’s enormous debate about this among climate scientists, but one thing’s clear: the trend in peer-reviewed studies is to think the other facets respond to increase the warming less than previously thought, as illustrated in the graph below, or even to diminish it.)

    It’s good to see some recognition that there is in fact an enormous amount of debate in the literature about feedbacks, as well as for the values of TCR and ECS.

    On those questions hangs the entire debate over whether manmade warming is anything from slight and benign to huge and catastrophic—a point Cruz’s witnesses tried, to no avail, to get across to the minority members of the committee.

    What fans of Dr. Curry’s Uncertainty Monster neglect to mention is that uncertainty means: you don’t know what will happen. Which means: you don’t know that everything is going to be just peachy.

    • We don’t have to know that “everything is going to be just peachy”. There is no evidence, however, that we have a problem with “manmade warming”, assuming that it even exists.

    • Well history tells us that warm periods are extremely beneficial for man. Not only did man come from a warm clime, ie Africa, although modern man has been around for about 200,000 years it is only in the Holocene where there has been substantial advance and for the main part only since the Holocene Optimum.
      One only has to compare Stonehenge with the Pyramids to see the advantage of a warmer climate and what that leads to.
      One only has to look at the biodiversity in warm/humid environments such as the tropical rain forest, and compare that with cold arid climes such as the plains of Antarctica.
      All the large land animals are in warm climates. the polar bear only survives because it lives off the sea, not off the land. In fact many animals that live in mid to high northern latitudes cannot survive the winter so their strategy is to hibernate. Birds of course, fly south.
      This planet is far too cold for us as a species. The reason we wear clothes is not for modesty but because it is too cold. We have to adapt ourselves or our environment because the planet is way too cold. There are only a few places where man can survive without adapting himself or the environment, For the main part, this is where the lost tribes are. .
      The same is so for other animals. one only has to go bacj to the time of the dinosaurs to appreciate how large animals can grow when conditions are good, namely nice and warm.
      There is no significant problem if the planet warms 5 degreesC. We will just adapt to sea level rise as it the oceans expand ever so slowly.
      One of the most fundamental areas is the concern over a few degrees of warming. it certainly is not based upon anything we know about life on planet Earth either in the here and now, or in the past. .
      No action is required. just targeted adaption on a micro regional level if there is any significant problem.

      • richard verney,

        Well history tells us that warm periods are extremely beneficial for man. Not only did man come from a warm clime, ie Africa, although modern man has been around for about 200,000 years it is only in the Holocene where there has been substantial advance and for the main part only since the Holocene Optimum.

        The thing about the Holocene is the 12k years of relative stability as compared the entire 200 k. Note also that our species evolved in Africa, but it is the descendants of Europeans who are presently the dominant cultures. There’s more to this than just absolute temperature.

      • Why do humans have less body hair than other apes? I think the reason is that humans developed a sexuality like that of dolphins. There is another ape among us now that uses low-level sexual activity for ordinary everyday working and social communications – the bonobo. Meanwhile, humans often have some thing where one in sexy clothes is sexier than someone who is naked. I remember a comment from a nudist beach that some guy should not put on a Speedo or whatever that was – that makes him sexy among the naked folks. And there are the newly-human-taboo things where humans are supposed by notable religions to dress in “modest” ways. I think that human-religion handling of humans being more constantly-sexual than mammals of species with the estrus cycle contributed to humans getting clothes, and according being evolutionarily preferred to lose body hair.

      • Donald L. Klipstein
        December 12, 2015 at 9:29 pm
        ‘Why do humans have less body hair than other apes? I think the reason is that humans developed a sexuality like that of dolphins’.
        The reason that humans do so well in warming climates has little to do with apes or voyeurism.
        Man survives well in hot climates because of our ability to sweat and cool.
        Other mammals, such as the friendly dog,can’t sweat.
        This combined with technology, such as fire and clothing means that absolute temperature is not the ultimate determinant of survival, however warm conditions historically have contributed to booms in agriculture and human civilisation.
        We are so well adapted that we have colonised every continent and the edge of space.
        Amplifying our technologies and distributing them to mankind is the best way of adapting to inevitable climate change.

      • “knutesea
        December 12, 2015 at 10:46 pm”
        Sometimes I just scare the carp out of me in the morning when looking in the mirror…and THEN I laugh!

      • “All the large land animals are in warm climates.”
        But Bergman’s Rule says that the largest members of a species are in the north.

      • Donald,
        Humans still have body hair, indeed just as many follicles per square inch of skin as chimps. Our body hair just grows short rather than long.
        Being “naked” is part of our complex evaporative cooling system. Combined with dark pigmentation (lost in Out of Africa emigrants) and sweat glands, it allowed our ancestors to adapt to running (hence large glutes) in a hot savanna environment.

      • Donald L. Klipstein,

        Man survives well in hot climates because of our ability to sweat and cool.

        Because evaporative cooling is so important in mammals, there is a hard upper limit to survivable wet-bulb temps:
        http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9552.full
        Despite the uncertainty in future climate-change impacts, it is often assumed that humans would be able to adapt to any possible warming. Here we argue that heat stress imposes a robust upper limit to such adaptation. Peak heat stress, quantified by the wet-bulb temperature TW, is surprisingly similar across diverse climates today. TW never exceeds 31 °C. Any exceedence of 35 °C for extended periods should induce hyperthermia in humans and other mammals, as dissipation of metabolic heat becomes impossible. While this never happens now, it would begin to occur with global-mean warming of about 7 °C, calling the habitability of some regions into question. With 11–12 °C warming, such regions would spread to encompass the majority of the human population as currently distributed.
        7 °C is out of range of even the most dire IPCC projections by 2100. However, something else to consider is that heat stress begins to increasingly affect human ability to work outside on hot days the closer TW approaches 35 °C.

        Other mammals, such as the friendly dog,can’t sweat.

        According to Wikipedia, horses are the only non-primate mammal where sweating efficacy is on par with primates:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_gland
        Forget polar bears: think about the cows.

    • Brandon G.: “…you don’t know what will happen.
      Correct. We, however, DO know what happened:
      1. 1998 El Nino –> step up in surface temperatures.
      2. IPCC models with CO2 driver assumptions so wrong they are “unskilled.”
      3. CO2 emissions up –> WARMING STOPPED.

      • Janice Moore,
        1) No dispute
        2) All models are wrong. Show me a model with complexity on par with the latest generation of GCMs which better explains the past million years without including radiative effects from IR-active gasses, and you’ll have my full and undivided attention.
        3) Wrong:
        http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/itemp2000_global.png

      • Warming paused for less than half of the period of notable manmade increase of CO2. Honest analysis for the pause shows it starting in 2001 for an honest flat linear trend, and 2003-2004 for a breakpoint analysis having different-slope lines meeting each other in more-honest global temperature anomaly datasets.
        Meanwhile, I see that almost half of the rapid warming from the 1970s to shortly after 2000 was from an upswing of a natural cycle or set thereof, and since then that natural cycle(s) have kept a lid on global warming – and I think that could continue to around 2030 or even into the 2030s.
        My main beef with IPCC-considered models is that they assume that none of the the rapid warming from early-mid 1970s to 2004-2005 was from multidecadal natural cycles. That means that the manmade effect (according to my analysis) was overstated by almost a factor of 2 when the IPCC-favored models (such as the CMIP-5 ones) were tuned to hindcast what happened before the models were started, which means 2005 was the last year of hindcasting IIRC.

      • “CO2 emissions up –> WARMING STOPPED” (Janice Moore).
        “Wrong” (Brandon Gates).
        Brandon Gates (5:42 pm) I’d be interested to read your explanation of the mechanism by which an increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration forces the upper ocean temperature.
        Prof. Ole Humlum makes the observation that since 1950 the global av. temperature closely correlates with the tropical sea surface temperature (with greater amplitude), but lags by 1 – 3 months.
        The tropical oceans are 8o% of the surface of the planet between 10 N and 10 S, are perpendicular to direct solar radiation little of which is reflected, and therefore tropical cloud cover and internal ocean circulation are important factors controlling the GAT.
        http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT4%20and%20TropicsSST.gif

      • Brandon,
        Ocean temperature measurements only began to be “global” nature at the onset of ARGO. So, prior to 2005, ocean temperature data is sparse, i.e., not global in nature.
        Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the oceans are warmed by solar insolation. There is little evidence, if any, that CO2 has an effect on ocean temperatures.

      • Brandon says “all models are wrong”, can you lend 5 seconds of your undivided attention considering why all models were wrong on the high side? Can you find us one that erred on the low side?

      • Simon,

        My word I enjoy reading your posts. Where have you been?

        Why thank you. I’ve been on hiatus of course. 🙂
        Donald L. Klipstein,

        My main beef with IPCC-considered models is that they assume that none of the the rapid warming from early-mid 1970s to 2004-2005 was from multidecadal natural cycles.

        The thing about the CMIP-5, and indeed their predecessors, is that internal variability — or natural cycles if you must — are not imposed on the models during the hindcast portion. As I understand it, they only use actual values for emissions, aerosols (particularly volcanic), black carbon, land use changes and solar output. What they then look for in the output is realistic simulation of the amplitude and duration of various events like El Nino.
        Chris Hanley,

        I’d be interested to read your explanation of the mechanism by which an increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration forces the upper ocean temperature.

        The very short answer is that increased CO2 increases downwelling IR, which reduces the rate at which energy is lost from the ocean surface. Assuming a constant rate of energy input from the Sun (which it isn’t), the response is a net increase in retention of absorbed energy which results in warming below the surface. Essentially the same process applies for land even though there are obvious physical differences between them.

        Prof. Ole Humlum makes the observation that since 1950 the global av. temperature closely correlates with the tropical sea surface temperature (with greater amplitude), but lags by 1 – 3 months.

        Not surprising, as global temps correlates closely with El Nino and with a similar lag. Just eyeballing that plot, it appears that taking the difference between those two curves results in a flat trend. Implication: it’s an energy-neutral phenomenon over the long-term.
        skepticgonewild,

        So, prior to 2005, ocean temperature data is sparse, i.e., not global in nature.

        As a general rule, sparse sampling increases uncertainty. Same data, but smoothed with a 5-year mean and error bars:
        https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000mwerrpent.png
        Levitus (2012) is here (open access): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051106/full
        Note Figure 1 which is the same data converted to Joules, but which also shows the percentage data coverage. I’m as surprised as you that at 2000m that coverage is nearly constant at about 50%.

        Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the oceans are warmed by solar insolation.

        I agree. The shorthand “CO2 warms the planet” isn’t a proper description of the physics in play; see my response to Chris Hanley above for a more proper statement of the mechanism.

        There is little evidence, if any, that CO2 has an effect on ocean temperatures.

        Kind of a moot point if you don’t accept that the oceans are indeed warming. If you do at least provisionally accept that premise, I’m willing to discuss further.
        FTOP_T,

        Man is definitely causing a warming trend in SST. Just not through emissions which is physically impossible.

        Noting that this is a discussion of ocean warming at depth, not just at the surface, I’m curious by what mechanism you think we’re effecting the change. Also note that I’ve discussed this with you previously and shown that it’s not only physically possible, but has been directly observed.
        Paul Courtney,

        … can you lend 5 seconds of your undivided attention considering why all models were wrong on the high side?

        They aren’t (see below), and no I don’t have a simple general explanation for errors on either side of the long-term trend — there are simply too many models and too much complexity for someone at my level of understanding how GCMs work.

        Can you find us one that erred on the low side?

        A while back I found 18 models which are wrong on the low side when compared to HADCRUT4 from 1860-2014:
        http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZY_oL2cq4r4/VQiX3rRH2aI/AAAAAAAAAYo/0VNOKoRIQJw/s1600/CMIP5%2Bvs%2BHADCRUT4%2Btrend%2B1860-2014%2B01.png
        The ensemble is ~0.08 °C/century high. IIRC, AR5 reports that the CMIP5 ensemble runs about 10% too hot.

      • “The very short answer is that increased CO2 increases downwelling IR, which reduces the rate at which energy is lost from the ocean surface ….”Brandon Gates (10:17 am).
        ===========================================
        To slow down the energy lost from the ocean surface there has to be a warming atmosphere which hasn’t happened for the past ~18 years i.e. “CO2 emissions up –> WARMING STOPPED”.
        (This could be heading for a Liza + Henry + bucket situation).

      • Chris Hanley,

        To slow down the energy lost from the ocean surface there has to be a warming atmosphere …

        That’s one way to reduce rate of loss but not the only one. Sensible, latent and radiative heat fluxes are all operative at the surface/atmosphere boundary, changing any one of those fluxes can change temperature.

        … which hasn’t happened for the past ~18 years …

        … and we’ve come full circle to the argument which started this subthread.

      • @Brandon.
        Just to be clear. You pointed to a study that “measured” clouds as a proxy for CO2 DWLIR because it is “too hard” to isolate the signal from CO2 on ocean temp. It never measured warming, but claimed to find a reduction in the delta of .1 surface temperature and the 5cm layer.
        After finding a trace signal of .002 per w/m2, with temperature devices that lack anywhere near that level of accuracy, the study asserted that this proves CO2 can warm the ocean without ever measuring CO2. It also provided no error bars.
        That is a far cry from your assertion that “it is not only physically possible, but has been directly observed”
        You must recognize that measuring something else is not “direct observation”

      • @co2islife
        That is the house of cards that the whole theory collapses on. The ocean is not a black body and the mythical CO2 “warming” can’t have any impact on SST.
        Yet, Trenberth and Karl are trying to walk on water to prove the theory. Embarrassing to watch this pseudo-science persist.

      • FTOP_T,
        That makes sense. Just like ignoring the fact that global warming has stopped makes no sense.
        And like all climate models, those predicting warming oceans are gob-smacked by reality:
        https://cbdakota.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/fourfatalpiecesargobouys.gif
        Even Levitus says the heat is missing:
        http://www.climate-skeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ocean-heat.gif
        ARGO buoys also show most ocean depths are cooling:
        http://tumetuestumefaisdubien1.sweb.cz/ARGO-sea-temperature-max-max.PNG
        And the WoodForTrees database shows the ocean cooling trend since the 1940’s.
        In fact, when isostatic adjustments are figured in, sea levels are declining:
        https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/clip_image008.png
        Can’t have that, can we? Declining sea levels go against the alarmist narrative. So the solution is easy-peasy; “adjust” the numbers:
        http://oi58.tinypic.com/331k5ya.jpg
        They just can’t help themselves, they have to “adjust” the data (after which it is no longer ‘data’). The ‘adjustments’ always show scarier warming:
        http://oi48.tinypic.com/14e6wjn.jpg
        Unadjusted (raw) sea level data shows models are wrong. Again.
        http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/TMI-SST-MEI-adj-vs-CMIP5-20N-20S-thru-2015.png
        Every predition of more global warming has been flat wrong.
        Conclusion: you can’t trust the government.

        • DB
          Whenever you go quiet for a few days you come back with more animated graphics.
          Good stuff.
          Have you ever seen the website run by iowahawk that gives you the raw data and sets you up with the software so that you can recreate how they made the hockey stick ?
          It’s a pretty powerful damnation to those who need to SEE and DO to understand.
          It may be a good tool for the CAGW Halfway House Foundation or the 12 Step Program.
          http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/12/fables-of-the-reconstruction.html

      • FTOP_T,

        After finding a trace signal of .002 per w/m2, with temperature devices that lack anywhere near that level of accuracy …

        https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/b/2/bb234d9a63401082dbd197c430fd35c9.png
        Note that the worst rated accuracy of the temperature measurement is <0.1 K and that N = 311. 0.1/311^0.5 = 0.006
        Also note this statement from the write-up: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
        The net forcing is negative as the effective temperature of the clear and cloudy sky is less than the ocean skin temperature, and it approaches values closer to zero when the sky is cloudy.
        Review the plot again …
        http://www.realclimate.org/images/Minnett_2.gif
        … and note that easily 95% of the data points are indeed less than zero as would be expected since “everybody knows” the atmosphere is cooler than the surface.

        … the study asserted that this proves CO2 can warm the ocean without ever measuring CO2.

        When the purpose of the experiment is to demonstrate that IR can affect rate of energy loss from the ocean’s surface, why in the name of all that is logical would we need to measure CO2? It’s the incident IR which matters, and that’s what they measured. Is there some difference between IR emitted by the whole atmosphere and IR emitted only by CO2 that you’re not telling us about?

        You must recognize that measuring something else is not “direct observation”

        Still waiting for you to provide ANY counter-evidence that incident IR cannot possibly have an effect on water temperature because all it would do is increase evaporation rate.

      • Brandon,
        That Real Climate post is an opinion piece. The so called R/V Tangoroa study was never published or peer reviewed. Nothing to see here scientifically, move along. Please look at comment number 28 in the Real Climate post as well.
        That 50% “coverage” you refer to in the Levitus et al study is NOT an area measurement. Read it carefully. Judith Curry addresses ocean heat content uncertainties and displays a graph from IPCC AR5:
        https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/presentation6.jpg
        The percent area coverage at 0-1800 meters is only about 4% (not 50%) until about 2002. By 2005, a large portion of the ARGO network was in place. So we have only 10 years of semi-complete coverage. Even ARGO does not cover the roughly 10% of the ocean covered by ice.

      • skepticgonewild,

        The so called R/V Tangoroa study was never published or peer reviewed.

        Lol, would a “pal reviewed” paper really make any difference?
        I didn’t think so.

        Please look at comment number 28 in the Real Climate post as well.

        Bbbbbut, that comment has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal!
        I’m kidding, mostly. A reasonable argument is still a reasonable argument no matter how it’s published. Let’s take a look:
        J. A. Smith says:
        6 Sep 2006 at 3:03 PM
        As an oceanographer working on air/sea interaction and mixed layer dynamics, I hope I can clarify this issue somewhat (in fact, I’m at sea right now on the R/P FLIP, gathering data to study wave and mixed layer dynamics, but this is off the point).
        I think a major aspect of the balance has been glossed over: the ocean is heated mainly by the visible part of the spectrum, the energetic part of the sun’s glare. This penetrates several meters (blue-green can penetrate several 10’s of meters, particularly in the clear water found away from coasts). In contrast, the only paths for heat LOSS from the ocean are infrared (blackbody) radiation and latent heat (evaporation). The sun heats the uppermost few meters; this has to find its way to the actual very thin surface layer to be lost. In equilibrium, then, there is a significan flux toward the surface a few cm under, and the sense of flux from infrared alone has to be significantly upward. Given this, it is quite clear that any reduction in the efficiency of upward radiation (by, say, reflecting it right back down again), will have to be compensated for by increasing the air/sea (skin) temperature difference, hence having a warmer subsurface temperature.
        This still leaves aside the latent heat flux, which in general accounts for something like half the upward heat flux.
        The balance is NOT, as portrayed here, between up and down infrared; rather it is downward “visible” (including ultraviolet, even), versus upward NET infrared and latent heat fluxes.
        Once trapped in the mixed layer, any excess heat makes its way down into the interior via much larger scale processes, including lateral advection and mixed-layer deepening due to wind and wave induced motions. This large-scale vertical redistribution takes a while- decades to hundreds of years- before equilibrium is re-established. The fact that we can already see this is quite remarkable.

        While he hits the main AGW contrarian talking points (penetration depth of LW vs SW, latent heat flux accounting for a major portion of heat loss at the surface — neither of which I contest), he ultimately does not dispute the main conclusion of the experiment.
        I’m STILL waiting for someone to come up with ANY empirical support for the argument that any increase in DWLR will be entirely offset by increased evaporation. What I get in return is bluster about the evidence I’ve provided not being published in a peer reviewed journal, met with comments like “Nothing to see here scientifically, move along”, and then — in a glaring example of holding double-standards — referred to other non-peer reviewed blog comments.

      • skepticgonewild,
        Part II:

        That 50% “coverage” you refer to in the Levitus et al study is NOT an area measurement. Read it carefully.

        Read me carefully: I did not say that it did. It should be obvious that covering every cubic picometer of ocean is never going to be feasible.

        Judith Curry addresses ocean heat content uncertainties and displays a graph from IPCC AR5 … The percent area coverage at 0-1800 meters is only about 4% (not 50%) until about 2002.

        Oh goody, so there are two competing methods for calculating percent global coverage. Look, I do not dispute that number of samples taken has increased several fold in the past decade, and that instrumentation is far better. The implication is that the further back we go in time, the higher the uncertainties — which is quantified in various ways depending on the study. What one looks at is the error bars …
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051106/full

        http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OHrUpPKsFdU/Vm8W_j7b6qI/AAAAAAAAAfs/OYtAHeU6Xd8/s1600/image_n_grl29030-fig-0001%2BOHC%2B2000m%2Bpentadal.png
        Figure 1.
        Time series for the World Ocean of ocean heat content (1022 J) for the 0–2000 m (red) and 700–2000 m (black) layers based on running pentadal (five-year) analyses. Reference period is 1955–2006. Each pentadal estimate is plotted at the midpoint of the 5-year period. The vertical bars represent +/−2.*S.E. about the pentadal estimate for the 0–2000 m estimates and the grey-shaded area represent +/−2.*S.E. about the pentadal estimate for the 0–700 m estimates. The blue bar chart at the bottom represents the percentage of one-degree squares (globally) that have at least four pentadal one-degree square anomaly values used in their computation at 700 m depth. Blue line is the same as for the bar chart but for 2000 m depth.

        … and notes that the overall trend is on the order of 6 times greater than the largest 2-sigma error estimate of any given pentadal mean value.

        So we have only 10 years of semi-complete coverage.

        And during that 10 years the oceans show a rate of heat accumulation greater than any prior decade except the 1970s. Getting back to the point of all this: on what planet does that equate to “over the past 18 years, global warming has STOPPED”?!

        Even ARGO does not cover the roughly 10% of the ocean covered by ice.

        Aaannnddd ….. ?

      • Brandon,
        I seem to have hit a nerve. LOL. I take it that was not one of your “short answers”, either. The warmunists are always screeching about skeptics using non peer reviewed papers, or performing “science by blog”, and ironically here we have a prime example of warmists doing the very same thing!
        Bottom line. We have very limited thermometer coverage for the planet measuring atmospheric temperatures. 29% of the planet is land, and coverage for thermometer is what? Maybe 15%? Who knows. And ocean temperature coverage is very limited until about 2005. But we have no credible scientific evidence that humans are warming the oceans. And we have no credible scientific evidence that back radiation is warming the oceans. THAT is what I’m STILL waiting for. That is your burden of proof, not mine.
        Your accusation of my holding to a double standard is laughable. I never said Comment #28 on the Real Climate blog was “peer reviewed” or anything. I just told you to read it. That’s all. It was a comment by an oceanographer on the non published, not peer reviewed opinions of, as it states on Real Climate, “Guest commentary by Peter Minnett (RSMAS)” Nothing to see here, move along.

        • “And ocean temperature coverage is very limited until about 2005.”
          This point is well taken. As I have mentioned elsewhere in these comments, In their 2012 paper Stephens et al accepted Hansen’s 2011 estimate of ocean heat content (OHC), about 0.6 Wm-2.
          Now 0,6 Wm-2 is not a big radiative imbalance. Not when incoming and outgoing fluxes are each 400 times bigger (around 240 Wm-2) and not when the estimate of radiative imbalance is derived by subtracting one of these numbers from the other.
          There has been a lot of discussion in these comments about variation in solar output during 11-year sunspot cycles and even a few nasty remarks when Lief Svalgaard commented. Elsewhere in these comments I have cited Nir Shaviv’s paper that demonstrates how to calculate the variation within one sunspot cycle as one Wm-2, which, for a balanced cycle, would mean up 0.05 Watt and down 0.05 Watt with no residual gain or loss.
          I also referenced a graph that showed a series of 11-year Group Sunspot cycles that were apparently not balanced as shown by integrating (accumulating) the annual anomalies compare to the mean values over a 400-year period since 1610. Steinhilber et al used radioisotope proxies (not sunspot index) and concluded that the increase in solar activity since around 1700 was about 0.9 Wm-2.
          As Skepticgonewild has claimed, the estimate of OHC may be uncertain but it’s the best that we have right now and what it shows is that the amount of global warming since 1700 is so small that solar activity is a good contender for a substantial percentage of the warming.
          NOT, as some have contended here, because the variation in solar activity in one 11-year cycle amounts to much, but because from one 11-year cycle to the next asymmetry in the rise and fall during the cycle will result in an excess or deficit in solar energy being stored in the world ocean.

      • skepticgonewild,

        The warmunists are always screeching about skeptics using non peer reviewed papers, or performing “science by blog”, and ironically here we have a prime example of warmists doing the very same thing!

        If you think I don’t find that sadly ironic and morbidly amusing, you’d be wrong — you see, I’m not in the habit of rejecting arguments out of hand based on who wrote them and where. 🙂

        And we have no credible scientific evidence that back radiation is warming the oceans. THAT is what I’m STILL waiting for. That is your burden of proof, not mine.

        I provided the best evidence I know of which demonstrates the physical plausibility using in situ measurements and what I think is quite an elegant experimental protocol. If you don’t accept it as valid, so be it, there’s very little I can do about that.
        Others here have made the claim that increased DWLR will only increase evaporation from the surface. Their assertion, their burden of proof. So far it’s been [crickets].

        I never said Comment #28 on the Real Climate blog was “peer reviewed” or anything. I just told you to read it. That’s all.

        And I read it. It didn’t do anything to change my understanding of the experiment or its conclusions.

        29% of the planet is land, and coverage for thermometer is what? Maybe 15%?

        Less when you consider the diminutive size of measurement equipment itself.

    • ‘is CO2’s warming effect logarithmic (declining with each added increment), linear, or exponential (increasing with each added increment)?”
      I tthought I’d throw in my2 cents worth- from browising the internet.
      The effects of additional gases follow a Voigt profile
      When the gas is rare, as I suppose is the case with CO2 on Mars, increased wattage is proportional to N, the number of molecules added,
      As the gas iincreases, any increased wattage is proportional to SQRT(ln N) as is the case here on Earth.
      Finally, increased wattage is roughly proportional to SQRT (N).
      Here are some links. Maybe someone else can explain the approximations more clearly.
      http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys440/lectures/curve/curve.html
      https://www.princeton.edu/cefrc/Files/2013%20Lecture%20Notes/Hanson/pLecture6.pdf
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voigt_profile

  17. ‘Comparing today’s climate change challenge to the 1960s space race, he [Sen. Markey – D/Mass.] asked incredulously if, “the brightest minds of the United States of America who once figured out how to send a man to the moon can’t figure out how to…”‘
    Um, Mr. Markey, the brightest mind was from Germany. Now, shut up.

  18. For the record, I’m Canadian, not American, but we’ve had our own set of “winners” to contribute to the problem.
    So, sooner or later we’re going to have to confront what is actually happening here.
    What is the problem? Its a form of facism. I use this term very purposely and specifically. I do not mean to suggest that these people are malignant genocidal racist facists like the Nazis; but the way they act and react is very much in accord with how facists act/react
    * Anti-democratic
    * Anti-intellectual (even though many of them are quite intelligent)
    * Belief in dogma over rationalism
    * Elevation of shared myth to religion
    * Active suppression of individuality and liberalism (the classic kind)
    * Exclusion and persecution of others who do not agree with them
    * Distortion of reality to match belief, instead of altering belief to accord with reality.
    * Use of force and loudness to win arguments instead of well thought out logic.
    [I’ve been studying Goldberg’s “Liberal Facism” quite a bit lately, perhaps too much?]
    … I could go on, but I think the point is made (hopefully).
    So, how to meet and overcome this? I must confess to being absolutely baffled here. This is because I’m approaching the problem rationally, when it is essentially irrational. You cannot prove to someone that 2 + 2 = 4 if they refuse to even see the need for arithmetic.
    In my more pessimistic moods, I can only see being able to fight a holding action. To preserve as much of Enlightenment and Rationality as can be preserved while this movement burns itself out. Rather than seeking victory, merely prevent them from doing too much damage.
    Maybe in another 10 years we will begin to see the start of the decay. Until then, just try to preserve what we can.
    Ok, enough of this. I’m going back to Sean Carroll’s “Time’s Arrow”, a beautiful exposition, and will ignore any departures into CAGW that may arise.

    • Facing unemployment will change a lot of voters minds. Climate change or your job which will it be? For most people the connection hasn’t yet been made.

  19. Do other facets of climate respond by increasing the initial warming, reducing it, or leaving it unchanged?
    ________________________________
    It;s not positive feedback or else we would have been toast long ago.

  20. I loved the article, but heard myself say “DUH” outloud. College kids are running around like it’s a preschool playground yelling “Johnny hurt my feelings” and “Sarah looked at me funny!” and demanding safe zones….like it’s someone’s JOB to protect them from the big, bad world! So it’s no big surprise that like Steyn said-the weakest arguments are the ones that demand that everyone else be silenced, that cannot stand up to criticism of ANY kind. America’s problem is that it keeps electing weak people with weak arguments.

  21. Fact, Facts, Facts.
    Stupid, Stupid, Stupid.
    A huge opportunity was missed.
    Time and time again, this point was made over and over again:
    CO2 traps radiation, that causes heat buildup, that warms the planet, ergo Global Warming. The standard party line, if you will.
    Nobody answered with CONVECTION!, no heat buildup. Convection punches a hole through the greenhouse. It is not all radiative physics, other forces are at work. This simple fact was wholly overlooked.
    Whenever somebody says CO2 IR absorption/heat buildup, drag out Convection and beat it like a drum.
    Consider the target audience: Low information voters, non-technical people, people who do not know what to think. Politicians.
    Consider the CAGW crowd: Arguments on point. Simple, easy to understand. grabs your attention.
    Consider the skeptic crowd: Long arguments, full of technical details. Important scientific points “lost in the weeds” of hard to understand, confusing, scientific fine points. What is sometimes called “Inside Baseball”. Nobody cares about arguments like this.
    Now consider: Which argument style works best with the target audience? KISS.
    In some ways, Mark Steyn with his simple, direct, forceful presentations and rebuttals, saved the day.

    • TonyL-
      By what logic do you state a “huge opportunity was missed”? Your logic is terribly flawed if you think that “Low information voters, non-technical people, people who don’t know what to think” actually watch Senate Committee Hearings! They don’t watch CSPAN, they don’t read transcripts. You can’t use words like “CONVECTION” on low information voters and expect them to know whether you’re right or wrong either!
      Go produce a youtube video and promote it yourself. You’ll reach a wider audience than this Senate hearing did just by linking to it here at WUWT. Just remember to KISS.

      • I do think some people watch these hearings. Perhaps not the LoFo voters, but perhaps people with backgrounds in (let me guess) political science, media, finance, law. If senate hearings had no impact, I doubt anyone would bother with them. Maybe the hearings are only influential in a small area, inside the Beltway. The only place where it matters.
        As far as a video goes, I am aware of the reach of WUWT, and the phrase “preaching to the choir” comes to mind.

    • Even IPCC considers the “lapse rate feedbacK” – a negative one that results from increased greenhouse gases and increased surface temperature increasing convection to the greenhouse-gas-cooled tropopause. I think the best scientific debate here is the magnitude of the cloud albedo feedback and the water vapor feedback. I think that the sum of these two has positivity magnitude at most being that of the water vapor feedback alone if that is calculated with assumption of constant relative humidity. And I think the cloud albedo feedback is slightly positive, but that means a warming world has its overall average atmosphere having decreasing relative humidity. That is because cloud-producing updrafts have increasing thermodynamic effectiveness, and in a warmer world they need to have reduced coverage in order to be balanced with cloud-free downdrafts whose thermodynamic effectiveness is unchanged because those have no clouds whose thermodynamic effectiveness gets changed.

      • Actually, GHGs REDUCE convection at lower levels by distorting the lapse rate slope to the warm side in rising columns.
        Warmer air aloft reduces the vigour of convection.
        The whole issue of the convective response to GHGs is considered here:
        http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/for-discussion-can-convection-neutralize-the-effect-of-greenhouse-gases/
        This is the mechanism behind the recent work of David Evans and explains why with GHGs humidity increases lower down and decreases higher up as per observations but opposite to the AGW expectation (not upper tropospheric hot spot exists).
        The higher humidity lower down causes clouds to condense out at lower, warmer levels which reduces the height of the water vapour emissions level thereby allowing more radiation out to space to offset the absorption capabilities of GHGs.
        The radiosonde data shows that to be the correct diagnosis.

  22. Dr. Curry posted some of her thoughts about the hearing here: http://judithcurry.com/2015/12/10/reactions-on-the-senate-hearing/
    Just FYI.
    Some excerpts:

    Reactions on the Senate Hearing
    Udall and particularly Markey were way over the top. Markey’s statements, and his exchange with me, was a perfect illustration of Dogma versus Data. ***
    In hindsight, I pitched this a little too ‘high’. And I didn’t really address the main propaganda points from the Democrats: 97% consensus, and warmest year. My remarks on consensus were more philosophical; perhaps I should have focused on debunking the 97%, and on highlighting the recent collapse of the consensus on dietary fat/cholesterol/heart disease.
    Markey’s focus on the ‘warmest year’ highlights the role that warmest year and hiatus has in the politicking and propaganda surrounding climate change. Warmest year is pretty meaningless in understanding anything, … .

    ************************************************
    Now… I’m going to keep searching for something about why Dr. Christy didn’t interrupt to correct the Democrat errors about the satellite temp. record (good question, Juan Slayton, at 4pm today on this thread).
    Perhaps, he was just being polite.
    To which I would respond (if so): POLITENESS IS OUT OF PLACE IN A WAR!! We are in a war for freedom! The Enviroprofiteer-driven l1es about human CO2 are wreaking havoc with personal liberty and basic well-being (not to mention prosperity!) around the world.

    • I’m going to toss in the idea that perhaps Dr Christy, being a seasoned veteran of US Hearings isn’t accustomed to witnesses being able to interrupt when Senators and Congressmen/women have the floor. It’s a hearing, and witnesses don’t get to speak unless asked a direct question. They ALSO usually cannot because the microphones are tightly controlled so that only the person who has the floor has a “live mic”. Hence, in many videos, when someone starts to speak the audience cannot hear the first few words before the mic goes “live” again.
      Now, Ted Cruz, being the chairperson for this hearing CAN and DID allow rebuttals from Steyn and Curry, because he has the authority in that situation to grant the floor back to them. BUT, as we saw, the Democrats were NOT used to being addressed in return and were NOT happy about it. They had to shut up because the chairperson has the right to grant the floor to them if he/she so chooses, and Cruz did.

      • Aphan,
        I think your analysis is right on. Thank you for sharing it, too, for it is so good that you are sparing me the agony of trying to figure out why Dr. Christy did not make that correction by interrupting. I don’t care enough to bother and it really doesn’t matter, anyway… the hearing is — over.
        Sure enjoy reading your comments — you have a lovely “write-like-you-talk” (I assume), readable, economical, style with high-value content. (I include in “high-value” — just-for-fun comments that make me smile, too).
        #(:))
        Janice

        • “you have a lovely “write-like-you-talk” (I assume), readable, economical, style with high-value content.”
          You are kind, and I’m glad I come across that way. But if I could type as fast as I talk, my keyboards would melt. 🙂

  23. I thought Senator Ted Cruz was “Off the chart brilliant” and a champion spontaneous debater with an encyclopaedic memory?
    Ex-Admiral Titley seemed to throw him with his 200 year global temperature chart that Titley cleverly demonstrated as “disproving” the pause. This was picked by journalists as “destroying Ted Cruz’s climate myths”:
    http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/12/ted-cruz-climate-change-pause
    I know the good senator has a lot on his plate at the moment but could he not have sunk the sailor’s case by anticipating the opponents argument and showing a 2000 year global temperature chart based on credible proxies that not only demonstrate natural ups and downs but trends absolutely similar to that of to-day?

    • King:
      Good point.
      A. Yes — he would have sunk Titley’s battleship with such a chart.
      B. Re: “could he not have” — Shrug.
      The bottom line is, nevertheless, that Mother Jones could have, if they were so inclined, with just a little bit of research, reported the science facts even without Cruz’s help.

    • I would love to see any alarmist debate Ted Cruz. But, they will not debate – the science is settled and 97% consensus proves it. I think Ted has more in his pocket for future debates…
      – Janice, glad to see you back on the forum at WUWT!!!!!! We missed you.

  24. But the agreement in Paris is monumental. All of our climate problems have been instantly solved and the USA does not have to pay for it because we are a poor nation. Extreme weather will never happen again and the sea levels have stopped rising. We can now redirect funds from studying and trying to prevent climate change to paying down our debt.

  25. All the references to Sen. Markey make me think about the Pogo comic strip. I’m not sure why; you’d think the answer would be simple.

  26. “Kindergartners are running the country. Or liars. Or both”
    I believe it is even worse. It is more like a “Lord of the Flies” situation with far worse consequences

  27. Mr. Beisner is there an actual experimental confirmation of the atmospheric CO2 molecules photonic and collision energy transfer?

    • If you would not mind expanding your question and point out exactly what process is troublesome to you, perhaps we can find an answer.

  28. “The irony is that today a group of retired NASA scientists who worked on the Apollo, Skylab, and Space Shuttle programs, calling itself The Right Stuff Climate Team, …”

    I’m pretty sure those folks think the moon landings were faked, too. /sarc

  29. Just curious, but am I the only one here who doesn’t know that there are 3 satellite datasets?
    RSS and UAH I’m familiar with, but as for the 3rd …???

  30. The author should study up a little. Presenting graphs representing a “global temperature” or any derivative thereof, it’s nonsense.

  31. It should be noted that mainstream climate scientists including ones favored by IPCC agree that the effect of change of CO2, within historical range of atmospheric presence of CO2, is logarythmic. There is even a number for that, where even Dr. Roy Spencer (mildlyon the skeptic side) goes along with the IPCC-favored number – 3.7 W/m^2 of extra heat per doubling of CO2 (and its converse in the cooling direction). This number is for before natural feedbacks other than the Planck law – and the main debate when scientists on the skeptical side debate those on the alarmist side (and such honest scientific debate is strikingly having low published presence) is magnitude and sometimes the direction of these feedbacks. A number for watts per area per 2x change of CO2 is an expression of its effect being acknowledged as being logarythmic. Even IPCC says the effect of change of CO2 is logarythmic.

  32. Please note that the graph of the radiation transmitted by the atmosphere misrepresents the sizes of the black body curves so that it looks like the radiation from the ground is somehow nearly the same as the solar radiation. The ground radiation curve should be completely under the right hand tail of the left hand curve. In order to fit both curves on the same diagram, it was required that the left hand curve be reduced in size by a factor of one million (10^-6 times the energy levels in the curve).
    As for the conservation of heat, there is some misunderstanding about the concept of heat. Heat is
    energy in transit from one body to another. So, after the transfer it is no longer heat energy, but is energy of vibration, rotation, chemical bonds, kinetic, etc. Also, energy is not some kind of stuff that is transferred, but more like a relative change in relationships between matter.

    • Yes, the graph presented in the article is not scaled correctly and gives a misleading impression
      .
      However, you must remember that the Sun is 96 million miles and so its radiation is much reduced by the time it reaches Earth orbit [ by a factor of 2 billion ] and so the Earth radiation no longer fits under the tail of the solar curve. If it did, then CO2 would block more solar radiation coming in than Earth radiation going out.
      The following graph shows the comparison more realistically
      http://s11.postimg.org/qt4vzvq2b/Sun_Earth_Comparison.png
      You can see from this that the main CO2 absorption band, around 15 microns, blocks outgoing radiation with a negligible effect on incoming radiation.

  33. People need to start getting a little less defensive about “cherry picking” to create a lower trend. For the most part it is very hard for skeptics to cherry pick ENSO dates. This is due to the fact that La Nina almost always directly follows El Nino. They occur as a pair with the El Nino coming first. Hence, If you choose a year like 1998 you also encompass the 1999-2001 La Nina. You simply cannot choose a high point that has any meaningful impact on the trend.
    The same logic also applies to the end of trend. Ending on a La Nina includes the immediately preceding El Nino. Once again this balances out as far as the trend goes.
    Notice that the same logic does not apply to alarmists. They can start with a La Nina and end with an El Nino. These would miss the balancing pair at both ends. It is only alarmists who can cherry pick ENSO dates that have a big impact on the trend. Don’t fall the the claims that skeptics are cherry picking.

    • alarmists spout claims of cherry picking in a comical projection.
      you should EXPECT that from someoone in the midst of cognitive dissonance

      • I want the alarmist to include data as far back as they are willing to entertain. It’s easy to scare someone with a short term CHERRY PICKED graph than a long term history.

  34. “Kindergartners are running the country. Or liars. Or both.”
    I watched the entire hearing and stopped occasionally and backed up to listen again to some of the comments, mainly by Democratic senators and by the admiral.
    It’s hard for me to tell how the level of knowledge of the Democratic senators compares with the general public. (I have an ancient MA in geography and a recent MS in Earth science but have not recently done any teaching.)
    What struck me was that at least one Democratic senator challenged the Chairman over the title of the hearing, specifically the use of the term “dogma”. What I was hearing from the Democratic side of the debate was the mantra “97% of scientists say its so”. One senator and the admiral listed the organizations that had lent their authority to the consensus view.
    I thought, what is going on here? Don’t these guys know that is argumentum ad verecundiam (also known as: argument from authority). Did they not realize that merely by arguing in this way the were confirming Senator Cruz’s argument and purpose in calling the hearing?
    I thought that the Democratic senators and the admiral too were like Galileo’s dray horses. Mark Steyn was his Barbary steed.
    “I say that the testimony of many has little more value than that of few, since the number of people who reason well in complicated matters is much smaller than that of those who reason badly. If reasoning were like hauling I should agree that several reasoners would be worth more than one, just as several horses can haul more sacks of grain than one can. But reasoning is like racing and not like hauling, and a single Barbary steed can outrun a hundred dray horses.”
    The Assayer (Il Saggiatore) was published in Rome by Galileo in October 1623

    • Il Saggiatore, very good, thank you, copied to my commonplace book. Also links quite nicely to measuring horsepower which brings us back to our host’s illustrious (almost) namesake.
      My engineering MA is quite ancient too!
      ‘Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and run with patience the race that is set before us, …’

  35. Some Americans are funny. They make me laugh.
    Small consolation for the sea level that
    goes up and up, despite nothing melting
    and no thermal expansion cuz theres no
    extra heat cuz theres a pause.
    Isnt that right folks. Yeah a big pause.
    Its magic and unicorn breath thats makin the extra water. Maybe its unicorn
    spittle.

    • SLR is also coming from:
      Ground water extraction
      Sediment deposits
      Land subsidence (esp. from ground water extraction)
      Isotonic adjustment, a fudge factor that has redefined sea level as oceanic volume
      Large margin of error in satellite sea surface measurements

      • The real issue is not whether or not the Earth has warmed during the last 400 years, but by how much and what has been the cause of the warming.
        One way to approach this is to look at the rate of warming and this can be done by looking at the rate of sea level rise. As Dr Curry pointed out during the recent Senate hearing, sea level has been rising for a very long time, long before 1950 the critical date for the rapid increase in CO2 emissions.
        The fact is that sea level has been rising for most of the last 10,000 years (the Holocene). But there have been times when sea level has fallen for long and short periods.
        Near where I live there are old beach lines that formed around 6000 to 4000 years ago. I live on a stable craton (kraton) which means that the land has not moved up and down much over the Holocene.
        These old beach lines have been dated to the 5000 years before the present. During the Holocene Climate Optimum (as it is called) sea level rose to around 2 meters (six feet or so) higher than now as this was a warm period. The later fall in sea level is confirmed by the rivers along the coast which are re-entrant to the same depth. This means that as sea level fell after about 4000 years ago the rivers cut down into the gravel and sand by about 2 meters.
        More recently, sea level has been rising, since about 250 years ago, at the end of the Little Ice Age. The rate in sea level rise has fluctuated because the rate of warming has fluctuated.
        In my opinion, sea level may continue to rise purely from natural causes, even if CO2 is regulated at current levels.
        Why I mentioned I live on a stable craton is some people live in areas where the land is either rising or sinking. Some parts of the northeast seaboard of the USA are still sinking because the Earth’s crust is still adjusting the removal of kilometers of ice 20,000 years ago.
        I read a report some years ago in which a state geologist’s report was ignored by an official state environmental commission in favor of the view that sea level was rising. (The state was on the northeast coast of the US, I forget which one.) The state geologist had plainly stated that the land was continuing to subside owing to glacial rebound somewhere near Hudson’s Bay in Canada.
        The Huon Peninsula in Papua New Guinea is a text-book example of land emerging from the sea so that its inhabitants might imaging that sea level is falling.
        To say anything at all useful about local sea levels we have to know if the land is moving up or down.

      • Roger: You might find this short talk interesting:



        It claims that sea level is only accurate to within a meter.

    • Or maybe the landmasses are shifting up/down/sideways, or maybe you still believe Africa was never connected to South America. So how much did the sea level rise during the pause since from your comments it can be concluded you are xenophobic and believe your culture is superior to others you should have the answer.
      What does “Americans” have to do with anything?

    • Li D: Yeah the keepers (creepers) of the data can give you made-to-order data. The Pause, well acknowledged even by the IPCC, kind of sneaked up on the CAGW bunch until reported in the Mail (UK) about 7-8 years ago to much consternation among the team. Trenberth thought it was .a travesty that they couldn’t explain it (he will regret his candid remark to his dying day and has lamely spun it). Cooler heads at NCAR in Boulder said this is perfectly normal, only if it lasted 17 yrs or more would recasting global warming theory be necessary.
      When it hit 17 years, a number of fully invested scientists suffered clinical depression caused by de-Nile, the classic psychological kind when a person is consciously rejecting powerful messages from their subconscious that they don’t want to acknowledge and making themselves sick. Naturally they spun this with the aid of fully invested, corrupted psychologist enablers who only drove the illness deeper. Hey, who wants to hear that their life’s work turns out to be illegitimate, that they’ve wasted most of a career and life on ideological garbage put out by New Worlders. The ring masters realized that something had to be done about the dreaded “Pause” when it extended over 18yrs despite 1/3 of all CO2 increase in the atmosphere since the little ice age. The ideologues among them didn’t want the entire CAGW movement to fall psychologically ill! That would be a game ender.
      What to do? Well, It wasn’t going to be pretty but, rereading Alinsky’s rules for radicals, they found the solution. Change the record get rid of the pause. I believe it’s now called tomkarleizing the data. Oh, and the sea level isn’t the physical real sea level anyway. A few years ago, they added a factor that accounted for glacial rebound changing the volume of the ocean basins, so sea level is located somewhere ABOVE actual sea level up in the air somewhere. They knew from the experience of climategate that should have sunk the CAGW ship, that given time and spin it could be fixed. It still stinks now but it will be okay in time.

  36. I’m told it takes 30 yrs. to make a “climate trend”. Ok. But the alarmists only have about 8-9 years (1980-1988). There’s been no statistically significant warming since then. (Sorry, but “hottest year on record doesn’t count when it falls within the range of error.)

    • “I’m told it takes 30 yrs. to make a “climate trend”
      The World Meteorological Organization agreed a long time ago that climate is the average weather over a period of 30 years.
      So this is an administrative definition to separate weather from climate. But 30 years now seems obsolete.
      There is probably no generally accepted temporal boundary to definite climate because geologists, glaciologists and paleoclimatologists have a different time perspective from atmospheric physicist and oceanographers who deal with the features of the climate system during the last century or so.
      Oceanographers in particular may wish to investigate several cycles of oceanic oscillations each of which takes 60 years for a full cycle. Solar scientists will want to investigate the entire Holocene (10,000 years) to get enough solar maxima and minima to assess the potential effects of solar variability on climate.
      An intelligent lay person may wish to know how we determine if a 30 year trend is not just the upward or downward phase of a recurring climate cycle. Is a period of 15 years with no change just the top or bottom of a longer term cycle?
      These are not issues often raised in the climate-versus-weather debate. These issues hardly ever reach the front pages of popular media. Not unless the reporter can spin the story into a catastrophe in the main text and then in the last paragraph mention in passing that the catastrophic scenario will take 500 years to unfold.
      I have studied climate for about 50 years on and off and still am not confident whether or not recent warming is just the upward swing of the 60-year cycle or whether it signifies that mankind is able to overwhelm the natural rhythm we observe in all long-term climate proxies.
      I am inclined to the view that once again the boy is crying “Wolf” and there is no wolf, just the same old mangy cur whose paw prints we have seen so often in the Earth’s archives.

      • When you consider the facts of 1) warm-bias due to UHI and poor siting, plus rural station drop-out and 2) the near-19 year “Pause” shown in the RSS record, it’s not difficult to see that the actual warming is natural. Cooling almost certainly in the cards now.

    • No need for decades of data. It now only takes a particularly warm afternoon in Paris, or a two-day tropical storm in the Atlantic, apparently.

    • If I’m not mistaken, 60 yrs. would be a better trend. I’m sure many here will correct me if I’m wrong but looking at only 30 yrs puts us at the top of the current cycle. True, since the Little Ice Age temps have been trending up but that has going on been long before Man’s CO2 emissions could have had an significant impact. But to claim it does and therefore claim Man’s CO2 emissions must be controlled by the chosen few has great political impact.

      • Actually, I think 60 years is nothing but a blip on the climate radar, too – but since alarmists think 30 years is a trend, it’s nice to be able to say I’ve seen nothing different from when I was growing up. 😉

  37. “We know by the law of the conservation of energy that additional heat cannot just magically disappear. Instead it causes our planet to get warmer.”….What, convection currents only have one “speed”?

  38. Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    The very fact that Democrat senators repeatedly trotted out the “denier” meme, says it all. When your argument is weak, default to ‘othering’ and smear.
    Those who rely on ‘othering’ and groupthink clickbait as their go-to, should be aware that “belief” and “denial” are the words of zealots, not scientists.

  39. I saw the video and thought Ye gods it is a world wide thing all of the loons are believers, what you need is at the next election for a proper president is to store them up by voting for Donald Trump, he doesn’t believe any of this bull, end of.

  40. Those commentators here at WUWT who thought that Senator Cruz let the Democrats get away with too much during the Hearing now have their answer to his strategy in his surge into first place in Iowa. It was clearly his strategy as a lawyer to show the American “jury” that the alarmists are simply preaching dogma with no understanding of the science data behind climatology, or if they have their distortion of it. In this he succeeded in spades. In running the Hearing in this way he has shown his ability to base his actions on facts not fantasies – like the Green Clowns in Paris – and so his potential competence as a future President. Let us hope he succeeds.

    • Evidence suggests that Cruz is the least crazy of the candidates opposing the Clintonista business as usual crowd. If the election were to be held tomorrow and I were moved to vote I’d punch Cruz. That is more the limitation of choices than anything else, but is a fact. Nobody else is worth getting off the couch for.

      • “Evidence suggests that Cruz is the least crazy of the candidates..”
        Yes, and I hope enough registered Republicans think the same way. But one or more independent conservative candidates could split the vote enough for the GOP to miss the presidency.

    • An earlier post asked why there were so few Republican senators present. I would suggest a couple of reasons. Cruz is running in a primary and many Republican senators do not want to be seen supporting his effort.
      Several of the most senior and thus most powerful Republican senators have a long history of supporting the climate change cause.
      One of a million examples would be funding a new super computer for Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Traditionally this could be done by invoking national security aka nuclear weapons research. That approach lost its mojo with the end of the Cold War. Climate modeling made a nice bolt on to get funding votes from the likes of Senator Markey.
      Not elegant or complicated but very effective. ORNL gets the super computer and we get to live with bs.

  41. These are the same Keynesian followers that believe in the basic economic principle that you can spend yourself out of debt. Upside down views of reality.

  42. Piers Corbyn and WeatherAction comment on the #COP21 Climate “Deal”:
    The below is from the famous Piers Corbyn by way of WeatherAction:
    “It is a pack of lies, a word-salad of delusional nonsense. It is not science but politics and we challenge David Shukman of BBC and Sir David Attenborough to public debate on their claims and to answer the points made by us and all scientists at the Paris Climate Challenge alternative to UN IPCC held 1-3Dec – http://www.PCC15.org
    I. THE FACTS OBSERVED IN THE REAL WORLD, rather than the product of failed models by the self-serving appointees of governments which make-up the IPCC process ARE:
    (i) ALL the predictions of the ‘Global Warming’ theory of the UNIPCC have failed.
    Real world temperatures as accurately measured by satellites are not rising but falling while the UN-IPCC models based on ‘cretin-Physics’ predicted rising for decades.
    Arctic sea ice has now INCREASED to record levels not fallen as required under the UN IPCC model.
    The actual rate of sea level rise (due to the slow expansion of sea volume since the last ice-age) has not changed since the industrial revolution and not shown extra rises from increased CO2
    (ii). NONE of the extremes of weather (and alarmist reportage of weather events) and wild behaviour of the jet stream which causes them are anything to do with CO2 but are provenly caused and in many cases were predicted in detail months ahead by Piers Corbyn’s Solar activity driven forecasting technique.
    The extreme events observed over the last 8 years are THE WRONG TYPE OF EXTREMES FOR THE CO2 THEORY.
    Under the CO2 theory the North Hemisphere Jet Stream should have moved North and become less wavy but it has moved South and got more wavy in line with Piers Corbyn’s WeatherAction Solar-Lunar Action Technique of long range forecasting.
    2. THE UN IPCC MEASURES HAVE FAILED IN THEIR OWN TERMS.
    They are destroying jobs in Britain, Ireland & Europe and merely moving those industries and production of CO2 (which is the gas-of-life and not a pollutant) to other parts of the world.
    3. THE WORLD POPULATION and world economy are suffering under Climate-Change / Global warming measures by rising energy and food charges, fuel poverty and increased starvation while the Super-rich, BigOil and giant corporations increase profits.
    The measures are nothing to do with science or climate but a distortion of the world economy and redistribution of jobs to enable greater exploitation by Giant corporations and the world super-rich.
    So-called climate Science is a cover for this profiteering.
    Of the over one $Billion a day spent on so called climate saving green measures the vast majority is on stupid grandiose ineffective projects (wind farms etc) while only a small proprtion goes to actual defences (eg better water management) and precautions needed for naturally occuring extreme weather events consequent on changing solar activity and motions of the Jet Stream.
    From … http://www.weatheraction.com

  43. They couldn’t find a way to tax the air we breath in, so they decided to try and tax the air we breathe out . It’s called ” Cap and Trade ” or ” Carbon Tax ” !! ….Don’t be fooled again !!

  44. ” If he knew that and did it anyway, he’s dishonest. If he didn’t know it, he’s either uninformed or—well, you can fill in the blank.”
    Ah, that question I so often have to ask myself when reading articles by or debating either alarmists or socialists: “are they ignorant, stupid or dishonest?”. You will see how often these are the only three apparent options.

  45. · Is CO2’s warming effect logarithmic (declining with each added increment), linear, or exponential (increasing with each added increment)? (Answer: logarithmic, implying that each added increment warms the atmosphere less than the last. See the graph below.)

    Red herring argument: Climate sensitivity is expressed in warming per doubling. I.e. The logarithmic nature is already incorporated in the definition.

  46. I would like to see social media sites powered totally by “renewables”. And no fossil fuel backup either. I’d like to see telecommunications networks powered by renewables too, not batteries as currently. And when it fails watchout for the social fallout.
    In Ethiopia in 2005 the Govn’t blocked all social media systems, esp txt messages. It eventually failed the Govn’t.
    Just make sure you have a 9v transistor radio…because your internet, your social media, your streaming TV can all go in an instant.

  47. A very good article – thanks to the author Calvin Beisner, who wrote:
    “Kindergartners are running the country. Or liars. Or both.”
    I wrote this in 2009 re false global warming alarmism, and made similar comments pre-2005:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/02/AR2009030200476_Comments.html
    [excerpt]
    “The politics of the phony global warming crisis make Alice in Wonderland look quite sane, in comparison. Regrettably, we are being governed by scoundrels and imbeciles.”
    Global warming alarmism has always employed the BIG LIE, and the tactics thereof.
    Global warming alarmism is inherently evil, because it misappropriates trillions of dollars in scarce global resources to fight an alleged crisis that does not exist in reality.
    These trillions of dollars are confiscated from individual taxpayers and power consumers and given to the best friends of the warmist politicians – it is perhaps the largest scam we have seen in the history of our civilization.
    Regards, Allan

  48. Dear, Sen. Peters Think you for your illustrious comment on the conversation of energy. I have often wondered this myself. For example 1998 was much hotter(according to temperature measurements) then 1999, what happened to cause all the temperature to be destroyed? I assume you believe temperature(a unit of measure but not of energy) and heat(energy) are the same, even though all physics books say otherwise, since you say heat(energy) causes our planet to get warmer(temperature). And, temperature(not a measure of energy) is the only units being discussed. I know this is confusing as generally adding energy(heat) cause temperature to rise, but sometimes it doesn’t.
    Which brings us back to 1998 being hotter(temperature) then 1999, and even though according to some climate scientists we added more energy(heat) to the system but the temperature went down significantly. What exactly happened to cause this temperature to drop? The Sun’s heat(energy output) difference was not enough to cause it. Since, we know energy is neither created nor destroyed, where did it go? Did it go into the oceans? If so, was the heat(energy) coming out of the oceans why the 1998 was hotter(temperature)? Why are the oceans blamed for non-temperature rising periods but not periods when temperature rises? Seriously, I think congress should investigate, who stole the temperature difference between 1998 and 1999. Just answering this one question would help the world understand how our climate works. P.S. it wasn’t CO2 as CO2 did not drop and as the IPCC says more CO2 only causes temperatures to rise.

    • Think you for your illustrious comment on the conversation of energy.
      Yes, that was an entertaining conversation….
      : > )

  49. I recall a survey several (like at least 10) years ago that found Markey to be the dimmest bulb in the House. I guess he’s probably the dumbest Senator now.

  50. Based on what Peters said shouldn’t space be really really hot with all of the stars heating up the place?

  51. Dr. Murry Salby presents data that proves the majority of CO2 emissions are natural and there is nothing humanity can do to stop them. Moreover, he shows that CO2 is TRAILS temperature, so CO2 CANNOT be the cause of temperature changes.
    see: Climate Scientist Murry Salby Returns! – Presents NEW SCIENCE

    • There are experts who agree that CO2 does not cause temperatures to rise but that rising temperatures cause CO2 to rise — but they go on to point out that the laws of thermodynamics, observation, and logic say that CO2, on net, cools the planet. Regardless if CO2 cools or warms the planet, the effect is so very, very tiny that we can not observe or measure it.
      And no, just saying that temperatures rose while CO2 rose during some random 20 year period does not prove or disprove a gd thing.
      This delusion of modern man that CO2 is the devil himself (why is the devil male anyway?) is enough to drive on mad.

    • buckwheaton on December 13, 2015 at 4:35 am
      Western society has a BIG problem: post-modernism that substitutes emotions for reason and teaches that reality is inside your own thoughts.

      – – – – – – –
      buckwheaton,
      I agree and that determines a new kind of philosophy of science which is fundamentally subjective. Namely, for example, science under the new philosophy of science built to be subjected to the influence of such influences as: faith, belief, ‘morally motivated bias**’, emotions, politics, nationalism, irrationality, etc.
      There are other philosophies in the history of philosophy besides ‘post-modernism’ that build the same kind of subjective philosophy of science.
      **morally motivated bias – I found this concept in ‘Can High Moral Purposes Undermine Scientific Integrity?’ by Jussim, Crawford, Stevens, Anglin, Duarte (a draft chapter to appear in: J. Forgas, P. van Lange & L. Jussim, Sydney Symposium on Social Psychology of Morality),
      John

    • Relativism is indeed a philosophical problem that’s worked its way into politics. “Everyone is entitled to their own truth, truth is what you believe and may be different for me, and asserting any truth is racist, bigoted, _______aphobic, etc.”
      Of course, the people who tend to embrace this philosophy and those views are largely the more tyrannical when discussing these topics practically.

  52. Senator Gary Peters said, “We know by the law of the conservation of energy that additional heat cannot just magically disappear.”
    When the daytime high temperature in Washington, DC is 90F and the following overnight low is 65F, where does the heat go? It doesn’t “magically disappear”, it is radiated back into space.

    • I was intending to correct Beisner’s statement, too. He seems to think that the Sen.ator was using a different subject, the truth of which is excepted by all, to get away from another subject. The law of conservation of energy doesn’t mean it is trapped in the earths system. I does indeed escape to space – the system isn’t closed.

      • Except that satellites measure an imbalance between incoming and outgoing energy, as expected from rising GHG in the atmosphere. Those who reject the GW theory need to explain (convincingly) where the extra energy ends up.

        • Oddly, I got hit with this approach a few times this week.
          Did a memo go out ?
          No, Knute. If you insist on being a skeptic, you have to explain why burning fossil fuels is not destabilizing the climate !!! You have to present a model that the climate will be just fine in 25 years.
          I calmly asserted that YOU are scaring people, so the burden is on you.
          No afterparty invite for me.

        • “Those who reject the GW theory need to explain (convincingly) where the extra energy ends up.”
          That may be true for those who have little or no training in Earth science but the physical basis is fairly simple. (My references at the end of the comment)
          Estimated radiative imbalance measured by satellites was set out by Stephens et al in 2012. The authors estimated the average increase in ocean heat content (OHC) as 0.6 +/-0.4 watts per square meter, which means as high as 1.0 or as low as 0.2 Wm-2 (watts per square meter).
          (Calculation in the text is: 0.6 Wm-2 = 340.2 – 239.7 – 99.9 Wm–2)
          They also stated that the uncertainty in the satellite measurements at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is more than 10 times bigger than the estimated imbalance attributed to greenhouse gases including CO2.
          “The net energy balance is the sum of individual fluxes [at the top of the atmosphere]. The current uncertainty in this net surface energy balance is large, and amounts to approximately 17 Wm–2. This uncertainty is an order of magnitude larger than the changes to the net surface fluxes associated with increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (Fig. 2b). The uncertainty is also approximately an order of magnitude larger than the current estimates of the net surface energy imbalance of 0.6 ±0.4 Wm–2 inferred from the rise in OHC.”
          Words in square brackets added.
          One order of magnitude = 10 times.
          “Watt” is a measure of power. Watt-hour would be a measure of energy flow.
          The incoming and outgoing fluxes are each about 240 Wm-2. A one-tenth of one percent error (0.01%) in each would be 0.24 Wm-2 multiplied by 2 giving 0.5 Wm-2. That is the precision and accuracy needed. But the uncertainty is 17 Wm-2. This means that the satellite technology is not precise and accurate enough to measure the imbalance.
          It gets much worse if you back up one step before the estimate of incoming radiation (240 Wm-2). Because this figure of incoming radiation is a net amount derived from the 340 W-2 that reaches the top of the atmosphere after subtracting the radiation that is reflected back to space, about 30% (albedo=0.30). Therefore the calculation is 30% of 340 Wm-2 = 240 Wm-2.
          Estimated radiative flux that is not reflected is 240 Wm-2. However, the estimate of albedo (30%) is sensitive to cloud extent, elevation and type, but cloud is the physical entity least well known. A difference in albedo of one percent (+/-0.003) results in a difference in radiative imbalance of +/-1 Wm-2. This is almost double the estimate of net radiative imbalance from satellite measurements (0.6 Wm-2).
          In effect the precision and accuracy of albedo ought to be no greater than half of one percent.
          But as we have seen there are two steps in the calculation both of which must be precisely known but are subject to experimental error. Further, there is a growing literature that regards clouds as entities that are actively driven by galactic cosmic radiation modulated by solar and terrestrial factors.
          Where does the energy go?
          There is only one place where much excess energy can be stored and that is in the oceans. (The mass of the entire atmosphere is roughly equivalent to the mass of a ten-meter layer of the world ocean that is on average 2000 meters deep.)
          As we have seen, the imbalance (increase) in ocean heat content (OHC) is estimated to be about 0.6 Wm-2. (See the paper by Shaviv below for the physics.)
          Using solar proxies (not sunspots) Steinhilber and others estimated the change in radiative imbalance since the Maunder Minimum. Steinhilber stated, “Our estimated difference between the MM and the present is (0.9 ± 0.4) Wm-2…”
          If the radiative imbalance in 2010 was +0.6 Wm-2 and these these authors are correct, the radiative imbalance 300 or so years ago would have been negative (-0.3 Wm-2).
          The bottom line is that the radiative imbalance is extremely small, its measurement is subject to errors that are in proportion quite large. Further, the changes in solar activity since before 1700 may account for a substantial percentage of the warming during the last 300 years.
          So skeptics seem to have good grounds for misgivings about activists claims of certainty when the actual scientific papers point to uncertainty.
          References:
          Stephens, Graeme L., et al. “An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations.” Nature Geoscience 5.10 (2012): 691-696.
          URL: http://planck.aos.wisc.edu/publications/2012_
          Steinhilber, F., J. Beer, and C. Fröhlich. “Total solar irradiance during the Holocene.” Geophysical Research Letters 36.19 (2009).
          ftp://193.5.60.50/pub/Claus/TSI_longterm/reconstr_TSI_grl_rev_submitted.pdf
          Shaviv, Nir J. “Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics (1978–2012)113.A11 (2008).
          URL: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.173.2162&rep=rep1&type=pdf

      • Dan Hue, no we don’t. GW is about temperature not energy. The goal is to limit temperature rise to 1.5C. Not to limit Joules.
        When the CAGW crowd starts to use the correct unit of measure then can we talk about energy.

      • Dan Hue
        December 13, 2015 at 10:16 am
        Im not a critic of some warming and cooling in turn and not alarmed by how much warming seems to be involved and I expect that with a flawless measuring system that we would see a negative imbaltance in warming and a positive balance in ooling. It is universally acknowledged by all sides that the size of the imbalance measured is not possible. We would be fried to a crisp by now. As a result, an estimated figure is given by the proponents of AGW between 0.5 and 1.0W/m^2.
        “…mean differences among radiative flux data sets may be large enough that direct measurements of
        annual planetary energy imbalances are still unreliable [Zhang et al. , 2007] due to the annual mean TOA biases of about 5 W/m^2”

  53. Markey was a stupid embarrassment, but, Democrats do not get embarrassed by their stupidity. They would be embarrassed all the time if that were the case.
    For example, Markey referred to the consensus, and compared the consensus scientists to Galileo defending the truth to the Inquisition. I think that was a maladroit analogy. The skeptics are Galileo defending the truth while the consensus plays the role of the Inquisition. Just think of the imbalance of power in both situation.
    Well, I think we are seeing the last hurrah of much of this nonsense, if for no other reason than the money is almost gone. For example, interest rates may finally rise, erasing the govt’s ability to finance its debts. Without govt money to grease this corruption, it will stop. My concern is what will take its place.
    The next time you talk to a believer, ask them what they would believe if the “consensus” were to shift, and govt paid scientists began to say that CO2 was not causing extreme global warming? Would they change their minds? If so, then they know nothing. They just repeat mindlessly what they are told.
    Show these idiots no respect.

  54. From your hypothesis you infer a prediction, and then you compare that with observation. If the observation contradicts the prediction, the hypothesis is wrong…..
    ====
    Calvin, you missed one…..the big one
    Global warming theory says that CO2 will increase temps a little…..which leads to more humidity….which increases temp, releases more CO2….which causes more increase in humidity
    ….wash rinse repeat
    Global warming theory says it’s run away global humidity that does it……total fail
    http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/GlobalRelativeHumidity300_700mb.jpg

  55. If the data does not support my theory, but I still think my theory is correct, I might re-evaluate my data to see if there are errors in it. This is simple confirmation bias and it’s why any such analysis must be independently confirmed. Is this happening?

  56. With the new climate agreement in place, the world is moving on and climate skeptics will become more and more marginalized. You can either roll up your sleeves and become part of the solution or remain mired in your denial and relegate yourselves to the dustbin of history.

    • Luke on December 13, 2015 at 7:11 am
      With the new climate agreement in place, the world is moving on and climate skeptics will become more and more marginalized. You can either roll up your sleeves and become part of the solution or remain mired in your denial and relegate yourselves to the dustbin of history.

      Luke,
      Science will never be marginalized in an open culture of freedom to reason and of freedom to publically express the reasoning. That is why there cannot be marginalization of independent thinkers (aka skeptics) critical of the observational challenged hypothesis of discernibly significant AGW from fossil fuels.
      John

    • Luke, that sounds very familiar. Kind of matches this definition:
      “The manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives”

    • Luke,
      Bruce Cobb has you nailed:
      You people do live in a dream-world don’t you?
      There is no real agreement, and there never will be. They say there’s an agreement, so they can save face. But even the Administration admitted for the past few weeks (along with many others) that you folks better not expect much. That’s what you got: not much.

  57. Excellent charts and use of italics. However, when I research the author he is a man who thinks some god snapped his fingers and created the universe in 7 days and handed the keys to ape like man with bad teeth. So… everything he states is irrelevant and likely wrong. Religion does not pass the test of science when the core foundation is “Have Faith. Okay, have faith or I’ll whip you!”

      • Okay, I’ll try again. Story of Christianity=Story of St. Nick. Reindeers don’t fly, fat men can’t fit through chimneys=religion is a false story to modify behavior. Ergo, evangelicals who preach false stories cannot also be scientists. A history degree doesn’t help.

      • Nope, still Ad Hominem, but now you throw in another logical fallacy – Appeal to Authority.
        Double-FAIL

      • Nope, not an ad hominem. It is not an attack on the person, but rather their beliefs. In the case of belief in the Bible and creationism, that has direct relevance to scientific credibility.

      • Wrong again. Still Ad Hominem, and also a Red Herring. You are avoiding the subject of the piece. Typical Warmist tactic.
        Logic FAIL. Again.

      • Bruce Cobb is right. If anyone thinks they have a better answer, try using logic and make a rational argument. The juvenile comments here by some folks point to a lot of insecurity.

    • Chris,
      1. You read advocacy for “creationism” into the name of Dr. Beisner’s group, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. That Beisner’s group calls what we see around us “creation,” instead of “nature” or “the planet” or the like, has no bearing on his knowledge of CO2 science. Thus, your attack was baseless and irrelevant to this discussion.
      2. There are many Science Giants peering over your shoulder, with wry smiles on their faces. They believed in God and were excellent scientists (most, if not all, would include in their belief about God that God created the heavens and the earth, differing only in the mechanism used). If you turn around veryfast — you might just catch a glimpse of:
      Galileo Galilei…. Blaise Pascal…. Johanes Kepler …. Louis Pasteur ….. Max Planck …. Guglielmo Marconi…. and Albert Einstein…..
      What do you have to say to them?
      Janice
      P.S. Whether or not “creation science” is more faith than data based, there are excellent, logical and data-based, arguments for Intelligent Design Theory (which does not require that one believe in God, see, e.g., agnostic David Berlinski’s lectures).

    • Leland Neraho on December 13, 2015 at 7:15 am
      Excellent charts and use of italics. However, when I research the author he is a man who thinks some god snapped his fingers and created the universe in 7 days and handed the keys to ape like man with bad teeth. So… everything he states is irrelevant and likely wrong. Religion does not pass the test of science when the core foundation is “Have Faith. Okay, have faith or I’ll whip you!”

      Leland Neraho,
      Well, in a sense your comment has a fundamentally important grain of interest to me. Thanks for your comment in that respect since it gave me sufficient cause to comment.
      In a certain context where it could be thought this post at this venue is sort of ’sauce for the goose’, I guess one could think of the lead post as due to this venue having an ‘equal time doctrine’ for leaders of religious organizations to take positions on the hypotheses of CAGW. The Roman Catholic Pope, in his official role as leader of the RCC, gets reported here in holy support of the CAGW hypothesis where the Pope clearly thinks religion is relevant to science. Is Beisner’s** posting here at this venue in his capacity as a religious organization leader where his position is that religion is relevant to science?
      Question to Mr. Beisner – Mr. Beisner, what is your answer to that kind of question?
      Disclosure: I wish to be open. So I will state I am critical of the subject; my philosophical position is that religion is irrelevant to science. And, also my position is religion is irrelevant to fundamental reason-based philosophical concepts in general.
      **Founder and National Spokesman of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, a network of theologians, scientists, economists, and policy experts educating for Biblical earth stewardship, economic development for the poor, and the gospel of Jesus Christ.
      John

      • Disclosure: I wish to be open. So I will state I am critical of the subject; my philosophical position is that religion is irrelevant to science. And, also my position is religion is irrelevant to fundamental reason-based philosophical concepts in general.

        (John, I don’t mean this to sound as if it’s directed at you. The “reply” button wasn’t available to some of the up-thread comments.)
        Does it matter what one believes about the origins of the natural laws that surround us if they are honest and accurate in presenting the effects of those natural laws?
        “Science” is settled? “The Consensus” is always conclusive?
        Is it “scientific” to dismiss everything someone says about the facts because they happen to believe something different than what you believe about the origin of those facts?
        We live in the now. What does he have wrong about the now?

      • Yes, Gunga Din– What do I have wrong about the now? The future is not ordained, nor is it certainly guided by some being who’s been sleeping for 4 billion years. The future does have possible and probable outcomes of which we may or may not have a role (or absolutely have a role if you include nuclear war). So that is the question– but here among the elite responders the answer is always 100% conviction, with the follow on “don’t take my liberty”. Ergo selfish bias, not intellectual curiosity.

      • We live in the now. What does he have wrong about the now?

        The “he” I was referring to was E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D.
        (Sorry I didn’t make that clear.)

      • Gunga Din December 13, 2015 at 1:41 pm
        – – – – –
        Gunga Din,
        Although you did not specifically address me in the referenced comment of yours, I responded to you below at ‘John Whitman on December 14, 2015 at 1:48 pm’
        John

    • Your consistent lack of integrity and maturity pretty much renders everything you say here irrelevant. If you cannot even represent someone else’s position accurately before you attack it, nothing you say against it can be trusted either.

      • Then in these politically polar times, let’s revert to the thoughts of arguably the first Republican, Thomas Jefferson: “The priests of the different religious sects… dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight, and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subdivision of the duperies on which they live.” Or, in his letter to John Adams, “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
        And for young Janice who dares to bring Newton, Galilleo, etal without knowing at all what went through their inner minds or at least little context for the times of which the lived or their monthly mortgages (note Hawking’s recent “confession” since he’s now sold enough books), I quote Bertrand Russell: “The immense majority of intellectually eminent men disbelieve in Christian religion, but they conceal the fact in public, because they are afraid of losing their incomes.”
        Or for us simple Americans, in the global game of Clue, it’s not Mr. Green, it’s originally Reverend Green. But we can’t have priests killing people in America…

      • Oh Leland, there you go again, only quoting things that support your ideology and rejecting everything else, in the most unscientific of manners! You bring up Thomas Jefferson “without knowing at all what went through [his] inner mind” and without providing any context for the quotes you so selectively chose to share. So again, you aim to misrepresent even the people you think AGREE with you.
        Let’s quote Jefferson in his entirety, here’s a link to the context of your science/witches comment-(He was writing to Reverend Correa da Serra, on April 11, 1820 ….a catholic priest, so he wasn’t objecting to all religions or all priests.)
        http://doubtingthomasbook.com/jefferson-and-the-presbyterians-in-1820/
        And here’s the full context of the Minerva quote-
        “The truth is, that the greatest enemies of the doctrine of Jesus are those,
        calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them to the
        structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any
        foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical
        generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his Father, in the womb of a
        virgin will be classified with the fable of the generation of Minerva in
        the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom
        of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial
        scaffolding and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this
        most venerated Reformer of human errors.”
        [Thomas Jefferson, to John Adams, Apr. 11, 1823]
        I believe if you actually read Thomas Jefferson’s works, you’d realize like everyone else that while he didn’t like organized religions very much, he certainly believed in God and had his own views on faith and reason.
        Oh, and the Republican Party wasn’t even formed until 1854. Thomas Jefferson died in 1826, so he was “arguably” NOT the first Republican. Please get something in your next post correct.

    • Gunga Din on December 13, 2015 at 1:41 pm
      “. . .
      (John, I don’t mean this to sound as if it’s directed at you. The “reply” button wasn’t available to some of the up-thread comments.)
      Does it matter what one believes about the origins of the natural laws that surround us if they are honest and accurate in presenting the effects of those natural laws?
      “Science” is settled? “The Consensus” is always conclusive?
      Is it “scientific” to dismiss everything someone says about the facts because they happen to believe something different than what you believe about the origin of those facts?
      We live in the now. What does he have wrong about the now?”

      Gunga Din,
      {I will respond now to you, but I had hoped for a Beisner reply to my question above before responding to you.}
      I think you are very very close to the fundamental crux of the matter.
      Nothing prevents one from having faith in truth of stories of the existence of omnipotent omnipresent supernatural beings. Once one in faith accepts the stories as true, then one can claim such beings created the universe and natural laws and even that they created science.
      So, Gunda Din, when you ask “Does it matter what one believes about the origins of the natural laws that surround us if they are honest and accurate in presenting the effects of those natural laws?” and when you ask “Does it matter what one believes about the origins of the natural laws that surround us if they are honest and accurate in presenting the effects of those natural laws?”, my response is that the source you are talking about is faith in stories of the existence of omnipotent beings so I think you have already taken the discussion outside of the demarcation by science of what is science.
      Note 1: Food for Thought => part of the fundamental crux of the matter is a preference for an epistemology focused on the imagined supernatural or a preference for an epistemology focused on the observed natural.
      Note 2: At some time in the future on some dedicated thread, I would like to see a discussion of faith as the negation of reason (and therefore of science). That is also a part of the fundamental crux of the matter.
      John

      • With apologies for butting in, but I wanted to offer some food for thought to John to consider-
        John Whitman said “Part of the fundamental crux of the matter is a preference for an epistemology focused on the imagined supernatural or a preference for an epistemology focused on the observed natural.”
        First of all, may I suggest that what you consider to be “the matter” and what is “the fundamental crux” to that matter might be entirely subjective in this instance? I say that because it appears that for some reason, that you may have limited your own ability to apply critical thinking skills in this particular topic by introducing all sorts of unnecessary logical fallacies to it. (critical thinking being defined as-“the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment”) For example, you’re “Note 1 Food for Thought” above involves black and white thinking, an “either or” situation in which one is forced to choose between one and the other, when in one reality it is perfectly rational (and I find desirable) to base one’s epistemology on as many things as possible.
        Definitions are good for establishing whether or not two people share enough common information to have a coherent discussion on the matter. The word faith, in the most universal sense, is defined as “a strongly held belief or theory”. Imagination involves “self created mental images or thoughts” and knowledge is defined as “facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education”. Since obviously faith, knowledge and imagination are three different things, a logical person then can easily differentiate between what they believe, what they imagine, and what they know. It would be most illogical for them to conflate something that they believe to be true, with something that they know is true based on physical evidence that proves it actually IS true, and they know when an idea or thought was created by them or if it came from someone or something else. Since faith and knowledge and imagination are obviously defined as three very different things, then logically, one wouldn’t expect to experience any sort of cognitive dissonance believing in God and gaining knowledge through science while imagining they are flying in space all at the same time. Such a person can easily and rationally negotiate back and forth between where their faith is and where their knowledge is.
        Of course too, a logical person would never refer to what someone else believes as “imaginary” unless they could provide evidence to prove that they know it’s true. 🙂

        • Allow me to butt in as well. Christmas seasons brings out the rowdy discussions among friends and family.
          Creationism and evolution are hot topics that pop up from year to year. I find that the people who breed things for a living are far more in touch with the concept of evolution because they actively manipulate the gene pool that they work with. Many of these people are also ranchers farmers and also typically reserve an awe for the good Lord.
          When discussions turn to the above topic it typically gets “resolved” with an agreement that critters evolve because we speed it up an already existing process and that’s evidence enough for them. They also reserve the right to “believe” in some level of unknown that they call creationism because as they simply put it … it all started somewhere and nobody has laid claim to how that was done … we chose God.
          If you reaaaallly want to get the blood running listen to old hats talk about the trials and tribulations of putting down breeding experiments that don’t work out well and WHO was responsible for that “mistake”. Advice .. use a smooth whiskey and hide the weapons.

      • There’s a natural realm and there’s a spiritual realm.
        To believe there is a spiritual realm does not negate the ability to be honest about the natural realm.
        There is no “negation of reason (and therefore of science)”. Just a recognition of something more.
        In Acts, Luke witnessed miracles and healings. Paul still referred to him as “the beloved physician”.

  58. Its a shame the article hardly mentions Steyn but in my opinion it was Steyn who gave the spine to Curry in particualr in that remarkable exchange with Markey where Steyn eschewed all fake false politeness and saw clearly through the whole debate. It was Steyn who after Markey poured out untold bilge whislt balancing either some food or spittel that kept appearing on his bottom lip. It was Steyn who took to the attack by saying very loudly that Dr Curry wanted to reply and that put Marley on the defence with him looking like a stalinist idiot within seconds. Steyn comes at the whole stinking AGW loos of all perspective and reason madness, with the keen sense of the politics that have been the driving force to this whole sorry affair. You could tell Steyn was totally sicked by the AGW approch and especially by Markey and he did the unthinkable which is the first time I’ve seen this in any of these hearings or debates come to that and he threw the questions back at the accusers. So for me Steyn set the whole tone of the remainedr of the hearing and made Markey rue the day he decided to attend

    • Wow, that is despicable. According to you Christians are not qualified to speak on anything. Does your delusions tell you all the attendees at the COP convention were atheists? Maybe you should lobby all Christians be thrown out of Congress and the United Nations and the IPCC and Obama while you are at it.
      I have no way of knowing if you have brain cells that actually work as intended since you provide no argument, but I can clearly state your behavior is despicable.

      • Presume you’re responding to Leland.
        I guess then no one should pay attention to anything the anti-scientific, Communist pope says, either. Obviously, he knows a lot less about climate than the author of this blog post. Or Steyn.

      • Obama is a Muslim, so he would get to stay. The rest should go sit on Santa’s lap and let the unselfish open minded geniuses handle this. Let’s see… who was there? Page, Brin? Cook? Oh, it was Gates who put up the $3 billion. He knows a bit about maths. Even Walmart is on board. And Shell.

    • They others laid bare the “science” of CAGW. Steyn laid bare the politics.
      (I’d be fun see how it would have gone in that hearing several years ago when an officer respectfully addressed Sen. Boxer as “ma’am” if Steyn had been there.
      PS Here’s Zucker’s take on it.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixiYZ9DPk8o

  59. Stupid or evil, what’s the difference.
    Evil is a moral question but in terms of results you end up the same; an unfortunate mess and waste of human life.

    • Agreed. “Stupid” or “evil,” the key is: those who would take our liberty from us must be stopped.

      • I’ll take evil, it’s where the fun people hang out anyway. Liberty though is relative, science is not. And we already have gun control so your precious liberty has already been taken, at least in that regard. So all you have is hope and faith, and support with charts. The future is not certain, it is not ordained. There are probabilities, and then there is the morality of wagering too much on one (hopeful) outcome. Therefore you, Janice, are far more evil than I.

      • I will take Janice over you Leland every single day. She’s far more fun than you are, more intelligent, and she doesn’t have to lie about anyone or anything to make her points. I have full control of my guns, so what liberty are you babbling about having already been taken? The future is not certain, but at least she has hope and faith. You’ve got nothing.

      • The only thing I could figure out from L. Neraho’s gibberish is that he is a strong advocate of the Precautionary Fallacy.
        Sure. N.. Wreck the economies of the world just in case CO2 fairies are real. I never said that you were ev1l. I will say, here, however, that you are either psychotic or ignorant-to-the-point-of-the-absurd.
        Stephen M0sher is a big precautionary fallacy man…… I just wonder…. heh.

      • I don’t know Stephen well enough to guesstimate, but Leland strikes me as being another level removed…like Stephen + off his meds. Mossy 2.0 ?

  60. I’ve been making the case that we should have dumbed down bullet points to give to Congress. IMHO the arguments are still too complex, and give way too much wiggle room for the opposition. There are far simpler arguments to make to win the argument.
    https://youtu.be/QowL2BiGK7o?t=1h2m6s

  61. Paul Courtney wrote: “Brandon says “all models are wrong”, can you lend 5 seconds of your undivided attention considering why all models were wrong on the high side? Can you find us one that erred on the low side?”
    I see Brandon declined to comment on this. Which I don’t find overly surprising since anyone who got past a freshman science course would know that this is the unmistakable signal of systematic error.

  62. I didn’t watch the entire hearing, so might have missed a thorough debunking of the 97% lie, which IMO needs to be done publicly, maybe with its own hearing.
    Nor did I hear a systematic destruction of the NOAA, GISS and HadCRUT so-called “surface temperature data sets”, ie anti-science fiction packs of lies. In the Markey exchange, there was passing mention of the cooked to a crisp “surface” books and satellite data, but IMO insufficient discussion of why observations by satellites and balloons are superior.

  63. I thought the hearing came off quite well which is probably the chief reason the media seems to have paid it so little attention. It was well named so as to narrow the question to what does the different data say with respect to the Co2 hypothesis versus the alarmist dogma and their methods. And Markey came right out of central casting in the role of a dogmatic heretic hunter. After Curry pointed out certain failures of the IPCC hypothesis his entire response could hardly be better scripted to represent dogmatic attitudes substituting for analysis. I also thought Cruz did well to avoid any snark or sound bites, but just adopted a ;just the fact’ approach. Why resort to that when the data can do all the work for you?

  64. I’m wondering if there is even enough data for anyone to make a coherent case.
    I was thinking I could set up about thirty or so thermometers around the perimeter of my home and come up with a pattern matching Mann if I was so inclined.
    It’s very difficult for me to believe that all the variability can be adjusted out of such a poor data set. Thermometer height, time of reading, distribution of thermometer stations, honesty of those taking the readings, competency of those taking the readings, heat sinks, heat islands, local weather, malfunctioning equipment, new versions of equipment, changes in methodology, discontinuation of stations addition of new stations, manufacturing variability in the equipment, wind speed, cloud cover, solar activity, ozone measurements, water vapor measurements at those stations, and on and on and on, and were expected to believe that anyone can predict a minuscule change in temperature and pinpoint that minuscule change to one single factor.
    It could just as easily be attributed to some until now unforeseen mechanism. I’ve seen the charts with the error bands, and there is enough room in the error bands to tell a wide variety of tales, depending on how you read the tea leaves.
    The best course of action from a policy standpoint is clearly to not kill entire industries or penalize large populations of people economically, but to urge continued honest progress in exploring alternative methods of generating energy. However, I think the physics and mathematics of those options (wackos saying solar can completely replace X fossil fuel) are already more settled than this canard.

  65. The US is more divided than ever.
    Politics has taken over science.
    The sad fact about this climate change (lack of) debate :
    (1) Let’s assume average temperature measurements since 1880 were 100% accurate
    (in reality, probably a margin of error of +/- one degree C.)
    (2) Let’s assume CO2 caused 100% of the +1 degree C. rise in average temperature since 1880
    (in reality, CO2 may have caused none of the warming)
    These assumptions are MORE extreme than the IPCC claims, but let’s believe them for a moment.
    Now I ask you:
    – If you were somehow given the power to determine Earth’s climate 50 years from today, would you want CO2 levels to return to 275 ppmv … and the average temperature to go down one degree C. — going back to where the current global warming trend started in the late 1700s / early 1800s?
    Here’s what I would want in 50 years from today:
    (1) Increase the CO2 level about 50% to accelerate greening of the planet,
    (2) Increase the average temperature one degree C.
    What I would want is a repeat of what actually happened from 1800 to 2015:
    — CO2 up about 50%
    — Average temperature up about one degree C.
    I would want this because it is good news:
    Today in 2015 we have the best climate in at least 500 years:
    — It was too cold from 1300 to 1800.
    — Green plants didn’t have enough CO2 in 1700 to 1800
    — Who would want to go back to that?
    We should be celebrating the climate in 2015.
    — Instead, smarmy leftist politicians are using the fantasy of a coming climate catastrophe to seize more power over, and tax, energy use (these socialists want more control over the private sector).
    When politicians are involved, there’s a lot more lying than science!
    My free climate blog for non-scientists.
    No ads. No money for me. A public service:
    http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

  66. Lawrence13
    December 13, 2015 at 8:16 am
    +100 ‘ve become very impressed with Ted Cruz.. Inviting Mark Steyn to the hearing is big kudos for the Senator. Mark is a phenomenon. It matters not that he isn’t a climate scientist (although he is a quick study, indeed). Knowing that its political ideology and not science that is at work here, Cruz knew that Mark was the only expert on the panel, and maybe the pre-eminent expert globally on the phenomenon of a totalitarian new world order that would rob us of our freedom of speech and choice, and micromanage every act of our lives.
    This world hero was invited to address the Danish parliament on the anniversary of the Danish Cartoon controversy. Both the US and UK issued travel alerts to their citizens because of the danger of a terrorist attack. He makes Salman Rushdie look like a wuss. He took on Canada’s Hate Speech laws when he was hauled before our human rights tribunals (our version of Kangaroo courts) by the Muslim Association of Canada for an article in Maclean’s magazine where he precised his book “America Alone”, a must read BTW. He won despite a prejudiced tribunal, a stacked press, and endless hate speech from academics. The upshot was that the federal parliament gutted the Hate Speech statute and he received a prize at the Prime Ministers residence where an association journalists party was being hosted. He has received awards around the world for the kind of journalism you got a glimpse of in this hearing. He will win the case against Mann and his 20+ million counter suit that he ballsily added to the burden to make it impossible for Mike to back out of the defam suit without handing over. It makes it very expensive for Mike to not hand over his data on the hockeystick, probably too expensive for the Climate Science Defense fund, too. This trial will bring down the Clime Syndicate as Mark likes to call it. He is even too big for Wikipedia to mess around with:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Steyn#Critical_reception
    Shamefully, he is banned from flying on United Airlines (I believe). Fighting for our freedoms is a very lonely and dangerous activity and only the minority even care about these things that give us our wellbeing. Support this one of the number you can count on one hand doing this critical work globally.

  67. I am from the UK, and so comment only diffidently on this thread. However, I was struck by how Markey, when under some pressure, appealed to his Irishness, with a rather creepy sideways look at the gallery – ‘I may be a liar, but I’m a loveable Irish liar (also one with a long history of being oppressed)’. Interestingly, it didn’t seem to work very well for him, although he was obviously confident that it would, and has presumably played the same card successfully many times before.
    I mean no disrespect to Ireland, the Irish, or Irish Americans, by the way. But I have long taken an interest in these things.

  68. Liars run all the coutries worldwide. Almost all media is filled with propaganda. If somebody tells the truth, all the liars and media tries to convince people that truthsayer is liar and unable to do this or that.

  69. Liars run all the countries worldwide. Almost all media is filled with propaganda. If somebody tells the truth, all the liars and media tries to convince people that truthsayer is liar and unable to do this or that.

  70. WWWT should commission a talking Points Article that collects the 10 to 20 best and simple arguments.
    1) With ample long term instrumental data, why did the Hockeystick not include thermometer data until 1902?
    2) Why do none of these long term instrumental data sets show a Hockeystick, or a statistically significant variation in the past 50 years of temperature? http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/jones1992a.pdf
    3) CO2 is transparent to CO2, how would CO2 cause record day time temperatures?
    4) What caused the warming to “force” the globe out of the ice age?
    5) What caused CO2 to decrease to “force” the globe into an ice age?
    6) What caused CO2 to increase to end an ice age?
    7) The oceans are warming, the oceans contain 2kX to 4kX the energy of the atmosphere, how can CO2 warm the oceans? How can IR between 13 and 18µ warm the oceans?
    8) Is the Polar Bear population decreasing?
    9) If the IPCC/Obama gets every law passed that it wants, what will be the impact on CO2 and the Climate?
    10) Temperatures have been flat for 18+ years. If CO2 impacts the climate through trapping heat, by what other mechanism has CO2 been using to cause this “extreme” climate events?
    11) Has the sea level rate of change been increasing? Have Hurricanes been increasing? Has drought and floods been increasing?
    12) How can temperatures “pause” with an increase in CO2? By what mechanism does CO2 stop trapping heat?
    13) CO2 has been has high at 7k ppm, why no catastrophic warming? Why is this time different?
    14) How can CO2 cause localized warming on the Western side of Antarctica? Why is this CO2 caused warming also near under seas volcanoes?
    15) Please explain this chart, and how it points to CO2 as the most significant GHG?
    http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Caryl_11.png
    16) Isn’t it more likely that we will soon fall into an ice age, than experience run away warming? What are we doing to prepare for the far more likely ice age?
    17) How much will the climate legislation and regulations cost? How many schools, hospitals, water treatment plants, bridges, etc etc could be built with that money?
    18) What impact on the climate can we expect to see after we spend these trillions of dollars?
    19) How does IR between 13 and 18µ trap the enormous amount of heat to warm the oceans and the atmosphere?
    20) Given that the earth emits at mostly 10µ and CO2 absorbs at 13 and 18µ, might there be another cause of the warming? The same cause driving the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age?
    21) Do you deny the Little Ice Age, do you deny the Medieval Warming Period? Do you deny the accuracy of the Satellite Date? Do you deny the ground measurements have been “adjusted,” do you deny that proxy data isn’t as good as instrumental data?
    22) By what mechanism does CO2 lead temperature? Where does the CO2 come from?
    23) Temperature follows H2O in the troposphere, in fact H2O defines the troposphere. CO2 goes all the way up to 80k, yet temperature has never been tied to CO2 in past test books for the temperature gradient.
    24) Mars has a much greater concentration of CO2 than earth, and yet is has extremely cold nights. Why doesn’t CO2 trap significant heat on Mars?
    25) Have the nights been warming in the deserts relative to the days? Have the nights been warming relative to the day in Antarctica?
    26) Applying the Scientific Method to the ice core data and recent instrumental data, does the past 50 and 150 years show a statistically significant difference from the rest of the Holocene?
    27) Is the Mt Kilimanjaro glacier melting due to global warming? If yes, how does a glacier melt in sub zero temperatures?
    28) Has the ocean been becoming less alkaline due to man made CO2? What evidence is there of this?
    29) How does CO2, a constant, explain the temperature variance between the N and S Hemisphere? With the greening of the N Hemisphere and increased humidity and clouds, has that had an impact?
    This documentary has many other ideas:
    https://youtu.be/QowL2BiGK7o?t=6s

    • Those aren’t arguments or simple statements of fact. Asking activists questions is like passing the ball to the other team and HOPING they’ll score a point in your goal instead of their own.

      • Those aren’t arguments or simple statements of fact. Asking activists questions is like passing the ball to the other team and HOPING they’ll score a point in your goal instead of their own.

        That is true, but you don’t simply ask the question you have a graphic identifying the truth, that they then have to explain why everyone’s eyes are lying. You ask rhetorical questions in front of a graphic designed to communicate with a 2 year old. You can’t explain to even a Kool-aid drinker how a glacier melts in sub-zero temperatures, especially when supported by the leaked emails on the topic.

    • co2islife,

      1) With ample long term instrumental data, why did the Hockeystick not include thermometer data until 1902?

      http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf
      The long instrumental records have been formed into annual mean anomalies relative to the 1902–80 reference period, and gridded onto a 5°x5° grid (yielding 11 temperature grid-point series and 12 precipitation grid-point series dating back to 1820 or earlier) similar to that shown in Fig. 1b. Certain densely sampled regional dendroclimatic data sets have been represented in the network by a smaller number of leading principal components (typically 3–11 depending on the spatial extent and size of the data set). This form of representation ensures a reasonably homogeneous spatial sampling in the multiproxy network (112 indicators back to 1820).
      The reference (baseline) temperature period is 1902-1980. They used instrumental data back to 1820.

      2) Why do none of these long term instrumental data sets show a Hockeystick, or a statistically significant variation in the past 50 years of temperature? http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/jones1992a.pdf

      See table 13.2. Only some of those data series show a flat/negative trend through 1751-1980. Most of them show a positive trend from 1851-1980.

      3) CO2 is transparent to CO2, how would CO2 cause record day time temperatures?

      Was “CO2 is transparent to CO2” a typo? As written I cannot make sense of the question.

      4) What caused the warming to “force” the globe out of the ice age?

      I assume you mean the ice age which ended ~12,000 years ago, marking the beginning of the Holocene. Here’s a good start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

      5) What caused CO2 to decrease to “force” the globe into an ice age?

      You’ll have to provide a citation for that one.

      6) What caused CO2 to increase to end an ice age?

      Ditto.

      7) The oceans are warming, the oceans contain 2kX to 4kX the energy of the atmosphere, how can CO2 warm the oceans? How can IR between 13 and 18µ warm the oceans?

      Downwelling LR absorbed by the surface of the ocean offsets the upwelling sensible, latent and LR radiative fluxes from the surface. All else being equal (which it never is), an increase in DWLR would therefore result in a lower rate of upwelling flux from the surface. The only possible response to that is warming beneath the surface layer.

      8) Is the Polar Bear population decreasing?

      Not according to this source:
      http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AF192_3bears_20070101180422.gif

      9) If the IPCC/Obama gets every law passed that it wants, what will be the impact on CO2 and the Climate?

      I think you mean every law Obama has proposed and/or executive order he’s given. Here are the IPCC emissions scenarios:
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/emissions-graph-rpc.PNG
      And here are the projected temperature responses to those scenarios:
      http://www.scilogs.de/wblogs/gallery/16/AR5_temp_projections.png
      The difference comparison between what Obama is proposing and what the IPCC says we’d need to do to stabilize temps by 2100 is probably such that Obama’s proposals amount to roughly zero.

      10) Temperatures have been flat for 18+ years. If CO2 impacts the climate through trapping heat, by what other mechanism has CO2 been using to cause this “extreme” climate events?

      Lower tropospheric temperatures have been flat according to UAH/RSS satellite estimates. Surface temperatures as estimated from thermometer data have not.
      CO2 is not the only factor affecting weather and climate. The main variability in annual and decadal temperature variability is fluctuations in ocean/atmospheric heat exchanges, vis.: El Nino, AMO, PDO, etc. Variability in solar output, atmospheric aerosols (both natural and anthropogenic), cloud cover, etc. also contribute.

      11) Has the sea level rate of change been increasing? Have Hurricanes been increasing? Has drought and floods been increasing?

      a) Depends on which estimate one consults. Estimates from satellite altimetry generally show a higher rate of SLR than estimates using tide gauges over the same time period.
      b) Complex and controversial. I don’t have an opinion either way.
      c) Difficult to measure; I don’t know of any attempts to do so.

      12) How can temperatures “pause” with an increase in CO2? By what mechanism does CO2 stop trapping heat?

      a) That’s a repeat of (10).
      b) It gets high enough in the atmosphere so that energy radiated into space is greater than it absorbs from the surface and lower layers of atmosphere.

      13) CO2 has been has high at 7k ppm, why no catastrophic warming? Why is this time different?

      Human beings didn’t exist 500 million years ago. The planet would be fine if it saw 7000 ppmv again. Whether we’d be here to see it depends on how fast it took to get there.

      14) How can CO2 cause localized warming on the Western side of Antarctica? Why is this CO2 caused warming also near under seas volcanoes?

      a) CO2 is not the only factor contributing to weather and climate.
      b) Because CO2 is ubiquitous in the atmosphere.

      15) Please explain this chart, and how it points to CO2 as the most significant GHG?
      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Caryl_11.png

      Water vapor is the highest contributor to the “greenhouse” effect on an instantaneous basis. Over the long term — on the order of 50-150 years — CO2 is the largest contributor to the increase in radiative forcing in the atmosphere.

      16) Isn’t it more likely that we will soon fall into an ice age, than experience run away warming? What are we doing to prepare for the far more likely ice age?

      a) Probably not, see Milankovitch cycles again in the answer to (4).
      b) per (a), nothing.

      17) How much will the climate legislation and regulations cost? How many schools, hospitals, water treatment plants, bridges, etc etc could be built with that money?

      a) Depends on which ones are passed.
      b) See (a).

      18) What impact on the climate can we expect to see after we spend these trillions of dollars?

      This is a repeat of (9).

      19) How does IR between 13 and 18µ trap the enormous amount of heat to warm the oceans and the atmosphere?

      This is a repeat of (7).

      20) Given that the earth emits at mostly 10µ and CO2 absorbs at 13 and 18µ, might there be another cause of the warming? The same cause driving the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age?

      a) An increase in 10µ radiative flux at the surface would be easy to find. Where is it?
      b) Depends on your answer to (a).

      21) Do you deny the Little Ice Age, do you deny the Medieval Warming Period? Do you deny the accuracy of the Satellite Date? Do you deny the ground measurements have been “adjusted,” do you deny that proxy data isn’t as good as instrumental data?

      No to all.

      22) By what mechanism does CO2 lead temperature? Where does the CO2 come from?

      a) CO2 is a well-known product of hydrocarbon combustion.
      b) Get one of these …
      http://www.indsci.com/products/carbon-dioxide/
      … and stick it in the exhaust stream of gasoline or diesel powered motor vehicle.

      23) Temperature follows H2O in the troposphere, in fact H2O defines the troposphere. CO2 goes all the way up to 80k, yet temperature has never been tied to CO2 in past test books for the temperature gradient.

      a) More or less correct.
      b) Shows tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling since 1958 …
      ftp://ftp1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ratpac/ratpac-a/RATPAC-A-annual-levels.txt
      … as would be expected due to rising atmospheric CO2 concentration (see 12b above).

      24) Mars has a much greater concentration of CO2 than earth, and yet is has extremely cold nights. Why doesn’t CO2 trap significant heat on Mars?

      Because the Martian atmosphere is extremely thin — pressure at the surface is about 0.6% of Earth’s — the effect is negligible.

      25) Have the nights been warming in the deserts relative to the days? Have the nights been warming relative to the day in Antarctica?

      I don’t know.

      26) Applying the Scientific Method to the ice core data and recent instrumental data, does the past 50 and 150 years show a statistically significant difference from the rest of the Holocene?

      Not according to Marcott (2013): http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics%207004/Marcott_Global%20Temperature%20Reconstructed.pdf
      Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 (34) has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 yr B.P.).

      27) Is the Mt Kilimanjaro glacier melting due to global warming? If yes, how does a glacier melt in sub zero temperatures?

      a) According to recent research I consider credible, no.
      b) n/a

      28) Has the ocean been becoming less alkaline due to man made CO2? What evidence is there of this?

      a) The long term trend is probably a decrease in pH.
      b) http://www.biogeosciences.net/12/1285/2015/bg-12-1285-2015.pdf
      3.1 Long-term trends in pH
      We find statistically significant trends in 6 out of the 8 biomes with sufficient data for the period 1981–2011, and for 13 out of the 15 biomes with sufficient data for the period 1991–2011 (Fig. 1 with the numerical values in Table 1). As shown in Figs. 2–4, the data coverage in each biome is generally very good after 1990, but often spotty prior to this year. These figures also reveal a substantial amount of interannual variability around the determined trends, with RMSE values of between 0.01 and 0.04 pH units, i.e., roughly similar magnitude as the cumulative trend over the 20 to 30 years of analysis. No robust analyses were possible for the North Pacific ice-covered (NP-ICE) and North Atlantic ice-covered (NA-ICE) biomes, due to the lack of data (< 20 data points) hence they are not further discussed in the paper. Unfortunately, these are the Arctic biomes where the earliest impacts of ocean acidification are expected (Steinacher et al., 2009).

      29) How does CO2, a constant, explain the temperature variance between the N and S Hemisphere? With the greening of the N Hemisphere and increased humidity and clouds, has that had an impact?

    • co2islife,
      My answers to your 28 previous question are stuck in limbo. I overlooked (29) in my original reply:

      29) How does CO2, a constant, explain the temperature variance between the N and S Hemisphere? With the greening of the N Hemisphere and increased humidity and clouds, has that had an impact?

      a) CO2 isn’t constant, and see again: it is not the only factor relevant to climate. The main reason that the hemispheres warm at different rates is that the ratios of land to ocean are different; 1:1.5 for the NH and 1:4 for the SH. Even though land has a higher albedo than the oceans (on average), land has a specific heat capacity of ~0.8 kJ/(kg*C) whereas water is ~4 kJ/(kg*C) — oceans require over 4x as much energy to raise one kg one degree C. Oceans, being fluid, are also able to exchange heat vertically whereas heat absorbed on land can only diffuse to deeper layers, a much slower process.
      b) It’s well known to literature that C3 plants grow faster as CO2 levels increase. C4 plants respond as well, but not as much. Both types use water more efficiently under elevated CO2. Changes in humidity and cloud cover obviously affect something. However, as we’re talking about a very complex system here, listing even a portion the observed effects would be rather beyond the amount of research I’m prepared to do for a single blog comment.

  71. For the members of the Senate who believe RICO should be used against those who disagree with the “consensus” they should be aware of the follow dedication of a book published in 1948.
    “Dedicated to the freedom of speech & to dictators who suppress it.”
    The suggestion that two sides of science should be funded is a good one. By suppressing one side no one is shining a light on many of the weaknesses in the consensus case.

  72. People like Senator Markey and Senator Peters did not get into politics by having great knowledge of science. They are totally ignorant of the science and facts, which helps them press ahead in their blind adherence to the religious meme of CAGW. They do not listen to arguments because they know that their faith is the True Faith.

  73. Do we REALLY have a “global” temperature record that goes back to 1850? We’re talking about a record which only measured land temps. So that means if you measured ALL the land area that would only be 29% of the globe. But we know most of the land area WASN’T measured. Most of the southern hemisphere wasn’t measured at all.
    So what are we typically talking about prior to the satellite record in 1979?……15% of the globe? 10%?
    That doesn’t sound like a “global temperature record” to me.

  74. All I get out of COP21 is that the U.S. and the West’s economies have to collapse and pay an indemnity to economies that get a free ride until 2030 (actually forever, since there’s no enforcement mechanism that will work on anyone but us.)

  75. One thing i do like with the adjusted temperature set is that it means more warming happened when there was less C)2 n the air, since most of the warming happened before 1950 when there was less CO2 in the air caused by humans. You know when you are doing it wrong when it still doesn’t improve your position.

  76. I wrote above:
    “Global warming alarmism … is perhaps the largest scam we have seen in the history of our civilization.”
    Read Patrick Moore’s story of the takeover of Greenpeace (which he co-founded) by disgraced economic leftists after the fall of the Berlin Wall:
    http://www.ecosense.me/index.php/key-environmental-issues/10-key-environmental-issues/208-key-environmental-issues-4
    We may think these people are simple imbeciles, but the probability is that they are scoundrels who know what they are doing.
    See http://www.green-agenda.com
    Remember the crimes against humanity committed by similar doctrinaire imbeciles:
    Uncle Joe Stalin killed about 50 million citizens of the Former Soviet Republics during his many purges;
    Chubby Cheerful Chairman Mao killed about 80 million Chinese during his Great Leap Backward.
    Both clearly were dangerous psychopaths, as are many leaders of the modern environmental movement.
    There are perhaps only three really important things that governments must get right: financial stability, rule of law and energy. These doctrinaire imbeciles are very weak on finances and rule of law, and disastrous on energy. However, it is probable that they know this, and that they are knowingly taking us on a road to energy and economic disaster.

  77. A chart from the article:
    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/clip_image011.jpg
    Why isn’t the chart on the left a refutation of the claims by NASA-NOAA-IPCC of the “hottest year ever” claim?
    The chart on the left clearly shows several periods of time, such as during the decade of the 1930’s, that were hotter than the year 1998, which is hotter than any year since 1998. So even if next years El Nino surpasses the 1998, temperature, it is still not as hot as it was just a few decades ago. Why the focus on the year 1998? Because it is within the satellite record?
    Admittedly, the U.S. temperature record only measures the U.S., but, as was the case during the 1930’s, the heatwave was worldwide according to anectdotal evidence. Has anyone ever put together a worldwide database of past land temperatures and combined them?
    Agreed, the land temperature data does not take into account large areas of the Earth, but I would dare say they are a more accurate gauge of temperature than the few tree rings that were used to give us the “hockeystick” temperature chart.
    Does anyone read these articles after a few days pass? 🙂
    TA

    • TA- “Why isn’t the chart on the left a refutation of the claims by NASA-NOAA-IPCC of the “hottest year ever” claim?”
      It SHOULD be, and to any sane person, it DOES refute the claims. But NASA-NOAA-and now NCDC are all on the same “team” and have discarded the “old, unadjusted temps” in favor of their new and very adjusted temps, which they claim are more accurate. They just dismiss the old chart completely.

  78. TCR and ECS are meaningless terms. There is no ‘ocean heat uptake’ that ‘delays’ tropospheric warming.
    The ocean surface is 3C hotter than the troposphere, there can be no heat transfer from the troposphere to it.

    • Matt

      The ocean surface is 3C hotter than the troposphere, there can be no heat transfer from the troposphere to it.

      Only on “average”. Heat transfer (convection, conduction, evaporation, radiation or sublimation) is an instantaneous event, and will vary at each different hour, minute, or second as the immediate conditions change in that local area. But, that “average” will vary too: Up north in the Arctic, the “average” summer air temperature is sometimes warmer than water temperature, sometimes equal to water temperature, and sometimes cooler than water temperature over the course of a single day, a single storm passage, or a single calm period. In winter, on “average” the air temperature is 20-25 degrees cooler than the water temperature under the ice.

  79. Reblogged this on Climate Change Sanity and commented:
    This is a reblog of a WattsUpWithThat posting. It is a good summary of the reasons to be skeptical of the catastrophic man-made global warming theory and a good rebuke of Senator Markey D-Mass.
    cbdakota

Comments are closed.