Hey @Algore ! Explain this! Bottom drops out of US hurricanes in past decade

Inconvenient data for those who still insist climate change is making hurricanes more frequent is displayed in these two slides from Dr. Philip Klotzbach. As noted by Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. The bottom dropped out of US hurricanes over the last 10 years.

CommonDreams.org quoted Al Gore back in 2005:

… the science is extremely clear now, that warmer oceans make the average hurricane stronger, not only makes the winds stronger, but dramatically increases the moisture from the oceans evaporating into the storm – thus magnifying its destructive power – makes the duration, as well as the intensity of the hurricane, stronger.

Last year we had a lot of hurricanes. Last year, Japan set an all-time record for typhoons: ten, the previous record was seven. Last year the science textbooks had to be re-written. They said, “It’s impossible to have a hurricane in the south Atlantic.” We had the first one last year, in Brazil. We had an all-time record last year for tornadoes in the United States, 1,717 – largely because hurricanes spawned tornadoes.

Since Katrina, climate activists have beat a steady drumbeat warning of doom.

  1. Warming seas cause stronger hurricanes“, Nature, 2006 — “Mega-storms are set to increase as the climate hots up.”
  2. Are Category 6 Hurricanes Coming Soon?“, Scientific American, 2011 — “Tropical cyclones like Irene are predicted to be more powerful this year, thanks to natural conditions”
  3. Global warming is ‘causing more hurricanes’“, The Independent, 2012.
  4. A Katrina hurricane will strike every two years“, ScienceNordic, 2013 — About a widely reported study in PNAS by geophysicist Aslak Grinsted of the Niels Bohr Institute Copenhagen U. Also see “‘Katrina-Like’ Hurricanes to Occur More Frequently Due to Warming” in US News & World Reports.
  5. Hurricanes Likely to Get Stronger & More Frequent“, Climate Central, 2013 – About a study in PNAS by Kerry Emanuel et al.
  6. See ten even more outlandish predictions from the big 3 networks.

But data based facts, they are stubborn things:

Advertisements

158 thoughts on “Hey @Algore ! Explain this! Bottom drops out of US hurricanes in past decade

    • I wrote an article on Atlantic basin hurricane energy last year hosted on Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.
      https://judithcurry.com/2016/01/11/ace-in-the-hole/

      While there does seem to be a strong connection between SST and ACE, the massive drop off since 2005 blows out any simplistic linear relation. Hurricanes are not a one variable equation.

      One interesting feature is the 9.3y peak in cross correlation which is very likely of lunar origin. This is the decadal scale ripple seen in the first graph.

      • There was a similar drop around WWII which is usually dismissed as data collection bias due to massive disruption of Atlantic shipping. This a very credible argument but may not be the only cause. It noteworthy that during the mid-century plateau there was a similar drop in ACE as has happened in the recent plateau.

        Apparently hurricanes to not like ‘hiatus’ conditions , no matter how warm they are.

      • Chris Landsea of HURDAT agreed in personal communication that the WWII drop could be a real climate phenomenon.

      • Greg, I would like to know where you got your ACE data. It seems a little silly to attempt to plot ACE before 1970. Your ACE graph does not look like any other ACE graph I have ever seen. Most seem to look more like this:

      • what has worldwide ACE to do with hurricane landfalls in the USA?

        especially when you take the 24 month running sum after a peak moment. i expect that to drop like a stone if the SH cyclone season is really what we are going to see…

        unless we got a supermassive long living hurricane there it will close the books as….

        quietest SH season since records begun. but it is still a bit too early to jump into conclusions.

        Fantala did occur in april and had an ACE of 51.85… which is still more then the enire season this year….

        … of half a planet earth together….

      • Judged from the above, I guess it’s like a ‘massive’ disruption and a ‘supermassive’ hurricane.

        What a massive misuse of the language.

      • The 60-65 yr AMO is apparent as p1. p2 is the 9,3 yr peak.
        Of note, the period 1935-1940 saw a similar ACE drop to the recent 2006-2015 ACE drop while ERSST remained elevated. This suggests we may be at ACE Nadir now, with a steady climb back to normal levels over the next 10 yrs.

    • “There was a similar drop around WWII which is usually dismissed as data collection bias due to massive disruption of Atlantic shipping. This a very credible argument”

      Is it really? Indeed most shipping was concentrated in convoys, but at the same time there was a massive increase in air activity over the Atlantic, with literally hundreds of aircraft quartering the ocean daily looking for submarines, not to mention hundreds of thousands of training and ferry flights. And ships doing 15 knots or more (mostly used as troopships) never did sail in convoys.

    • And yet we still have record global temperatures. Global warming is still happening and the greenhouse effect is still the reason the planet is warming. So forget hurricanes its all is just a distraction from the real issue. We are putting too much co2 into the atmosphere.

      • So, CO2 is bad, bad, bad! Environmental activists need to shoulder the blame for this. After 3 Mile Island, they successfully stopped construction of about 100 planned nuclear reactors and forced the US to turn to coal and gas. What would the CO2 level be today if we had built those 100 reactors and maybe another 100? Hard to argue that it wouldn’t be much, much less.

      • And how much is too much, Steve d? Do you have any idea how high CO2 concentrations can go in theaters, offices, jets, cars. and other enclosed places? If it was really dangerous wouldn’t we be having folks keeling over right and left? That this is NOT happening should be sufficient proof for anyone with a brain to stop trying to limit carbon dioxide and start cherishing it!

        PMK

    • A dedicated warmist who actually *believed* in both his cause and the data would be making the following argument: “Global warming is really bad for us long term, but the weather patterns spawned by the warming appear to have the effect of making Atlantic hurricanes much less likely.”

      Now me, I think it’s just natural variability, but you could make a decent argument out of the first. What you can’t do is just ignore the way that all of your predictions have been ruined and just pretend that never happened.

      • 20 years ago, they were telling us that CO2 was so powerful that it would completely swamp any possible natural variability.
        So they can’t hide behind a defense of natural variability ate my warming.

      • Since the people compiling and keeping the global temperature records are (mostly) all warmistas, it seems possible there has actually been no overall warming of the Earth, just fluctuations.
        After all, how much evidence do we need…there are no compunctions whatsoever amongst many of them to lie as much as they feel like lying on any particular day, and just flat out making stuff up. Changing historical records and selective attention are old hat and passé.
        Satellite data has not existed for long enough to draw any conclusions about the periods of warming and cooling in the early and mid 20th century, as to how they compare to today.
        For a great many individual locations, the 1930s are by far the hottest period on record.
        30% of all CO2 ever put into the air has been added in the past twenty years or less, and China is now emitting far more than the US ever did, and increases daily.
        And yet we are now seeing fewer tornadoes in the US, the most tornado prone place on Earth, and lees people and property than ever being lost to weather disasters, despite more people than ever, higher value on property than ever, and more people living near the coasts than ever before.
        These days, mild weather is Winter is looked on with horror by the MSM, and leads to scary predictions of humanity ending mildness, and disastrously early Spring flowers are a portent of imminent doom.
        If anyone took up the effort to produce a daily journal of good news, it would be too heavy to carry home.

    • Al Gore:

      “We expected the number of hurricanes to go through the roof. The fact that the opposite happened proves global warming because that was very unexpected, and that’s what happens with global warming: the unexpected. Like the global cooling that’s been going on. It’s totally unexpected, and so proves our point.”

  1. Hurricanes, Tornadoes – even floods and droughts – are down. It will not last forever. We should be celebrating the hiatus! Instead we are being subjected to bogeyman stories from a religion bent on terrorizing people into submission.

    And I am not talking about Islam.

    A shame. I know my relatives in Florida are enjoying it very much.

    • So are the insurance companies, foreign investors in real estate at the low point, and low tax seekers from the Northeast.

    • Seriously…it is astounding.
      The hysteria grows to a fever pitch among some quarters even as every thing bad they have bent our ear with on a daily basis, for some 30 years now, is shown to be untrue or even the opposite of the actual case.
      Can you imagine if, instead of severe mildness and a dearth of severe events, we had had for the past ten years and by purely random chance a period of intense hurricane and tornadic activity?
      If the sea ice really was trending down towards zero, or if Greenland actually was melting ever faster, or the sea really was rising ever faster?
      Or imagine, more horrifying still…if all of the people spending their lives and our money on this nonsense were instead focused on real problems and helping people?
      Jeebus!

    • Of course, there’s a name for people who use terror to get what they want….
      Chris

  2. I don’t like the graphic excluding Gulf hurricanes. Looks like cherry picking. The reason we sometimes use US landfalling hurricanes as proxies for overall Atlantic hurricane activity is that pre-1940s hurricanes in the mid-Atlantic could escape detection, but a hurricane striking just about anywhere along the US coast would be noted. But given the stochastic nature of hurricane activity and that synoptic patterns often steer storms away from the US coastline mean this is a poor measure of overall Atlantic activity esp. in recent years.
    This can be analogous to when NCDC decides to tout the warmest year in global temperature sometimes but at others the warmest year in the US record, depending on which grabs the headline.

    • What you call cherry-picking was the norm for warmistas in the past. One of their favorites was monetary damage from hurricanes (not adjusting for inflation and any number of other factors, of course).

      If we’re looking at extreme rainfall events, should we cherry-pick and continue to look at those occurring over land, or should we include rainfall over the oceans as well?

      • Or using improved detection techniques that are finding more small storms, as evidence that the number of storms is increasing.

  3. We must watch for Michael Mann’s paper on how GW sorry CC has produced extreme events. I expect his data will not be archived and there will be a lot of shouting about the ‘science’

    • In his testimony before the House Climate Science Committee, he said that he had proved that those hurricanes that do occur can be attributed to global warming. link

      So there are fewer hurricanes but those that do occur can be attributed to global warming. IANAP but I strongly suspect that such a disconnect from reality is literally insane. link

      • If it weren’t for CO2, hurricanes would have stopped altogether.
        Every body knows this, because that’s what the models have been tuned to show.

  4. Why are you showing US hurricane impacts? If you want to disprove their assertion of increased hurricane strength and frequency, put up the graphs of total Atlantic hurricanes and their catagories.

    • Rubbish.

      Many mid-Atlantic hurricanes were missed prior to satellite monitoring, and those that were spotted by hurricane trackers were often not spotted at max strength

      • Exactly.
        These days, they are counting hurricanes that are so small and remote they would be easy to miss even with satellite photographs.
        Seen this a bunch of times over the past ten years.

      • And even easier to miss than when the only detection method was a ship that was caught up in it.

      • Exactly Mark.
        It may be possible to estimate how many of recent storms would have never been known about in past decades.

    • Yea, and never mind that no one alive today has ever seen such a hiatus in hurricanes striking the lower 48. Not relevant and not indicative anything now is it? But after Katrina it was about predictions of more major hurricanes more frequently striking the US!

      You here that claim “cherry picking” just keep moving those goal posts around, because nobody will notice right? Never mind that right in the title the author says “Hey @Algore ! Explain this! Bottom drops out of US hurricanes in past decade” because after Katrina Al Gore said this BS!
      http://www.alternet.org/story/25349/a_moral_moment
      And others picked up the meme. Even this truck driver can see right through your BS!

    • David, cyclones are in a lull too, only four in total (not just hitting land) this season, which is nearly ended.

    • I seem to recall being chastised by more than one warmista that “no one lives in the troposphere”.
      Well…no one has a house out over the ocean…unless maybe you count Leonardo Di Caprio’s yachts.

  5. When exactly did “they say” that it was impossible to have hurricanes in the S. Atlantic?

      • Ever notice how many maps and trend charts stopped being updated in the past ten years or so?
        Howcumzit?

      • Ever notice how many maps and trend charts stopped being updated in the past ten years or so?

        Whatever you referred to, that’s ‘latestism’.

        There is a bias called recentism, recent happenings getting more attention than needed. After Katrina and Sandy there has been a lot of talk about hurricanes.

        Its companion bias could be called latestism, attention being drawn to certain metric after a significant event, but fading out (causing graphs left not updated) until a new significant event in that category happens. We kind of see weather peaks and troughs as latest events, but average and mean weather do not get our attention.

        People rarely understand how many metrics there are and how much you can achieve by just choosing the best among the lot. It’s like ‘the drought was a p < 0.001 event', but they fail to tell how many tries for different places, time-intervals and variables were done to get the apparently significant result.

        There are literally thousands of usable flavours of variables for cherry picking.

        This is the reason how difficult is to make news about the small and beneficial worldwide warming. It can make into the news only if it can look striking, which leads to overemphasising small scale events like Greenland 2012 mass loss. There is no serious threat of the continental ice melting fast, best guesses based on rather extreme warming scenarios take centuries, yet the 2012 melt event will remain as a landmark for DAGW (and its friend CAGW) business until some more useful latest event may replace it.

        Of course, this is not exactly fair since many hard core activists / CAGWists are using trends, not latest events. But, the selection of trends appears to have similar rules as events. Choose variable, a starting time (1900, 1950, 1990) and ending time (by not updating the graph if the result is less alarming) and draw a linear fit (or exponential fit if it looks better) and declare panic since the chosen variable, Arctic sea ice (extent, area, volume) will be gone by 2012.

        And when your authority was wrong, just point out they didn't say the ice WILL be gone by 2012, but that it MIGHT have been gone (under one million km²) and cute polar bear cubs.

      • “‘the drought was a p < 0.001 event',"

        Be very suspicious whenever you see such a claim. To be able to make it You must know the distribution function of the data. It is almost always assumed that the data is normally distributed, which is however often not true for climate data. Hydrographic data (like droughts) for example are usually Hurst-Kolmogorov-distributed, which means that “unlikely” events are much more “likely” than for normally distributed data.

  6. The roolz of climate specifically state that when “climate” affects the US, then it “proves” CAGW, but when it doesn’t, so what – “the US isn’t the world, you know”. Heads they win, tails we lose.

  7. No hot spot, no increase in hurricanes…..if global warming had at least predicted increased plant growth they would have been for 1

  8. We should appreciate Algore more. Who else can protect us from calamity by predicting that dread event?/s

  9. Looks like about a 20 year upward trend followed by a 20 year downward trend. When it starts trending upwards again, the alarmists will be in “we told you so” mode. So its nice to know for now, but will eventually become a discussion point for the “other side”…

  10. The one thing that seems certain is that if a warmista predicts it, the opposite will happen.
    Whatever “it” happens to be.
    Obviously Gaia has a sense of humor, and hates being told what to do…but most especially hates people who tell lies about what She will do.

    • Easy enough to figure out. If the US establishment press is for it then be against it. If the US establishment press is against it then be for it. A person that does that will be doing a service to their country and humanity at least 90% of the time.

  11. The average non Hurricane storm strength is dependent on the average difference between hot and cold and as the planet warms, cold regions warm faster than warm regions owing to the immutable T^4 relationship between temperature and forcing, where in the steady state, solar_forcing = planet_emissions and planet_emissions = 0.62*surface_emissions.

    Hurricanes are a little different as they are predominately formed in the tropics and depend on ocean temperatures rising above about 300K, so as the planet cools, even though cold regions cool faster, warm regions are still cooling and the average Hurricane strengths will decrease. This increases the available storm energy which further increases the strengths of non Hurricane storm systems.

    • The main factor which inhibits hurricane formation seems to be the proper wind conditions.
      It does not matter what the water temp is if there are no zones of low wind shear over them.

      • Yes, upper level wind shear will inhibit the organization of thunderstorms required to create a Hurricane, but unless water temps are over about 300K, Hurricanes can not form at all.

        Here is a plot of the water column vs. surface temp and the exponential increase in the water column is what puts enough water in the atmosphere to form thunderstorms and eventually Hurricanes.

      • You have to have the warm water to get tropical cyclone formation. Lower than average SSTs in the mid Atlantic tropical zone will inhibit formation along the traditional path. But higher than average SSTs in the western Gulf of Mexico and along the eastern seaboard may allow for close in formation or strengthening of storms coming in from the Caribbean or any that manage to form along the traditional path going westward from the African coast. This may be offset by easterly shear common along the tropical Atlantic zones during an El Nino which it seems we’re going to have this year. All in all it seems that when it comes to hurricanes, this year may be pretty similar to last and thus there is a good potential for the lower 48 going another year without a major strike on it’s shores. And what sane person would be upset about that?

    • When you hear a critical mass of warmistas say this…batten down the hatches and lock up your daughters.

  12. A warmer world is a less stormy world. Could CACA adherents please be thankful for something. Lady Gaia wants them to live long, happy lives, enjoying the benefits of fossil fuels.

    Cold planets are windy worlds. Measured wind speeds:

    Jupiter: 384 mph
    Saturn: 1118 mph
    Uranus: 560 mph (What a slacker! Maybe because of oddball sideways rotational tilt.)
    Neptune: 1500 mph

    All evidence also shows the LGM to have been arid and windy. Not hospitable for children and other living things. Hence, not a lot of humans. Green Meanies would like those conditions to return sooner rather than later.

    • Why do you say Jupiter is cold?

      In July 1995 the Galileo probe dropped a titanium atmospheric probe into Jupiter’s atmosphere. The recorded temperature was more than 300 °C (>570 °F) and the wind speed measured more than 644 km/h (>400 mph)

      • “tony mcleod April 7, 2017 at 1:14 am”

        I see what you are trying to do here and you are failing. Jupiter is a GAS giant. Now do a google search on the, long understood, gas laws, gravity, pressure and educate yourself.

    • @Gloateus Regarding your statement “A warmer world is a less stormy world” Have you ever taken any Thermodynamic courses or are you just the creative artistic type?

  13. Don’t worry, they will soon redefine “hurricane” and change the measuring system, to keep the numbers up.

    Here in Australia, cyclones are on a clear downward trend: http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml

    The Bureau of Meteorology has weaselled around this in a number of ways. Firstly, their chart stops at 2011. Secondly, they claim that the number might decrease, but the intensity will increase. Thirdly (and most importantly) they’re bumping up the supposed intensity of existing cyclones.

    The best example was cyclone Marcia, in February 2015. At all points where it was observed (ie, where the wind was measured by actual instruments) it never got above a category 3, and when it hit inhabited areas it was a category 2. However, the Bureau claimed that it was a category 5, based on (you guessed it) modelling of what happened when it was not being measured.

    Marcia is often mentioned in this context, because people who lived through it may now have the mistaken impression that their home can withstand a category 5 cyclone, when in fact it’s only been tested at category 2. If a genuine category 5 ever hits, there could be significant casualties among people who’ve stayed home rather than evacuate or go to a shelter.

  14. The charts left off Hurricane Frances and Hurricane Jeanne in 2004, both cat. 3. They were not fun in Vero Beach.

  15. Only one seems to be in 04 in Central Fl. but there were two, almost on identical tracks.

  16. “Hey @Algore ! Explain this! Bottom drops out of US hurricanes in past decade”

    That’ll be cos of global warming, that’s why….

  17. Should the current US hurricane drought continue, I am sure some scientist could link it to climate change and show the occasional hurricane is a must to maintain a healthy coastal ecosystem. On the other hand, in case of a major hurricane landfall, both activists and the media are saved, because they could shout wolf again in the usual uninhibited manner. Worst of all if it turns out long term average of hurricane landfalls is not changing, because value of property in coastal regions do increase, with it damage suffered as well. Therefore we are doomed anyway.

    • CO2 is rising WORDPRESS Boy
      CO2 is toxic to you and I above normal levels humans evolved under.
      Burning Fossil Fuels will hasten our demise
      And You will be held responsible
      GM

      • Yes, CO2 is toxic at extreme levels, levels never seen in nature. The atmosphere has CO2 at around 400 ppm, plants begin to die if it falls below 180 ppm. Your lungs have CO2 of around 50,000 ppm. If CO2 is poison, and you are worried about 400 ppm, why aren’t your lungs at 50,000 ppm not killing you? CO2 is a product of respiration. It is as organic a molecule is you can get. It is required to maintain a health pH of your blood. Bottom line, CO2 is far far far more likely to keep you alive than kill you. Basic human and plant physiology 101.

      • GuitarMan, maybe you missed these lectures at your liberal arts school. Not sure how much science they teach in the art departments.

        he Benefits of Higher CO2 Levels; Fewer Hurricanes, Greater Prosperity, Longer Life
        https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/04/the-benefits-of-higher-co2-levels-fewer-hurricanes-greater-prosperity-longer-life/

        American Lung Association Never Mentions CO2 as Harmful to Human Health
        https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/02/american-lung-association-never-mentions-co2-as-harmful/

      • Patrick MJD April 10, 2017 at 3:35 am
        Claim CO2 traps heat = FAIL!

        ROTFF WTF LMAO WUWT

        Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbs energy from infrared (IR) radiation. . The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating.

        This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth’s atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons.

        Greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect play an important role in Earth’s climate. Without greenhouse gases, our planet would be a frozen ball of ice. In recent years, however, excess emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities (mostly burning fossil fuels) have begun to warm Earth’s climate at a problematic rate. Other significant greenhouse gases include water vapor (H2O), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3).

  18. I wouldn’t profess to be particularly scientific, but have a grasp of the basics. Am I missing something? It may have been mentioned before, but if temperature is a representation of how much energy something has, and 0K is zero energy, then increasing the temperature of the atmosphere is going from approx. 287K to 288K. This is an insignificant percentage, and the increased energy in a storm could not be measured.

    • temperature and CO2 have INCREASED (30%) radically in the last 30 years. This is the result of burning fossil fuels which emit GHG (CO2) which Trap Heat. Trapped Heat IS Energy. If you cannot admit that Chemistry & Physics apply your merely a paid protestor spewing forth lies

      • “Temperature……INCREASED (30%)…” – really? 30% of what? Exactly which part of my comment was a lie? I’m not suggesting CO2 doesn’t absorb IR energy, just questioning the amount relative to absolute zero. “Paid protestor”, very good. You found me out! /s

      • CO2 has increased from 280 to 408 (give or take a few ppm) parts per million in the last 250 years. This is due to the abundant and widespread use of fossil fuels such as COAL and OIL.
        Based on that the relative percentage increase is just over 32%.

        Temperature has also increased by a relatively similar amount however much of the heat has been absorbed by oceans, etc. In laymen terms the amount of heating is equivalent to detonating four Hiroshima (4) Atomic Bombs PER SECOND!

        Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the sun either remained constant or increased slightly. Estimates of the amount of energy the sun has sent to Earth are based on sunspot records dating back more than two centuries, and other proxy indicators, such as the amount of carbon in tree rings. More recently, satellite observation of solar activity from space suggest a slight decrease in solar activity.

        It’s not the sun, it’s not Al Gore, it’s you and me generating all the HEAT and CO2 (+GHG).

        For Our Sakes, Do the MATH

        GM

      • @guitarman
        Thanks for the clear explanation. Words like “relatively similar” and “absorbed by oceans etc.” really help a layperson to understand, rather than getting bogged down in technicalities. You can win an argument with someone with less knowledge, but never with a stupid person.

      • Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

        The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

        If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

        here are a few people out there actively, vigorously, and loudly disputing this. Most recently, there’s a lot of hubbub over Hal Lewis‘s statements, such as my quote at the top, that cries of global warming are a hoax, and that there is a scientific fraud being perpetrated on the largest scale of all time. He recently resigned from the American Physical Society over their unwillingness to hold a Topical Group on Climate and Environment, and details his disgust here.

        the Earth also radiates the energy absorbed during the day back into space at night. But it isn’t radiating visible light; the other main difference is the wavelength of light that the Earth emits; instead of visible light, this light is far into the infrared.

        If this were all that were going on, the Earth would, on a year-to-year average, remain at the same temperature.But if, hypothetically, if you fill the Earth’s atmosphere with gases that absorb the light the Earth emits, you will heat up the Earth. That’s what a greenhouse gas is, and the most abundant one on Earth is carbon dioxide, or CO2, which absorbs best at around four microns.If we look at sunlight, we see that only a tiny, tiny fraction of the sunlight comes in at four microns, meaning that CO2 has a negligible effect on the energy coming in.

        But what about the energy leaving? We have to look at “Earthlight” for that, and wouldn’t you know it? A substantial fraction — somewhere around 1% of the total energy emitted by Earth — can get absorbed by the CO2 in our atmosphere.

        What happens to that energy after the CO2 absorbs it?

        It gets re-radiated back towards Earth, heating the planet up again!

        Humans emit roughly 38 Gigatonnes per year CO2. As I stated above DO THE MATH

        OUT! Deniers #bigoil ##bigcoal #climatechangedenial

      • And GM proves himself a liar once more. I was so hoping he would be an honest alarmist and when he said “last comment” he meant it. Sadly none of them are honest apparently.

      • So Newt is just the sock puppet of Guitarman. Should have known.

        The length of his comments were a clear indication all he can do is tweets. Sorry Charlie, I do not do tweets. Tweets are for twits.

  19. [snip . . . if you really want to change minds then starting out by insulting them is generally a poor way to start. Why not spend some time understanding some of the many and varying points of view on here so that you can make an informed refutation of individual positions rather than just using a general smear? The opinions, as you will discover, range from the very general to the scientifically specific. Our contributors cover the entire range of skill, qualification, experience and that is nothing to say they also cover the spectrum from accepting everything mainstream about climate change to not accepting any of it and all points inbetween.

    We often have contributions from people like you who pitch, cast insults and provide nothing of value to advance the debate. It is reminiscent of a chess tyro who having learned some moves reckons he can take on anybody, tries and fails dismally. A tyro of character will go off and learn a lot more, one without will just vanish like the morning mist. Which are you GM? . . . mod]

    • Scientific Fact

      Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbs energy from infrared (IR) radiation. T The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating.

      This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth’s atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons.

      Greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect play an important role in Earth’s climate. Without greenhouse gases, our planet would be a frozen ball of ice. In recent years, however, excess emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities (mostly burning fossil fuels) have begun to warm Earth’s climate at a problematic rate. Other significant greenhouse gases include water vapor (H2O), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3).

      • You’ve got the company line down pat!!!

        I’m not certain that GHG’s, other than water vapor are of squat value to the global temp. I say for except water vapor, as water is what forms clouds and reflects energy back out to space.

        You’ll also note, I said “not certain”. I read the adiabatic theory of CO2 on climate, and says CO2 cools the earth, by absorbing heat, rising in the atmosphere, and releasing it at the TOA, just like water vapor.

        I do know this, Antarctica … a place where pretty much the only GHG effect would be CO2, is not cooperating very well with the theory that CO2 is playing a major role in warming the atmosphere. RSS, seems to suggests it is the opposite. Other than the areas close to sea, that are warmed by sea water, there is no apparent warming in antarctica that I can see.

        To date, listening to all the arguments, and looking at reality, as opposed to considering the virtual worlds of computers and models, …. it seems to me the OCEAN is what maintains the temperature … and it is almost exclusively warmed by solar, and its temps are more dependent on its circulation modes than anything else.

        JMO.

      • You wrote ” do know this, Antarctica … a place where pretty much the only GHG effect would be CO2, is not cooperating very well with the theory that CO2 is playing a major role in warming the atmosphere. RSS, seems to suggests it is the opposite. Other than the areas close to sea, that are warmed by sea water, there is no apparent warming in antarctica that I can see.”

        Please elaborate with data and sources….

        GM

      • You’ll note, the arctic, which is influenced by water circulation into the arctic is warming, the antarctic … where there is no such influence ….. flat as a pancake …. and up until last year, actually was cooling. You can thank the recent El Nino for saving the antarctic from getting even colder.

        Since there is little to no water vapor in the antarctic, water vapor as a greenhouse gas can’t help that CO2 fry the world …. and as can see, without water vapor … there’s just not a whole lot to get excited about.

        Of course … this is coming from “me”, who think’s it is impossible to really know the actual global surface temp. It is a scientific fact that we really DON”T know the actual surface temp, as ALL of the temperature products are calculated, adjusted, modelled, etc etc etc. Even the “observed” is nothing more than an “output” from some model.

        :-)

      • Interesting thoughts to blame the meltdown and all-time-low polar ice on El Nino (which is a natural cycle). That’s actually a lot like blaming the sun for the 1.6 degree C average rise of the Earth’s global surface temperature, when in fact the sun simply cannot be linked to that by any measurement.

        Consider this, when you pump 31 Gt CO2 annually via burning of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere, do you think there is any impact on the Oceans, Atmosphere?

        Call me crazy but “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction” :-))

        GM

      • The disappearing co2, 38, 36, 34 and now straight to 31. As if, 31 is to cover up the accounting between what should be in the atmosphere and what isn’t. What’s next, 29 ?

      • @rishrac – thanks for pointing out that it should have read 37 Gt. Nit-picking aside, CO2 emissions via human made GHG is an issue for all of us, even CEO’s of #BigOil

      • I don’t believe the 37 either. I have repeatedly pointed out, all of the additional co2 from 1998 as a base, has vanished. That includes the 50% that is acknowledged to have been sunk. It is n (n-1)/2. Then there are 8 years where the co2 ppm per year was under 2 ppm rise, which is another 6 per each ppm. I estimate about 200 BMT vanished and another 300 BMT sunk out of a total 600 BMT released since 1998. I’m being conservative. I think the actual total produced is around 40. China and India are opening much dirtier coal plants than we are closing down and much faster. It is not possible with so much co2 has vanished by an unknown mechanism. Increased uptake by plants cannot account for it. Neither can Henry’ s law, which is factored into the larger sink that the oceans can carry, which is estimated at 24% and land absorbs the other 26%.
        There is a much bigger problem here than you might imagine.
        By the way, co2 follows temperature.

      • Interesting thoughts….

        In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.

        I really don’t think it matters if it is 40 or 30 Gt, the impacts are being felt.

        GM

      • Co2 follows temperature. Chart the co2 ppm per year against the changes in temperature anomolies. There has been an underlying warming trend. Henry’s law about the absorption of co2 in the has been cited, but that has been factored in the acknowledged amount the oceans are absorbing. All numbers are from NOAA by the way. It is estimated that 24 % is absorbed by the oceans. Going back to 1965 when only 12 BMT was released total 6 was sunk and and another 6 made its way into the atmosphere for a rise of about 1 ppm in 1965. The amount missing from the calculations is staggering. It’s not a variation or a one off, the deficit of missing co2 keeps growing. In 8 of the years since 1998, the ppm has been below 2 ppm per year. In others it’s been below 3 except for NOAA changing 2005 from 2.53 to 3.10… AFTER they were told that co2 follows temperature and here’s the proof. They also knew when the speech was given about ‘ going back in time’ that co2 followed temperature by 800 years.
        The seriousness of co2 can not be overstated. It means that something is increasingly depleting the co2 levels in spite of increasing production. That’s why I don’t believe 37 BMT. I know more about this than most, but not as much as some. It’s around 40 BMT was probably produced last year. I could have almost predicted the amount of 37 currently. After they got this the European agency magically came out with this year the co2 produced will not increase by a BMT like it has for the past 15 years. I reported it on here back in 2015.
        Even so, whether it’s 37 or 40, it means that if I’m right 2016 was not the warmest year on record, the co2 ppm was barely above the co2ppm for 1998, or there is an unknown process that’s growing. Maybe both. But definitely one of them. If anthropogenic co2 is the only cause of the increase in atmospheric co2, the sinks are on orders of magnitude, too big.

      • New research, published this week in Nature, shows that a big part of the answer lies at the bottom of the world. Sediment samples from the seafloor, more than 3 km beneath the surface of the ocean near Antarctica, support a long-standing hypothesis that there was more CO2 dissolved in the deep Southern Ocean at times when the CO2 was low. “The chemical fingerprint left in the sediments is a long-sought smoking gun that there was increased carbon storage when the atmospheric CO2 was lower,” according to Sam Jaccard at the University of Bern, the study’s lead author.

        “We now know that extra carbon was trapped in the deep sea by the buildup of dead organic matter from above, as long suspected,” added co-author Bob Anderson of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “It’s also clear that the build-up and release of CO2 stored in the deep ocean during the ice age was driven by what was happening in the ocean around Antarctica.”

        The new work also shows that these same processes were probably behind a series of natural, ~20 part per million (ppm) wobbles in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. “Our work shows that these natural CO2 wobbles were probably caused by changes in the amount of dust sprinkled over the ocean surface, which fertilizes the growth of phytoplankton, and by changes in the release of carbon from the deep ocean by changing ocean currents,” said study co-author Alfredo Martínez García of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry.

        Whereas the natural wobbles of 20 ppm took thousands of years to occur, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen by 20 ppm over just the last nine years due to human emissions. “The current rate of CO2 increase is just so fast compared to the natural variations that it’s hard to compare them,” said Eric Galbraith of the Autonomous University of Barcelona, a study coauthor. “We are entering climate territory for which we don’t have a good geological analog.”

      • That’s if you believe the IPCC temperature and co2 record, I don’t. Your argument has been used so many times. It’s useless. As if I’ve never heard this before. The fact remains co2 follows temperature. There is no way of knowing whether the co2 increase is entirely natural or not. You are conviently leaving the 800 year lag time out. 800 years ago we were at the top of a warming plateau. Either way, it disproves co2 has anything to do with altering climate. Either they can’t explain why it was warmer without co2, or why the chart is flat in terms of co2.
        It’s like a feeble attempt at resurrecting a dead theory. There are so many failures. I was reminded of one the other day, I could literally fill pages. Where’s the tropical hot spot ?

      • Back in 1999 the co2 level was lower. All I wanted to know was how do they explain the MWP and the LIA. Now they said, because of warming the oceans will expand and rise about 4 feet or 1.5 meters. So I did the math and I agree. If it warmed as much as they were saying many places would be under water literally. Next they explained all of the math and the retained warming that should have occurred. I did the math and yep, should have happened. They were adamant that unless we stopped co2 production we were reaching a point of no return. The result was ever increasing production, however, the temperature did not keep pace with forecast amount. Co2 ppm per year didn’t increase either from 1998. In fact, I think I’ve said this, 8 of those years with heavy production of co2 the result was below 2 ppm per year. Even though the cry was about the hottest year ever. Those years were below 1998, within in error bars, and nowhere near the models. The temperatures were/are below the lowest modeled forecast. Only though adjusting those temperatures were they able to show any warming at all.
        They explained away the LIA and the MWP by saying it was local and not world wide. A drilling program was instituted to resolve this program. The first place was a lake in China. The drilling confirmed that changes took place for those 2 events as well as other lesser known events. The 2nd drilling took place off the coast of Pura. Again the data confirmed both. Many other sites as well were drilled. All confirmed that many such events had occurred. In particular the MWP was determined to be warmer than the current warm period. Many in the AGW community say now it wasn’t as warm or as cold. Now, at the time it was alarming that co2 was stated to remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. Since then the time scale has been forgotten, and is now estimated to be about 38 years.
        No warming took place to expand the oceans by 1.5 meters. Many projections/predictions were made, not one has occured. I don’t cut and paste to prove a point. The co2 ppm per year follows the temperature in every single year as far back as I cared to which was 1960. When temperature declined so did the co2 ppm per year. There is definitely an underlying warming trend. Co2 is only following that. I am concerned that co2 levels have plateaud along with temperature. Which basically means the overall temperatures are dropping. Which matches the temperature record 800 years ago. The temperature record I’m referring to is the one that has not been adjusted by the IPCC. Further, in whose right mind can you justify warming based on the width of tree rings ? The C/AGW took no action against this very bad science and was defended by peer reviews. Permanent drought both in Australia and California were much put out there as a result of global warming. The list just goes on and on. How you can support C/AGW as valid is beyond understanding.
        AGW is wrong. And the solutions to this non problem are also wrong. And I can prove this. All data is directly from NOAA. other sources are well vetted on this site.
        The most important of this is the relationship of between co2 following temperature. Look for yourself. Also, co2 not only follows temperature, but also solar cycles and cosmic ray activity.

      • “rishrac”Did you not read my reply regarding references ?

        Your words are without references and your feeble blog’s tagline reads “4 out of 5 dentists recommend this WordPress.com site”

        Until you produce something with SCIENTIFIC References (WUWT Does Not Qualify) Your Words are as I have said previously – JUNK

        Adios Muchachos

      • Everything I said isn’t in your cut and paste world. In fact, anything I submit for publication wouldn’t make it past the climate censors. When cold fusion came out, it’s the information that is important on how to. I gave you the how to. I’m not in denial of the current climate change regime Im telling you it’s totally wrong. I have the facts and information to back that up. All the facts, including the 800 year co2 following temperature is in the scientific literature. The last 60 years of co2 following temperature is not an opinion. The data is directly from NOAA. You want a mouth piece from AGW to publish that, you wont find it. Thats not a 4 out of 5 denists statement. Thats verifiable. Anybody that has access to NOAA’s website can do so. The fact that every prediction made concerning climate change has failed, is beyond discussion. How do you prove failed prediction after production? The odds of being wrong every single time are astronomical. Your appeal to authority is the problem. It’s in the hand out I got 20 years ago on how to lead a skeptic to the right conclusion.

      • Another tactic of the global warming crowd, I need medication. I hear that several times a times year. Along with I have mental issues, a problem with authority, don’t understand the science, not a climate scientist, denying reality, outright threats, on the payroll of big oil, and a few others. There are 2 issues. One is warming and the other is the cause. The cause of the warming is definitely NOT co2. C/AGW has convinced me of that. I don’t use anybodys elses analysis other than government sources There has been a slight warming. As of Mar 17, + 0.19… where’s the rest of the heat gone for the last 20 years? In the oceans ? Wheres the heat content ? Wheres the thermal expansion ? Over the years, the quality and in every field of expertise has increased dramatically on here. It is only a matter of time before AGW goes away.
        It never ceases to amuse me that recycled people/logic periodically appears on this site. They cut and paste a big long paragraph contending how co2 holds on to the heat, as if it’s brand new to me. And if they can prove unity, I’d be the first one on board, but wait warming community can’t release the emails under the FOIA. Scientists can’t operate under those conditions ? And I thought it was a given. Much like the guys that suppose to have discovered cold fusion. I give those guys credit. They didn’t hide behind some wall saying ” trust us, it works”.
        I had lingering doubts about whether AGW was a real thing. Over time, I have no doubts at all. If AGW isn’t fraud, it is big delusional group think. AGW is wrong, and the solutions being advocated are even worse.
        Newt, I take your criticism as a compliment. You can not disprove co2 follows temperature. You have 2 choices, amend the co2 record going back showing the recent warming periods, there by having to show increased levels of co2 and where the co2 came from.. or show how those periods occurred and what occurred then that is not happening now. You can’t or won’t do either.

      • Dear rishrac I am not employed by, nor do I accept any money from any form of Energy Company, be it Green, Brown, or any financial institution, investment instrument or dark monies.

        I believe what I believe after receiving three degrees in Geology, Chemistry and Law. And I have utilized these degrees to help win unspecified cases, and promote the truth. It has become apparent to me that #bigoil & #bigcoal and already trialing the pending litigation in the court of public opinion. These groups hire people like you and others on this and similar sites to attempt to smear solid Science to minimize the pending damage charges that will be levied against the Seven sisters and more.

        Cincidentally I saw this today http://www.climatecentral.org/news/march-2017-second-hottest-21351?utm_campaign=crowdfire&utm_content=crowdfire&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter#350509998-tw#1492371245539

        Change is coming. Hard, Fast & Furious.

        ciao

      • Your post is junk. You reference Wiki to read about THIS site? There are plenty more reputable AND accurate than William Connolley’s cesspool of outright lies and bigotry.

        Seriously, do some research before making yourself look more foolish.

      • Stages of Denial

        There’s nothing happening
        Inadequate evidence
        There is no evidence
        One record year is not global warming
        The temperature record is simply unreliable
        One hundred years is not enough
        Glaciers have always grown and receded
        Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
        Mauna Loa is a volcano
        The scientists aren’t even sure
        Contradictory evidence
        It’s cold today in Wagga Wagga
        Antarctic ice is growing
        The satellites show cooling
        What about mid-century cooling?
        Global warming stopped in 1998
        But the glaciers are not melting
        Antarctic sea ice is increasing
        Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
        Sea level in the Arctic is falling
        Some sites show cooling
        No consensus
        Global warming is a hoax
        There is no consensus
        Position statements hide debate
        Consensus is collusion
        Peiser refuted Oreskes
        We don’t know why it’s happening
        Models don’t work
        We cannot trust unproven computer models
        The models don’t have clouds
        If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
        Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
        Prediction is impossible
        We can’t even predict the weather next week
        Chaotic systems are not predictable
        We can’t be sure
        Hansen has been wrong before
        If we can’t understand the past, how can we understand the present?
        The scientists aren’t even sure
        They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
        Climate change is natural
        It happened before
        It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
        The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
        Greenland used to be green
        Global warming is nothing new!
        The hockey stick is broken
        Vineland was full of grapes
        It’s part of a natural change
        Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
        Mars and Pluto are warming too
        CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
        The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
        Climate is always changing
        Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
        The CO2 rise is natural
        We are just recovering from the LIA
        It’s not caused by CO2
        Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor
        Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect
        There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
        Mars and Pluto are warming too
        CO2 doesn’t lead, it lags
        What about mid-century cooling?
        Geological history does not support CO2’s importance
        Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
        It’s the sun, stupid
        Climate change is not bad
        The effects are good
        What’s wrong with warmer weather?
        Climate change can’t be stopped
        Too late
        Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
        It’s someone else’s problem
        Why should the U.S. join Kyoto when China and India haven’t?
        The U.S. is a net CO2 sink
        Economically infeasible
        Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster
        Scientific Topics

        Temperature
        There is no evidence
        The temperature record is simply unreliable
        One hundred years is not enough
        Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
        What’s wrong with warmer weather?
        It’s cold today in Wagga Wagga
        Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
        The satellites show cooling
        Global warming stopped in 1998
        They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
        One record year is not global warming
        Some sites show cooling
        Cryosphere
        Glaciers
        Glaciers have always grown and receded
        But the glaciers are not melting
        Sea ice
        Antarctic sea ice is increasing
        Ice sheets
        Antarctic ice is growing
        Greenland used to be green
        Oceans
        Sea level in the Arctic is falling
        Modeling
        Scenarios
        Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
        Hansen has been wrong before
        Uncertainties
        We can’t even predict the weather next week
        Chaotic systems are not predictable
        We cannot trust unproven computer models
        The models don’t have clouds
        Climate forcings
        Solar influences
        Mars and Pluto are warming too
        It’s the sun, stupid
        Greenhouse gases
        Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor
        Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect
        There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
        CO2 doesn’t lead, it lags
        CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
        What about mid-century cooling?
        Geological history does not support CO2’s importance
        Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
        Mauna Loa is a volcano
        The CO2 rise is natural
        Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
        The US is a net CO2 sink
        Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
        Aerosols
        What about mid-century cooling?
        If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
        Paleo climate
        Holocene
        It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
        The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
        Greenland used to be green
        The hockey stick is broken
        Vineland was full of grapes
        We are just recovering from the LIA
        Ice ages
        CO2 doesn’t lead, it lags
        Global warming is nothing new!
        Geologic history
        What’s wrong with warmer weather?
        Geological history does not support CO2’s importance
        Climate is always changing
        Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
        If we can’t understand the past, how can we understand the present?
        Scientific process
        Global warming is a hoax
        There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
        There is no consensus
        The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
        Position statements hide debate
        If we can’t understand the past, how can we understand the present?
        The scientists aren’t even sure
        Consensus is collusion
        Peiser refuted Oreskes
        Types of Argument

        Uninformed
        There is no evidence
        One record year is not global warming
        One hundred years is not enough
        There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
        What’s wrong with warmer weather?
        Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster
        There is no consensus
        We cannot trust unproven computer models
        Misinformed
        It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
        The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
        Antarctic ice is growing
        CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
        Greenland used to be green
        The satellites show cooling
        Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
        It’s the sun, stupid
        The U.S. is a net CO2 sink
        But the glaciers are not melting
        Antarctic sea ice is increasing
        They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
        Vineland was full of grapes
        Cherry Picking
        It’s cold today in Wagga Wagga
        Antarctic sea ice is growing
        The satellites show cooling
        Global warming stopped in 1998
        Antarctic sea ice is increasing
        Vineland was full of grapes
        Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
        The sea level in the Arctic is falling
        Some sites show cooling
        Urban Myths
        The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
        CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
        Greenland used to be green
        Hansen has been wrong before
        They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
        Vineland was full of grapes
        FUD
        The temperature record is simply unreliable
        Glaciers have always grown and receded
        Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor
        Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect
        Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
        Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
        Mars and Pluto are warming too
        It’s cold today in Wagga Wagga
        CO2 doesn’t lead, it lags
        There is no consensus
        Antarctic ice is growing
        Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
        We can’t even predict the weather next week
        Chaotic systems are not predictable
        What about mid-century cooling?
        The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
        Geological history does not support CO2’s importance
        Climate is always changing
        Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
        Mauna Loa is a volcano
        Global warming is nothing new!
        The CO2 rise is natural
        The hockey stick is broken
        Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
        The models don’t have clouds
        Global warming stopped in 1998
        If we can’t understand the past, how can we understand the present?
        If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
        The scientists aren’t even sure
        Antarctic sea ice is increasing
        Peiser refuted Oreskes
        Vineland was full of grapes
        Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
        Sea level in the Arctic is falling
        We are just recovering from the LIA
        Non Scientific
        Global warming is a hoax
        Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
        Why should the U.S. join Kyoto when China and India haven’t?
        Hansen has been wrong before
        Position statements hide debate
        The scientists aren’t even sure
        Consensus is collusion
        They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
        Levels of Sophistication

        Silly
        There is no evidence
        Global warming is a hoax
        One record year is not global warming
        Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster
        Mars and Pluto are warming too
        Mauna Loa is a volcano
        Naive
        One hundred years is not enough
        Glaciers have always grown and receded
        Why should the U.S. join Kyoto when China and India haven’t?
        It’s cold today in Wagga Wagga
        CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
        We can’t even predict the weather next week
        We can not trust unproven computer models
        The satellites show cooling
        Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
        The models don’t have clouds
        Global warming stopped in 1998
        It’s the sun, stupid
        If we can’t understand the past, how can we understand the present?
        The scientists aren’t even sure
        Vineland was full of grapes
        Some sites show cooling
        Specious
        The temperature record is simply unreliable
        Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor
        There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
        Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
        It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
        The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
        What’s wrong with warmer weather?
        Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
        CO2 doesn’t lead, it lags
        There is no consensus
        Antarctic ice is growing
        Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
        Greenland used to be green
        What about mid-century cooling?
        The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
        Geological history does not support CO2’s importance
        Climate is always changing
        Global warming is nothing new!
        The CO2 rise is natural
        Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
        Hansen has been wrong before
        Position statements hide debate
        But the glaciers are not melting
        If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
        Antarctic sea ice is increasing
        Consensus is collusion
        They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
        Peiser refuted Oreskes
        Vineland was full of grapes
        Scientific
        Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect
        Chaotic systems are not predictable
        The hockey stick is broken
        Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
        Sea level in the Arctic is falling
        We are just recovering from the LIA

        Denial is not a River.

      • FACT: More than 90% of global warming heat goes into warming the oceans, while less than 3% goes into increasing the atmospheric and surface air temperature. Records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there is no sign of it slowing any time soon. Your JUNK is stinking up the place here

      • @GM
        Those 3 fingers are working over time with you. Your facts are not facts. At best (and that is being kind) they are strong hypotheses.

        You failed science 101, right?

      • Again, if you want to read Peer reviewed papers, you find them. I am not a staff member. I just call them like I see them. But you may want to reference where I made a statement requiring a peer reviewed paper. Pointing out facts about sites is not a peer reviewed activity. You need to learn the difference. If you are capable.

      • GM …. you need to read my post correctly. Should I assume it is an honest mistake?? … or was it a deliberate ploy to divert the discussion?? I never said that El Nino had anything to do with “record low polar ice” …. that is a false construct of your ideological mind. In fact, I’m not talking about the “ice” at all. I’m talking about temperature.

        As shown on the graph I posted, N. Polar temp is rising, S. Polar is not. Since CO2 is a well mixed gas, the difference in the two can’t be attributed to CO2. What other difference is there?? …. for starters, the N. Pole is an ocean, and the S. Pole is land. As such, the N. Pole is subject to heat transfer from the Pacific and Atlantic via the ocean currents that bring warmer water to the arctic basin via the conveyor. In contrast, the S. Pole is not subject to such, other than the coastal areas. Thus the only source of heating for the interior S. Pole is the atmosphere. Given that CO2 for the two is assumed to be identical {well mixed gas}, the S. Pole is an excellent meter for actual impact of CO2 on temp. Also noting the “polar amplification” aspect of global warming, it becomes clear that CO2 has little impact on temperature.

        The real driver of Climate Change, Global Warming, Extreme Weather, Climate Disruption, or whatever your folk are calling it these days, deals with oceans. CO2 has little to no impact on ocean temp, less than 1%.

        Since you like scientific facts …. you probably know this one as well …. the rise in Global Temperature is driven by an increase in night time lows, not day time highs. The rise in lows causes the “average” to rise. Now, …. go to your local desert that is very “dry”, then go to the coast, where it is very humid. …. note the differences in temperature change between day and night. Deserts cool off really quick, cause there is no water vapor to hold the heat. Coastal areas barely cool at all. This is a water vapor thing … not a CO2 thing. … and the largest contributor to water vapor is the ocean, not man’s burning of fossil fuels.

  20. Scientific Fact

    Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbs energy from infrared (IR) radiation. T The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating.

    This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth’s atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons.

    Greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect play an important role in Earth’s climate. Without greenhouse gases, our planet would be a frozen ball of ice. In recent years, however, excess emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities (mostly burning fossil fuels) have begun to warm Earth’s climate at a problematic rate. Other significant greenhouse gases include water vapor (H2O), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3).

  21. I just discovered something interesting about hurricanes from the NOAA site. Now ALL storms are considered damaging, including Cat 1s and 2s, 3s have been elevated to “Devastating!”

    I lived in Florida from 1977-1987, a decade remarkably free of hurricanes. The one that did strike was David, barely a Cat 1, that caused no noticeable damage.

    If someone unfamiliar with hurricanes reads this, they are likely to be terrified.
    http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshws.php

    PMK

  22. I’m beginning to wonder if there is a legitimate source for Klotzbach’s alleged slides referred to at the beginning of this article. No one here has identified it, if it exists, in 5 days.

      • GuitarMan I hear ya there. Great discussion with Deanster.

        But in fairness, WUWT often has a supporting study linked in their essay. And sometimes the study is even good science. WUWT just twists its meaning, or cherry picks – to make it seem to say something it doesn’t.

        I’m still wondering if WUWT can show a Klotzbach study which uses those 2 slides shown at the top of the article. It’s almost 6 days since I first asked. So far, no legitimate source has been produced.

  23. Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the sun either remained constant or decreased slightly. Estimates of the amount of energy the sun has sent to Earth are based on sunspot records dating back more than two centuries, and other proxy indicators, such as the amount of carbon in tree rings. More recently, satellite observation of solar activity from space suggest a further decrease in solar activity. It’s not the SUN, it’s AGW 99.99% Confidence Interval across the Globe. No reason to wait on more #JunkScience

  24. FInal thought: Clearly you’re all misunderstood geniuses,please develop and submit a Scientific paper, about ANYTHING; Use actual & credible field data with proven statistical methods showing your evidence and supporting your theories. If you could prove what you feel is Scientific reality, I am sure you will all be very rich and famous. Making excuses such as “it would never get past the climate sensors” is a self defeating attitude. You’re clearly better than them, so put something out there that can be vetted, discussed, defended.
    The Scientific community exists for this very reason. Why not play by the rules and show us how brilliant you are?

    • GM, well said.

      Upending AGW in that way should earn them a Nobel Prize.

      Still waiting for a legitimate source for the Klotzbach graphs.

Comments are closed.