Talking Truth to Climate Consensus

By Rud Istvan

A sound bite summary*

The climate consensus now has two derogation levels for those who disagree. Climate ‘contrarians’ like Bjørn Lomborg disagree about mitigation policies. Climate ‘deniers’ like Judith Curry disagree about the underlying climatology. The consensus does not any want any disagreement, since their science is ‘settled’ and solutions ‘clear’. They decline to engage (Schmidt/Spencer), disappear comments (Real Climate, the Guardian), refuse to host comments (LATimes), and loudly allege a fossil fuel funded ‘denier’ conspiracy (Grijalva). But they cannot avoid encountering skeptics. Following are some possible skeptical ‘silver bullets’.

There are basic consensus points that most ‘deniers’ “97%” agree with.

· Yes, climate changes. Millennially, we are in the Holocene interglacial, not the preceding ice age. Centennially, we are warming out of the Little Ice Age (LIA); London’s last Thames Ice Fair was in 1814. We are not yet back to Medieval Warm Period (MWP) warmth; Greenland farmers still cannot grow barley as the Vikings did back then.

· Yes, fossil fuels increase atmospheric CO2 while also greening the planet.

· Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas (GHG), and doubling its atmospheric concentration would by itself cause temperatures to rise between 1.1C and 1.2C (Planck effect given ‘grey Earth’, the most precise estimate using IPCC data being 1.16C).

· Yes, water vapor and clouds (to note only the big two) provide natural feedbacks, which in the case of water vapor must be somewhat positive.

Much more of the ‘settled’ science consensus cannot be correct.

· Erroneous attribution. Observed decadal warming from about 1920 to 1945 cannot be attributed to increasing anthropogenic CO2 (anthropogentic global warming, AGW) since it didn’t increase very much. The IPCC even said so in AR4WG1 figure SPM.4. Nor can slight cooling from about 1945 to about 1975, since AGW warms. Yet the consensus attributes ‘all’ warming from about 1975 to 2000 to anthropogenic CO2 (and other GHGs). That cannot be right–natural variability cannot have miraculously ceased in 1975.

· Overly sensitive models. Observed climate sensitivity from about 1880 to now is about half of what climate models estimate (both TCR and ECS). The newest observational estimates are TCR ~ 1.3 and ECS ~ 1.65. CMIP5 mean TCR is 1.8C and the mean ECS is 3.4C; the median ECS is 3.2C. Hot by twice.

· Climate models are now falsified by the 18+ year UAH and RSS ‘pause’, using Santer’s 17 year consensus criterion published in 2011.

· Unsurprisingly, derivative consensus sequelae have also not come true.

· Sea level rise (SLR) is not accelerating. (Most tide gauges are unreliable owing to isostatic adjustment or plate tectonics.) Satellite SLR altimetry since 1979 is higher than differential GPS vertical and motion adjusted long running tide gauges, and does not close (SLR~ sum ice mass loss plus thermosteric rise). DiffGPS adjusted tide gauges do close.

· No historical evidence for a sudden SLR ‘tipping point’ despite previous interglacial (Eemian) temperatures 2 degrees higher for several millennia. No evidence during the Holocene ‘optimum’ caused several millennia ago by Earth’s planetary precession. Papers finding otherwise are flawed, and at least one arguably comprises clear academic misconduct.

· No identifiable potential ice sheet tipping point. Greenland is bowl shaped; nothing can tip. East Antarctica is gaining ice. West Antarctica’s Ronne is stable. ANDRILL proved Ross is anchored, and has not ‘tipped’ before. Amundsen Embayment’s Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers are creeping, not tipping. Even if they did, they are not big enough to matter much. Most of their Amundsen catchment basin is not creeping, and its interior is slowly gaining ice mass.

· Barren ocean ‘acidification’ is half the rate predicted by AR4, since ocean is highly buffered. Fertile ocean pH has much larger seasonal biological swings.

§ -Corals may be in trouble from pollution and overfished reefs, but not from ‘acidification’. The main paper claiming otherwise overlooked toxic hydrogen sulfide, arguably comprising clear academic misconduct.

§ -Pacific oyster spawn at Netarts Bay was not affected by ocean acidification. The hatchery needed to be managed like the estuary it isn’t, where warm summer spawning water is naturally >1.0 higher pH from biological activity. The NOAA PMEL paper claiming otherwise evidences willful negligence (or worse) based on the ‘knew or should have known’ standard.

· Weather extremes are not increasing (cyclones, tornadoes, heat waves).

· Polar bears are thriving thanks to curtailed hunting. No matter what happens to Arctic summer ice, the majority (~80%) of polar bear seal feeding is on spring ice during the whelping season.

· No climate extinctions. CAGW predictions are based on overstated models (like species/areal range S=cAz), GCMs cannot regionally downscale an A estimate, and endemic species (small initial A) have strong selection bias.

· Consensus mitigation solutions have no answers to contrarian objections.

· Renewables are expensive; that is why they are still heavily subsidized.

· Renewables are intermittent, so must be backed up by equivalent peak gas or spinning reserves prviding grid inertia to keep it stable; that is a large hidden cost beyond direct subsidies. This is why high renewables penetration South Australia suffered a blackout in 2016.

· CCS is much more expensive than nuclear, and (except in special circumstances) geologically impractical. The Kemper Mississippi demonstration plant is a failure both technically and financially. It will burn natural gas; no coal gasification and no CCS.

· Denying inexpensive coal generation to Africa and Asia hurts the neediest, hindering development. China’s new development bank will fund coal stations in Africa and Pakistan, while per consensus mitigation the World Bank won’t. China and India are not playing the UNFCCC COP21 Paris game.

· Lower sensitivity suggests adaptation is sounder than mitigation.

*Drawn partly from ebook Blowing Smoke: Essays on Energy and Climate (example, corals and oysters), and partly from previous WUWT guest posts (example, SLR and closure).

Advertisements

270 thoughts on “Talking Truth to Climate Consensus

      • Yes, it would be useful when supplying silver bullets to ensure that they are not some cheap silver coloured alloy ! Not much point in providing obviously dubious claims. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.

        Here’s another one.

        “we are in the Holocene interglacial, not the preceding ice age.”

        Interglacials are PART OF an ice age. We are in an ice age. This should read “not the preceding glaciation” .

        “China and India are not playing the UNFCCC COP21 Paris game.”

        Oh yes they are. They are playing very cleverly. Encouraging the west to commit economic suicide while China only engages to be more efficient and profitable whilst increasing CO2 and India says it will play the game if we give them free technology and 2.5 TRILLION dollars.

      • There is a strong thermal component to inter-annual changes in CO2 but it would be hard to suggest that NONE of the underlying and increasing dCO2 ( which has gone from 1 ppmv per year to 2ppmv per year ) is a result of the massive increase in human emissions.

        “Sliver bullet” arguments should avoid being so obviously contentious that they will be dismissed out of hand and make you look like a totally off the wall “deenyerz” type loono.

      • tom0mason,

        Not an interesting paper at all. Although repeatedly commented in previous topics, Jamal refuses to discuss things out… It starts already with a false attribution to the IPCC:

        The IPCC carbon budget concludes that changes in atmospheric CO2 are driven by fossil fuel emissions on a year by year basis.

        The IPCC never said or implied that. Their – and others – carbon cycles are rough, averaged estimates with huge margins of error and year by year variability…

        All what Jamal has proven is that the year by year variability in the CO2 rate of change is not caused by the yearly human emissions. That does prove that the +/- 1.5 ppmv variability around the +90 ppmv trend is not caused by human emissions (which show hardly any year by year variability), but that says next to nothing about the cause of the trend…
        It is proven that the year by year variability in rate of change is mainly caused by the influence of large temperature changes on tropical vegetation, especially during extremes (Pinatubo, El Niño). Vegetation is not the cause of the long term trend, it is a small, growing sink for CO2: the earth is greening…

        Thus while Jamal is right on variability, he is completely wrong in his conclusion that this proves that human emissions are not the cause of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere…

      • Greg,

        Thanks for your comment…

        Too many skeptics use that variability as “proof” that the 90 ppmv increase is not caused by human emissions, because the variability is not caused by human emissions. What they forget is that the variability is peanuts, even for the extremes: in this case the 1991 Pinatubo and the 1998 super El Niño, here enlarged:

        Even a CO2 response of 4 ppmv/K may be too large for the variability, but an increase of 0.8 K in 60 years would induce 90 ppmv extra CO2?

  1. I have yet to engage a CAGW believer in any meaningful discussion on the subject. 100% of the time they defer to consensus and ignore even the simplest of facts. The propaganda machine has done its’ job. I don’t know what the answer is to turn them around other than a prolonged and significant drop in global temperature. Even 20 years of no statistical temperature increase despite steadily climbing CO2 in the atmosphere means nothing to them.

    • Even 20 years of no statistical temperature increase despite steadily climbing CO2 in the atmosphere means nothing to them.

      Not only is this incorrect (as shown by looking at the surface temperatures), it’s also irrelevant. The temperature can rise while still not being statistically indistinguishable from zero.

      What we mean by “statistically significant” is that there’s a 95% chance that the linear trend was greater than zero. So if the trend gets noisy because of, say, some internal variability, the statistical significance will increase even while the trend stays the same.

      A lack of statistical significance does not mean that it’s not warming, nor even that warming has slowed one iota. It means that you can’t say with 95% certainty. Maybe you can still say with 94% certainty, but just not 95%.

      That’s what happened recently. Both atmosphere and oceans kept warming, but the statistical significance dropped, because that’s what happens with short-term variability.

      But, hell, that’s over now, and now the surface’s warming is statistically significant again, so this is a moot argument.

      • Windchasers July 7, 2017 at 8:18 pm,

        I am pretty sure there was something you were trying to say in your above posting that was statistically important ……… but damned if I can figure out what t was.

      • Samuel C,
        July 8, 2017 at 8:37 am
        “Windchasers July 7, 2017 at 8:18 pm,

        I am pretty sure there was something you were trying to say in your above posting that was statistically important ……… but damned if I can figure out what t was.”

        My guess is – like the Monkees [1960s pop group] – Windchasers wants us to know that she/he is, indeed, in the beat, ‘I’m a Believer’, the Monkees’ [Mickey Dolenz, DaveyJones {?], and another two longish-haired gents, from memory] first [and maybe biggest] hit.

        Auto
        Sorry indicating some antiquity (1966???) here, although others possibly go even earlier . . .

    • markl July 7, 2017 at 4:19 pm wrote:
      “I have yet to engage a CAGW believer in any meaningful discussion on the subject. 100% of the time they defer to consensus and ignore even the simplest of facts.”

      My experience as well. They “lack the expertise” to interpret the facts for themselves, no matter how clear. They only know argument by authority on politically correct positions, and any authority which challenges the orthodoxy is dismissed.

  2. ” Climate models are now falsified by the 18+ year UAH and RSS ‘pause’, using Santer’s 17 year consensus criterion published in 2011.”

    Santer published no such “criterion”.

    • What would you call this, then? The URL for the original press release is https://www.llnl.gov/news/separating-signal-and-noise-climate-warming.

      Dated 17 Nov 2011
      “Separating signal and noise in climate warming
      LIVERMORE, Calif. — In order to separate human-caused global warming from the “noise” of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists.

      “‘Looking at a single, noisy 10-year period is cherry picking, and does not provide reliable information about the presence or absence of human effects on climate,’ said Benjamin Santer, a climate scientist and lead author on an article in the Nov. 17 online edition of the Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres) .

      “The LLNL-led research shows that climate models can and do simulate short, 10- to 12-year “hiatus periods” with minimal warming, even when the models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol particles. They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere

      The research team is made up of Santer and Livermore colleagues…”

      • “What would you call this, then? “
        It is in no way a criterion for falsifying models. It says nothing of the kind. It says you need at least 17 years to separate human caused global warming. It doesn’t say that as the clock strikes 17, models are falsified. It says you can then start looking. You may even have to wait.

        And a further distortion – it’s actually advice for people who are actually trying to find out something. So they certainly aren’t saying – wait for a 17-year period and then you can close the thing down. The fact that there has been very strong warming over the last few years is something that a genuine enquirer would want to know about.

      • Nick,

        Since there is zero evidence that humans have an effect of average global temperature, why do you have to wait any time at all? First you need to show a human effect even exists beyond a few localities or perhaps regions of the planet.

      • Unfortunately, Nick uses his own personal word meanings and twists replies and responses to avoid admission or errors.

        Is that a climate team attribute?

      • But it can’t be “natural variability”. this paper proves it- dang I put it down just there. ;)

      • Read the paper. It says that 17 years is the minimum amount of time you’ll need to be able to distinguish noise from human-caused warming. It doesn’t say that 17 years is always enough.

      • “It is in no way a criterion for falsifying models”

        There is no criterion that will falsify models in your eyes ., is there Nick

        That is why IT IS NOT SCIENCE…

      • @ windy..

        “17 years is the minimum amount of time you’ll need ”

        As there has only been 2 warming events (El Ninos, which have nothing to do with human CO2), in the whole UAH satellite data, with 15 year long near zero trends before the 1998 El Nino and after it, ..

        … there is actually NO CO2 FINGERPRINT in the whole of the satellite data.

        Heck, even after Carl’s manic attack on the RSS data, there is still a ZERO trend from 2001 to 2015. !

      • I love Nick Stokes.

        He stands there reading from the science book he holds upside down, and when challenged says ‘if you can read, it doesn’t matter which way up the book is’

        This works for fellow illiterates of course.

      • Nick falls back on the excuse that 17 years may not be enough time. While that is could be true we know the criteria Santer used. It is primarily ENSO and volcanoes that produce the noise. Hence, if these are not evident as the end points of the trend, then the 17 year criteria is solid. Look at the data.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997.5/to:2015/plot/rss/from:1997.5/to:2015/trend/plot/uah6/from:1997.5/to:2015/plot/uah6/from:1997.5/to:2015/trend

        There is no La Nina or Volcanoes causing cooling at the end of the trend. At the beginning of the trend there is both El Nino and La Nina which cancel out. It is a period over 17 years in length where there is no warming. Based on Santer et al 2011 that should mean “human effects” are minimal.

        I find it hilarious that Nick and others ignore the content of the paper itself and try to make an excuse based on a couple of words. It clearly shows they are NOT interested in science.

      • “Unfortunately, Nick uses his own personal word meanings and twists replies and responses to avoid admission or errors.

        Is that a climate team attribute?”

        Another is responding to one small part of comment of point being made, especially parts that are incidental to the main thrust of the point.
        Divert, misdirect, waste time, nitpick…a dog’s breakfast of avoidance stratagem.

      • What I want to know is why Ben Santer can pull a number out of his arse, saying it will need to be 17 years with no warming before we can even begin to doubt the models, and the people who are always asking for references and peer-reviewed documentation accept his pronouncement as the new dogma. It really brings home the fact that demands for peer-reviewed references for even the most obvious comments from a skeptic are smoke screens to avoid a debate they are destined to lose.

      • Nick Stokes said: “It is in no way a criterion for falsifying models. It says nothing of the kind. It says you need at least 17 years to separate human caused global warming. It doesn’t say that as the clock strikes 17, models are falsified. It says you can then start looking. You may even have to wait.”

        How long? Under what circumstances are the models falsified? And who gets to decide that? The makers of the models? But even these questions miss the real point. We shouldn’t be asking what observations falsify the models. We should be asking what observations will reveal that the models have any skill at all? The assumption from the very beginning should have been that they don’t have skill, unless they can demonstrate otherwise. That would be the scientific method. Yet there is not, and never has been, any litmus test for climate models.

        The models continue to be the only ‘evidence’ of an impending, man-made global warming crisis, yet there has never been a desire by the faithful to actually wait and see if the models have any skill. As time reveals that the models have little, if any skill, the faithful make excuses for the models and demonize anyone who calls them into question. The whole climate change story has a plot of intellectual jihad, which is the opposite of the pursuit of science and understanding.

      • Leo – you might want to use a different analogy. If you can read well, it really doesn’t matter which way you hold the book. I personally like reading books while holding them upside-down or sideways, as a nice brain exercise. It’s also useful when you’re tutoring someone sitting on the other side of the table from you; no need to keep flipping their textbook around.

  3. Yesterday, I was sitting under a thunderstorm and all the weather places I could find told me it was 104°F and clear.
    If they can’t get NOW right, why should I believe them about 2090?
    Then again, I can remember hotter and colder days than I have seen in the last 10 years.
    So, the incompetents want me to believe a computer model (garbage in/garbage out) that required them to make frequent CHANGES to the past data (something I learned in all my SCIENCE classes was a no-no) and I should turn my life over to them to control?

    • Yesterday the morning temperature was 13°C but by mid-afternoon it had risen to 23.5°C. Thankfully with adequate food and water I survive this 10°C change.

      How could I survive another 2°C more?

      • If the temperature keeps rising like that you will be on fire by Wednesday. good luck.

      • Thousands go from icy sea (0 °C) to sauna (100 °C) in a few seconds every winter. I’m not aware of anyone catching fire, but at this rate they should mind the polar bears.

    • Years ago, we lived on the Queen Charlotte Islands (now know as Haida Gwaii). Every night I would watch the weather report on TV. Often the satellite picture showed that we were basking under clear skies – even as I could hear the rain outside. (It rains a lot on the north coast of BC.) I often wondered when exactly those satellites took their pictures.

  4. I need help with a question.

    There had been a DOE study that showed that only 3.4% of all CO2 emissions are from human sources. That study mysteriously went down the memory hole. Can anyone point me to research that disaggregates all the sources of CO2 emissions, natural and human, every year? Links, please.

    Thanks much.

    • JJ, no reliable study exists to my knowledge. We can reliably say three things. 1. The Bern model carbon sink saturation is falsified by greening. 2. The rise in armospheric CO2 is mostly anthropogenic fossil fuels, based on changing C12/C13 Isotope ratios, and 3. Salby’s rapid natural temperature unsink proposition is falsified using the Feynmann criteria– see my recent previous post on same.

      • Rud Istvan, Thank you for your concise summary of Warmist problems.

        Regarding the Oyster spat issue in the Pacific Northwest, did you mean to say that warm summer spawning water has a higher (more alkaline) or a lower pH (less alkaline) from biological activity? I read that one of the problems with the oyster spawning was because of weather wherein upwelled cold CO2- laden deep water (normal seasonal occurrence along the Oregon Coast) was blown back into the bay creating a natural lower pH with bad timing for the crop of non-native oysters. I am interested in this topic.

        Other subject. Can’t get your your EBook by download because I have satellite Internet and large downloads result in our Internet being curtailed at the middle or 3rd week of each month.

      • BR, re Netarts Bay oyster hatchery at Whiskey creek, estuary water has a higher summer Ph. Very simple. Photosynthesis of plankton and sea grass consumes CO2, so Ph rises.

      • “Photosynthesis of plankton and sea grass consumes CO2, so Ph rises”

        Except for the fact that the temperature of the water rises during summer. Henry’s law says that the CO2 will exit the water at higher temperature….

        You seem to be unable to discern the difference between correlation and causation.

      • Luis,

        “Except for the fact that the temperature of the water rises during summer. Henry’s law says that the CO2 will exit the water at higher temperature….”

        I was reading and wondering about the requirements of circumstances when uptake and out-gassing actually switch, as opposed to uptake merely slowing (partly due to the recent significant rise in atmospheric CO2, after an apparently very long time at leaner levels). It’s not like it’s the same water, necessarily, that interacted with the same air, last winter or whatever . . One suspects that on average, the ocean surface is absorbing more CO2 now (relative to the amount being shed), though the complexities involved take it well outside my math zone, so to speak ; )

        The Henry’s law says story is surely not as simple as it sounds, and I’d appreciates some discussion on the details involved, if you wouldn’t mind.

      • The missing firmament messes with fossil conservatives’ planetary scale glass structures big time. Henry’s law requires constant temperature and volumes to be observable in a scientifically meaningful manner.

      • Luis Anastasia,

        The seasonal pH change is a matter of both bio-life and temperature. I have no figures for the oyster hatchery, but figures at Bermuda show the variations:

        http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/2509/2012/bg-9-2509-2012.pdf

        In figure 4 one can see the seasonal temperture, pH, DIC and pCO2 changes.
        As only in July and August the pCO2 reaches the pCO2 of the atmosphere (thus releasing CO2 to the atmosphere), most of the change in pH is from bio-life (see also the decrease of DIC in summer: bio-life consumes inorganic carbon), not from CO2 loss to the atmosphere.

        As the seawater temperature at the hatchery in general is lower, even in summer the ocean surface still may be a sink for CO2, not a source…

    • Of course when you look at nature with it’s piffling millions of loosely coupled, non-linear, feedback systems it stand to reason that nature could never be able to sense and adjust for human generated CO2 could it? Nature’s feedbacks are not ready for our CO2. After all nature’s balance is so fine that the merest hint of change and BANG it’s all over! Thankfully the globe is in stasis —
      WHAT?
      What do you mean a volcanic eruption, and the forest is on fire, and YOU ran your SUV.
      Nooooooo!
      We’re all doomed I tell you!

  5. I had an argument with someone about sea level rise – I said I wasn’t terribly concerned because the predicted acceleration in sea level rise (which, let’s face it, is a prediction from a prediction) hasn’t happened. I mean, we have warmed a bit, but the sea is continuing to rise at the same, low, non-catastrophic rate as it has for most of the Holocene. I wasn’t even doubting the consensus, just one of the predicted consequences of global warming.

    I got called a denialist.

    Which is weird because we KNOW the answer. It has been measured. There are graphs and everything. This consequence of global warming on sea level turned out to be not that big a deal. You could even craft an interesting theory – maybe slightly warmer air in the arctic (but still below freezing) can carry more moisture, meaning snowfall at high latitudes (which, let’s face it, is an arctic desert) could be higher, sequestering more water from the oceans and actually slowing sea level rise. I’m not saying that is happening, but I can see a mechanism where you can have global warming AND not have sea level rise. The Earth is a complicated place after all.

    My conclusion is they are actually so brainwashed they can’t tell the difference between the theory, and possible outcomes of the theory. Not only must global warming be true, but all the bad consequences of global warming must be true.

    Weird.

    • When I attended the National Climate Assessment Southeastern Regional Engagement Workshop, I think I was the only lukewarmist or skeptic there. When I showed those climate change experts graphs of obviously linear sea-level rise, juxtaposed with obviously accelerating CO2, and said, “as you can see, all that additional CO2 hasn’t caused any noticeable sea-level rise acceleration,” most of them still didn’t believe it.

      North Pacific:
      http://www.sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=Honolulu

      South Pacific:
      http://www.sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=Sydney&c_date=1930/1-2019/12&boxcar=1&boxwidth=3

      US East Coast:
      http://www.sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=Newport,+RI&boxcar=1&boxwidth=3

      Europe:
      http://www.sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=Wismar&c_date=1866/1-2019/12&boxcar=1&boxwidth=3

      Some of the disbelievers assumed I cherry-picked atypical sites. (I didn’t.)

      But some obviously didn’t know how to recognize acceleration in a graph. Really. One lady said, “How can you say it’s not accelerating, I can see in your graph that it’s going up!” (paraphrased)

      In case there’s anyone here who suffers from that confusion, here’s a little primer which should help:

      http://www.sealevel.info/acceleration_primer.html

      • Brilliantly done, Dave. Of course they don’t believe it. It is a religion! No invites for you next time.

      • From Climate4you:
        “Data from tide-gauges suggest an average global sea-level rise of 1-1.5 mm/yr, while the satellite-derived record suggest a rise of more than 3 mm/yr. The rather marked difference between the two data sets has still no broadly accepted explanation, but some of the difference is likely due to administrative changes introduced into the raw data obtained by satellites. Se the paragraph below on temporal stability of the satellite-derived data.
        Another factor that may explain some of the difference between tide-gauge and satellite data is probably that while any temperature-driven volume expansion is recorded by the satellites, this change is not affecting tide-gauges at coastal locations, as the water depth here decreases towards zero.”
        http://www.climate4you.com/SeaTemperatures.htm#Sea-level%20from%20tide-gauges

      • The difference between change and rate of change is surprisingly elusive for a surprising number of people. Understanding rates of change of rates of change are even more elusive.

        That is part of the problem. At a more advanced level just look at the things that the alarmists on these pages cannot comprehend. The list starts with scientific principles, the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning and even basic logic. It proceeds through the proper use of statistics and goes on and on.

      • “How can you say it’s not accelerating, I can see in your graph that it’s going up!”

        But, but she right it is going up…

        Maybe chart rate of change against time?

      • “But, but she right it is going up…

        Maybe chart rate of change against time?’

        Someone at a science conference that does not know what the word “acceleration” means is hopeless.
        And the only ones that do not know it are that person and others who are also hopeless.
        Which seems to describe a growing number of people, even those with science degrees and credentials.
        The diocracy seems well on it’s way to taking over.

      • daveburtonJuly 7, 2017 at 5:31 pm & Menicholas July 8, 2017 at 11:03 am

        Obviously I didn’t make it plain to you. So I’ll try to point it out again.
        When giving information to people try an old technique —
        You tell them what you are going to tell them,
        You tell them
        You explain what you’ve told them,
        Finally you recap, and ask if they have any questions.
        If required repeat the message.

        If when you finished they still do not understand it is YOUR failing.
        Maybe you’ve misunderstood what audience you are addressing, maybe your language is too full of jargon, maybe …
        Whatever the problem if you need them to understand then it is up to you to find the way.
        Do not assume anyone has prior knowledge or “How can you say it’s not accelerating, I can see in your graph that it’s going up!” is the honest, real, and rightful response you get.

        If you really want to make the message stick make it simple and memorable.

      • I have noticed an obvious lie that gets used frequently – the climate alarmists frequently use numbers that include all warming prior to 1950 as anthropogenic global warming, despite negligible increases in carbon dioxide concentrations. So people genuinely believe that warming prior to 1950 was due to anthropogenic sources, when it absolutely cannot be.

        But I guess I am making a different point – you don’t have to deny sea level rise is constant just because you believe in anthropogenic global warming. They two may only share a casual relationship, and as I said, I can think of mechanisms where global warming could actually causes sea level to fall (say much more snow in central Antarctica.) To firmly connect the two, one can’t exist without the other, is evidence that the person is not a scientist, and really doesn’t understand the theory they purport to support.

        And by the way – this is potentially a VERY interesting finding. I mean, that sea level is not directly connected to temperature is interesting and should be thoroughly investigated. But instead they simply deny it is happening.

      • Tenn wrote, “I can think of mechanisms where global warming could actually causes sea level to fall (say much more snow in central Antarctica.)”

        So can I.

        For example, warming in the Arctic and Southern Oceans causes reduced sea-ice coverage, which increases evaporation from open water, and increases lake/ocean-effect snow downwind, some of which falls on ice sheets, adding to ice mass and reducing sea-level.

        Another example, this one less obvious:

        We know that glaciations correspond to periods of reduced axial tilt (and hence reduced seasonal extremes), and deglaciations correspond to periods of increased axial tilt (and increased seasonal extremes). Ice sheet and glacier increase and decrease are determined by the balance between snow accumulation and ice loss through melting, sublimation & glacier calving. Apparently hotter summers increase melting of ice ice sheets and glaciers, and harsher winters reduce snowfall on ice sheets, so more extreme climate swings tend to shrink ice sheets. Conversely, weaker seasons allow increased winter snowfall on glaciers ice sheets with reduced summer melting, so ice sheets grow.

        Now, GHG-driven global warming is expected to warm winters more than summers, and nighttime lows more than daytime highs. In other words, it will reduce seasonal temperature extremes, much like a reduction in the Earth’s axial tilt does. It seems plausible to me that the reduction in temperature swings could be conducive to the growth of glaciers and ice sheets, or at least that it could offset some of the expected melting due to generally warmer temperatures.

    • You denied a religious belief, because of mere facts. Don’t do it again. Gods are not rational constructs.

    • I’ve seen 20-year hiatuses in climate models, even just from internal variability, but they’re relatively rare. (A bit more common if you include external variability like solar and volcanic).

      Ten- to fifteen-year pauses are pretty common.

      • Dave Burton,

        (Note #1: Note that 0.88 to 0.96°C is a difference of just 8%. I.e., MODTRAN calculates that water vapor feedback amplifies warming in the tropics by only 8%. The same exercise done with an earlier version of U.Chicago’s MODTRAN interface showed identical results for constant H2O vapor pressure [i.e., not taking into account water vapor amplification], but with constant relative humidity it showed 65% amplification. I cannot account for the difference. Anyhow, even +65% is much less amplification from water vapor feedback than the IPCC assumes.)

        Unless they use modtran over the cooling cycle at night with real world parameters, not averaged conditions, they aren’t getting useful results, it changes at night, and the radiative conditions change, Modtran needs to be run sequentially as conditions change.

    • In the 42 member CMIP5 archive with 102 individual ‘run’ members, there are (cause I looked) zero runs with a 15 year hiatus (the original 2008 BAMS criterion, which Santer lengthened to 17 years for extra safety margin). Zero. The reality is otherwise, hence the short soundbite.

  6. Re: “Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas (GHG), and doubling its atmospheric concentration would by itself cause temperatures to rise between 1.1C and 1.2C (Planck effect given ‘grey Earth’, the most precise estimate using IPCC data being 1.16C).”

    A few years ago I ran some numbers through the U.Chicago’s online MODTRAN interface, and for a tropical atmosphere with cumulus 0.66km-2.7km, and const rel humidity (to account for water vapor feedback/amplification) a doubling of CO2 (from 285 to 570) was calculated to result in just 0.81°C of warming.

    For a clear sky + constant relative humidity (i.e., not accounting for water vapor feedback/amplification) it calculated 0.96°C of warming.

    For a clear sky + constant H2O vapor pressure (i.e., without water vapor amplification) it calculated 0.88 °C.

    That whole range, from 0.81 to 0.96 °C, is obviously less than the IPCC’s 1.16°C.

    Maybe the difference is because global warming is expected to disproportionately affect polar latitudes, because the air is drier there? Note that I specified the default “tropical atmosphere.”

    (Note #1: Note that 0.88 to 0.96°C is a difference of just 8%. I.e., MODTRAN calculates that water vapor feedback amplifies warming in the tropics by only 8%. The same exercise done with an earlier version of U.Chicago’s MODTRAN interface showed identical results for constant H2O vapor pressure [i.e., not taking into account water vapor amplification], but with constant relative humidity it showed 65% amplification. I cannot account for the difference. Anyhow, even +65% is much less amplification from water vapor feedback than the IPCC assumes.)

    (Note #2: Atmospheric physicist Will Happer has found evidence that the warming effect is commonly overestimated by about 40% due to the use of Voigt profiles to model the spectral lines, which calculates overly broad far fringes of the lines. Ref: http://sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/ )

    The direct warming effect of CO2 is widely acknowledged to be so modest that, by itself, it could not be cause for much concern. (If Dr. Happer is right, then it’s even less so.) So the issue comes down to feedbacks. Only if the net effect of the various climate feedbacks is strongly positive could anthropogenic CO2 produce a worrisome amount of warming. There is scant evidence of that.
    http://sealevel.info/feedbacks.html

    • Re: “Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas (GHG), and doubling its atmospheric concentration would by itself cause temperatures to rise between 1.1C and 1.2C (Planck effect given ‘grey Earth’, the most precise estimate using IPCC data being 1.16C).”

      One researcher has found that the calculations you are talking about are too great by a factor of more then 20 because a doubling of CO2 in the troposphere will cause a slight decrease in the dry lapse rate in the thoposphere which is a cooling effect. So the most pecise estimate using IPCC data should be less than .058 degrees C which is a trivial number.

      • Lapse rate feedback is a widely acknowledged negative feedback mechanism, which attenuates warming. In fact it seems to be the only negative feedback which some climate alarmists have ever heard of.

        However, it’s not plausible that it could be strong enough to reduce a warming effect by 95%. Such a huge attenuation would require an extraordinarily powerful feedback mechanism.

      • However, it’s not plausible that it could be strong enough to reduce a warming effect by 95%. Such a huge attenuation would require an extraordinarily powerful feedback mechanism.

        Water is the working fluid in steam engines, and it operates across 1 if not both state changes daily in the atm.
        What’s the differences in troposphere height on a clear day between night and day?

        The atm works as a heat engine, cools the surface during the day, and regulates cooling late at night.
        And because it’s nonlinear, it cools fastest in the early evening, and then when air temps near dew points, either energy from condensing water augments surface temps, or the water now becomes optically active in ir, but whichever the case, it alters the normal exponential decay by a large amount. This example looks about 18F


        There a nearly 98% correlation between min temp and dew point

        https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL019137/pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi-3-bPqpHUAhVHw4MKHfy9B8sQFggiMAE&usg=AFQjCNF8lW-CCS7EPxfpANvf5ZKO1PcNfQ

        https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/observational-evidence-for-a-nonlinear-night-time-cooling-mechanism/

      • Doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will change the heat capacity of the atmosphere to in turn increase the dry lapse rate just enough to almost cancel out the 1.2 degrees C at the Earth’s surface. The lapse rate that is involved extends for the entire depth of the troposphere.

      • The dry air lapse rate is 9.8 C\km. Which some will recognize as the acceleration due to gravity. CO2 would need to change the force of gravity to change this.

        CO2 can change the speed of convection, but it cannot change the DALR.

      • No! The lapse rate is both a function of gravity and the heat capacity of the atmosphere. That is why the wet lapse rate is less than the dry lapse rate.

      • Willhaas,

        I doubt that a change from 280 ppmv to 560 ppmv CO2 will change the heat capacity of the atmosphere to such extent that it compensates for the absorption of the extra energy.

        Specific heat atmosphere: ~1.0 kJ/kg.K
        Specific heat CO2: ~0.8 kJ/kg.K (at 280 K)

        An increase of 280 to 560 ppmv decreases the heat capacity of the atmosphere with ~0.02%

        Not of any measurable influence on the lapse rate, compared to water vapor that can range between 0-4% of the atmosphere…

      • It is significant because it operates over the entire depth of the troposphere and we are only talking 1.2 degrees C here.

      • Thanks for the smile, ferdberple. But you really ought to include a {/sarc} on such comments, lest you confuse someone.

        micro6500, it is certainly true that the water cycle has a powerful influence on temperatures, but we were talking about the feedback effect on average temperature of the change in lapse rate due to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

        CO2 does affect the water cycle, in several ways: warmer temperatures should accelerate the water cycle by increasing the rate of evaporation, and the fertilization effect of higher CO2 levels increases vegetation growth which affects transpiration which affects humidity, and higher CO2 levels also reduce plants’ use of water and thus reduce transpiration. But the water cycle acceleration due to warming can’t possibly be a strong enough feedback to reduce the warming effect by 95% (electrical engineers will recognize that that would require 20x amplification in the negative feedback loop), and it also seems unlikely that the biological effects could be that large.

        Willhaas, differences in the lapse rate with differing atmospheric conditions are not due to changes in the heat capacity of the atmosphere. As Ferdinand Engelbeen pointed out, CO2 levels have a negligible effect on the heat capacity of the atmosphere. H2O vapor levels likewise have only a very slight effect on the heat capacity of the atmosphere, yet the moist lapse rate is dramatically lower than the dry lapse rate, which indicates that it’s not atmospheric heat capacity that causes the lapse rate difference.

        The lapse rate is complex, but it is affected by evaporation-condensation, convection, and radiative heat transfer in the atmosphere, which is why GHG levels and especially humidity both affect the lapse rate.
        https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/climate/lapserates.html

        Higher GHG levels are expected to reduce the tropospheric lapse rate slightly, which should decrease surface temperatures relative to temperatures in the upper troposphere.
        http://www.sealevel.info/feedbacks.html#lapserate

      • @Dave B,
        That’s what they say will happen, all we got was Min T following dew point temp at just under 98% correlation, with dew points following ocean cycles.

  7. Other than having my doubts about water vapor being positive……clouds and all

    Spot on Rud…

    What kills the whole deal…..there has never been run away tipping point global warming no matter what happened…
    ….there have been ice ages though..
    We are lucky enough to be living in the best climate this planet has had..
    …and these asswipes are trying their best to ruin/use it

    In a sane world we would realize the danger of ice ages….and just how fast we go into one…that’s the tipping point….and it’s in the other direction

    • … there has never been run away tipping point global warming …

      Dr. Michael Mann had to bravely step in to erase the Medieval Warm Period to preserve the possibility of a tipping point. Otherwise people would just say, it was warmer then and there was no tipping point. The guy really deserves the Nobel Prize.

      • In 1981, NASA’s James Hansen showed a Medieval Warm Period on his chart:

        Now he claims it didn’t exist. Rather contraditory wouldn’t you say.

      • TA, the graphic doesn’t seem to have continuous data after 1970, with a broken line therafter.

        Seriously, you need a better picture.

        And we all know today is 2017, which doesn’t seem to be on that graphic.

      • PS TA, the title of that graph is “Climate Sensitivity” ….. How does climate sensitivity change between now and the MWP?

      • Luis Anastasia July 7, 2017 at 8:48 pm

        TA, the graphic doesn’t seem to have continuous data after 1970, …….. with a broken line therafter.

        Luis, are you just “funnin” …… or do you really have a serious vision problem … or is your poor eyesight coupled with your lack of logical reasoning and or association thus the cause of your “illogical” observations?

        Luis, please take note.

        The James Hansen et el graph that TA cited only depicts the GHG gasses during the time period from 900 AD to about 1945 AD, ….. so, of course it doesn’t depict “continuous (GHG) data after 1970 AD”.

        Hells bells, Luis, it doesn’t depict any continuous (GHG) data after 1945 AD.

        And Luis, look again, ……. like I told you, there is no plotted GHG data on that graph, … post 1945, and for sure there is NO “ broken data line thereafter”, …… be thereafter 1945 or your assumed 1970.

        “DUH”, that “tick mark” on the right side of the graph signifies the “0” (zero) gridline, the same as a similar one does on the left side of the graph.

      • The pattern in Luis’s comments is very clear…he is here to waste time and obfuscate.

      • Actually, Samuel, until you pointed out that it is the right-axis zero-tick-mark, like Luis Anastasia I thought that the tick-mark was part of Hansen’s graph, and like Luis I wondered about the apparent gap. I guess it’s attributable to my poor eyesight coupled with my lack of logical reasoning.

        I wondered about the source of the graph, so I cropped the image and searched with TinEye, which led me to this article by Tony Heller:
        https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2016/01/14/hansen-confirmed-the-mwp-in-1981/

        Tony’s article was based on “chapter 2” of a 1984 book on climate change, which used to be on the EPA web site in PDF format, but has since been removed. I tracked down almost all of it, and put it on my web site, here:
        http://www.sealevel.info/resources.html#oldepa

    • @Latitude, The Great Extinctions in the geologic record could be evidence of climatic tipping points. But perhaps there is greater evidence for too little CO2 as an extinction point than too much CO2.
      Snowball Earth (Pre-Cambrian) Low CO2
      Ordovician–Silurian Extinction: Low CO2

      Around 439 million years ago, 86% of life on Earth was wiped out. …. Some theories suggest that the Earth was covered in such a vast quantity of plants that they removed too much carbon dioxide from the air which drastically reduced the temperature. …

      Late Devonian Extinction: Low O2 ?

      Estimates propose that around 75% of species were lost around 364 million years ago. …Giant land plants are thought to be responsible as their deep roots released nutrients into the oceans. The nutrient rich waters resulted in mass amounts of algal blooms which depleted the seas of oxygen and therefore, animal life. ….

      Permian–Triassic extinction: Rising CO2 from Volcanism?

      This mass extinction, which occurred 251 million years ago, is considered the worst in all history because around 96% of species were lost. … was caused by an enormous volcanic eruption that filled the air with carbon dioxide which fed different kinds of bacteria that began emitting large amounts of methane. The Earth warmed, and the oceans became acidic…

      Triassic–Jurassic extinction (complicated):
      Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction: asteroid impact and increased volcanism.
      Pliocene and Pleistocene ice ages – low CO2.

      source for the blockquotes: http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-timeline-of-the-mass-extinction-events-on-earth.html

      • Triassic-Jurassic extinction is also associated with volcanic activity, ie the CAMP, as Pangaea started to split up. But in both the end Permian and end Triassic extinctions, a lot was going on besides more CO2 from volcanism.

      • Stephen,

        Pangaea was fully formed by the Permian, indeed in the Carboniferous, although there were changes around its edges thereafter. It began to break apart at the Triassic-Jurassic boundary, with the rifting which opened up the Central Atlantic between African and Europe on one hand and the Americas on the other.

      • Gabro, I was thinking of the loss of the littoral environments in the Permian as Pangea consolidated. Maybe consolidated isn’t the correct term, but inland seas were lost from Late Carb to Late Permian
        Late Carb:

        Late Permian:

        From the Scotese Paleomap project

      • Association (atmospheric CO2) …..does not prove causation (mass extinctions).

        CO2 quantities in the near-earth atmosphere ……. are kinda like “smoke” in the near-earth atmosphere as a result of burning biomass.

        The CO2 and the “smoke” are not the cause of naturally occurring destructive “incidents”, they are the byproduct or result of said “incidents”.

      • @S C Coger: The discussion of the geologic record was to examine if there is evidence of “tipping points” or points of positive feedback resulting in … catastrophe, to pick a word, associated with changes in atmospheric gas concentrations. Causality is not as important an issue as is participation in the feedback system.

        To the point of positive feedback associated with CO2 concentration changes, the Pleistocene ice ages may be a case in point. Does CO2 cause the ice ages? Does it end the ice ages? Even if you believe that CO2 concentration changes FOLLOW the change in temperature by about 800 years, so that it is not a causal agent, it could very well participate in positive feedback. Whatever starts a cold snap, CO2 is dissolved into the colder ocean, making it colder still, further causing more CO2 to be dissolved into the ocean. The positive feedback continues until something breaks the cycle… such as massive die off of the biosphere, or spike in atmospheric CH4 from lower sea level and lesser overburden on ocean methane hydrates, to name two possibilities.

      • Stephen Rasey July 8, 2017 at 5:21 pm

        CO2 is dissolved into the colder ocean, making it colder still, further causing more CO2 to be dissolved into the ocean.

        Stephen, me thinks the Keeling Curve Graph and/or the Mauna Loa CO2 Record absolutely positively DISPROVES your above stated claim,

        The seasonal temperature of the ocean waters in the Southern Hemisphere are directly responsible for the bi-yearly cycling of atmospheric CO2 as denoted on the KC graph.

      • @S C Coger: Isn’t the yearly variation of the Mauna Loa CO2 Record more a product of Northern Hemisphere land based plant growth (spring-summer) and decay (fall-winter)? Land Biomass of the Northern Hemisphere biomass swamps that of the Southern Hemisphere.

        The long term increase in CO2 would be consistent with warming of all ocean waters, but is probably more attributable to fossil fuel combustion.

      • Stephen Rasey July 9, 2017 at 10:41 am

        @S C Coger: Isn’t the yearly variation of the Mauna Loa CO2 Record more a product of Northern Hemisphere land based plant growth (spring-summer) and decay (fall-winter)?

        Stephen Rasey, …….. NO IT IS NOT.

        The above claim about CO2 emissions/absorptions in the Northern Hemisphere is 100% BOGUS simply because what they are claiming is a biological impossibility.

        Steven, just ask yourself, ……… “Why in hell would anyone want to pay good money to purchase and own a refrigerator- freezer?”

        And please don’t respond by saying …….. “to keep their beer cold and to make ice cubes for their mixed drinks”.

        Steven, “YES”, the warm to hot air temperatures of the Northern Hemisphere spring-summer is the time of plant growth and the absorption of great quantities of atmospheric CO2.

        And Stephen, those same warm to hot air temperatures of the Northern Hemisphere spring-summer is ALSO the time of microbial DECAY of dead biomass and thus the emission of great quantities of CO2 into atmospheric.

        In fact, the springtime outgassing of CO2 as a result of microbial decay …… actually begins 10 days to 2 weeks+ ……. prior to the ingassing of atmospheric CO2 as a result of plant growth (greening).

        There is very little to no microbial decay of the dead biomass in the cool-cold-freezing temperatures of the Northern Hemisphere’s fall-winter season ……. for the very same reason that there is very little to no microbial decay of the dead biomass in the cool-cold-freezing temperatures of your refrigerator-freezer.

        And Steven, …… the USDA and most every Public Health Agency around the world AGREES WITH ME, to it:

        United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety

        Refrigeration slows bacterial growth. They are in the soil, air, water, and the foods we eat. When they have nutrients (food), moisture, and favorable temperatures, they grow rapidly, ….. Bacteria grow most rapidly in the range of temperatures between 40 and 140 °F, the “Danger Zone,” …..

        A refrigerator set at 40 °F or below will protect most foods.
        http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/934c2c81-2a3d-4d59-b6ce-c238fdd45582/Refrigeration_and_Food_Safety.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

      • Cogar, you are dead wrong. What you fail to realize, is that when the Norther Hemisphere air temperatures drop below freezing, it takes many many weeks for the frost line to drop in the soil. It’s the reason after the first light snow we get, the compost pile I have melts the snow that falls on it. Did you know that small animals burrow into the ground and hibernate there? They do it because the cold doesn’t penetrate the soil all that fast.
        ..
        Maybe you should take a trip to a farm, oh, say in late November or early December, and find the pie of cow/horse manure. Look at it in the early morning, and you might see the white fog of water vapor coming off of it. You could even put a thermometer into the manure to see how much warmer it is than the ambient air temperature. The point Cogar is that biological decomposition generates HEAT.

      • Michael darby July 10, 2017 at 6:55 am

        Cogar, you are dead wrong.

        Michael darby, …….. me no thinks you are sufficiently educated in the Biological and Physical Sciences of the natural world you live in/on to make such a determination about my expertise, knowledge, understanding and/or real life experiences that I have acquired during the past 70+ years of my tenure hereon said earth.

        And Michael darby posts more “tripe n’ piffle” of little to no importance.

        What you fail to realize, is that when the Norther Hemisphere air temperatures drop below freezing, it takes many many weeks for the frost line to drop in the soil.

        Michael, the “frost line” really doesn’t have a damn thing to do with the microbial decomposition of the dead biomass that is lying on top of the soil as a result of the per se “death” of the green growing biomass of spring and summer.

        Late summer and early fall are warm but extremely dry, whereas late fall and winter are wet and extremely cool or cold. Microbial decay of dead biomass does not occur if said biomass is dry, nor does it occur if the temperature is cool to cold/freezing. Thus, the dead biomass of the past spring-summer growth will lie on top of the soil for most all of the fall and winter and will not begin to “rot away” until the warm temperatures and moisture return in the springtime. And then, …… and only then, ….. does said “rotting” biomass become part of the soil, …… but by the time it becomes part of the soil, 70% to 80% of its sequestered CO2 has already been outgassed into the atmosphere.

        And Michael darby still trying to prove how intelligent he isn’t ……

        Maybe you should take a trip to a farm, oh, say in late November or early December, and find the yada, yada, yada

        Don’t be talking “trash”, Michael, ……. I owned and lived on a 240 acre farm in upstate New York, Herkimer County, for nigh onto 18 years, from the late 60’s to the early 80’s. I was a per se “gentlemen farmer” who raised beef cattle, primarily for a “tax break” because my normal working income was extremely high for that time period.

        Samuel C, …… AB Degrees in Biological and Physical Science, GSC 63’, ……. computer logician, designer, programmer ………. and “been there and done that farmer thingy”.

      • From Scripps: About seasonal CO2 fluctuations in the Keeling Curve:

        These latitudinal differences in [CO2] fluctuation are the result of photosynthetic activity by plants. As plants begin to photosynthesize in the spring and summer, they consume CO2 from the atmosphere and eventually use it as a carbon source for growth and reproduction. This causes the decrease in CO2 levels that begins every year in May. Once winter arrives, plants save energy by decreasing photosynthesis. Without photosynthesis, the dominant process is the exhalation of CO2 by the total ecosystem, including bacteria, plants, and animals.

        https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/05/07/why-are-seasonal-co2-fluctuations-strongest-in-northern-latitudes/

      • @ Stephen Rasey July 10, 2017 at 3:13 pm

        I am absolutely positive that you can find several hundred or thousand Internet references that cite the same or similar “junk science” as does your following Scripps quote, to wit:

        These latitudinal differences in [CO2] fluctuation are the result of photosynthetic activity by plants. As plants begin to photosynthesize in the spring and summer, they consume CO2 from the atmosphere and eventually use it as a carbon source for growth and reproduction. This causes the decrease in CO2 levels that begins every year in May. Once winter arrives, plants save energy by decreasing photosynthesis. Without photosynthesis, the dominant process is the exhalation of CO2 by the total ecosystem, including bacteria, plants, and animals.

        Stephen, the title of your above cited article is, ……. “Why are Seasonal CO2 Fluctuations Strongest at Northern Latitudes?

        And the simple answer is, the “benchmark” or “standard” accepted value for the daily, weekly, monthly and/or yearly average atmospheric CO2 ppm quantity is determined by the measurements recorded at the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, which is located at 19.5364° N latitude in the western Pacific, and at 11,135 feet (3,394 m) elevation.

        So, “YES”, relative to the Mauna Loa CO2 ppm, ……. the seasonal CO2 fluctuations are the strongest at Northern Latitudes simply because, …… at no other place in the Northern Hemisphere are CO2 measurements being recorded, measured or tested at elevations that are even close to being at 11,135 feet elevation. If one is measuring atmospheric CO2 ppm at less than 2,000 feet elevation …… there is no way in hell to determine the actual, factual CO2 ppm quantity. It is not only because of the “noise”, but also because the CO2 “quantities” are changing so quickly.

        Stephen, your above mimicry does not comport with the biology of the seasonal changes in the Northern Hemisphere.

        The “greening” of the vegetation in the NH begins in mid to late January in the southern latitudes when the amount of daily Sunlight and the average daily surface temperatures begin increasing ….. and progresses slowly northward to mid-June in the far northern latitudes.

        Thus, as the increase in the “greening” of the vegetation progresses slowly northward there is also an accompanying increase in the absorption of atmospheric CO2 which is required for said “greening” photosynthesis. But, even though said increase in “greening” and said increase in “CO2 absorption” began in late January and progressed slowly northward, …… the decrease in atmospheric CO2 did not actually begin until mid-May, …. which is like 3 ½ months after the “greening” started.

        And, even though there is a 3 ½ months delay between the aforesaid “start” cycles …. the novices and the miseducated have been nurtured to believe that the aforesaid increased “greening” is the direct cause of the aforesaid decreased CO2. But, there is a problem with that nurtured belief.

        Said “greening” of the vegetation in the far northern latitudes begins decreasing and/or terminates by late July …..and quickly progresses southward toward the southern latitudes and has pretty much terminated by late August or first of September ….. whereas the atmospheric CO2 continues its decline until after September 23rd … and oftentimes to early October, …. which is like 1 month after the “greening” stopped.

        But the really big problem with the aforesaid “nurtured belief” is the fact that the Springtime increase in average daily surface temperatures, ….. as they progress slowly northward to the far northern latitudes to cause said increase in “greening”, ….. they also “trigger” an horrendous increase in the biological rotting and/or decomposition of dead biomass which causes the emission of copious amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere …. which are probably close to being equal to what the “greening” is absorbing from the atmosphere.

        And Steven, the bi-yearly cycling of atmospheric CO2, as defined by the Keeling Curve Graph, has been “steady and consistent as clockwork for the past 60 years, and for sure the 60 years prior to 1958, …….. and there is nothing, and I mean nothing, in the natural world that functions on a “bi-yearly cycle” …… other than the changing of the equinoxes (September 23rd – March 21st), …….. the switch from winter to summer season in the respective Hemisphere. To wit, take a good look at it:

        And when the atmospheric CO2 starts decreasing at the start of the warm to hot Northern Hemisphere summer, ……. it is because of the fact that the cool, cold/freezing Southern Hemisphere winter has begun and the ocean waters in the SH become extremely cold and thus starts ingassing copious amounts of atmospheric CO2 …. plus the exacerbation of winter storms and rainfall also strips the CO2 out of the atmosphere and deposits it in the ocean water.

      • ” I owned and lived on a 240 acre farm in upstate New York”

        Great… now tell me…..did the pile of manure stay warm enough to melt the first snow that fell on it? Was the pile of manure the first thing to become exposed when the snow cover melted.

        Tell us the truth.

      • PS Cogar, “Late summer and early fall are warm but extremely dry” is not true across the entire Northern Hemisphere.

      • Great… now tell me…..did the pile of manure stay warm enough to melt the first snow that fell on it? Was the pile of manure the first thing to become exposed when the snow cover melted.

        Tell us the truth.

        Now Michael darby, I don’t have a clue where you live, whether its in the NH or SH, …… but I swear to Gawd on a stack of Bibles ……. that I have never seen or heard of a place in either hemisphere where the green-growing biomass produces such huge stacks or piles of manure at the end of the “growing season” in late summer or early fall. What is the species name of that prolific defecator that created that huge mound that you pictured above,?

        And ps, Michael darby, …….. no matter how hard I tried during my 15+- years of raising beef cattle, …… I never could get them “potty” trained to go to a designated place in the pasture to take a schidt whenever they got the urge ……. so that it was all in one big pile and thus really easy to put in the spreader.

        PS Cogar, “Late summer and early fall are warm but extremely dry” is not true across the entire Northern Hemisphere.

        And what percentage of the Northern Hemisphere where the green-growing biomass turns brown and dies ………… is late summer and early fall NOT warm nor extremely dry?

        https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/site/site.php?code=NWR

        Niwot Ridge, Colorado, United States [NWR] ##Elevation: 3523.00 masl

        GMD’s mission involves answering key scientific questions in three areas of research — Climate Forcing, Ozone Depletion, and Air Quality.

        https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/data/index.php?site=nwr

        Use this web page to find specific data files available from the public ftp file archive of the ESRL Global Monitoring Division.

        It’s a terrible shame and a tragic loss when the young folks get totally engrossed and committed to their “blue sky” Religious beliefs.

      • @ S C Coger: What’s this junk about “bi-annual cycle”
        It is an annual cycle with a long term trend.

        Local minimum in Oct-Nov (end of NH growing season) local maximum in April-May (start of greening in NH high latitudes, deep spring in the temperate zones). “Local” meaning in the analytic, temporal sense, not geographic.

        The chart you show is from Scripps. I’ll take Scripps’ explanation for the cause of the yearly CO2 fluctuations over yours.

      • Stephen Rasey July 12, 2017 at 10:36 pm

        @ S C Coger: What’s this junk about “bi-annual cycle”

        Stephen, are you just funning me or are you really that ignorant?

        bi·an·nu·al (adjective) – occurring twice a year.

        It is an annual cycle with a long term trend.

        Stephen, getta clue, …… individual seasons (spring, summer, fall or winter) occur on an annual cycle …… but increases/decreases in atmospheric CO2 ppm do not occur on an annual (1 time or once/year) cycle.

        Local minimum in Oct-Nov (end of NH growing season) ……

        “WRONG”, Steven, the growing season in the NH terminates in late August to early September PRIMARILY because of “phototropism” whereby the green growing plants detect a DECREASE in daylight hours …….. and thus the yearly minimum in atmospheric CO2 ppm, as measured at Mauna Loa, ALWAYS (98% of the time) occurs after the Autumnal equinox on Sept 23rd and prior to Oct 4th..

        Stephen, iffen you are not too damn lazy to educate yourself, here is NOAA’s complete monthly Mauna Loa record from 1958 to present, which you can check out for yourself, to wit:

        ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt

        ……. local maximum in April-May (start of greening in NH high latitudes, deep spring in the temperate zones). “Local” meaning in the analytic, temporal sense, not geographic. ……

        Stephen, from your above stated piffle it appears you are really trying your damnest to “blow smoke” up my aboral posterior without me being the wiser. Well now, you can forget that silly act of displaying

        ……The chart you show is from Scripps. I’ll take Scripps’ explanation for the cause of the yearly CO2 fluctuations over yours.

        Sorry bout that, Stephen, but me positive that was Michael darby’s cited chart.

        And of course you will claim that you favor “the Scripps’ explanation” rather than my actual, factual biological explanation …….. simply because your “emotional mindset” forces you to accept said, otherwise the approval of your peers would become lower than the bottom of the cesspool and you would immediately be shunned, criticized and badmouthed by all of your EX-likeminded friends. You would instantly become a CAGW Religious outcast.

        Like all “group Religions”, …….. CAGW is also based in/on “fear and ignorance”.

    • Looking at all the various ice core measurements interglacials begin with a rapid(~1000 years +/-)temperature rise. The peak warmth may maintain for a bit, but after a short period the temperature begins to fall, abrupt ups and downs, until it drops back anywhere from 9-15degC down to -9. The whole cycle, trough to trough, is roughly 110-130,000 years with peak interglacial temperatures lasting only a few thousands of years.
      Fortunately we’re roughly 1/2-2/3 the way through our current blissful temperatures.

    • I am sure water vapour is positive feedback, so long as it stays water vapour. The problem is that you cannot have more than a certain amount in a given body of air, and therefore there is a limit on the amount of feedback you can get. Worse, if you have too much, it turns into water or ice, with a very very high albedo, and the feedback suddenly goes negative in a massively non linear way. At least by day.

      • And since water vapor reduces the density of a parcel of air, it will tend to rise and eventually HAS to condense. Therefore there’s a definite maximum limit to how much positive feedback can occur. Now that depends of the local geography, but I’m pretty sure the climate models don’t properly model convection and cloud formation. See Willis E’s articles here for convincing (to me at least) examples of how this will work out.

    • daveburton July 8, 2017 at 9:59 pm

      like Luis Anastasia I thought that the tick-mark was part of Hansen’s graph, and like Luis I wondered about the apparent gap. I guess it’s attributable to my poor eyesight coupled with my lack of logical reasoning.

      Daveburton, …….. I don’t think so.

      Dave, you made that “classic” mistake, ……… or unforgivable “sin” in some circles, ……. and let Luis Anastasia silly accusation …….. influence your “thought processes” without first questioning why in hell Hansen would publish a graph with a serious mistake like that.

      Dave, “rule-of-thumb” is, ……… always ask yourself, …… “Now why did he/she say that …… and is there any basis of fact associated with it?”

      Cheers, Sam C, ….. the ole computer designing dinosaur and logician extraordinaire.

      And Dave, when trying to resolve problems, the 2nd “rule-of-thumb” is, ……… always ask as many questions that you expect a “No” answer to …… as the number of questions that you expect a “Yes” answer to.

  8. I nominate another observation to the list:
    Much, if not most ( Greater than 50%), of the warming detected by official temperature records is attributable to adjustments to the raw data. Adjustments are subjective measures, not objective. Adjustments of any kind add error to the final result. Most commonly adjustments add systematic error, not random error, and therefore the “law of large numbers” does not alleviate the increase in uncertainty. These additional sources of error, and the corresponding decrease in confidence of conclusions, are discussed or examined far less frequently than the mean or central value.

  9. As the evidence changes and grows, the alarmists have to change their tune.

    Calculations of climate sensitivity are decreasing over time. link That means the alarmists need a new measure equilibrium climate sensitivity.

    When they get into trouble, they just move the goal posts or change the data. Some of their stuff reeks of desperation. link

    One thing to remember is that liberals are happy with hypotheticals and prefer that to reality. Conservatives prefer reality. It makes it hard to have a conversation.

  10. If the proxies for temperature and CO2 levels are anywhere near being right, the notion of a tipping point is quite unlikely, to put a total waffle on it. If several thousand PPM of CO2 did not result in runaway temperatures then, it requires quite a lot of creative modeling to envision it in the near future.
    Good summary post, Ristvan.

  11. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas (GHG), and doubling its atmospheric concentration would by itself cause temperatures to rise between 1.1C and 1.2C” falsified by “the 18+ year UAH and RSS ‘pause’.”

    • falsified by “the 18+ year UAH and RSS ‘pause’.”

      Not necessarily. Other factors like decreasing solar forcing or internal variability could have compensated CO2 warming producing the pause.

      • Then why didn’t earth warm from 1945 to 1977, when CO2 took off after WWII? Instead, it cooled dramatically, much more than it warmed during 1978 to c. 2010. There is simply no correlation between CO2 and air temperature, so why imagine a human effect from the GHE?

        There is evidence of an effect from natural oceanic oscillations, like the PDO, which flipped in 1977. From CO2, not so much. As in, not at all.

      • Berkley Earth, Paid operatives of the social globalist agenda

        Perhaps Mosh or Zeke would like to tell us which branch of the Soros empire is “anonymous”.

        Love that last entry, btw.

      • Javier is right:

        As the data show, there is probably a natural cycle with a “wavelength” of 60-80 years. Such cycles may be ocean driven (PDO. NAO,…) as good as shorter cycles (ENSO) and longer cycles (D.O.-events, MWP-LIA-current)…

        One can’t conclude from a “pause” that there is zero influence of CO2 on temperature, only that the influence is weak and that natural cycles overwhelm the CO2 influence…

      • One can’t conclude from a “pause” that there is zero influence of CO2 on temperature

        Exactly. It is always very important to distinguish what can or can’t be concluded from evidence.

        We discuss very often how similar are the periods of warming 1915-1945 and 1975-2000, but we almost never discuss how disimilar are the periods of non-warming 1885-1915, 1945-1975 and 2000-now. The first one was a very important cooling, the second one was a quite noticeable cooling, while the third is not having any apreciable cooling. Is CO2 partially responsible for that? It is a clear possibility. I almost never read about it, but the earth is just not cooling as it used to within this post-LIA warming. Other explanations are possible, but we cannot rule out some effect from CO2.

      • Windchasers July 7, 2017 at 8:23 pm

        There is simply no correlation between CO2 and air temperature, so why imagine a human effect from the GHE?

        The Berkeley Earth study shows quite the opposite.

        Windchasers, for you to support that Berkeley Earth study ….. then best you try your damnest to DISPROVE the proxy data that is plotted on this factually accurate graph, to wit:

      • @ Javier July 8, 2017 at 3:43 am

        The first one was a very important cooling, the second one was a quite noticeable cooling, while the third is not having any apreciable cooling. Is CO2 partially responsible for that? It is a clear possibility.

        And I guess I should be asking, ………
        Is the Flying Spaghetti Monster partially responsible for that cooling? It is a clear possibility ….. given the fact that no one has an actual clue as to what actually caused it.

      • If you go to the last footnote (25) to essay When Data Isn’t, you will find two separate very basic reasons BEST is not creditworthy (regional expectations and Menne stitching). Station 166900 is noteworthy. There is a third reason, shown by the BEST automated data ingestion problem of pristine research station Rutherglen, Australia, not in the footnote but posted later, separately, at Climate Etc. When you automate a mess, you get a rapidly calculated mess, not ‘truth’.

  12. While the water vapor feedback is positive, it is just one part of the water cycle. The net feedback from the water cycle may well be negative. Models have been notoriously poor at reproducing the increase in precipitation seen in the observations. A good starting point is Wentz 2007 article in Science:

    “There is a pronounced difference between the precipitation time series from the climate models and that from the satellite observations. The amplitude of the interannual variability, the response to the El Ninos, and the decadal trends are all smaller by a factor of 2 to 3 in the climate model results, as compared with the observations.”

    Follow the trails of articles citing it and you find results like this which independently confirm it with salinity data, showing that the models were under representing the freshening of the oceans due to continental runoff. I wonder if it is still a factor of two or three?

    “This rate is double the response projected by current-generation climate models and suggests that a substantial (16 to 24%) intensification of the global water cycle will occur in a future 2° to 3° warmer world.”

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6080/455.abstract
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5835/233

    We don’t know yet if the net feedback to CO2 forcing is positive or negative, much less the high positive feedback implemented in most models.

    • Martin Lewitt – Thanks for picking that up. Saves me doing it. Water vapour feedback might indeed not be positive.

  13. There have been 2 near identical 30 year warmings. 1910-1940 and 1970-2000. No one knows what caused the first one. No one. So what person in their right mind would conclude we know what caused the second one?

    Over and over people argue about CO2, but any Greek from 2500 years ago knew the solution to this logical argument. Yet it baffles the greatest minds of our time.

    • Also 1850 to 1880, to kick off the Current Warming Period, after the end of the LIA. There were also countertrend warming cycles during the secular cooling of the LIA, such as the early 18th century warming, coming out of the depths of the LIA during the Maunder Minimum. That warming cycle was stronger even than the early and late 20th century warmings.

      • Who decided when we recovered from the LIA?….first you have to know what the normal temp would be
        …no one knows that

      • Opinions differ as to the end of the LIA, but it was sometime in the middle or late 19th century. The Current Warm Period is definitely a WP like the Medieval, Roman and Minoan, just not as warm. It has yet to equal the Medieval, let alone previous centennial to millennial scale warm intervals of the Holocene.

      • “The Current Warm Period is definitely a WP like the Medieval, Roman and Minoan, just not as warm.”
        .
        Radiocarbon dating of organic matter uncovered at the terminus of melting glaciers proves you wrong.
        .
        If it was warmer back then, the dating would show it.

      • Luis,

        No it doesn’t. Please provide some actual evidence as to radiometric data from beneath retreating glaciers which you imagine makes your point.

        Radioisotopes from Antarctic soil show that earth quit warming over 3000 years ago.

      • Luis,

        OMG! Here we go again. I get very tired of having repeatedly to explain glacial advance and retreat to non-geologists.

        In fact, glacial advance and retreat globally show the fact of warm periods at about 1000 year intervals. There are of course regional differences, and many glaciers now are advancing rather than retreating, since air temperature is far from the only important factor.

        But globally the picture which emerges is that glaciers were higher in the Minoan WP, a bit lower in the Roman WP, a bit lower still in the Medieval WP and so far lower still today. Naturally there are local differences, such as the North American glaciers you cite. But other glaciers in North America and elsewhere in the world are advancing. Most however show trees and soil radioisotopes from the well recognized warm periods at roughly millennial intervals.

      • Luis,

        Your Yellowstone link makes my point. The remains occur at about 1000 year intervals, same as in the Alps. The formerly hidden passes in the Alps reveal artifacts from the Medieval period, the Roman period and Minoan period, but none in between. Oetzi himself is from the end of the Holocene Climatic Optimum.

        Thanks for saving me the trouble of posting links to this phenomenon observed all over the world.

      • LInk number 1: “They’ve carbon-dated leaves and tree stumps that are more than 5,000 years old. ”
        ..
        Link number 2: “pioneer predators eat locally produced midges containing 21,000 years old ancient carbon released by the melting glacier.”
        ..
        Link number 3: “the 5,000-year-old body of Ötzi the Iceman”
        ..
        So, tell me, if it was warmer during the MWP, why didn’t this stuff melt out back then?

      • Perhaps mountain glaciers are affected by things, like precipitation balance, other than strictly local temperature.

      • Luis,

        Every line of evidence shows that it was warmer in the Medieval, Roman and Minoan WPs than now, and even more so during the Holocene Climatic Optimum.

        Oetzi’s glacier carried him down slope. As I’ve already pointed out, Alpine glaciers show that there were retreats precisely during those warm periods and advances during the intervening cool periods. Glaciers are affected by many factors besides air temperature, so the picture they present isn’t as clear cut as say, sea level.

        Everywhere in the world, sea level was higher than now during the Medieval, Roman, Minoan and Egyptian Warm Periods, and even more so during the Holocene Climatic Optimum.

        The same picture emerges from every other possible paleoclimatic proxy, whether caves, lake or ocean sediments, ice cores or insects. You name it.

      • Gabro says: “we have written records for the past ~5000 years.”

        Great!!!!

        Can you provide me with a link to the temperature data that they wrote about for the past 5000 years?

      • Gabro says: ” Oetzi’s glacier carried him down slope”

        Carbon dating doesn’t lie.

      • Luis,

        The scale on your link is meters. CACA crazoids get all worked up over millimeters. Minoan, Roman and Medieval ports and seacoast forts are now high and dry.

        No one questions Oetzi’s age. What is relevant is that he melted out because the glacier in which his remains were locked moved downhill.

      • No Garo, if the MWP was warmer than today, Oritz should have melted out back then. Besides, you haven’t addressed the tree stumps.

      • Gabro: ” CACA crazoids ????? ”

        Looks like your name calling indicates you are losing the argument.

      • Gabro says: “Minoan, Roman and Medieval ports and seacoast forts are now high and dry.”

        Citation for your baseless assertion?

      • @ Luis Anastasia July 7, 2017 at 7:53 pm

        Please understand although your meaningless global temperature may vary, weather and climate effects are regional and local. Local and regional temperatures are the *only* parameter worthy of investigation when looking for climate effect.
        Global temperature could in some areas tell you somewhere between bugger all to f**k all about the local climate and it’s absolute variations. Pick any two regions (e.g. Europe and China) on the planet that have been studied and look at the record.

      • tom0mason says: “Local and regional temperatures are the *only* parameter worthy of investigation when looking for climate effect.”

        I disagree.

        Rainfall is worthy of investigation.
        ..
        So are wind speed/direction
        ..
        And cloud cover.
        ..
        All meteorological parameters are part of climate.

      • Study on Mt Baker glaciers shows a close pattern correlation with the AMO.

        As do Swiss glaciers.

      • @Luis Anastasia,
        You make me smile, laugh even.
        “tom0mason says: “Local and regional temperatures are the *only* parameter worthy of investigation when looking for climate effect.”

        And I disagree with you.

        Still have fun trying to find meaning in whatever ‘global’ result you find.
        Meanwhile back at the glacier…

      • Radiocarbon dating of organic matter uncovered at the terminus of melting glaciers proves you wrong.
        .
        If it was warmer back then, the dating would show it.

        GETTA CLUE, ……. Luis Anastasia, ….. if it was warmer back then, then those melting glaciers that they are recovering organic matter from their current terminus …….. all have a hell of a lot of melting to do before their terminus is equivalent to what it was at the height of the Medieval, Roman and/or Minoan Warm Periods.

      • Cogar, the 5000 year old tree stump shows that the current melt is much more sever than the MWP. If the glacier advanced after the MWP, the tree stump would data 800 years old.

        Pretty good clue I’d say.

      • Luis Anastasia July 8, 2017 at 12:44 pm

        Cogar, the 5000 year old tree stump shows that the current melt is much more sever than the MWP. If the glacier advanced after the MWP, the tree stump would data 800 years old.

        5000, 7000 years, ……. no big deal because those proxy temperatures are little more than “best guesses” and are for “reference only”, ……… not actual scientific fact.

        Luis, from your cited link:

        Melting glaciers in Western Canada are revealing tree stumps up to 7,000 years old where the region’s rivers of ice have retreated to a historic minimum, a geologist said today.

        The radiocarbon dates seem to be the same around the world, according to Koch. There have been many advances and retreats of these glaciers over the past 7,000 years, but no retreats that have pushed them back so far upstream as to expose these trees.
        https://www.livescience.com/4702-melting-glacier-reveals-ancient-tree-stumps.html

        Luis, it is apparent that you and the author of the study denoted in the above Livescience article have never seen or heard of ……. this multiple proxy graph of Holocene Temperature Variations, to wit:

        Luis, educate yourself about forest (trees) development (growth) and retreat during the Holocene, to wit:

        Holocene Treeline History and Climate Change Across Northern Eurasia
        Radiocarbon-dated macrofossils are used to document Holocene treeline history across northern Russia (including Siberia). Boreal forest development in this region commenced by 10,000 yr B.P. Over most of Russia, forest advanced to or near the current arctic coastline between 9000 and 7000 yr B.P. and retreated to its present position by between 4000 and 3000 yr B.P. ………. the mean July temperatures along the northern coastline of Russia may have been 2.5° to 7.0°C warmer than modern.
        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033589499921233

      • You do not have to think about it very long to realize that trying to say that the terminus point of glaciers at various episodes of warming and cooling cycles is hogwash, and for several reasons.
        One is that whether glaciers are advancing or receding is based on many factors, not simply the surface temperature.
        Glaciers respond to numerous aspects of their environment, some related, and some very closely related but not necessarily strictly dependent on temp at the surface and not necessarily the same from one advance/retreat cycle to another.
        First there is how much snow falls in their zone of accumulation.
        Then there is the snowline, which is related to the lapse rate as well as surface temp.
        Another is ablation from sublimation, which varies depending on relative humidity and on amounts of sunshine and wind.
        There is of course melting, and this is not necessarily just as fast on one day with a certain temp as on another day with the same temp…several factors are at play, including rainfall rates, and again…lapse rates, sun, wind…
        And there are almost surely time delay effects. How long between increased accumulation in the accumulation zone and the effect produced at the terminus which can be many tens of miles away?
        Does anyone think the terminus responds immediately?

        And besides for everything else, we know there are long term trends and countertrends, and medium term trends and counter trends, and the same for shorter scales of time.
        If a glacier is advancing for 400 years and then recedes for the next 100 years, and someone is observing it’s terminus at x, on the date y, when the temp is z, does this mean that 500 years later after the next cycle advancing and receding, that when the terminus is again at point x that this is proof that the temp at that time must be z?
        That is ridiculous.

        Almost as ridiculous as suggesting that retreating glaciers means the temperature is getting warmer.
        We have vast amounts of evidence, proof really, in the form of photos and news accounts of glaciers all over the world receding rapidly in the late 1920s.
        And we have even more evidence that in the 1970s glaciers and polar ice were advancing rapidly.
        A look at current GST trend charts shows that the 1920s were far colder than the 1970s.
        Ice melts when it is above 32 degrees, or even below if it is in the sun. And they recede when ablation exceeds accumulation.
        They do not recede anytime the world is trending colder, and advance when it is trending warmer.
        It depends on the starting point, and any poop still working it’s way through the puppy.
        And you cannot say that it must be warmer or colder now based on position of moraines…many other factors are at play…not the least of which is how long it has been in recession mode and how far it had advanced when the recession began.
        As for this argument about the age of tree stumps proving anything about the temperature hundreds and thousands of years ago, I will have to read the studies. I can think of lots of ways that such conclusions could wind up being made for reasons that may seem logical but are in fact erroneous.

      • Dang, typo. I lost a part of the first sentence:

        “…various episodes of warming and cooling cycles is hogwash…”
        Sentence should read:

        “You do not have to think about it very long to realize that trying to say that the terminus point of glaciers at various episodes of warming and cooling cycles are directly correlated, and are necessarily proportional to global surface temperature, is hogwash, and for several reasons.”

      • BTW, the reason for reports of receding glaciers in 1920s and advancing in the 1970s is because they were…because by the mid-1970s all of the warming of the 20th century had been erased.
        Scientists at the time said it was so, and glacial evidence backs that up with hard physical proof.
        There is no reason to accept the alterations to data which erase the 1940-1970s cooling, or the attempts the rewrite history regarding the MWP and RWP.
        Over the past 20-30 years we have had to endure hordes of warmistas insisting on an ever changing and morphing litany of bullshit stories…that there was no global cooling scare in the 1970s, there was not LIA, there was no MWP, it was not warmer in Greenland then just because people were farming then, the MWP was just local, ice cores prove CO2 causes cooling, it has never in history been hotter than whatever the current year is and it is all our fault, boiling oceans, Manhattan under water, no more seal ice, sulfuric acid rain and temps like in a slow cooker coming…

        The one thing we can be sure of is this…people who have never been right are really lame to keep insisting they know what they are talking about.

      • BRAVO, ….. BRAVO, …….. Menicholas, ……. you got the following exactly right.

        Over the past 20-30 years we have had to endure hordes of warmistas insisting on an ever changing and morphing litany of bullshit stories

  14. When talking to a leftist, repeat their fav memes, “soak the rich”, is numero uno.

  15. Add this?

    The hot spot predicted by the greenhouse gas theory has not been observed by some millions of radiosondes, balloons, and satellites.

    • Excellent point. Will do so in the future. Txs. Is Core to Christy’s 29 March 2017 congressional testimony disproving climate models.

  16. Rud, Re climate sensitivity, practically these calculations from historical or prehistorical temperature/CO2 changes are not constant and reliable. The present ~400ppm has accompanied a flatlining of temperatures and without the jiggering of temps, an actual decline in temperatures. The elevated CO2 has initiated an unexpectedly rapid greening of the entire planet, with forest cover increasing 14% and fringing veg growing into arid regions. Moreover it is expanding growth in plankton pops both soft tissues and carbonate coccolithispores (think White Cliffs of Dover for potential magnitude).

    This surprise major sequestration has reduced expected CO2 growth in the atmosphere (“business as usual” ). Also the nightmare for the hotness coalition, it is an endothermic (cooling) reaction – a biologic refrigerator? It happens to coincide with flatlining temperatures. Even sceptics don’t seem to appreciate this greening byproduct. Exponential growth, sequestration flattening of CO2 accumulation and a biological refrigerator (methinks I will be seeing this latter new term catch on like my “gang green” and “Karlization” ).

    • GP, you may well be right. I was trying to focus on the simplest arguments, most easily refutable. Climate 101, when you are on Climate 102. Regards.

  17. Or this?

    If CO2 causes temperature to rise,m how does it happen that over the last 8 glacial periods in the last 800,000 years, the temperature was first to rise (and first to fall) with CO2 following on between 200 and 1000 years later. That’s 16 opportunities to test whether CO2 caused temperature to change and 16 times the theory was falsified.

  18. I would disagree with water vapor being a feedback of CO2. The world has warmed and cooled with CO2 following temperature by several decades. Hence the main climate driver is something other than CO2, be it solar or whatever. This main driver would induce both a direct water vapor feedback and a delayed increase in CO2. The CO2 is an additional positive feedback of main driver. But the extra effect on water vapor from CO2 would small in relation to direct feedback effect of WV from the main source.

    • Placing water as merely a “Feedback” of CO2 in my book is very odd; for everywhere you look it is water that is the mechanism controlling temperature. We use it to control our own body temperature. We use it to control our heat engines. Etc. Etc..
      It is water that is the global thermostat not CO2.
      The prime mechanism here is the Latent Heat of phase change from its liquid to gas which occurs at constant temperature. And there is the fact that gaseous water is lighter than dry air which enables it to rise up in the atmosphere with some of it reaching up to the Tropopause as ice crystals.
      One kilogram of water dissipates some 680 Watts/sq.m*into the atmosphere, bypassing the so-called CO2 blanket. In this process pesky CO2 barely gets a look in.
      We engineers refer to it as the Rankine Cycle; but the scientists appear to have forgotten it.
      * Have a look at the steam tables.

    • I would second that suggestion. It’s a good summary of most of the CAGW arguments and doom-laden predictions and the fact that none of them is supported by the ever-increasing mound of accumulated evidence.

    • ATK, was intended to go in that direction. And back channel, CtM says has stimulated him in that direction also. He was noodling such a project before. I have the climate science knowledge to help, but not the technical chops to help implement. Regards.

  19. There is no consensus. Scientists never registred and voted on the AGW conjecture. Such a consensus would be meaningless anyway because science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not a form of legialation. Scientific theories are not validated by a voting process.

  20. “Talking Truth to Climate Consensus”

    Tell them (AGWers) to put their (own) money where their mouths are.
    If AGWers truly believe everything they have been Consensus-ing, they will self-fund.

    Consensus says, they won’t, because they don’t.

  21. · Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas (GHG), and doubling its atmospheric concentration would by itself cause temperatures to rise between 1.1C and 1.2C (Planck effect given ‘grey Earth’, the most precise estimate using IPCC data being 1.16C).

    Could you elaborate on , particularly , the Planck effect given ‘grey Earth’ computation Or a link ?

    I want to see how the equations attach to the computation of equilibrium temperature for balls of arbitrary uniform absorptivity=emissivity spectrum in our orbit presented at http://cosy.com/Science/warm.htm#EqTempEq .
    Are they based essentially on how changes in CO2 change our ae spectrum as seen from outside ? IE :
    d.ToA_spectrum % d.CO2

    What measurements go into the computation ?

    That would certainly help clarify the connection to the classical non-optional physical radiative heat transfer calculations for those of us quants not in the field who understand things by being able to calculate them .

    • Bob, you can look that up yourself. Lift a finger. Judirh Curry’s blog had a bunch on this ~2010.
      I do not owe you your own homework.

      • The closest I found to what you are referring to is http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html , section 7.3 . It just confirms my observation of the theoretically and experimentally groundless basis of “climate science” . And there is no way this amateurish parameter fitting can explain the extreme bottom of atmosphere temperature of Venus , 2.25 times that of a gray , where gray means what it should mean : flat spectrum across all wavelengths , not just a crude approximation across the visible spectrum by people who appear not to know how to calculate with actual measured spectra , ball next to it ( energy density > 25x that supplied by the sun ) in its orbit .

        And if you can’t explain Venus , you can explain nothing .

      • BA, you did not check out the Curry comment math circa 2010. Nor the more recent exchanges I have had with Monckton here over his irreducible equation and his more recent errata posts, now supposedly a paper in peer review. Nor have you read essay Sensitive Uncertainty, which covers in some detail the radiative physics you apparently claim I do not understand.
        Venus is largely irrelevant to Earth. The armosphere is ~90x denser (bigger, thicker). Water vapor is largely lacking. Earth is a watery blue planet, Venus isn’t. It is much closer to the Sun, receiving much higher insolation ( function of r^2). Its has a rotation rate much slower, so the thermodynamics are totally different. Explaining Venus is IMO a waste of time in the CAGW debate. You can go there (dangerously close to Sky Dragonism). I won’t.

      • RI , I’m also quite sure you have never checked out any of the material , even my Heartland presentation of the most basic non-optional physics , linked at http://cosy.com/#PlanetaryPhysics .
        The equations that apply on Venus apply on Earth ; they are universal .

        As a quant APL programmer I was diverted into this endless debate by the amateurish level of even undergraduate math and physics I saw on display . It takes a handful of APL expressions to calculate the temperature of a sphere with a uniform spectrum , ie : color , at a given distance from the Sun given it’s power spectrum . Implementing the physics , my question is : what’s the next parameter to add ?
        At this point I continue to run into a dead end and blank stare .

        Can we even start to reach some mutual agreement on the most basic quantitative , experimentally testable physics of heat transfer ?

        Can we even agree on the definition of gray as a flat spectrum across the whole spectrum so the absorptivity=emissivity spectrum drops out so that simply applying StefanBoltzmann to the total integral of energy impinging on the sphere gives the gray body temperature which is the same as the black body calculation ?

        Do people in this field even understand what a dot product is so they can evaluate the experimentally testable equations at http://cosy.com/Science/warm.htm#EqTempEq ? And start discussing the problem in terms of unexplained variance from the actual equilibrium temperature calculated for our spectrum and the Sun’s instead of the retarded 255K meme which the computation I present generalizes to arbitrary specta ?

        Frankly all I see at the Harvard page , and all I’ve ever seen in these discussions , is essentially theory-less fitting of painfully crude scalar equations to the observed temperature “lapse rate” which are then used to justify a claim that something has been proved .

        I was hoping for better . But that’s why I’ve initiated http://cosy.com/Science/ComputationalEarthPhysics.html focused on testable quantitative computational physics .

        Sorry if I sound somewhat rough , but this disconnect from even undergraduate physics is the cause of the utter stagnation we’ve witnessed :

  22. Isn’t the proposed positive feedback due to any warming, whether it is caused by CO2 or something else? If so, doesn’t that imply there would be positive feedback to any cooling? If more heat causes more water vapor which causes more heat then less heat would reduce water vapor which would reinforce the cooling. Wouldn’t that make for a much more unstable climate than what we actually have?

    • K, you confound two concepts. Best untangled in detail in the climate chapter of ebook The Arts of Truth. Rising CO2 creates a primary positive forcing; a CO2doubling should based on basic physics create a warming of 1.1-1.2C. This is amplified by feedbacks elsewhere in the climate system. The only two feedbacks that can be significant are water vapor and clouds. IPCC and models say both are strongly positive. My analysis of all available evidence says water vapor is weakly positive, and clouds are neutral to weakly negative. In Bode feedback terms, the net result is NOT f=0.65, but rather f~ 0.25-0.3 corresponding to ECS ~1.6-1.7– matching observational ECS.

  23. Yes, water vapor and clouds (to note only the big two) provide natural feedbacks, which in the case of water vapor must be somewhat positive.

    Actually it doesn’t. And looks to be quite a bit lower than the Planck level because of the immediate negative feedback at night, this prevents positive feedback.
    And we know this has to be correct because actual temps are far below the modeled results, all because they bake too much feedback in the mass conservation section of the models.
    https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/observational-evidence-for-a-nonlinear-night-time-cooling-mechanism/

  24. “· Climate models are now falsified by the 18+ year UAH and RSS ‘pause’, using Santer’s 17 year consensus criterion published in 2011.”

    wrong again.

    1. There is no such thing as Model falsification.
    2. Santer’s criteria was not about model testing.
    3. Plenty of us disagreed with his test ( he only used a subset of models and averaged them… bad)
    4. Both datasets HAVE BEEN IMPROVED and so it would be a mistake to ignore this.
    5. There is no statistically significant pause in those datasets IF YOU CONSIDER STRUCTURAL UNCERTAINTY.

    once again skeptics think THEIR SCIENCE is settled.

    its never settled Rud, you neeed to be MORE skeptical, especially about your own conclusions.

    • “1. There is no such thing as Model falsification.”;

      Thanks for telling us what we all know……. THEY ARE NOT SCIENCE

      A model is either substantially correct.. OR IT ISN’T

      NONE of the individual climate models is even CLOSE to being correct.. END OF STORY

      You cannot take 100+ manically WRONG results and pretend that the average has any meaning whatsoever.

      Oops, I forgot.. Mosh knows ZERO maths or science…. Frontman mouthpiece only.

      There are only 2 brief warming periods, both El Nino events, in the whole of the satellite data.

      El Ninos are nothing to do with CO2.

      There is NO CO2 signature in either satellite temperature record, even after Carl’s bending over for the AGW religion.

    • “Both datasets HAVE BEEN IMPROVED”

      In your opinion.. roflmao……. WORTHLESS, meaningless.

      • Mosh just said that the past 20 years of screaming, claiming they were right…and demanding policies to support it….
        …was based on erroneous datasets

    • “There is no statistically significant pause in those datasets IF YOU CONSIDER STRUCTURAL UNCERTAINTY.”

      There is NO SIGNIFICANT WARMING.. apart from the NON-CO2 El Nino events…

      And probably not much warming at all, if you CONSIDER STRUCTURAL UNCERTAINTY and DATA FABRICATION/MANIPULATION…

    • Oh Mossshhher the once Great and Powerful, if you had the faintest idea about science you would not have written what you did.

      Do you really think that there is no such thing as model falsification or did you write before you thought what you were writing? Do you think there is such a thing as model verification?

      What ever happened to you?

    • Er. . . How do you know that the datasets have been “improved”? How do you know that your preferred (adjusted) values for temperatures recorded before you were born are “more accurate” than the ones that were actually recorded at the time?
      It wouldn’t be because the models say so would it?

      • “How do you know that the datasets have been “improved”?”

        Because he himself “improved” them by Mannipulating them using his patent secret AlGoreithims (which he cannot reveal because you would only try to prove them wrong) of course!

        How else?

    • Thanks. I have now spent 6 years trying to get the of it. Comment feedback has been invaluable since my first guest blog post 2011. Humbling often, but invaluable lessons.

  25. No matter how big the megaphone, and no matter how clearly it projects the voices of truth, if the ears towards which it is aimed are plugged, then nothing gets through.

    … just feeding off the illustration that illustrates this article in the WUWT topic list. … A better illustration would show a character standing at the other end of the megaphone with ear muffs on.

  26. I have 2 issues with the GHGE itself.

    (1) According to the story I’m told :- CO2 absorbs black body radiation emitted from earth and retransmits it isotropically at around 667 cm-1. So some of that radiation ‘rebounds’ to earth and GHG causes “forcing” or “down-welling. It warms the earth.“. That story is impossible because: a typical CO2 molecule in the lower atmosphere undergoes 1 collision per nanosecond (1 billion per second), but the average lifetime from absorption to re-emission is 0.2 seconds. So all the energy (given to CO2 by absorption) will be ‘thermalized’ : shared with other molecules in the atmosphere.

    Will Happer: “A CO2 bending mode transition, with a wavelength of 15 microns and about 1/30 the matrix element should have a lifetime of order 16 (30)^2 (15/.6)^3 ns = 0.2 s.” – Dear Prof. Happer.

    I’m not saying no heat (LWIR) can make it back from the atmosphere to earth. Just saying it would seem to as black body rather than quantitized electronic transitions.

    (2) Will Happer also says that “Using Voigt profiles increases the radiative-forcing increment from doubling CO2 by a factor ~ 1.4 [~40% more forcing] But far wing absorption from Voigt profiles does not exist! Need experimental measurements.” — Will Happer, UNC 8-Sep-2014

    No wonder the models are wrong.

    • “According to the story I’m told :”
      You were misinformed. Standard theory is that the heat absorbed is thermalised. But the CO2 molecules radiate too, thermally, and the absorbed heat maintains the balance. And that radiation is not black body, it is per quantized transitions. In fact, by Kirchhoff’s Law, basically the same spectrum as governed absorption.

      • (1) But CO2 loses the energy it absorbs (from LWIR) to other gas molecules. Mostly to O2 and N2. So CO2 may well radiate but individual molecules will have little energy to do so. If it’s quantized too: that’s a specific amount of energy lost. It’s not clear to me that many CO2 will have that spare energy to lose. Or are you saying they all radiate via electron transitions (O2 and N2 too)? Alternatively CO2 having just radiated, perhaps picks energy back up from collisions with O2 and N2.

        Of course, given the zillions in funding they’ve had over the past 3 decades, climate scientists have done all the experiments in the lab and field? Not according the Will Happer. He said “Need experimental measurements“.

        Considering this is such a key part of the story, I find it depressing how little effort scientists put into explaining exactly what happens. It’s as if scientists and politicians are engaged in a joint, unspoken, conspiracy to keep the public as ill-informed as possible.

        In the light of a deficit of “experimental measurements“, is it about time we stopped funding modelers and started funing experimentalists? Or, at the very least, set aside a specific amount of the climate research funding for experimentalists?

        (2) Do you accept Happer’s point about misleading Voigt profiles?

      • Mark,

        Exchange of energy by collissions is bidirectionally: higher energy (“warmer”) O2/N2 molecules may excite a CO2 molecule to emit a photon at its specific wavelength, even if the emission-collission ratio in average is only 1:10,000.

        The emission spectra were exactly meausured in laboratories for lots of GHG/air mixtures at different (air) pressures, that gives the (theoretical) emission / backradiation if you calculate the layer by layer results from ground level to 70 km height.

        Both the influence of CO2 on emissions at the top of the atmosphere (by satellites) and the increase in backradiation were measured. The latter at two ground stations: one at Barrow, Alaska and one in Oklahoma:
        http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

      • “Or are you saying they all radiate via electron transitions (O2 and N2 too)? Alternatively CO2 having just radiated, perhaps picks energy back up from collisions with O2 and N2.”
        No, none of that. Thermalisation just separates the processes. CO2 molecules radiate as expected at their temperature. That is independent of their history. The energy lost is regained (for that molecule) by collisions with N2 etc. The energy that those molecules supply essentially comes from what was thermalised by past GHG absorptions. There is a discussion on a thread where this post seems well-informed and emphasises the balance.

        As to Happer and Voight, I’d need to see it in writing. You have linked to a hour-and-half lecture.

  27. Rud Istvan writes. “Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas (GHG), and doubling its atmospheric concentration would by itself cause temperatures to rise between 1.1C and 1.2C (Planck effect given ‘grey Earth’, the most precise estimate using IPCC data being 1.16C).”.

    I think that you forgot to write that this value is based on the radiative forcing values of CO2 being 3.7 W/m2, which means using the formula of Myhre & al.: RF =5.35 * ln(CO2/280). I have reproduced this calculation and I got a formula RF = 3.12 * ln(CO2/280) giving ECS = 0.6 degrees Celcius. Science is not settled.

    Link: http://www.seipub.org/DES/paperInfo.aspx?ID=17162#Abstract

  28. So, what’s the plan? Tax the whole world?, everyone who emits CO2? Is it a giant power and money grab? Who benefits? What percentage of people are believers? Will they put up with it?

  29. Windchasers: “A lack of statistical significance does not mean that it’s not warming,” this sentence is a complete nonsense…

    • Actually, he is correct. It could be warming and the measurements used didn’t reflect that, etc. Lack of statistical significance is highly dependent on what input values are used. More importantly, a lack of statistical significance does not prove it IS warming. It just says we don’t know. It seems Windchasers is saying we do not know.

    • ““A lack of statistical significance does not mean that it’s not warming,” this sentence is a complete nonsense…”

      True, and altered data and obfuscated historical trends do not prove it is.

  30. “Yes, water vapor and clouds (to note only the big two) provide natural feedbacks, which in the case of water vapor must be somewhat positive.”

    I don’t agree with this assertion at all. Feedback from water vapour has to be negative because it increases cloud cover, which cuts solar radiation. The more water vapour in the atmosphere, the more cloud. The more cloud, the less heating from incoming solar radiation.

    In my opinion, this reduces the effective equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 increases to zero.

    • Hivemind, I can empirically show you that is incorrect. Yes, water vapor can increase clouds. It can also decrease important cirrus clouds if it results in stronger thunderstorms– the Lindzen adaptive iris paper. Is not so simple as you might imagine.

  31. Talking truth about average outside air temperature anomalies? As if anthropogenic fraction of a trace gas were a control knob? How about talking truth about Richard Branson’s wealth anomalies with penny precision – as if the red wooden penny were the control knob. Futile beyond further parody.

    For Earth to be a greenhouse, it would need a firmament. But there is none. On the contrary, the atmosphere is in direct, uninterrupted contact with near vacuum in close to absolute zero temperature (-271 °C). Why should the average temperature anomalies be presumed constant when even the atmospheric volume is a puzzling variable according to NASA. https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jul_thermosphere. How does all that fit with the equation pV=nRT?

    And similarly in the oceans, there is plenty of “fossil carbon” in the interface, rapidly eroding Seven Sisters’ chalk cliffs (CaCO3) are hardly an anomaly. Why would atmospheric “fossil carbon anomalies” be only manmade?

    • The greenhouse phenomenon of the Earth is a reality. The outgoing LW radiation into the space is about 239 W/m2 and it means a Planck temperature -19 C. The surface temperature is about 15 degrees. The measured LW radiation by the Eatrh surface is about 395 W/m2 corresponding nicely the temperature 15 degrees. There is a energy flux reduction from 395 to 239 = 156 W/m2 in the atmosphere. This energy flux does not disappear without having an effect. That effect is needed to maintain the temperature profile in the atmosphere and to keep the surface temperature in 15 degrees.We need stronger scientific evidences than denying the greenhouse phenomenon in the battle with IPCC.

      I gave one bullet by repeating the calculations of Myhre et al. and I showed that I got a different result. Why you guys do not repeat it by yourselves?

  32. The deeply puzzling thing about this is why those who claim to be most worried about warming and CO2 emissions do not advocate proportional and effective action to lower these emissions.

    You see it most clearly in the Paris affair. You see it also on China, where the line appears to be, give China and India a free ride to raise their emissions. Never mind that China is double the US already, and heading north. If you raise this point, the argument shifts in a flash to something like, well, its only fair. For a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with the alleged physics driving warming.

    The argument seems to be, its only fair that China and India should destroy civilisation. But its also only fair that the UK and the US should deindustrialise though that will have no effect on the physics.

    People here sometimes say its because warmism is religious – which I find less than convincing.

    But what I do wonder is whether anyone actually believes in global warming. They certainly do not act as if they do.

  33. This is a very good summary of the contentious issues. I realise it is about sound bites but some of the topics cannot adequately be dealt with in a single sentence or word.

    Clouds for example may turn out to be a major factor in the earth’s thermostat mechanism. The role of water vapour is probably very complex. These may not lend themselves to the sound bite treatment.

    Nevertheless, most of the sound bites give an accurate account of reality as far as we know. There are some that would benefit from major debate outside of the sound bite summary

    The GHGE is a good example. IR spectroscopy and black body radiation are well understood examples of settled science but what actually happens in the atmosphere seems to me to be a pile of assumptions with little supportive evidence.

    I cannot help feeling that the several pieces of settled science are used as a vehicle rather like the Trojan Horse to give credibility to the GHE whilst ignoring a whole host of inconvenient questions. Some of these have been touched on in the above comments.

    • SC, agree fully. That is why I try to find the easiest warmunist balloons to pop. Not everything, just the biggest most damaging targets.

  34. Article forgot the third set, the ones that know the “consensus” comes from an intentionally flawed survey that doesn’t specifically ask if we’re all going to incinerate because of CO2 but whether “a future in which uncontrolled warming destroys economy, causes famine and kills hundreds of millions is bad”.

    See, the current IPCC was created to ASSUME that CO2 was going to cause uncontrolled warming. Two problems, CO2 can’t cause uncontrolled warming because it has no real control over climate, just temperature and secondly the warming that CO2 causes is automatically controlled by CO2’s nature and clouds.

    So where’s the global warming? There isn’t, if we were warming there’d be more clouds.

    “settled science” is not a scientific term. That’s one of the biggest problems. I’m sitting here thirty years on of watching this shitshow of retarded political incompetence at the international level and they STILL haven’t made an actual atmospheric model to prove CO2 makes any difference at all – it’s all assumptions.

    See, the whole “weather weirding” thing makes sense, increased lower altitude CO2 causing more heat retention in the CO2 causing increased air circula… wait a minute – doesn’t that negate localized ground/sea level heating if the circulation is increased? Lol, yeah. It does.

    Nature and Physics don’t care about your assumptions. They’re free to react instantly on their own timescale and the atmosphere can lose 100% of the daily heat input in HOURS not months. If CO2 caused some kind of uncontrolled feedback loop then everybody in Algeria would be dead from heat exhaustion about 40 years ago.

  35. “· Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas (GHG), and doubling its atmospheric concentration would by itself cause temperatures to rise between 1.1C and 1.2C (Planck effect given ‘grey Earth’, the most precise estimate using IPCC data being 1.16C).”

    “· Yes, water vapor and clouds (to note only the big two) provide natural feedbacks, which in the case of water vapor must be somewhat positive.”

    Rud, thanks for this post. I know that elsewhere you have affirmed and posted about thunderstorms to illustrate the inability of the models to accurately represent what the atmosphere will do with heat.

    But as I see it, as do other commenters above, these statements in your current post cede too much to a misconception of how the atmosphere actually works. The statements themselves seem reasonable for still air, or perhaps even with layered horizontal movement with little vertical mixing. But the atmosphere is best described not simply as a static radiative insulating barrier, but as a heat engine. (e.g. NASA, web article “Cimate and Earth’s Energy Budget”, January 14, 2009) It circulates with impressive horizontal and vertical motion, on global and local scale, driven by heat itself, using buoyancy as the mechanism. Precipitation rates make it obvious how much power can be involved: a one-inch-per-hour rainfall rate implies upward local heat movement of 16,000 W/M^2. The prevalence of hail at altitude in convective weather makes it obvious how strong the updrafts can be.

    So I offer this sound-bite-sized comment on the “consensus”: The climate is the composite result of a high number of localized high-power heat movement events, which the models cannot possibly simulate with any authority. Watch a thunderstorm.

    • But the atmosphere is best described not simply as a static radiative insulating barrier, but as a heat engine.

      But, the static condition is purely radiative. And while that does change during a 24hr solar day under clear calm skies, it is the limit of atm performance.

      Everything else is just modifications to this.

      And this alone explains everything we need to know. Even this is a heat engine, that regulates surface temps with water vapor.

  36. ‘Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas (GHG), and doubling its atmospheric concentration would by itself cause temperatures to rise between 1.1C and 1.2C (Planck effect given ‘grey Earth’, the most precise estimate using IPCC data being 1.16C).’

    ‘precise estimate’

    Mere conjecture. But even if true, we have empirical evidence that natural variability overwhelms it. Note that we do not need to know the causes of variability. We can see, from facts, that Man’s emissions of CO2 at current levels DO NOT CONSTITUTE any sort of a threat to weather.

  37. There always exists the inability of global warmists to understand power generation or
    transportaion. Carbon emitters are in decline , not because of any dangers of emissions, real, or imagined, but due simply to elementary economics: due to lower battery prices and especially expected further large reductions in those prices , electric cars are the future. The near future. Ditto for the molten salt uranium/Thorium nuclear reactors, which can produce poer cheaper than any othe technology. I view the whole business of arguing the dangers of carbon emisions as an irrelevant and pointless activity

  38. What about the fact that man only ands a very small amount of c02 to the carbon cycle??? This being true, IF c02 doubles from a most lilely cherry picked low, man will have little to do with it? What about most of us agree the data from the 20th century has beeno savaged??? And that adjustments since 1989 have exponentially increased. Come on!!! Most skeptics argue these obvious points.

  39. What about the fact that man only ands a very small amount of c02 to the carbon cycle??? This being true, IF c02 doubles from a most lilely cherry picked low, man will have little to do with it? What about most of us agree the data from the 20th century has beeno savaged??? And that adjustments since 1989 have exponentially increased. Come on!!! Most skeptics argue these obvious points.

    • ripatheism,

      Wrong argument: adding CO2 to a more or less fixed carbon cycle (most of the CO2 movements in/out the atmosphere are seasonal) increases CO2 in the atmosphere. As long as the temperature change over the seasons is the same, the same quantity of CO2 is absorbed by vegetation during the warm seasons and released by the oceans and reverse in the cold seasons.
      The extra CO2 is not removed by temperature controlled processes, it is removed by the extra CO2 pressure in the atmosphere. That is a much slower process than the effect of temperature changes over the seasons. It takes about 35 years to remove half of any extra CO2 above the long term equilibrium between the ocean surface and the atmosphere.

      It is not a good argument at all, as the “consensus” about the cause of the CO2 increase -human emissions- is rock solid and using that as argument is shooting in your own foot…
      See further: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html

      I am not aware of any adjustments in the CO2 data at, with the exception of errors found in the calibration gases; the original calibration gases were CO2 in nitrogen, which did give a difference in the measurements. When that was discovered, all equipment was recalibrated with CO2 in air and the older data were recalculated with the new calibration.

      • The extra CO2 is not removed by temperature controlled processes, it is removed by the extra CO2 pressure in the atmosphere.

        Henry’s law provides more accurate results in a closed cylinder at constant temperature in a lab. Earth has too many variables to apply it meaningfully: biosphere with photosynthesis as one example.

      • Jaakko,

        The biosphere is a proven sink for CO2, at least since 1990:
        http://www.sciencemag.org/content/287/5462/2467.short and
        http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf

        The oceans are a proven sink for CO2:
        https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/mean.shtml

        Over the seasons, some 60 GtC goes in and out of vegetation due to seasonal temperature changes, mainly in the NH. Over the same seasons some 50 GtC goes out and in the ocean surface in countercurrent to the CO2 fluxes to/from vegetation.
        The net result is a global seasonal amplitude of +/- 10 GtC (+/- 5 ppmv).
        The net change after a full seasonal cycle is 4.5 +/- 3 GtC/year (2.15 +/- 1.5 ppmv/year).

        Human emissions are about 9 GtC/year (4.5 ppmv/year), about double the year by year increase and larger than the net natural variability.

        It doesn’t matter if you take only a sample in a laboratory to measure the equilibrium: 3 million on the spot (even continuous on commercial seaships nowadays) seawater samples confirm Henry’s law that shows about 16 ppmv/K change in equilibrium. Not by coincidence the same equilibrium that is found in pre-industrial times in ice cores CO2/temperature graphs.
        Thus it makes no difference for the equilibrium if you take a single sample or the full dynamics of the oceans, including the large in/outs (*)… The only difference is in the lag times: between months (seasonal to year by year). decades (MWP-LIA), centuries (glacial-interglacial transition) to millennia (interglacial-glacial transitions)…

        (*) Short term fluctuations are dominated by vegetation, long term by the oceans. The difference can be seen in the concurrent change of CO2 and δ13C: if that is opposite to each other, vegetation is the main reactant. If the changes are in parallel, the oceans are the main reactant.

      • Ferdinand. I’m not contesting Henry’s law, but only it’s use for explaining causalities at planetary level. The tendency to present mankind as the only meaningful planetary variable makes the gigatonne argument sound more like circular reasoning than science.

      • Jaakkoo,

        Indeed one need to be careful in the use of laboratory results on complicated systems, like the total ocean – atmosphere cycle.

        On the other hand, the ice core data show a near-linear relationship between CO2 in the atmosphere and the ocean surface temperature – with a lag – which is in the same order as the change in CO2 equilibrium with the atmosphere for a temperature change of seawater per Henry’s law.

        Also recent, more accurate measurements show surprisingly small year by year variability in the natural carbon cycles and a net sink rate which is directly proportional to the extra pressure in the atmosphere over the equilibrium pressure for CO2 at the weighted average seawater surface temperature…

        Thus it seems that Henry’s law is at work at every scale and period over at least the past 800,000 years…

  40. It took a fairly substantial search to find out that CCS stands for Carbon Capture and Storage. Is there some reason some authors use obscure acronyms without defining what they mean? Are they just trying to look smart or what?

    Aside from that, CO2 sequestering or what ever you want to call it, is complete and total folly reminiscent of cargo cults arising on Pacific islands after World War II.

    • It helps when you are searching for the meaning of acronyms if you put the topic associated with it in the search box with it. If you type “CCS climate change” into Google, Carbon Capture and Storage comes up at the top. Google and other search engines do better if you give them a context. (Usually)

      • Sheri … at 12:24 pm
        It helps when…

        I finally did do that, but that misses the point. Putting up obscure acronyms expecting your readers to know what they mean as easily as they would any common word like cat or dog is counter productive. There seems to be some primal urge to use jargon. It certainly isn’t the urge to communicate clearly.

      • Putting up obscure acronyms expecting your readers to know what they mean as easily as they would any common word like cat or dog is counter productive.

        Neither is it proper writing practice. Acronyms need to be identified properly at first usage: [complete title (acronym).

        There seems to be some primal urge to use jargon.

        Or a member of an exclusive club. And the reader ain’t included.

  41. Understandably, since these of WUWT are mostly a physical/chemical analysis, there is a longer more biological list that needs to be added. The west US coast oyster situation is part of a larger problem, maybe starting when there was a serious attempt to put oysters on the endangered species list. They are now a government financed small industry to restore reefs so as to sequester nitrogen, carbon dioxide and who knows what all. Too many of the ones I am familiar with have not done their homework.

    Connected to the more physical look at Google Earth, click on oceans, it was originally a box on “Dead Zones,” which are no more dead than the ocean is becoming acidified. Fish skeletons all over the place. For example, the Baltic has been long known to have anaerobic problems (Segerstråle, 1957; Lomborg, 2001). Another one currently coming to fore about exotic species, which can be a real problem, but is again crisisfied. (Need a better word there).

    Check– http://issues.org/33-4/the-science-police/ Vellend just had an article in American Scientist, to their credit. OOPS, exotic species do not automatically cause de-diversification. It may be that they add to the pie, but do not replace parts of it. We will see.

    We had a janitor in our department circa 1980 who saw the problem coming.

    Lomborg. B. 2001. The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the real State of the World. Cambridge Univ. Press.

    Segerstråle, S. G. 1957. Baltic Sea In. J. W. Hedgpeth, Ed., Treatise on Marine Ecology and Paleoecology. Mem. Geol. Soc. Amer. 67(1):751-800.

  42. Funny how almost every innocent question about climate change opens a big can of worms.

    Thinking about Rud’s post, I wondered about the distribution of water vapour in the atmosphere, particularly around the effective radiation altitude.

    https://eos.org/research-spotlights/the-forgotten-water-vapor-at-high-altitudes

    It seems that recent studies show that we don’t know as much as we thought we did. Then it seemed that every study about water vapour distribution that I looked at was, surprise, surprise, based on models. I gave up at this point.

    • Is it still true that even though worldwide water vapor has increased, worldwide relative humidity has decreased? If yes, then what’s going on there? If more water vapor is going into the atmosphere overall, then how is it that at given temperatures, the air is holding less of it than it could at those temperatures? This is confusing to me.

  43. “Silver bullet” talking points are nice, but as long as the discussion accepts the factually incorrect notion of only a “slight cooling from about 1945 to about 1975,” we are not talking about geophysical reality. What has been done institutionally to the historical climate record would lead to condemnation or much worse in other fields of human endeavor.

    • Reply: Looks like an imposter, invalid email. ~ctm

      What, it wasn’t a 127 line paragraph?

  44. Rud

    I agree on almost all points with a few caveats that mostly come down to “The existing data is so awful that no solid conclusions can be drawn either way”.

    I’d add one.additional scientific point. A great deal (most it sometimes seems) of climate “science” consists of running GCMs then drawing dire conclusions based on their output. Those models have never been validated. In fact they fail the only test I can think of that is somewhat independent of natural cooling/warming trends that we do not understand well enough to quantify. They predict low latitude stratospheric warming that simply doesn’t seem to be happening. I expect that point will draw one of Mosher’s unhelpful “wrong” comments and possibly something more thoughtful and substantive from Nick Stokes.

    And an additional “engineering” point. Energy storage is getting better over time. It seems to me that it is quite possible that by 2050 or so, humanity may have “batteries” that can buffer large amounts of wind, and solar power in a cost effective fashion. The problem is that until that happens, the amount of intermittent power electric grids can tolerate is severely limited. You’d have a better idea than I do what the practical limits today are. My WAG is that the limit today might be as low as 15% total non-dispatchable penetration.

    And an economic point. Leveled Cost of Energy is a perfectly OK metric. It gives the cost of a kw/hr of generation from any given technology. But it includes any subsides that shift costs to other ratepayers or taxpayers in general. And it does not include the cost of backup generation. Using LCOE is fine if your goal is to show off at cocktail parties. But in practice, depending on real costs of wind and solar generation to come in at LCOE levels is delusional. Who is going to pay the difference? Most likely the ratepayers, and disproportionally the poorest consumers who will pay a higher percentage of their income for electricity than the wealthy. Personally, I think that is rotten social policy.

  45. If opacity to outgoing IR radiation effectively traps the energy in the atmosphere and this energy is transferred to other molecules as kinetic energy as well as the reversible excitation and emission by GHG, why does this “trapped” mainly kinetic energy not just drive more convection, taking the gases to thinner atmosphere where radiation to space is less impeded?

  46. The scientific consensus is widely misreported and misunderstood. That bothers me, so I’ll present some key facts. The relevant question is whether AGW is large enough to justify energy restrictions. The 97% consensus is an irrelevant straw man, about whether AGW is non-zero, which virtually everyone concedes, since striking a single match indisputably warms the earth.

    The NASA web page on climate consensus falsely claims “97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.” The papers NASA, and many others, cite are: Cook et al 2016 and 2013, Doran and Zimmerman, Oreskes, and Anderegg. On careful examination, none of them support that claim.

    From Cook et al 2013 (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2013)):

    “We examined … the scientific literature … to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current … global warming … ratings were consolidated into three groups: endorsements (including implicit and explicit; categories 1–3 in table 2), no position (category 4) and rejections” … “97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus.” From Table 2, the consensus includes: “(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification (2) Explicit endorsement without quantification (3) Implicit endorsement”.

    They misleadingly mention a consensus on dominant AGW, but the 97% consensus they reported instead was completely unquantified, and therefore completely irrelevant. (Legates et al 2013 reported the true “consensus” on dominant AGW was 0.3%.)

    Cook 2016 re-hashes Cook 2013. Oreskes is also completely unquantified. Doran and Zimmerman (a masters thesis) got 97% by cherry-picking a sub-group of fewer than 80 from over 3100 respondents to the question of whether human activity is “a significant contributing factor” (significant not defined).

    Anderegg et al. got to about 97% by carefully selecting a group of climate researchers and assuming they all endorsed the IPCC position unless they publically dissented.

    There is no meaningful consensus on dangerous, or even noticeable, AGW. Those who reported otherwise sacrificed their credibility IMO (including the publications that accepted those papers).

  47. I thought about this comment for a few days.
    Then I re-read the article
    and asked a Climate change believer I know to read it too.

    Too many subjects are covered too briefly.

    A few lines in the “There are basic consensus points that most ‘deniers’ “97%” agree with” section tell us you are a “lukewarmer” — you believe CO2 controls the climate, but is probably not dangerous.

    If you were NOT implying that in your article, then I have even bigger problems with the article — too easy to misinterpret !

    The “lukewarmers” have no idea of exactly what causes climate change, or what the future climate will be, yet will often provide a guess … when they should have said “I don’t know”.

    It seems hard to find people willing to say “I don’t know” about climate science, and the future climate.

    On some subjects, the smartest person in the room will be the one who says “I don’t know”.

    We’ve had three decades of wrong climate predictions simply because too many people think they understand climate change … but don’t.

    Specific Criticisms:
    (1) Your article was too concise — almost every issue needed more discussion than the brief ‘talking points’ provided. I suspect you know enough to write a lot more.

    (2) You overlooked important basic questions that need brief answers before getting into science details, such as:
    (a) Is there anything unusual about the current climate?
    (b) What does “climate change” mean?
    (c) What is the “climate change” prediction based on?
    (d) How much do we know about what causes climate change?
    (e) If CO2 was really the “climate controller”, then what would the warming be like, and how does the theory compare with reality?

    See my brief answers at my climate blog for non-scientists at:
    http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
    You may have better answers.

    (3) Readers will think the CO2 lab experiments describe real life.
    Maybe they do, and maybe they don’t.
    I think you are jumping to a conclusion about the value of lab experiments.

    You should have included a sentence describing how harmless that would be, such as:
    “If you believe lab experiments, a 2 ppm CO2 increase every year would increase the average temperature only +1 degree C. in 200 years, excluding feedbacks, which are currently unknown.”

    (4) My fourth problem is that the CO2 warming feedbacks should be unknown to you, but you seem sure which are “the big two”, and confident about the effect of one of them:
    “Yes, water vapor and clouds (to note only the big two) provide natural feedbacks, which in the case of water vapor must be somewhat positive”.

    I disagree with your confidence about the effects of CO2 and possible feedbacks, Istcan — in my opinion, your article fails because you are too reluctant to say “we don’t know” and “I don’t know” about the long run effects of CO2.

    Your article implies a level of certainty not justified by the data, so I think you contribute to the climate change hoax (CO2 controls the climate) more than you refute it.

    There are many good reasons to question the “lukewarmer” implication that CO2 controls the climate.

    Here’s my quick summary:
    (1)
    In 4.5 billion years of climate history, we have ice core evidence that CO2 levels lagged average temperature in the past 800,000 years, and for real-time measurements there is only one brief period of strong positive correlation:

    From the 1993 low to the 2003 high, the average temperature anomaly rose by at least +0.5 degrees C., and so far has remained in a higher range than before 1993 (I’m using satellite data). Other people would stretch out the “1993 to 2003” period, and say “1975 to 2000”.

    (2)
    Are we supposed to believe “the climate controller”
    has switched at least three times since 1940,
    with no explanation of how that could happen,
    why it happened, and no evidence in the temperature record
    that anything unusual happened?

    Below is what I hear from “modern climate science”,
    and it seems so ridiculous that I added (h)
    for even more laughs!

    (a) Natural climate change for 4.5 billion years,
    (b) 1940: Natural climate change “dies”,
    (c) 1940: Man made aerosols take over as “the climate controller”,
    (d) 1975: Man made aerosols “die”,
    (e) 1975: Man made CO2 takes over as “the climate controller”,
    (f) 2000: Man made CO2 “falls asleep”
    (g) 2015 / 2016: ENSO takes over as “the climate controller”
    (h) 2017: In late 2017 there will be an election
    for “The New Climate Controller”.

    The four candidates in 2017, so far:
    — Al “The Blimp” Gore,
    — Barack “The Seas Will Stop Rising” Obama.
    — The “Rope-a-Dope” Pope
    — Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann
    (Mann claims experience in controlling climate history!)

    (3) In the “era of manmade CO2” since 1940, we had:
    (a) Negative correlation of CO2 and temperature from 1940 to 1975,
    (b) Positive correlation of CO2 and temperature from 1975 to 2000, and
    (c) No correlation of CO2 and temperature from 2000 to 2015.

    (1), (2) and (3) do not give ME confidence that CO2 is currently, or was ever, “the climate controller” … and strongly suggest to me that man made CO2 including feedbacks is NOT as important as the CO2 lab experiments, and your article, suggest.

Comments are closed.