Another Win-Win! “Climate talks open amid anger over Trump’s coal support”

Guest taunting post by David Middleton

  1. Win: President Trump announced US withdrawal from Paris climate treaty agreement joke.
  2. Win: US will use its remaining 3 years as a party to the joke as a vehicle to promote fossil fuels.

bbc_coal

Over the next two weeks, negotiators hope to clarify the rulebook of the Paris climate agreement.

It is the first major meeting since President Trump announced plans to take the US out of the Paris pact last June.

Many delegates are unhappy with White House plans to promote fossil fuels here as a “solution” to climate change.

[…]

According to reports, members of the Trump administration will lend their support to an event to promote fossil fuels and nuclear power as solutions to climate change.
Speakers from coal giant Peabody Energy, among others, will make a presentation to highlight the role that coal and other fuels can play in curbing the impacts of rising temperatures.

A White House spokesman said in a statement that the discussion aimed to build on the administration’s efforts to promote fossil fuels at the G20 meeting this year.

“It is undeniable that fossil fuels will be used for the foreseeable future, and it is in everyone’s interest that they be efficient and clean,” the spokesman said.

‘Beyond absurd’

The prospect of fossil fuel industries making their case at this meeting has angered some who will be attending.

“Fossil fuels having any role in tackling climate change is beyond absurd. It is dangerous,” said Andrew Norton, director of the International Institute for Environment and Development.

“These talks are no place for pushing the fossil fuel agenda. The US needs to come back to the table and help with the rapid cuts in emissions that the situation demands.”

Long-time talks participant Alden Meyer from the Union of Concerned Scientists added: “It’s not a credible solution, but that doesn’t seem to bother them.

“They might even welcome some of the reaction to show to their base that they are fighting for America’s interest and not this globalist malarkey.”

[…]

The Beeb

‘Beyond absurd’

It is “beyond absurd” to deny that coal will be a major source of energy well-beyond the middle of the 21st century.

FEBRUARY 8, 2017
U.S. coal production and coal-fired electricity generation expected to rise in near term

Coal production in the United States totaled 739 million short tons (MMst) in 2016, an 18% decline from 2015 and the lowest level of coal production since 1978. Because nearly all coal produced in the United States is used to generate electricity, coal production and coal-fired electricity generation are closely connected. In 2017 and 2018, as natural gas prices are expected to increase, coal is expected to regain some share of the electricity generation mix, and coal production is expected to increase slightly.

[…]

U.S. EIA

Chapter 4. Coal

Overview
In the IEO2016 Reference case, coal remains the second-largest energy source worldwide—behind petroleum and other liquids—until 2030. From 2030 through 2040, it is the third-largest energy source, behind both liquid fuels and natural gas. World coal consumption increases from 2012 to 2040 at an average rate of 0.6%/year, from 153 quadrillion Btu in 2012 to 169 quadrillion Btu in 2020 and to 180 quadrillion Btu in 2040.

[…]

U.S. EIA

Figuring out ways to generate electricity from coal in a manner less impactful on the environment is a far more productive exercise than pretending that it will be replaced with solar panels, wind turbines, fairy dust and unicorn farts.

It is “beyond absurd” to claim that fossil fuels don’t have a role in “tackling climate change”… “The rapid cuts in emissions that the situation [supposedly] demands” can’t be achieved without at least one fossil fuel… Assuming there actually was an urgent need to tackle climate change (which there isn’t) or that climate change could actually be tackled (which it can’t).

If there actually was an urgent need to tackle climate change, the only player on the field large enough to do the tackling is N2N – natural gas to nuclear.

The next three to seven years will truly test whether or not it’s actually possible to “get tired of winning.”

Advertisements

202 thoughts on “Another Win-Win! “Climate talks open amid anger over Trump’s coal support”

    • Me neither. Winning while watching your opponents tear themselves apart is simply delicious.
      (The Democrats are about to erupt into a full scale internal breech and civil war along their self-created identity politic lines)

      The Progressives’ screechings and wailings are getting louder and louder with each win.

      Tom Steyer’s recent $10 Million “bounty” for a Trump impeachment, hailed by unthinking Progs, should land him under FBI investigation for brazenly attempting to bribe congressional Democrats. It reveals an intense level of desperation from a deep-pocketed watermelon.

      A US economy hitting +3% annual GDP growth (maybe above 4%) will cause to even more extreme Left caterwauls because that exposes the severe economic suppression effects of Obama’s regulatory regimes on the US economy and global growth as well.

      Winning!!!

    • Unfortunately I don’t believe the US Taxpayer is winning yet according to this report by the BBC:

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41859283

      “Delegations of US governors, mayors and business people, under the We Are Still In coalition umbrella, will be in Bonn to tell negotiators that below the Federal level, much of America still supports the Paris agreement.”

      Who is paying for the US Governors and Mayors to attend this Alarmist Love-in jolly? Why do they think they have the authority to contradict their own National Government and to negotiate on a national issue? If I was one of their taxpayers I’d be fuming and want my money back!

      • Hot under the collar
        “. . . according to this report by the BBC”:

        Nuff said. Frankly.

        A more anti-growth, anti-individual rights (and duties), pro-leftist clap-trap – ‘The establishment is at fault, ALWAYS’ outfit it would be hard to find – even in a galaxy far, far, away!
        Certainly not ‘neutral’ – not since the Eighties, at least. They h a t e d Thatcher, viscerally, so probably since the Seventies.

        Auto – a BBC viewer from about 1961 (when we got our first TV!).

      • Relative to the undeveloped countries, the most significant element of the US entering the Paris agreement was the transfer of funds.
        Just how are “much of America” going to foot the bill?
        This delegation probably really believes the rest of the word cares whether or not the US continues its DOWNWARD trend on CO2 emissions.

    • Well, when absolutely all of the decks that are in play are stacked in your favor then the likelihood of a continued winning streak are far greater than are the odds that the Arctic will experience ice-free summers…..ever………

      …….Unless and until, of course, Earth’s orbit is moved closer to the lazy ol’ sun that rolls around heaven all day.

  1. So odd that Trump is held in contempt because he supports what many countries are already doing. Will we ever live in common sense worl?

    • The only way we could ever live in a common sense world, would be if all professional politicians were banned from ever serving in government.

      • As we should have all learned from the CAGW game it is not just the professional politicians that are the problem. Politicians still come and go relatively frequently compared to the professional bureaucrats, or as Jack Kemp called them (actually they called themselves) the “we-bes, we be here when you came we be here when you are gone, we have the power.” So much inertia is in the federal bureaucracies so that when Trump was elected Obama’s (actually the technocrats’) policies have continued, e.g., grant funding, new and revised draconian administrative rules, etc.. Problem then become if we threw out the incumbents every election then the professional staff and the bureaucrats would then be in total control. Another problem when a new, “amateur” politician is elected our government is so complex and the bureaucracies so self protecting it takes months more often years for the new elected official to figure it all out. There are bureaucrats at high Civil Service level positions who spend most of their time protecting the status quo. They are very good at it.

      • Easier solution: no campaign contributions (broadly defined) from anything other than a real flesh-and-blood human being – no PACs, no “bundlers”, no corporate giving. I’d even go so far as to limit contributions to just potential constituents.

      • Javert, if you want a way to ensure that only the rich have the ability to influence politics, go ahead and implement your proposals.

      • We also need to stop bureaucrats from staying on the public teat for more than say 9 years. After that they have to get a real job in the real world where if you run out of money the doors close. Better still, no one can become a bureaucrat until they have served at least five years after university in the real world so they understand the difference between those working for a living and those living off others eg bureaucrats. There are many great people in government but there needs to be some realistic requirement that they do not spend their lives there. They start to believe they are more important than the peasants they are supposedly there to serve.

    • Under the Trump666 Regime, emissions have fallen this year. Bigly. That’s unlikely to be true of too many other countries. Participation in these treaties is irrelevant too – St Elon became a leader in EVs without the Kyoto Protocol. Of course, EVs are an environmental disaster that consumes commodities that are actually scarce (unlike fossil fuels, which are simply carbon-neutral renewable biomass).

    • Philip Howard has two books, both entitled “The Death of Common Sense” one written in the 1990s and the other in the second decade of this century. Both are short and to the point. Worth the read.

    • The world does make sense if you look at it as left verse right. Even though Trump is more of a populist president then a true conservative, he is definitely aligned more with the right than the left. Issues, like climate change, women’s equality, gun laws, abortion, war, nuclear energy, clean air and clean water are actually irrelevant to the left. They are simply opportunities to try and advance socialism, which is the only thing that matters. Plus, the battle is always waged with symbolism over substance.

      Consequently, it doesn’t matter what Trump does, or what the results are. If he does it in support of capitalism, the left will always portray him as evil and incompetent. If Bernie Sanders is ever elected president, he will not be able to do anything wrong. He could destroy the country or even the planet, but the left would never criticize his actions.

      If you look at everything through that light, it all makes perfect sense.

      • A recent poll found that 50% millenials want to live in a country with socialism or preferably communism.
        The battle may already be lost.

    • It is not odd at all. It is all about toeing the correct party line, uttering the same herd grunts, wearing the same blinders.

      Image is everything, substance is nothing. The alarmists know perfectly well they are a gang of losers, but it makes no difference to them as long as government coffers are overflowing. Don’t rock the boat.

      Trump is an enfant terrible in this context. The really unforgiveable sin in the climate “war” is not to utter some doubt, but to say it out loud, with diplomatic clothing ripped off, in words that the man in the street can understand. That’s the real offense.

  2. Since CO2 is not an important climate driver it does not substantially contribute to ‘warming’; conversely it can’t play a role in reducing ‘warming’ either, should that be desirable.

  3. “Fossil fuels having any role in tackling climate change is beyond absurd. It is dangerous,” said Andrew Norton, director of the International Institute for Environment and Development.”

    Run home to your mommy’s basement, little snowflake. Reality appears to be way more than you can handle.

  4. Our best allies are the hysterical alarmists who are obviously beyond suspicious to the casual observer. Our greatest threat are the Luke warmers who try to be rational and reasonable. I would like to never hear about this subject again till 1500 ppm, but the dangerous reasonableness of lukewarmers makes this hope unlikely.

    • Erm… I’m a luke-warmer. Judith Curry, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen and pretty-well all skeptical climate scientists are luke-warmers to some degree.

      • Am also a luke-warmer. Our position is not based on being reasonable or trying to negotiate something in the middle. It’s the authentic science based on atmospheric physics and meteorology(for me anyway).

      • To date, it hasn’t been measured, nor is it ever likely to be. It can’t be sussed out of the noise of climate. It can only be guessed at. But the real the point is, it is too small to make any noticeable difference.

      • First direct observation of carbon dioxide’s increasing greenhouse effect at the Earth’s surface

        Berkeley Lab researchers link rising CO2 levels from fossil fuels to an upward trend in radiative forcing at two locations

        Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide’s greenhouse effect at the Earth’s surface for the first time. The researchers, led by scientists from the US Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), measured atmospheric carbon dioxide’s increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface over an eleven-year period at two locations in North America. They attributed this upward trend to rising CO2 levels from fossil fuel emissions.

        […]

        WUWT

        What was observed? A ~20 ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2 correlated with a 0.2 W/m2 increase in radiative forcing at the Earth’s surface.

        Total insolation at the Earth’s surface ranges from 40 to 340 W/m2 per year.

        Assuming a linear relationship of .01 W/m2 per 1 ppmv CO2… A doubling of pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 560 ppmv will increase radiative forcing by 2.8 W/m2. This is about 2/3 of the IPCC’s estimate.

        The total warming since 1850 has been about 0.7°C. Over the same period, CO2 increased by about 120 ppmv (~1.2 W/m2).

        0.7°C ÷ 1.2 W/m2 = 0.6°C/W/m2
        0.7°C ÷ 120 ppmv CO2 = 0.006°C/ppmv CO2

        This means that a doubling of pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 can lead to a maximum warming of 1.68°C… less than half of the so-called consensus estimate.

        Since my “back of the envelope” calculations assumed a linear, rather than logarithmic, relationship and that all of the warming since 1850 was GHG-driven, the actual climate sensitivity can be no more than half of my estimate… ~0.8°C per doubling of pre-industrial atmospheric CO2.

        This essentially means that the human impact on climate change is insignificant. But, it can and has been measured.

      • not immeasurably small ??? care to back that up with some published real world “measurements” of CO2’s effect on climate or warming ? pretty sure your “measurements” are all theoretical or models …

      • David Middleton November 6, 2017 at 8:49 am

        What was observed? A ~20 ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2 correlated with a 0.2 W/m2 increase in radiative forcing at the Earth’s surface.,

        You omitted to state the most important observation of all, namely during that period temperatures did not change. There was no observational warming despite the 20ppm rise in CO2, despite the claimed 0.2W/m2 measured increase in radiative forcing.

        That is why several commentators have observed that he impact of CO2 has not been measured, or that it is immeasurably small.

      • The observation regarding greenhouse gases is between radiative forcing and atmospheric concentration. This can and has been measured. The relationship between radiative forcing and temperature is far more complex.

      • “But, it can and has been measured”..

        Against what?……first, saying the LIA ended in 1850? That’s a made up and all the rest of it…..as far as we know temps could be returning to normal back to the MWP.
        100% of the temp increase can be attributed to “adjustments”.. either selectively picking stations, adjusting temps up and down, on and on
        They have been caught red handed flat out lying so many times……

        How is someone supposed to be luke warm “rational and reasonable”….and at the same time calling them flat out liars? And calling them flat out liars is the only thing that’s going to work……..

      • David Middleton

        “It’s “small”… But not immeasurably small.”

        Has anyone empirically measured it’s warming effect?

        Genuine question.

      • Graeme Stephen’s 2012 paper showed a ±17 W/m^2 uncertainty in surface thermal flux. The TOA uncertainty is ±4 W/m^2.

        It’s ludicrous to suppose anyone can detect a forcing change of 0.2 W/m^2.

      • The scientists used incredibly precise spectroscopic instruments operated by the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility, a DOE Office of Science User Facility. These instruments, located at ARM research sites in Oklahoma and Alaska, measure thermal infrared energy that travels down through the atmosphere to the surface. They can detect the unique spectral signature of infrared energy from CO2.

        Other instruments at the two locations detect the unique signatures of phenomena that can also emit infrared energy, such as clouds and water vapor. The combination of these measurements enabled the scientists to isolate the signals attributed solely to CO2.

        “We measured radiation in the form of infrared energy. Then we controlled for other factors that would impact our measurements, such as a weather system moving through the area,” says Feldman.

        The result is two time-series from two very different locations. Each series spans from 2000 to the end of 2010, and includes 3300 measurements from Alaska and 8300 measurements from Oklahoma obtained on a near-daily basis.

        Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor.

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/25/almost-30-years-after-hansens-1988-alarm-on-global-warming-a-claim-of-confirmation-on-co2-forcing/

      • lukewarmer
        Definition: Someone who thinks that some human-caused global warming is happening but that it will be negligible and non-cataclysmic.

        Example Usages –
        1. Lukewarmer means simply that the effect of AGW is expected to be a small, non-cataclysmic warming. This might well incorporate warmings like 1980-1997, and coolings like 2000-2009.
        (Source: Bishop Hill )

        2. David Smith cracked me up with new word: ‘Also, I am a “lukewarmer” who thinks that the world is warmer than it would otherwise be due to anthropogenic gases (but doubts that the impact will be extreme).’
        (Source: The Blackboard )

        3. These scientists and their guardians of the flame repeatedly insist that there are only two ways of thinking about climate change—that it’s real, man-made and dangerous (the right way), or that it’s not happening (the wrong way).

        But this is a false dichotomy. There is a third possibility: that it’s real, partly man-made and not dangerous. This is the “lukewarmer” school, and I am happy to put myself in this category. Lukewarmers do not think dangerous climate change is impossible; but they think it is unlikely.
        (Source: Matt Ridley )

        http://www.odlt.org/dcd/ballast/lukewarmer.html

      • David Middleton
        November 6, 2017 at 7:57 am

        But at some point David, if you fail to at least contemplate that anthropogenic CO2 forcing in to the actual CO2 concentration trend, stands as a mathematical impossibility, how could you still “faithfully” keep up with your AGW luke-warming….. The 97% certainty is about, essentially the AGW, not the CAGW, David.

        If you are not ready to contemplate that the AGW is in essential a mathematical impossibility, then you will remain a luke-warmer, essentially an AGWer, probably more so as in a political aspect than in a matter of science and maths.

        In the end, as far as I can shout out to you luke-warmers, the main point is simple……..AGW is a mathematical impossibility, regarding the data and the numbers related to the data……..as these numbers do stand.

        The funny thing David is that, human CO2 emissions, its quantity and its interaction with the natural flux, makes it as a very good tracer to validate the claims, mathematically and physically……that what in essential is and stands as for the amount and the continuity of human CO2 emissions in the end of the day,,,,,, a very important and reliable tracer…..to be used for validation….of any AGW claim, either luke-warming or not……

        But hey that is me…… and at some point time will not fail but tell, as always it does, as far as I can say……and maybe that makes no much sense at this point!

        cheers David.

      • The fake 97% consensus definitely is for AGW, rather than CAGW. 50-67% of atmospheric scientists think that human activities have cause at least half of the warming over the past 50-150 years.

        Annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions are definitely a minuscule fraction of the carbon cycle. But… we have been removing carbon from geologic sequestration and putting it back into the active carbon cycle for over 150 years. While individual CO2 molecules have a short residence time in the atmosphere, we have caused a fairly significant increase in the total volume of CO2 in the active carbon cycle.

        All that said, there’s no evidence that our activities have significantly altered Earth’s climatic zones.

      • David, please NOT the Feldman paper.

        That graph is from a model, not data

        The data also finishes at an partial El Nino peak, and shows absolutely no correlation actual temperatures.

        Richard, depending when the actual data finished, there was either no warming, or an El Nino spike.

        The whole study was a farce, with no partial periods considered .. Just BAD SCIENCE.

      • “This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor.”

        It did NOT follow temperatures, temperatures DROPPED sharply in 2008.

        If they stopped right at the peak of the 2010 spike, then the extra warmth of the atmosphere would be the cause.

        NOTHING to do with CO2.

        Note that it took the 5 years to manipulate the data enough to torture out a tiny non-forcing.

      • Kalifornia Kook says: “Guess we need a common definition ….

        *(new guy walks up to the pool) How’s the water today?
        *(response from the lukewarmer guy sitting in the chair sitting by the pool) Luke-warm.
        *(new guy jumps in – immediately climbs out shivering) Damn it, I thought you said it was WARM!
        *(lukewarmer guy shrugs) sorry buddy, it sure Luke- warm to me ….

      • David Middleton
        November 6, 2017 at 12:27 pm

        Thanks for your reply David.

        One main point that I am trying to push forward at this stage is, that the luke-warmer position, can not be uphold any more at this point.

        I can empathize and have compassion with the far reached claim of the CAGWers, where at some point the bizarre claim that maybe at the best, the scientific method could be wrong or not proper enough, even when the condition of nullification and falsification of the theory in question so obvious, simply because what at stake happens to be too important to be ignore and not consider it at some hipper precautionary principle, because of what could be at stake…..that is what could be the CAGWers at the last stand plea…..and it calls for some consideration there.

        But what about the AGW luke-warming, how could you call for a special case plea for dismissing the scientific method and basic science……..bizarre and a paradox…….how, when there is no any AGW “apocalypse” to consider from the prospect of a luke-warmer, how a luke warmer can not accept that in principle the AGW is and stands nullified and falsified, as the main conditions for that have already materialized and also supported by the GCM experiment!! In the basic scientific approach !!

        That is the most paradoxical point as far as I can tell……….the hypothesis at this point is debunked and will stand that way till the conditions of nullification and falsification removed, if ever,,,,,,,, and when the CAGWers may still have a last port of call due to the proclaimed hazards that may befall if the science and the scientific method been inadequate to deal with such a “complicated” circumstance , the lukes have none, no any grounds to contemplate scientifically, mathematically, even politically their position……

        Sorry but have to say this, at this point, the lukes are a mess, and a very bad one at that, at this point.

        Not trying to hurt any one’s feelings, but that is how I see it………hopefully I am wrong and some how the lukes can be right…..still a paradox from my point of view…..it does not really compute in principle, even in a political one!!!!!

        cheers

      • You have to differentiate the hypothesis/theory from the rhetoric and unfortunate choices of words for describing it.

        The scientific hypothesis/theory underpinning AGW is that CO2 and other “greenhouse” gases retard radiative cooling. Increasing their concentrations in the atmosphere will result in greater radiative forcing. This bit of the science can be measured and to some extent empirically tested and confirmed.

        How that radiative forcing effect translates into changes in temperature, weather and possibly climatic conditions is largely a matter of speculation and arm-waving.

      • David Middleton
        November 6, 2017 at 1:42 pm

        Thanks again David.

        You see, I have nothing against the statements in your last reply to me….very well thought and in principle standing as not disputable, but you see still regardless a hypothesis and a theory can be weighted and assessed through methods that do not have to abide to the hypothesis or the theory itself and the point when considered,,,,,,, simply observations and further more a support from experiment, may just do it as supposed to, if all well and fairly weighted…

        Your reply seems like you trying to support a view point to the contrary of this, that further hypothesis an theories will invalidate and debunk a standing hypothesis.

        Maybe I am wrong but a hypothesis or theory is tested and validated or invalidated, debunked or further supported, what ever be the case, basically by analyses driven by the scientific method and not by further hypothesis, especially not from arbitrary ones. .

        The meant and mentioned nullification and falsification of the AGW as put from my point is simple,,,,, lack of hot spot and the clear decoupling of the ppm CO2 trend from temp trend, can not really be ignored, especially from a luke’s point of view..

        These conditions have no much dependence on hypothetical or the theoretical explanation them self….. only observational and metrics involved with these conditions and their highlighting…….and experiment also, which happens to support the evidence and the observation when it comes to the nullification and the falsification of the AGW hypothesis.

        That to me is very clear…..no problem for me at this point to not consider it any other way.

        But there where the paradox arises for me, as I tried to explained earlier.

        I still can empathize and somehow have compassion, for the sake of all probability, with the CAGWers, but no chance what so ever for such as towards the lukes….

        No sure if I am some how making any sense here….:)

        cheers

      • You can’t say that CO2 has no impact on climate until you can accurately subtract out all of the natural variations.
        We are a couple hundred years away from doing that.
        You can honestly say that the CO2 signal is too small to be read given the background noise.
        You cannot honestly say that there is no CO2 signal.

      • “David Middleton November 6, 2017 at 7:57 am

        …luke-warmers to some degree…”

        Like 1/10th of a degree?

      • I doubt the more than half part, but am hopeful that a modest bump in temps is involved . . as we continue to enhance the atmosphere’s life sustaining abilities.

        The climate change potential seems almost trivial to me, now . . given the many benefits we derive from responsible use of the array of extremely handy fuels so fortuitously abundant on this orb . . It’s a biggly Win-Win, in Trumpish . . Blessings, in Christianese ; )

      • Since you are not an alarmist David Middleton, but have the view “It’s “small”… But not immeasurably small.” then perhaps you could point to the exact mechanism that allows CO2 to warm our atmosphere since all the historical evidence points to CO2 following an increase in global temperature. As I understand it, the IPCC view is that CO2’s warming effect is a group of experts view or evaluation, not a scientific fact.
        It is high time the mechanism be explained and backed by experiment or other scientific method rather than experts opinion. A group of self declared experts sitting and agreeing amongst themselves that their computer models are correct and CO2 is at least 51% responsible for man made global warming counts for nothing in my humble opinion.

      • CO2 doesn’t “warm” the atmosphere. So-called “greenhouse” gases retard radiative cooling. All other factors held equal, an increase in CO2 will lead to a higher average temperature of the atmosphere.

      • 100% of those bands that are not transparent were being absorbed at 300 ppm CO2, and probably were at 200 ppm as well.

        The additional heat comes from additional CO2 molecules losing fractions of their quantized energy, gained through absorption, to other molecules (N2) due to collisions which take place on average every 10^-7 seconds at 1 atmosphere. The big IF is whether all other factors are held equal.

      • I don’t think you can ever reach 100% saturation. But the effect is logarithmic, a diminishing returns function.

        All other factors are never held equal. This is where AGW breaks down. The radiative forcing effects are basically simple physics. The translation of that into temperature changes is far more complex.

      • Richard,

        CO2 definitely slows down the cooling in the desert and to conceptualize how it works, consider GHG’s to be half silvered mirrors of LWIR that recycles some surface emissions back to the surface. Clouds are broad band absorbers and emitters of LWIR, rather than the narrow band GHG’s and actually have a larger effect on slowing down cooling by recycling power back to the surface.

        Water vapor is also a powerful agent and the lack of water vapor and clouds in deserts means the total effect is far lower than it would be otherwise, but none the less is still finite and non zero.

      • I just ploughed through Sminov’s recent work. I would like to see a detailed discussion here. Also, how does the “lukewarmism” respond to the trend in estimates of ecs over the last decade. Lots to learn.

      • David,
        The spectral intensity of the planets emissions in the absorption bands is not 100% attenuated from an ideal BB as your diagram suggests, but only about 50% attenuated. Your diagram shows the DIRECT transmittance from the surface and what’s not directly transmitted is absorbed by the atmosphere, half of which is ultimately emitted into space and the remaining half is returned to the surface. Here’s a typical measurement of the spectrum:

        https://www.google.com/search?q=Earth+emission+spectrum+measurements&client=ubuntu&hs=EgU&channel=fs&tbm=isch&source=iu&pf=m&ictx=1&fir=oIpFNxmTvwNCLM%253A%252C0ALeQ18keA4oaM%252C_&usg=__MN0p74dnPVCdQ8ITNOR2kECQRVI%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUsOLD0arXAhUE5GMKHSkKC_sQ9QEIKDAA#imgrc=oIpFNxmTvwNCLM:

        The one picture in red and yellow is not measured and is wrong. The others are all measured results.

        In the 15u band, the attenuation is a little more than 50%. This is the consequence of energized water vapor condensing on a water droplet which is the only ‘thermalization’ mechanism that actually exists, in which case the narrow band energy absorbed by the water vapor is converted into broad band BB emissions from liquid water.

      • If you look carefully at the charts posted by David Middleton November 6, 2017 at 8:59 am, you will see that a large proportion of the wavelengths absorbed by CO2 have already been absorbed by H2O. IOW, CO2 has much less effect than it appears if you look just at the CO2 chart.
        I’m a lukewarmer, as in negligible and non-cataclysmic, but I prefer minor and beneficial.

      • Yep… especially H2O. Whatever adjectives you choose, all of the evidence indicates that the climate is relatively insensitive to CO2,

      • Mike,

        About 2/3 of the planet is covered by clouds, where the GHG effect between those clouds and the surface is irrelevant as the clouds will absorb and re-emit nearly all of the surface emissions anyway. The GHG effect between cloud tops and space matters, but that high in the atmosphere, the water vapor content is nearly zero.

    • ” rational and reasonable.”

      I’m old enough to have noticed that “rational and reasonable”….is compromise

      The right has compromised with the left so much, there’s little right left…..seems the left never has to move to the right, it’s mostly the right moving to the left. Look where we are now, and how we got there.

      • Compromising with enemies of liberty and prosperity isn’t rational or reasonable… No matter how much the RINO’s claim it is.

      • The RINO’s desperately want to be loved by the Leftist Main Stream Media. That’s what motivates people like McCain. In order to keep the MSM from criticizing them, the RINO’s must accept the political positions of the Left, and they have to pretend that the Left is rational and sensible.

        The sad part for the RINO’s is they will never be loved by the MSM. McCain got a lot of love from the MSM, until he ran for president, and then they treated him just like any other Republican: as a racist, bigot, homophobe and war monger.

        Now that McCain is criticizing Trump, the MSM loves him again. But it’s only temporary, John. The MSM will throw you under the bus as soon as you are no longer useful to them and their political agenda. Serves you right, too.

      • I think many underestimate the degree of outright corruption that has taken root (and flowered) in our political/governmental/media systems . . There are many people on this planet who will literally kill for money, or to keep from going to prison, or to keep from being killed themselves, etc. A great many will lie, cheat and steal for it, and I think much of what is often characterized as ideological/political compromise or drifting, is really just an act, to cover for profiteering, and blackmail capitulation and so on . .

    • David. That’s from the “this ought to shut up the “Skydragon slayers” department, a couple of years ago when WUWT website underlined ‘metrology’ as a typo. Without knowing a lot about the dispute, you can count me as one in favour of personal freedom of conscience and association instead.

    • Pretty much anyone with any scientific training who has actually done due diligence on the science is a lukewarmer. It’s counterproductive to the cause to claim that CO2 has no effect. Incremental CO2 clearly has a finite affect on the surface temperature and the difference between lukewarmers and alarmists can be boiled down to the size of this effect. Lukewarmers consider the effect to be too small to obsess about and far too small to spend a dime to mitigate, much less trillions of dimes. Alarmists, on the other hand are the counterpoint to skeptics who claim no effect. Both take an extreme position, both are wrong and in most cases, both are motivated by political ideology.

      • Yep. There are many good scientific and economic reasons to reject the alarmists’ characterization of AGW and their proposed solutions, without rejecting the underlying science.

      • Yes, the actual science is pretty solid. What’s not is the crap wrapped around it that added enough uncertainty and wiggle room to justify the formation of the IPCC. There’s no chance that the IPCC will ever correct this as they would end up correcting themselves out of existence.

      • “Alarmists, on the other hand are the counterpoint to skeptics who claim no effect. Both take an extreme position, both are wrong and in most cases, both are motivated by political ideology.”

        This skeptic claims there is no evidence that CO2 has any NET effect on the Earth’s climate. Talking about radiative forcings is irrelevant, if it isn’t affecting the Earth’s climate. I’m motivated by scientific evidence, and I know when I don’t see any. I don’t see CO2 changing the Earth’s climate, CO2’s radiative forcing or no CO2 radiative forcing.

        Skeptics are not arguing there is no radiative greenhouse effect, we are arguing there is no evidence this affects the Earth’s climate in any observable way. Nor is there any evidence that CO2 affects the Earth’s climate throughout Earth’s long history, even though CO2 levels have been much, much higher than today. Humans couldn’t raise the CO2 levels to the levels in our past if humans burnt every hydrocarbon on the planet. We would still be way below the levels CO2 has reached in the past, without a runaway greenhouse effect occurring.

        Radiative forcing and human-caused Climate Change/Global Warming are two different animals. Radiative forcing exists, but there’s no evidence it has any effect on the Earth’s climate.

      • There’s no evidence that it has a *significant* effect on Earth’s climate.

        The bulk temperature of the atmosphere is the result of innumerable factors, most of which have nothing to do with human activities. The net-human effect is to make that temperature a little bit higher than it otherwise would be. This has no significant effect on Earth’s climate(s). The Koeppen climatic zones today are not significantly different than they were 50 years ago.

      • TA,

        How can you argue that there is a radiative GHG effect, yet at the same time claim it has no effect on the temperature? There’s certainly no evidence that the effect is anywhere near as large as claimed, because it’s not. None the less, the effect is finite and small enough to be buried in natural variability.

        The evidence that there is an effect is the fact that the surface is warmer than it would be without GHG’s and clouds, where the difference between them is that GHG’s are narrow band absorbers and emitters while clouds are broad band absorbers and emitters. Both recycle about half of the energy they absorb back to the surface.

        Clearly radiative forcing has an effect on the climate as the Sun is the ONLY true source of radiative forcing. GHG’s change the system and claiming that this is forcing is incorrect and highly misleading. The true nature of this claim is that effect of doubling CO2 is EQUIVALENT to 3.7 W/m^2 more solar forcing while keeping the system (CO2 concentrations) constant, moreover; 3.7 W/m^2 more solar forcing would increase the surface temperature by less than 1C, where the current increase in concentrations since the start of the Industrial Revolution would at most add a few of tenths of a degree to the average.

        BTW, even the 3.7 W/m^2 equivalent forcing is likely about twice as large as actual. This is the difference at TOA upon instantly doubling CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm. Since this 3.7 W/m^2 is being absorbed by the atmosphere, once the system arrives at a new LTE after the CO2 doubling, only half ultimately returns to the surface while the remaining half is emitted into space. This would further decrease any effect by a factor of 2, further burying it in the noise of natural variability. I usually don’t bother emphasizing this additional factor of 2 error since even without it, the effect is too small to worry about.

      • As far as I’m aware there is no evidence linking the slightly increased CO2 radiative forcing to surface or any other temperatures. In fact the increased radiative forcing may well cause cooling through other mechanisms resulting in net negative feedback and therefore a negative CO2 sensitivity or possibly a zero sensitivity.

        No one knows as yet. So then from this perspective “Lukewarmer” is an entirely misleading title. All this achieves is to give people a false sense that something is known about warming which actually is unknown. The title ought to be be “lukeforcer” at this time and nothing more.

      • In the same sense that “greenhouse” is a misnomer, this is correct. AGW, Lukewarmer, etc. all refer to radiative forcing effects.

        However, Luke Forcer is a little too Star Wars-ie.

      • cephus0.
        There’s no physical evidence of a large effect because the theoretical effect is small enough to be buried in the noise of natural variability.

        Also, the concept of feedback is widely misused by both sides of climate science. Feedback is only relevant in the context of a system with power gain which is not a property of the climate system.

        As far as mitigating circumstances reducing the sensitivity to zero, these really don’t seem to be present, as the temperature changes that arise from seasonal differences in solar forcing are quite real.

      • “Alarmists, on the other hand are the counterpoint to skeptics who claim no effect.[my bold]

        Careful co2… you are ill-defining ‘skeptics’. According to Merriam-Webster a skeptic is “an adherent or advocate of skepticism” and skepticism is “an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object.” Having doubt expresses no certainty, only a lack thereof.

        For example, as a skeptic I may accept that CO2 has the stated effect on a column of dry air, but when included in the complex system they call the Earth’s Climate, it may have ‘too small’ an effect to be measurable, no effect at all or even the opposite effect. Until you thoroughly understand the internals of the entire system, and the interactions of all components, you do not know.

      • Joe,
        Lukewarmers like myself are skeptical of the junk parts of the science promoted by the IPCC but are not skeptical of those components of the science that are based on the known laws of physics. It’s important to differentiate between the two and the failure to separate them is common among alarmists.

        The IPCC muddies the waters by adding junk (i.e. positive feedback, water vapor enhancement, hidden heat, etc.) on top of known physics and lumps in those who dispute the junk with those who dispute the known physics.

        I’m clearly of the opinion that the effect is too small to discern from the noise of natural variability. But, I’m equally certain that the effect we are not discerning is not zero.

        There can be no question that the incremental effect of solar forcing is non zero and to the extent that incremental CO2 can be considered equivalent to solar forcing, it will also have a finite effect.

        There are two parts to the net effect. One is the effect that incremental post albedo solar energy (forcing) has on the surface temperature and the other is how much solar forcing while keeping the system constant is equivalent to keeping the post albedo solar input constant and changing CO2 concentrations. Both of these are significantly overestimated by the IPCC.

        My emphasis has been on identifying a correct value for the climate sensitivity, which necessarily is not zero. Over-estimating the equivalent forcing from doubling CO2 doesn’t matter a lot since after applying the proper sensitivity, even the inflated equivalent forcing is not enough to make the warming anything close to catastrophic.

      • “This shouldn’t be so difficult for people to comprehend.”

        You would think so. The problem is the disinformation and the many levels of obfuscation used to keep even scientifically literate people horribly confused.

        The #1 reason that keeps alarmists from changing their mind is the inability to comprehend how ostensibly intelligent scientists could be so incredibly wrong about something so important. The number 1 task of the IPCC is to maintain this illusion in order to remain relevant and keep the dream of using climate reparations as the excuse to implement globally redistributive economics. Unfortunately, they have done a superb job of maintaining physics defying, yet plausible confusion.

      • “How can you argue that there is a radiative GHG effect, yet at the same time claim it has no effect on the temperature?”

        I’m arguing that there is no evidence the radiative greenhouse effect of CO2 has any noticiable effect on the Earth’s climate. I’m not arguing that CO2 does not absord and radiate energy, I’m arguing that there must be some negative feedback in the climate that negates this warming, otherwise temperature and CO2 levels would correlate with each other, and they do not.

        Modern day Hockey Stick charts show a correlation between CO2 and the temperatures, but we know them to be lies perpetrated by advocates of CAGW. That’s the only “evidence” the Alarmists have and it is no evidence at all.

        Yes, CO2 absorbs and radiates energy, but there is no evidence this causes the Earth’s climate to change now, or in all of Earth’s history.

        That’s my position.

        Subject to change as knowledge increases.

      • My point is only that there’s a big difference between no effect and some effect, even if that effect is too small to discern from the noise.

        It’s true that incremental CO2 has a small theoretical effect, mostly because much of its potential effect has already manifested, moreover; consensus climate science overstates the effect by a wide margin. None the less, there can be no doubt if there was no CO2 in the atmosphere, the surface temperature would be colder than it is now.

        BTW, there’s no more any kind of negative feedback mitigating the effect then there is any positive feedback amplifying it. The whole concept of feedback doesn’t apply to the climate. The simple fact is that the effect is small to begin with.

      • Being rational and reasonable does not mean compromise with anyone or anything. Rationality and reason are the heart of the scientific method. Because your opponents in the warmist camp are neither rational nor reasonable and you, David are both rational and reasonable in everything I’ve seen you write here at WUWT, does not mean that you are compromising. Ask Neville Chamberlain about compromising with your enemies. It’s generally not a good idea.

      • To me… compromise is in having two glasses of red wine with dinner. I would prefer four, my wife prefers zero… Voila! A compromise!

    • Delingpole’s only expertise is in English literature and he gets paid to push out such articles

      (He writes quite good WW2 novels – though a little risque perhaps)

      • Climate scientists get paid to push out confirmation of the theory. You don’t seem too bothered by that.

        He’s a science writer, yes. However, Gore, McKibben, Cook, Nye, and on and on are nothing but spokesmen for the alarmists. Do you want them dismissed as “not scientists” and ignored?

      • Delingpole’s articles are well researched and accurate….do you just have a problem with them being well written? ;)

      • Sheri wrote: “Climate scientists get paid to push out confirmation of the theory.”

        Can I just point out that AGW/CAGW is not a theory. In order to be a theory there would need to be some supporting evidence. There is none. After getting on for half a century of frantic, monotonically increasing hysterical effort and funding levels which would have made the Manhattan Project feel a bit cheap and tawdry there still is not so much as the faintest glimmer of any evidence heaving into view on the distant horizon. And many would say that is because it is wrong.

        So then it is at best an hypothesis and more realistically a quacking, honking and burbling-at-the-moon insane failed hypothesis.

      • Clearly, if the penguins all walked to the same side of the sea ice at the same time, it would capsize… Unless they were offset by an equal weight of polar bears on the other side of the sea ice… //Sarc^3

      • David, did you leave off the red lines showing the average past level of the ice, at a considerable distance from where it is now, or just pick an illustration without?

        for those who haven’t looked, sea ice extent is just about to cross the 2012 line for this time of year and become the second lowest extent at this point in November in the record.

        (What ice there is is not 100% cover and little of it is over 2m. Fram export has already started too)

      • The 1981-2010 average is on the map. It’s just outboard of the edge of the ice, except in the Canadian archipelago…

  5. Pragmatism over ideology. I agree, We are certainly going to be using coal in the mix, might as well come to grips with that and see what can be done to make it as clean as efficiency and cost allows.

  6. Fourth global climate meeting since Trump cancelled the PCA? Mang, saving the world from us energy using plebs sure is hard work. From Bonn, they only get to rest a few weeks before meeting again in San Francisco in early December. Maybe if they step it up and meet 12 times a year vs 6 times a year, then we will see some results.

      • Indeed – maybe they can sign deals with the large number of US entities still supporting the Paris agreement

        the ‘We Are Still In’ coalition of businesses, states and cities confirmed its membership has doubled to 2,584 signatories.

        The group was set up in the wake of President Trump’s controversial decision to quit the Paris Agreement, in a bid to demonstrate that many parts of US society remained committed to the international accord’s goals.

        The organisation announced recently that a surge in new supporters, including a Republican Mayor, five counties and 213 churches, mean the campaign now represents $6.2tr of the US economy, nine states, more than 250 cities and 1,780 businesses and investors.

      • About as significant as Islington declaring itself a nuclear free zone to protect Corbyn’s allotment.

      • The campaign now represents $6.2 Trillion of the US economy? LOL, thanks for the laugh. The left’s obsession with OPM has now reached imaginative levels.

      • Griffie confuses virtue signalling with actually doing, and continues in his fantasy that “climate action” is something that is needed or even smart.

      • Griff’s $6.2tr comment is a salutary reminder that swamp-draining is a lengthy and difficult process.

      • And those guys can hand their own state tax-payers cash over to third world dictators while crippling their domestic economies with expensive renewable energy and turning once prosperous places into criminals and illegals sanctuaries. Should be interesting to see how long the watermelons remain in power as their cities and states begin to fall behind those who weren’t quite so generous with the loot.

  7. Let the Climate Circus begin! Note to self: need more popcorn. I look forward to plenty of tantrums, walkouts, and crocodile tears amongst the Faithful, those seeking to keep the gravy train rolling, and especially those countries seeking Climate Cash and Retribution for their Climate Suffering.

  8. The main part of COP23 has already been played the pacific island nations want money. Unless Germany and France are going to dig in there pockets it’s going to be a talk fest.

  9. “a presentation to highlight the role that coal and other fuels can play in curbing the impacts of rising temperatures”

    That’s simply impossible.

    and presenting on coal to a forum of countries committed to ending its use in power stations is just completely bats.

    • Glad you mentioned bats, Griff. Every bat killed by a windmill represents approximately 250,000 more mosquitoes that will not be eaten.

      Not to mention the birds.

      • The measures to mitigate impacts on bats are already in place in the US.
        And to some extent in Europe – though the pattern of migration is quite different there.

        Wind turbines are not decimating bat populations either

      • Wind farms have a long-documented history of killing hundreds of thousands of birds and bats each year. As it turns out, the bat toll may be higher than previously estimated.

        In a study published Monday, researchers in the United Kingdom found that environmental impact assessments — the main tool used to predict the ecological effects of a new energy development — commonly failed to predict the number of bats that would have fatal collisions with wind turbines’ spinning blades. Even in the few cases where researchers said early assessments accurately predicted the danger to bats, efforts to mitigate those risks often did not succeed.

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/07/wind-farms-might-be-killing-many-more-bats-than-we-realize/?utm_term=.2a9dd02024c2

      • Mortality Survey Shows Leading Causes of Bat Deaths

        By Joshua Rapp Learn
        Posted on January 21, 2016

        White-nose syndrome (WNS) and wind turbines have killed the largest number of bats in the world since 2000, according to a new study.

        […]

        http://wildlife.org/mortality-survey-shows-leading-causes-of-bat-deaths/

        Here’s your Hobson’s Choice…

        Two factors led to a major shift in causes of MMEs in bats at around 2000: the global increase of industrial wind-power facilities and the outbreak of white-nose syndrome in North America. Collisions with wind turbines and white-nose syndrome are now the leading causes of reported MMEs in bats.

        Collectively, over half of all reported MMEs were of anthropogenic origin. The documented occurrence of MMEs in bats due to abiotic factors such as intense storms, flooding, heat waves, and drought is likely to increase in the future with climate change. Coupled with the chronic threats of roosting and foraging habitat loss, increasing mortality through MMEs is unlikely to be compensated for, given the need for high survival in the dynamics of bat populations.

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mam.12064/full

        MME = multiple mortality events

        Kill bats now with wind turbines.

        Kill bats later with climate models.

    • Coal is MOST CERTAINLY the cheapest and most reliable way of any country sourcing energy to help combat the effects of NATURAL climate change.

      The whole of western civilisation uses it for control of local climates in homes, industry, shopping malls, hospitals.. etc etc

      Even you, griff, are totally beholden to it for your electricity supply, as well as basically EVERYTHING in your meaningless little life.

    • Classic Trump Troll. All they need do is ask the blob to provide a cohesive argument against with supporting evidence – er, not models by the way – and watch the buffoons flail around with all manner of ignorant emotive non-arguments. Oh to be a fly on those walls.

  10. News from November 4th Daily Express that EU has wasted £520 million on a failed CCS scheme. Small beer in their long history of disasters but those millions will eventually add up to something significant.

    ‘Reflecting on the scheme he helped create, former Lib Dem MEP Chris Davies told EUobserver: “The expectation was that the carbon price would rise from thirty euros up to a hundred euros.” When the carbon price crashed (now seven euros per ton CO2) the scheme attracted virtually no participants and only ended up funding projects already in the renewable category.’

  11. Norton of International Oxy Morons is upset! I’d like to follow Norton around for a day and see just what the heck he does for his well compensated living. Actually a neat thing to spring on him when he’s unexpecting it would be to… ask him!

    Environment and development! In the neomarxbrothers world mean their antonyms. Environment means chopping down your only national forest (Denmark) and and re-tufting it with quixotic idiotic windmills made in China that create a stench of slaughtered sea birds until they are wiped out. This is a monument to the mental health disaster of Europe. It means building solar arrays in Scotland sitting there in the scotch mist like headstones in a graveyard. It means rock bolting Germany with wind mills that are marching off into the Baltic like Chinese clay legions and having to open up more lignite mines to back them up.

    It means the Gang Green of South Oz closing down coal fired plants, going all in with renewables, shutting in the major regional employer (Glencor) who can’t use wifty-poofty electrical intermittent sparks and farmers all running diesel generators.

    And development! Closing down entire industrial sectors including manufacturing on two continents that used to lead the world and shipping all their jobs to China.

    Ger a job Norton, even your nearest and dearest are embarrassed that they don’t know what you do and you can’t explain it to them.

  12. A big win coming if we can get the 7.5k federal tax credit for EV’s finished off. Never easy to close the cash spigot here in the US. Sure it’s the same wherever you live. But you know what? Climate Change is a non-issue here among voters. Nobody is pushing it. What a sweet change from just a few years back. It ain’t dead but it also don’t matter that much. Justice served for now. Let’s finish it.

      • That’s good news!

        David Middleton: you should do a “version two” of your original post on the measured greenhouse effect of CO2, including the calculations you posted in comments here, and some of the other comments. Like Varney’s comment that during the decade long experiment, there was no measurable global warming.

      • Thomas, It depends when the data actually started and finished.

        2000 was half way out of the 19989 El Nino rebound.

        2010 was actually the peak of a small El Nino type spike, but there was also a large dip in 2008

        Between 2001 and 2007, no warming at all

        None of this shows up in the MODEL output that David showed.

        Who knows what Marty Feldman and his crew were actually torturing out of their data. !

  13. Thanks, Dave Middleton, your energy posts are always interesting & relevant. US coal exports have been increasing, despite the coordinated domestic war on it.

  14. Strangely, the more the Greenies and Climate Numpties hate on coal, the more I like coal. Never really thought much of coal before. Odd.

      • And let’s not forget coal-bed methane. Get the gas out before you mine it, It’s often not good enough for gas distribution but can be used to generate electricity. Also makes mining the coal a lot safer. If you don’t get the gas out before you mine it, it’s lost to the atmosphere when you do mine it.

        And let’s start harnessing all the methane leaking out of abandoned underground coal mines. There’s a shed load of energy there, just going to waste.

    • I know, right? Used to be just a lump of black dirt to my way of thinking, but now I see it as beautiful, clean, life-giving energy :)

  15. For Ultimate Winning, the climate models have to exposed to all of science for the Bad Science they are.

    A good place for a real engineer or naive scientist to start (to understand how flawed the models are) is in reading the climateers own admissions about what they have to do to make their models “work”

    Two good places to start:

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00135.1

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6311/401

    A careful, thoughtful read of those two articles should leave no doubt in any objective scientist’s mind that the climate models outputs are nothing more than confirmation bias machines… Very expensive confirmation bias machines.

    And once the climate model hustle is fully exposed to the much wider, non-climate scientist communities, the only pole holding up the Climate Alarmists Big Tent will collapse.

    • The second link says

      “For years, climate scientists have tuned their parameterizations so that the model overall matches climate records. ”

      This invariably means tuned to GISS or HadCrut.

      Both these data sets are massively adjusted to create unrealistic warming trends, the 1940’s peak disappearing completely for example.

      Because the parameterisations have this UNREALISTIC warming trend built into them…

      the models CAN NEVER hope to be even remotely correct.

      I guess they could go back to using actual REALITY in their climate data…. but that would DESTROY the whole AGW farce.

      • They had to create an increased albedo to force their models to reproduce those past temperatures. Most did so by tuning in higher historical levels aerosols for those hindcasts to not run too hot.

        There’s no reason to believe those aerosols actually existed (by observation). It was simply needed to get them to reproduce yesterday.
        It is a point that Trenberth has lamented upon (the tuning in of unrealistic aerosols to match records).

        The aerosols are not there in today’s observations, which initialize the models start state. Thus the models run too hot. Actually most are way too hot unless they tune in much more precipitation than realistic. And then they fix that and then another state (like clouds) goes out of wack. They keep tuning and tweaking until they finally get what meets their expectations… sort of. As the first link calls it, Tuning is an Art. And their is nothing more subjective in the human creation than Art.

        GCMs are not science. Just junk. Pure junk science.

  16. David seems to think that spectral measurements are heat sources eg from CO2. Radiation and more so its spectral signature are, in physics, not capable of CAUSING the heat/kinetic energy they RESULTED from. Temperature is just our way of measuring this. They are an EFFECT, instead. And anyone who thinks they can also heat ie raise the Kinetic Energy of the warmer matter below in our atmosphere. Or even affect its radiation release, is in need of deep study of the basics.
    Photonic radiation, EMF, is merely a side effect of molecular vibration in the atomic Field. Consider the -ve 4th power, also what SB must radiate to…..

    • David seems to think that spectral measurements are heat sources…

      David never posted anything that could make any scientifically literate person think this.

  17. From about the turn of the Century to now. there has been no observable change in World temperature as shown by RSS. During that period measured atmospheric CO2 increased by 20ppm. Whether it increased because of some increase in Industrial emissions of CO2 (about 3-4% of total emissions) or by natural variations of Oceans or natural emissions from some other source is not yet proven, The question of whether previous increases in temperature were caused by Solar activity, CO2 or something else are equally ‘up in the air’. Generally, people and plants are still happier to see warmer weather. There is nothing in all this speculation to believe that taxing people more, using their food as fuel, forcing them to use solar panels that don’t work at night or wind turbines that chop birds and bats, will improve the weather or even alter it significantly.

  18. I go with Poisson, Maxwell (Theory of Heat), Prof Robert Wood (experimental Optical Physicist), Konrad Hartmann etc., and my own extensive studies. Atmospheres have no lids and pyrgeometers measure nearby spectra by an algorithmic model. Gaseous mass, gravity, and insolation are all that are needed. Anywhere in the universe.

  19. In scanning the comments, CO2 is mentioned in most of them, but the CERN CLOUD experiment results are never mentioned. Radiative forcing is mentioned throughout the CLOUD experiment reports and CO2 is not mentioned once. What am I missing? Is the 2017 understanding of climate science reflected by this discussion or not? My impression is the Arrhenius climate change model is passe. This discussion is going nowhere for me. Same ol same ol. A fresh perspective without so many W/m2 would help. My apology for the vent. A long day.

    One reference that might be of interest is the CERN Courier, Nov 11, 2016, “CLOUD experiment sharpens climate predictions.”

    • CLOUD and It’s predecessor SKY both successfully demonstrated that the GCR flux can influence cloud cover, particularly low cloud cover, clearly demonstrating that subtle variations in solar activity (which modulates the GCR flux) could explain much of the observed temperature changes.

      Not really relevant to this thread.

  20. I am a lukewarmer too, along the lines of David M. although I wish we were actually getting the warming they were predicting we would get. It is obvious the climate models are not going to be even close to their linear predictive warming based upon CO2 going up. So why is their a subset of skeptics with their mind already made up that CO2 has no radiative delay in cooling, therefore slightly warming the planet? That is even a departure from the sceptical science definition of ‘Skeptic’. In my view, these sceptical deni@es are the most dangerous of all, because it sends the message that all skeptics are off their rocker, and so lets ban all fossil fuels because they are all nuts. Don’t speak for me, since how are we to be taken seriously by mainstream science if radiative physics is just straight up dismissed by some here, tarring us all with the same ignorant brush.

    Kinda sad to to see David M sort of have to tip toe around on egg shells to defend his position from the ‘mind made up’ skeptic view that CO2 has no small effect on temperature. These are the true deni@rs that the alarmists paint all of us with the same brush. If they don’t like it, they should go start their own blog, preferably in Russia where this mindset comes from. To sow division and discontent within.

      • Maybe you are just a nice guy David, the type of person you would enjoy having a beer with and not having to get into the weeds on every small point. While I think your reply was polite to some of the statements such as: “Our greatest threat are the Luke warmers who try to be rational and reasonable.” it would be nice to know where WUWT policy is in regards to people who flat out deny radiative physics. After all, it is sort of the key tenet why we are even here on this blog, although I believe there is some small amount of warming by humankind, thank God, and it is beneficial. Very beneficial. How could there not be any warming with 7.5 billion people on the planet, and we can quantify some of the human caused warming such as land use change, UHI heating etc, so how could all the warming just be related to CO2 anyway. But to hear some people, especially educated people completely refute the science should not be promoted or debated here. We don’t debate flat earth, astrology, young earth or lots of other stuff, so why do we have debate on radiative physics or that most of us real skeptics are really luke warmers of some degree. I recall your article a few months ago about this very subject, and in the end, most every comment was that they were a luke warmer too, but at the start, it felt like everyone was coming out of a closet.

        When I am out and about chatting with friends and acquaintances trying to make a case for a skeptical position on CAGW and subsequent public policy, I am always confronted with the absolute D word that there are people who just flat up refute radiative physics that there is “no warming, period, prove it” and then I am on my hind foot having to explain there are nut bars in every crowd. It is sad to see them get a voice here. The basic science should not be up for debate, since it destroys our position to be taken seriously. That’s what I heard here from several of the comments today, and while everyone was fairly polite, I think it puts all the work that WUWT has done the last 10-11 years in jeopardy, to have a credible position that the mainstream will finally see and adopt as well.

      • You do realize that (1) there is no such thing as *a* beer and (2) you can’t discuss any subject while drinking beer(s) or other adult beverages without going hip-deep in the weeds… right?

        I can’t speak for Anthony/WUWT, nor would I presume to do so… but… personally, I don’t like to see any particular viewpoint shut out of the conversation, if it is presented in a rational, collegial manner.

      • I also sometimes think the debate here is not improved or is diluted by including all points of view on warming, even though some of them are mutually contradictory…

        The ‘we are entering a new ice age’

        and

        ‘the physics of the greenhouse effect’

        viewpoints flatly contradict

        ‘its warming but not at the rate predicted’ and similar

        a range of viewpoints by all means – but if some completely preclude others?

      • There is only room in griff’s tiny mind for griff’s fantasy veiwpoints.

        Just one lonely synapse firing…. at random !!

      • “The basic science should not be up for debate”

        And there is your problem straight up.

        You don’t understand that the so-called basic physics of the AGW agenda is wrong from the very bottom up.

    • And I think that people like you insisting their own ignorant point of view is the only one to be put forward are damaging any chance of destroying the AGW farce.

      You are welcome to come up with some empirical proof that CO2 causes warming in our convectively controlled atmosphere.

      Or not.!

      All I see so far is a whole prattle of self-important mindless yapping.

  21. No matter which side of the debate you are on, even the IPCC admit that no matter how much C02 we pump into the atmosphere from now on, it can now only contribute another 13% to the total warming. Due to the logarithmic nature of the forcing 87% was reached at 400ppm.

    Why oh why then, isn’t this mentioned by all sides – over and over again – because it would considerably reduce the heat in the AGW debate!

    On these points I agree that C02 is a GHG and that the effect is logarithmic and the relationship to temperature in the real atmosphere has not been quantifiably established (Climate Sensitivity*). Does this make me a Lukewarmer, “Tepidist” or Denier or all of the above?

    *I expect it will be very low. The history of life on Earth depends on Carbon Dioxide – in concentrations far higher than today – including a life ending lower limit. Therefore, I can not except that C02 could lead to runaway warming because it would have happened already!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s