WEATHER WARS: Live climate debate turns nasty – video

Fireworks during live broadcast between climate change advocate David Appell and meteorologist Chuck Wiese

My friend, Lars Larson, who runs a nationally syndicated radio program called the Lars Larson Show decided to stage a debate between two people who are regulars here at WUWT. One uses his real name to comment here, the other also used his real name in the past, got banned for bad behavior, and then started using fake names and fake email addresses (by his own admission) to get his points across here. I’ll let you guess which is which.

From the show’s website:


Weather Wars: A Climate Change Debate From The Bloodworks Live Studio

Today, we feature a one hour debate live from 1 pm – 2 pm PT between two of the most vocal advocates for and against the argument that human beings have caused “global warming” or “climate change” and that humans must cure it by changing our behavior. We will hear from:

David Appell Ph.D.
David is a science writer who makes his home here in the northwest and writes frequently about today’s subject. He has a Ph.D. in physics and math and has worked as a systems engineer and a software developer. Mr. Appell has written to me often and challenged some of the things I say on the radio so I invited him to come here and debate today’s subject.

Chuck Wiese
Chuck is a meteorologist trained at Oregon State University, he’s a retired airline pilot and he’s a fervent critic of anthropogenic global warming and more recently what’s come to be called “climate change”.  Chuck and Lars have been friends a long time and Lars watched him on television as a kid, when, Chuck, as a teenager was one of the youngest weather forecasters on television here in the Northwest.

Watch the debate below (Live video starts at the 8 minute mark):

Things got heated between Chuck and David during a commercial break:

And it didn’t stop when the debate ended:

And even when the gentlemen were on there way out: (WUWT is mentioned)

 

UPDATE 6/30/2018:

The last three videos showing David Appell in heated arguments with Chuck Weise were taken between segments and after the show ended. Apparently, there was supposed to be some legal waiver offered by the radio show producer and signed by Appell, [which didn’t happen according to Appell] so Mr. Appell requested that the videos be removed from YouTube by the Lars Larson show.

As readers who saw the videos know, the videos did not reflect well on Mr. Appell due to the behavior he exhibited, so I can certainly understand why he wanted them removed. But the Internet never forgets, and copies exist, so perhaps that will get sorted out in the future.

Anthony

UPDATE: 7/1/18 10:45 PM PST

In the comment thread, I made this prediction after putting David Appell on moderation because he started posting on his blog that I’m a “liar” for having an opinion about those removed videos.

Prediction: your ego won’t let you walk away, so you’ll write something else nasty about me, and then as you’ve done before by your own admission, you’ll try to comment here using fake name, fake emails, and spoofed IP addresses.

And I was right about the first sentence so far. He’s posted another “boo-hoo Watts is mean to me” missive on his blog, saying he left me a voice message asking that I remove the comment about his asking the Lars Larson show to remove those videos. Then when I didn’t return his phone call in a time period of his choosing (he left it on my office phone Saturday at 11AM) he writes this missive where he claims I “didn’t return his call”. Well, David, that’s wrong, I couldn’t.

Two reasons:

  1. I wasn’t in the office this weekend, I was out of town. I have a life. I don’t sit in front of the computer all weekend like you apparently have. The only reason I got the message on a Sunday night was because I came in to check on the A/C system Since we hit a high of 106F here today. Otherwise I would have  got the message Monday morning.
  2. The message itself was so badly spoken, that even the closed caption voice to text live Interpreter (Caption Call Phone) I use do to my hearing loss couldn’t even make it out. So not even sure what the message was in entirety, I got bits and pieces of it.

I recall once when I called David, he made a post about it complaining that I left him a voice message. He was outraged.

The rules of the interaction change by the minute when dealing with Appell, and interaction with him never ends well as Chuck Weise, Lars Larson, and thousands of readers have discovered in this thread. The whole episode reflects very badly on Mr. Appell, and  I’m reminded of sage advice from a computer that learned how to deal with impossible scenarios:

Winning move: Don’t engage David Appell

Advertisements

845 thoughts on “WEATHER WARS: Live climate debate turns nasty – video

  1. Listen to Lars whenever on the road in the PM.

    Too bad I wasn’t today.

    Glad his guests agreed to participate.

    Too bad about the rancor.

    Typo Nazi notes “their” for “there”.

    • IMO he makes a good representative for the Warmunista position. Even on air, it’s hard for him to keep his anger under control.

        • I doubt it; that sounded like a threat. Clearly any exchange of ideas would take more than 5 minutes….

          “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” — Isaac Asimov

          (I think you are overreacting) MOD

          • Actually, it was Nathan Bedford Forrest, whom Lee said was the greatest general of the war, without ever having met him.

            Get theyuh with the fustest with the mostest.

          • A misquote – Lee would NEVER have selected one of his generals as the best. The reason he didn’t write his memoirs
            (and the out of work Lee was offered tons of money to do so)
            was that he didn’t want to have to describe errors and blunders made by his Generals.. As for Bedford Forrest, he was overheard by a student outside his office when he remarked to one of his visiting Generals that Bedford Forrest’s military capabilities had progressed to a greater extent than any other Confederate General. Lee also said he never learned of Forrest’s
            capabilities until very late – the Confederate commander who ranked Forrest never told the Confederate central command (Lee) about Forrest’s actions.

          • Actually it was General William Tecumseh Sherman who lavished praise on Forrest saying he was the most remarkable man the civil war produced on either side.

          • David,

            If “climate change” isn’t catastrophic or, as Obama said, dangerous, then what’s the problem?

            So far the effect of CO2 had been totally beneficial and salubrious. More will be even more so.

          • That’s what I thought…David has had decades to hone his game…and that was it???………lame

          • Sorry David !
            Chuck ALREADY DID SHOW YOU you ARE WRONG !
            You CAN’T BE SO THICK THAT YOU DIDN’T NOTICE IT !
            or can you ??????

          • david, you are full of shit. apologies to anthony for lack of reasoned argument. i would argue reading david’s crap on here for a while is enough to justify this response.

          • “Victim playing (also known as playing the victim or self-victimization) is the fabrication of victimhood for a variety of reasons such as to justify abuse of others, to manipulate others, a coping strategy or attention seeking.”

          • It is also the dominant methodology of over half the population nowadays. It’s so much easier than doing something positive and meaningful.

          • I would suggest he was simply pointing out how quickly he could thoroughly illustrate your buffoonery. Thousands of scientists denounce CAGW, including many of Gaia’s best earth scientists while a few dozen activists drive the narrative from GISS, UEA and a few other polluted science departments.

            Followed by your inability to explain warmer periods 80, 1000 and most of the last 10,000 and 500 million years. Thanks to Javier for his marvelous Holocene work.

            Then the absurdity of your position that CO2 rising from 300 to 400ppm is catastrophic when on geologic scales CO2 has ranged from ~200 to more than 7000ppm and plants evolved during 1000% higher CO2 levels and begin to die around 180ppm.

            He wouldn’t forget your evil warmth nonsense is contradicted by much higher damage to humanity from cold and in fact your position would exacerbate the peril of 3 billion humans who cook and heat with dung or struggle without clean water.

            And of course he would hammer home that your charlatan buddies driving the greatest fraud in history have been caught red-handed creating 390x HS algorithms, splicing, inverting, deleting and nonsensically adjusting historical contrary data (while lying about it) and subverting FOIA and the peer review process in climate science.

            Finally, he would identify the falsified models that ignore planetary, solar, cloud and oceanic influences while claiming a slight rise in CO2 from near catastrophic levels is dangerous.

            Clearly, within five minutes even the most ignorant observer would easily identify you as a pompous charlatan.

          • No, he said “a slight rise in CO2 FROM near catastrophic levels.” i.e. from nearer to 180 ppmv.

          • David,This line of argument, that”climate change” is not really catastrophic, has neen trotted out before when defenders of the climate faith are losing.
            It did not work for them, and it is not working for you.
            Think for a second why it did not work.

          • It would take me only a couple of minutes to ask 2 questions neither Appell or others have been able to answer here.

          • If a scientist wrote that on this message board, she would be kicked off. But since Joel is standing with non-science, you are “overreacting” at the threats.

          • “Scientists don’t write on message boards.”

            So you have finally admitted that you aren’t a scientist.

          • They don’t read them when…starting today? Plenty of climate scientists have message board reading and writing experience.

            There’s also places like Real Climate, where Gavin Schmidt is reading and writing comments during work hours when he’s supposed to be practicing climate science on our dime. Michael Mann is one of many alleged climate scientists who spends lots of time on social media like twitter, so he’s apparently not “too busy doing science.”

            Are you really this naive?

          • I’m a climatilogist and I read message boards quite frequently. This thread is worthless but many have very interesting back and forth in the comments. Like most, my true expertise is rather narrow. For 95% of the issues, i rely on others with more expertise. Some articles read well until you see comments from very knowledgeable people who see it differently. The comments are an excellent form of modern, real time, peer review

            My favorite place to read the blog and comment posts is at Climate etc. There you get more science, less bias, and less trash talk than other sites

          • Mary,

            Dr. Curry’s site is indeed good, and some contributors here also, or primarily publish there first, such as Javier.

            However, if you want more people to read what you have to say, WUWT gets a lot more eyeballs. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.

            Climate, etc has more science and less invective perhaps precisely because its traffic is lower.

          • Appell wrote: “They don’t read them either.”

            You just can’t help but making crap up, can you? I remember when Jean S. found the major problem in methodology in the first Gergis, Karoly “Southern Hemisphere Hockey Sticks” paper, and he posted about it on Climate Audit very late one night in the US. Within a few hours, the paper was being retracted, and this only a few days after it had been pimped at RealClimate. And then, Joelle Gergis shamefully, claimed she and her co-authors had found the problem independently. Even though one of her co-authors had e-mailed her in the middle of her night (in Australia) about the error, within minutes of the Jean S post.

            David, the real problem here is that CAGW will not impress very many people when the people claiming it to be objective truth are a bunch of tendentious, self-serving, lying weasels. And, I’m sorry, but when you ape the words of lying weasels, you become an apologist for lying weasel-dom.

          • Many distinguished professional scientists comment on this blog.

            Consensus “climate scientists” gin up all kinds of prospective catastrophes. Otherwise, why worry about more plant food in the air?

            Hansen is concerned about boiling oceans, because we’re on the “Venus Express”. Others are less biblical and worry about rising sea levels, or the effects of warmer air on crops.

            Why do you worry about AGW if it would be only beneficial, as Arrhenius and Callendar believed?

          • And of course the list of supposed catastrophes includes both flood and drought, more storms and fewer storms, plus extreme WX and “WX weirding, which can mean anything.

            None of which is in evidence, or even likely, based upon the physics and chemistry of air and sea.

          • “And suddenly…. Moderation.”

            So now you believe that even the computers are out to get you.

          • Just so you understand the difference, a ‘threat’ is when a person says they are GOING to do something.
            Histrionic much?

          • Just so you understand the difference, a ‘threat’ is when someone says they are GOING to do something.
            Histrionic much?

          • Mr. Appell I would debate you anytime anywhere. Chuck Wiese let you off easy. He didnt mention that if the US did ,what you want them to do ,that would lower the temperature of the earth by 5/100 of a C by the year 2100. Meanwhile China is putting 4% more CO2 into the air every year. Also Chuck did not have time to point out that the Upper troposphere hot spot has never been found despite every climate model predicting it based on the physics. Chuck Wiese is wrong though about one thing. You dont lie about everything. At least you told one truthful statement; that CO2 does absorb infrared radiation. I also noted that you kept baiting him to publish in a journal. WE both know that all the major journals refuse to publish anything that contradicts the global warming meme. The “climate scientists” have stacked the deck in more ways than one.

          • David,

            “Sharp, it’s very clear I don’t “weasel out” of any responses or challenges here.”

            Are you even paying attention?

            Please stop weaseling out of answering the question I asked about the origin of the power required to replace the emissions consequential to the 0.8C increase claimed to arise from only 1 W/m^2 of forcing.

          • Here’s the Stephen Po-Chedley article I was thinking of:

            Removing diurnal cycle contamination in satellite-derived tropospheric temperatures: Understanding tropical tropospheric trend discrepancies
            Authors
            Stephen Po-Chedley, Tyler J Thorsen, Qiang Fu
            Publication date
            2015/3
            Journal of Climate
            Volume
            28
            Issue
            6
            Pages
            2274-2290

          • Atm CO2 levels are largely driven by biological responses to temperature changes and insolation, i.e. whether photosynthesis occurs (plants in the light) or only glycolysis (plants and animals in the dark). Diurnal cycle “contamination” removal simply obscures the CO2 level driver, biology. That conclusion is almost inescapable from the OCO2 measurements of atm CO2 over a year, and yet NASA find a way to weasel around it.
            Judge for yourself.

          • Oh cmon, you are the charlatan of charlatans. The study you quote used models and wind speeds as proxies for temperatures. Instead of actual thermometers the models used wind speeds as an approximation of temperatures. If that is an example of how inept and incompetent climate science will stoop to, it isnt even worth debating with climate scientists because they are living in a fantasy world.

          • From Sherwood

            The data did not exactly fit model predictions, however: tropospheric warming fell short of predictions in a narrow band between an altitude of 14 and 15 km in the tropics and subtropics. Sherwood believes there may be a mechanism mitigating the warming that has not yet been accounted for. “The main candidates for this would be associated with various kinds of air pollution, and would probably not continue to mitigate warming for much longer,” he said.

            No it wasn’t David.

            From Po-Chedely

            We revisit this issue using atmospheric GCMs with prescribed historical sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and coupled atmosphere–ocean GCMs that participated in the latest model intercomparison project, CMIP5.

            Again no they don’t. They prescribe SST ie force the model to have surface temperature that the model couldn’t achieve on its own to get the answer.

            Neither show the hotpot in the models. Both confirm the deficiencies of the models. And that you understood neither comes as no surprise.

          • Now that is NOT true David, because the IPCC modeling scenarios showed that the only time the hot spot showed up was when the GHG’s were attributed to it.

            You have been shown this before, still you promote the lie.

          • Sun wrote:
            “Now that is NOT true David, because the IPCC modeling scenarios showed that the only time the hot spot showed up was when the GHG’s were attributed to it.”

            Wrong. Go learn the science.

          • No you are IGNORING what the IPCC published about this

            Starting at page 674 that shows the revealing chart that make clear that they model CO2 as the dominant cause of the “hot spot”

            “Figure 9.1. Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) wellmixed greenhouse gases, (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and (f) the sum of all forcings. Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a).”

            https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

            The IPCC says you are wrong.

          • David Appell,

            You don’t need to think about it because I spelled it out on WUWT only a couple of days ago.

            My explanation is at June 27, 2018 10:46 pm in the thread at
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/27/survey-tries-to-assess-the-usefulness-of-climate-models/

            I copy it to here to remove need for people to locate it, and in the (probably forlorn) hope that you will read it and learn instead of metaphorically putting your fingers in your ears and shouting “Lah! Lah! lah!”

            “Leo Smith:

            You rightly say of climate modelers,
            “… they ‘invented’ a mysterious ‘positive feedback’ whose fiddle factors is lambda ( λ )”

            YES! And the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says – as you say, that this disproves anthropogenic (i.e. human made) global warming (AGW) as emulated by the climate models because the models predict the feedback must create the ‘tropospheric hot spot’.

            The absence of the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ demonstrates that the models are complete failures as scientific emulations of physical reality. Their only “success” is in generation of computer games that promote a political ideology.

            The ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is warming at altitude that is between two-times and three-times the warming at the surface in the tropics. It is clearly explained by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Chapter 9 of IPCC WG1 AR4 and specifically Figure 9.1.

            The IPCC Chapter can be read at
            http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf
            and its Figure 9.1 is on page 675.

            Importantly, the text says,
            “The major features shown in Figure 9.1 are robust to using different climate models.”

            The Figure caption says;
            “Figure 9.1. Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from
            (a) solar forcing,
            (b) volcanoes,
            (c) well mixed greenhouse gases,
            (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes,
            (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and
            (f) the sum of all forcings.
            Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a).”

            The tropospheric ‘hot spot’ is the big, red blob that is only seen in Panels (c) and (f) of Figure 9.1.

            In other words, the ‘hot spot’ is a unique effect of “well mixed greenhouse gases” predicted by the PCM models the IPCC approves. And that effect is so great that the models predict it has overwhelmed all the other significant forcings.

            But the ‘hot spot’ has not occurred, and this is indicated by independent measurements obtained by radiosondes mounted on balloons (since 1958) and by MSUs mounted on satellites (since 1979).

            The ‘hot spot’ is so large an effect that it should be clearly seen if the models provide a representation of model climate change as it exists in the real world. And the warming from “well mixed greenhouses gases” has been greatest most recently in the modelled period so should be very obvious in the radiosonde and MSU data. Simply, the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is absent from the real-world observations.

            In other words,
            IF ONE BELIEVES THE IPCC THEN THE ABSENCE OF THE ‘HOT SPOT’ IS A DIRECT REFUTATION OF THE AGW HYPOTHESIS AS EMULATED BY THE CLIMATE MODELS.

            However, the reason for the ‘hot spot’ is not unique to anthropogenic (i.e. human-made) warming or “well mixed greenhouse gases” and is as follows.
            1.
            Water vapour is the major greenhouse gas. And the climate models constructed to promote assertions of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) assume that as temperature increases so will the amount of water vapour held in the atmosphere.
            2.
            CO2 is also a greenhouse gas so increased CO2 in the air increases radiative forcing to increase temperature.
            3.
            The models assume increased temperature induced by increased atmospheric CO2 increases the amount of water held in the atmosphere (because of point 1).
            4.
            But water vapour is the main greenhouse gas so radiative forcing is increased a lot by the increased amount of water the models assume is held in the atmosphere as a result of increased atmospheric CO2.
            5.
            The large increase to radiative forcing from the increased amount of water held in the atmosphere increases the temperature a lot.

            Points 1 to 5 are known as the Water Vapour Feedback (WVF).
            The direct effect on global temperature from a doubling of CO2 in the air would be about 1 deg.C. And (according to e.g. the IPCC) the effect of the WVF is to increase this warming to between 3 and 4.5 deg.C.

            Clearly, there are large assumptions in calculation of the WVF: this is undeniable because the range of its calculated effect is so large (i.e. to increase warming of ~1 deg.C to a warming in the range 3 to 4.5 deg.C).

            One of the assumptions is how much water vapour is held in the atmosphere and where it is distributed. Large effects of the WVF are induced by assumption of large increase to water vapour at altitude.

            The major radiative forcing effect is at altitude in the tropics because
            (a) long wave radiation is from the Earth’s surface,
            (b) emission of the radiation is proportional to the fourth power of the surface temperature,
            (c) the surface temperature is hottest in the tropics, and
            (d) cold air holds little water vapour.

            Temperature decreases with altitude and, therefore, the ability of the atmosphere to hold water vapour decreases with altitude. So, small increase to temperature with altitude permits the air at altitude to hold more water. And, therefore, enables WVF at altitude.

            The increase to WVF with altitude causes largest increase to radiative forcing (so largest increase to temperature) at altitude. And the radiative forcing effect is strongest in the tropics so the largest increase to temperature at altitude is in the tropics.

            This ‘largest increase to temperature at altitude in the tropics’ is the ‘hot spot’. But the ‘hot spot’ is missing.

            This could be because
            (i) the assumption of WVF is wrong,
            or
            (ii) the calculated increase to radiative forcing of CO2 and/or water vapour is wrong,
            or
            (iii) the calculated ability of air to hold water vapour is wrong,
            or
            (iv) something else as yet unknown.

            Whichever of these is true, it is certain that the absence of the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is conclusive evidence that
            Climate models fail to represent observed climate changes.
            Or
            There has been no global warming from “well mixed greenhouse gases”.
            Or
            There has been no global warming from any cause including “well mixed greenhouse gases”.

            In other words, climate models predicting global warming are complete failures as scientific emulations of physical reality, and their only “success” is in generation of computer games that are used to promote a political ideology.

            Richard”

            Richard

          • Richard Courtney, up until recently there were too many uncertainties in the data to identify the “hot spot.” But in 2015 it revealed itself:

            “Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2),” Steven Sherwood and Nidhi Nishant, Environ. Res. Lett. 10 (2015) 054007.
            http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007/article

            Here’s the relevant figure from that paper:

            https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/05/17/tropospheric-hot-spot/

          • David Appell;

            I correctly wrote,
            “But the ‘hot spot’ has not occurred, and this is indicated by independent measurements obtained by radiosondes mounted on balloons (since 1958) and by MSUs mounted on satellites (since 1979).

            The ‘hot spot’ is so large an effect that it should be clearly seen if the models provide a representation of model climate change as it exists in the real world. And the warming from “well mixed greenhouses gases” has been greatest most recently in the modelled period so should be very obvious in the radiosonde and MSU data. Simply, the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is absent from the real-world observations.”

            And you have replied,
            “Richard Courtney, up until recently there were too many uncertainties in the data to identify the “hot spot.” But in 2015 it revealed itself:

            “Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2),” Steven Sherwood and Nidhi Nishant, Environ. Res. Lett. 10 (2015) 054007.
            http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007/article

            Here’s the relevant figure from that paper:
            https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/05/17/tropospheric-hot-spot/

            SAY WHAT!
            Please don’t try to pretend you believe the nonsense you have posted in your reply to me.

            I cited radiosonde data that is direct measurements of temperature obtained by using calibrated air temperature sensors mounted on weather balloons, and it is confirmed by similar temperature indications provided by the completely independent remote measurements of temperature provided by microwave sounding units mounted on satelites,

            The paper you cite claims that windspeed around the weather balloons provides a better indication of the temperature than the direct measurements of temperature from the calibrated temperature sensors. That is risible: only ‘climate science’ pal review could get such nonsense published.

            Be honest, you posted your reply to me as a laugh, didn’t you ?

            Richard

          • When he brought up this silly paper, I knew it was going to be a waste of time with this dude:

            “Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2),” Steven Sherwood and Nidhi Nishant, Environ. Res. Lett. 10 (2015) 054007.”

            I recall Jo Nova destroying this nonsense a while back:

            Desperation — who needs thermometers? Sherwood finds missing hot spot with homogenized “wind” data

            http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/desperation-who-needs-thermometers-sherwood-finds-missing-hot-spot-with-homogenized-wind-data/

          • By the way David, I posted this THREE years ago showing that the “hot spot” doesn’t exist:

            http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/desperation-who-needs-thermometers-sherwood-finds-missing-hot-spot-with-homogenized-wind-data/#comment-1711194

            Bill Illis writes,

            “Here is the HadAT database for the weather balloon data going back to 1958.

            The Hotspot(s) that Sherwood found are at the 300 mb level or the average height that Channel 3 shows here.

            Channel 3 trend is effectively Zero.”

            More hard reality in the link.

          • “I cited radiosonde data that is direct measurements of temperature obtained by using calibrated air temperature sensors mounted on weather balloons, and it is confirmed by similar temperature indications provided by the completely independent remote measurements of temperature provided by microwave sounding units mounted on satelites,”

            The balloon temperature data confirms the satellite temperature data.

            Think about that for a while.

            I guess this means the balloon data does *not* confirm the Hockey Stick chart temperature data.

          • Tom Abbott,

            You say,
            “I guess this means the balloon data does *not* confirm the Hockey Stick chart temperature data.”

            Of course it doesn’t. Let me know in the unlikely event that somebody finds something that does.

            Richard

          • No. Appell was serious. He actually wants to take us back to 1637 before thermometers were invented with a scale.

          • Quit using wind speeds as proxies for temperatures. Thermometers are used for temperatures. Robert Fludd invented the thermometer in 1638. It was the first thermoscope to have a scale. We havent had to measure temperatures by proxies since then and even though alarmists like you want to take us back to the 1600’s by getting rid of fossil fuels. I refuse to take the time machine with you back to that era.

          • Alan says ” Robert Fludd invented the thermometer in 1638″ … You are wrong Alan. In 1612, the Italian inventor Santorio Santorio became the first inventor to put a numerical scale on his thermoscope

          • Richard wrote:
            “Water vapour is the major greenhouse gas. And the climate models constructed to promote assertions of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) assume that as temperature increases so will the amount of water vapour held in the atmosphere.”

            Models don’t “assume” that — it’s an outcome from solving the underlying PDEs that describe the climate system under human emissions of CO2.

          • David Appell.

            I correctly wrote:
            “Water vapour is the major greenhouse gas. And the climate models constructed to promote assertions of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) assume that as temperature increases so will the amount of water vapour held in the atmosphere.”

            And you have replied,
            “Models don’t “assume” that — it’s an outcome from solving the underlying PDEs that describe the climate system under human emissions of CO2.”

            No. You are plain wrong. Clearly, you don’t know how the models are constructed and operate, so I am providing this post to enlighten you.

            None of the climate models – not one of them – could match the change in mean global temperature over the past century if it did not utilise a unique value of assumed cooling from aerosols. So, inputting actual values of the cooling effect
            (such as the determination by Penner et al.
            http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/07/25/1018526108.full.pdf?with-ds=yes )
            would make every climate model provide a mismatch of the global warming it hindcasts and the observed global warming for the twentieth century.

            This mismatch would occur because all the global climate models and energy balance models are known to provide indications which are based on
            1.
            the assumed degree of forcing resulting from human activity that produce warming
            and
            2.
            the assumed degree of anthropogenic aerosol cooling input to each model as a ‘fiddle factor’ to obtain agreement between past average global temperature and the model’s indications of average global temperature.

            In 1999 I published a peer-reviewed paper that showed the UK’s Hadley Centre general circulation model (GCM) could not model climate and only obtained agreement between past average global temperature and the model’s indications of average global temperature by forcing the agreement with an input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling.

            The input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling is needed because the model ‘ran hot’; i.e. it showed an amount and a rate of global warming which was greater than was observed over the twentieth century. This failure of the model was compensated by the input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling.

            And my paper demonstrated that the assumption of aerosol effects being responsible for the model’s failure was incorrect.
            (ref. Courtney RS An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999).

            More recently, in 2007, Kiehle published a paper that assessed 9 GCMs and two energy balance models.
            (ref. Kiehl JT,Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity. GRL vol.. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007).

            Kiehl found the same as my paper except that each model he assessed used a different aerosol ‘fix’ from every other model. This is because they all ‘run hot’ but they each ‘run hot’ to a different degree.

            Kiehl says in his paper:
            “One curious aspect of this result is that it is also well known [Houghton et al., 2001] that the same models that agree in simulating the anomaly in surface air temperature differ significantly in their predicted climate sensitivity. The cited range in climate sensitivity from a wide collection of models is usually 1.5 to 4.5 deg C for a doubling of CO2, where most global climate models used for climate change studies vary by at least a factor of two in equilibrium sensitivity.

            The question is: if climate models differ by a factor of 2 to 3 in their climate sensitivity, how can they all simulate the global temperature record with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
            Kerr [2007] and S. E. Schwartz et al. (Quantifying climate change–too rosy a picture?, available at http://www.nature.com/reports/climatechange, 2007)
            Iently pointed out the importance of understanding the answer to this question. Indeed, Kerr [2007] referred to the present work and the current paper provides the ‘‘widely circulated analysis’’ referred to by Kerr [2007]. This report investigates the most probable explanation for such an agreement. It uses published results from a wide variety of model simulations to understand this apparent paradox between model climate responses for the 20th century, but diverse climate model sensitivity. “

            Importantly, Kiehl’s paper says:
            “These results explain to a large degree why models with such diverse climate sensitivities can all simulate the global anomaly in surface temperature. The magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing compensates for the model sensitivity. “

            And the “magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing” is fixed in each model by the input value of aerosol forcing.

            Kiehl’s Figure 2 is for 9 GCMs and 2 energy balance models and shows that
            (a) each model uses a different value for “Total anthropogenic forcing” that is in the range 0.80 W/m^2 to 2.02 W/m^2
            but
            (b) each model is forced to agree with the rate of past warming by using a different value for “Aerosol forcing” that is in the range -1.42 W/m^2 to -0.60 W/m^2.

            In other words the models use values of “Total anthropogenic forcing” that differ by a factor of more than 2.5 and they are ‘adjusted’ by using values of assumed “Aerosol forcing” that differ by a factor of 2.4.

            So, each climate model emulates a different climate system. Hence, at most only one of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth because there is only one Earth. And the fact that they each ‘run hot’ unless fiddled by use of a completely arbitrary ‘aerosol cooling’ strongly suggests that none of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth.

            The climate models are merely glorified curve fitting exercises, and for them to work they require that basic data such as WVF be ‘built in’.

            Richard

          • Tom Abbott,

            The “effort” is my pleasure (although to be sure I am thinking sufficiently clearly I need to reduce my pain relief ).

            The pleasure outweighs my pain because “the enemy of my friend is my enemy”, and in the above videos and in this thread the exceptionally obnoxious David Appell is attempting to demean Chuck Weise.

            Chuck is a gentleman I have learned to respect and to like despite his and my political beliefs being poles apart.

            Richard

          • Hi Richard
            Thank you for commenting, I always gain some insight from your statements.
            Please, comment when you can. It is nice to see you expose someone like David Appell for the incompetent that he is.
            Now, per his Asimov quote, when can we expect him to become violent?

            michael

          • richard, the key to meaningful enlightening debate has always been mutual respect between participants. this is the main reason climate science has stalled in advancement. debating in an echo chamber due to lack of respect for those of different opinion leads to closed minds.

            the fall from grace when it comes will be long and painful for those that have derided alternative opinion from people that genuinely seek the truth. keep up the good work,i wish you well and pain free in the future.

          • “each model uses a different value for “Total anthropogenic forcing” that is in the range 0.80 W/m^2 to 2.02 W/m^2”

            If the models were any good they should be forced to calculate this from the underlying physics. Because they don’t do that, that proves that the models don’t have the underlying “forcing” physics programmed into them. Without the underlying physics they are just a guess machine that is tuned for every new version. They cannot model clouds under 1.5km . To be able to model correctly they would need to have spatial resolution of a raindrop, which is impossible. In fact the modellers actually cheat on future scenarios because they have to shortcut the time taken to model the future because we dont want to have to wait a 100 years running the simulation just to get an answer a 100 years from now. Think about that. Any projection into the future has to shortcut the equations used just so you get an answer in a reasonable amount of time. Any shortcut introduces physics errors of such magnitude as to make any projection useless. To top it all off, the models used to simulate out of control until they purposely flattened the simulations so as to not end up in a completely chaotic simulation that was essentially useless.

          • Richard Courtney, I am very grateful for your contribution, enduring pain to make sure Mr. Appell’s fiction is exposed. I notice he ran, so you can get back on your pain med, and please send some to Mr. Appell, he’s gonna want to put some ice on that.

          • Nobody has “solved” the PDEs that describe the climate system. What they have done is use inadequate computer algorithms that cannot refine the accuracy of the calculations enough to actually produce results that would match “solutions”. This is a computational problem, not a climate theory problem. The inaccuracy in the calculations guarantee that after a few model iterations the results will blow up to cover the whole solution space.

          • David,
            You need to look at the models before you can proclaim that they don’t assume things. For example, consider the file RADIATION.F in the GISS ModelE that is the primary source for the IPCC’s inane conclusions. This file contains the guts of the radiative transfer model they use and has thousands of baked in floating point constants, most of which have little or no documentation, moreover; the spaghetti Fortran code is hard to follow and in my experience, this style of coding attracts errors like shit attracts flies.

          • So then after 20 years of measuring water vapour in the troposphere. after not being able to prove any increase James Hansen shut the project down. NASA does not measure water vapour any more because they know it doesnt increase. AGW needs an increase in water vapour in order for forcing of temperature to work. Another nail in the AGW coffin.

          • i hope you enjoy the utter humiliation of your arguments by richard s courtney david, i certainly do.

          • Quit using Sherwood and Nishant. They used wind speeds as proxies for temperature. That isnt science that is Alice in Wonderland stuff

          • Last time I checked, that only happened in computer models. In the real world, that “hot spot” would immediately disappear due to convection. It only appears in computer models because they aren’t programmed to do convection. Only “radiative forcing”.

          • David Appell

            “By the way, Alan, the tropical midtropshperic “hot spot” appears for ANY kind of warming, not just manmade GHG warming.”

            How do we tell the difference?

          • You don’t because there never has been a hot spot in the past , there isnt now a hot spot in the present and there never will be a hot spot in the future. THE HOT SPOT only exists in computer climate models and David Appell’s brain.

          • The 2nd study does not find real world data evidence that there is a hot spot. I will quote just one sentence in the paper.
            ” In general, it is impossible to conclude which dataset is most accurate when comparing two potentially biased measurements (Mears et al. 2012).”

            So until a hotspot is actually found that is at least 2 or 3 times hotter than anywhere else in troposphere, the Null hypothesis that there is no hot spot cannot be disproven.

          • “If violence isn’t your last resort, you have failed to resort to enough of it” – 🙂

          • “Always be polite. Always look people in the eye. And always have a plan to kill everyone you meet” — Gen. David Mattis, USMC

          • David, we are still waiting for you to show actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming.

          • If that were true, i would expect you to merely show that evidence here and settle all question about CAGW.

            Fact is all you ever posted is drivel & I pointed out your errors in every case that I saw. Your best one was a cite to the IPCC report where they showed graphs with and without man’s CO2. In essence they were saying that their models, that have failed miserably, do not match reality unless they add man’s CO2 Even if the models worked, that amounts to: “We know the warming, that statistically stopped in 1995, and slightly reversed since 2005, was caused by man’s CO2 because we cannot figure out anything else!”

            David, here is a chance for you to learn something from THE national leader in the battle against CO2:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzCXwF39enc

            BTW, Davie, please refresh my memory: How many aliases have you used on the various blogs?

          • David Appell–“Karlock, I long ago saw that you never engage in discussion or response.”
            Wrong – I have debunked your false claims time after time.

          • I second that emotion.

            And hope that our gracious host might dispense indulgences for any past indiscretions.

      • David,
        1) Your insistence on sending work to a journal is silly considering that the known physics found in any introductory physics textbook is not a proper topic fit for any journal.
        2) You clearly don’t understand black bodies and that yes, the Earth is not an ideal black body, but a non ideal black body is called a gray body whose behavior is absolutely quantifiable, moreover; the T^4 dependency is first principles immutable physics and no amount of feedback or anything else can change this.
        3) You aren’t even aware of what the controversy is all about and drone on and on about touchy feely BS in order to support what your fake science can not. The only thing controversial is the claimed magnitude of the ECS and tenuous anomalies tortured from dubiously adjusted data does not constitute an absurdly high ECS as settled science.
        4) If you are the physicist you claim to be, then explain the origin of the 3.3 W/m^2 of input power to the surface required in order to ‘amplify’ 1 W/m^2 of forcing into enough to offset the 4.3 W/m^2 of incremental surface emissions that would arise from the predicted 0.8C rise.

        • “If you are the physicist you claim to be, then explain the origin of the 3.3 W/m^2 of input power to the surface required in order to ‘amplify’ 1 W/m^2 of forcing into enough to offset the 4.3 W/m^2 of incremental surface emissions that would arise from the predicted 0.8C rise.”

          That last sentence would tend to prove that DWIR is a fiction.

          • “That last sentence would tend to prove that DWIR is a fiction.”

            Not necessarily, as each W/m^2 of forcing results in 1.6 W/m^2 of surface emissions, thus there are about 0.6 W/m^2 per W/m^2 of forcing that must be accounted for. Being less than 1 W/m^2, this represents absolute stability and it can be readily explained.

            The atmosphere absorbs about 72% of the photons emitted by the surface, or about 280 W/m^2 of the 380 W/m^2 of emissions. In the steady state, geometrical constraints require that half of the 280 W/m^2 absorbed is returned to the surface, while the remaining half escapes into space.

            Half of 280 W/m^2 is 140 W/m^2 which when added to the 240 W/m^2 of post albedo solar forcing is exactly enough to offset the emissions by the surface. Similarly, if 280 W/m^2 of 380 W/m^2 is absorbed, 100 W/m^2 escapes, which when added to the 140 W/m^2 originating from the atmosphere offsets the 240 W/m^2 of incident solar energy. Everything is in balance just as it should be.

          • I’ve expressed myself quite clearly. Perhaps the elegance of how trivial arithmetic connects COE, the SB Law and the energy balance to the sensitivity. Either you reject Occam’s Razor as the destructor of excess complexity, reject the T^4 dependence of W/m^2 on temperature, reject COE or you reject the conclusion because it defies what you want to believe.

            Now, you answer my question about the origin of the 3.3 W/m^2 in excess of the W/m^2 of forcing that’s required to offset the increase in emissions consequential to an 0.8C rise in temperature.

          • Where do you get the 72% figure from and it may help if you provide an energy budget diagram . Ive seen about 20 of these and as to which one is right?

          • The 72% number can be derived based on the fractions of surface emissions absorbed by the atmosphere weighted by average cloud coverage. It can also be derived from other more easily measured factors as there are more equations than variables.

          • There seems to be something missing in your energy balance . If 343 W/m^2 comes in to atmosphere from the sun and 30% gets reflected or absorbed by the atmosphere. That leaves 240 which gets to surface. However part of that 30% gets absorbed. The rest of your energy balance works except that the part of the 30% that was absorbed by atmosphere is an extra number that unbalances your energy budget.

          • Also the figures you show of DWIR are assuming that the atmosphere is then emitting 100 % of what it absorbed or 280. However it only absorbed 73% of the 380 that was emitted by surface. So you are saying that the atmosphere behaves like a grey body when absorbing but a blackbody when emitting.

          • Alan,
            Since we are considering only the long term steady state, we can consider solar energy absorbed and emitted by the water in clouds as a proxy for solar energy absorbed and emitted by the oceans since the averages whose change we are concerned with are over periods of time that dwarf the water cycle.

            Modeling the atmosphere as a gray body is an EQUIVALENT model which is the simplest model that can accurately replicate the behavoir of the system at its inputs and outputs. For the atmosphere, the inputs and outputs are the radiant flux at the boundaries between the atmosphere and space and the atmosphere and the surface. This follows the best practices for modeling unknown, black box systems, where the only visibility into the system is at its boundaries.

            This model predicts ONLY the behavior at these boundaries and is independent of the specific behavior of the atmosphere. All that matters is that the system honors the REQUIRED behavior at these boundaries as dictated by first principles physics. How the atmosphere manifests this REQUIRED behavior is irrelevant to either the radiative balance or the sensitivity.

            Obsessing about the low level complexity is the analytical flaw applied by both sides of climate science and is why converging to a solution has been so problematic. Simulating the details is an NP complete problem thus requiring numerous assumptions and simplifications in order to arrive at any solution while simulating the REQUIRED behavior at the boundaries of the atmosphere is absolutely deterministic.

          • Alan,

            The data that goes in to the calculation includes data from from HITRAN which is the fraction of surface emissions absorbed by GHG’s in the clear sky, As=0.54, and the fraction absorbed between cloud tops and space, Ac=.38 (much less water vapor). From the ISCCP data is the average fraction of the surface covered by clouds, p=.66 and the average emissivity of clouds given the specified fraction of coverage, Ec = 0.71. The calculation is as follows:

            surface emissions absorbed by the clear sky + surface emissions absorbed by clouds + surface emissions passing through clouds and absorbed between cloud tops and space.

            (1-p)*As + p*Ec + p*(1-Ec)*Ac = (1-.66)*.54 + .66*.71 + .66*(1-.71)*.38 =
            .18 + .47 + .07 = 0.72

            If you don’t like my HITRAN numbers or any of the other values, plug in whatever you want and see what happens. For example, if As=.8 and Ac=.5, the fraction absorbed becomes,

            .27 + .47 + .10 = 0.84

            For a surface emitting on average 390 W/m^2, 84% is 327 W/m^2 leaving only 63 W/m^2 to pass through (this would more closely match Trenberth’s assumptions). In this case, 177 W/m^2 must originate from the atmosphere in order to offset the 240 W/m^2 that’s arriving, leaving 150 W/m^2 to be returned to the surface, which when added to the 240 W/m^2 of total forcing is equal to the 390 W/m^2 being emitted. However; in this case, the fraction of absorbed surface emissions returned to the surface is only 150/327 = 0.46, which is less than the 0.5 dictated by the geometry while the alarmists will try and contend that even more than half of what the atmosphere absorbs will be returned to the surface which of course doesn’t leave enough to escape out into space in order to offset the incident energy.

            As you can see, if you accept the constraints of geometry, there’s not enough wiggle room for the atmosphere to be absorbing as much as Trenberth claims and returning as much to the surface, while at the same time emitting enough into space to offset the incident energy, moreover; the geometric constraints tell us everything we need to know about how emissions are distributed, thus his assumptions aren’t even required. It’s astounding to me that this blatant contradiction in the consensus logic has survived for as long as it has.

          • Until you include the evaporation/ condensation cycle with it’s addition and subtraction of latent heat; your analysis cannot be complete. The reason is that evaporation draws heat out of both the oceans and the atmosphere and converts it into latent heat hidden inside of the water molecule. That leaves an open question as to how much IR can a water molecule absorb in the atmosphere since it already has latent heat inside it. Condensation then puts some of that latent heat ( now converted to sensible heat) back into the atmosphere and probably most of it to outer space. The word “some” is important in the above sentence because when it rains not all of the latent heat gets converted back into sensible heat because the water molecule needs some latent heat in case it freezes. Because when water freezes of course there is some latent heat lost again to the atmosphere as sensible heat. Not much but a little. The whole cycle of ice to water to H2O vapour adds latent heat in each of the 2 steps and the process from H2O vapour to water to ice loses latent heat in both steps. Then you also have to consider the process of H2O vapour immediately to ice crystals and the reverse process of ice to H2O vapour with the water stage bypassed in both.

          • Alan,
            The evaporation/condensation cycle has little, if anything to do with the sensitivity or what the energy balance must be and is only an energy transport mechanism utilized by the system to achieve the required balance.

            This brings up an analytical error that’s common among both skeptics and alarmists which is an obsession with the internal processes of the atmosphere when all that really matters is the behavior at its boundaries with the surface and with space. It’s an exercise in futility to try and out psych all the complexities of what’s within and hope that the proper macroscopic behavior emerges at the boundaries when that proper macroscopic behavior is trivially dictated by first principles physics. BTW, no GCM, except perhaps the Russian one, closes the loop by comparing the emergent behavior with the required behavior as dictated by first principles physics.

            Trenberth screwed the pooch by conflating radiant and non radiant energy in the radiant energy balance. If you examine his balance carefully and subtract out the return of latent heat and thermals from his bogus ‘back radiation’ term, all that’s left are the W/m^2 offsetting the BB emissions of the surface. In other words, non radiant energy entering the atmosphere from the surface has a zero sum influence on the balance.

            The highly obfuscated falsifying test this brings up is what effect does latent heat and thermals plus their return to the surface have on the surface temperature, its BB emissions, the resulting radiant balance and sensitivity other then the effect they have already manifested in the average surface temperature and its corresponding BB emissions?

            As far as water in the atmosphere, yes, it removes latent heat from the water drop that it evaporates from, but that latent heat is returned to another water droplet when the water vapor molecule condenses upon it. Eventually, that latent heat is returned to the surface as liquid water that’s warmer than it would be otherwise. The only possible way any of this latent can be transferred to air molecules is when those air molecules collide with water droplets. Since we are talking about change as it effects the long term steady state, by definition, atmospheric water must be in equilibrium and absorbing the same amount of energy that it’s emitting. Otherwise, it would continue to heat or cool without bound, therefore, any net transfer of latent heat to the atmosphere is zero and it all returns to the surface as rain.

            BTW, latent heat doesn’t affect the absorption of IR by water vapor, as latent heat is a property of all molecules of water vapor.

          • CO2isnotevil said
            “As far as water in the atmosphere, yes, it removes latent heat from the water drop that it evaporates from, but that latent heat is returned to another water droplet when the water vapor molecule condenses upon it. Eventually, that latent heat is returned to the surface as liquid water that’s warmer than it would be otherwise. The only possible way any of this latent can be transferred to air molecules is when those air molecules collide with water droplets. Since we are talking about change as it effects the long term steady state, by definition, atmospheric water must be in equilibrium and absorbing the same amount of energy that it’s emitting. Otherwise, it would continue to heat or cool without bound, therefore, any net transfer of latent heat to the atmosphere is zero and it all returns to the surface as rain.”

            H2O vapour in the atmosphere gets there, all by evaporation . Mostly from the oceans. That process creates latent heat within the water vapour molecule. Some of that latent heat comes from the ocean water and some from the atmosphere itself. When the water vapour molecule finally condenses most of that latent heat is lost to the atmosphere.

            What you describe would result in the oceans boiling over because the only way they would be able to release heat (in your scenario) would be IR radiating from a thin watery surface. That amount of IR from water must be an order of magnitude lower than that radiated from land. The amount of heat from the oceans transferred to latent heat in the process of evaporation must be the largest transfer of heat/IR in the whole energy balance. Oceans are 70% of surface. I contend that latent heat is the key to the energy balance. The only argument is where does that latent heat (that is released as sensible heat upon condensation) go? If 70%(earth surface % of oceans) of 50%( half to space upwards and half downwards) which is 35%, all went back to oceans, the oceans would again boil over. Therefore by convection, that latent heat must get lost to space.

            The sole remaining question is whether the back radiation from the CO2 and H2O vapour (that resulted from the IR from oceans and land ) is large enough to cause a temperature increase? I say NO because any amount of back radiation would result in runaway global warming.

            Let us say that you have a dam with the dam’s walls that will never increase in height and have a constant source of water flowing to it and an outlet bypass pipe that takes the water downstream that bypasses the dam so that the dam never overflows as long as the river flow is constant (analagous to solar output). Then you divert some of that water through a special pipe that reduces the amount that flows through the bypass pipe. This special pipe then gets poured on to the water on top of the dam itself. Dont forget that the original bypass pipe is now reduced( TOA IR escaping). The water from this new pipe that is being poured on to the top of the dam will either cause the dam to overflow or will increase the amount through the original bypass back to what it was. The whole AGW conjecture is based on us believing that the dam just keeps increasing the amount of water it contains. Something doesn’t add up.

          • Alan,

            “most of that latent heat is lost to the atmosphere. ”

            No. Energy is never ‘lost’, nor is latent heat directly converted into the kinetic energy of O2 and N2 molecules in motion which is the primary manifestation of the kinetic temperature of the atmosphere.

            Water evaporating from the surface mostly evaporates from other water in which case, the latent heat comes from the body of water that is evaporating and cools it. Conversely, when water condenses in the atmosphere, the latent heat is returned to the water condensed upon. There is no physical connection to air molecules during this process and the ONLY place that latent heat can end up is in the heat of the droplet of water. When atmospheric water evaporates, the droplet it evaporates from cools.

            The CAGW idea that the temperature increases without bound is a consequence of the implicit power supply in the model that isn’t part of the system being modeled which enables an absurdly high ECS. Nonetheless, there’s definitely LWIR being returned to the surface by both GHG molecules and clouds, except that this is not new energy as it would be in a linear Bode feedback amplifier, but is energy emitted by the surface in the past and that was absorbed, delayed and ultimately redirected back to the surface.

            GHG molecules return wavelengths of energy in their absorption bands while even the tiniest droplets of water are black bodies that emit a broad band spectrum of of photons. The amount of LWIR ultimately returned to the surface is 600 milliwatts per W/m^2 of forcing, thus 240 W/m^2 of forcing results in surface emissions of 1.6*240 = 390 W/m^2 corresponding to a temperature of 288K. Only a return of energy greater than 1 W/m^2 per W/m^2 of solar forcing will cause a runaway condition and this is a result of Bode’s stability criteria, although the phase of the feedback is generally more important to stability.

            The radiant return of surface emissions absorbed by the atmosphere is the only possible way that the surface can be warmer than 255K. The molecules of air in the atmosphere can not heat the surface, as they are being heated by the surface themselves.

      • Why, he’s just following the fine example of Ben Santer, who issued similar threats, er, I mean sentiments, once upon a time.

          • From: Ben Santer To: P.Jones Subject: Re: CEI formal petition to derail EPA GHG endangerment finding with charge that destruction of CRU raw data undermines integrity of global temperature record Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:07:56 -0700 I’m really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.
            1255100876.txt

      • Appell : Cor ! as in Apple Core !?? ( Not Cor as in Courage that’s for sure !)
        No ! Not a threat ! He was just concerned that you would suffer
        a heart attack and somehow THAT would be blamed on EXCESS CO2 !!
        So ..it was really just compassion.
        Regards and commiserations on your atrocious performance
        and behaviour Mr Appell !
        Trevor .

        • Trevor hasn’t found a caps lock button yet that he doesn’t like. Dial back the emotion.

      • No. However, I’m not one of these people that pretend to a pretentious, phony moral high-ground. I’m perfectly willing to acknowledge when some contentious, stuck-up blowhard DESERVES a nice boot in the ass. The human urge to pop some @#$#$ who really needs it is as natural as eating or sex – it’s silly to deny it – but it’s really acting on those impulses that make the difference – which is pretty much illustrated by the near constant riots and intimidation by the progressive marching brooms incited by you and your ilk – all while you pretend to separate yourself from what you instigate.
        But no, like pretty much anybody, you’re safe until you actually take a swing at me – probably safe there anyway – after all, you pretty much remind me of the guy that runs the comic store on the Simpsons.
        Sorry if I frightened you.

    • Joel :
      No you wouldn’t…….he doesn’t strike me as an appealing person !
      and THAT would NOT be a wise use of your time !
      Taking out your anger on someone else is NOT the best way to handle it !
      {Quote : Anger is taking out somebody else’s faults on yourself ! }
      ………and even though I sympathise with you and I probably hold the same
      views and attitudes……….I live a long way from you…….and VISITING HOURS
      probably wouldn’t be convenient for either of us!!
      RELAX ! Chuck Weise WAS MUCH MORE CREDIBLE and behaved like a proper
      gentleman ( and he looks like he has the physique to really take Appell apart ,
      IF he chose to , but wisely , he didn’t become physical , he just did it verbally ! ).
      MUCH BETTER and REALLY SATISFYING on camera and off !

    • “Frankly, I’d like five minutes alone with Appell.”

      This is a perfect example of a comment that, at best, wastes the reader’s time.

      I would recommend two separate threads; one for a scientific discussion and another for people who want to vent their emotions.

  2. This comment is not name calling, it’s just an observation. A lot of people are as ugly on the outside as they are on the inside, or so I’ve noticed.

    • Facts are facts, and Appell appears to be no more than an alarmist, when in person. His science arguments were very weak to non-existent. One would never know that he has science skills after listening to his presentation.

        • There is no “alarming” warming trend which is obvious if you stop the baloney long enough.

          • As it happens, whether or not you find something “scientifically useful” is of no interest to the rest of us, only any evidence you may have, which is cleanly sorely lacking

          • But somehow you with that fat PHD in your back pocket failed to back up your absurd claim:

            “Yes, I *am* an alarmist. Because we should be alarmed at the rapid warming we’re causing.”

            You are running on empty as usual.

          • Gee why is it so hard for you to just put up the numbers to defend your disputed statement?

          • I have no problem putting up numbers. I just didn’t think anyone here disagreed with 30-year trends of +0.15-0.2 C/dec. I assume anyone here can download and calculate the linear trend by least squares just as well as I can……

          • Appell—” I’m running on 30-year trends, which are large.”
            NOT compared to history.
            CET shows 4 periods of warming. All three earlier ones were faster than now.
            1692 to 1733 was from 7.73 to 10.5 for 2.77 degree in 41 years, or 0.068 /yr
            1784 to 1828 was from 7.85 to 10.32 for 2.47 degree in 44 years, or 0.056 /yr
            1879 to 1921 was from 7.44 to 10.51 for 3.07 degree in 42 years, or 0.073 /yr
            1963 to 2014 was from 8.52 to 10.95 for 2.43 degree in 51 years, or 0.048 /yr

          • Tornados, flat
            Floods, flat
            Heat waves, flat
            Sea Level Rise, flat
            Droughts, flat
            Deaths from weather disasters, down
            Famine, down
            Crop productivity, up
            Biomass, up

            Alarmist credibility, down

          • Translation: David can’t refute Sun’s comment, so he’s just going to pretend he’s too good for us and try to skate over the controversy.

        • Except for the 2016 super El Nino, there has been no warming at all for about 20 years.

          And for the past two years, Earth has been rapidly cooling off from that El Nino, as it did after the 1998 El Nino.

          • David,

            Here’s the history of warming since the end of the LIA, c. 1850:

            A warming cycle until the 1880s.

            A cooling cycle until the 1910s.

            A warming cycle until the 1940s.

            A cooling cycle until 1977, when the PDO flipped.

            A warming cycle until 1998, when a super El Nino happened.

            Flat temperatures until 2016, when another super El Nino happened.

            The dramatic cooling from the 1940s until 1977 occurred under rising CO2. The slight warming from 1977 to 1998 happened under rising CO2. The flat temperatures from 1998 until 2016 occurred under rising CO2. The pronounced cooling from 2016 until the present happened under rising CO2.

            Where is the warming signal from CO2 in all these ups and downs?

            Thanks!

          • David Appell,
            Perhaps you could clear up any doubt about your response to Felix’ simple question, by at least, pointing to data showing a clear CO2 signal in the temperature record.

          • Is it true that the heat capacity of the ocean is 1200 times greater than that of the atmosphere?

          • Once again, David shows for all to see that either he can’t read or he’s utterly dishonest.
            Your shorter verson of Felix’s comment bears no relationship to what he actually said.

        • 1) The warming isn’t rapid. It’s gone up faster and higher many times in the past.
          2) There is no evidence that we are causing more than a tiny fraction of the barely measurable warming that has occurred over the last 150 years.
          3) Do you enjoy making a fool of yourself?

        • Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I ‘m so scared. Mr. Appell says global warming is going to get me. To get all of us. Hmmmmmmm Maybe we can provide space flights to Mars for all the alarmists. Free flights paid for by all the carbon taxes they are raining down on us. We also will provide the infrastructure necessary on Mars to live there. Of course you will need a spacesuit to go outside when you are there, but at least you wont get drowned from all the earth’s melting ice sheets. We will make a world wide list of everyone that wants to go. It will only be a one way trip though. If the alarmists are truly saying that it is too late to save the earth then why wouldnt they go? And if it is not too late to save the earth Mr. Appell PLEASE GIVE US A DATE when the tipping point happens, so that we can plan to have the rockets ready to go 6 months ahead of time with rockets leaving every hour on the hour. Of course tipping point or not , I won’t be getting on one of those rocket flights.

    • “Beauty is only skin deep, but ugliness (metaphorical) goes all the way to the bone.”

          • David: RE RESPIRATION and CO2 LEVELS
            CO2 is 0.041% in air INHALED and
            4% to 5% in air EXHALED …..by humans.
            If we are talking about CO2 in the air …how is that NEUTRAL ?
            If you are claiming that the body is now LOWER by the same
            amount of Carbon then you may have a point
            BUT as regards the AIR you are WRONG !
            The contention is that CO2 increase in air causes warming.
            In a ” greenhouse” ( or more correctly , a hothouse ) there
            is a sealed and confined space INTO WHICH additional
            CO2 is introduced , along with heating , to stimulate plant
            growth.
            The Earth’s Atmosphere is an OPEN SYSTEM with convection
            and it doesn’t function as a greenhouse ,
            so even the TERM is WRONG.
            Your HOT-SPOT doesn’t exist and the
            SATELLITE INFORMATION shows that the Earth is
            currently COOLING despite the CO2 level rising !
            DO ALL THESE INCONSISTENCIES NOT CAUSE YOU WONDER
            IF YOU MIGHT HAVE THE WRONG END OF THE NETTLE ?

          • And as the human population increases and all it’s needs have risen, why do alarmist insist that there should be an ‘Energy Balance’?
            We are taking sunlight converting it to food, crops and livestock, and growing the population — all of this takes INCREASING (solar) energy, so there should NOT be a balance.
            We are sequestering away solar energy, converting solar energy into chemical bonds, just the same as all terrestrial life does. The increasing human mass is testament to this occurring.
            The only way there could be balance is if (approximately) the total mass of all terrestrial life using solar energy on the planet was constant — maybe that is what they are trying to promote?

          • Oversimplifying again, doctor.

            Respiration would be carbon neutral for a person who has a stable body mass. Carbon in the pie hole equals carbon out the various exits.

            Some people are massive carbon sinks. Recently I have been suffering from this myself. Gotta get more exercise.

            Appears that your dietary science may be as flawed as your climate science.

  3. My wife listens to Lars’ regional show on the radio most days, so I caught the start of the on-air part of this and listened to most of it. Said to my wife, “I don’t understand why Lars has David Appell on with Chuck. David is a nut.” Actually pulled up WUWT during the debate and did a search under his name. Some interesting returns, but nothing much recently. But, gotta give him credit for showing up and doing the show.

    • I mostly disagree with David, but I am somewhere between furious and depressed over the way people have been addressing him here.

      Please everyone, stick to scientific arguments. If you aren’t capable of that, allow this discussion to be less cluttered.

      • Mr. Michael: Above Richard Courtney (no relation) took the “just science” approach and utterly deconstructed Mr. Appell, who ran away. Mr. Appell richly deserves mockery, and we will continue. If you really think you can engage him and get anywhere with your “just science” approach, please try him at andthenthere’sphysics, and get back to us. There’ll be very little of what you call “clutter” there. And very little traffic. And it may even look kinda sciencey, to a point. To the point where you start winning, then get deleted. Enjoy!

        • Hooray for Richard Courtney! Oh, if only that’s what everyone did.

          It’s how we win.

        • Appell’s made it quite clear that he worships Mannaical and his faux charts and manniacal’s repetitious ten years+ recycled presentations.

          Devotee, groupie, fanatic fan, etc.

          • Speaking of Mann:
            PROFESSOR WILLIAM HAPPER, PHD:
            On February 25th 2009, Professor Hopper testified before the US Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee—:

            “The existence of climate variability in the past has long been an embarrassment to those who claim that all climate change is due to man and that man can control it. When I was a schoolboy, my textbooks on earth science showed a prominent “Medieval Warm Period” at the time the Vikings settled Greenland, followed by a vicious “Little Ice Age” that drove them out. So I was very surprised when I first saw the celebrated “hockey stick curve,” in the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC. I could hardly believe my eyes. Both the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period were gone, and the newly revised temperature of the world since the year 1000 had suddenly become absolutely flat until the last hundred years when it shot up like the blade on a hockey stick… The hockey stick was trumpeted around the world as evidence that the end was near. The hockey stick has nothing to do with reality but was the result of incorrect handling of proxy temperature records and incorrect statistical analysis. There really was a Little Ice Age and there really was a Medieval Warm Period that was as warm or warmer than today.”

            PROFESSOR WILLIAM HAPPER, PHD is considered to be the greatest living physicist, His bio included: Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University and a member of the US Government’s group of independent scientific advisors JASON, for whom he pioneered the development of adaptive optics. Recipient of the Davisson-Germer Prize in Atomic or Surface Physics, the Herbert P Broida Prize, and a Thomas Alva Edison patent award. Fellow of the American Physical Society and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

            Reformatted from the Amazon on line preview of “A Disgrace to The Profession”
            ————————————
            “The blade of the hockey stick could not be reproduced using either the same techniques as Mann and Jones or other common statistical techniques.”

            Here is what PROFESSOR DAVID R LEGATES, PHD wrote about the hockey stick:

            “Recently, my colleagues and I closely examined the “blade” of Mann’s latest temperature reconstruction (Geophysical Reseai’ch Letters, February 2004). According to the IPCC (2001) and many other published sources, the earth warmed only 0.6°C (1°F) during the 20th century. However, that contrasts sharply with the most recent reconstruction by Mann and Jones, which shows warming over the last century of 0.95°C (1.5°F) – a temperature rise more than 50 percent larger than tire IPCC claims. Mann’s warming estimate has grown substantially over the last couple of years, apparently to accommodate his continuing claim that the 1990s were the wannest decade of the last two millennia, but we found that tire blade of the hockey stick could not be reproduced using either the same techniques as Mann and Jones or other common statistical techniques. Since reproducibility is a hallmark of scientific inquiry and the blade does not represent the observed climate record, it is unreliable…”

            PROFESSOR DAVID R LEGATES, PHD:
            Professor of Geography and former Director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware. Former Delaware State Climatologist, Coordinator of the Delaware Geographic Alliance and Associate Director of the Delaware Space Grant Consortium. Author of peer-reviewed papers published in The International Journal of Climatology, The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society and other journals.

            Reformatted from the Amazon on line preview of “A Disgrace to The Profession”

          • Happer is wrong about his most basic claims about climate. His expertise has not at all translated from atomic physics…. And I dismissed Legates when we talked for my article “Hot Words” for Scientific American in… 2004, I think(?) Him, Soon, Baliunas…. their paper was real junk. Read my Sci Am article from back them to understand why.

          • David this is where your creds die. Happer is not just an atomic physicist. He is also a leading expert in optics and spectroscopy. His discovery of the guide star technology via the shining of a laser into the mesosphere demonstrates a knowledge of the atmosphere at an extremely high level. Optics and spectroscopy are actually dead center at the physics of the greenhouse effect. You make a practice of cherry picking facts that fits your biases and this is just another example of it.

          • The following is an example of that which affects all of us at some point in our lives. However, Mr. Appell seems to be making a career of it.

  4. It is unfortunate that they don’t have this entire debate to listen to absent the adverts. You can see the conversation still in progress while the ads take over which cuts off the debate, such as it was. Appell is a complete idiot, even worse in person than in comments online.

  5. Thanks, Anthony for posting this. I finally got to see what the person who inspired me to become a meteorologist looks like. When he (and I) were teenagers in `69 he beat the NWS to the punch by several days by forecasting a very rare blizzard for the PDX area. His forecast was carried by KBPS, the Portland Public Schools radio station that students at Benson polytech High school could learn all the various aspects of radio broadcasting.

  6. A Calvinist says to an Arminian, “I’m staring to feel like it’s meant for me to deck you!”

    Armenian replies, “Oh yeah? Well whatever you choose to do buddy!”

    • Well, look who showed up at the site which doesn’t let anyone who knows what they are talking about in regards to climate to add to the conversation. Those were your own words over at Dr Spencer’s site not too long ago. Note that WUWT is gracious enough to let you comment on a post in which you are featured in the debate.

        • Cutting abusive comments is not censoring.
          Though it does appear that abuse is the only way you know to debate.

          • Sun – people like you routinely censor anyone who knows anything, whose challenges you can’t refute.

            I am happy to be in the same company as Nick Stokes.

          • This is why you get into trouble David, you have a bad habit of twisting and lying about things.

            It was clear that you were very wrong about the “death threats” which never existed, the chancellor himself stated it didn’t exist outside of journalistic fantasies.

            Here is the May 3, 2012 post by Anthony exposing your wayward behavior,

            Paging David Appell – ‘death threats against climate scientists’ story even deader than yesterday

            a quote:

            “Will science writer David Appell now retract his vicious personal smears here, here, and here, plus his follow up smear yesterday when faced with fresh evidence and offer an apology and retraction of his claims? I doubt he will, as I believe he does not have the personal integrity within himself to do so. I’ll be delighted to be proven wrong though.

            UPDATE: Well that didn’t take long, Appell has now published my email to him (which was part of an unsolicited email thread started by Appell) along with the email addresses of people on the cc list. I view this as completely unprofessional and completely within character for him. On the plus side, when myself and the other email addresses he published start getting hate mail, we now have a claim against Mr. Appell.

            http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/05/fwd-dumb-and-dumber.html

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/03/paging-david-appell-death-threats-against-climate-scientists-story-even-deader-than-yesterday/

            Grow up David!

          • Remember that Australian who “welcomed” the German scientist, Han Schellenhuber, to Australia while showing him a noose?

            Yes, I claim that was a death threat. And you’re a chump for censoring me for thinking that.

            Clearly you will not accept any opinion but your own. Agree with you or be censored.

            (For the last time, I have NOT censored you. The Death threats postings was 6 years ago, I became moderator about a year ago) MOD

            (As far as I can see ZERO comments you posted so far today has been moderated) MOD

          • Once again, lying and dodging is the best that David can do.
            He knows very well why he was punished, but he’s got to pretend that he’s totally innocent.

          • He is LYING since I have never been moderator in any forums other than WUWT that he has posted in.

            Notice that he doesn’t specify the forum he claims I censor him in?

          • Because you ruin every thread you get involved with. Every thread at DrRoys site runs about 40 – 50 comments by DA and are pretty much unreadable. But that is probably your goal.

          • Using sock puppets in order to find someone to agree with you is a violation of site policy.
            That’s why you were punished, not for anything you said.

            Something which you know perfectly well.

          • He was probably picked on and bullied while growing up.
            We’re just experiencing the adult version of that problem…

          • Would you trust anything that was said by a person who is known to have used a sock puppet?

        • I believe you’d be welcomed here but for behavior, not opinions.

          I welcome well-behaved consensus purveyors. Without them, what really is the point? Otherwise, it’s an echo chamber, although skeptics are capable of bitter controversies among themselves.

        • @ D A …I would suggest that you lose the emotive reactive behavior then, and stick to your science points, such as Nick Stokes does. If one occasionally lets go with directed strong remarks at another that can be overlooked, if in the main one sticks to debating the subject at hand. Even Nick has his sharp edged moments at times, but in the main he is steady as a rock in making his points.

          • David Appell

            Wouldn’t it be better to rise above any insults and be the better person instead of stooping to their level.

            And did you really publish people’s emails?

          • Appell–” Just view all the insults and invective directed towards me ”
            Merely in response to your long history of abuse and name calling.

            “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser” Unknown author

          • I call people names when (1) they call me names, like CWiese, and (2) they are so obviously uninformed and scientifically illiterate that the only appropriate label is “dumb” or “ignorant.” If you can’t handle that, don’t call me names and don’t be ignorant.

          • David Appell.

            In several posts above I quote words you have written here and explained why those words demonstrate you are both “dumb” and you are “ignorant” of several aspects of climate science on which you pontificate.

            Perhaps you would benefit from personal reflection instead of spouting arrogant twaddle ?

            Richard

            PS I shall now lie here amused at the thought of you struggling to resist the temptation to demand I copy from above the examples I have mentioned and, thus, to draw attention to them.

          • @ DA ..all well deserved from what I can see. Which is why I made that recommendation to you.

    • Guess the .18 per century warming in SH land implies, by your argument, that there is also no global warming now.

    • Interesting link as that’s a minority conclusion in the literature. The consensus (oops, there’s that word) that I’ve seen for years is that while there have been many ups and downs in world wide temps since the end of the last glaciation, our current peak is not as high as the others. In fact, if you line up the peaks you get a descending line to now indicating our overall trend is still heading towards a return of glaciation.

      I suppose if one focuses on the outlier study that feeds one’s confirmation bias one can become deluded.

      I’d recommend searching the breadth of paleo-reconstructions crossed with knowledge of world history as once you see there is nothing odd going on now, the whole scaffolding holding up your belief system can be replaced with a firm structure of multiple points of reinforcement being much more likely to represent reality.

        • David,

          It’s not warming faster now than at any other time during the Holocene.

          Not even close.

          Nothing out of the ordinary is happening now, hence the Null Hypothesis can’t be rejected. Hence, no worries. Be happy that Earth is greening thanks to more plant food in the air.

          • I was hoping you’d ask.

            Because anyone who has studied the history of climate on Earth can off the top of his head come up with many instances of much more rapid warming than during the late 20th century cycle.

            For starers, the late 20th century warming was no different from the mild early 20th century warming. But for recent really powerful warming, look no farther than the early 18th century warming, coming out of the Maunder Minimum cold period. Its duration and amplitude were both greater than the puny late 20th century warming.

          • Felix, let’s see the data — trends and warming.

            We’ve now been warming strongly since 1975 – 43 years. When was the last warming period of such duration?

            And why would it matter if there was such a prior warming period. If you think climate change now is due to natural factors, show us the data on those natural factors.

            Climate changes, but not always for the same reason.

          • David,

            The CACA hypothesis was born falsified. CO2 increased for 32 years after WWII, yet Earth cooled dramatcially.

            Then, after the PDO flip of 1977, it warmed slightly for about 20 years, purely by accident. Then, it stayed flat for another 20 years, except for the recent El Nino, again despite rising CO2.

            Hence, there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature. Rising CO2 is associated with falling, rising and flat T.

            As for the speed and amplitude of previous multidecadal warmings, please see the early 18th century in the CET, coming out of the LIA depths during the Maunder Minimum.

          • Felix wrote: “Hence, there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature.”

            That’s because the correlation is between T and ln(CO2).

            Do you understand why?

          • What an absurd comment among so many. Whether you look at a factor or the logarithm of a factor, that doesn’t change anything about the lack of correlation when the factor is rising steadily and the independent variable is alternating between rising and falling. How do you propose that ln(CO2) correlates with T any more than CO2 concentration itself? Of course we know that temperature relates to CO2 concentration by a logarithmic relationship. So why doesn’t temperature agree with that predicted relationship?

          • David Appell—“Felix, let’s see the data — trends and warming. ”
            How many times do I have to show you the data?
            Why do you repeat such easily debunked lies?
            Phil Jones, head of CRU: “ the warming rates for all 4 periods [1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998] are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.”
            CET shows 4 periods of warming. All three earlier ones were faster than now.
            1692 to 1733 was from 7.73 to 10.5 for 2.77 degree in 41 years, or 0.068 /yr
            1784 to 1828 was from 7.85 to 10.32 for 2.47 degree in 44 years, or 0.056 /yr
            1879 to 1921 was from 7.44 to 10.51 for 3.07 degree in 42 years, or 0.073 /yr
            1963 to 2014 was from 8.52 to 10.95 for 2.43 degree in 51 years, or 0.048 /yr

          • j, you are cherry picking your data. You also seem to not understand how to properly calculate trends. Ever hear of least-squares regression?

            Also, do you know what cherry picking is? It’s choosing your start and end points not based on any scientific criteria, but to get the result you want. You are doing that in spades.

          • David Appell–” It’s choosing your start and end points not based on any scientific criteria, but to get the result you want. You are doing that in spades.”
            BULL SHIT – — those number are from peak to peak. Unlike the typical numbers coming from the Trillion dollar climate alarm industry which usually starts their data in cool years.

          • It has been given to you many times, David.

            Here it is AGAIN from none other than Dr. Jones in his BBC interview:

            Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

            “A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

            An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

            Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

            I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

            So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

            Here are the trends and significances for each period:”

            http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

        • Appell—“It doesn’t matter if it was warmer before”
          It matters a great deal– If it was warmer than now (as you admitted) without man’s CO2, then why do we need to introduce a new cause, CO2, instead of accepting the fact that whatever caused those earlier, warmer, warm periods is causing another one. Especially since they are all about 1000 years apart. Logically, THERE IS NOTHING TO EXPLAIN WITH MAN”S CO2?

          • ” And there is no end in sight for it.”
            I’m saving that one. For shits and giggles in the future.

          • You are assuming that the current warming must be caused by CO2, but you have no evidence to back up that assertion.

          • See my reply above on available rocket ships to Mars. We can schedule a special flight for you.

          • David Appell — “Today the reason is human emissions of CO2”
            We are still waiting for you proof of this. It has been over 5 years, maybe even 10 years and you still cannot come up with proof.

        • It is not so fast, it is not so much, warming is not the sole metric of climate, and you seem to have a need to deceive.

        • Once again David demonstrates that he is not a scientist.
          1) If you can’t explain why it warmed before, you can’t claim that the current warming isn’t being caused by the same thing.
          2) It’s not fast compared to the historical record.

    • It appears that you cannot be honest about much of anything, Appell. And as far as your incorrect statements about CO2, and how radiation is calculated, over that narrow of wavelength, the radiation is computed by the Planck function, and it is totally inappropriate for you to say the gas in this narrow range around 15 microns isn’t black for all practical purposes. The absorption coefficient is that strong.

      http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html

      Please reference 7.6 off of this page and notice the Planck function used in ALL computer climate codes is black body emission as a function of temperature at the specific wavenumber chosen. THIS is the function that is integrated into the Schwarzchild equation of radiative transfer and used in ALL computer climate codes when calculating emission at the given temperature and pressure at the SPECIFIC wavenumber the gas absorbs at. Notice it is PLAINLY labeled black body emission. The only difference between this and the Stefan Boltzman equation is that it was integrated over all wavelengths for a solid surface that emits and absorbs over all wavelengths or numbers and appropriate emissivity applies.

      You’re also wrong again, Appell on the Medieval warm period. It was global in scope. It’s not good for someone with a PhD like you to be so wrong about most everything you speak about in climate with such a degree in physics. There was plenty of literature published about this on Anthony Watt’s site, but like you have told me so many times in past conversations, sites like this are for “deniers” and scientific illiterates that have no prowess to be accepted at the “gold standard” publications that you think are superior. WE all know the history of “pal review” quite well over here:

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/12/more-evidence-that-the-medieval-warming-period-was-global-not-regional/

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/03/documenting-the-global-extent-of-the-medieval-warm-period/

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/new-paper-shows-medieval-warm-period-was-global-in-scope/

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/11/evidence-for-a-global-medieval-warm-period/

      • Always makes me laugh that skeptics champion the medieval warm period. The very team that denies the accuracy/reliability of modern day thermometers, are happy to say with certainty that they “know” things were warmer back then. How can they be? No thermometers around only proxies to work with. Just shows how desperate they are for any argument to work for them.
        All the stuff I’ve read say it is unlikely to have been global and even more unlikely to have been warmer…. but truth is we can’t be certain…. unless you are a skeptic.

        • This whole mess started by misinterpreting the ice core proxies, which go back a million years, as opposed to the same, and other proxies going back to the much more recent MWP. BTW, the signature of the MWP is present in the ice core data whose sample resolution is on the order of 1-2 decades going back many thousands of years where the signatures of other recent warming periods are also evident. The only point being made is that whatever change occurred then, or is occurring now, has little, if anything to do with CO2.

        • No, you’ve completely missed the issue. Nobody says MWP proxies are more accurate than thermometers. Of course, it has also been shown that important proxies often don’t correlate well with thermometers, either…but their use by Mann et al. “just shows how desperate they are for any argument to work for them.”

          Anyhow, the MWP was removed out of inconvenience. That’s been the longstanding issue.

          The thermometer record has been adjusted as well and just so happens to become more convenient with every adjustment, which is another issue.

          Why don’t you ask Mann about how he “knows things were” cooler “with certainty?” He’s the one who has made claims about “warmest decades” across hundreds and even over about 2,000 yrs. Warmistas were all over that bandwagon.

          • We are not talking about Mann. He wan’t on this video pronouncing with certainly that things were warmer back in the MWP. My point is no one can be certain about it, so why lose credibility trying. Just show desperation and a lack of honesty.

          • “the MWP. My point is no one can be certain about it”

            What did Mann say when you told him this?

          • Michael Jankowski wrote:
            “Of course, it has also been shown that important proxies often don’t correlate well with thermometers, either”

            Where, when, by whom?

          • Michael Jankowski wrote:
            “Of course, it has also been shown that important proxies often don’t correlate well with thermometers, either”

            David Appell
            Where, when, by whom?

            Of all the B******t in this thread, I think this exchange surprised me the most. The “divergence” problem has been known, documented, and well recognized for a very long time. Major proxies stopped correlating with the temperature record around 1950 to 1960 (depending on the proxy). Given that the instrumental record is only about 140 years long, to have major proxies not correlate with the instrumental record for over 50 years is significant.

            The divergence problem is in fact so well known that Man and Jones tried to distract attention from it by appending thermometer records to proxy records in such a manner as to give the impression that the entire graph was from proxies. This was the now infamous “trick” that Michael Mann applied in a publication in Nature, and which Jones then replicated and referred to in the ClimateGate emails (which he admitted were his) as “Mike’s Nature trick”.

            For Mr. Appell to question proxies divergence from the temperature record by challenging the commenter to produce evidence is either completely disingenuous, or a sign that Mr. Appell is simply not familiar with the science.

            I’d debate Mr. Appell on many other points he has raised, but I simply don’t have the time. But I will say this to Mr. Appell. Facts are facts, data is data. If you want to argue them, by all means. When you retreat to the worn out argument that if it isn’t in a peer reviewed journal it isn’t science, you’ve simply discredited yourself. Jones said he would keep skeptical papers out even if he had to change the definition of peer review. Von Storch got fired for allowing skeptic papers in, and Wolfgang Schwartz was forced to resign due to allowing a paper by Spencer, even though Swhartz said he could find no fault with it. The state of peer review is that of an old boys club where only consensus papers are permitted. The vast majority of science, by the way, is never published in science journals, it is published as patents and shows up as new products, medicines, and many other things in our every day lives.

            But thanks for dropping in.

          • I’m very aware of the divergence problem. It’s behind the lie of the purposeful misinterpretation of “hide the decline.”

            I assumed the OP meant there was some problem in the past….. but it appears not.

          • I’m very aware of the divergence problem.

            Yet when it was referenced, you demanded to know where when and by whom as if you didn’t.

            I assumed the OP meant there was some problem in the past…..

            If 1/3 of the instrumental record diverges from the proxies, then h*ll yes there is a problem with the past. We have no way of knowing when they diverged and when they didn’t prior to the instrumental record. Further, the major proxies frequently don’t even agree with each other which is why reconstructions often use multiple proxies smooshed together in the naive belief that many wrong answers stuck in a blender must somehow yield a more accurate answer. Only one of them can be right, and all of them could be wrong.

            It’s behind the lie of the purposeful misinterpretation of “hide the decline.”

            Ah. So not only are you well aware of the divergence problem, you’ve got a ready made excuse for Mike’s Nature Trick and hide the decline. It was purposeful misinterpretation. I read all sides of that story in detail. Bottom line was that the proxies declined while the temps rose and so a very clever graph was constructed to hid the proxy decline so as not to discredit the rest of the proxy data. To defend this as a “misinterpretation” is ridiculous. It was a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. It had no reason to exist OTHER than to mislead the casual viewer.

          • David writes

            Bottom line was that the proxies declined while the temps rose and so a very clever graph was constructed to hid the proxy decline so as not to discredit the rest of the proxy data.

            Assuming you know what was actually done, thank you. You have definitively excluded yourself from having scientific principles.

          • David Appell writes

            It’s behind the lie of the purposeful misinterpretation of “hide the decline.”

            Many of us have looked very carefully at the background to “hide the decline” and from my point of view there is no question that Jones was being deceitful and that Mann’s trick is an unscientific and deceitful “trick”.

            If you think otherwise, can you please put in your own words a brief summary of the background as you see it so we can see why you dont think it was a deceitful graph?

        • As opposed to the true believers who know that Earth is warmer than it has been in thousands of years because… reasons?

          And that’s quite the reference list you have there with “all the stuff [you’ve] read.” So difficult to argue with that.

          And the only way we can be certain in science is if we take a vote. That’s how this works, right?

          • Tsk: while yes, it is warmer than anytime time for 10s of thousands of years, but it doesn’t matter — what is causing the present modern day warming trend, which is large — +0.15-0.2 C/decade for the surface.

            When was the last such period when climate changed this fast?

          • During the early 20th century warming cycle, T changed just as fast as during the now past late 20th century warming cycle.

            During the early 18th century warming cycle, it warmed even faster than either. Because during the LIA, it was colder, so easier to warm rapidly.

            Nothing is happening how the least bit out of the ordinary. Hence, the null hypothesis can’t be rejected.

            The scientific method tells us not to worry. More CO2 is good.

          • Appell—“When was the last such period when climate changed this fast?”
            CET shows 4 periods of warming. All three earlier ones were faster than now.
            1692 to 1733 was from 7.73 to 10.5 for 2.77 degree in 41 years, or 0.68 /decade
            1784 to 1828 was from 7.85 to 10.32 for 2.47 degree in 44 years, or 0.56 /decade
            1879 to 1921 was from 7.44 to 10.51 for 3.07 degree in 42 years, or 0.73/decade

          • From the guy who wants to include the recent El Nino as proof that CO2 is causing warming, your complaint about cherry picked pseudo-trends is quite humorous.

          • They are warming between two dates that show your claim was wrong. Any two dates are sufficient to disprove your claim.

          • Where is the proof that it is warmer today than at anytime for 10s of thousands of years?

            This is just you repeating an article of faith. It has no scientific basis given that proxies can never match modern satellite measurements.
            Thank heavens President Trump is considering de-funding NOAA…when there’s no money left the hoax will wither and die!

          • David Appell said:
            “Tsk: while yes, it is warmer than anytime time for 10s of thousands of years, but it doesn’t matter — what is causing the present modern day warming trend, which is large — +0.15-0.2 C/decade for the surface.”

            It is interesting how those in the camp of Caesar will so very often cut the legs out from under themselves. With this statement, David Appell gutted some number of his colleagues, as well.

          • The UAH dataset which is the only one that both sides trust says +0.18 above mean for 40 years. Okay we will round it up to please you. So 0.2 * 2 because it is compared to an average so that we get 0.4 for 40 years which is 1C per century. 1C per century is no different than other warming periods in the past. If you are going to worry about 1C per century I suggest that you take that rocket flight to Mars that I offered in an above posting.

        • Simon

          My understanding is that evidence of the MWP, and other warm and cold periods, is not confined to proxies, it’s demonstrated in art and literature of the time.

          • “My understanding is that evidence of the MWP, and other warm and cold periods, is not confined to proxies, it’s demonstrated in art and literature of the time.”

            1. Art does not depict a quantified temperature.
            2. You assume that all art is representative.
            3. The art is not global.
            4. the art if not a time series with monthly averages.
            5. The same goes for documents

            At best art and literature, IF you assume it is representative ( realistic depiction) then it might act as confirmation of what you estimate numerically for proxies.

            In any case when it comes to the evidence of the MWP it is less direct than thermometers, less spatially complete, less temporaly resolved and more uncertain than the thermometers which you dont trust.

          • Steven Mosher

            So what you’re saying is that a tree ring, or a rock, can be dated to within a year or two of it’s time, whilst a painting, poem or book, dated by the originator, is a figment of their imagination merely because they are allowed artistic licence?

            Are you suggesting Jacob van Ruisdael, Thomas Cole, Claude Lorrain, John Constable and, of course Turner, “…….one of the greatest landscape artists of all time and perhaps the most renowned British artist ever. During his time, landscape painting was considered low art. Turner, with his application of poetic and imaginative approach to landscape art, elevated the genre to rival history painting.” https://learnodo-newtonic.com/famous-landscape-artists.

            Every Architect I know reveres Turner for his historic contributions to their science. Almost to a man, they study, and learn from his historic recording. In his lifetime, April 23, 1775 – December 19, 1851, there are few better records of our environment, certainly not meteorological or climatological.

            Whilst I admire science immensely, I am also aware it retains a historic context. Much of science is derived from delving into the past and examining concepts presented by art and literature. Occasionally, it’s found that art and literature are something much more than you suggest and provide the answers rather than ask the questions.

            Humanity doesn’t evolve from a desktop calculator mate, humanity invented the damn thing. Try getting your priorities right and consider the value of your own origins.

            Your science confirms art and literature, not the other way around.

          • Steven Mosher

            FFS

            The more I read your insulting post, the more I resent it.

            1. Art does not depict a quantified temperature.
            Judging by alarmist science, nor do you.

            2. You assume that all art is representative.
            Where did I suggest that?

            3. The art is not global.
            Where did I suggest art is, or was global. Meanwhile, you suggest climate change is global by misleading everyone that there is such a thing as an average global temperature. I can’t conceive of a more preposterous contention.

            4. the art if not a time series with monthly averages.
            There is no such thing as a monthly average in a proxy record. Are you mad?

            5. The same goes for documents
            Which condemns any documents alarmists care to produce from history, to the Mosher bin of unworthy. Double standards doesn’t begin to describe this comment.

            Just complete and utter balderdash, and you present yourself as an informed commentator?

            Thankfully, I’m a layman. I’m not encumbered by the straitjacket of science and can appreciate the innumerable influences on our world that you dutifully ignore.

          • Steven Mosher

            “In any case when it comes to the evidence of the MWP it is less direct than thermometers, less spatially complete, less temporaly resolved and more uncertain than the thermometers which you dont trust.”

            This is just an effing cracker.

            What global network of land thermometers did they have during the MWP?

            What global network of SST thermometers did they have during the MWP?

            How many thermometers were there in the Arctic and the Antarctic during the MWP?

            And relative to all that, just when, precisely, did we discover we had a global network of reliably functioning ground, sea surface, and atmospheric temperature measuring devices that weren’t influenced by politicians fiddling the numbers for their own benefit.

            To the former, I would suggest, we haven’t yet.

            And to the latter, I would suggest, never.

            Please Stephen, get your head out your arse and understand that life isn’t about your narrow concept of science.

        • Simon,

          You mistakenly assert,
          “Always makes me laugh that skeptics champion the medieval warm period. The very team that denies the accuracy/reliability of modern day thermometers, are happy to say with certainty that they “know” things were warmer back then. How can they be? No thermometers around only proxies to work with. Just shows how desperate they are for any argument to work for them.
          All the stuff I’ve read say it is unlikely to have been global and even more unlikely to have been warmer…. but truth is we can’t be certain…. unless you are a skeptic.”

          Rubbish!
          For example, we know that in the Medieval Warm Periods (MWP) it was warmer in places where crops were then grown but are too cold for those crops to be grown today. This includes vineyards in Northern England recorded in the Doomsday Book, agriculture in Greenland where the ground is now permanent permafrost, etc., etc. etc.

          Data showing it was warmer than now in the MWP exists from around the globe and have been collated by the Medieval Warm Period Project of CO2 Science (see http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

          The project has collated evidence of warmer temperatures than now existing during the MWP in Africa,· Antarctica, · Asia, · Australia/New Zealand, · Europe and North America. Only politically motivated alarmists could claim this mass of evidence fails to refute your assertion that the MWP “is unlikely to have been global and even more unlikely to have been warmer”.

          Richard

        • ” No thermometers around only proxies to work with”
          Well, if proxies are that unreliable it makes Mann’s hockey stick rather useless, doesn’t it?

        • Well physical evidence and written records of frosts and feeezes, prior to the age of climate hype, were considered pretty good.

        • Like most of his fellow alarmists, the only way Simon can make himself relevant is by lying about what others have been saying.

          We don’t trust the current record not because there are problems with the instruments but because of the way the data has been cooked in order to show what the alarmists want to see.

          That the MWP was warmer than today is easy to see just by examining the record.

      • Chuck Wiese claims atmospheric CO2 is a blackbody. Even after I asked him the definition of a blackbody — and he answered correctly, that it’s an object that absorbs all radiation incident on it — he still tried to claim atmospheric CO2 is a blackbody, because it absorbs at “15 microns” or something. Which is very much a wrong answer, by his own definition. I’m sure many here can appreciate that.

        As I just wrote on my blog, Wiese applied blackbody equations to atmospheric CO2, when atmo CO2 is not a blackbody. Yet he thinks he knows something about simple physics that all the expert scientists in the world have missed for 125 years.

        In actuality, Wiese’s physics is just wrong. Bad even. I challenged Wiese to submit his claims to a peer reviewed scientific journal, but he won’t.

        • You are lying, Appell. I never said “CO2 is a blackbody”. I said it acts just like one, implying at the specific wavelengths that it absorbs and emits radiation from”.

          • What’s the difference Chuck? CO2 doesn’t “act just like a blackbody” because it ISN’T a blackbody. So you can’t apply blackbody equations to it, like you did in your presentation here:

        • The atmosphere is a non ideal BB, which is also called a gray body and both GHG’s and clouds contribute to its ‘grayness’. GHG’s are narrow band absorbers and emitters of photons while the water in clouds is a broad band absorber and emitter of photons. The O2 and N2 in the atmosphere are for the most part bystanders to the relevant physics. The spectral characteristics of the radiation are irrelevant to the SB Law which only relates W/m^2 to degrees K. This is not W/m^2 per Hz or per waelength or anything else, its just W/m^2 to degrees K.

      • Here is another reason why you are dishonest, Appell. You were screaming at me in this video to “publish” the results of my counter article to the Jennifer Francis/Vavrus paper that was seriously flawed and wrong in most every respect to atmospheric science that was written to blame CO2 and arctic warming on a claimed slowing jet stream that was supposed to cause severe weather and temperature extremes. You claim if it can’t get published in a “gold standard” journal like Francis/Vavrus had their paper published, well then it is just crap and unworthy of consideration.

        Well here are your comments about Francis/Vavrus AFTER they got published in your revered science journals that you claim are the “gold standard” in climate science:

        David Appell March 15, 2016 at 2:47 AM

        “I recently talked to someone who was recently a postdoc at Rutgers. We didn’t get into many details, but he told me that it’s pretty well accepted now that Jennifer Francis’s ideas aren’t correct.”

        You made these comments on “Hot Whopper”. The link here:

        https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/03/assaulting-reason-climate-inquisition.html

        So today, you screamed at me to “publish” my paper countering Francis/Vavrus on your revered sites before you would accept it and yet you admit here as other academics at Rutgers do where Francis resides that her paper was crap.

        Why did she get published in a “gold standard journal”, Appell, if these publications have their facts straight?

        Then when I tried to tell you that an accomplished physicist, Will Happer, from Princeton was turned down at the “gold standard” journals and for no good reason, you claim he isn’t a “climate scientist” and he is, instead, an idiot, paid by the oil industry to lie and that he is an atomic physicist. But Happer’s paper addressed his concern exactly as an atomic physicist would be expected to understanding radiation and atoms that absorb and emit it.

        Happer’s paper, which I have a copy of, demonstrated that the absorption spectra techniques employed in current climate model codes are in serious error at the wing lines of the molecule that are used to calculate the radiative forcings as applied in the models to get the spurious warming that they get. Crickets and refusal to publish.

        This “science” is screwed up beyond recognition by academia protecting their grant money with a complicit media and people like you that appear not bright enough to even understand the issues.

        My “paper” was published here on WUWT and also over at Dr. Ed Berry’s site and Ed has a PhD in atmospheric physics who reviewed my work. Today there is far more to be gained by getting someone like Anthony and Ed Berry to “publish” your work than at these journals you call the “gold standard”. That has become the joke of the last 30 years because of those like Michael Mann

        https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/meteorology/a-warming-arctic-would-not-cause-increased-severe-weather-or-temperature-extremes/

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/13/a-warming-arctic-would-not-cause-increased-severe-weather-or-temperature-extremes/

        • Chuck, scientists publish in the scientific literature, and they don’t read blogs like this one or (to be sure ) EdBerry.com.

          Don’t you want to win a Nobel Prize? Prove millions of scientists wrong? Be famous for eternity, forever known as the person who proved millions of scientists wrong?? Save the world all the trouble of creating noncarbon societies…. Then you’ll have to take a risk…. and submit your claims in the peer reviewed scientific literature. Not blogs, which are not anything close to being peer reviewed. The journals where science is presented, read, reviewed and considered.

          If you’re so sure of yourself, why not??

          • Dr Appel,

            There is a long and sad history of papers published in the scientific “gold standard” journals for their filed that can’t be reproduced – the replication crisis is wide-spread and, in the field of pharmaceuticals, pretty scary. There is also evidence from the ClimateGate E-Mails that there have been attempts to capture the peer-review process within the “climate science” journal community. There is evidence that people who have written papers have had them rejected by the peer review process for unstated and possibly arbitrary reasons. It has been pretty much impossible to get a paper published that questions of contradicts “the settled science” It is disingenuous of youy to claims that someone’s ideas are no good because they are published in the “gold standard” journals when such journals have an obvious double standard for acceptance.

            There are references for these assertions, but I don’t have them at my fingertips. I’m going on travel tomorrow for a while and won’t have access to this illuminating discussion, and won’t be able to dig out the references. Others may wish to provide them

          • Jim: I think you’re confused. A paper published in a peer reviewed journal doesn’t mean it’s right. It means it’s not obviously wrong, and that it adheres to basic scholarly standards.

            CWiese won’t even do that, instead making the absurd claim that publishing on blogs is equivalent. That’s just hilarious. Only someone who has never actually published in the scientific literature could claim such a thing.

          • This is a lie, Appell. The physics of Rossby waves were well established before Francis/Vavrus was published and the reviewers should have immediately recognized this paper was wrong. Why didn’t they Appell? Are they incompetent like you, or just dishonest and willing to float bogus “science” for political purposes or both?

          • It really is fascinating how David assumes that the fact that his fellow gate keepers are successful in keeping out of the literature any paper that disagrees with them, constitutes proof that both he and the gate keepers are right and everyone else is wrong.

          • Chuck, if you think Francis & Vavrus was wrong, then WRITE A PAPER AND SUBMIT IT TO THE JOURNAL.

            That’s how science happens, Chuck. It doesn’t happen by you writing “papers” on blogs (ha!) where no one will challenge you and only daring to speak on friendly forums like LL. You need to take some risks and get out of your safe comfort zone…. like the world’s scientists do all the time. Like I did today.

          • David,
            The scientific method does not require publishing in journals.
            And your not addressing the documented failures of journals, and the control of journals by climate consensus to silence skeptics. seems part of a pattern of bad faith by you in this discussion.

          • hujnter,

            Yes, as you say, the scientific method does NOT require publishing in journals. Indeed,, almost all the most valuable science is not published for public consumption anywhere because it is subject to commercial, iinancial, military or political secrecy.

            Science is a method for seeking the closest possible approximation to empirical ‘truth’, and ‘truth’ is true whether or not it is published anywhere.

            But nobody has ever accused David Appell of knowing about or caring about truth.

            Richard

          • David Appell,

            It is not only journals that have been usurped, technical associations also have. I commend this analysis of that by Richard Lindzen which is a shocking read and names names
            http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/science-and-policy/LindzenClimatescience2008.pdf

            And my experience of the self-named Team’s behaviour to prevent publication of ‘inconvenient’ papers is spelled-out in this submission to the UK Parliament.
            https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm

            Richardd

          • I could ask Happer if he is willing to let Anthony publish it. I don’t know the answer right now but I will ask. It is very technical and employs graduate level spectroscopy. But it is a very interesting read for any that can follow it.

          • Ever think that Happer’s paper was junk and that’s why it wasn’t published? Happer’s post here

            https://edberry.com/blog/climate-authors/william-happer/would-einstein-be-a-global-warming-skeptic-if-alive-today/

            contains three major mistakes (“The Earth stubbornly refuses to warm as quickly as establishment models predict. Extreme weather is not becoming more frequent. Sea levels are rising at about the same rate as they did in the 1800′s.”

            The third, especially is laughably false. That’s an indication of why Happer can’t get published — any peer review would laugh at such a claim and read no further.

          • David Appell,

            Your lies are now becoming ludicrous.

            Those three facts you attribute to Happer are all true and none are as you assert “mistakes”.

            Richard

          • David Appell

            “Chuck, scientists publish in the scientific literature, and they don’t read blogs like this one……..”

            My belief is that you are, right now, reading, and participating in this blog. I also understand you have been at pains to read, and participate in this blog by fraudulent means with fake email addresses and names.

            I’m not a scientist, but I trust scientists to act on my (and all other laymen’s) behalf with integrity and honesty. If my beliefs about you are true then it seems you can’t be trusted to do so.

            I also note that Nick Stokes reads, and participates in this blog. I may disagree with what he promotes but I respect his approach and integrity. I’m not sure if he’s a scientist, if not, he’s extraordinarily well informed, but you have condemned him also with your statement.

          • Hot – blogs aren’t science. Not my blog, not this blog, not any blog. They don’t publish science. Unless you yourself have published science, you probably won’t know or appreciate the huge difference. The difference is standards is … immense.

          • David Appell

            Where did I suggest blogs were scientific?

            I pointed out that whilst you say one thing, you do the opposite whilst simultaneously insulting academic supporters and opponents alike.

            This is the second comment of mine you have responded to. Neither of your responses dealt with the subject matter, in fact you raised matters not even mentioned in my posts.

            I deliberately didn’t watch the video posted above so I could approach this discussion with an open mind.

            You have an extraordinarily high opinion of yourself, yet display none of the qualities that engender respect.

            You appeal to the authority of your qualifications but fail to understand they are a licence to learn, not to preach. You are rude, arrogant, evasive and bombastic.

            You have been revealed as a liar and a cheat and seem to be proud that you are also a bully, one of the most reprehensible characteristics anyone can develop.

            And for your information, I have practised criminal Law which demands standards at least as high as science because we deal with lives, not imagined consequence of global warming.

            I congratulate Anthony for having previously banned you from this site, you are a disgrace, from whatever perspective one cares to observe you.

            And whilst I have the courtesy of addressing you by your full name, you assume to address me as an abbreviation. Your ignorance is profound.

          • David, journals aren’t science either. They are just magazines that print what the people who run them want printed.
            Journals have done way more to retard science than they have ever done to advance it.

          • MarkW – do you read journals? Ever published in one?

            Journals are where science is presented, and it’s what scientists read. Because journals have standards so that the papers are worth reading — no guaranteed to be right, but worth reading.

          • HotScot wrote: “I also understand you have been at pains to read, and participate in this blog by fraudulent means with fake email addresses and names.”

            You’re using a fake name.

            Like many others who have tried to comment here, I have been censored many times. I’m surprised I’m allowed to comment even on this post. So, yes, I’ve used an anonymous name, just like you and almost everyone else here is doing right now.

          • David Appell

            How very dare you!

            My given name is HotScot!

            You conform to your usual standard of assumption.

            Anthony has my details, as far as they go, and they conform exclusively to a single email address I correspond on.

            But then I’m a simple layman who believes playing by the rules. Conforming to ethical standards is an expression of my integrity.

            You, on the other hand, deem it acceptable to indulge in chicanery, using numerous false identities and email addresses to subvert an entirely open blog. One that, by your own admission, you condemn as unworthy to scientists, yet you stalk it, with guile, and malice.

            Judging by your behaviour, I’m not surprised you have been banned. Censored suggests the occasional post was removed, but you were banned altogether.

            Nor have I, in the last few years spent reading WUWT, ever seen anyone banned from the site, and those censored are those that blaspheme or insult, and it’s momentary.

            Now, for what it’s worth, you could be a source of knowledge to everyone on Anthony’s blog. Participate in the spirit of educating idiots like me and you would doubtless be welcomed by everyone.

            Continue in your stubborn and, combative manner, and you’ll get banned again, and WUWT will have lost a valuable contributor.

            Are your qualifications and education for your benefit only? Or could they be utilised and adapted by others to understand things you can’t imagine? I presume your lecturers didn’t indoctrinate you with their beliefs, so why do you do it to others?

            You were educated in the spirit of free thinking, I hope, yet you seek to crush all before you, with your climate change ‘wisdom’.

            I am right, and you are wrong, is not science. I don’t adopt that stance and I have no education.

            I’m always willing to learn, does a scientific qualification absolve me of that privilege?

            If so, I’ll remain a grateful layman.

          • If someone told David his house was on fire, he’d refuse to believe them unless they’d published it in a journal.

        • CW’s only response is to call someone “dishonest.” That’s all he had today — never any defense of his physics claims. Just “dishonest” and “you’re an idiot.”

          CW refused to shake my hand at the end when I offered it. Enough said.

          • You are being called dishonest by me and many others, Appell, because you are. Answer my question. Why was the Francis/Vavrus paper published in your revered journals you claim are the “gold standard” and yet everyone knew this paper was crap?

            I submit it is because the results gave the government and the media an excuse to blame every severe weather event on “climate change”. Her paper is a disaster and yet it was published. People that deserve to be published like Will Happer are turned down. But it doesn’t matter because it accomplished a political objective of the movement that funds it in government.

            It should be clear to you by now, Appell, that you are promoting political science, not real science, just like the racket pumping out the bogus research that Francis/Vavrus was published under.

            And your comment about winning a Nobel shows how naïve you are. I would never get a Nobel for re-stating what has already been established in atmospheric science. You are acting as though my concepts are new and unproven. Wrong. They were supplanted by the special interests in academia seeking grant money and government funding to continue to run failed climate models, ie the “Oz machines” to live out their inferior careers.

          • See CW call me more names.

            That’s the best he can do. Because his physics is horrible, and his understanding is too meager to even understand that.

            Because CW has no science. He doesn’t even understand blackbodies. Yet he somehow thinks he knows something about what is very basic physics that has somehow been missed by millions of physicists since Tyndall in 1859.

            Which is, of course, ludicrous. And CW knows that. Which is he won’t submit his claims to a good peer reviewed journal. He prefers blogs like this or edbarry because he knows no one here or there will challenge thim. (Ed Berry censors challenges.) Because his claims will be laughed out of a journal editor’s office.

            Now watch CW make even more excuses.

          • The man who has spent most of this thread insulting those who don’t agree with him is whining because he’s been insulted.
            It would be funny if it weren’t so typical.

          • David Appell,

            You seem to have great difficulty with reading comprehension.

            Chuck Weise asked you,
            ” Why was the Francis/Vavrus paper published in your revered journals you claim are the “gold standard” and yet everyone knew this paper was crap?”

            You have tried to hide your inability to answer that question behind a smokescreen of bluster. I write to refute that pile of stinking bluster.

            Chuck Wise did NOT call you names. He said somebody who is known to use false names and false addresses to pretend he is someone other than himself is dishonest. The accurate statement of your dishonesty is pertinent information for judging your assertions and, thus, is most definitely NOT name calling.

            He has made no errors in his physics and you have stated none he has made. The science he states is sound, but you proclaim he “doesn’t even understand blackbodies” when the truth of this is that YOU have misquoted and misrepresented accurate statements he made.

            You have a track-record of that behaviour. For example, you wrongly accused Ed Berry (who does not censor his blog but rightly banned you for thread bombing) of making an arithmetic error. Then, as now, you thought your fallacious accusation would result in debate of that and, thus, would deflect attention from the ludicrous nature of your irrational fear-mongering about climate change.

            He states scientific information that has been accepted for decades so cannot be published in a scientific journal. Either you are ignorant of that scientific information or your demand for publication is merely more evidence of your dishonesty.

            All of the above is rebuttal of the bluster you have provided in attempt to hide your failure to answer the question from Chuck Weise. Clearly, you are a sad act, very sad.

            Richard

          • David Appell,

            You attempt to continue evading Chuck Weise’s question by pretending you don’t remember accusing Ed Berry of an arithmetic error.

            I will not waste time seeking the link to where on Ed Berry’s blog you wrongly accused him of making a mistake in calculating a percentage. Chuck Wise and I each supported Ed in his rebuttal of your false accusation, and your behaviour of that matter resulted in Ed refusing to post anymore of your ignorant and offensive nonsense so I am certain you remember it.

            Now, will you continue to evade Chuck’s question to you?
            I remind that it was.
            “” Why was the Francis/Vavrus paper published in your revered journals you claim are the “gold standard” and yet everyone knew this paper was crap?”

            Richard

          • Who says Chuck Wiese is right about Francis & Varney? Him?? I’ve seen how back Wiese’s physics is — so I very much doubt him on *anything* he claims.

            If he thinks he has a point, let him do what everyone else does — write a paper and try to get it published. It’s easy (and cheap) to call scientists wrong on a blog. Which is why scientists ignore blogs.

          • He didn’t call you any names, Appell. You’re like the little girl in the back seat who claims her brother hit her when he is just minding his own business.

          • MarkW

            I could, with pleasure. 🙂

            Mincemeat mate, mincemeat. How would he feel being torn apart (metaphorically of course) by a layman?

            I watched his faltering, inconsistent, defensive demeanour on that you-tube clip (eventually) and am astonished anyone takes him seriously enough to have him on a broadcast.

            Chuck Weise was remarkably patient and articulate.

            Although, I must concede, David Appell is remarkably competent at sneering from behind the safety of a keyboard.

    • David Appell … still denying the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age!
      Same as Michael E Mann.

      And he calls US climate deniers!

          • David Appell,

            You are being obtuse.

            In an above post at June 29, 2018 12:53 am I wrote,

            “Data showing it was warmer than now in the MWP exists from around the globe and have been collated by the Medieval Warm Period Project of CO2 Science (see http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php )

            The project has collated evidence of warmer temperatures than now existing during the MWP in Africa,· Antarctica, · Asia, · Australia/New Zealand, · Europe and North America. Only politically motivated alarmists could claim this mass of evidence fails to refute your assertion that the MWP “is unlikely to have been global and even more unlikely to have been warmer””

            The link I provided has references and links to all the source data you could possibly want.

            However, later at June 29, 2018 12:53 am you have written,

            “So show me the data! Not some blog post, the actual real data. If you can’t do that, don’t waste my time.”

            YOU are wasting everybod’ys time when you pretend you are being refused information you have already been given.

            Richard

          • David Appell,

            Thanks for posting the reference to a nonsense paper ref.
            “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013
            http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html

            As I have repeatedly informed you in this thread, that nonsense paper is completely refuted by the mass of data collated by the Medieval Warm Period Project of CO2 Science (see http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php )

            The reference you have cited is a useful example of the tripe which gets passed by ‘climate science’ pal review. Again, thankyou for providing it.

            Richard

          • Courtney, Idso and his propaganda machine (co2science.org) has no scientific credibility. They have no impact factor and have no-review on anything they publish. They lack transparency in their source of funding, and from what is known about their funding, is that they are supported by the fossil fuel industries.

          • Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla……Zzzzzzzzzz

            Your idiotic old, worn out smears and lies are plain stupid and BORING!

            It is clear you have no factual counterpoint to offer.

          • C. Paul Pierett,

            Idso et al. have collated the source documents I cited, and you don’t mention that data.

            My respect for the exceptional scientific work of Idso has grown as a result of your failed attempt to attack it. You proffer no indication of fault in it and because you cannot you resort to irrelevance; e.g. you say you don’t know its funding.

            Richard

          • (SNIPPED smears against Dr. Isdo (second time) and against Richard Courtney)

            (You repeat unsupported smears against people, stop it and get back on topic) MOD

          • Now that’s chutzpah. Wasting people’s time seems to be your only goal in life.

            You’re a sad pathetic case Appell, pitiable really.

          • David Appell

            Why do they need to be shown as global? They happened, mankind not only survived them, it flourished.

            There’s your empirical evidence that climate change, unless it’s cooling of course, is beneficial.

            Why is this such a difficult concept for a self proclaimed genius to grasp??

          • It’s *others* who claim they were global. I agree there were periods and places where it was warm then. How long? How much. The PAGES 2k paper lays this out in a clear graphic.

            Ironically, if the MWP *was* global, it means the climate system is much more responsive to small forcings than is currently thought. So we have even MORE to worry about from manmade GHGs.

          • David Appell,

            It is becoming difficult to discern if you are being deliberately obtuse or if you really are as stupid as your recent comments indicate.

            You have repeatedly asserted that we are experiencing a period of global warming and several people have pointed out to you that there are places and recent decades that have exhibited cooling Now, whilst making that claim, you are also claiming similar temperature variations in the Medieval period means there was not a Medieval Warm Period (MWP).

            Please try to think before posting such blatant nonsense.

            Richard

          • He and others ignore the much warmer Holocene Optimism, clearly warmer than MWP and today.

            Yet Polar Bears, Greenland Ice and yes even us grunts are still here alive.

          • David Appell

            Before I go any further. If you are addressing me in this comment, kindly have the courtesy to start with my name. It’s simply a click and copy exercise.

            “I agree there were periods and places where it was warm then.”

            By that metric you concede that mankind endured higher temperatures with no detrimental effect. Yes?

            “How long? How much.” To be fair, you’re the scientific expert. That’s a question you could answer far better than me. But I would have a guess that if it was no more than even a few generations, then even that would be enough to establish the success or failure of a warmer environment.

            “Ironically, if the MWP *was* global………..”

            But you assure us the MWP was a local event as far as I can gather, therefore we don’t have much to worry about. Is that a fair observation?

          • Here it is, which you ignore REPEATEDLY:

            Sunsettommy

            David this statement itself is dishonest, since NO ONE claims it was synchronous around the world.

            “There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age”

            There are many published science papers showing that within the time time frame of the MWP itself , it was indeed all over the world, fromAustralia, New Fundland, Antarctica, to Canada, Africa, south america and so on.

            Medieval Warm Period Project

            http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

            June 29, 2018 6:25 am

        • Actually, current warming is not “global” either.
          Especially if data massaging is factored out.
          But David knows he has lost to judge from his comments.
          He is reduced to trolling.
          Time to stop feeding the troll.

    • Dear David,

      Your quote is lacking an important part of the sentence in the abstract.

      There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century.

      • Ahmed, Moinuddin, et al. “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia.” Nature geoscience 6.5 (2013): 339
      • Yes, as I quoted, “There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.”

        Go read the paper. Read their results.

        • You deleted a part of a sentence and gave the impression that you quote, misrepresenting what they said. That is a building block of a scientific misconduct. You know that?

          It is good for you that you are not a researcher. It appears as if you were a very selective reader. It could also be you are so smart you are dumb. I don’t know. Usually when people are caught misquoting, they say sorry, yes, I should have said I paraphrased.

          Hey, this is not a contest where you can win by a bigger number of comments.

          • “…but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century.”

            Doesn’t make anything global, and it has nothing to do with the MWP.

          • David Appell,

            Your comments are now becoming ridiculous.

            The period “between ad 1580 and 1880” is commonly called the Little Ice Age (LIA). It was preceded by the warmer Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and followed by the warmer Present Warm Period (PWP).

            Neither the MWP nor the PWP would have been relatively warm periods if they were not separated by the cooler LIA.

            Richard

          • Hugs,

            You are right that “funny” is not the word you want: “exasperating” is.

            He thinks that if he can drive away ‘opponents” then those remaining will believe the nonsense he spouts. In reality nobody will then be here because his ‘oppoments’ are those with most interest and those with least interest will leave first.

            Richard

    • David :
      Quote : “I’m very happy with the way it went…….”
      xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
      From YOUR ATTITUDE and BEHAVIOUR you have a very different idea of what
      constitutes HAPPY to everyone else that I know of !
      xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
      You were very obviously FRUSTRATED , ANGRY and UNHAPPY !!
      xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
      So now you are not only being accused of being and idiot………
      ..you have just demonstrated that you are a LIAR…
      ….which …..even you…… have to admit is pretty IDIOTIC !
      Concede gracefully ! YOU ARE PAST IT MATE !

    • Even the current warm period (CWP) isn’t “globally synchronous.” The fact that the timing of the MWP and LIA seems to have varied from one place to another doesn’t mean the MWP and preceding climate optima weren’t comparable to the CWP.

      The excellent CO2 Science MWP Project site indexes hundreds of studies about the MWP, including both studies which found the MWP was warmer than the CWP, and studies which found the opposite:

      Most studies, though not all, have found that the MWP was as warm or warmer than the CWP.

      The Pages 2K Network, in contrast, is dedicated to compiling evidence for the merely “regional nature of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.” (That claim is quoted from their Poster.) They pretty obviously started with a conclusion, and then went looking for evidence to support it. That’s a recipe for bad science.

      The climate debate is so polarized that there are few truly unbiased sources. But “balanced” is almost as good as “unbiased,” so on my web site I have links to both resources: the CO2 Science MWP Project site and the Pages 2K Network site.

    • Sure you are.
      Your past comments confirm your belief?
      You ever heard of the scientific method?
      I heard it had some part to play in actual science.

      Mighty nice of Mr Watts to show us all, you in you full “glory”.

        • In your mind, you probably do believe that you just advocated science.
          To an impartial observer all you have done is make naked assertions and insult anyone who doesn’t agree with you.

          • Calling someone wrong is not a insult.

            Wanna see insults? Ask Chuck how many times he called me an “idiot” the other day. It was essentially the only response he had, repeated ad nauseum.

          • David Appell,

            You have repeatedly posted idiotic comments in this thread. It is NOT an insult to point that out and to object to it.

            Richard

    • It appears more that you are an alarmist wearing a sciencey mask.
      And that mask slips more than you realize.

          • There is no “ocean acidification”.

            Whatever warming has occurred since AD 1850 is far from unprecedented, and totally beneficial.

          • No ocean acidification?

            Felix, I’m not even going to respond to you. If you’re not serious enough to look up the data, you’re not serious enough to respond to.

          • David Appell

            Please demonstrate empirically that the level of slightly altered ocean Ph is so far detrimental to anything.

            I suspect Peter Ridd would ensure you never mention the subject again lest you be humiliated more than you should already be, were you to even recognise the condition.

          • David Appell

            I was an alarmist until some years ago when I searched for empirical evidence which demonstrated atmospheric CO2 causes global warming. I found one, discredited paper, which surprised me.

            I also asked myself, what empirical evidence is there that a warmer world would be a worse world. Similarly, I found no evidence. Indeed, I found lots of evidence that the various warmer periods, localised or otherwise, were in fact hugely productive for the human race.

            It then dawned on me that were CO2 the single control knob of climate change (and at 0.04% of the atmosphere whilst water vapour is at 3%, I find that extraordinarily difficult to swallow) were man even able to manage, far less reduce atmospheric CO2, we would risk falling back into an ice age, for which there is ample evidence of it’s destructive nature.

            And as far as I can gather, the single empirical manifestation of increased atmospheric CO2 is that the planet has greened by 14% over the last 35 years or so according to NASA.

            I also noted that a link to a Wikipedia page on Tyndall, directly from the Royal Institutions page on Tyndall stated: “He [Tyndall] concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature. Absorption by the other gases is not negligible but relatively small.”

            It’s also clear that some have ambitions to utilise climate change to achieve their personal political objectives, namely one Christiana Figueres, (formerly) executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, who stated “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,”.

            I find it chilling that anyone would consider overturning our largely Capitalist world with, what one can only assume, is socialism; which, as an ideological political construct, has proven such an abject failure in it’s many guises.

            So on the balance of probability, and along with many far better informed participants on this blog than me, I have enough serious doubts about the science and the motivations behind climate change to consider it a threat to humanity.

            And if I may be so bold, in my opinion, your job is to convince the 90%+ of non-scientists on this world that your beliefs are worthy of consideration. And even if you consider the 97% consensus true, so far, alarmist scientists have done a poor job of conveying their conviction to the public as, some 9 Million participants in an online UN poll, listed climate change last, from a selection of 16 subjects such as education and health. Indeed, climate change was a poor runner up to internet access.

            Personally, I think that’s because over the last 40 years, none of the various catastrophes predicted by climate scientists have come close to manifesting themselves.

            Empirical observations of our surroundings and environment, made by ignorant laymen like me, convince us that someone, somewhere, is wrong about AGW, climate change, or any other term used to convince us that humanity is the enemy; exemplified by a statement from the Club of Rome, environmental think-tank, and consultants to the United Nations: “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

            Perhaps there’s more to climate change than just the science.

          • David Appell,

            There is no empirical evidence for anthropogenic (i.e. human-made) global warming (AGW). None, zilch, nada.

            But you write,
            “The evidence for AGW is overwhelming. Read the IPCC 5AR WG1.”
            NO! That document provides no such evidence because there is none. which is also why you cite none.

            Humans affect local climates in many ways; e.g. cities are warmer than their surrounding countryside. But there is no evidence that humans are having a discernible influence on global climate.

            Climate has always varied everywhere and it always will. The problem with science deniers is that you pretend there is evidence for a
            discernible human influence on global climate when in reality there is none; n.,b. no evidence, zilch, nil. None.

            In 1996 Ben Santer and a host of co-authors claimed to have found the imprint of human influence in observations of upper troposphere temperatures as recorded by sonde balloons; they matched these observations with what their model would predict under similar conditions and found the very match they were `searching’ for.
            (ref. Santer B, et al. “A Search For Human Influences On The Thermal Structure Of The Atmosphere”. Nature, vol.382, 4 July 1996, p.39-46)

            This result inspired their much0-quoted claim that there was “… a discernible human influence on global climate”, a remark made in the notorious Chapter 8 of the 1995 Report of the UN Intergovernmedntal Panel on Climate Change, IPCC (one of several untrue remarks added later to that Report AFTER the meeting of drafting scientists in Madrid).

            But only 5 months later Nature published two papers that completely refuted the so-called “findings” of Santer et al..
            Those so-called “findings” were an artefact of improper data selection
            (ref. Michaels P & Knappenburger P, Nature, vol.384, 12 Dec 1996)
            and the asserted ‘human imprint’which the improper data selection had isolated was explicable by observed natural climate variation.
            (ref. Weber GR, Nature, vol.384, 12 Dec 1996)

            Michaels and Knappenburger’s paper says.
            “When we examine the period of record used by Santer et al. in the context of the longer period available from ref.5 we find that in the region with the most significant warming (30-600 S. 850-300 hPa), the increase is largely an artefact of the time period chosen”

            Weber’s paper says,
            “Regarding the role of natural factors, the early years of the period 1963-87 were substantially influenced by tropospheric cooling (and stratospheric warming) following the eruption of Mount Agung, whereas the end of that period was influenced by several strong El Nino events, which have led to some tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling, particularly in the southern subtropics of the lower latitudes. Therefore the general tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling trend between 1963 and 1987 has been accentuated by widely known natural factors and could at least partially be explained by them.”

            So, in 1996 Santer et al, claimed to have found evidence of human influence on global climate but their claim was either incompetence or worse.

            Since then a search for some evidence that human activities are affecting global climate has been conducted around the world at a cost of more than US$2.5 billion each and every year. But, to date, no evidence for a discernible human influence on global climate has been found; n.b. no evidence, none, zilch, nada.

            David Appell if you had found some you would have published it and obtained at least two Nobel Prizes (Physics and Peace) and possibly a third (chemistry).

            Richard

          • Just a small portion of the evidence:

            “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

            “Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004).
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract

            “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015).
            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

            “Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty,” N.G. Loeb, et al, Nature Geosciences 1/22/12
            http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1375.html

            More papers on this subject are listed here:
            http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/

          • Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

            LAYMAN ALERT!

            From the abstract of a paper published in 2001:

            “The evolution of the Earth’s climate has been extensively studied and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood”

            I’ll repeat that: “But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood”

            So scientists take a system they don’t understand, then declare it’s dangerous?

            Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004).
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract

            From the abstract, published in 2004:

            “Here we show that atmospheric longwave downward radiation significantly increased (+5.2(2.2) Wm−2) partly due to increased cloud amount (+1.0(2.8) Wm−2) over eight years of measurements at eight radiation stations distributed over the central Alps. Model calculations show the cloud‐free longwave flux increase (+4.2(1.9) Wm−2) to be in due proportion with temperature (+0.82(0.41) °C) and absolute humidity (+0.21(0.10) g m−3) increases, but three times larger than expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gases.”

            Two things here. Models are involved. No, I don’t care what you say, a model is something you put clothes on to attract punters.

            The second, the cloud free long wave flux may have shown a result, but I’ll refer to the previous paper that stated we don’t understand the hydrological cycle.

            Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015).
            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

            From the abstract, published in 2015:

            “However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2. Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2.”

            Drat, clear sky again.

            Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty,” N.G. Loeb, et al, Nature Geosciences 1/22/12
            http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1375.html

            From the abstract, published in 2012:

            “We combine satellite data with ocean measurements to depths of 1,800 m, and show that between January 2001 and December 2010, Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of 0.50±0.43 Wm−2 (uncertainties at the 90% confidence level). We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean.”

            I’m not sure if that’s empirical evidence. Is it? Circumstantial as far as I can see. I don’t think it’s enough to condemn mankind to servitude at the great God CO2.

            And I emphasise the dates of the abstracts for one reason only. If they are, as you suggest, irrefutable, the Tyndall’s opinion is also irrefutable:

            “He [Tyndall] concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature. Absorption by the other gases is not negligible but relatively small.”

            If Tyndall’s observations have been superseded, then so could theirs.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall

            A Wikipedia link provided by the Royal Institution

            http://www.rigb.org/our-history/iconic-objects/iconic-objects-list/tyndall-radiant-heat

            But then you knew that.

          • Just a small portion of the evidence:

            “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

            “Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004).
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract

            “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015).
            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

          • Appell,

            The climate system has many parts and all are varying all the time. Those radiative forcing changes are not matched by global temperature.

            Please explain why you think the forcing changes are evidence of AGW.
            Remember, there are at leasr two Nobel Prizes for you if you can

            And don;t forget, the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is absent.

            Richard

            PS I suspect I am not alone in getting fed up with your buffoonery; i.e. assertions without evidence,
            arrogance as attempted disguise for ignorance,
            throwing insults like confetti while whingeing that you are being insulted,
            a gamut of logical fallacies,
            blatant falsehoods,
            etc.

          • Mr. Courtney, thank you for all the effort you put into this thread in your replies to David’ Appel’s comments.

            He is now BANNED, having once again crossed the line with Anthony as shown near the bottom of this thread:

            “Anthony Watts

            And… before I could get back here and join the discussion, you spouted off a “Anthony Watts is lying about me” at your non-read blog Quark Soup.

            David, I had an opinion and gave you benefit of the doubt by saying “it could be something else” . But, you’ve clearly proven you’re thin-skinned, just as I said, and you’re also a jerk.

            OK, back in permanent moderation you go. Once again my tolerance for you has been reached. Good day sir.

            P.S. Prediction: your ego won’t let you walk away, so you’ll write something else nasty about me, and then as you’ve done before by your own admission, you’ll try to comment here using fake name, fake emails, and spoofed IP addresses.”

          • Sunsettommy,

            Thankyou for your kind comment that says.
            “Mr. Courtney, thank you for all the effort you put into this thread in your replies to David’ Appel’s comments.”

            As explanation of my “effort” I copy to here a reply I made above to a similar message to yours.

            “Tom Abbott,

            The “effort” is my pleasure (although to be sure I am thinking sufficiently clearly I need to reduce my pain relief ).

            The pleasure outweighs my pain because “the enemy of my friend is my enemy”, and in the above videos and in this thread the exceptionally obnoxious David Appell is attempting to demean Chuck Weise.

            Chuck is a gentleman I have learned to respect and to like despite his and my political beliefs being poles apart.

            Richard”

            My pain relief is less troublesome to thought than it was thanks to an alteration to my medication suggested by Allan MacRae in response to a result of something I wrote here. But it is still problematic.

            I went back on full pain relief yesterday when it became clear that Appell had completely discredited himself here, and this may be obvious from the number of typos. in my recent posts.

            Assuming I can, I will return to here again if another buffoon mounts attacks on somebody decent.

            Again, thanks for your greeting.

            Richard

          • Sunsettomy,

            I replied to your kind message and obtained an automated response saying my reply had gone into moderation.

            Both my reply and the automated message have now vanished so I if yiu want to see my reply to you then yoi may be able to find it in the moderation bin

            Richard

            (Found it, was in the trash bin) MOD

          • Appell,

            The climate system has many parts and all are varying all the time. Those radiative forcing changes are not matched by global temperature.

            Please explain why you think the forcing changes are evidence of AGW.
            Remember, there are at leasr two Nobel Prizes for you if you can

            Richard

          • Ha ha ha, but somehow you can’t tell us in detail what the evidence is in your words, using real data.

            Your bluster is underwhelming to anyone who expected something much deeper from a guy with a PHD in his back pocket.

            But as usual you make a lot of noise with little to show for, you are all wind and piss fella.

          • David Appell

            Thank you for that concise, non personal response.

            Unfortunately, I can’t find any evidence in the IPCC 5AR WG1 that demonstrates empirically, that atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm.

            I would be grateful if you could direct me to that passage.

          • Appell,

            Of course we can and do “read paper abstracts” and the papers, too.

            But we can see through the bluster of a bloviating ignoramus who is making obviously untrue claims of expertise (i.e. you).

            Eichard

        • David Appell –“We SHOULD be alarmed — we’re causing near unprecedented warming and ocean acidification.”
          Provide evidence, details. That’s what science is about.
          Start by showing “unprecedented ” by putting current detailed data in a historical perspective of the last two-three THOUSAND years of detailed data. Both warming and reduced alkalinity. (acidification is a meaningless political term.)

          • The IPCC ARs are written exactly to provide the evidence and its assessment. Have you read at least the 5AR WG1? Go ahead, and the come back and ask if you still have questions.

          • David Appell,

            You wrongly assert,
            “The IPCC ARs are written exactly to provide the evidence and its assessment. Have you read at least the 5AR WG1? Go ahead, and the come back and ask if you still have questions.”

            NO! That is NOT the purpose of IPCC Reports, and I fail to understand why you think anyone would ask questions of you after reading your mistaken, incorrect and – in some cases – plain daft posts in this thread.

            I have read all (yes, ALL) the IPCC Reports and I was an Expert Peer Reviewer of some of them having been nominated for that by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

            The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only exists to produce documents intended to provide information selected, adapted and presented to justify political actions.

            The facts are as follows.

            It is the custom and practice of the IPCC for all of its Reports to be amended to agree with its political summaries. And this is proper because all IPCC Reports are political documents although some are presented as so-called ‘Scientific Reports’.

            Each IPCC Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published. After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice when prior to the IPCC‘s Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed,
            “ We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.”
            This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then.

            This custom and practice enabled the infamous ‘Chapter 8′ scandal so perhaps it should – at long last – be changed. However, it has been adopted as official IPCC procedure for all subsequent IPCC Reports.

            Appendix A of the most recent IPCC Report (the AR5) states this where it says.
            “4.6 Reports Approved and Adopted by the Panel
            Reports approved and adopted by the Panel will be the Synthesis Report of the Assessment Reports and other Reports as decided by the Panel whereby Section 4.4 applies mutatis mutandis.”
            This is completely in accord with the official purpose of the IPCC.

            The IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science and it does not.

            The IPCC is only permitted to say AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to accept that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can be selected as political polices and the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”.

            This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC.
            These are stated at
            http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

            Near its beginning that document says
            “ROLE

            2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.”

            This says the IPCC exists to provide
            (a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
            and
            (b) “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.

            Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”. Any ‘science’ which fails to support that political purpose is ‘amended’ in furtherance of the IPCC’s Role.

            The IPCC achieves its “Role” by
            1
            amendment of its so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to fulfil the IPCC’s political purpose
            2
            by politicians approving each line of the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM)
            3
            then the IPCC lead Authors amending the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to agree with the SPM.

            In summation,
            All IPCC Reports are pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions; i.e.Lysenkoism.

            Richard

          • Richard, I’ve read comments of yours on this blog before, and almost all I’ve seen are over the top and ridiculous. I’m not interested in going around and around in circles with someone who says “all IPCC Reports are pure pseudoscience.”

          • Dacud Appell,

            ADJUSTING SO-CALLED SCIENTIFIC REPORTS TO COMPLY WITH POLITICAL OBJECTIVES IS PSEUDOSCIENCE: IT IS NOT – REPEAT, NOT – SCIENCE.

            Saying that is NOT “ridiculous” and it is NOT “over the top”.

            I cited, linked to, and quoted the clear, documented information that is the guidance under which the IPCC operates. And I explained how the IPCC operates to fulfil that remit.

            You cannot fault anything I have said. If you could then you would,
            Instead, you say you are not interested.

            Your lack of interest in the proper conduct of science is the main subject that you proclaim in your many posts on many blogs. Hence, I fail to understand why you have bothered to write saying you “have no interest” in science and the usurpation of science by the IPCC.

            Richard

          • Richard, again, yes, I could rebut your claims, but I’m not interested and think it would be a waste of time with no end to it.

            Sorry, but that’s how I feel.

          • David Appell

            “I have read all (yes, ALL) the IPCC Reports and I was an Expert Peer Reviewer of some of them having been nominated for that by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).”

            Truly astonishing.

            You cite peer review as one of the bulwarks of your credibility, then dismiss a peer reviewer because you can’t be bothered debating with him.

            I’m tempted to ask if you got your qualifications from a Lucky Bag, but I wouldn’t be that rude.

        • Please show any pH changes that are caused by anthro CO2 and are causing any problems.
          TIA

          ps, the periodic cold upwellings of low pH water from the deep don’t count, so don’t try that one.
          cheers

          • Data on ocean acidification: See Figure 2 in

            MARINE CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS PARTNERSHIP: SCIENCE REVIEW
            MCCIP Science Review 2017
            doi:10.14465/2017.arc10.001-oac

          • IPCC 5AR WG1 p 12:
            “Ocean acidification is quantified by decreases in pH13. The pH of ocean surface water has decreased by 0.1 since the beginning of the industrial era (high confidence), corresponding to a 26% increase in hydrogen ion concentration (see Figure SPM.4). {3.8, Box 3.2}”

          • David Appell,

            As I told you upthread. I have read the IPCC Reports but your reply was that you would not discuss tto stophem with me because you are “not interested”. So, I here write refute your nonsense about ‘ocean acidification’ to prevent anybody being misled by it.

            The ocean surface layer exhibits large fluctuations in pH both geographically and over time. Those spatial and temporal fluctuations are so large that a change of 0.1 over recent centuries is impossible to discern with any confidence.

            However, atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen in recent centuries, and this has resulted in an alteration of equilibrium pH between air and ocean of about 0.1. Thus, it can be assumed with high confidence that ocean surface pH has changed by about 0.1 over recent centuries.

            That assumption provides a problem of attributing causality; viz,
            did the change in CO2 cause the change in ocean surface layer pH
            or
            did the change in ocean surface layer pH cause the change in CO2 ?

            In other words,
            ASSUMPTIONS REQUIRE SUBSTANTIATION AND ARE NOT EVIDENCE.

            Richard

  7. BTW, Lars Larson’s Executive Producer said he would ask me to sign documents giving them the right to air the video. I was never offered such a document, and never signed any such document, but not only did they release the video taken during the debate, but video taken after that no one ever asked me about.

    I was probably dumb to expect otherwise. I offered Chuck Wiese my hand to shake as we were leaving the building, but he rejected it.

    • Even the Justice department is having a hard time censoring information that makes them look foolish. Did you expect anything different?

      At the very least, you need to respond to item 4) from my earlier comment, which I will repeat below. Without an adequate answer, your entire scientific case falls apart. FYI, it can’t be ‘feedback’, as any system whose feedback is 3.3 times the forcing is unconditionally unstable.

      4) If you are the physicist you claim to be, then explain the origin of the 3.3 W/m^2 of input power to the surface required in order to ‘amplify’ 1 W/m^2 of forcing into enough to offset the 4.3 W/m^2 of incremental surface emissions that would arise from the predicted 0.8C rise.

    • Why do you think that is David? Think about it.

      Perhaps this from your linked site? Creative writing is certainly on target.

      “I have a B.S. in mathematics and physics (double major) from the University of New Mexico, and an M.A. and Ph.D. in physics from the State University of New York at Stony Brook. I’ve also done graduate work in the creative writing department at Arizona State University. ”

      Mathematics, physics, creative writing?

      • Because I believe that Anthony would have given him the courtesy of commenting without moderation since he was the subject of the article. Besides, if he wasn’t who he claims, I’m sure the moderators would be on top of it and let us know.

        • I agree. No problem there.

          More power to your creativity.

          As long as you don’t mix science fantasy or fiction with science fact, ie observations.

          • You are far from as smart as you imagine yourself to be.

            I’m a lot smarter than you are, by any and all possible metrics. By a lot.

            It appears that you don’t know the difference between science and fiction or fantasy.

          • But more importantly, I have used my far superior to your intelligence to achieve good things for humanity and the world. You, not so much. As in, not at all.

          • Felix – do you know what is the difference between a condensible gas and a noncondensible gas?

            If not, I am rapidly losing patience with you and your lack of knowledge.

          • If you believe that, then you are no where near as smart as you want to believe.

            CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas that is close to it’s saturation levels. Almost everyone of the bands that it absorbs in is already being saturated by H2O.

            Even the models have to invent a constant relative humidity fiction so that H2O can do what CO2 can’t.

          • I know that I am. My undergrad degrees are from the #2 university in the world, and my grad degree from the #6. I’ve helped to feed the world. My output isn’t based upon bogus pal reviewed drivel, but put or shut up yield per acre.

            But my point is that “credentials” don’t matter. Only what you can support via the scientific method.

            Your appeal to authority is pathetic.

            Do you claim to be smarter than CACA skeptics Freeman Dyson, Will Happer, Richard Lindzen, Ivar Giaever, Reid Bryson and Bill Gray, inter alia?

            Resort to your pathetically low academic “credentials” is the resort of an illogical scoundrel. All that matters is what you can support. That’s science.

            The greatest physicist between Newton and Einstein was a nobody, by your standards. Faraday not only had not doctorate, but no master’s, bachelors or high school diploma. Yet both Einstein and Maxwell, his only possible competition in the between Newton and Einstein sweepstakes, recognized his transcendence.

          • Felix, so you’re never published anything of your work in the scholarly literature. So you don’t know what that takes.

            Happer is wrong and that’s easy to see. Dyson says he doesn’t know much of anything about climate science. Lindzen has, in the words of Pierrehumbert, “made a career of being wrong in interesting ways.” Giaever is a dinosaur. The other two prove that science advances one funeral at a time.

            You apparently believe these half-dozen people while ignoring a hundred thousand scientists who are active researchers who are elbow deep in the data each and every day. That’s called “confirmation bias.”

          • I know what it takes to get published in a main stream climate science journal and I’m unwilling to compromise the truth by cow towing to the IPCC’s narrative.

          • David really does get off on being congratulated by those who think as he does.
            He actually believes he’s smart because of it.

          • I’m just a lot more confident in what I know, and why. Just like how I disproved CW’s claims about the MWP. I knew the PAGES 2k paper. He did not.

          • If you understood anything at all about the scientific method, you’d know that you “disproved” nothing, even if you were able to show the MWP bogus, which of course, you didn’t.

            The MWP is a scientific fact, ie an observation, from every continent and ocean between AD 800 or 900 and 1300 or 1400.

            Only a blind fool couldn’t see it in every possible proxy. Just as the founder of the UEA Hadley Centre observed all those decades ago, which, sadly, his heirs have tried unscientifically to erase. Like the good Stalinists they are.

          • Felix, if the MWP is a “fact,” then show the data and evidence.

            These several dozen scientists, who have gone out and collected the data and done the analysis, disagree. And you have no standing to dispute them and have offered nothing.

            “There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.”

            — “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013
            http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html

          • David Appell,

            Your persistent misrepresentations in this thread are tiresome.

            At June 29, 2018 1:26 am you say to Felix,
            “Felix, if the MWP is a “fact,” then show the data and evidence.”

            That is yet another of your pretences in this thread that you have not been given that evidence. I previously refuted that (above in this thread) saying,


            David Appell,

            You are being obtuse.

            In an above post at June 29, 2018 12:53 am I wrote,

            “Data showing it was warmer than now in the MWP exists from around the globe and have been collated by the Medieval Warm Period Project of CO2 Science (see http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php )

            The project has collated evidence of warmer temperatures than now existing during the MWP in Africa,· Antarctica, · Asia, · Australia/New Zealand, · Europe and North America. Only politically motivated alarmists could claim this mass of evidence fails to refute your assertion that the MWP “is unlikely to have been global and even more unlikely to have been warmer””

            The link I provided has references and links to all the source data you could possibly want.

            However, later at June 29, 2018 12:53 am you have written,

            “So show me the data! Not some blog post, the actual real data. If you can’t do that, don’t waste my time.”

            YOU are wasting everybody’s time when you pretend you are being refused information you have already been given.”

            How many times do you intend to pretend you have not been given overwhelming evidence? People do notice what you are doing.

            Richard

          • David this statement itself is dishonest, since NO ONE claims it was synchronous around the world.

            “There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age”

            There are many published science papers showing that within the time time frame of the MWP itself , it was indeed all over the world, from Australia, New Fundland, Antarctica, to Canada, Africa, south america and so on.

            Medieval Warm Period Project

            http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

          • David Appell

            “There is no respect for others without humility in one’s self.”

            Henri Frederic Amiel

          • I have an IQ of 148, David, and I think you are full of yourself and (SNIPPED out the nasty name calling) MOD

    • Congratulations to David and Chuck for debating in this forum.
      Chuck was a very impressive advocate for sceptics.
      David was not too bad for the warmists.
      Lars was exemplary; however, some lack of professionalism by the radio station IMHO:
      A broadcast release form should have been signed by both.
      Both should have retired to separate areas during any recesses.

          • David Appell

            “The Exec Producer explicitly wrote me that he would ask us to sign a document giving them all rights. He did not.”

            “I’m very smart. And I certainly know the difference between science and science fiction. Do you?”

            Even I know to sign an agreement before the event, and I’m as thick as two short planks.

          • Why were you upset that they released the video? Are you embarrassed by your performance?

      • Good points. Plus, Lars should have made a stand alone recording of the debate, absent the long commercial breaks. I didn’t listen to the entire debate, but gave up after the first 1/3rd due to the long interruptions.

  8. It looked that Chuck Wise was going to lose it several times at the downright lies he was facing. David Appell expressed the typical arrogance of academia when he said that Chuck’s opinion didn’t count because he isn’t published. How is that the measure of the truthfulness of one’s claim when as long as you want to spend the money you can get published, and when 80% of studies cannot be reproduced? (that is not counting the fact that PH.D.s actually have a poorer record of innovation than those with just a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree)

    Thaks again Anthony for sharing this, it was fun. Even my wife who was just listening in with half an ear was laughing at David’s stupidity.

    • When you can’t refute the argument, declare that the other has no right to an opinion in the first place.

      • I also spent my career as a Meteorologist so I am no dummy. Chuck, Anthony, and I were paid to make forecasts which verify. When did you make a forecast that verified? (hindcasting doesn’t count). How can you trust a computer model which can’t even make a 30-day forecast to forecast 50 years into the future? If there was something that accurate you should patent it. You would make millions.

        Your posts here reek of “I’m so smart you shouldn’t question me, so shut up.”

        • Richard, do you mean you tore pages off a teletype and read the forecast on the air?

          Big deal. If you don’t understand why weather isn’t climate, you don’t understand the first thing about climate. Did you ever study the physics of the interaction of radiation and matter? Properties of ice sheets? The carbon cycle?

          CWiese thinks that climate models are just weather models with more time steps. Which is whacked and just proves how little he understands about climate models. Because all of the above are important for climate change but not weather change. And being able to project weather says nothing about your ability to project climate. In fact, only until recent years have most meteorologists realized they need to be talking about the manifestations of climate change and not just a couple of days of future weather. And older people like CW still don’t understand that.

          • David Appell,

            You wrongly assert,
            “Wiese made claims that are scientifically ridiculous. If you knew the science like I do, you’d easily see that.”

            In the video Chuck Wiese made no claims that are not scientifically valid.
            On the other hand, you made claims that are plain wrong, and in some cases they are risible. Indeed, you have added more such silly claims in this thread (e.g. the water vapour feedback is not a construct in climate models, the Medieval Warm Period did not exist, etc.).

            You would not have made such a fool of yourself in the radio program and you would not be digging your hole deeper as you are in this thread If you knew anywhere near as much about these matters as many others, for example, me.

            Please try to understand how little you know instead of pretending to yourself – and proclaiming to the world – that you know much when you very obviously don’t.

            Richard

          • NO, I actually analyzed the current conditions, checked what the models forecasted, and adjusted for known deficiencies in the models and adjusted for local conditions, and then issued my forecast. I was responsible for providing forecasts for up to a score of ships in the Northwest Pacific. I never put out a forecast which could not be verified, which is more than you have done. When your “forecast” doesn’t verify you provide a lot of excuses and then change the OBSERVED data to “verify” your “forecast.

            And again if the climate models are as good as you say why aren’t they being used for 6mo and 1year forecasts? It’s because they are victims of GIGO!

          • “do you mean you tore pages off a teletype and read the forecast on the air”

            When David decides to declare himself an arrogant prick with no understanding of anything in the real world, he doesn’t miss a beat.

      • Unfortunately, David, your definition of being as smart as you is if they agree with you. Anybody who disagrees with you is, by definition, not as smart as you.

          • “David Appell

            Actually it’s if I agree with the science. I know physics and I know how to think about data and evidence.”

            Where is the unmolested data? Where is your evidence?

          • Patrick MJD: It’s really too bad that surface temperatures have been tampered with. Having that raw data would be very helpful, and then from there try to deal with the issue of UHI.

          • But, you continue to deny the applicability of first principles physics like the SB Law and COE as they apply to the climate system. How is this agreeing with the science?

            BTW, you still haven’t addressed my question about the origin of the extra 3.3 W/m^2 of input to the surface that’s required to offset the 4.3 W/m^2 of surface emissions consequential to the 0.8C increase claimed to arise from only 1 W/m^2 of forcing.

            If you’re having trouble comprehending this simple question, let me know where you get stuck and I will clarify further.

            Of course, I know why you won’t answer my question, because if you even attempted to understand it, your folly becomes self evident and you would be forced to change your position. Since you seem to want emotionally driven lefty politics to have more influence on climate science than the logic of the scientific method, your political ego can’t handle being so incredibly wrong for so long about something so important.

            Now, answer my question or run away with your tail between your legs and don’t come back until you’ve wrapped your head around the truth.

          • It sounds like it is time for all the rest of us to ignore David. A person who thinks that he is God’s gift to the world cannot be reasoned with.

          • “… I know how to think about data and evidence.” David, you filter out things that contradict your ideology. Go back and read some of your posts to get a feeling for your arrogance and disparagement of others’ facts and reasoning.

      • David, I’m still waiting for evidence that you understand any science.
        You showed none in the video.
        You have shown none here.

      • David Appell

        “If you knew the science like I do, you’d easily see that.”

        Evidently, no one knows the science quite like you do.

    • Chuck Wise was firing off a whole lot of general statements. Many were worthless in my opinion. Saying Hanson’s predictions failed completely is just wrong on every level. Hansen did amazingly well when you consider the science that was available to him then. The urban heat island stuff is just smoke an d mirrors. It well researched and written about that if you take the UHI out of the data it makes little difference. Doesn’t stop the sheep swallowing this stuff on a daily basis though.

      And even if the MWP was as warm as today (whick it probably wasn’t)that means little with regard to man made warming. All it does means is the climate will react when forced. Something forced it back then and something is forcing it now. People here use the “it’s natural” phrase here like it is some sort of get out of jail card. It’s not, it just shows a lack of interest and understanding in the science.

      • ” Hansen did amazingly well when you consider the science that was available to him then”
        That’s equivalent to saying that medieval doctors did amazingly well considering the science that was available to them. Tell me, would you want to be treated by a medieval doctor? Are you happy to undergo a quick bit of trepanning? I doubt it. In the same way, I don’t set any store by Hansen’s prognostications in the 80s, as they were based on junk science.

        • “That’s equivalent to saying that medieval doctors did amazingly well considering the science that was available to them.”
          If they performed open heart surgery successfully….I’d say it was about on a par.

          • Simon,

            Medieval physicians did not do successful open heart surgery.

            However, I support your suggestion that their medical performance was “about on a par” with Hansen’s performance as a ‘climate scientist’.

            Rochard

      • Hansen is at the nexus of all the broken science supporting CAGW. He’s responsible for the bogus feedback analysis that provided the primary theoretical support for an ECS large enough to justify the formation of the IPCC. He’s responsible for pushing homogenization as a legitimate analytical tool for sparse, cherry picked data which is ironic considering that we have nearly continuous coverage of the entire surface from weather satellites spanning more than 3 decades and that GISS was intimately involved with the collection of that data. He’s also responsible for lying to Congress about the dangers of CO2 and lying about climate science whenever he speaks. Every one of the papers with his name on it that I’ve looked at is riddled with errors and unwarranted assumptions. Why anyone would idolize this fool is beyond comprehension.

        Hansen is a textbook example of the Peter Principle.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

        • “Every one of the papers with his name on it that I’ve looked at is riddled with errors and unwarranted assumptions. Why anyone would idolize this fool is beyond comprehension.”
          Really? I call BS. I doubt you have ever read one of his papers…and if you have, you have not got past colouring in the pictures.

          • Simon,

            Your post suggests you know co2isnotevil is correct about Hansen. People often “attack the messenge” when they cannot refute a message they don’t like

            You could have demanded that co2isnotevil provide examples of the “errors” he asserts Hansen has published. But you did not do that and, instead, you threw a load of unwarranted personal abuse.

            Simply, your post suggests you know that Hansen has published papers that are “riddled with errors and unwarranted assumptions”.

            Richard

          • Simon,
            If you don’t know that I’ve done my due diligence, then you’re not paying attention. I suggest that you do some of your own, which not only includes understanding your own position, but that of your opponent. You know you’re in trouble in a debate when your opponent understands your position better than you do while your understanding of your opponents position is nil. You’re ignorance is not helping your cause, although your cause is already irreconcilably broken.

          • Sooooo Mr smart guy. Please name a paper by Hanson that is “riddled with errors?” Be sure to name some of these. Be specific. None of this childish hand waving. Till you do you are just making yourself sound like a bag of wind…again.

          • Lets start with this 1984 paper on feedback:
            https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha07600n.html

            The first significant error (other than the outright lies in the abstract) is equation 7, where he says without foundation, except to refer to Bode, ‘it follows that …’ f = 1/(1 – g). This equation 2 specific errors. First is the implicit, but unacknowledged assumption of unit open loop gain and second is the roles of gain (g) and feedback (f) are reversed. From this point on, the rest of the paper is irrelevant garbage.

            Next, we can move on the the Hansen/Lebedeff 1987 paper that claimed to justify homogenization as a valid approach to analyzing sparse data. The precondition for using the analysis is a normal distribution of sites while the sites selected were cherry picked and extremely sparse and selected to produce the sensitivity he wanted to see.

            I can go on, but these are the two crucial ones that have driven climate science into a really deep hole that warmists have a hard time seeing out of. Luckily, my understanding of science is driven by the scientific method, so the errors that dug this hole become very obvious to me.

          • Mmm those papers have not been considered “riddled with errors “except by the science denying team . I know, why don’t you get involved in peer review and actually make your “opinions” worth something. Just an idea.

          • Your political ideology seems to be getting in the way of seeing through the fog of deception where one of the biggest contributors to this fog is the Hansen paper on feedback. Beyond the lies and arithmetic errors I’ve already pointed out, he applied Bode’s active, linear, feedback amplifier analysis to a non linear, passive system whose analysis has little theoretical and practical correspondence to Bode’s analysis.

            I suggest you read and comprehend the first 2 paragraphs of Bode’s book which spells out the preconditions and assumptions he made going in to the analysis. One is strict linearity, where the climate model producing degrees K as the output from and input in W/m^2 which is are not even approximately linear over the range of relevant temperatures. The other is the existence of an implicit, internal source of Joules to power the gain which is not present in the climate system and which can not be the Sun as the Sun is already the forcing input. It would be like connecting the signal input and power cord of your stereo to the signal output of a turntable.

            Bode’s book is the ONLY reference quantifying feedback found in Hansen’s paper, Schlesinger’s paper that ‘corrected’ Hansen’s errors by adding even more errors, and all that followed. I also know that the Schlesinger follow on paper was not subject to robust peer review and that both reviewers deferred to Schlesinger as the ‘expert’ on Bode. His paper was fast tracked to be included in AR1 as a counter to Hansen’s errors in equation 7) which were discovered as AR1 was being prepared. BTW, the errors in equation 7) are well known, so why are you denying them?

          • Simon, you show a distinct inability to make a cogent reply to anyone here, just the parade of wordy science/fact free comments.

            Do you have ANYTHING substantual to offer?

          • “Simon, you show a distinct inability to make a cogent reply to anyone here, just the parade of wordy science/fact free comments.”
            Just trying to fit in.

    • No comments over there. I guess all the comments are over here. Does that tell you anything?

      BTW, there’s no need to censor you for your views, as those commenting here will identify all the flaws in your opinions and that’s far more powerful at showing how wrong you are than the kind of censorship practiced at most warmist blogs which attempt to show the opposite.

    • Judging by the lack of comments on your blog, I’d suggest that people aren’t listening to you.
      Similarly, John Cook’s blog has next to no comments these days.
      That must annoy you and Cookie.

  9. For a guy with a Ph.d. in physics and math, he did not represent his point of view very well. But he got the moral issue, i.e. disguised as politics, spot on. That’s what is really driving the issue. It was good of Lars to mention the scientific process. Something this complex needs to be better understood before we make changes to society.

      • “And why do you think uncertainty is a reason for delay?”

        Because the uncertainty isn’t even enough to include the actual effect which is demonstrably less then the presumed lower limit.

        In what Universe is an ECS with +/-50% uncertainty settled, especially when the low end of 0.4C per W/m^2 is larger than the theoretical value of about 0.3C per W/m^2 as given by 1/(4eoT^3), where e is the ratio of planet emissions (240 W/m^2) to surface emissions (280 W/m^2) or about 0.62, o is the SB constant and T is the average surface temperature in degrees K.

      • Mr. Appell,

        ” … why do you think uncertainty is a reason for delay?”

        Have you ever been wrong about something, about anything? I mean something you were rock solid sure of, and then it turned out you had it off a bit. Have you ever been 100% sure about something, and then end up having to say to yourself “Shit, that’s not right, I could have sworn… damn.” Yes or No?

        If YES, Did your absolute certainty cause any type of inconvenience or problem?
        If NO, well … jeepers & holy molly …. You certainly are as smart as you claim to be.

        Seriously though, your point is?: “There is uncertainty, but … you know … what the hell, let us force change world society now, being unsure is not reason to delay.”

        Seriously?

  10. Well – That was interesting!
    Lars Larson is one of the best communicators on talk radio today. Kudos to him for staging and moderating this debate live and ‘on-the-air’.

    Wiese was at times quite effective. Appell did not come off well at all.

  11. I understand why Appell believes in the anthropogenic global warming angle. Doesn’t look like he’s actually ever seen the sun. 😉

      • I hate to say that I agree with you David, but Ad Hominem attacks never advance an argument. John is out of line.

        • Where was the alleged insult?

          Where is the Ad hominem?

          I read it several times, failed to see it.

          • Sunsettommy

            It’s provocative and rude. No need for it on here.

            However, we’ve all done it, usually to our regret.

          • Agree, HotScot. As an albinism activist, I must say Appell is right here. He’d got the full right to be as fair-skinned as he is. There is also no reason to imply it is worse than being brown or whatever the usual skin color is.

          • It’s got nothing to do with skin color or tone. It was in regard to his attitude and the resulting perception of one who may not have spent much time as a kid or adult playing or working outside. For example, one who may write an article on the adventures of the great outdoors or the benefits of agriculture, though never haven actually been camping or toiled a day on a farm or garden. A bit of theorist vs realist.

            Perhaps it could have been worded a bit better. On that, I can agree whole-heartedly.

            Either way, lighten up.

          • I asked questions that neither you or David answered in any detail.

            Maybe you don’t have any?

            All I saw was an attack on his BELIEF.

          • “Doesn’t look like he’s actually ever seen the sun” sounds like a comment about his appearance. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

      • The man who has done nothing but insult those who disagree with him whines about personal insults.

  12. Just like the protests we have seen today on emigration attempted across the US. I ask one question of those participants, do you have a real job? That will certainly be enlightnening in the end. Just sayin …..

    • Why does the veracity of my positions depend on if or if I don’t have a “real job?”

      And what is a “real job,” anyway? Something you get up in the morning and hate going to? I had my fill of those…..

      • I once asked you why, if you’re so smart, you write about science instead of doing science. You said it paid better. NOW you’re saying something else … that you hate working. I smell a hint of … disingenuousness.

        • I choose not to go into science after graduate school — I was working on very abstract things at a fermi or less and I wanted to do something more connected to the real world. So I spend several years in corporate America, got to where where I realized its goals weren’t mine, so I quit and spent a few years doing a lot of backpacking, and then became a science writer, which it was I feel I was meant to be, even though it’s risky and a difficult way to earn a living. Been making a go of it for 20 years now….

      • Why does the veracity of someone’s paper depend on whether it was published in a journal or a blog? It’s either right or it’s not. The publishing medium is irrelevant.

  13. Appell at 45:50 time mark “Coal kills like 10,000 people in the country.”

    Scope of the problem. In 2015, an estimated 360 000 people died from drowning, making drowning a major public health problem worldwide.

    An estimated 646 000 fatal falls occur each year, making it the second leading cause of unintentional injury death.

    Ban swimming and moving, problem solved…….

    • Except, there are actual bodies from fatal falls and drownings.

      Appell’s “coal kills like 10,000 people” is based on statistical nonsense.

      • Particulates are no problem with pollution controls, which even China is now belatedly installing.

        That’s a totally separate issue from CO2, which not only isn’t pollution, but is a vital trace gas, the increase in which has greened the globe. Four hundred ppm is better than 300 ppm, and 800 ppm is better still, but 1200 ppm, ie real greenhouse level, is best of all.

        • CO2 is certainly a pollutant — it was ruled so under the Clean Air Act in Mass v EPA 2007 — and it meets the common definition too: an unwanted substance with deleterious effects.

          • Here it is folks, David thinks an essential building block of the PHOTOSYNTHESIS process is really bad for life since it is: “uwanted substance with deleterious effects”

            This is what I call a truly stupid statement.

          • David Appell

            “There was no deficit of CO2 before the industrial era — you realize that, right?”

            At 280 ppm, atmospheric CO2 was only 130 ppm away from all meaningful plant life dying.

            The absence of any empirical evidence that increased atmospheric CO2 is harmful to the planet, would suggest to me that a buffer of, perhaps, 1,000 ppm would be desirable.

          • Among the many things that David is proudly ignorant of, it looks like plant biology can be added to the list.

            David, does the fact that greenhouses routinely increase CO2 levels to 1000ppm or more tell you anything about whether plants could use more CO2?

          • You’re a funny guy.

            You determine pollutants based upon politics rather than objective, scientific reality. Thanks for the humor!

            Apparently you’re unaware that when levels of the essential trace gas CO2 fell below the ideal value of 1200 ppm, evolution favored the development of C4 and CAM plants to deal with these starvation concentrations of vital plant food.

            You are aware, I suppose, that land plants use water from the ground and CO2 from the air to make sugars, the basis of terrestrial food chains. And that without such carbohydrates, animals and fungi would not exist on land, except for what we could scavenge from C4 and CAM plants.

            Sorry, but it appears that you’re either a standup comic or profoundly ignorant of the facts of life on Earth.

            More plant food in the air has visibly greened our planet. More would be better. Ideal would be around 1200 ppm, ie three times current levels, as in commercial greenhouses.

          • Very true since it makes them grow faster, greener and healthier, since it is a VISUAL selling point for growers to the customer.

            But after those luscious plants are delivered to the nursery, they lose some of the greenness and vigor as they went from 1200 to 400 ppm atmosphere they are in.

            That alone, destroys the CO2 is a pollutant stupidity.

          • By the very reality that as CO2 levels in the atmosphere increased, the world is greening up.

            Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

            “From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.”

            https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

            There goes the CO2 is a pollutant argument that warmists irrationally pursue, because they are terrified of the magic molecule.

          • The Supreme Court also ruled on the Dredd Scot case and the Plessy versus Ferguson too.

            Snicker…..

            You have yet to show that SCIENTIFICALLY that CO2 is a pollutant.

          • How many scientific degrees are among the jurists in the Supreme Court? Again, your feckless appeals to authority are tiresome.

            Do you understand that it’s the veracity of the authority itself (the IPCC) that the skeptics challenge? It’s called circular reasoning when you use the argument being challenged to support itself.

          • Just because a bureaucrat says it is a pollutant, doesn’t mean it is a pollutant. You must remember that a bureaucracy will never rule in a way that calls into question the reason for its existence. They will always rule in a manner which supports the need for their existence.

          • Richard, the Supreme Court ruled CO2 was a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and its Amendments. Read Mass v EPA 2007.

            So what is YOUR definition of a “pollutant?”

          • David: It doesn’t matter what the Supreme Court said. The Supreme Court could say that the sun is Blue but that doesn’t change the fact that the sun is not blue. Remember that at one time the Supreme Court said that Blacks were not persons.

          • David Appell

            “CO2 is certainly a pollutant — it was ruled so under the Clean Air Act in Mass v EPA 2007 — and it meets the common definition too: an unwanted substance with deleterious effects.”

            Blimey O’Riley. Doesn’t that statement invalidate a Phd?

          • It really is fascinating how David appeals to authorities rather than trying to prove his points himself.

          • So if the government declared that everyone named David was a nuisance, you would be the first to agree?

            PS: I can’t find these so called deleterious effects.
            The tiny bit of warming that it might be causing is entirely beneficial, and it’s impact on plant growth is hugely beneficial.

      • Particulates from coal plants haven’t been a problem for 40 years or more.
        Not surprised that you don’t know this.

    • Not to mention that ultra clean scrubbers on new coal plants that have tough regulations enforced; eliminate 97.5% of the SO2 99.5% of the particulate matter, 90 % of mercury emissions and have even less nitrous oxide emissions than gas plants. The 10 % left of mercury emitted high up in the atmosphere with a large coal stack has no measurable difference in the air over natural mercury sources. With new coal plants and strict enforcement of pollution regulations there is no need not to have coal as the basis for electricity needs. Do away with all subsidies and let all the fuels compete on an equal playing field. Lately gas been beating coal on price but if coal were allowed to compete fairly
      it would make a comeback. China is financing coal plants all over the world and are still building them in China.
      There wouldnt be many measurable deaths from coal if all miners were required to wear gas masks with oxygen breathing apparatus. The odd mine cave in will happen but there are strict safety regulations against that.

      • That’s great, to be sure. But they’re not capturing CO2. “Clean coal” is a myth.

        And China’s per capita emissions are about 1/2 those of America’s, and America has emitted about twice the CO2 that China has.

        • No need to ‘capture’ CO2 … the more the better.

          I suppose we could cut our lifestyles by half in order to have parity w/ China.
          Think I’ll pass on that.
          But that DOES seem to be what you and you like-minded warmers want.

        • Per capita emissions? Oh well when China looks at reducing CO2 “pollution” in about 30 years, they should have caught up. Obviously total CO2 is not a problem.

        • David Appell,

          You say, ” “Clean coal” is a myth”.

          Perhaps, but clean coal usage is demonstrated possibility (i.e. the usage can be prevented from releasing harmful emissions).

          If you were a scientist then you would define the terms you use.

          Richard

          • I’m not a scientist and never claimed I am.

            Clean coal is a myth. Carbon capture on prototype power plants never gets past about a million tons of CO2/yr, if they get it working at all.

          • David Appell,

            Nobody would mistake you for a scientist. As I said, “If you were a scientist then you would define the terms you use.”

            I was the Senior Material Scientist of British Coal, wrote the chapter on coal in Kempes Engineers Year Book, and worked on several clean coal technologies at the UK’s Coal Research Establishment. UNESCO commissioned a paper from me on syncrude from coal by use of the LSE process.

            On the other hand, it is clear that, you know as little about clean coal technology as you do about climate science, The PFBC power station at Cottbus, Germany, has operated for more than three decades and several CFBC power stations replaced inefficient PF plants in Easter Europe after the Dissolution of the USSR. The technologies work.

            They are very efficient and, therefore, require less fuel. An unfortunate effect of the fuel reduction is that they release less carbon dioxide which is a plant fertiliser so has potential to increase crop yields.

            Richard

          • Why would anyone want to deprive the world of more of a trace gas essential to most life on Earth?

            Our goal should be to triple atmospheric CO2, raising it to the levels under which flowering plants first spread across the planet, and which is maintained in commercial greenhouses.

        • If “clean capture” is so vital then wind and solar, which are dependant on fossil fuel to exist, should be charged accordingly.
          However in reality, since CO2 is not a catastrophic danger to the climate, as David has pointed out. We really should stop with the clean capture delusion.
          David brags bout being an alarmist. I suggest everyone look up the definition of “alarmist”, David’s self declared role, and ponder how that explains his dishonest deceptive trollish behavior.

    • That number 10,000 refers to inhalation of PM from combustion – that is the claim. It is modeled six levels deep and based on some pretty shady estimates. Other than fatalities in mines and loading coal, there is no proof of any number, large or small. Further, it is ‘lives shortened’ not ‘killed’. Premature deaths attributed to coal smoke… Attribution is not cause, and premature deaths attributed are not deaths as adjudged. There is no medical basis for the deaths or the premature deaths claim.

  14. Appell is full of it. As an Australian, I can tell him that his much admired Tesla battery, in Sth OZ, will only supply power for about 1 hour, if even that.

  15. Appell’s opening statement contained nothing with regard to atmospheric science and regurgitated the the empty fear mongering of the CAGW position. That he compounded this position by relying on Arrhenius ’96 shows his lack of depth on the subject. (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/23/the-empire-of-the-viscount-strikes-back/#more-108010) Finally, his inability to deal with UHI except to say “well Scientists know” was his 3rd strike.

    Edit: I only listened marginally after that since it was apparent he was incapable of making a rational argument.

      • Which Arrhenius ’96 or ’06? Next time you appeal to authority (nobel prize) make sure the authority is in the field you want to argue (chemistry vs radiative phsyics).

        edit: More specifically I should say Radiative Heat Transfer, or more accurately Multi Mode Heat Transfer

        • I was going to bring up that very distinction between the two papers. I am sure he is referring to the 1896 paper since that is what warmists always refer to, doubt that many knew about his revisions 10 years later, after his earlier paper received considerable criticism.

          • exactly my point sunset. In the debate he made the statement that CO2 effect was known since Arrhenius published in 96. It has been known for quite while that Arrhenius retracted/rewrote his work 10 yrs later and reported a reduced effect as noted in the article posted at WUWT. I have since seen some articles based on MODTRAN analysis that reduced the effect to around .6C per doubling (sadly this was a few years back and no longer have the links).

          • “It has been known for quite while that Arrhenius retracted/rewrote his work 10 yrs later”
            It is absolutely untrue. People can’t read.

          • False Nick!

            The Probable Cause of Climate Fluctuations – Svante Arrhenius A Translation of his 1906 Amended View of “Global Warming

            https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Arrhenius%201906,%20final.pdf

            “Svante Arrhenius’ 1896 calculations on the effect of carbon dioxide (CO2) on global warming are frequently cited by proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming as evidence that it was known more than 100 years ago that significant or catastrophic warming would occur due to a rise in CO2. Arrhenius first paper, in 1896, was written in a period when the world was just recovering from the Dalton minimum (1790-1830), a period of low solar activity, many volcanoes and global temperatures about 1°C degree lower than that of the subsequent 1900’s. His paper was directed mainly towards determining the influence of carbon dioxide—which he called ’carbonic acid’ — on global cooling. Warming was considered as a corollary. The temperature change in the event of doubling CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was predicted by Arrhenius’ first published paper on the topic, to be potentially as high as 5 or 6 ℃.

            Much discussion took place over the following years between colleagues, with one of the main points being the similar effect of water vapour in the atmosphere which was part of the total figure. Some rejected any effect of CO2 at all. There was no effective way to determine this split precisely, but in 1906 Arrhenius amended his view of how increased carbon dioxide would affect climate. He thought the effect would be much less in terms of warming, and whatever warming ensued would be beneficial. He published a paper in German. It was never translated at the time or widely distributed, though many European scientists knew of it and read it.

            What follows is the 2014 Friends of Science Society English translation of Arrhenius’ 1906 paper.

            http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Arrhenius%201906,%20final.pdf

            The paper makes difficult reading because of the numerous uncertainties involved and the lack of scientific resources that we today would consider normal. But one can conclude that he lowered his estimates of maximum warming by several degrees. The IPCC has now lowered its estimates as well to be within range of Arrhenius’ revised view. This would give the range as 1.6 to 3.9 ℃, but the same qualifiers persist. “

          • As I say, people wave it around, but don’t read it. It says:
            “For this disclosure, one could calculate that the corresponding secondary temperature change, on a 50% fluctuation of CO2 in the air, is approximately 1.8 degrees C, such that the total temperature change induced by a decrease in CO2 in the air by 50% is 3.9 degrees (rounded to 4 degrees C).

            My first calculation of this figure gave a slightly higher value – approximately 5 degrees C. In this older calculation, the influence of CO2 was too large, for that the influence of water vapour was valued too low, as Ekholm already commented. “

            A reduction from 5°C per doubling to 3.9 °C/doubling is not a retraction, and is well in the upper part of the IPCC range.

          • Ha ha ha, you sure forget what you wrote just a bit earlier:

            “There is no difference between the Arrhenius papers.”

            Then YOU show there was indeed a difference.

            “A reduction from 5°C per doubling to 3.9 °C/doubling is not a retraction, and is well in the upper part of the IPCC range.”

            The confusion is all yours.

          • In fact, the 5°C was not said directly in Arrhenius ’96. But in any case, it is a minor difference and certainly still well within the upper part of the IPCC range.

          • It is funny that two men with PHD’s can’t fathom their own words:

            Nick writes,

            “There is no difference between the Arrhenius papers.”

            I showed there was a difference, Nick then posted this gem that supported my claim that there was indeed a reduction:

            ““A reduction from 5°C per doubling to 3.9 °C/doubling is not a retraction, and is well in the upper part of the IPCC range.”

            5C is a very different number from 3.9C

            You can drop the silly bullcrap now.

            Meanwhile there has been a long reduction on the per doubling values in recent years:

            75 Papers Find Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity

            http://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/

          • So 1.1oC is insignificant.
            So the alleged warming of aprox. 1oC in aprox 150 years is…….

          • Plus Nick overlooks “…1.6 C to 3.9 C…”, the full range that Arhennius thought would be most likely. So it isn’t a reduction from 5 or 6 C to 3.9 C. The reduction is from 5 or 6 C to 1.6 to 3.9 C. All of the words matter.

          • Arrhenius said nothing about a range 1.6 to 3.9. This is just FoS trying to climb down. They had originally claimed that the 1.6°C, which Arrhenius shows as the CO2 only part of a 3.9°C rise, was the whole rise. That is the claim that Monckton echoes, and which is still being pushed in this thread and elsewhere. FoS at least backed down, if behind a smokescreen of “range”. But it is just one of those things here – people don’t check, but just repeat what they like to hear.

            In his later book “Worlds in the Making” (English translation 1908) he said, even more explicitly
            “If the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] in the air should sink to one-half its present percentage, the temperature would fall by about 4°; a diminution to one-quarter would reduce the temperature by 8°. On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth’s surface by 4°; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8°. “

          • I totally believe the 1908 prediction because, obviously, when we have 0 ppm CO2 in the atm the Earth’s temperature would be absolute zero (physics limit), if not negative infinity °C (math alone)!

          • The Monckton WUWT post that gino linked to make his point said
            “However, in 1906, in Vol. 1, No. 2 of the Journal of the Royal Nobel Institute, he recanted and divided his earlier climate-sensitivity estimate by three”

            A change from 5 to 4 is not dividing by 3.

          • post the rest of the text:

            “Likewise, I calculate that a halving or doubling of the CO2 concentration would be equivalent to changes of temperature of –1.5 Cº or +1.6 Cº respectively.”

      • From Arrhenius 1906:

        “Added to this is still the increased heat protection through the uptake of water vapour.
        The water vapour in the atmosphere does not only keep back the Earth’s radiation, but
        also absorbs a large part of the solar radiation. This last circumstance works in opposite
        directions, but not nearly as vigorously as the former. For this related correction, I have
        used the data of Ångström and Schukewitsch. * The calculations show that a doubling of
        the quantity of water vapour in the atmosphere would correspond to raising the tempera-
        ture by an average of 4.2 degrees C. For this disclosure, one could calculate that the corresponding secondary temperaturechange, on a 50% fluctuation of CO2 in the air, is approximately 1.8 degrees C, such that the total temperature change induced by a decrease in CO2 in the air by 50% is 3.9 de-grees (rounded to 4 degrees C). My first calculation of this figure gave a slightly higher value – approximately 5 degrees C.

        In this older calculation, the influence of CO2 was too large, for that the influence of water vapour was valued too low, as Ekholm already commented. This situation was caused in general from Langley’s data, where the quantity of CO2 increases with the quantity of water vapour, so that a slight shift in favour of one results in experimental errors. However, the resulting errors compensate each other for the most part. ”

        Seems that he is stating that the CO2 effect is smaller than his original paper and that the temperature change will occur because of water vapor.

          • 4.0 is the midpoint of the A1FI scenario range isn’t it (range of 1.4 to 5.8)? Whereas Arrhenius’ redo had a 1.6 for the CO2 component, with a max of 3.9 based on water vapor contribution….the so called “positive feedback” which appears to be very much in doubt. In other words his CO2 calculatuons were wrong in 96 by his own standards at the time…..as I pointed out at the top of this thread.

          • The 1896 calculation also included water vapor. He just didn’t spell out the two components then. He did in 1906, and so Lord M and all (as you linked) picked out the CO2 only figure and said – see, he has retracted.

        • From Arrhenius’ own writing “In this older calculation, the influence of CO2 was too large, for that the influence of water vapour was valued too low, as Ekholm already commented. ” so yes, he did acknowledge that his CO2 was too low, therefore he did rewrite/retract his previous position.

      • Since the Nobel committee doesn’t give the award to dead people, your comment that Arrhenius should be ignored because he doesn’t have a Nobel, is extremely stupid and acutely petty.
        Both characteristics that we have learned to expect from you.

  16. Man that advertising must have been 50% of the show.

    Would have been fabulous to hear the off air in its entirety.

    • It’s a business.

      When listening to Lars while driving, I turn off the radio for what I judge to be the average length of his ads.

      Without his sponsors, we wouldn’t have Lars. A small inconvenience to be able to enjoy a nice, civil, but not BS tolerated talk show.

      Don’t always agree with him, but one of the best of breed, IMO. And that’s not just PNW chauvinism speaking.

  17. Appell is as bottom of the barrel as it gets.
    Not surprising he also chimes in on other topics in the news and always spews the rabid progressive junk.
    It’s sooooo stupid being progressive.
    Wiese was right. There is no sense trying to have a normal discussion with a progressive.
    On any topic.

  18. Chuck and David,

    Thanks for agreeing to appear on Lars’ show, and to him for arranging it.

    I hope that all commenters will be respectful enough to continue sharing their viewpoints on WUWT ad infinitum, without trying to bite ’em.

  19. I find it hard to believe that Appell has a has a PhD in physics and math. I have noticed for a long time that he spouts unscientific nonsense.

  20. Cue a whole lot of abuse directed at Appell.

    But it’s the sceptics who are the good guys.

    Hilarious.

    • Pointing out glaring error isn’t abuse.

      Name calling isn’t warranted, but CACA advocates are the first and worst offenders on that score.

        • Too many to mention all. But for starters how about the fact that under riding CO2, Earth cooled dramatically from the 1940s until 1977, when the PDO flipped. Then it accidentally warmed for about 20 years, thanks to higher solar activity, until the super El Nino of 1998 blew that accumulated heat off, followed by 20 years of flat T, until the super El Nino of 2016, since which Earth had been rapidly cooling.

          Again, I note, all these ups, downs and sideways under steadily rising CO2. Hence there is no observed correlation between more CO2 and warmer air.

          • That’s not a ‘glaring error’. I’d say you represented a badly grounded interpretation of why the temperatures rose after 1950. There’s no question that ocean circulation very much controls temperature at a short scale. There is still a long-term warming that many attribute mostly to rising CO2.

            I guess you could find more glaring errors than that.

          • Temps didn’t start rising again until the end of the 1970s, a glaring error on your part.

            Atmospheric CO2 increased by around 74 ppm over the course of the 40 years of the satellite record. In that same period global temps have risen around 0.5C. Some portion, if not most or all, of that rise is natural. That doesn’t say much for the power of CO2 to warm the planet, imo.

          • We were, according to the best science of the time, entering an ice age by the 1970’s.
            The current climate consensus has worked hard to lie about that, but the evidence is there.

    • It’s the internet. It’s not for wimps. A bit of verbal (typed) abuse is harmless. Besides, it brings some levity to a debate that David and his mates take far too seriously.

  21. As I asked Chuck (esp) and Lars, what natural factors are causing modern warming?

    Neither had an answer. Does anyone here?

    (Include data and proof, or don’t bother.)

    • That is a another lie, Appell. I stated specifically on the program that with the OLR rising rather than decreasing as GHG science requires, that the current warming is being caused by an external energy source. That would be the sun given past research that showed the cloud albedo between 1984-1997 declined .6%, equal to 2.3 WM-2, and has remained about the same since. That equals roughly the same output energy measured by the satellites as the warming surface has responded. You only hear what you want to, Appell.

      Long-term global distribution of earth’s shortwave radiation budget at the top of atmosphere, N. Hatzianastassiou et al, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss (2004)

        • Chuck:
          Are you aware of Hatzianastassiou et al’s later papers in 2005 and 2011, the latter finding that the earlier trend reversed around the turn of the century, leading to global dimming of between -0.44W/m2 (NH Land) and -5.62 W/m2 (SH Ocean). SH temperatures simultaneously warmed markedly.

          The conclusion: …..

          “Our findings on post‐2000 GDB can have implications for evaporation and the hydrological cycle as well as for global warming since it has been shown (Wild et al., 2007) that solar dimming masked greenhouse warming up to the 1980s, while the subsequent brightening in the 1990s led to accelerated global warming. Therefore, the post‐2000 dimming and associated inter‐hemispherical differences, documented in this study, are expected to have similar effects that need to be systematically monitored and further investigated in the future.”

          2011 paper ….
          https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/asl.361

          • Anthony: Yes, I’ve seen this. When you look at the spectrally integrated OLR you see dips right around and after Mt. Pinnatubo’s eruption in the early 90’s and again with the super El Ninio of 1998. But in each case, the OLR recovered and is emitting more radiation than the effective earth temperature calculated by about 2 Wm-2 than at the beginning of the record. That’s not far from the warming seen by the satellites but more importantly contradicts GHG warming because the OLR was calculated by failed models to decrease by 3 Wm-2 by now. So the GHG signature of warming is missing from the beginning of the record and the record implies that additional external energy has reached the surface from sunlight and is the driver of the warming.

    • Same causes as for the late 19th century warming cycle and the early 20th century warming cycle. We’re in the Current Warming Period, following the Little Ice Age cooling period.

      Here are the natural cycles of the Holocene, same as for prior interglacials:

      Holocene Climate Optimum: 5 Ka
      Cool Period: 4.5 Ka
      Egyptian Warm Period: 4 Ka
      Cool Period: 3.5 Ka
      Minoan WP: 3 Ka
      Greek Dark Ages CP: 2.5 Ka
      Roman WP: 2 Ka
      Dark Ages CP: 1.5 Ka
      Medieval WP: 1 Ka
      LIA CP: 500 years ago
      Current WP: now.

      Peak of each WP has been lower than the previous, because we’re headed back into the next ice age.

    • David Appell,

      You ask,

      “As I asked Chuck (esp) and Lars, what natural factors are causing modern warming?

      Neither had an answer. Does anyone here?

      (Include data and proof, or don’t bother.)”

      Of course I have an answer; every scientist does.

      The answer every scientist would provide is,

      THE MODERN WARMING HAS TO BE ASSUMED TO BE CAUSED BY WHATEVER “FACTORS” CAUSED THE MANY SIMILAR PREVIOUS WARMINGS UNLESS A DIFFERENT “FACTOR” IS SHOWN TO BE RESPONSIBLE.

      This is the only scientific answer to your question because it is an application of the scientific Null Hypothesis (which is an effect of the principle of parsimony) as it applies to consideration of the causes of the warming.

      However, one pseudoscientist whose company you say you are pleased to share (i.e. Nick Stokes) claims the Null Hypothesis does not exist and, therefore, I suspect you may also want to make that claim. Therefore, it may help you when I ask if you are wanting to suggest that because the cause(s) of such warming is not known then the cause must be an affect of witches so we should identify them and burn them at the stake? Or do you have some similar superstitious nonsense you want to promote?

      Richard

      • From the 1970s throughout the western world we acted to reduce Sulphate emissions. Sulphates cause the production of clouds and are known to have a cooling effect.

        It does not take a genius to work out at if sulphates cause cooling, then reducing their output from 1970 to around 2000 when the measure were fully implemented, would cause warming.

        And that warming is concentrated over land around 3 days “downwind” of major pollution areas in Canada and over N.Asia.

        And there’s no doubt in my mind, this warming scare would have been over years ago, if it were not for the fact that the subject were taken over by eco-zealots who pushed and coerced the group think that led to the manipulation of temperature to fit their meme.

    • David Appell

      Again, forgive me as I’m not a scientist.

      Does science tell us that the absence of evidence for a particular argument proves the other side of the argument right?

      Doesn’t the answer “We don’t know” raise the question that something else is happening we don’t understand, rather than zeroing in on the fall back position of the flawed concept that CO2 is the sole culprit?

    • “David Appell

      As I asked Chuck (esp) and Lars, what natural factors are causing modern warming?”

      Can you define “modern warming”? What, scientifically, do YOU mean by “modern warming”?

    • First appeals to authority, now argument from ignorance.
      Will David complete the hat trick before the day is out?

      Basically David is claiming that since we can’t think of anything else, it must be CO2 wut done it.

      Someone as smart as David claims to be should be able to avoid such blatant logical blunders.

  22. Surprised it hasn’t happened before. I still say they need to get back to basics. CO2 does not determine climate. Location does. *SMH*

  23. Climate Debate Version 2050, Rev: 1.1.11. Issue: 97 Adjustment: 67953217897

    The Women Said:
    When I took the kids to school today I met Mandy. She said was going shopping
    I said that that would be nice

    She said she *hoped* so and I said why might it not be.
    Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, no reason she said said.
    Well actually, one of Betty’s boys said Betty said she might be saying she was going shopping today.
    You might bump into her I said. Betty’s nice when she’s not having one of her funny turns

    I hope you didn’t say that I said. Why not?
    Its actually because Betty had a nasty bout of anthrocene last week Mandy said. She might still even have in year 2050 she said

    What did her doctor say I said.
    He said to say nothing. Delete everything and give the dog some dinner he said.
    The other doctors all say the same. He said.

    I can’t believe he said that I said.
    Oh yes, Michelle says he says that all the time and I said it to Mandy when she said it to Lizzie when she was saying something on the phone.

    What did she say then I said?
    Oh she whispered when she said ‘it was really awful’ Had to adjust the volume.
    Good job that’s all you had to adjust I said

    I knoooooow. Doctors just say anything when they’re adjusting their dogfood I said.
    And Davina said the anthrocene is getting worse even though her husband says he thinks it might be OK because his mate at work said his wife had it and she said it wasn’t all that bad.
    Or so she said. But she’ll just say anything. Pippa is like that especially when the TV is on.
    I think she just wants you to Go Away.

    Oooooh that’s maybe not so good. Did she *really* say that I said.
    Oh yes. And she said that Tat Magazine had an article that said that if your husband says Michelle’s anthrocene is getting better, it actually isn’t. They said someone studied it.
    They said that it’s THE latest trend you know. That’s what it said in the article. It must be true.
    And in 2030 they say its going to be really *really* bad. Almost everybody will have it by then.
    Davina says so too. Some people might not make it to their 970th birthday they said.
    Somebody said it’s ‘something in the air’ Plastic probably.

    Yeeeeees, now that would be bad. I overheard Janie saying something like that too.
    She said she hopes she doesn’t get it and she said she hopes Pippa will be OK. Unless her husband gets it she said
    I said I thought he already had it, either that he keeps a Boa Constrictor in his underpants.

    No said Mandy, that’s not a Boa -see the Tesla in the driveway. Wink wink?
    I just didn’t know what to say and we giggled.

  24. Watching David try and shut down debate by shouting, “send your work to a journal!” amuses me.
    More people around the globe read blogs than read scientific journals. If I wanted to get my message out I’d be doing it on a blog, not in some dusty journal. The internet has been a liberating force for ideas, scientific and otherwise, that would not have previously seen the light of day.
    I think it’s time for you to join the modern world David.

  25. I think the climate test is on and which way the climate goes from now over the next few years is going to either make David’s case or destroy it.

    As I have said I think this year is a transitional year to a cooler climate moving forward due to solar which I think will lower overall oceanic temperatures while increasing the albedo slightly.

    • It is very unlikely that climate will tests AGW hypothesis supporters because lots of statements are not measurable but for rest there always are some excuse.

      Even abrupt fall in ice age would be claimed as proof of AGW theory.

      In my opinion real scientists always are questioning everything. Including their own understanding, perception, etc. They always are searching a ways how to verify current understanding.

  26. Appell is an veteran professional propagandist. There’s no atrocity he can’t spin, rationalize and support if it fits his Leninist religion.

  27. No one is being asked to make the serious personal and economic sacrifices needed to achieve the carbon emission reduction targets which AGW believers such as David Appell say are necessary. And so the public debate over the validity of today’s mainstream climate science has yet to reach a critical mass.

    If the world’s dependence on fossil fuels is to be ended early, within the next thirty years to fifty years, governments everywhere must intervene directly in the energy marketplace to make all carbon fuels as scarce and expensive today as they will be in a hundred years time.

    The only practical means for achieving this goal lies through powerful government action. That action must include enactment of a stiff tax on carbon, mandatory energy conservation measures; and eventually, direct government control over how much carbon fuel can be produced and consumed, by whom, and for what purposes.

    There’s no other practical way. But so far, those who sound the alarm about climate change haven’t gone nearly as far as they have to go if they are to be fully honest with the public concerning what measures are necessary to bring an early end to the world’s dependence on carbon fuels.

    Do these AGW believers have so little confidence in the validity of today’s mainstream climate science that they are afraid to face the widespread public debate which is certain to follow if serious personal and economic sacrifices are ever demanded of the voting public in the name of fighting climate change?

    • In other words, the only real solution, assuming that CAGW is real, is worldwide totalitarianism. Is your point that since few in the movement are willing to state that publicly, they don’t really believe in CAGW, or that they are cowards?

  28. Appell has long parrotted the gibberish that natural causes have been ruled out.
    It’s a stunningly stupid contention given the complex nature of the global climate and infancy of science trying to sufficiently profile it.
    So when he demands an answer to what is causing the modern warming and acts like it’s a gotcha he is displaying an adolescent deceit that progressives always try to posture as a superior understanding.
    Again, there is no topic that progressives like Appell will ever carry on a normal discussion about.
    Mostly because they refuse to acknowledge any point as queried and respond accordingly.

    • Yes, the assertion that just because I can’t explain recent weather trends means that their pet theory must be correct is very aggravating. This isn’t the only unscientific attitude they show, but it is one of the most obvious. They take advantage of the fact that the general public doesn’t like uncertainty and step in to fill the void.

      • David Appell,

        You ask,
        “What natural factors are causing modern warming?”

        I don’t know. I know several things it could be but nobody knows what it is .

        You claim to know everything so you tell me, and please provide the evidenced supporting your answer.

        Richard

          • There’s a small effect from incremental CO2, but deterministically, it’s far to small to obsess about and far less than it would need to be to justify the trillions of dollars the UNFCCC wants to coerce from the developed world in order to distribute to the developing world under the guise of climate reparations.

        • Richard, so you have no natural factors to offer. Neither does anyone else. Not convincing, to say the least.

          Meanwhile, there is every expectation that putting more IR absorbing gases into the atmosphere will warm the surface.

          Everything scientists from decades ago said would happen is happening: warmer surface, warmer troposphere, ice melting, seas rising, hot spot, tropopause rising, species moving poleward and upward, ocean acidification, cooler stratosphere (yes, even after accounting for ozone loss), warmer SSTs, ocean receiving massive amounts of heat.

          But those scientists knew nothing, right? Sure.

          • David Appell,

            You lying bar steward! I did NOT say I “have no natural factors to offer”.
            I said, “I know several things it could be but nobody knows what it is.”

            And you followed that lie with series of woppers, viz.
            “Everything scientists from decades ago said would happen is happening: warmer surface, warmer troposphere, ice melting, seas rising, hot spot, tropopause rising, species moving poleward and upward, ocean acidification, cooler stratosphere (yes, even after accounting for ozone loss), warmer SSTs, ocean receiving massive amounts of heat.”

            Nothing those so-called”scientists from decades ago said would happen” has happened.

            First, they said it would cool from anthropogenic SO2 emissions but it warmed after 1970.
            So they morphed that scare,
            They then said it would warm from anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It stopped warming around 2000.

            They said rate of sea levwl rise would increase. It didn’t.

            They said weather extremes would increase. They didn’t.

            Etc,

            Perhaps you would consider crawling back under your bridge now you have completely destroyed what little credibility you had?

            Richard

      • Your question is wrong to begin with. What we have is a climate system that exhibits natural periodic, quasi-periodic and chaotic variability around some mean. The known periodic influences have periods spanning from 24 hours to over 100K years and the short term chaotic variability can far exceed 1C p-p. Good enough data simply isn’t available to make legitimate claims that there’s anything unusual about the current climate and especially claims based on anomalies tortured from cherry picked data, adjusted or not. All we can conclude is that it’s been unusually warm and stable for the last 10K years or so as compared to the behavior during the last million years and that this nice relatively warm and stable climate has been largely responsible for the rise of civilization.

  29. In any of these “debates”, often a comment made by the CAGW supporter goes unchallenged leaving the audience to possible think the statement is correct.

    Example: saying the number of skeptical scientists is very small (counted on one hand). This is not correct, as we all know.

    Or, when a CAGW supporter cites a peer-reviewed study as supporting a position, it should be pointed out that there are other peer-reviiewed papers that disagree. This “battling papers” situation solidifies the concept that the science is not settled. The skeptical panelist doesn’t have to necessarily argue the point the papers are making. It is enough to show to the audience that the particular point remains uncertain. The importance of continually showing that the science is not settled can’t be overdone.

  30. David Appel. The name itself evokes either laughter or pity.
    What an ignorant, pompous ass.

  31. As an outsider and layman I find the verbal abuse distracting and childish. Both sides have been guilty of it to some extent, but especially the alarmist position seems to be really good at it. That kind of behaviour belongs in the kindergarden, not in a serious debate about important issue. It’s also frustrating having to shift through all the BS, just in order to find some actually relevant things. Because I don’t give a sh*t what this person thinks about other, and i’m not interested in arguments from authority. If I were, I would join the Catholic church. If all you have to say is that this person is stupid, and is publishing things in wrong places, then don’t say anything at all, because that is not relevant. We live in a sad times, if these supposed “scientists” don’t know what a logical fallacy is. This whole thing has become a giant mess, which doesn’t exactly instill a great deal of confidence and interest in it.

  32. This thread was beyond infantile.

    Using the “find” feature, the fact that Apell wrote about 180 responses is just over the top, especially considering the clownish nature most of them.

    Ya have to give Apell points for sticking to his guns, but then so did the Black Knight in Monty Python’s “Holy Grail”

  33. Just curious about all the talk about publishing in peer reviewed journals. I did a little search on a couple of search engines (googlescholar, primo, etc) and could not find many peer reviewed journal articles by either Wiese or Appel. I did find a patent of Chuck’s (I think) on a wind measurement technique, but I didn’t find any easy list. For Appel, it looks like he has a list of publications up at
    http://www.davidappell.com/publications.html
    On that list the only peer reviewed journal papers I found were a couple back in the late 1980s that look like they may have been his student work under Sterman at Stony Brook in particle physics. After that it looks like he ceased publishing in peer reviewed journals. I found none in climate related disciplines.
    Anyone else have a more complete result?

  34. I have followed this discussion from start to finish. I assumed that from the arrogant, aggressive assertions and questions from Appell that he was a major contributor to the “science” of global warming and must have copious examples of peer reviewed literature. It would seem that my search was in vain. He appears to have peaked at university, dabbled in software, done graduate work in the creative writing department at Arizona State University and written fiction. I don’t know why anyone bothers with him.
    I regularly see the view of anyone who dares comment on AGW being dismissed as irrelevant if they do not work or have qualifications in climate science, so David Appell, I dismiss your comments as being irrelevant.

    • I wondered about how many physics phds continue doing research and publishing in physics compared to those who drop out. I looked a little bit for an APS study that might shed light on that but didn’t find any that hit the mark. So instead, I looked at an old roster from my days as a graduate student in a theoretical physics center. In the roster I looked at, there were about 15 phd students at that time, in various stages of completion. Of those, 6 have gone on to academic positions, 3 went to national labs, and 1 went to industry. All of these continued to work and publish in physics. 3 of the others went into business analytics. The last time I looked , albeit many years ago, they were involved in milking returns from the stock market. The 2 others also dropped out of physics, 1 going to a government agency, and 1 wandered off to travel the world using his family’s funds. I have no idea what either of them have been doing. Several of those in academia have written books on their work for the general public and one has written some fiction. In total, the dropout rate (stop publishing research in physics) from one particular sample of theoretical phd students is about 5/15 or 1/3.

      I have no idea what any of their views are on climate science. With the ones I still see from time to time, the subject never comes up.

  35. Several times, Appell asked for a time that climate has changed, ‘ … more rapidly … ‘ or ‘ … faster … ‘ than it is happening now. Yes, it is a paraphrase of his request.

    If anyone is familiar with Richard Alley, Penn State (yes, the same Penn State), he is in line with the larger portion of the geological community, that Pleistocene glacial/interglacial transitions were, ‘ … abrupt … ‘, or in a more generic sense, very rapid.

    We all seem to agree that since the early part of the Industrial Revolution, the Earth has been in a “warming” regime. We have measured/observed/calculated something between one-and-two Celsius degrees in approximately one-to-two centuries.

    This is NOT a rapid change in temperature, and it is NOT more rapid than it has ever taken place.

    Since we know that Richard Alley is certainly not a skeptic, or “den1er” in any sense of the word, Appell should be willing to accept testimony from Alley (since, in Appell’s universe, anyone who agrees with him is a real “scientist”, and not an “id1ot”).

    In 2011, Alley argued that at least one transition was some six or seven Celsius degrees, in the span of a decade; in a subsequent video (which I regret I am unable to locate), he offered the opinion that the time frame was **closer** to just ONE year.

    Since we know Appell will inevitably require a reference, and we know that he will not bother to check it out (since it refutes one of his cherished myths), I have included the original reference, along with a quote (the $$$ quote) from the article.

    Alley does not attribute the temperature change to carbon dioxide, even though he considers CO2 to be the ‘climate control knob’. The cognitive dissonance, burns!

    URL: http://earthsky.org/earth/richard-alley-on-abrupt-climate-change

    (I do not trust that the url showed up, so I am re-typing it here; sorry if there is duplication:

    http://earthsky.org/earth/richard-alley-on-abrupt-climate-change

    And here is the quote that shows his actual thoughts; this is also the consensus of the geological community. Around the mid-1990’s, the evidence became compelling that transitions were not ‘thousands of years’ (as I had been taught, in the 1960’s and 1970’s), but time frames measured in decades:

    Alley says, “He gave us an example of what he means. Today, climate scientists predict that temperatures will rise a few degrees Fahrenheit in the next hundred years. Ice cores from Greenland show that – around 11,500 years ago – average temperatures in Greenland increased by about 15 degrees Fahrenheit, over the course of 10 years or so. Alley said this abrupt change was prompted – at least partially – by melting polar ice, which altered ocean circulation and weather patterns. As today’s climate warms, ice is again melting near Earth’s poles. ”

    Since there is no mechanism for cycling trillions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere on the time frame of a decade, possibly less, then some ‘natural’ factors are more likely as the explanation for the abruptness of climate change, which means that the temperature change during the Industrial epoch can be largely natural (Occam).

    Appell tells us, authoritatively, that the, ‘ … Earth should be in a cooling phase … ‘. Sorry, I call hubris on this. The climate is a coupled, dynamic, non-linear system; we have not even reached the stage knowing what we do not know. Exactly HOW do we “know” what the Earth climate system ‘should be’ doing? Prove to us that all factors, known and unknown, ‘should’ be causing a cooling. Quantify the amount of ‘natural’ climate change, and the amount of anthropogenic climate change. You’re a Ph D in Physics, so quantifying the amount of human-caused climate (temperature) change is what you should be able to do, without any reservations.

    You truly believe that a single factor, carbon dioxide, controls the Earth’s atmospheric temperature? This is not possible in a system as complex as Earth climate/atmosphere.

    That we do not know the magnitude of natural processes (or even which ones affect climate) just means that the science is NOT ‘settled’.

    My regards,

    Vlad

    • Vlad: Our current rate of warming is about 30 times faster than the average rate after the last ice age (glacial period) ended.

      From Shakun et al Nature 2012 Figure 2a:
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

      global temperature anomaly in year -18,000 is -3.5 C
      global temperature anomaly in year -11,000 is about 1.0 C

      so the average temperature change is 4.5 C in 7000 years, or ~ +0.006 C/decade, compared to NOAA’s current 30-year trend of +0.18 C/decade

      So that’s a factor of 28 now compared to then.

      http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/06/current-warming-30-times-faster-than.html

      • As I stated, you would not bother to refer to the reference. Richard Alley himself stated, QUOTE, ” … average temperatures in Greenland increased by about 15 degrees Fahrenheit, over the course of 10 years or so. ” UNQUOTE. Instead of looking at the reference, which you and I both know you would have demanded, you throw a red herring into the mix.

        The current consensus of the geological community is that Pleistocene glacial/interglacial transitions were on the order of (at least) several Celsius degree, within a time span of DECADES; and of late (the above is 2011), Alley has even gone to advocating that we are looking at a time span LESS THAN A DECADE. This has been the position of the geoscience community since the mid-1990’s; that you are unaware is not a surprise.

        Please direct your comments towards Alley’s contention, not mine; refute Alley. I am pointing out that your request, for a time when climate changed, ” … faster … ” than at present, is now considered to be the best interpretation of the data and evidence we have collected. Show us your OWN research, not someone else’s, that proves Alley is full of “hot air”.

        You’re a Ph. D. in Physics; since you’re a climate expert as well (no, you’ve never stated those words, to my knowledge, but your postings here, and the original video w/ Mr. Wiese are prima facie evidence that you believe this to be the case), I’ll look at what you have published in the way of refutations of Alley, and the geological community.

        Best regards,

        Vlad

  36. I felt bad that David wasn’t getting any traction on his web site, so I re-posted the question I’ve been asking that he refuses to answer. What’s the over/under on whether he will answer or censor on his own blog? I’ll post the link to his blog here for easy access to answers …

    https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/06/happy-with-my-debate-performance.html

    David,

    You won’t answer this on Anthony’s blog, so I will ask it here and I will be more precise so you can understand the question. I’ll cross post this to WUWT so that you will be less inclined to censor it.

    At the Earth’s 288K average temperature, it emits about 390 W/m^2. If 1 W/m^2 of forcing nominally increases the surface temperature by 0.8C as the IPCC claims, then the surface emissions increase by slightly more than 4.3 W/m^2. You can verify this with the SB LAW and the IPCC AR’s, which are sufficient references.

    For the surface emissions to increase by 4.3 W/m^2, the surface must be receiving 4.3 W/m^2 more to replenish these emissions, or else the surface will cool. This is a consequence of COE which on it’s own is a sufficient reference.

    1 W/m^2 of the replenishment energy comes from the W/m^2 of forcing. What is the origin of the other 3.3 @/m^2?

    To keep you from going down a rabbit hole, I’ll let you know what’s not the origin.

    Feedback can not be the origin, for if 1 W/m^2 of input resulted in 3.3 W/m^2 of feedback, COE tells us that all Joules are the same, thus each of the accumulated 240 W/m^2 of solar forcing must also result in 3.3 W/m^2 of feedback, which would result in surface emissions over 1000 W/m^2 corresponding to a temperature close to the boiling point of water, which is clearly not the case. Furthermore, the reference Hansen and all that followed used for feedback specifies a stability criteria which can be distilled down to stability as long as the feedback is <= the forcing and 3.3 W/m^2 of feedback is clearly much greater than the forcing, thus represents an unstable system. Acceptance of COE and the reference used by Hansen for feedback are the only references required to see why it can't be feedback.

    Latent heat, convection and other energy transported by matter into the atmosphere can not be the source either. If you subtract out the return of latent heat and thermals from Trenberth's 'back radiation' term, all that's left is the power replacing the BB emissions of the surface consequential to its average temperature. If you can say what effect the energy transported by matter, plus its return to the surface has on the average surface temperature and its average emissions other than the effect they are already having on that temperature and its emissions, you might be able to make a point, but once more, COE stands in your way.

    • The first thing to do, when one thinks they’ve found some simple and basic flaw in climate science (or any science), is ask oneself why millions of scientists before you didn’t find that same “flaw” in the 200 years they have been thinking about that science. What did/do they know that I don’t? So you have to start digging…. And not jump to the conclusion that climate science is all wrong because one thinks they have found some fundamental flaw in what is really not-very-complex physics. (This is something Chuck Wiese doesn’t do with his claims about CO2.) Because it’s ALMOST always the case that I’m the one making a mistake, not the consensus.

      • David,

        Yes, jump on the bandwagon as these ostensibly intelligent scientists can’t all be wrong. But what about the many scientists on the other side? A fake 97% claim doesn’t make them go away, besides, most skeptics believe the effect from CO2 is finite and are among the 97%, it’s just that skeptics understand the effect is no where near as large as the IPCC requires in order to justify its existence and the agenda of the UNFCCC that the IPCC’s fake science is chartered to support. I’m completely perplexed as to why those on your side fail to see the obvious conflict of interest that has driven climate science into a dark place, but then again, political bias exhibits this kind of blindness all the time. Your bias must be impenetrable if you can’t see and/or ignore this clear and present danger to science itself. If you were to write an objective, investigative journalism piece on this to uncover how international politics has destroyed science through the IPCC, it could be Pulitzer Prize material.

        The ‘consensus’ is almost always wrong when it comes to issues of science as the only reason a ‘consensus’ is required is if there is no definitive proof for what the consensus wants to believe. Your blind belief in a broken consensus is quite disturbing. You don’t have to look very hard to see examples of this in the past and if you don’t learn from prior mistakes, you’re not learning.

        I’ve done a very deep dive into how and why climate science broke and which has been the primary focus of my research once I discovered how incredibly broken it actually is. Hansen is central to how it broke and as far as I can tell, his pursuit was driven by ego for having been called a lunatic by the Reagan and Bush administrations for his chicken little proclamations of doom cause by CO2 emissions. His broken feedback paper (1984) along with Schlesinger’s ‘corrections’, which actually added even more errors, formed the primary theoretical basis for a climate sensitivity large enough to justify the formation of the IPCC in it’s pursuit of justifying the agenda of the UNFCCC. If you’re unfamiliar with the many errors in the consensus feedback model, look here:

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/07/how-climate-feedback-is-fubar/

        This is the keystone error that upon correction, will cause the whole house of cards called ‘consensus’ climate science to collapse. If you can’t recognize this truth, then you need to pay more attention.

        • I didn’t say “jump on the bandwagon.” I wrote think for oneself, and don’t make ridiculous claims that one has found some deep overlooked flaw in the basics of a scientific field.

          Having to insult good scientists like Hansen means you have a very weak hand and no one serious is going to pay attention to you.

          • David Appell,

            I always recognise the value of experience and, therefore, I take notice of your comments pertaining to those who “have a very weak hand and no one serious is going to pay attention to”.

            However, nobody has insulted Hansen and I l know of no good science he conducted. Perhaps you know of some you can cite and explain why you think it is good?

            Richard

      • Appell, what you refuse to accept is the fact that James Hansen, a self declared expert in atmospheric science, should have been asking himself this question before he ever thought he could construct a climate model that would accurately model earth temperature, weather and climate with atmospheric CO2 mixed with the earth’s hydrological cycle. I have repeatedly tried to convey to you that CO2 cannot and doers not control the earth’s OLR in the presence of a water hydrological cycle. The cycle itself controls the IR flux and maintains a stable optical depth. Therefore, CO2 has no effect on earth temperature with these conditions.

        The founding principles of atmospheric science demonstrated this fact with impirical calculation years ago. James Hanson and those like you have ignored this important work and have failed to ever refute it. The only thing between these calculations and Hansen’s failed ideas are failed climate models. Your failure to see this is incomprehensible and demonstrates that you are incompetent in this subject, just like Hansen is who today still views himself a success with a trail of complete failures in every aspect of climate that he predicted would happen by this time. Every last one of his predictions were wrong and you are not hiding the fact that your continuing belief in his ideas are making the fool out of you that you articulate well on this blog.

        • Chuck, you never convince me because you have never been quantatative or analytical. You just wave your hands. Let’s see your calculations and equations. Compare to observations. Publish and let experts review your claims. Hansen and other modelers are well aware of the Earth’s hydrological cycle.

          Climate models have not “failed.” You and others her repeat that like a mantra, yet never show any actual failures. (The Christy graph was deceptive.) Here are the successes:

          http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/climate-lab-book/files/2014/01/fig-nearterm_all_UPDATE_2018-panela.png

          Nor did Hansen’s 1988 model fail, once you account for that forcings that actually occurred instead of what he projected, as I said on Thursday — especially methane and CFC forcings:

          http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/06/30-years-after-hansens-testimony/

          • David Appell,

            The reason Chuck Wise cannot “convince” you is because nobody can alter a closed mind.

            The reason you convince nobody is because you rant, rave and insult but provide no cogent arguments.

            Richard

        • And by the way, Chuck, yes the water vapor feedback has been observed, and it’s not negative, it’s positive (of course):

          IPCC 5AR WG1 Ch2 Figs 2.30 & 2.31 documents positive trends in water vapor in multiple datasets.
          http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf

          “Attribution of observed surface humidity changes to human influence,”
          Katharine M. Willett et al, Nature Vol 449| 11 October 2007| doi:10.1038/nature06207.
          http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7163/abs/nature06207.html

          “Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content,” B. D. Santer et al, PNAS 2013.
          http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.abstract

          • Appell, the papers you present here from “peer reviewed” journals reveal the deceptive tactics the authors use to make a point. In the first paper, they talk about stratospheric water vapor trends but fail to give a concentration, and instead, use an anomaly figure in ppmv. At these altitudes and pressures, additional optical depth is negligible with water vapor just like you would find if they revealed the very small concentration number.

            In the second papers, you would expect evaporation at the surface to increase as it did with the small warming we have had, but at those pressures and temperatures, increasing the optical depth will have a negligible effect on the transmission through the layer unless the layer saturates at near 100% humidity. That is ALWAYS what constrains minimum and maximum temperatures at and below 1000 millibars. What counts is whether the humidity is increasing at lower pressure higher up where temperatures are colder, and I’ve told you time and time and time and time again, Appell, the NOAA trends for water vapor at these pressures, 500 millibars and lower have declined over time as you would expect from a negative feedback scenario that founding principles predict.

            No matter what those of us who understand radiative transfer tell you, Appell, you just don’t get it. This is why I think you are incompetent. I am convinced that if you carried these attitudes into a classroom that discussed radiative transfer, you would get a D in the course, or worrrse.

          • Appell, your incompetence continues to glare. This adds nothing to the discussion and I already explained this from your last post.

        • Finally, Chuck, unlike what you said, the tropical tropospheric hot spot occurs with *any* surface warming — basic atmospheric thermodynamics: the moist tropics send proportionally more water vapor into the troposphere (relative to other latitudes), which cools as it rises, condenses and releases latent heat. = hot spot. Read Sherwood and Nishant 2015 for the data showing it’s real. (Up until recently the available data had too large of uncertainties, so the hot spot couldn’t be ruled in or out. It’s been found.)

          • Appell,

            Your repetitions of refuted points are tiresome.

            Read the explanation of the ‘hot spot that I wrote to educate you upthread.

            Write less, read more and try to learn much, much more because your lack of understanding of climate science is embarrassing.

            Richard

          • David Appell;

            You say
            “Richard, again, I’m just not interested in wading through your invective and pedantry.”

            In that case, stop repeating falsehoods that have already been refuted.

            Alternatively, and preferably, apologise for your disgraceful behaviour here then retire from the scene.

            Refuting your lies is NOT “invective and pedantry” and needs to be done for the benefit of all.

            Richard

          • Appell;

            I copy my refutation of that twaddle from upthread.

            “David Appell;

            I correctly wrote,
            “But the ‘hot spot’ has not occurred, and this is indicated by independent measurements obtained by radiosondes mounted on balloons (since 1958) and by MSUs mounted on satellites (since 1979).

            The ‘hot spot’ is so large an effect that it should be clearly seen if the models provide a representation of model climate change as it exists in the real world. And the warming from “well mixed greenhouses gases” has been greatest most recently in the modelled period so should be very obvious in the radiosonde and MSU data. Simply, the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is absent from the real-world observations.”

            And you have replied,
            “Richard Courtney, up until recently there were too many uncertainties in the data to identify the “hot spot.” But in 2015 it revealed itself:

            “Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2),” Steven Sherwood and Nidhi Nishant, Environ. Res. Lett. 10 (2015) 054007.
            http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007/article

            Here’s the relevant figure from that paper:
            https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/05/17/tropospheric-hot-spot/”

            SAY WHAT!
            Please don’t try to pretend you believe the nonsense you have posted in your reply to me.

            I cited radiosonde data that is direct measurements of temperature obtained by using calibrated air temperature sensors mounted on weather balloons, and it is confirmed by similar temperature indications provided by the completely independent remote measurements of temperature provided by microwave sounding units mounted on satelites,

            The paper you cite claims that windspeed around the weather balloons provides a better indication of the temperature than the direct measurements of temperature from the calibrated temperature sensors. That is risible: only ‘climate science’ pal review could get such nonsense published.

            Be honest, you posted your reply to me as a laugh, didn’t you ?

            Richard”

            Richard

          • More glaring incompetence, Appell. You do not get a hot spot from normal moist convection unless it is sustained and reaches pressures less than 300 millibars which is what was forecast by failed modeling. In reality, this happens only in scattered pockets of severe thunderstorms, Appell, and at those pressures, the latent heat released is rapidly radiated away with little absorbing constraint from above. You also need conditional instability to form in a deep layer of troposphere that typically sees potential energy stored approaching 5 KJkg-1. If you had even a clue about how potential energy reaches those levels, you would realize a steepening environmental lapse rate that brings this about is caused by an approaching synoptic low pressure system that creates the lift necessary and that can only occur with a strong temperature gradient going COLD on the north flank, or thermodynamic forcing from a dry line ( which is also cooler on the north flank ) impinging on a tropical wave coupled with difluence at higher altitudes.

            If AGW were real as forecast by these failed models, these scenarios would become impossible to achieve. Severe weather would lessen, the mid latitude baroclinic boundaries would be forced to migrate northward and the earth would become plagued with problematic drought, not these ridiculous scenarios touted in that paper by Francis/Vavrus that I countered that belongs on a toilet paper dispenser.

            Your explanations and claims are beyond ridiculous, Appell.

      • David,

        If AGW were a thing, then Earth should have warmed from the 1940s until the PDO flip of 1977. But it didn’t. Instead, the planet cooled dramatically, under rising CO2.

        Clearly, there are feedback mechanisms which can and do overpower whatever GHE might exist from increased plant food in the air. So far having four molecules of photosynthesis substrate rather than three per 10,000 dry air molecules has been a great boon to life on Earth.

          • Of course. Why would I mention it without having studied the period intensely?

            In the late 1970s, science clearly knew that Earth had cooled dramatically since the end of WWII. Indeed it was obvious by the early 1960s.

            Look at NCAR’s global temperature record for 1979. Even later “adjustments” haven’t been able to erase the fact of postwar global cooling.

            Do you really not recall the concern over global cooling by scientists in the 1970s?

            That Earth cooled dramatically under rising CO2 is a scientific fact, ie an observation of nature.

    • I’m guessing that DA was embarrassed by his behavior, and threatened a lawsuit since no waiver was signed. Thus, they are down. Regardless, what a marked difference I find between most “skeptics” and most “warmists” (for lack of better terms.) On one side you have Judith Curry, who carries herself with scientific dignity when presenting a public forum. On the other, Mann and DA, both blustery and arrogant. I think that’s telling.

        • David, what I wrote above is a hypothesis of what occurred followed by a behavioral observation. The hypothesis could be wrong, it why I used “guessing” in my statement. My observation is just that. It certainly wasn’t fabricated …. it was MY observation. And there is plenty of evidence which others could use to back up my observation of Dr. Curry, you and Dr. Mann. There are times when your comments do you no favors. I can guarantee that I choose my words carefully. I’m a well trained scientist.

    • It’s possible Appell threatened Larson with legal issues, it’s also possible something else happened. But having met David Appell, and knowing how thin-skinned he is, I’m inclined to think the former.

      If that’s the case, it doesn’t reflect well on him. I have those videos.

      • Hell, after what has been presented in this thread…

        I give him two thumbs up for joining the discussion here, but he has some issues that he’s not dealing with very well.

      • Absolutely false, Anthony. Correct yourself.

        Remember AGU? When I tried to find a battery for you? When I stood up at the end and offered you my hand to shake?

        Remember what you wrote afterward?

        • what is “absolutely false? That is was you, that is was something else, or that you are thin skinned?

          • I did not threaten anyone with legal issues. I pointed out that no waiver was offered or signed, and asked them to please remove the video taken after the show concluded.

          • OK, thanks for the straight forward clarification.

            So you made a legal point that no waiver was signed and politely requested your legal right not to have it publicly available be respected.

            That IS the first level of a legal action. The implicit threat of further legal action if the request is not respected is clear for all to see and well understood.

            So Anthony’s comment was NOT “absolutely false”. It was pretty close to the mark.

          • Stop making things up. I never said *anything* about “rights” or legal or anything legal. I never made any threats. I write exactly what I said above. So stop it with the accusations about something you know nothing about.

            Watts’ comment is absolutely false. Neither he nor the moderator has yet removed it or clarified it.

            [Nothing false about my comment, it was an opinion and it stands. You admit you asked the videos to be removed, because of the legal waiver not being in place. And as I said, it doesn’t reflect well on you to ask the show to have videos removed from YouTube – Anthony]

          • And… before I could get back here and join the discussion, you spouted off a “Anthony Watts is lying about me” at your non-read blog Quark Soup.

            David, I had an opinion and gave you benefit of the doubt by saying “it could be something else” . But, you’ve clearly proven you’re thin-skinned, just as I said, and you’re also a jerk.

            OK, back in permanent moderation you go. Once again my tolerance for you has been reached. Good day sir.

            P.S. Prediction: your ego won’t let you walk away, so you’ll write something else nasty about me, and then as you’ve done before by your own admission, you’ll try to comment here using fake name, fake emails, and spoofed IP addresses.

          • Don’t blame you, sir, but personally, I like having such a blatant scientific ignoramus and vile person to represent the antiscientific position, ie those who deny the natural variability of climate.

            Understand that patience for personal attacks has its limits. Even climate skeptics aren’t long-suffering, cheek-turning saints.

          • Felix,

            I have to disagree, because as the Moderator who had to read many of his replies, was being lied to a few times by him yet kept my manners in check. He accused me of censoring his comments, yet I never did any, he persisted in promoting his lie. I asked him where did I do it, he NEVER answered it.

            He is not worth it.

          • Stop making things up. A waiver is a legal document, you do not have to use the word “legal” when referring to one. You ARE invoking legal rights.

            I may not know everything about this affair but that does not mean I “know nothing about” it. More lies and misrepresentation.

            If you point out that they do not have the legal right to publish because you did not sign the legal authorization to do so and request they remove the content you find embarrassing; it is the first step of a legal process.

            If you had simply asked them to remove it because you find it embarrassing, you may have had half a chance of a disingenuous argument that it was not a legal process. Since you, by your own admission above, did make reference to the lack of a legal authorization you ARE making the first steps of a legal process to get it removed.

            The threat of further action is implicit in your legal framing of your request. END OF.

            BTW if you are serious about reducing carbon footprints to “save the planet” consider reducing your intake of fats and carbohydrates. You are clearly consuming more than is necessary to sustain a healthy life.

      • “This video has been removed by the user. ”

        Does that mean Lars Larson removed them ? Was he the YT “user”?

        The first one was posted by “Bloodwork live studio” , under standard youtube license. It is unclear who “user” is in the case of the other three.

        YT = Google = media bias and censorship.

        Clearly someone is keen for the world not to see Appell making an oaf of himself. Though he would be at the top of the list it is not necessarily him.

        I’m not too keen on throwing out a hypothetical accusation and then going into “if that’s the case”.

        Anthony, can you contact your friend Lars and get the real deal on who is censoring this?

  37. I read every post, very painful.
    What would DA do for a living if he shifted sides? Always follow the money.