Why I Don’t Deny: Confessions of a Climate Skeptic — Part 1

Guest Essay by Kip Hansen

climate_deanial_yellowI have often been asked “Why do you deny climate change?”  I am always stumped by the question.  It is rather like being asked “Why do you torture innocent animals?”  The questioner is not merely asking for information, they are always making an accusation — an accusation that they consider very serious and a threat to themselves and others.

The reason it stumps me is that, as you have guessed already, I do not deny climate change (and I do not torture innocent animals — nor even guilty ones).  And there is nothing about me or my behavior, present or past, that I am aware of, that would lead any reasonable person to think such a thing of me.

I am thoroughly guilty though of being very skeptical of what is generally referred to as the Climate Consensus — usually said to be represented by the latest reports and policy recommendations put out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its supporters; political, ideological and scientific.  I suppose it is this that leads to the false accusation of “denying climate change”.

And there is the crux of the matter — it is something in the mind of the accuser, not any action of the accused, which leads to the false accusation.


I deny that I am a Climate Denier, a Global Warming denier or any other kind of a  “denialist”.


I do not deny either of the two primary claims of the Global Warming Movement:

1. Global Warming is happening
2. Human activity causes [some of] it.

Here’s why I don’t deny #1: Global Warming is happening.


I am perfectly happy to accept that the “world” (the “global climate”) has warmed since the late 1800s.   We know that the date of 1880/1890 is picked for the starting point of most of the contemporary consensus view plots — purportedly because it represents “the start of the modern industrial era”, this despite the fact that even the IPCC does not claim that “CO2 induced global warming” started at that date.    Let’s take a closer look at Lamb and Lamb_modified_by_Jones:



We all know that Lamb was showing a stylized “schematic” view of Central England temperatures — and Jones 2007 re-does the analysis with very slightly different results, then overlays (in blue) the measured Central England through 2007.    This graph contains the seed of my certainty that “global warming is happening” — which, in un-politicized language would be something like:  “The Earth’s general climate has warmed since a bit before 1700 CE — i.e., for the last 300+ years.”    Here’s Spencer 2007:


And if you prefer, here’s the NOAA version with comparisons of various reconstructions :


They all show cooling to approximately 1650 – 1700 and general warming since then.

From where does my skepticism arise then?  Well, there is no more — general warming started about 1650-1700, maybe a little earlier, and has been ongoing.  When warming doesn’t start is 1880/1890 — it starts a hundred and fifty to two hundred years earlier — earlier  than the start of the increased CO2 output of the modern Industrial Era.  This makes me very skeptical indeed of the claim that the industrial revolution and modern warming are intrinsically entwined.

And I think that it is a good thing that it has warmed since 1700.  The Little Ice Age years, up thru  the 16 and 17 hundreds,  were hard times for farmers (and thus whole populations) in North America and Europe,  as attested to by contemporary accounts of crop failures and hard winters.


To my knowledge, this point is not controversial or even contested.  In the Consensus Worldview, it is simply over-looked and not mentioned.   Truthfully, since the facts don’t match the narrative — the narrative that global warming was caused by the start of the Industrial Revolution and its subsequent CO2 emissions —  this fact seems to have been down played or ignored.

What does the IPCC say? Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.”  — IPCC AR5 SPM 1.1 

 Well, I couldn’t agree more  — moreover, it has been warming since about 1650-1700, two hundred years before the Industrial Revolution starts pouring out CO2.

What else does the IPCC say?  “ … recent anthropogenic emissions of green-house gases are the highest in history.” — IPCC AR5 SPM 1

 Again, I don’t disagree:


Without arguing about when “history” began, we can stipulate that the graph the European Geophysical Union gives us is an “accurate enough” picture of CO2 concentrations over the last thousand years.   CO2 remains a shaky 275-290 ppm for 800 years  and then begins to show a rise around 1850, finally breaking into new territory  circa  1880-1890 — the start of the modern Industrial Era.    The Wiki offers us the following, again confirming that CO2 does not begin to rise until 1890-1900, long after temperatures begin to rise.


 It is simply a fact that atmospheric CO2 concentration has been rising since 1880-1890-1900 (close enough for my purpose today) and that it is now higher than it has been in a long time.   Some think that this is a good thing, as it has brought about a resurgence in plant life on Earth’s surface and some think it is a bad thing.

Atmospheric CO2  has been rising — but is there doubt about this? — recent anthropogenic emissions of green-house gases are the highest in history.” ?

While it is not easy to measure atmospheric CO2 concentrations, it has been being done for quite some time….and we have been able to guess about human greenhouse-gas emissions and their sources.  [These are naturally abject guesses, but we needn’t argue with them on that account — they are our “best guesses”).

The IPCC’s AR5 includes this graphic:


We see that recent emissions are highest, at least in this history, but notice that cumulatively up to 1970 (see the right hand inset bar graph), Forestry and other land use accounts for more than 50% of all CO2 emissions.  This surprised even me — I was expecting a pretty big contribution from the clear-cutting and conversion into pasture and farmland of much of Europe and North America east of the Mississippi River — but I had no idea that Forestry and Land Use accounts for >50% all the way to 1970 –and that’s nineteen seventy, not eighteen seventy.   By some proxies, global surface temperature had been rising for 300 years by 1970.

Keeping that fact in mind, let’s see what else the IPCC has to say about causes:


“Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years.  Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

The IPCC in their synthesis report for policy makers says that human emissions of greenhouse gases and “other anthropogenic drivers,” are  “extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”

Well, OK.  This is where my Climate Skepticism begins to gain some traction.  Dr. Judith Curry, president and founder of Climate Forecast Applications Network, recently offered the following graphic in an essay entitled “Fundamental disagreement about climate change”:


I would have used slightly different points and alternate wordings — but the essence would be the same.

The IPCC Consensus general position is shown on the left — CO(and other greenhouse gases) are the primary “forcing” of climate — with changes in CO2 causing changing climate (basically warming) —  this warming amplified by feedbacks, like increased water vapor and clouds.

On the right is Dr. Curry’s general view — I share much the same viewpoint.  I would have placed place more emphasis this:

Climate is Chaotic:  It is composed of  highly complex, globally coupled, spatio-temporal chaotic, resonant systems.

So far, I agree with all the facts, but don’t agree that recent CO2 (and other) emissions arethe dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”    I agree neither with the attribution of CO2 as dominate or the effect size.

# # # # #

If you aren’t yet bored to tears, you can find out more on my reasons for that in Part 2, to be published in the next day or so.

# # # # #

Author’s Comment Policy:

I have tried to use examples, graphs, that would be generally acceptable to both sides of the Climate Divide, and to avoid controversial minor or fringe sources.  I didn’t need to — I am happy with the data presented and that’s Why I Don’t Deny.

I suppose that many readers will disagree with my lack of denial or agree but have different reasons.  That is how it should be in a new young field of science like Climate.  Feel free to tell all in your comments.   I may reply to rational, collegial remarks, questions and requests for clarification.

I am, however, too old to argue.

Address comments to “Kip…” if you expect a response.

# # # # #

711 thoughts on “Why I Don’t Deny: Confessions of a Climate Skeptic — Part 1

  1. I’ve been accused of being a “climate denier” many times. And always by people who have no scientific knowledge whatsoever.

        • OK, so it’s a “consensus” that you are a deeenier. LOL.


          I deny that I am a Climate Denier

          Not a good starting point Kip. You know that one of the worst things about being in denial is that you can not recognize it. Saying you are not in denial will just get you a “there you go: a perfect example of someone in denial”. In order to get better ( from your mental illness ) you first need to come to terms with it and recognize the problem.

          If someone says : do you realize that you contradict everything anyone tells you? You can not refute by saying : NO I DON’T !

          I suggest you take a different line of argument in part two. 😉

          • Greg, first, Kip denying something doesn’t mean he is in denial. If you disagree with his point of view you might believe that. In that case, the roles reverse though: he can make the same charge about you, with just as much consistency.

            Second, since you’re making a cute attempt at a logical argument, a person certainly can refute denial exactly as you say he can’t. He may mean he doesn’t realize he contradicts everything anyone tells him.

            The statement is false from the start, though, because the person making the claim doesn’t know everything anyone says to the other person, or his replies.

          • I did not say he was in denial, I was commenting on his attempts are refuting such a claim made by some hypothetical other.

            Saying you are not in denial in the case where are not is honest and truthful but still is not going to work against someone who wishes to maintain that you are, for the reason which I stated.

            Before getting too proxy defensive on Kip’s behalf , put on your reading glasses and note the little yellow smiley at end.

          • I understood your point, and it plays out in real life. Every time you present a counter-argument or a scientific paper, it is dismissed as a denier presenting evidence which is already false or wrong if it comes from a ‘denier’ blog or a ‘denier’ scientist, and is therefore worthless. The stupidity belongs to those who cannot see that via that reasoning, the theory can NEVER be falsified, which makes it a religious belief, rather than a scientific theory. My approach now is to ask people: How can anybody be said to deny an occurrence that hasn’t happened yet, when there is no precedent for that event?

          • Glad you noticed the smiley wink, Kip. Tongue in cheek certainly but there is a serious point about saying ‘I’m not in denial ‘ and the response it will get from such an accuser.

            I would reply that claiming someone is mentally ill because they do not agree about a scientific position shows a total lack of scientific
            understanding and factual arguments on the part of the person making such claims.

            It’s nothing more than name calling and saying I’m not in denial accepts getting into an argument about your own mental health instead of the facts of climate science: which is PRECISELY where they wanted to take you. You lose before you even start.

            The only way out is to attack them directly for name-calling and insulting behavior in place of making a valid argument. You can also be pretty confident that any one who starts out like that knows sod all about climate, scientific proof or logic and has probably never opened a single document published by the IPCC.

            Ask them how many polar bears they think there are this year and how their numbers compare to 30 years ago.

      • Anyone who accuses someone of being a “climate denier” has no scientific (or reality) knowledge whatsoever.

        It’s impossible to deny the climate.

      • There’s two groups promoting climate alarmists.
        1) Those who know nothing of science.
        2) Those who know better but are using the climate scare to promote something else. Either their own pocket book, of some form of socialism.

        Which group do you fall into Simon?

        • Where do you put the very large group who have been brainwashed since their formative years into thinking they are “saving the planet”?

          • Jim ==> I place them in the mis-educated. There is hope for them if they have been taught critical thinking skills — otherwise, its a long slog.

          • Considering recent studies showing that urban public schools (a significant share of the populous) are graduating students with, on average, 8th grade reading proficiency and 4th grade math skills, put your money on a long slog Kip.

          • Maybe that says as much about the analysts as it does about the person they are analyzing. The President does at least have an Economics degree from a serious University School.

            I am more inclined to side with those who claim he tends to say what he his thinking at that moment, not that that is his final conclusion.
            “His followers believe what he means, not what he says” is perhaps the best translation I have heard. His opponents will, as one might expect, look to to find the worst meaning in his often casual or lazy comments.

          • As a “follower” I say:
            Action over blather,
            substance over style,
            Results over symbolism,
            What works over appearances,

          • “As a “follower” I say:
            Action over blather,
            substance over style,
            Results over symbolism,
            What works over appearances,”

            To a degree. When is enough enough?

          • He may not be the sharpest knife in the congressional kitchen but at least he knows climate BS when he smells it.

          • I always think those who sign their name on the front of paychecks instead of on the back of paychecks has a lot more on the ball than most everyone else. 🙂

        • There’s a third group. The lazy, busy or naively trusting. Those who are highly intelligent, and do know something about science, but have been so bombarded with AGW via school, the media, politicians and trusted sources (like our national broadcaster) that they assume it’s true, not their area of expertise, and just haven’t bothered to dig deeper and think harder. I fell into that category, and my family and friends do too. I am having a hard time deprogramming them. It was only after the bad winter last year in Europe and North America, and our bumper ski season here, that I started thinking “Hang on a minute…”. When they started to say global warming was causing more ice and snow, after previously scaring us all that our snow fields here would be gone (ten years ago), I smelt a rat. And boy did I find a BIG rat! The psychological manipulation is incredible. Even university educated people like my sister trot out myths like “But CO2 is the highest in earth’s history”. “It’s the rate of change that shows we are causing it”. One friend explained that global warming causes colder weather. I said, “Think about what you just said. Warming causes cooling.” War is Peace. 2 + 2 = 5.

    • So what? If it’s really true, it means that you make no effort to seek out more qualified people to engage with. That’s your fault.

      • Chris, I’m about to wander into the centre of London to spend an hour or so listening to the arguments at Speakers Corner and maybe do a bit of shopping on Oxford Street. I will pass hundreds of people and I can tell you that none of them care less about the CAGW nonsense. If they did, none of them would be using thr fossil-fuel driven public and private transport, or standing under the electric lights in the shops.
        People don’t care about your religion Chris. However, it’s a crime that it’s costing them trillions to prop up your religion.

        • Andy, looks like you are wrong. Unless, that is, that you are only walking past old men from the East Midlands. And your comment that folks must not believe in AGW if they take the bus or train is rubbish. If someone says they believe AGW is real, but still drive a Bentley, are they a hypocrite? Absolutely. But that’s not true of folks who take publich transport to work or for their everyday lives. https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/uk-climate-change-real-accept-majority-global-warming-poll-finds-a7909841.html

          • The Independent. Ho ho!
            “People over 55 were more likely to dispute the evidence than those in younger age groups with 15 per cent falling into this group, the poll found.” Looks like those with real-world experience have a better handle on the truth.
            “The pollsters, commissioned by gocompare.com asked: Do you believe in Global Warming?
            Those who answered, ‘Yes, completely…”
            I’d have answered, “Yes, completely” too.
            Listening to all the myriad of languages spoken on Oxford Street, I can guarantee you that hardly any of them are from the East Midlands.

          • I’m sorry. What was the question again? Did you stop denying climate at the same time you stopped beating your wife?

          • With regards to your comment about driving a Bentley making you a hypocrite. We’ll, you’ve justed written off the globe-trotting Al Gore and Mike Mann and his gang as they fly from on climate gab-fest to another.
            I presume you agree Al, Mike, Naomi, et al are all hypocrites?

          • Yes, Gore is a hypocrite. He buys offsets, but he could do a lot better in terms of his carbon footprint and set an example.

          • Chris

            “Yes, Gore is a hypocrite. He buys offsets”

            A monstrous understatement. As I understand it he set up an investment firm to trade carbon credits. It shut it’s door to new investors when it hit $5Bn.

            This from a tobacco farmer who said himself he wouldn’t stop growing the stuff until he found something else to do.

            And didn’t he just hit on a cracker, scare up global warming then trade on the back of it for personal profit.

            What a toad.

          • HS, you have just given toads a bad rap, please leave them alone, they are completely innocent, even though often undesirable.

          • HotScot – Gore has made little if any money off his green-related investments. Almost all of his wealth came from the sale of Apple stock given in his role as a member of their BoD, and the sale of Current TV, in which he had a large stake. So your statement about personal profit is incorrect.

          • Chris

            You really are a blind adherent to the party line. Gore has run Generation Investment Management for 14 years, he is likely to have made many hundreds of millions from it, if not billions.

            He sold his TV network to Al Jazeera for $100M. Al Jazeera is a Middle Easter big oil funded network and Gore just happily picked up the dirty money he has condemned others for taking and trousered it.

            What an utter hypocritical scum bag.

          • HotScot said “he is likely to have made many hundreds of millions from it, if not billions.”

            It took me 15 seconds to find this. Why not do your own homework?

            GIM invests in undervalued stocks. Note the word stocks. That means publicly listed companies – not green tech startups. You can even see the names of their positions. Names like Microsoft, Thermo Fisher, Acuity. no green tech companies in the list.

            So what you said is false. He did not make his money from green investments.

          • Chris

            You might want to spend a bit more time than it take you to ejaculate reading and understanding about your love Gore. Nowhere did I even suggest he invested in startups, you might want to spend some time reading the comments posted.

            I spent some time reading a number of articles on the unpleasant shyster and he even traded carbon credits to offset the $30,000 energy bill for his 20 bedroom mansion.

            You, on the other hand, just find an article that suits your miserable argument and like everything else you do, sling it up here, misinterpret what others have said and then utterly ignore the rest of the argument presented.

          • Once again, Chris makes a specious claim against a Chris’s false strawman using links that fail to prove Chris’s points or disprove Andy Wilkins’ comment.

            Andy states:

            “I will pass hundreds of people and I can tell you that none of them care less about the CAGW nonsense. If they did, none of them would be using thr fossil-fuel driven public and private transport, or standing under the electric lights in the shops.”

            Chris’s link doesn’t even touch the topic “whether people care” about CAGW. It only questions whether they believe or accept global warming; causes are basically unstated. i.e. blaming “greenhouse gases” means exactly what to individuals?

            The Independent’s article makes many claims; e.g. “Climate change is real”, “global warming”, “caused by greenhouse gases”, believe, etc. etc.
            All, without providing survey questions, or providing survey responses, or supplying the survey’s explicit meanings for terms used, etc. etc.

            Nor does the poll company, Censuswide, cited by the Independent provide any information about their surveys.
            What Censuswide does proved in their “About” statement is illuminating!

            “ABOUT US
            PR is our heritage, and we understand the need to gain good coverage without losing sight of the client’s brand message.”

            In other words, Censuswide will provide the results desired by the paying customer. Which, by copious past evidence, is whatever frightening event, topic or person that the Independent is flogging as imminent doom.

            Andy Wilkin’s summation is proof for his comment:
            “If they did, none of them would be using thr{sic} fossil-fuel driven public and private transport, or standing under the electric lights in the shops”

            Now is the time where Chrissy should tell us how it, personally, grows their own fibers, harvests, cards, twists that fiber into yarn. Then weaves the yarns into clothing.
            Chrissy should also tell us how they grow all of their food and preserves that food for year round consumption.
            All without any use of fossil fuels.

            Chris’s link fails to disprove, or even question, any portion of Kip Hansen’s excellent article.

          • In Chris’s world view, anything he agrees with is unquestionable.
            Anything he disagrees with has already been disproven (by his disagreeing with it of course) and hence not worth talking about.

          • Chris: That would be my initial conclusion about everything that comes out of that corrupt organization.

          • This is a purely “progressives” racist remark. Bashing “Deplorables”. This is a “tell” that you haven’t a thought in your head of your own.

          • Chris, London has big traffic problems, plus there is no parking available for the average John to drive into work – that is why they use public transport. I am sure many CAGW believers would prefer the convenience of driving to work if it was practicable for them to do so.

      • Now that’s funny coming from Chris, who refuses to read anything except what has already been approved by the priests of his religion.

        I really do find it fascinating how socialists just assume that the only reason why everyone isn’t a socialist, is because the rest of us are just ignorant.
        Like Obama declaring that the only reason why so many people didn’t like ObamaCare was because he hadn’t given enough speeches on the subject.

        • MarkW defends the US health care system where we spend more than any other country as a % of GDP, and get worse results. He will fight to the end to defend corporate hospitals, drug companies and insurance companies who are ripping off American consumers!

          • worse results? Up north we have some neighbors who love to fill your head with such nonsense- it’s part of their inferiority complex.
            Every single graduate of McMasters leaves Canada for the USA.
            In Canada, health-care workers made up 43 per cent of SARS cases. Filthy hospitals, eh.
            In Ontario hundreds of patients had prostate biopsies with dirty needles because the instructions on sterilization were in English.
            If you need an MRI in Vancouver- get in line – they only have one and it’s booked ahead for months.
            If you want a fast, cheap CAT scan go to California- they have them in malls there.
            San Francisco CA Low Cost CT Scan for Uninsured or Self Pay $134.28
            Canadians go there all the time.
            Good luck not dying as you wait for treatment by the NIH in London.
            You have noooo idea.

  2. Stating one does not know what causes the changes in climate is enough to get labeled a “denier”. Any doubts in the global warming narrative is doubleplus ungood crimethink, and the True Believers will try to punish you for your heresy.

  3. I deny CAGW and the doom and gloom prophecies of paranoid freaks that happen to be registered book smart.

    • Thirty years of gloom and doom (with countless prophesies fallen by the wayside. What do we have to show for it? More temperate weather, more food and a greener world! I say bring on more greenhouse gasses.

      • Now, Jon, do you see what you did here? You forgot to close your parentheses. Now the rest of the internet is stuck inside your parenthetical black hole, which is inside someone else’s parenthetical black hole, which is inside someone else’s unclosed quote black hole, which is…

        [The mods quickly assist to close the theoretical open parenthetical blackholelessness )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) … .mod]

  4. The true ‘deniers’ are those that cherry-pick their data, or their narrow time period of data, and deny that all other data is relevant, especially since it leads to different conclusions. Especially so if your selective look at the data allows you to re-interpret it’s relationships to other data and redefine understood process. Very well written essay. Clearly lays out the scientific way of looking at this versus the propaganda. Those that most need to read and understand it will refuse to, of course.

    • I agree with you Kip,
      As I have written before I first met John Maunder and in a conversation he told me his role in global weather and his time with the WMO and how he attended the first two climate conferences in Villach and in Rio
      .John and his wife came to stay with me and he addressed a meeting that I chaired on why global warming as it was known then was in his opinion was not a problem and that the world had been as warm as present in the last three climate optimums .He also covered much what you have written here Kip and he was well received .
      Not long after that our elite warmist James Renwick wrote in the New Zealand Herald that the climate optimums where an inconvenient fact that they would like to disprove that they were ever as warm as now.
      John Maunder also told me that methane from livestock was never mentioned at the first two conferences but it was introduced in the Kyoto accord and accepted by politicians .
      I take the same approach as you Kip but when we get activists trying to destroy our farming economy I have to push back .
      Farming leaders in New Zealand are trying to get the facts before the public that methane from livestock is cyclic and is a non problem .
      In a recent farming publication an Australian scientist Mark Howden stated that he had proved that methane was a problem and he had proved it but I can find no record of an experiment .
      I cannot locate this on the internet and I would like to view his proof.
      Thanks again Kip

      • Well said Gwan,

        I can’t believe how much air time the NZ media gives Renwick and never any critical analysis of his alarming views. Just because he represents NIWA to the public doesn’t mean he’s above questioning.
        Are you by any chance going to be at the Porto Skeptics conference in September…it would be good to meet up with a fellow Kiwi there?

      • Happy to be corrected, but I understood the previous 4 Inter-glacials were warmer than today by between 3-5 degrees C!

        • “Happy to be corrected, but I understood the previous 4 Inter-glacials were warmer than today by between 3-5 degrees C!”

          I don’t think we know to that degree (pun maybe intended) of accuracy. Ice cores have their own set of problems as a temperature proxy. The best we can say is “we don’t know”.

      • Gwan ==> Methane is a greenhouse gas with a shortish life-span, breaking down into CO2 and water in under ten years. In water, it is metabolized by bacteria and other wee tiny goblins. This process is much faster when excess methane (such as produced in landfills) is flared or collected and burned to produce heat or power.

      • Here is a paper by Mark Howden claiming:
        Cotton (Gossypium spp.) and canola (Brassica spp.) are significant crops worldwide. Vegetable oil extracted from the seed of these crops offers the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) through conversion into biodiesel to displace GHG associated with fossil-fuel diesel, or, by feeding the oil to cattle to reduce enteric methane emissions.
        See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283507124_What_is_the_best_use_of_oil_from_cotton_Gossypium_spp_and_canola_Brassica_spp_for_reducing_net_greenhouse_gas_emissions-_biodiesel_or_as_a_feed_for_cattle

  5. The Earth’s climate is on a trajectory. It started at the Earth’s formation and ends when the Earth is swallowed by the Sun. On a trajectory, at no time are any two points exactly the same. Climate changes.

    I’m a strong proponent of global warming. There’s plenty of evidence that the alternative is much, much worse. And it costs me a good bit of coin to Snowbird in Florida.

      • There is a lot of space between the stars. Crashing into the Andromeda Galaxy will be an event that is all but unnoticeable for most stars. There will be a few stars that will be flung out of the resultant galaxy, but that will be an even so slow in developing that even if the population of a planet in that solar system were still in the stone age, they would still have plenty of time to develop vehicles capable of crossing the void and move their entire civilization before their sun was complete expelled.

      • Might survive it. Depends — if the solar system is thrown out of the maelstrom in the center (far out into the “tails” of such collisions), might do OK & just watch the radiation-filled show from afar. By that time tho, hopefully should be able to travel outward regardless.

    • But are we sure the hypothesis that the Earth will be consumed by the expanding Sun? The Sun has been expanding constantly and the global temperature record of interglacials tend to average 22 degrees Celsius, with anomalies of glacial periods that average around 12 degrees Celsius and both have fluctuations that tend to be Solar Cycles of various intensities. We only have an observed record – that is sketchy going back a few hundred years – and the measurements of our orbit is younger than that. It would make more sense to conclude that our orbit expands along with the expansion of the Sun.

      And by the way, if the Sun is able to expand, why can’t the Expanding Earth be feasible? Just because Earth formed a crust, doesn’t mean the same physics are not at play. I just don’t buy it that subduction and orogeny answers the plate tectonics movements. And it doesn’t answer the Earth going from around 13 hours to 24 hours or that space dust, meteors and comets has increased the size of Earth.

      • The expansion of the sun as predicted by current theory is event measured in 100’s of millions of years.

        Please spend a few minutes studying why astrophysicists expect the sun to expand, and then spend a few milli-seconds contemplating how none of these processes are in operation here on earth.

        So the fact that plate subduction has been observed is not sufficient to convince you that it is happening.

        The Earth’s rotation slowed down as it transferred that momentum to the moon.

        Yes, infalling debris has increased the size of the earth. But the size of the earth is so big compared to the amount of material being added that it’s not measurable by modern instruments.

      • “…it doesn’t answer the Earth going from around 13 hours to 24 hours…”

        Some say “from around 6 hours” and the “why” is answered: the moon’s a drag.

        Barring some other catastrophe, days will lengthen until both Earth and Moon are tidally locked, like Pluto and Charon.

        Longer days and a more distant moon will definitely affect the weather.

  6. The Warmists are the climate change deniers. They say that the climate would be exactly the same as 1800 if not for man’s CO2 emissions. They deny that the climate could be changing all on its own. In fact, for all we know, in the absence of humans on earth, it might actually be warmer, but I suspect it would be exactly the same because we just aren’t that significant in such a huge system.

    • “The Warmists are the climate change deniers. They say that the climate would be exactly the same as 1800 if not for man’s CO2 emissions. They deny that the climate could be changing all on its own.”

      False. Look at the chart showing forcings used in climate models. Note the plot of natural forcings – it is certainly not a flat line/constant. Note non CO2 related forcings such as land use. Once again, certainly not a flat line/constant.

        • “look how well their projections did on the pause.”

          Because they couldn’t do.
          By definition.
          The single line model projections you see on a graph are the mean of a series of model runs. An ensemble.
          The individual variations in up/downs therefor get averaged out.
          BUT, of course in the case of the pause – it was caused by NV. The lengthy -ve PDO/ENSO regime that gave us a cooler equatorial Pacific for such a lengthy time.
          There is no (current) way for us to forecast that.

          • Averaging the results of multiple models and runs and expecting information is an heretical misuse of the scientific method. Model projections are not any kind of prediction. Also, the error inherent in any model of a chaotic system drives the error to the physical limts of the model in relatively few interations.

          • ‘lengthy -ve PDO/ENSO regime that gave us a cooler equatorial Pacific for such a lengthy time. There is no (current) way for us to forecast that.’ So you admit a natural event is stronger than your “Co2 Rules”

          • If 75 responses out of 15000 surveys constitute 97%, then why can’t invented forcing charts prove the climate models?

          • Mark, you forget that the survey reported 75 came from a subset of 77 respondents (97%) who self-identified as climate scientists. The rest were mere geologists, chemists, physicists, engineers, etc – you know, people with careers in disciplines that have not been taken over by rent-seekers.

          • ray boorman

            Mark, you forget that the survey reported 75 came from a subset of 77 respondents (97%) who self-identified as climate scientists. The rest were mere geologists, chemists, physicists, engineers, etc – you know, people with careers in disciplines that have not been taken over by rent-seekers.

            The 1300 odd self-selected people (of all disciples in the organization) who actually returned the five question survey were SCREENED bywhether they worked for government laboratories or in approved academia bureaucracies.
            Those left were then ranked according to how many papers each was credited writing, or being listed as a co-author. (This favors government department heads, lab heads, and approving officials in the funding chain, since THEY approve the grants for the next year’s budget, and they approve the papers released by their agencies.) .
            With only 97 surviving this pruning and culling, only TWO questions were selected for the “survey of all scientists” you claim is authoritative:
            1. Is the earth climate recently warming?
            2. Is mankind responsible for some part of that warming?

            And, in fact, I too – like the vast majority of those reading this article today – would firmly answer “Yes!” to both questions!

            Open questions of course, remain:

            How much has the earth warmed recently?
            How is that warming properly and accurately measured?
            Is a single average global temperature an appropriate measure of the earth’s climate?
            and how much of the recent warming is due to man’s influence?

            But 97% of the earth’s bureaucratic agencies and politicians deny those questions are relevant to the 3.0 trillion each year they can take as carbon taxes from the industrial Western nations, and the 30 trillion in carbons futures trading the international bankers want to process.

      • Chris, your relying on circular evidence from highly motivated sources actually makes the skeptic case.

          • Mardler – rubbish. This is a grouthink site. Paywalled papers that support AGW which are posted here are criticized even before they have been read. How exactly is that thinking?

          • An analogy might be going out on a blind date. You see this hunchback, with a patch over one eye, limping over towards you, and you have a pretty good idea of what is behind the ‘paywall.’ If you want to spend the evening with that person, more power to you. But most would conclude that they already know enough to make a judgment.

          • Chris ==> I write quite a few essays on studies here and would never ever write about a study that I didn’t have a full-text copy of, which I have read start to finish, and of which I have read the Supplementals.

            To do so would be a waste of my time and the time of the readers.

            It is a Journalistic Crime to write about a Scientific Finding from the university press release, a “news story about”, or an abstract.

          • Kip, then you are the exception. Do this – next time there is a paywalled paper posted on WUWT that supports the AGW position, read the comments.

          • Chris ==> I am not the official appointed WUWT Apologetic. I do read every WUWT essay that attracts my interest. If you’ve been following here from the start, you’ll see that some of my writing strikes readers as too close to “the enemy”….

          • That’s the difference between you and Chris. You are smart enough to find other methods, while Chris assumes that anyone who doesn’t agree with him has already proven himself an idiot.

          • Chris, just reading the summary and methodology of these papers is sufficient to disprove most of them.
            Of course you won’t ever question any paper that supports what you want to believe.

          • You have to remember that in Chris’s mind, anything that supports AGW is proven beyond questioning.
            Merely questioning his pronouncements is sufficient to prove that you are a science denier.

      • A point being missed is, most people are outside the actual scientific research and studies. They are routinely pumped with the constant message of the CAGW alarmist narrative. They rely entirely on what they are told, and given no opportunity to hear counter argument. They don’t understand the issues, but are happy to make the accusation of ”Dnyr” anyway. Usually, a few minuets of enlightenment gets them backpedaling and then the few soundbites they know are put to rest too.
        Again, most people simply aren’t interested enough to jump in any deeper than just repeating what they’ve been told. (Only now, they are repeating what I told them. :).)
        This whole CAGW/ Climate change alarm lives or dies according to the political will behind it. Once it looses the popular public support, it is over. That just takes time. People are tired of being told the sky is falling.

        • Eamon ==> Truthfully, many people don’t have the background scientific knowledge necessary to read even abstracts — these people depend on Honest Brokers of scientific knowledge to interpret the studies for them.

          Some of the authors here try to do this — it is not an easy task and is very time consuming.

          That said, many/most people are more comfortable going with whatever they perceive as the flow in their peer group.

          • Chris

            The sceptics evidence is that after at least 40 years of claims of imminent catastrophe, nothing has happened.

            And as its you alarmists who are making these insane claims, it’s up to you to provide the evidence.

            We are sceptical of anything you say because you can’t empirically demonstrate the underlying claim that CO2 causes global warming.

          • The fact that the models have proven that they can’t model climate.

            PS: If they can’t model the earth regionally, they aren’t modeling the earth. The claim that the models can be wrong for each and every region, but still be right for the earth as a whole may be enough to satisfy the acolytes, but it just shows that you aren’t doing science.

      • Chris

        Show us the empirical evidence that demonstrates CO2 causes the planet to warm.

        Can’t do it, can you Chris.

      • The self delusion is strong in this one.

        The chart of forcings used in climate models was invented by the same people who created the climate models, and the values in them were picked to help the climate models produce that the politicians were paying for.

      • The second sentence in the summary of your referenced article states: “Note that the forcings are estimates that may be revised as new information or better understandings of the source data become available”

        In other words, the basis for the supposedly accurate models, is itself an unknown, as the summary states, “Quantifiying the actual forcing within a global climate model is quite complicated and can depend on the baseline climate state. This is therefore an additional source of uncertainty.”

        Regardless, no model can be definitive unless it is verified with actual, unbiased data. That is not what is happening. Unfortunately too many people (some of them, even more unfortunately, are “scientists”). Instead the data is manipulated, often to come closer to the models and even adjusted data doesn’t match the models very well. A purely observational science like climate “science’ (in quotes becuuse very little of what is labelled climate “science” these days is actually science) is difficult since controlled experiments with well defined initial conditions are impossible. To take then easy way and create some models, then claim they represent the real world is not real science. To be real science the model must describe the exact measurements to be made and any averages, etc. which the model is to match. This is not even attempted.

        A final point: No-one should be disrupting the global economy and trying to eliminate the source of energy which drives modern society without an iron clad case that the disruption will definitely accomplish an essential goal and that the intended solution will not cause more problems than it causes. In other terms, the precautionary principle operates in exactly the opposite direction from that claimed by the warmists. The current situation seems to me like demanding everyone undergo chemotherapy because they might contract cancer.

      • False. Look at the chart showing forcings used in climate models

        When the models actually can model the Earth’s climate and make predictions/projections that actually are accurate, then and only then can you be taken seriously when saying to look at anything to do with the climate models. As the models and their predictions/projections have consistently and spectacularly failed, they (and you) are a joke.

    • Do we want the temperature to be the same as the early 1800s?
      The Little Ice Age, cold weather, exacerbated by volcanic eruptions.
      The year without a summer in 1816.
      Give me the present climate any time.
      Incidentally the UK hot spell has broken and we are starting to get some proper rain, just in time for the August Bank Holiday! I just hope it knows when to stop!

  7. The original study/survey that started the 97% meme was:

    Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

    There were two questions:

    1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

    2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

    Based on my answers

                 “Yes global temperatures have risen and human
                 activity, not just CO2, should be a factor.”

    I would fall into the 97%, however, I don’t agree that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide or methane constitute a problem that requires me or anyone else to change their basic life style, but Doran and Zimmerman didn’t ask that, so their study is essentially meaningless as it applies to me.

    Then we get into the propaganda, data manipulation, politics, censorship, bullshit and lies.

    • My question, from when Doran and Zimmerman published, was what was their definition of the somewhat ambiguous word “significant”. Presumably they studied science and statistics and at the start were surveying 10,000 geo-scientists.

      When interpreted in the vernacular, a majority of people assume “significant” means “a measurably LARGE amount” (e.g. The venture produced significant profits.).

      A statistician would answer ” yes, CO2 is a CONTRIBUTING factor”, no matter how small, if its effect is something other than mere chance. (both definitions from Merriam Webster).

      The alarmists (including former President Obama) have then expanded the response to “is CO2 a ‘significant’ CONTRIBUTING factor” to mean it is the ONLY factor.

      (And they added a bonus interpretation: “97% of scientists think the temperature rise will be CATASTROPHIC”, a point not included in the survey!)

    • 43 studies that have wasted taxpayer dollars on asking why a fairy tale isn’t believed. Boggles the mind.

      • Not when you consider this is marketing, not science. The global warming people failed in proving their case, so now they are desperately trying to market a lemon. Taxpayer dollars are used because taxpayer dollars are the ultimate goal of the global warming crew. Temperatures have nothing to do with the whole scam.

  8. We need a simple test to determine whether someone is a witch or not. I mean a denier. Let’s see, a duck floats…

  9. Q “Why do you deny climate change?”
    A Can you ask a sensible question so that I’m not wasting my time explaining my self to a gullible twit.

    • In my experience when this question is asked you are not being asked whether you believe in climate change. Often what is actually being asked is whether you believe in imminent cataclysmic temperature and environmental effects from CO2 level increases.

      • When asked if you believe in Climate Change, you should ask the questioner just exactly what they mean by Climate Change because there is more than one description for climate change. The questioner needs to get more specific.

    • Exactly. The climate has warmed. What proportion of the warming is due to natural causes and what is anthropogenic is not quantifiable. To claim otherwise is to deny the basics of science. We are all entitled to a guess. It would be nice if those using models to make their guess could acknowledge that it is just that, another guess.

        • Using as his evidence a paper which states that the forcings are “estimates”, “subject to change” and a weak link in the modeling.

      • Of course it’s an estimate. Tell me, Doug, how would you precisely measure the change in global forcing due to changes in farming practices (for example, the switch from tilling to zero tilling)? Or the impact of aerosols in the atmosphere?

        We don’t have a second Earth where we can do lab experiments, switching knobs to eliminate aerosols from the environment, and then see how that impacts forcing. Then switching another know to roll back changes in farm practices to see that impact.

        So scientists take measurements – for example, looking at the change in albedo and surface level humidity due to changes in farming practices – and then extrapolate that. Is it precise out to the nth degree? No, but it’s a good estimate.

        And if you say it is not, explain why. And explain what alternative method you would propose to better measure or estimate forcings.

      • ” It would be nice if those using models to make their guess could acknowledge that it is just that, another guess.”

        And they could also acknowledge that their scary CAGW models don’t match reality.

      • Exhibit ‘A’ would be Dr. Michael Mann who, with his bogus hockey stick, tried to wipe out all the natural variability in the last millennium.

      • So Kristi, how much of the current warming is natural and how much man-made? Real data please, not models. I await your answer.

          • I don’t need to. I’m not making wild claims about increasing CO2 levels driving us towards thermageddon.
            Chris, have you got the data that shows the amount of natural and amount of man-made warming? Cos if you haven’t, you’ve got no reason to get your knickers in a twist about a totally beneficial trace gas #plamtfood

          • Andy,
            ‘I’m not making wild claims about increasing CO2 levels driving us towards thermageddon.’

            Nor did I.

            I don’t know how much is man-made and how much is natural. I’m not sure anyone claims to know that amount.

          • Given the FACT that CO2 concentrations have been at levels that are 10 to 15 times then the levels we are enjoying now, with temperatures that were the same as now, and lower, it’s hard to believe that adding a few hundred ppm is going to have much of an affect.

          • The sun gains power by one percent every 110 million years.

            Thus, when CO2 was about 4500 ppm (11 times now) 440 million years ago, the sun was 96% as powerful as now, yet there was an ice age.

          • Kristi, I appreciate your answer”I don’t know how much is man-made and how much is natural.” This makes you a lukewarmer and not an alarmist.
            The alarmists, most prominently, are the IPCC and people like M.Mann who claim, erroneously, that CO2 is the control knob.

            This makes you not unlike perhaps the majority of people who frequent this blog. I wish people here would focus on that and stop demonizing those that maybe show some skepticism about some forms of skepticism itself. Skepticism should work both ways. Those claiming to be skeptics should be less sensitive about showing that their skepticism is based on facts.

          • Spalding Craft,

            I’m not sure what you mean by “control knob.” I very highly doubt Mann would deny that there is natural variation, if that’s what you mean.

            I want to be clear about my position. I do believe that CO2 has an effect on global climate. I also believe that there is good evidence that some of the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere are negative, and that it will become more apparent over time. Some effects are also positive, and the effects are/will be regionally variable. But the faster the global temperature rises, and the more its does so, the harder it will be for humans and non-human biota to adapt.

            There has always been, and always will be natural variation. I believe it’s likely that the variation will become more extreme because of the additional effects of global warming.

            There is significant evidence that precipitation episodes are becoming more intense. There is some evidence that droughts are becoming more prolonged, but for various reasons this is hard to determine with confidence. Record high temperatures are becoming more common relative to their likelihood, and this is a health risk. Plants and animals are responding to changed climate. There is some evidence that hurricanes are becoming more intense. Apparently tornadoes are more often occurring in clusters, though overall they are not becoming more common.
            (See http://www.pnas.org/content/108/44/17905 for an interesting analysis of the likelihood of record temperatures – or http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/11/on-record-breaking-extremes/ for a more accessible explanation)

            (This is an article about attribution of weather extremes to climate change. Those who believe that all computer models of climate are bunk won’t be interested – you don’t have to tell me. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05849-9)

            There are varying amounts of evidence that such extremes have become more common. I think it’s likely that the evidence will become stronger – although perhaps not in the next few decades, since there is a weakening of solar irradiation expected.

          • Kristi,

            Have you really not read these 2010 and 2013 papers on CO2 as the “control knob” on climate? Note please the authors.

            Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature

            Andrew A. Lacis*, Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind, Reto A. Ruedy


            The role of long-lived greenhouse gases as principal LW control knob that governs the global surface temperature for past and future climate change

            Andrew A. Lacis, James E. Hansen, Gary L. Russell, Valdar Oinas & Jeffrey Jonas


          • Chris,

            Not surprisingly, you demonstrate that you don’t understand how science works.

            “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”


            Occam’s Razor suggests that the post-glacial warming is adequately explanatory for the post-industrial warming, and unless there is extraordinary evidence to the contrary one should accept that “There is nothing to see here. Move on!”

          • Clyde,

            How does post-glacial warming explain post-industrial warming? Even if the warming were continuous, that wouldn’t *explain* anything… but it wasn’t. As I said elsewhere, even the graphs provided by Kip show that there were about 150 years before 1900 where there is no increasing temperature trend.

            The claim that the Earth has been generally warming since about 1900 (with natural ups and downs) is not extraordinary at all. It’s supported by data. The simplest explanation is increased atmospheric CO2: it provides theoretical and observational evidence, and there is no other plausible mechanism to account for it. Occam’s Razor would support that sooner than the claim that the majority of the world’s climate scientists are colluding to commit fraud, or are victims of “groupthink,” supporting a partisan agenda to institute global government. Would skeptics of AGW claim that Exxon (aka Humble) scientists in the 1970-80s were in on it, too?

          • “The simplest explanation is increased atmospheric CO2”

            The simplest explanation is the null hypotheses which is to say it is a natural change in the climate. Given that the climate has been at least this hot in the past makes natural climate change a plausible explanation. Any other explanation requires proof that it exists and that it is strong enough to override natural changes in the climate.

          • RicDre, it also requires proof that whatever caused the recent warming isn’t in operation this time as well.

            Without the aid of CO2, the planet has been warmer than it is at present for over 90% of the last 10K years. It takes a will suspension of disbelief to believe that CO2 is the only possible explanation for the current, mild, and extremely welcome warming.

          • “RicDre, it also requires proof that whatever caused the recent warming isn’t in operation this time as well.”

            Good Point.

          • RicDre,

            The null hypothesis is random variability without any trend. Any trend in climate change has something driving it.

            AGW doesn’t “override” anything. The natural variation is there, but AGW has an additional effect. If the natural trend is toward cooling, you might see no temperature trend if AGW cancels it out. Natural high temps could become higher through the effects of AGW (though this depends of region, since AGW doesn’t always make it hotter everywhere.)

          • Kristi,

            Nope. The null hypothesis isn’t random.

            It is that nothing special is happening now outside of previously observed natural fluctuations, which are cyclical on many time scales. Hence, no special explanation or forcing need be invoked.

            The null hypothesis can’t be rejected.

          • The null hypothesis has not been proven with regards to the climate changes we are experiencing. Whenever I asked commenters here why it is warming now, they say “we have no idea.” So, in other words, they don’t know the cause. But they know with absolute certainty that nearly all of it is natural.

          • If the simplest explanation was CO2 as you have been trained to believe, then temperature levels would have moved up in lock step with CO2 levels.
            The reality is that there has been no correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures over the last 200 years. Nor has there been at any time interval you care to investigate.

            The majority of the world’s climate scientists aren’t in on it. As you would see if you actually examined their work.

            As to your willingness to spread and believe lies, your last sentence condemns you again. For you the data doesn’t matter, it’s all a matter of believing what you have been told to believe.

            PS: The claim that Exxon scientists bought into the scam is easily disproven by just reading what they wrote. Something that you have never bothered to do.

          • “If the simplest explanation was CO2 as you have been trained to believe, then temperature levels would have moved up in lock step with CO2 levels.”

            Only if you’re dumb enough to think there’s no natural variation.

            Wrong again, MarkW, as usual.

          • “The claim that the Earth has been generally warming since about 1900 (with natural ups and downs) is not extraordinary at all.”

            Saying it has generally been warming since 1900 is a little misleading. What actually happened is the climate warmed from 1910 to 1940, then the climate cooled from 1940 to 1980, reaching nearly the same low as was reached in 1910, and then the climate warmed from 1980 to the present at the same magnitude as the warming from 1910 to 1940, and to date, the current temperatures have not exceeded the tempertures in the 1930’s.

            So the “Ups and Downs” are much more important to the story than alarmists make them out to be.

            The “generally warming” meme is misleading. It has not been generally warming since 1900. That implies a steady upward increase in temperatures which is just not happening, except in the bogus, bastardized surface temperature charts.

            Here’s the Hansen 1999 chart, it doesn’t show “general warming”. Combine this chart with the UAH satellite chart for the full picture on the temperature trend.

            Remember these key points: 1934 was 0.5C warmer than 1998, acording to Hansen 1999, which makes 1934 0.4C warmer than 2016, the socalled “Hottest Year Evah!”, according to UAH, which means we have been in a temperature downtrend since the 1930’s. Calling it “general warming” is a distortion of reality.


          • The U.S. temperature profile looks just like the unmodified temperature profile of other areas around the world such as Finland (see chart below), which is halfway around the world from the U.S. yet the Finland chart shows the 1930’s as being as warm or warmer than subsequent years, just like the U.S. temperature chart (Hansen 1999) I used.


            Unmodified temperature charts from around the world look similar to the Hansen 1999 U.S. chart. None of the unmodified charts look like the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick surface temperature charts that are used to sell the CAGW narrative.

            So which temperature profile best represents reality? The U.S. chart, which resembles unmodified charts from around the world, or the bogus Hockey Stick chart which doesn’t resemble anything other than itself?

            The Hockey Stick chart does resemble the CO2 chart but that is a deliberate modification of the temperature record to make it look like the rise of CO2 corrolates with the rising temperatures. Those Climategate co-conspirators were very clever with their fraud, but not clever enough. They left the old records still available. Now the alarmists want to act like the old records have no value. And we know why: Because they want us to bleive their lies and worship the Hockey Stick.

          • It’s up to those who are demanding that the entire world’s economy be changed to provide evidence that this change is necessary.

        • The models say that 3 times as much warming should have occurred from 1999-2008 than actually occurred.


          Since 1998, 95% of the models predicted more warming than actually occured.

          Remote Sensing Systems

          The “climate” (30-yr avg. temp.) is not particularly anomalous.


          It’s clearly obvious that the models underestimate natural variability and/or overestimate climate sensitivity to CO2.

          • Kaufmann et al. 2011 ends in 2008 because that’s what they modeled: 1999-2008, 1 decade.

            The RSS graph is through 2017.

            My graph is through about 2000 because it is a 30 year running average in order to reflect climate rather than weather and make the resolution of HadCRUT4 instrumental reconstruction somewhat comparable to the resolution of the proxy reconstruction.

          • The obvious thing to do would be to provide more recent data, and a graph that didn’t start in 1998. Damages your credibility.

            Your graph is for the NH only. Regardless, the rate of rise does indeed look exceptional compared to the reconstruction.

            Isn’t the yellow graph TLT? Sure would be nice if you provided a source. Besides, the fact that part of the observations are outside the 95% range doesn’t mean “95% of the models predicted more warming than actually occured”


            This is also a nice discussion of models and natural variability.
            “There is a saying in science that ‘all models are wrong, but some models are useful’. In simulating any complex system, any model will fail to reproduce all facets of the system perfectly.

            …’To understand what’s happening, it is critical to realise that the climate changes for a number of reasons in addition to CO₂. These include solar variations, volcanic eruptions and human aerosol emissions.

            “The influence of all these ‘climate drivers’ are included in modern climate models. On top of this, our climate also changes as a result of natural and largely random fluctuations – like the El Nino Southern Oscillation, ENSO and the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, [IPO] – that can redistribute heat to the deep ocean (thereby masking surface warming).

            “Such fluctuations are unpredictable beyond a few months (or possibly years), being triggered by atmospheric and oceanic weather systems. So while models do generate fluctuations like ENSO and IPO, in centennial scale simulations they don’t (and wouldn’t be expected to) occur at the same time as they do in observations.”

            Other graphs:

            “Comparison of a large set of climate model runs (CMIP5) with several observational temperature estimates. The thick black line is the mean of all model runs. The grey region is its model spread. The dotted lines show the model mean and spread with new estimates of the climate forcings. The coloured lines are 5 different estimates of the global mean annual temperature from weather stations and sea surface temperature observations. ”

          • Probably because that was all the data that was available when the graph was published in 2010! If you have an update that tells a different story, feel free to post it. However, with the exception of the exceptional 2016 El Nino, it has been pretty much ‘business as usual’ the last 10 years.

          • Clyde – Kristi was kind enough to do just that. It shows it has certainly not been “business as usual” for the last 10 years.

          • Chris,

            Yes, about 5 hours after I made the suggestion, Kristi posted some graphs. As I see them, a linear regression does a reasonable job of describing the trend since the early 1960s — i.e. business as usual. Although, with the exception of the most recent El Nino event (not directly CO2 related) the last decade has been flatter than the previous decades. Therein lies the problem. The variations are unrelated to variations in CO2 emissions! To properly ascertain correlations, time series should be de-trended. Did you read the link I provided above about spurious correlations?

            Picking increments of years divisible by 10 for decadal averages is an artifact of when we think Christ was born. A better approach would be to look for trends in the temperatures and select decades out of those without concern about whether the numbers are divisible by 10. Another example of how poorly climatologists analyze data!

          • Clyde, if global temperatures are climbing, then the baseline upon which El Nino’s occur will cause the El Nino peaks to be higher. So you can’t dismiss El Nino spikes as being unrelated or irrelevant to AGW.

          • You don’t know that the degree of warming in the latest El Ninos wasn’t affected by climate change.

            There is variability, sure. There is not only natural variability, but variability in patterns of human actions that could influence temps. – there’s evidence that aerosols from pollution and volcanic activity caused the mid-century cooling, for example.

            “Picking increments of years divisible by 10 for decadal averages is an artifact of when we think Christ was born. A better approach would be to look for trends in the temperatures and select decades out of those without concern about whether the numbers are divisible by 10. ”

            You aren’t a scientist, are you?

            It makes absolutely no different whether “the numbers are divisible by 10.” It’s not like climate cares what decade it is, or whether the trend is from 1993-2002. Looking for trends in temperature would bias the effect they are illustrating.

            Are you Chaamjamal?

            If one is going to look at the relationship between CO2 and climate statistically, many factors would have to be taken into account, which is why there are complex climate models.

          • Chris

            The middle chart goes up to around now i.e. 2018.

            What kind of scientist are you if you can’t see or count?

      • Technically, Kristi you are right. Most of the time, most alarmists like Mann, Hansen, Gore, Schmidt, Obama, Clinton, Merkel, Macron, Trudeau, …, do not explicitly deny natural variability. The denial is implicit. They propose the magical thinking that natural factors that were capable of driving snowball earth and hothouse earth periods in the past, have been totally overwhelmed by a 0.014% increase in a minor trace gas, even though that trace gas has been at least ten times higher in concentration during the past.

        To explicitly acknowledge the implications of their alarmist premise would be self-defeating to their propaganda.

        • They mimimize natural variability and call anyone who disagrees with them a clumate denier.

        • Rich Davis

          My understanding is that man made CO2 as a proportion of the entire atmosphere is ~0.0012%.

          • Yes, probably, but I was referring to the change in CO2 concentration overall, including natural causes.

            I suppose you can make the case that the magical thinking makes a distinction between harmless all-natural CO2 and deadly human-generated CO2. (Because after all, they are totally different at the metaphysical molecular scale. One has a pure and holy soul, the other is stained by the sin of human association needless to say). Maybe that’s the incantation that negates the fact that earth had CO2 levels much higher than today during ice ages.

        • “They propose the magical thinking that natural factors that were capable of driving snowball earth and hothouse earth periods in the past, have been totally overwhelmed by a 0.014% increase in a minor trace gas, even though that trace gas has been at least ten times higher in concentration during the past.”

          No “they” dont – it is well known/accepted that orbital variations caused most large climate variations and that carbon dioxide was a feedback into the process.

          O3 is also a “minor trace gas” but yet it stops the Earth frying from UV radiation.

          The “past” is just that, the past, when the Earth was a very different planet,
          What was the albedo?
          What was the Sun’s output?
          What was the continental configuration?
          Ocean currents or lack of?

          • Oh AnthonyB, you bore me. You raise some examples of valid natural factors and then revert to the magical thinking that this time none of those factors matter. Don’t you know that CO2 is the master control knob for the climate? What difference should ocean currents or continental drift have compared to the omnipotence of CO2? Albedo and the sun? What does the sun have to do with earth’s climate? Is there CO2 in the sun? /sarc

        • No, natural variability has not been “overwhelmed” – that’s obvious. The effects of CO2 overlay the natural variability. It makes no sense, for example, to assume that recent el Ninos would have been as strong as they were if not for AGW. Perhaps they would have, but to assume so would be denying the possibility that natural variability is affected by AGW.

          To me the term “alarmist,” applied to anyone and everyone who believes that AGW poses a problem or advocates for change, is just as bad as calling all skeptics “deniers.” In what way is Schmidt, for example, an alarmist? Does he predict a sea level rise of meters by 2050? Does he say that all hurricanes are a result of AGW? Or what? (I don’t know the answer. Serious question.)

          The problem is that while “denier” may not be suitable, neither is “skeptic.” There are plenty of people who practice skepticism but accept the theory of AGW. It seems to me that many AGW “skeptics” do not apply their skepticism adequately to evidence that supports their ideas, and are very quick to condemn research that either supports or assumes AGW as fact, even if it isn’t about climate change at all.

          This is the problem with labels and generalizations: few labels capture the variety of ideas held by the people to which they are applied. Some skeptics are well-defined as “deniers,” just as some alarmists are truly unrealistic and promote propaganda.

          • Kristi ==> If you want to know what Gavin Schmidt thinks or says, you’ll have to read his blog: RealClimate which he and other government employees create and maintain on your tax dollars.

          • “No, natural variability has not been “overwhelmed” – that’s obvious.”

            I agree

            “The effects of CO2 overlay the natural variability.”

            The magnitude of this overlay is not proven and may well be zero.

          • “It makes no sense, for example, to assume that recent el Ninos would have been as strong as they were if not for AGW”

            Null hypothesis mean anything to you Kristi?

            Does it make any sense, for example, to assume that recent forest fires would have been as big as they were if not for phlogiston?


          • “The effects of CO2 overlay the natural variability.”

            I am compelled to ask the question: What climate effects of CO2? Is there any evidence that CO2 is affecting the climate? No, none that I can see, and I feel confident in saying that noone will provde me with any because there is no evidence to provide

            CAGW is a fantasy scenario created by the Climategate co-conspriators (and you know who you are). They have perpetrated a fraud on the world.

  10. I have often been asked “Why do you deny climate change?” I am always stumped by the question. It is rather like being asked “Why do you torture innocent animals?” The questioner is not merely asking for information, they are always making an accusation…

    Yes, that question, or accusation, is a real insult on many levels assuming you are just some ignorant na-zi sympathizer. It is not only an insult, but also comes from a position of some type of intellectual or moral superiority, before they have even started a discussion to actually know what your position is. And then there is the Natural Variation issue, in that the climate is always, and has always been changing. That is what climate does, and is implicitly changing otherwise it wouldn’t even really be climate. Climate and weather are dynamic processes and by default they are always changing. Usually going in some sort of cycle. We seek to truthfully understand why it changes, when and how much. I feel the same way that it is a loaded statement, and sort of an ignorant one too. Sort of like asking someone if they believe in climate change…it is like asking someone if they believe in winter.

    • Oy vey. The questioner may have phrased it poorly, but honestly wanted to know. To read into it all kinds of hidden meanings could simply be part of YOUR thought processes, not theirs. It depends on how it’s asked.

      • Yes Kristi, you just proved my point…wanting to demonize someone that doesn’t hold your exact world view.

        • You are both right. Some alarmists are on a high horse while others are simply curious about skeptics.

          • Alan Tomalty said:

            “Some alarmists are on a high horse while others are simply curious about skeptics.”

            And, a lot of them aren’t alarmists. I get called an alarmist. Nick Stokes gets called an alarmist.

            When I ask what have either of us done that is alarmist, the usual answer is something along the lines of “well, you refuse to acknowledge that whatever I declare to be a hoax is a hoax, so therefore you are alarmist!”

          • No alarm = no problem.
            So, let’s give up the obsession with CO2, stop wasting trillions on green crap, and spend it instead on raising the world’s poor out of poverty and misery.

          • Anybody that believes in CAGW is by definition an alarmist. If you only believe in AGW then there is no problem and why are the politicians trying to limit CO2 increases? Why does this website even exist if there are no alarmists? It is because all the politicians and media and people like yourself think the world has a problem. THE WORLD DOES NOT HAVE A PROBLEM. The atmosphere needs more CO2 NOT less. If you disagree with what I am saying you are an alarmist.

          • Does one have to predict catastrophe to believe there is a problem? Are those who believe the latest hurricane is a sign of global warming the same as those who believe the potential impacts of AGW should be considered in policy?

            Are those who automatically dismiss all evidence of global warming properly called “skeptics”? What about those who refuse to believe that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can have any effect on global temperatures?

            It’s a logical fallacy to think that people fall into discrete camps that can be defined by labels. Labels are simply a convenience; it’s when people fail to recognize this that problems arise.

            If skeptics want to stop being called “deniers” because the term is inappropriate, they should also stop calling “alarmists” anyone who believes AGW is not wholly benign. Why expect others to be reasonable when you are not reasonable yourself?

          • Kristi ==> Would you help out the conversation by prefacing your comments with some kind of label as to whom you are addressing?
            You can’t count on the threads to make this plain.
            If you are not addressing someone in particular, then you should start a new comment (use form at top of the comment section).
            Otherwise, it is like shouting into a group of people gathered at a party….

            I know, not enough other people do it, but it really needs to be done….thanks.

            (Other commenters take note — this applies to almost everyone here.)

          • “Kristi ==> Would you help out the conversation by prefacing your comments with some kind of label as to whom you are addressing?
            You can’t count on the threads to make this plain.”

            Good point. Posts on these new threads can sometime bounce around out of sequence and it is sometimes difficult to know which post is addressing what.

            It would help to put a name or a quote in the post to let others know what you are referring to.

          • “If skeptics want to stop being called ‘deniers’ because the term is inappropriate, they should also stop calling ‘alarmists’ anyone who believes AGW is not wholly benign. Why expect others to be reasonable when you are not reasonable yourself?”

            I agree with this comment, though I don’t think skeptics fired the first shot in this name-calling battle. In any case, I believe most skeptics would love to have a civil Red-Team/Blue-Team discussion of this issue but there appears to be much less enthusiasm for this kind of discussion among the Global Warming proponents.

          • The term “denier” was chosen because of its application to holocaust deniers. It’s an intentionally inflammatory term that is meant in a derogatory manner.

            The term “alarmist” is merely descriptive, in an accurate manner.

          • Kristi,
            I suggest that you do an online search and see when the two terms (denier & alarmist) first started showing up. My sense is that “alarmist” was a response to being called “denier.”

            My definition of a “skeptic” would be anyone who calls out the consensus claims, regardless of the particular claim.

          • Clyde,
            “My definition of a “skeptic” would be anyone who calls out the consensus claims, regardless of the particular claim.”

            That says a lot. It doesn’t matter what the claims, skeptics are going to “call it out”? What does that mean, exactly? Why would a skeptic only do this with “consensus” claims? Doesn’t that indicate bias?

            I don’t care which came first, denier or alarmist. Reacting by finding a comparable insult is just lowering oneself to the opposition’s level.

          • If you are alarmed enough to demand that CO2 production be radically curtailed, then you are an alarmist.

          • Philip Schaeffer

            The easy way round being called an alarmist is, of course, to produce credible empirical studies which demonstrate CO2 causes global warming. There must surely be numerous papers over the last 40 years or so.

            Strangely, no one I have asked that question of can produce one including Chris and Kristi.

            On that basis alone, those claiming CO2 causes climate change is an alarmist.

          • Kristi Silber

            On the other hand, you don’t have the evidence and think its clever to evade the subject rather than say, as an honest scientist would, “You’re right HotScot, I don’t have the evidence”.

            But that would just stick in your craw, wouldn’t it Kristi?

          • “… simply curious about skeptics.”

            Like someone who can’t resist the Freak Show at a carnival?

          • Kristi,
            I consider myself to be a skeptic. I have no problem being self-deprecating if it illustrates a point.

        • “climate is always, and has always been changing. That is what climate does, and is implicitly changing otherwise it wouldn’t even really be climate. ”
          Correct on a regional level.
          Incorrect on a global level UNLESS there is an obvious driver.
          More energy in OR more energy being retained.
          The only one current is the latter.
          To simply say it’s just climate doing what it has always done ignores 150+ years of empirical science (that CO2 is a GHG) and as such drives climate when it comes first, and amplifies change when coming second (feedback).

          “wanting to demonize someone that doesn’t hold your exact world view.”
          Kristi did not “demonise” you.
          Just posed an alternative interpretation – you know, the word “could”?

          • And YOU “could” be – a child molester, a wife beater, a rapist, a stamp collector;
            …now, all YOU have to do is prove that you’re not.

            That’s how demonetization works.

          • Obviously saveenergy meant demonization, not demonetization.

            Oh he’s had an auto-correct spell-check mishap, quick, let’s jump all over that so that we don’t need to acknowledge the valid point!

          • “Incorrect on a global level UNLESS there is an obvious driver.”


            I’m not sure how obvious the drivers between the HCO and Minoan, Roman and Mediaeval warm periods are, let alone before those, but what you basically say is that such reasons don’t apply to last 150 years. OK, good, that’s your opinion, but showing it is obvious, is, eh, not so obviously done.

            The panic button depends on believing in unprecedented, fast warming such that CO2 is explaining 150% or more of it. (See Curry-Schmidt on ‘more than half’)

            Kip, thanks for this down to Earth, simple statement of your position. I largely agree and feel the same, though I don’t take climate into discussions with any greenie friends and family because they’d just become hostile for merely disagreeing on policy. So I’m not called as a denialist for supporting nuclear instead of wind and solar. I just try to vote for parties that couldn’t care less on building wind + solar. And that leaves me about one, populist possibility. Sad is that.

          • I don’t know about the other periods, but the MWP was not as warm as many believe if you look at the Earth as a whole.

            There is evidence that it occurred at a time of higher solar radiation and lower volcanic activity, neither of which apply to the last 150 years.

            I think you mean 50% or more.

          • The Sun is the primary Climate driver for the Earth, as demonstrated a few years back when the UK Wet Office announced a’la back page, that the Earth may experience colder than usual winters over the next 30-35 years becuase the Sun is in “shut-down” mode, but of course it wouldn’t affect long-term man-made Globul Warming. An announcement made by highly paid public sector workers around middle-age who would be merrily retired on big fat juicy pensions when the time came!

          • Alan the Brit

            Fret not mate, the catastrophic 0.0012% of CO2 man has added to the atmosphere will overcome any effect from that puny sun.

          • “Incorrect on a global level UNLESS there is an obvious driver.”

            You have to do the null hypothesis experimental studies to find the answer to that one. So far the climate scientists have not done this . All they have done is worship their computer models which are programmed to project warming with increased CO2. Therefore you cannot do a proper null hypothesis experiment with the computer climate models. Climate science has been reduced to hand waving and alarmism.

          • There are other ways to do science besides experiments testing a null hypothesis. Since we only have one Earth to study, how would you propose conducting such an experiment?

            “All they have done is worship their computer models which are programmed to project warming with increased CO2” Evidence?

          • Science can only be done using a null hypothesis. Small scale laboratories would have to be set up with a real land surface and another one with a real water surface. The laboratories would have to be large enough to have clouds forming as in a cloud chamber and different levels of CO2 injected . If this doesnt work then it is impossible to duplicate the real earth atmosphere. But that doesnt justify spending trillions of dollars on a guess.

          • Alan –

            I see. So you create models. And separate the water from the land. And have a big heat lamp for the sun I suppose? Populate it with little tiny model people and little tiny model cornfields and forests? You could have a little choo-choo, with a bridge and a station!

          • Anthony, so the whole earth did not warm up between 2016 and 2017?
            The whole earth does not warm up and cool down when the oceanic cycles change their phase for 30 to 60 years at a time?
            What caused the little ice age?
            What caused the Mideival, Roman and Minoan warm periods?
            What caused the Holocene optimum?

            PS, why does it have to be an obvious driver? Is it not possible that we don’t understand how climate works as well as the high priests tell us we do?

          • What should be obvious, but clearly eludes the consensus crew such as Anthony, is that the atmosphere is the tail and the ocean is the dog. The heat capacity of the atmosphere is trivial compared to the oceans. Short- and long-term oscillations of the ocean cool and heat the air. It doesn’t violate any physical laws or energy balance for it to be a widespread or global effect. The global atmosphere is nothing compared to the ocean.

            And CO2 is the flea on the tail of the dog.

          • Rich,

            That’s why the oceans are included in the models. It’s no news that they are a heat sink. But to say that the atmosphere is of secondary importance does not recognize its role in the energy balance of the planet as a whole. It’s like saying the oceans are more important than the variation in radiation from the Sun.

          • Anthony Banton

            Kindly produce the “empirical” studies that demonstrate CO2 causes climate change. Nor do I mean laboratory studies or modelled examples.

            And if you want a ‘laboratory’ discussion:

            John Tyndall himself 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.”

          • Anthony Banton ==> “UNLESS there is an obvious driver.” What this means in plain language is “Unless we know what is causing it to change…”

            We don’t know what caused past changes when the current meme, “anthropogenic CO2”, wasn’t in play.

            Claiming that “but this time it is CO2″ is not a strong scientific argument. I’ll explain more in Part 2.

          • Kip,

            “We don’t know what caused past changes when the current meme, “anthropogenic CO2”, wasn’t in play” We have some pretty good evidence-based hypotheses for at least some changes. The solar cycles are important, for example.

          • Kristi ==> Having hypotheses is not the same as “having some pretty good evidence”. Hypotheses, or possibilities, it could have been’s — all these are not evidence.
            Of course solar cycles must affect climate — but we are not sure how, in what ways, they do so. Some think solar is the big control knob, some think we’re headed for a solar minimum and a global cooling, some think certain solar factors change the general cloudiness of Earth and control climate that way….
            There are a lot of interesting guesses, about the past, the present, and the future climate. Guesses aren’t evidence and don’t count as “knowledge”.

          • “Correct on a regional level.
            Incorrect on a global level UNLESS there is an obvious driver.
            More energy in OR more energy being retained.
            The only one current is the latter.
            To simply say it’s just climate doing what it has always done ignores 150+ years of empirical science (that CO2 is a GHG) and as such drives climate when it comes first, and amplifies change when coming second (feedback).”

            We don’t know with any real certainty what global climate, not that there is such a thing, was like in the past. We can guess, based on very imperfect proxies, but the error bars are almost always greater than the supposed differences.

            Air masses move around, continents move around, jet streams move around, those are what cause changes. It gets warmer in one place, cooler in another, relatively static in others.

        • Earthling2,
          Nonsense. That’s not what I said at all. You are missing the “may” and “could,” and I am demonizing no one. It’s natural to read meanings into others’ words, but that doesn’t mean it’s rational or correct. And what I said has nothing whatever to do with my world view.

          • Kristi, why do you even bother to use weasel words like ‘may’ and ‘could’ in your hypothetical reply unless your intent is to further mislead and confuse readers because of your world view that is pro alarmist. I only stated a truth that climate is always changing so that term is sort of irrelevant, if not confusing and leading a false narrative. And I also point out that it is usually done by people that view themselves as intellectually or morally superior. Which in my opinion, is you and those types that continually denigrate people who hold a different opinion on the effects of AGW. That is intellectual demonization.

          • Earthling2 – I continually denigrate people? I sometimes do, normally specific people who have a long history of insulting me. But I’m no match for some others around here. Why not complain about MarkW, for instance, or Lord Monckton?

            I don’t believe I’m intellectually or morally superior in general. I have my strengths and weaknesses intellectually, as we all do. I don’t think about the moral angle much, except when I see moral hypocrisy (e.g. complaints about “redistribution of wealth” and assertions that rather than spend money on research, we should be helping the poor).

      • The Social Justice Warriors (SJW) would refer to microaggressions.

        Psychologist Derald Wing Sue defines microaggressions as “brief, everyday exchanges that send denigrating messages to certain individuals because of their group membership”. The persons making the comments may be otherwise well-intentioned.

        If we were SJWs, we would demand safe spaces for climate skeptics.

        • I find it fascinating how the so called scientist assumes that these denigrating messages are being sent because of “group membership”.

          To the left, everyone is defined solely by the group they are in.
          Individuality is not permitted.

          • MarkW,

            “To the left, everyone is defined solely by the group they are in.”

            Isn’t that what you just did?

          • Up to now, justice, with few exceptions, is based on the mental state of the accused. link

            According to the SJWs, it is enough that some disadvantaged member of a minority feels insulted. The intent of the accused does not enter into it. There is no defense. Kafka would be proud. link

      • You see, skeptics are not authorized to infer intent even from obvious premises, but Kristi knows the intent of hypothetical questioners who “honestly wanted to know”.

          • C’mon Kristi. I have to analyze it for you explicitly?

            In response to Earthling2 saying “I have often been asked ‘Why do you deny climate change?’…The questioner is not merely asking for information, they are always making an accusation…”, you said “The questioner may have phrased it poorly, but honestly wanted to know.

            Somehow you claim the right to infer the questioner’s motivation (honestly wanted to know), even though you have no idea who the questioner was. But Earthling2 was not allowed to infer that the questioner was making an accusation even though he/she was the one who had been questioned/accused.

          • Rich,

            No. I said, “may have…” I don’t have any idea whether the person did or didn’t, but it’s within the realm of possibility. I inferred nothing, I offered a different idea. And I said it depended on the way it was asked. Sounded to me like E2 was making a general statement, not thinking of a particular incident. Maybe I’m wrong. Wouldn’t be the first time.

      • Kristi Silber

        I largely agree with you.

        Most people who ask the question are too stupid to actually make their own enquiries into climate change and simply regurgitate what they have read in the media.

        “Climate denier” is an easy soundbite to remember, they have no idea what they are asking.

      • Kristi ==> It is always possible that the question could be asked in such a way to imply a real desire to know the answer.

        In my personal experience, it hasn’t happened yet.

    • “Why do you deny climate change?”

      A few years ago on this site someone said that his response to that, or to a similar question like “how can you deny climate change,” was to say, “What am I denying?” That neatly andf politely shifted the burden.

      • To which you’d get a blank stare followed by the words “you are denying climate change” shifting the burden (in their mind) back to you.

        • To forestall that response, the initial “What am I denying?” counter should have been expanded to, “What am I denying, specifically?” Or, if that word was omitted in the first place, it could be used in the 2nd counter.

          • PS: The warmist’s reply to “What am I denying, specifically?” might be, “You’re denying that CO2 warms the atmosphere.” to which the answer is “Nope.”

            Or his reply might be, “You’re denying that the earth has warmed,” to which the answer is “Nope.”

            This will baffle him, if he wasn’t aware of the hypothesized positive feedback amplification from water vapor. Once you point out to him how iffy (to put it mildly) this weak link is, you’ve set him back on his heels.

  11. People used to be better next year.
    Now people are worse than we thought
    and will be even worse next year.

  12. So you are in the defensive mode because the MSM has put you there. Skeptics need to be more vocal and adamant. Stop being defensive and start being offensive (pun intended).

    • It’s been done since 1958, with very good accuracy. My uncle was chief of the Mauna Loa Observatory for years. He has explained to me how it’s done, and the process of calibration – there is no reason to doubt the record.

      • Let’s stipulate that the Mauna Loa Observatory record is accurate, and precise to 1 ppmv. Can we then safely state that it is the same level across the entire world simultaneously? I think that what little OCO-2 data have been released indicate that it isn’t.

        • No, we’ve now got satellite data, in addition to levels measured at other locations at ground level. All shows the increase in CO2, as measured at Mauna Loa.

          • There are regional and seasonal variabilities; but MLO is a reasonably accurate depiction of the average atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1959.

          • Really, David?

            Mauna Loa represents average CO₂
            At ground level?
            In a corn field?
            Within a forest?
            In a meeting room filled with people?
            In a barn filled with cows?
            In a greenhouse without added CO₂?
            Up in a forests’ tree canopy?
            Inside of a city?
            Inside a jungle?
            Just over a field of tillage?
            Inside of bedrooms during sleeping hours?
            Inside of a factory during work hours?
            Throughout diurnal periods at all locations?
            etc. etc.

            Open atmosphere redings under a specific altitude, CO₂ may be within a few ppm of Mauna Loa’s number; but Mauna Loa does not represent CO₂ within or near communities of life.
            Using Mauna Loa’s number at The global average obfuscates CO₂ averages people actually interact with, throughout diurnal periods throughout the world.

            The basic reality is that anyone conducting an experiment around CO₂ must determine, record and chart their local CO₂ levels
            Assuming that Mauna Loa’s number is good enough is bad science.

            Mauna Loa is a nice open atmosphere tracking number for open air locations one volcano high. For all other locations it might be good enough for government work.

            Kristi Silber
            Now about Mauna Loa, Kristi; exactly how is this temperature trend affected by ₂?

            “B. D. Malamud et al.: Temperature trends at the Mauna Loa observatory, Hawaii
            Fig. 1. Temperatures at (a) 12:00 LST (noon) and (b) 24:00 LST (midnight) at the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, 1977–2006, based on hourly temperature data from NOAA (2009).

            Shown are the 30-yr daily sequence of noon and midnight temperatures T (light grey lines) as a function of time t from 1 January 1977 to 31 December 2006.
            Also shown (circles) are the annual means of these daily values.
            The best-fit line using ordinary least-squares is shown for both times (thick solid line), with slopes;
            dT /dt (12:00) =−0.014±0.014 C yr−1 and
            dT /dt (24:00) =−0.039±0.010 C yr−1 (uncertainties ±1 s.e. of the slope).

            Formatting of the graph caption is mine to ease reading and clearly separate the trends from block writing.

            “Kristi Silber
            …there is no reason to doubt the record”

          • How can a 30 year temperature trend (without urban island heat effects) of being negative during the day possibly lead to CAGW? Who cares if the nighttime temperatures are warmer? If the daytime temperatures are cooler why do we have a problem? The alarmists refuse to look at the proper data. The data stares at them in the face and tells them they are wrong but they refuse to believe it.

          • “The basic reality is that anyone conducting an experiment around CO₂ must determine, record and chart their local CO₂ levels”

            Depends on the experiment.

            Did you read the paper? From the discussion:

            “As discussed above, we have found (Fig. 2b) that there is an overall annual warming trend of temperatures dT /dt = 0.021 ± 0.011◦C yr−1 at this observatory for the same period. This is very close to the Hawaii regional sea surface temperature (SST) trend d(SST)/dt = 0.018 ± 0.006 ◦C yr−1 for the period 1977–2006 (Fig. 4), the average “preferred” value of the IPCC (2007) for the period 1980–2005 of dT /dt = 0.018 ± 0.005 ◦C y−1
            and our inferred CO2 trend analysis value of dT /dt = 0.019 [0.012 to 0.029] ◦C yr−1.

            “Our basic hypothesis is that a large part of the temperature and DTR trends at Mauna Loa can be attributed to changes in CO2. At night, longwave radiation and turbulent sensible heat fluxes dominate heat loss. Increasing presence of green house gases will result in enhanced reradiation back towards the surface and hence warming nocturnal temperatures. During the day time, shortwave radiation dominates, particularly in tropical regions. It would be expected that the role of green house gases would be greater in the early morning before significant heating enhances boundary layer depth. At the end of the day, the boundary layer collapses. A possible explanation for the middle of the day cooling is that the enhanced surface heating is actually resulting in greater mixing and therefore a decrease in the near-surface green house gas concentration which would reduce incoming longwave radiation. These trends are consistent with the observed increases in the concentrations of CO2 and its role as a greenhouse gas, and indicate the possible relevance of the Mauna Loa temperature measurements to global warming.’

        • Been done in the southern hemisphere too. Dr Dave Lowe did some fine work based in the Cook Strait of New Zealand.

          • “Not moving on. All are reconstructions from local measurements.”

            Specifically how is an instrument measurement a reconstruction?

          • When you combine multiple time series from different locations into a spatially averaged time series, you are reconstructing a regional, hemispheric or global time series.

          • If you’re combining them into a spatially averaged global time series, you are reconstructing a global average. The global average can’t effectively be measured. You have to reconstruct it ftom its components.

          • David, what global average? What are you talking about? Each series is represented on its own. I don’t understand your comment.

          • David, it is NOT reconstruction, that is the wrong choice of words. Is the CPI a reconstruction? Of course not – even though the government can’t know the price of every single item when determining the CPI.

          • Its a reconstruction because the global average is not an average of a well spread out set of measurements. If local concentrations didn’t vary much from the average, you could claim it was a measurement but it does and it comes out as if global measurements were made to 0.1 ppm.

          • Francis MASSEN

            “……Mauna Loa represents the assumed background level.”

            It’s the second largest volcano in the world. Not sure I understand how it can possibly represent background levels.

          • The general trends are similar for 4 locations on Earth. However, what should also be of interest is why the annual range at Barrow, with low biological productivity and no industry, is about the same as the decadal change in the trend. Also, why is the annual variation at the South Pole about the same as Samoa? I think that there are still a lot of things about the carbon dioxide cycle that are not well understood.

          • Clyde and the Mauna Loa thread ==> We can simply let Mauna Loa represent the general metric of CO2 concentration — it is a well-mixed atmospheric gas and the metric only concerns those who consider CO2 the “dominate driver” of AGW/CC.

            Personally, I don’t think we have sufficient scientific evidence to support that view.

          • Kristi,
            Yes, please feel free to explain how the “ocean temperature and biota” are affecting the annual South Pole variations and the Samoa variations similarly.

          • The greening of the earth backs up the CO2 increasing as shown. The additional CO2 is totally beneficial. Yes, move along.

          • Robert, the CO2 is increasing despite the greening. You would have to ignore any potential future or already observed negative effects of this increase to say that it’s “totally beneficial.”

          • I might have done a poor job of explaining this. The derivative of the 12 month mean smoothed CO2 levels from ML needs to be measured to 0.1 ppm to see the correlation with SH SST after scaling and offsetting so lines of best fit are the same. The correlation being how they deviate from the linear trend the same. No good reason to actually see it if human emissions are the cause of the increase because those monthly changes sum up to the 100ppm increase in the past 6 decades so either whole rise due to increasing sea temperature or varying human emissions would muffle it. No chance of measuring precisely enough to see it either.
            All the different sites have large differences in monthly measurements but very similar underlying trends that correlate with SH SST after taking the derivative after 12 month smoothing – the same as the difference in values of the same months of consecutive years divided by 12. This is because they are “revised” and “calibrated” which is basically reconstructing the global average using SH SST (until about 1990 and then the old RSS). The only way it could end up reflected in the rate of CO2 increase.
            The world might be greener because CO2 has gone up but a 10% rise when close to the limit that plants need would do that.

          • Kristi,

            What observed negative effects?

            Sea level is rising at the same slow pace as for the past 300 years. The world is getting less stormy by far.

            What is the problem which you imagine more plant food in the air has caused?

          • RyanS ==> “Can we then safely state that it is the same level across the entire world simultaneously?” Of course we can’t, but it doesn’t matter — it is not a Climatically Important Difference if it is +/- 10 or 20 ppm over there or over here.

            So I don’t deny — why should anyone?

        • I compared the data from Mauna Loa and Cape Grimm. Going from the monthly data to 12 month smoothed data shows both to be close to each other. But the SD of the differences over 4 decades goes from an almost believable 1.4 ppm to 0.04 ppm after 12 month moving mean smoothing.

          • Yes, smoothing will always decrease the apparent variance compared to the raw data. This is one of the problems with reporting precision in averaged time-series data!

          • Apologies. It was differences for the derivatives ie differences in monthly readings. If measured to 0.1 ppm (1sd) the differences should have a SD of square root of 2 times that, or 0.144 and it is 0.144.

          • To keep human activity, and vegetation impacts from confounding the data. Very few automobiles, refineries and power plants in the Pacific. PS, since the ocean is the biggest sink for CO2, what better place to measure it than where it should be the smallest?

          • I apologize for going way over your head HotScot. You see, on land, there is this stuff call “vegetation” and on land there is these things called human beings (with cities, refineries, cars and power plants). Placing your CO2 measuring instruments too close to the land will result in inaccurate measurements.

          • David Dirkse

            That wouldn’t include Mauna Loa then, a vegetated, volcanic island with a substantial population?

            Oh look, something just flew over your head.

          • HotScot – The Mauna Lea Observatory is at 14,000 feet. There is no vegetation and no substantial population there. It’s above the inversion layer where most seasonal CO2 changes occur.

            Oh look, something just flew over your head.

          • Chris

            But there’s a sodding great volcano there, or did you miss that? Or as usual, just try to deflect the discussion?

            And think up your own lines……….Parrot…..Squawk!

          • HotScot said: “But there’s a sodding great volcano there, or did you miss that? Or as usual, just try to deflect the discussion?”

            Google is your friend, HotScot. Try it, it will make you look less foolish when you post.

            I’ll even cut and paste to make it easy for you: “Most of the time, the observatory experiences “baseline” conditions and measures clean air which has been over the Pacific Ocean for days or weeks. We know this because the CO2 analyzer usually gives a very steady reading which varies by less than 3/10 of a part per million (ppm) from hour to hour. These are the conditions we use to calculate the monthly averages that go into the famous 50-year graph of atmospheric CO2 concentration.

            We only detect volcanic CO2 from the Mauna Loa summit late at night at times when the regional winds are light and southerly. Under these conditions, a temperature inversion forms above the ground, and the volcanic emissions are trapped near the surface and travel down our side of the mountain slope. When the volcanic emissions arrive at the observatory, the CO2 analyzer readings increase by several parts per million, and the measured amounts become highly variable for periods of several minutes to a few hours. In the last decade, this has occurred on about 15% of nights between midnight and 6 a.m.”

            And: “These periods of elevated and variable CO2 levels are so different from the typical measurements that is easy to remove them from the final data set using a simple mathematical “filter.”


          • David,

            The ocean is full of photosynthesizing organisms.

            The figure used to be 80% of photosynthesis in the ocean, ie relatively more than on land, but that number is probably too low.

          • They all do the same calculation to get a global average from one spot described as revision and calibration.
            Even at the South Pole the daily variation is over 2 ppm and a quick look at the 60s and there is no discernible seasonal signal of 7-9 ppm as in the global average from ML.

      • They claimed+/- 1 ppm in the 70s. You need better than that to see the correlation in the plot if there really is a perfect correlation. IF the sea surface temperatures are the reason the CO2 levels rose. If not, any SST effect is muffled. There is a massive reason to doubt it.

        • Can you give an example of a site with CO2 measurements that cast doubt on the figures given for current CO2 concentration?

          We’re talking about in increase from 330ppm to 384ppm ish. There is an amazingly good correlation between those measurements, which makes me think it doubtful that inaccuracies in the measurements play a significant role in the figures we are looking at.

          • Philip Schaeffer

            The amount of CO2 isn’t a problem. It’s what it’s claimed to do that’s the problem.

          • That is a different issue to whether we know how much CO2 has increased, and whether we know how uniform that increase is, which is what we were talking about.

          • Philip Schaeffer

            And the search for atmospheric CO2 increase is for fun is it?

            It’s not to demonstrate that CO2 causes the planet to warm by any chance is it?

            That’s what the entire global warming debate is about, or hadn’t you noticed?

          • All sites do a revision and calibration as per the Keeling method. The underlying trends do not differ because of this. The actual measurements at the different sites differ a lot more than the 0.1 ppm precision needed to see a correlation with SST of the SH and satellite measurements of lower trip after 1990 (very close to the old RSS).
            Just to clear things up. This is evidence of poorly done science and not a conspiracy. The response to it is a different story.

      • And did he explain how the data are analyzed and what criteria are used for deleting ‘obvious’ outliers?

      • Kristi Silber

        Mauna Loa Observatory

        Built on one of the largest (second largest?) volcanoes on earth.

        I can’t imagine for the life of me why I’m sceptical.

          • David Dirkse

            Thanks for the link, but it told me nothing.

            Presumably the Mauna Loa numbers are ‘adjusted’ to allow for its location.

            Not that it matters as there’s no empirically derived evidence that demonstrates CO2 causes global warming anyway.

          • CO2 is measured at all those sites. The measurements all agree with one another, so your “presumably” attribution is invalid.
            You second point is irrelevant to the measurement being discussed.

          • David Dirkse

            My last point is the basis on which the entire climate change debate is founded, or hadn’t you noticed?

          • HotScot, your last point about whether CO2 causes global warming is clearly a diversion from you being proven wrong regarding what was being discussed.

            “Kristi Silber
            Mauna Loa Observatory
            Built on one of the largest (second largest?) volcanoes on earth.
            I can’t imagine for the life of me why I’m sceptical.”

            A real skeptic would go gather evidence to see if their skepticism was justified.

          • Chris

            Chris, give it a rest. You’re tedious. We know Mauna Loa Observatory is built on one of the largest volcanoes on the planet which constantly belches CO2 as well as other gases.

            One doesn’t need to be a sceptic to question the sense of that, but one does have to be an idiot not to question it, like you.

            I mean, you haven’t ever made the connection never mind questioned it.

            Just toe the party line Chris, it’s easy, isn’t it?

          • HotScot, I posted above explaining why your ML objections are nonsense. You see, there’s a phenomena called wind, and most of the time (85%) the prevailing winds take the ML CO2 in a different direction.

            Oh, and there are things called isotopes, that allow scientists to differentiate between the CO2 emitted from volcanoes and that from fossil fuel emissions.

            Elevate your game, HotScot. You’re failing on the most basic levels of scientific understanding.

          • Chris

            Wind……….LOL. You’re full of it OK.

            Sure, the ML wind blows away all that nasty volcanic CO2 and leaves only pure untainted CO2 which they examine to ensure they are measuring only the correct stuff.

            Do you actually read the drivel you type before clicking Post Comment. You should, it’s funny.

          • HotScot – yes, that’s correct. I quoted from the guys that run the site. You’re truly clueless about science.

      • Kristi ==> In the essay (which is the real topic here) I so stipulate — it doesn’t matter to me if it is 10 ppm off, if or world-wide variation is +/- 10-20 ppm. It doesn’t change the point with which I am not in disagreement t– the point that I don’t deny.

    • The inconvenient questions that the IPCC can’t answer.
      1) Why did sea level rise faster in early 2Oth century than now and even now is not accelerating?
      2) Why do many rural only land temperature data sets show no warming?
      3) Why did climate scientists in the climategate emails worry about no warming trends? They are supposed to be unbiased either way.
      4) Why do some local temperature land based datasets show no warming Ex: Augusta Georgia for last 83 years? There must be 1000’s of other places like this.
      5) Why do 10 of the 13 weather stations in Antarctica show no warming in last 60 years? The 3 that do are near undersea volcanic ridges.
      6) Why does the lower troposphere satellite data of UAH show very little warming 1.3C per century and in fact showed cooling from 1978 to 1997?
      7) Why is there only a 21% increase in net atmosphere CO2 ppm since 1980 but yet mankind increased fossil fuel emissions CO2 by 75%?
      8) Why did National Academy of Sciences in 1975 show warming in the 30’s and 40’s and NASA in 1998 and 2008 not show nearly as much warming for those time periods?
      9) Why has no one been able to disprove Lord Monckton’s finding of the basic flaw in the climate sensitivity equations after doubling CO2?
      10) Why has there never been even 1 accurate prediction by a climate model. Even if one climate model is less wrong than another one it is still wrong.
      11) Why do most climate scientists not understand the difference between accuracy and precision?
      12) Why have many scientists resigned from the IPCC in protest?
      13) Why do many politicians, media and climate scientists continue to lie about CO2 causing extreme weather events? Every data set in the world shows there are no more extreme weather events than there ever were
      14) Why do climate scientists call skeptics deniers as if we were denying the holocaust?
      !5) Why did Michael Mann refuse to hand over his data when he sued Tim Ball for defamation and why did Mann subsequently drop the suit?
      16) Why have every climate scientist that has ever debated the science of global warming clearly not won any debate that has ever occurred?
      17) Why does every climate scientist now absolutely refuse to debate anymore?
      18) Why do careers get ruined when scientists dare to doubt global warming in public?
      19) Why do most of the scientists that retire come out against global warming?
      20) Why is it next to impossible to obtain a PhD in Atmospheric science if one has doubts about global warming?
      21) Why is it very very difficult to get funding for any study that casts doubt on global warming?
      22) Why has the earth greened by 18% in the last 30 years?
      23) Why do clmate scientists want to starve plants by limiting their access to CO2? Optimum levels are 1000 ppm not 410ppm.
      24) Why do most climate scientists refuse to release their data to skeptics?
      25) Why should the rest of the world ruin their economies when China and India have refused to stop increasing their emmissions of CO2?
      26) Why have the alarmist scientists like Michael Mann called Dr. Judith Curry an anti scientist?
      27) Why does the IPCC not admit that under their own calculations a business as usual policy would have the CO2 levels hit 614ppm in 2100 which is nearly twice the CO2 level since 1850.?
      28) Why do the climate modellers not admit that the error factor for clouds makes their models worthless?
      29) Why did NASA show no increase in atmospheric water vapour for 20 years before James Hansen shut the project down in 2009?
      30) Why did Ben Santer change the text to result in an opposite conclusion in the IPCC report of 1996 and did this without consulting the scientists that had made the original report?
      31) Why does the IPCC say with 90% confidence that anthropogenic CO2 is causing warming when they have no evidence to back this up except computer model predictions which are coded to produce results that CO2 causes warming?
      32) How can we believe climate forecasts when 4 day weather forecasts are very iffy?.
      33) Why do all climate models show the tropical troposhere hotspot when no hotspot has actually been found in nature?
      34) Why is there non existent long term variability in the climate models because otherwise the simulation would become chaotic so the model has to be tuned to flatten the variability?
      35) Why is the normal greenhouse effect not observed for SST?
      36) Why is SST net warming increase close to 0?
      37) Why is the ocean ph level steady over the lifetime of the measurements?
      38) what results has anyone ever seen from global warming if it exists? I have been waiting for it for 40 years and havent seen it yet?
      39) If there were times in the past when CO2 was 20 times higher than today why wasnt there runaway global warming then?
      40) Why was there a pause in the satellite data warming in the early 2000’s?
      41) Why did CO2 rise after WW2 and temperatures fall?
      42) For the last 10000 years over half of those years showed more warming than today. Why?
      43) Why does the IPCC refuse to put an exact % on the AGW and the natural GW?
      44) Why do the alarmists still say that there is a 97% consensus when everyone knows that figure was madeup?
      45) The latest polls show that 33% do not believe in global warming and that figure is increasing poll by poll ? why?
      46) If CO2 is supposed to cause more evaporation how can there ever be more droughts with CO2 forcing?
      47) Why are there 4 times the number of polar bears as in 1960?
      48) Why did the oceans never become acidic even with CO2 levels 15-20 times higher than today?
      49) Why does Antarctica sea ice extent show no decrease in 25 years?
      50) Why do alarmists still insist that skeptics are getting funding from fossil fuel companies ( when alarmists get billions from the government and leftest think tanks) and skeptics get next to nothing from either fossil fuel companies nor governments for climate research?
      51) If the Bloomberg carbon clock based on the Mauna Loa data, in the fall and winter increases at a rate of only 2ppm per year; then why do we have to worry about carbon increases?
      52) Why arent the alarmists concerned with actual human lives. In England every winter there are old people who succumb to the cold because they cant afford the increased heating bills caused by green subsidies.
      53) Why did Phil Jones a climategate conspirator, admit in 2010 that there was no statistically meaningful difference in 4 different period temperature data that used both atmospheric temperature and sea surface temperature?
      54) Why does the IPCC still say that the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is a 100 years when over 80 studies have concluded it is more like 5 years?
      55) Why do all global climate alarmists say that corals are dying due to bleaching when Dr. Peter Ridd (who has published over 100 papers) has proven that coral bleaching is a defensive mechanism by corals in relation to temperature change in the water.
      56) Why does the IPCC still release temperature and sea level data from NOAA and NASA when Tony Heller has proved that those agencies have faked data and made improper adjustments to the actual raw numbers ?
      57) How does the IPCC explain that Professor Miskolczi showed that despite a 30% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere in the period 1948 to 2008, the total infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere was found to be unchanged from its theoretical value of 1.87
      58) Why has the Global Historical Climate Network temperature data set for ~ 1000 temperature stations in the United States shown no warming over the entire 124 year period when you just take the daily maximum and average it out for the 365 days of the year?
      59) Why has the global average downward infrared radiation to the surface shown no increase ever since the CERES satellite started collecting data in the year 2000?
      60) How would Antarctica ever melt if almost all of the land mass never even comes close to 0 C even in summer? Same for Greenland.
      61) Why did one alarmist put 7 bullet holes in Dr. John Christy’s office window?
      62) Why does a NOAA graph that charts CO2 levels in the atmosphere and thus by year increase (since CO2 increases every year) show absolutely no relation to outgoing longwave radiation?
      63) Why does the central England temperature dataset from the mid 1600s to today show only a .25 C increase in 350 years?
      64) Since no one has been able to show exactly what the emissivity of CO2 is ; then wouldnt that mean that the downward IR measurements by NASA are wrong since they assume emissivity of a blackbody of a value of 1?
      65) No one has debunked the finding of the IRIS effect by Dr. Lindzen.
      66) Why does the NASA energy budget diagram show a heat flux flow within the diagram that is far greater than the original solar input even though the system is in energy balance or close to it? This is contrary to all mathematical laws.
      67) Since the net CO2 in the atmosphere has been a steady 0.5 – 0.7 % increase ever since it was 1st measured in Mauna Loa, why does the IPCC deny that climate sensitivity to doubling CO2 isnt at least 200 years into the future. See Dr. Will Happers charts.
      68) How can CO2 be involved in heating the surface air when an infrared heater cannot heat air?
      69) How can the oceans be warming when three of the major ocean systems show no warming by the ARGO float measurement systems?
      70) Dr.Michael Modest a world authority on IR radiation ,in his classic text book on Radiative Heat Transfer states that there is no closed form solution to the VOIGT profile equation. A further problem is; that equation applies to blackbodies and grey bodies and doesnt even apply to non grey bodies like CO2 anyway.
      The most important sentence with respect to CO2 in Modest’s textbook on page 315( the chapter on gases) is the following. I quote

      ” we note that ,at moderate temperatures , the rotational partition function causes the line strength to decrease with temperature as 1/T or 1/(T^1.5), while the influences of the vibrational partition function and of stimulated emission are very minor . ”

      What this means to me is that at the temperatures we see in our troposphere, the vibrational effect is small for gases and the rotational effect decreases with temperature increase.

      On page 309 Modest says and I quote “while symmetric molecules such as CO2 show a rotational spectrum only if accompanied by a vibrational transition.”

      So Modest seems to be saying that even though CO2 absorbs IR, the line strength of absorption/emission at moderate temperatures is too weak to worry about, especially since the rotational partition strength of the spectrum decreases with temperature increase. So not only CAGW is impossible, it seems that AGW is impossible to any significant degree (pun not intended).

      71) The hidden ocean heat that was calculated from plancton studies which have now been replaced by the ARGO floats, determined that the total heat flux calculated from those studies was almost 4 times(10W/m^2) the generally accepted ( by alarmists) heat flux imbalance of today of 2.85W/m^2. Why doesnt the IPCC admit this and admit that they dont have any credible source to calculate any heat imbalance of the last 70 years if indeed there is even one?
      72) From Wiki I took the top 44 glaciers in Switzerland out of the total of 1500. They all have retreated since 1973 to 2016. However the total retreat has been 34.38 km over that 43 year period. That is an average of 0.8 km per year or 0.78 km per glacier . That works out to 0.278 % decrease in length per year as an average overall for the 44 glaciers. Based on that average it will take 360 years for those 44 glaciers to completely disappear. Why does the IPCC deny this?
      73) How can CO2 be of any consequence when the only important difference in temperature at nighttime in a desert is whether there are low lying clouds or not ?

      • “72) From Wiki I took the top 44 glaciers in Switzerland out of the total of 1500. They all have retreated since 1973 to 2016. However the total retreat has been 34.38 km over that 43 year period. That is an average of 0.8 km per year or 0.78 km per glacier . That works out to 0.278 % decrease in length per year as an average overall for the 44 glaciers. Based on that average it will take 360 years for those 44 glaciers to completely disappear. Why does the IPCC deny this?”

        The rate of glacier decline is accelerating, which you completely ignore. Tsk tsk.

        • Maybe it is accelerating. So what? How much of that is due to man’s influence Chris? Numbers please, not models.
          Oh, hang on, you don’t have quantifiable data. Just models. Never mind.

          • And what is the natural variation reason for the increase? Oh, hang on, Andy doesn’t have one. He just shrugs his shoulders and says “we don’t know.” If the melt rate goes up by 5X? Natural variation. 20X? Natural variation. No proof provided, of course – not even a model. The melt rate is changing “just because.”

          • Nope, we don’t know the full reason. We definitely haven’t got enough evidence to blame ourselves directly. Glaciers have grown and receded since the year dot. We’ll adapt and survive to any such changes, as we’ve always done.
            Watching you hopelessly flail around on this thread has been really amusing Chris. If you’re doing stand-up any time soon in London I’ll buy a ticket.

          • Haha, the shoulder shrugging begins. “Climate always changes, always has.” ‘It’s just too darn hard to figure this stuff out.”

            Watching you show both incredible lack of scientific curiosity and lack of ambition to try and figure it out has not been amusing. It’s actually rather sad. But the world has both doers and do-nothings. Always has, always will.

          • Speaking of a lack of scientific curiosity, nobody beats Chris. He’s been told that most if not all the warming we are currently enjoying has been caused by man. And that’s good enough for him.

          • Chris

            Where is the empirical studies that demonstrate CO2 causes climate change, far less man made CO2 causing it.

            Oh wait! You already answered that:

            “Haha, the shoulder shrugging begins.”

          • Chris

            And I’ll post this for the second time


            “The authors started in the 2000 La Nina, and ended at the 2010 El Nino – when troposphere temperatures were half a degree warmer. Then they noticed that there was slightly more downwelling long wave radiation [DWLR], which they blamed on increased absorption from the increase in CO2.”

            I’ll let you read the rest of your debunked study that has had no publicity because it’s wrong.

            Don’t you imagine that were it conclusive it would have been trumpeted on every left wing MSM site the world could muster?

            Try and get your tiny mind round the detail here: https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-new-paper-does-not-provide-evidence.html

          • Chris

            40 years of the best scientific minds in the world studying the effects of CO2 and the best they can come up with is this Bollox!

            Give me peace.

          • Andy Wilkins

            I have made the same offer on his qualities as a stand up. His response wasn’t funny so I withdrew it.

          • This is one of the predictions of AGW. So why do you say that none of the predictions has come true?

            You could say “we don’t know the reason” to explain away anything you want rather than accept that AGW is having an effect.

          • Finally, you understand. The melt rate has changed thousands of times through history and we had zip to do with it.

            (You’re also using percentages and things like 5X, not the actual measurements. That’s called “how to lie with statistics”.

          • Most alpine and valley glaciers formed after the Holocene Climatic Optimum and generally advanced until the early to mid 1800’s. This period is known as Neoglaciation. Since the end of Neoglaciation most alpine and valley glaciers have been retreating. Neoglaciation ended long-before CO2 levels had risen much above 280 ppm.


            Around 1850, during the warm up from the Little Ice Age, temperatures had risen to the point that most alpine and valley glaciers began to retreat.

            History of Glaciers in Glacier National Park

            The history of glaciation within current Glacier National Park boundaries spans centuries of glacial growth and recession, carving the features we see today. Glaciers were present within current Glacier National Park boundaries as early as 7,000 years ago but may have survived an early Holocene warm period (Carrara, 1989), making them much older. These modest glaciers varied in size, tracking climatic changes, but did not grow to their Holocene maximum size until the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA) around A.D. 1850. While they may not have formed in their entirety during the LIA, their maximum perimeters can be documented through mapping of lateral and terminal moraines. (Key, 2002) The extent and mass of these glaciers, as well as glaciers around the globe, has clearly decreased during the 20th century in response to warmer temperatures.

            Climate reconstructions representative of the Glacier National Park region extend back multiple centuries and show numerous long-duration drought and wet periods that influenced the mass balance of glaciers (Pederson et al. 2004). Of particular note was an 80-year period (~1770-1840) of cool, wet summers and above-average winter snowfall that led to a rapid growth of glaciers just prior to the end of the LIA. Thus, in the context of the entire Holocene, the size of glaciers at the end of the LIA was an anomaly of sorts. In fact, the large extent of ice coverage removed most of the evidence of earlier glacier positions by overriding terminal and lateral moraines.



            During relative periods of warming the retreat has accelerated, during relative periods of cooling the retreat has decelerated. There’s no special explanation required.

          • That’s because the “climate” shifted from a cooling regime (1945-1976) to a warming regime in 1976. The acceleration began around 1980.

            The fact that a shift from slight cooling to warming caused negative mass balance to accelerate says nothing about the cause, particularly since very little mass balance data prior to 1980 exists, and even less mass balance data prior to 1945 exists.

          • “The same thing that caused it to cool during the preceding 30 years.”

            More rigorous science from MarkW.

          • The same thing that’s driven the ~60-yr climate cycle throughout the Holocene… Most likely oceanic oscillations.

            The acceraltion in glacial retreat since 1980 was simply an end to the mid-20th century cooling phase, which slowed and/or reversed glacial retreat for about 30 years.


            Oerelmans, 2005.

            If glaciers hadn’t started to generally begin retreating in the 1800’s, this 1975 Science News cover might not be so far from reality…


            The 1950-1980 flattening in glacial retreat was a significant factor in the 1970’s impending ice age alarmism.

          • “Most likely oceanic oscillations.” Um, this sounds like a guess. There is evidence that increases in aerosols due to pollutants and volcanic eruptions accounted for the cooling period.

            The “impending ice age” had little scientific support – the hypothesis was (as usual) exaggerated by the media. You said it – alarmism.

            So, you contend that what we are seeing in glacial retreat is simply natural variation? What evidence is there that glaciers retreated due to natural variation at the rate they are doing so now?

            Where is the evidence for a 60-year climate cycle in the 20th C?

            “The acceraltion in glacial retreat since 1980 was simply an end to the mid-20th century cooling phase, which slowed and/or reversed glacial retreat for about 30 years.”

            Why isn’t this slowing/reversal visible in your graph?

          • Kristi,

            What caused the cooling period between the Holocene Climate Optimum (5000 years ago) and the Egyptian Warm Period (4 Ka)?

            What caused the cooling period between the Egyptian Warm Period (4 Ka) and the Minoan WP (3 Ka)?

            What caused the cooling period between the Minoan (3 Ka) and Roman (2 Ka) WPs, aka the Greek Dark Ages Cool Period?

            What caused the cooling period between the Roman (2 Ka) and Medieval (1 Ka) WPs, aka the Dark Ages Cool Period?

            What caused the warming between the Medieval and Modern WPs, aka the Little Ice Age? It wasn’t aerosols and volcanoes. It was the succession three or four solar minima, to include the mighty Maunder during its depths of cold.

          • David, the vast majority of scientific papers in the 70s predicted global warming, not cooling. The popular press grabbed onto cooling, but that does not reflect the majority of research papers.

            You say the oceans are on a 60 year cycle affecting glaciers, so why weren’t there major glacier melting periods between 1750 and 1850?

          • To Chris:
            Ding Ding Ding Ding
            Care to provide us with any
            data to support your claim
            that a:
            “vast majority of scientific papers
            in the 70’s predicted global warming,
            not cooling” ?

            It is my opinion that most scientists
            back then did not make long term
            climate predictions. Those that did
            seemed split between warming and
            cooling. Of course no one knows the
            future climate, so it really doesn’t matter
            what anyone predicts. I’d sure like to see
            your data for the “vast majority”,
            or are you just making that up?

          • “What caused the climate to warm beginning in 1976?”

            Remember, the latest meme is climate change, not climate warming. And are you not aware of the PDO/AMO effects on earth’s climate? You could just as easily ask why things were cooling in the phase before 1976.

          • Chris

            “What caused the climate to warm beginning in 1976?”

            According to you, CO2. But you can’t demonstrate it empirically, can you?

          • Here’s a good start

          • As always, Chris either pretends not to know what others are talking about, or perhaps he really is that ignorant.

            If the warming is natural, then it, and the impact on glaciers is also natural.

            You have yet to demonstrate that a more than a tiny fraction of the warming since the middle 1600’s was caused by man.

          • MarkW

            You probably noticed that Chris has a stock list of beliefs he cycles through as the opportunity emerges. Other than that his comments are just drive by snipes.

            Ask him anything he can’t answer and he either ignores it or tries desperately to change the subject.

            Try asking him if he can find empirically derived studies that CO2 causes climate change. You may have noticed I have asked him that innumerable times now. There is never an answer.

          • Those glaciers grew during the little ice age. The warming since the cessation of said little ice age resulted in the glaciers shrinking to their former extents of the medieval warm period. There, retreat explained with Occam’s Razor. You might want to look at the Muir Glacier which retreated vastly more in the 19th century than the 20th.

          • “The 1991 discovery of the 5,000 year-old “ice man,” preserved in a glacier in the European Alps, fascinated the world… Tragically, this also means that this glacier is retreating farther now than it has in 5,000 years, and other glaciers are as well.”

            Couldn’t find any evidence that Muir retreated more during the 19th C. It is worth considering, though, that the Industrial Revolution started in about 1750. While this may not have had a great impact on CO2 levels or temperature for many years to come, the soot from coal and forest burning may have affected albedo, causing glacial retreat. Still, I’d like to see evidence that Muir retreated as quickly then as it has more recently.

            From the graphs posted, you can see that the warming after the LIA leveled off (with natural ups and downs) around 1750 up until around 1900 – any later warming can’t be realistically called a continuation of post-LIA warming.

          • “And what is the natural variation reason for the increase Oh, hang on, Andy doesn’t have one”

            He doesn’t need one, it’s called the null hypothesis – IE it’s due to natural variation same as it was for all previous periods of change that happened long before man’s fossil fuel use was made the scapegoat. It’s those who claim it’s something other than the null hypothesis that needs to provide quantifiable data to back up their extraordinary claims. At least if they are doing real science.

          • There is no science being done to claim the null hypothesis. Just hand waving. “Oh, it’s warming because we are coming out of the LIA.” But why is it warming? “Oh, we don’t know.”

            Proof has been provided of AGW, you just choose not to believe it. So what.

          • You really don’t understand science, do you Chris? You don’t need to “do science” to “claim the null hypothesis” because the null hypothesis is the *default*, it’s the ones claiming that it’s something other than the null hypothesis that needs to “do science” to show their hypothesis is better than the null hypothesis. To date, the CAGW crowd have failed to do so.

            And the answer to your question isn’t “Oh, we don’t know” it’s “natural variability, the same thing responsible for all the previous changes to the climate going all the way back to the year dot, if you think it’s something else, do some science to show that it’s something else (hint: model are not scientific evidence of anything)”.

          • John, “natural variability” is the stock answer of someone who is lazy or is not really interested in digging down. Scientists look at different periods and try to figure out the cause of changes in climate. Given our improved understanding of the forcing impacts of things such as volcanoes, aerosols, changes in land use, solar irradiance, etc, we can then understand why climate changed at certain points in time.

            So once again, what is the reason for the substantial warming we are seeing now?

          • No, it’s the default position. If you think it is something else, the burden is on you to prove that the default (ie Null hypothesis) doesn’t hold.

            Where is you evidence that the “substantial warming” (which has happened before, naturally, and will happen again) is 1) any different now than all the previous times is has substantially warmed and 2) is not due to natural variability? The burden is on the one claiming the Null Hypothesis doesn’t hold. that’s how science works.

        • “The rate of glacier decline is accelerating, which you completely ignore. Tsk tsk.”

          ..and the rate of temp increase and sea level rise is not

        • 58 New Zealand glaciers advanced between 1983 and 2008.


          The largest glacier in Chile is advancing.

          10 % of land on the earth is covered with glaciers, ice caps, or ice sheets like Greenland and Antarctica. However even if all 200000 glaciers ( not counting ice caps or Greenland or Antarctica) in the world melted, the world sea level would only rise 400 mm.

          from 2012 to 2013 the largest glacier in Switzerland Grosser Aletsch retreated by 14 metres. From 2011 to 2012 it retreated 32.8 metres. From 2011 to 2012 it retreated 34.4 metres. So the trend in those 3 years was deceleration not acceleration. Sure most of the glaciers overall in the world are retreating but the world is on a long term trend of coming out of the little ice age. Arctic ice volume is now as of August 26, 2018 , the 2nd highest it has been for many years.


          • Yes, yes, yes you can cherry pick …. but globally the mass balance is down. And that is just hard to argue with.

          • “….but the world is on a long term trend of coming out of the little ice age……
            So we are warming… we know that. It’s why Alan that matters. Saying this warming is because we are coming out of a LIA is like saying you have a fever because the thermometer says you have one. No, you have a fever because you are sick, and if you are smart you will visit a doctor and find out why.

          • That’s just it Simon, nobody knows what is causing the warming. It can’t be CO2 because the warming started well before CO2 started going up and the changes in actual temperature have no relationship to the changes in CO2 levels.

          • So, simple Simon, If the Earth currently “is sick and has a fever” than what is the Earth’s non-sick, non-fever temperature and when has it ever been at that temperature? Certainly not in the MWP or the RWP when the temps where *higher* than today. And why is it you can’t conceive of the possibility that rather than being sick with a fever, the Earth is actually recovering from a period of sickness where the Earth’s temperature was hypothermic (IE too low)?

          • John, if you had to guess as to what is causing the current warming, what would you say?

            How do you know global temperatures were hotter during the MWP? not England, not Scandinavia, but global?

          • “John, if you had to guess as to what is causing the current warming, what would you say? “

            Natural variation, same as in every previous period of warming. It’s up to those who think otherwise to prove that this time is different. And they simply have not. Asserting it’s different doesn’t make it so.

            How do you know global temperatures were hotter during the MWP? not England, not Scandinavia, but global?

            All the available evidence (scientific and historical) shows it was hotter in the MWP. Why do you deny science and history?

      • Wow! My list is shorter, but I’ll post it anyway:

        I’d accept Climate Science:
        If climate science wasn’t pushed as an absolute in schools.
        If the predictions from climate science seemed to be true.
        If climate scientists didn’t rig the peer review process.
        If climate scientists didn’t sabotage scientific careers.
        If IPCC reports weren’t re-written after final approval.
        If climate scientists didn’t try to sue the opposition.
        If climate scientists didn’t appear to fudge the data.
        If climate scientists didn’t resort to name-calling.
        If climate scientists complied with FOI requests.
        If climate scientists agreed to debate the issue.
        If climate scientists didn’t exaggerate findings.
        If climate scientists didn’t rig grant programs.

        Canards and bullshit:
        Methane is 86 times more powerful than CO2 at trapping heat.
        Warm water is melting the Antarctic ice cap from below.
        Thermal exapansion affects world-wide sea level.
        Water vapor rains out after a few days.
        Cattle are a major source of methane.
        People depend on glaciers for water.
        Burning biomass is carbon neutral.
        Sea level rise is accelerating.
        Polar bears are going extinct.
        The ocean is becoming acid.
        The deep ocean is warming.
        CFCs caused the Ozone Hole.
        Average world temperature.
        97% of scientists agree.
        Coral reefs are dying.
        Drought is increasing.
        Antarctica is melting.
        Greenland is melting.

      • Your #11 on the list really nails it:

        11) Why do most climate scientists not understand the difference between accuracy and precision?

        When the people you are dealing with don’t know the basics, everything they say needs to be checked out for mistakes, inaccuracies and lack of thoroughness.

          • Kristi, if you want I’m sure someone can come up with a survey that shows that 97% of climate scientists not understand the difference between accuracy and precision with the same rigor as the one that claims the 97% consensus. Since you seem to buy the later you’d then have to buy the former.

      • Quite the list! Thank you Alan Tomalty.

        The problem with long posts is that:
        1. Not that many people have the attention span to fully read them;
        2. Warmist bots like Chris will try to find one quibble, and imply that this negates the entire list (it obviously does NOT).

        Item 2 above is a favorite tactic of the dishonest debater, and is intended to deceive the uneducated reader and to enlist the support of imbeciles.

        I have seen this dishonest tactic used many times in the global warming / climate change debate, not only on free-for-all sites like wattsup, but also in screed rebuttals published in once-respected journals.

        The fact that so many once-great scientific journals like Science and Nature have fallen into the corrupted morass of global warming alarmism is a tragedy.

        A thorough mucking-out of the stables will be necessary if these “tabloids” are ever to regain their former positions of trust.

        Regards, Allan

      • “4) Why do some local temperature land based datasets show no warming Ex: Augusta Georgia for last 83 years? There must be 1000’s of other places like this.”

        Apparently, Wright-Patterson AFB (OH) is among them.

      • There are many assumptions and assertions in your questions. If you want answers, you should first provide evidence that your questions are even relevant.

        For example, taken at random:
        “19) Why do most of the scientists that retire come out against global warming?
        20) Why is it next to impossible to obtain a PhD in Atmospheric science if one has doubts about global warming?
        21) Why is it very very difficult to get funding for any study that casts doubt on global warming?”

  13. The key fallacy is the “bait and switch” between global warming, which does have some scientific basis, to global climate change, which is a dogma. The key problem for this site taking the bait and using precise scientific arguments to try to repudiate a dogma.

    • Are you saying the Warmians are worshiping false gods, Walt?

      They have to have something to cling to, you know. Outside the cave, where the bitter winds of the Ice Age blow, they’ll insist that it’s Global Warming in spite of the cold and the blizzards and thundersnow. Poor things… no more vegan diets, no more soy lattes, no more solar power driving their electric heaters. Just perpetual snow and cloud-covered skies….

    • Walt D. I disagree. Anthropogenic global climate change is a more descriptive term for anthropogenic global warming. They generally refer to the same thing.

      There have always been periods of global warming and global cooling that have resulted in other climate changes; regional temperature variation is also part of climate change.

      • Kristi,
        I understand as a non Brit you struggle with English, let me help…

        ‘Climate’ is the average of weather patterns in an area over a specified time period, (usually 30-100yrs).

        ‘Warming’ means a continuous increase in temperature.

        ‘Change’ means to make different, to alter course in any direction,
        e.g. Water may be changed into vapor or ice…depending on the amount of heat added or removed.

        Anthropogenic global climate change is NOT a descriptive term for anthropogenic global warming. They DON’T refer to the same thing.

        • Climate change is a completely meaningless term in a scientific sense. A change from what, to what, over what time and scale? It’s total nonsense. Global warming at least describes a) a specific variable – temperature, b) the scale of the change – global; and c) the nature of the change ie. increasing.

      • KristI;
        The problem is with the world “Global” in Anthropogenic Global Climate Change. In fact, there is no dispute the human activity changes LOCAL climate around cities. For instance, the city of Atlanta GA makes its own weather. The temperature around Heathrow Airport has definitely increased over the last century.

        However, to be able to use the term “Global”, you would need to observe significant changes in rainfall in the Atacama Dessert, for instance.

        When people use the term “Climate Change”, they are usually referring to transient hot or cold weather events.

        • Walt, I disagree. “Global” refers to the Earth. The Earth is warming. Effects are regional and variable, and that is as predicted.

          Climate does not refer to transient hot/cold weather events, it refers to shifts in weather parameters over the course of decades, which can include precipitation amount, timing and intensity; changes in length of growing season; average/max/min temperatures; likelihood, duration and extremity of heat waves…even changes in average relative humidity. Climate is what determines what species live where (apart from humans and their effects).

          “For instance, the city of Atlanta GA makes its own weather” I think meteorologists would disagree. The UHI effect is not weather.

      • Kristi ==> If you follow the logical progression of my essay (and Part 2 which will be up in a day or so), you’ll see that there is even less scientific evidence for the hypothesis of “Anthropogenic global climate change” than for AGW, for which the evidence of attribution is so thin that it is nearly non-existent.

    • “The key fallacy is the “bait and switch” between global warming, which does have some scientific basis, to global climate change, which is a dogma.”

      That’s not true. First, not every single place on the planet will warm. If the Atlantic Conveyor were to slow down, Britain and Western Europe could become colder. Besides that, the term global warming doesn’t provide any indication about changing precipitation patterns – increased rainfall or increased drought, and changes in intensity of rainfall. Hence the phrase climate change is better. As Kristi noted below, anthropogenic climate change is more accurate, and better yet would be something like “anthropogenically modified climate change” to indicate that it is in addition to naturally driven climate change.

      • You are tedious.
        The typical climate extremist notices a weather event, like a heat wave this year, or a cool summer a few years ago, and claims that particular weather event is as predicted, and there will be more of it.
        And then gives wordy dissembling answers.
        By the way, the Atlantic conveyor is nit being disrupted by CO2.
        It is not driven by temperature.
        You do not even know what drives it primarily.

        • Haha, Hunter tries proof by assertion and fails miserably. Climate researchers look at actual events and determine whether there is an AGW-related cause. You, on the other hand, blindly dismiss all events. No evidence provided, of course. It’s true because hunter said so!!!!

          • The standard climate skeptic retort gets trotted out once again. “If climate models are not 100% accurate, they are rubbish!” The do nothing brigade rides again.

          • “If climate models are not 100% accurate, they are rubbish!”

            If climate functions as a linear system, then a nearly correct model with nearly correct data will give you a nearly correct answer. On the other hand, if climate is a non-linear, chaotic system (and the IPCC says it is: “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible”), then if the model is not perfect and/or the data input is not perfect, the output from the models quickly becomes “rubbish” (This work was pioneered by Edward Lorenz who described chaos as “When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future”)

          • No one says the models are perfect, but that doesn’t make them rubbish. “Predictive” climate models are designed to forecast (or “project”) trends. Some trends are predicted with high confidence, some are not. The quote from IPCC means that their projections do not tell us when a particular climate shift or weather event will happen. For instance, some include naturally variable things like ENSO, but that doesn’t mean we can say that 53 years from now there will be an El Nino. Or, the likelihood of severe droughts will increase, but we don’t know when or where they will happen.

            Models are useful not only for planning, but for understanding the climate itself. It’s not humanly possible to take into account all the factors that enter into climate without the use of models.

            What Edward Lorenz said applies to chaos. Climate is not a wholly chaotic system.

          • Kristi ==> What Edward Lorenz said applies specifically to numerical weather/climate computer modelling — his “rediscovery” of what became known as Chaos Theory was an added bonus — but he discovered it in his numerical “toy”computer weather model.
            It is the IPCC itself states quite clearly, unequivocally that “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
            Your statement “Climate is not a wholly chaotic system” does not make sense when “chaotic” is used in the context intended by Lorenz and the IPCC — that being the field of Chaos Theory.

          • Kristi Silber: “‘Predictive’ climate models are designed to forecast (or “project”) trends. Some trends are predicted with high confidence, some are not.”

            Two comments:
            1) If, as the IPCC says “…the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” then it makes no sense to create forecasts (or “projections”) based on a model that can not make an accurate long-term prediction. In a coupled non-linear chaotic system, it is not possible, even in principle, to make accurate long-term predictions no matter how fast your computer, how good your model or how many data points you have. To make accurate long-term predictions would require you to have a perfect model with all possible data points with perfect precision. Anything less and the output of the model will quickly diverge from reality and produce inaccurate (or to use Chris’ term “rubbish”) results. As Kip mentioned in another thread, I think it would be a good idea for you to read his previous essays on Chaos.

            2) “Confidence” levels are simply opinions and can not be treated as scientific facts.

          • As always, Chris has to lie about what others have said in order to refute their points.
            Nobody claimed that models have to be 100% accurate.
            For them to get a single prediction right would be enough. I’m still waiting.

          • Chris,
            If mathematical models are so reliable, why don’t you use one to get rich from betting on the stock market? As we say, “Put your money where your mouth is.”

          • Chris, you really are tedious.

            Let’s go back to basic science. To paraphase UAH “climate scientist Dr. John Christie, the way we come to believe we understand a physical system is by making accurate predictions about it. When people claiming to be climate scientists exempt climate models from the process of falsification, they are behaving as dogmatists and advocates, not as scientists. I have seen no climate model make any accurate prediction about the state of the Earth’s “climate.” I have seen many that overheat their imaginary atmospheres. Climate models are NOT reality, and they can only regurgitate the flawed mathematical calculations that have been programmed into them. They are essentially generating circular arguments on a grand scale. If you actually TRIED to compare them to reality, you’d stop being impressed. But instead, adherents like Gavin Schmidt and his admirers have no problem as virtual guesses about the future are instantly converted to something akin to received wisdom, and then this presumed truth is dressed up as pseudo-scientific terms, entered into the corrupted scientific record, hailed (wrongly) as evidence and observation, with a side order of technological gobbeldy-gook, and foisted on people as the worst form of sophistry and propaganda, with typical hard sell (act NOW or it will be too late) and combined with a very cult-like quasi-religious Gaia neo-Gnosticism.

            Sadly, you seem to believe these silly climate models as accurate. They do not deserve your faith in them. Evidence shows increasing divergence between their predictions and measured reality. They all over-estimate temperatures to the point where, in my opinion, they have already falsified themselves as to their ability to claim any sort of causal ties between CO2 and temperature. If that causal link is broken, there is no point to any CO2 mitigation strategy, since it will do from zero to very close to nothing to change the climate, and yet it will harm billions of people by making energy more expensive. It’s a bad deal for everyone, INCLUDING YOU!

            Without virtual climate models (and dodgy reconstructions like the hockey stick), there is no alarm. Without alarm, there is no need for political action. This is why you alarmists are screwed, why you constantly need to analyze “d-nye-ers” and why your side of this debate is always whinging about not being able to persuade people. It would be much better if you look at why YOU have been persuaded, and figure out that a lot of people have been shining you on for a long time. Maybe, just maybe, you’ve been brainwashed, and you don’t realize it.

          • “This is why you alarmists are screwed, why you constantly need to analyze “d-nye-ers” and why your side of this debate is always whinging about not being able to persuade people.”

            Yeah, Mickey. Let’s see, the Fortune 1000 agrees with me. The oil companies agree with me. The world’s largest investment funds, insurance companies and re-insurance companies agree with me. Yeah, my side is really screwed. Keeping posting in the WUWT bubble and believing that the tide is turning in your direction.

          • It really amazes me how bad Chris is at both science and basic logic.

            Lets see, he claims that since the Fortune 1000 agrees with him, the science must be right.
            Aside from the glaring logical fallacies there, where is the proof that the Fortune 1000 agrees with Chris, rather than merely following the laws as passed by politicians.

            Where’s the evidence that the re-insurance companies agree with Chris?
            I’ll go with Warren Buffet, who is actually in that industry who stated several years back that none of the insurance companies are concerned regarding climate change because they base next years insurance on what happened last year. Not on projections on what might happen 100 years from now.

            Chris, your’re side is screwed, because as you just demonstrated, you have no concept of what science is.

          • “The world’s largest investment funds, insurance companies and re-insurance companies agree with me.” They don’t agree with you Chris, they’ve just spotted a chance to make pots of cash flogging a fairy-tale to gullible types such as yourself.

          • Excellent comment, Mickey. One of the best on this very long thread – which is taking me hours to read all the comments!

          • “Chris
            Haha, Hunter tries proof by assertion and fails miserably. Climate researchers look at actual events and determine whether there is an AGW-related cause. You, on the other hand, blindly dismiss all events. No evidence provided, of course. It’s true because hunter said so!!!!

            Chrissy elevates researchers to some demi-god omnipotent level, links to a “Nature” article where bad science is conducted, assumptions are made and hard coded so the “model” provides, eventually, the results desired.

            “Here we use a high-resolution global climate model to analyse the causes of this rainfall decline. In our simulations, many aspects of the observed regional rainfall decline over southern and southwest Australia are reproduced in response to anthropogenic changes”

            Bolding, mine.
            Note that Chrissy’s worshipped researchers start with confirmation bias, assume they ‘know everything’ that affects weather and proceed to manipulate the model until desired results are achieved.
            Then the researchers leap from comparison to association to correlation then to causation.

            Another dreamland self satisfaction model where researchers, activists and advocates immediately elevate to override observations…

            Utter fail!

          • The only thing Chris has ever excelled at is ignoring anything that doesn’t fit his agenda.
            If an alarmist proclaims that the current heat wave was caused by CO2, then it was.
            If an alarmist proclaims that a cold wave has nothing to do with CO2, then it doesn’t.
            Anyone who disagrees is denying science.

          • Chris

            “Climate researchers look at actual events and determine whether there is an AGW-related cause.”

            Kidding, right?

          • HotScot, MarkW, Sheri and ATheoK,

            No logical fallacy at all. Mickey Reno posted: “This is why you alarmists are screwed, why you constantly need to analyze “d-nye-ers” and why your side of this debate is always whinging about not being able to persuade people.”

            I don’t need to persuade you. What I care about is what actions are taking place relating to AGW. Those actions are determined by the Fortune 1000, not you. Or me, for that matter. So what if I can’t convince you to your satisfaction? It doesn’t matter.

            If you were serious in your AGW-skeptic efforts, you would try to convince the Fortune 1000 that they are wrong, that they should not be pushing for renewable energy, or to lower their CO2 footprint. That’s what matters, not commenting here on WUWT with your fellow AGW skeptics.

          • Chris

            You are assuming I (and the others) don’t.

            But that’s your problem Chris, you inflate your ego by announcing on an anonymous blog you have impressive qualifications. Of course no one believes you.

            Meanwhile, some of us don’t brag, we do.

          • HotScot, what do you do? Besides post all day long on a skeptic blog? Come back and tell me when you’ve convinced the UK to change their position on AGW. You’re probably a member of UKIP, since that’s the only UK party that rejects the AGW position. You know, the party that lost 43 out of 44 council seats. Hahaha.

          • Chris

            None of your business what I do.

            Get back to me when you can control your unscientific desire to hurl puerile insults at me.

      • You do realize how pea-brained that sounds…don’t you? The climate changes constantly, and always has. To say this might happen or that might happen, or it might not, but whatever happens, things will definitely change and all the bad stuff is because we caused it, and if we weren’t here those things would never have happened or at least not to such a degree, is not science, it is superstition. The only way to differentiate naturally driven climatic changes from vague ‘anthropogenically modified’ climatic changes would be to have two identical planets; one without us and one with us. It’s not that difficult to understand. Or, if the climate had been perfectly stable and then we came along and caused a sudden change in a particular variable which corresponded with a sudden change in some other previously stable variable like temperature, then one might be able to put forward a meaningful hypothesis. Or, if past CO2/temperature correlations indicated a causal link then one might infer that the same should apply now. That is not the case.

        • Sylvia said: “The climate changes constantly, and always has.”

          Wow, 3rd grade level scientific curiosity! So let’s apply your logic elsewhere. Medical research on extending lives? Nah, people always have died, always will. Reducing forest fires? Nah, we’ve had those in the past.

          The proper question is whether climate is changing due to our influence (which is primarily through CO2), and whether those changes are, on net, beneficial or harmful. If the former, then nothing needs to be done. If the latter, action should be taken.

          • That’s the proper question, the proper answer however is not “the models prove it” (because with their spectacular record of failure, they don’t prove shit) but rather “the null hypothesis holds until we get enough empirical evidence that shows otherwise, and, frankly , we don’t yet have such evidence and what evidence we do have doesn’t align with the CAGW hypothesis.”

        • One take away is that London has a similar climate to Seattle, yet there is no “conveyor” in the Pacific.

          • The Japan Current is a huge Pacific “conveyor” which brings a humungous amount of warmth and precipitation to the west coast of northern North America, as large or larger than the Atlantic gulf stream that keeps London and Europe warm.

        • JCalvertN(UK)


          Don’t get me started on that!

          I don’t believe paleoclimatology can establish a temperature range to within a decimal point now a date range within years far less months.

          Nor do I even believe it’s the paleoclimatology scientists that make these claims, it’s the misrepresentation of their work by others that’s the problem.

      • Hmm, we were assured not to many years ago that CO2 was so powerful that it would completely swamp natural variability.

        Now the alarmists are using natural variability to explain the lack of warming.

      • Chris,
        You said, “…were to slow down, …could become…” This is typical alarmist conjecture. If you could tell us just when said slow down would occur and how exactly it would impact the climate of the UK, we might have some concern. However, what you are saying is no different from saying “The Earth COULD be hit by an asteroid and MIGHT kill billions of people.” Possibilities are not the same thing as probabilities! Until such time as you or those like you can give me some firm numbers (Much better than Hansen’s 30-year prediction!) describing how, when, and where, I’m inclined to write it off as hand-waving while you’re trying to dry your fingernail polish. In other words, of no real concern.

        • Clyde, my “were to slow down” comment was ONLY about the Atlantic Conveyor, not about AGW.

          If you don’t believe it, that’s fine.

          • Chris,

            You said, “…my “were to slow down” comment was ONLY about the Atlantic Conveyor,…”

            So that excuses it from being unsupported conjecture? But, it does relate to AGW, even it you weren’t speaking directly to that topic.

          • Clyde, how is it unsupported conjecture? The negativity here towards research on complex systems is astounding. Yes, the earth’s climate system is incredibly complex. We know the earth is warming, in part due to natural variation, but mostly due to anthropogenic factors. We don’t exactly when, or if, the Atlantic Conveyor will change course. We don’t know exactly when subsea methane will release in large quantities. But we know the earth is warming, and that those events are increasingly likely.

            The position of skeptics seems to be – let’s do nothing until we know everything about climate with 100% certainty. No just if the Atlantic Conveyor will flip, but exactly when it will.

    • Walt – I agree with you.

      Furthermore, many global warming and climate change alarmists, especially the “sheeple”, the followers, appear to have NO scientific education.

      Here are some basics:

      Global cooling occurred from ~1940 to 1977, even as fossil fuel consumption accelerated strongly. This observation adequately DISPROVES the “runaway global warming” hypothesis.

      This ~37-year global cooling period was naturally-caused, and was NOT primarily driven by increasing atmospheric CO2, unless one believes (as some warmists do) that CO2 is the “demon molecule”, that can cause both global warming AND global cooling, etc., etc.

      Furthermore, there is NO credible evidence of wilder weather in recent decades, despite increased atmospheric CO2.

      Furthermore, there is NO credible evidence of catastrophic global warming over geologic time, when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were many times higher than they are today.

      These are all very-scary-fairy stories, concocted by corrupt scientists to promote a profitable, self-serving political and financial agenda – at the great expense of the general public and especially the elderly and global poor.

      Global warming and climate change alarmism is a corrupt and despicable agenda – it is the greatest scam, in dollar terms, in the history of humanity.

      More on the Scientific Method:


      at 0:39/9:58: ”If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.”
      At 4:01/9:58: “You can always prove any definite theory wrong.”
      At 6:09/9:58: “By having a vague theory, it’s possible to get either result.”


      “By having a vague theory, it’s possible to get either result.” – Richard Feynman

      “A theory that is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific.” – Karl Popper.

      The “Climate Change” hypothesis is so vague, and changes so often, that it is not falsifiable and not scientific. It should be rejected as unscientific nonsense.

      The “Runaway Global Warming” hypothesis is at least falsifiable, and IT HAS BEEN ADEQUATELY FALSIFIED:

      1. By the ~37-year global cooling period from ~1940 to 1977;

      2. By “the Pause”, when temperature did not significantly increase for almost two decades, despite increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations;

      3. By the absence of runaway global warming over geologic time, despite much higher CO2 concentrations;

      4. By the fact that equatorial Pacific sea surface temperatures have not increased significantly since ~1982, and corresponding air temperatures increased largely due to the dissipation of the cooling impact of two century-scale volcanoes – El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991+;

      5. By the fact that CO2 trends lags temperature trends by ~9 months in the modern data record, and by ~~800 years in the ice core record, and the undeniable reality that the future cannot cause the past.

      In summary, there is no real dangerous global warming or wilder weather crisis. In fact, increasing atmospheric CO2 certainly improves plant and crop yields, and may cause some mild global warming, which will be net-beneficial to humanity and the environment.

      Regards, Allan

      Global warming and climate change alarmism, in a few decades at most, will be regarded as a mass delusion, and its leaders and its followers will be widely regarded as scoundrels and imbeciles.

      Quotations from the following text, written in 1841, will be cited in their epitaphs.

      Charles Mackay (1841)


      “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”

      “Of all the offspring of Time, Error is the most ancient, and is so old and familiar an acquaintance, that Truth, when discovered, comes upon most of us like an intruder, and meets the intruder’s welcome.”

      • The world warmed from 1980 to around 2010. We don’t know what caused it.
        Therefore it must have been CO2.

      • Allan

        “Furthermore, many global warming and climate change alarmists, especially the “sheeple”, the followers, appear to have NO scientific education.”

        That would be Chris, despite his claims.

  14. Kip, thanks.

    I did like this line, and will use it:
    . . . the facts don’t match the narrative . . .

    But not this one {chuckle}:
    I would have placed place more emphasis this:

    • John ==> Thank you. On the second, even one as nearly perfect as I occasionally makes a proofreading error.

  15. Well, gee whiz, I have an Excel chart I cobbled together showing that over the last 400,000 years, not only have there been repeated episodes of cold climate, but those cold episodes have been followed by episodes of warm climate. And the warm periods are repeatedly shorter than the cold periods. And that’s without any reference to temperature charts or solar this & that, or CO2 stuffs. Both the warm periods and the cold periods follow a wave form that a blind man could probably see.

    So what is the point these people are trying to make?

    Are they afraid that if they get agreement from people they designate as “deniers” (whatever that is), they won’t have a leg to stand on? (I’d like to see that).

    Well, just so you all know where I stand, if this wave form is historically even semi-accurate, then we may be coming to the end of this warm period. I know it won’t make the Warmians happy to be confronted with the very real possibility of a reversion to prolonged cold, but – well, there it is.

    That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.

      • Mardler

        I rather think it’ll be claimed they have changed the world with wind turbines and solar arrays.

        It’s coming, I’d bet my mortgage on it.

    • If they see my simple chart it will terrify them. Why? Because the Wisconsin** glaciation period lasted about 170,000 years. It was followed by several shorter periods of warm spells and cold spells, and we’re in the most recent warm spell now, about 18,000 to 20,000 years, during which Warmians have (for the last 6 to 10 years) found their niche. And there is every indication that this “niche” can end before too long.

      Lots of things happened in those 18,000 to 20,000 years.

      **Wisconsin refers to how far south the southern border of the ice sheet went on the North American continent. No reference made to Europe or southern continents or intended, only looked at North American part of it. I suppose I could dig that up if anyone demands it, but I preferred to keep it simple to make a point.

      • Best I can do is post this link to something I wrote 2 years ago . The chart is in the middle of the article. It is crude, yes, but does make my point. And as I said, I did not use temperatures. I stuck to the length of time for each glacial period and interglacial. North America only. I constructed it mostly out of curiosity.

        I was quite annoyed with the US Attorney General ‘s attempt to file RICO charges against people who disagree with the Warmians. That was in 2016. And she had to reverse her course and back pedal because the George Mason U professor who demanded this was himself engaging in RICO activity with his demand letter.

        One a side note, geologists do not include the Aftonian period any more, because the soil samples were incorrectly analyzed, and include soils from three different time periods. That’s how old my chart is.

        I think if these CAGWers saw it, they’d faint in fear. But that’s just me. 🙂

  16. That’s all very well, Kip, but have you stopped beating your wife?
    (Same thing exactly.)

  17. My apologies Kip: I don’t think you are wrong, but I am more feed up than you are.

    I deny that the so-called called climate record is a reliable record. I deny that the true record of the weather (as opposed to the ones cooked up by so-called “scientists”) supports a claim that the weather is measurably warmer now than it was in the first half of the 20th Century. I deny that climate models are anything other than mathematical masturbation. I deny that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has any ill effect on any biological system. I deny that the so called climate scientists are honest men. I deny that so called climate scientists have engaged in anything other than fear mongering. I deny that polar bears are in any danger from warmer weather in the arctic. I deny that sea levels are rising faster than they have in the recent past. I deny that so called “tropical” diseases have any causal relation with warmer weather. I deny that any of the natural disasters of this summer, last year, or any other year are related to any changes in the general climate.

    I affirm that the whole miserable theory of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming was created and advanced for the sole purpose of scarring people into surrendering their freedom, their property, and their prosperity to a global socialist government. I affirm that a warmer world is a happier, healthier, and more prosperous world. I affirm that CO2 is absolutely necessary for the existence of life on earth, and that we, and all other living things, are better off at 400 ppm than we were at 280 ppm. I affirm that it is more likely that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is due to the end of the Little Ice Age than it is due to human activity. I affirm that humanity would be far better off by the aggressive exploration of fossil fuel energy resources to bring prosperity to Africa and Asia, than it would be by any change in the general climate.

    Please add your own denials and affirmations to this thread.

    • Walter wrote:
      “Please add your own denials and affirmations to this thread.”

      Don’t need to, thank you Walter, you’ve done a pretty good job all by yourself!

      It may very well be that human activity is the major driver of increasing atmospheric CO2, but since that increase is net-beneficial, it is primarily of scientific interest.

          • Actually your problem David is that you believe that putting a couple of sensors in the ocean is capable of telling you what the temperature of the entire ocean is, to with in a few thousandths of a degree.

          • There are 3800 ARGO floats, more than a “couple.” Secondly, you have no idea about statistical sampling theory, so unless you’ve got evidence, they actually CAN measure it to a few thousandths.

          • David Dirkse

            “You are confusing sampling error with instrument error.”

            If you don’t have accurate instruments, it doesn’t matter how much you increase the sample size, the error remains, and in fact probably grows the more inaccurate instruments you add.

            Have you ever done any science in your life?

          • You “measure” the average height of American adult males with a pole that has makings at one foot intervals. All you have to do is take enough samples, and you can get accuracy to with a quarter inch. You are confusing making a single physical measurement with sampling a population.

          • For example, they poll people, and ask if they A) approve of the POTUS, or B) disapprove of the POTUS, or C) don’t know.

            The “ruler” in this case has THREE divisions, yet they come up with a number like 41.3%
            The trick is to gather enough samples.

          • For example, they poll people, and ask…

            And then they concluded that Hillary will win and that Trump doesn’t have a chance in hell of winning. Ooops.

          • David Dirkse

            “You “measure” the average height of American adult males with a pole that has makings at one foot intervals.”

            Assuming you have 3,000 poles all accurately calibrated to measure 3,000 American adult males across the country at the same time. If you don’t, the average height will be between 3’4″ and 12’10”.

          • David Dirkse

            “When they were first deployed in 2003, the Argos were hailed for their ability to collect information on ocean conditions more precisely, at more places and greater depths and in more conditions than ever before. No longer would scientists have to rely on measurements mostly at the surface from older scientific buoys or inconsistent shipboard monitors.

            So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys’ findings? Because in five years, the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters’ hypotheses, must be wrong.”


          • David Dirkse

            “No wonder it is easy to render YOUR opinion moot.”

            So are you telling me, with complete confidence that what’s posted there isn’t true despite being reported by Bob Strong of Reuters and National Post, part of PostMedia solutions, a well recognised and respected Canadian media brand?

            Like the rest of your alarmist colleagues, you do nothing but attack with empty rhetoric.

          • There are 3800 ARGO floats, more than a “couple.”

            and there is 360 million square kilometers of Ocean. 3800 is a drop in the bucket in comparison.

          • David Dirkse

            YOUR problem is that the posted graph is from Wikipedia.

            And I’m very glad you acknowledge MODELS are not data as most of the climate change scam is built on MODELS .

            The difference is, MY graph is internationally accepted by virtually every scientist in the world, well, at least 97% of them.

          • David Dirkse

            “The difference is, MY graph is internationally accepted by virtually every scientist in the world, well, at least 97% of them.”

            Aw look, you dropped it and broke it so I fixed it for you.

            Wan’t to continue playing puerile games?

          • David Dirkse

            “The difference is, MY graph is internationally accepted by virtually every scientist in the world, well, at least 97% of them.”

            “The difference is, MY graph is internationally intentionally accepted by virtually every government-paid scientist in the world, well, at least the 97% of them who want to remain government-paid scientists next year by their government-funded bureaucracies and agencies.”

          • David Dirkse

            “Go play with the MODEL that produces your graph.”

            No idea who your nasty little comment was directed at as you’re too lazy or incompetent to actually address it, but I’ll assume it was me.

            And I can only say that it’s incredibly easy to reduce people like you to the level of hurling puerile insults. Fun too.

          • We can add reading comprehension fail along since you previous science comprehension fail to your list of accomplishments David. He didn’t say *you* posted any graph, he said that “the posted graph is from Wikipedia” IE the posted graph you were defending.

          • We can add proofreading fail to my list of accomplishments 😉 previous post should have read:

            “We can add reading comprehension fail along side your previous science comprehension fail to your list of accomplishments, David”

      • The idea that we know what the total heat content of the oceans back to 1960 is such a ridiculous claim, that only someone not interested in reality could make it.

        They are trying to claim that the temperature of the oceans has increased by a few thousandths of a degree celsius when even today, we don’t know what the actual temperature of the ocean is to within 5C.

    • An important question is why humans are not considered ‘natural’ in the minds of greenies? If there was a massive increase in termite populations leading to massive rises in CO2 emissions, the greenies would see it as a good thing, Mother Nature’s way of raising low CO2 levels for the benefit of the planet. They wouldn’t be advocating the destruction of termite mounds in northern Australia to save the planet!

      • Sylvia

        I say we just feed the greens to the termites, measure the increase in termite mounds, then measure climate change based on that controlled experiment.

    • Walter ==> Thanks for chiming in. Science has chased demons down many a rabbit hole in the past, and will do so again the the future. I have written a whole series here on Science Wars — Modern Science Controversies — which all follow a similar pattern.
      I have faith that Science will come around and dispel the AGW doom and gloom in the end….when I can’t say.

  18. ‘”Without arguing about when “history” began, we can stipulate that the graph the European Geophysical Union gives us is an “accurate enough” picture of CO2 concentrations over the last thousand years.”
    One of the reasons I am skeptical is that this CO2 analysis is accepted by the alarmists without any discussion of the dissenting data. There is good reason to distrust the ice core data and good chemical analysis data from the 1800s that have not been reasonably refuted and show short periods up to 400ppm before the modern measurements by Keeling. The chemical measurements match the Keeling curve pretty well where they overlap.
    I cannot help but be skeptical when I know the story teller is leaving out part of the story.

  19. It has definitely warmed in the last forty years, by far too short a time to make comparisons with thousand or two thousand year proxy-based reconstructions that are all over the place anyway.
    According to the longest thermometer record, CET, there has been a gentle warming trend of maybe 1C since 1650 which is about as close to a reliable global indicator as possible, and no ‘hockey-stick’.
    While the T trend post 1945 is the only relevant period for looking for human-induced CO2 forcing the putative surface records show an initial fall in temperature and no net warming until 1980, although an immediate drop in temperature has been gradually adjusted away.
    According to HadCRUT4 for at least 45 of the 70 years since human emissions were significant there has been no definite positive correlation between rising human emissions (and CO2 in general) and temperature.
    The period of positive correlation 1975 – 2005 happens also to include 1985-2000 when there was a drop in the tropics cloud cover of ~5% equivalent to a radiative net change of about 0.9 W/m2 (climate4you).
    None of that means human CO2 emissions have had no effect however matters have gone well beyond all that, to start implementing radical economic prescriptions based on such flimsy empirical data over such a short period is madness.

    • It is odd thst a direct data set, the CET, is called regional, but a comoketely derived secondary proxy, some tree rings from a tiny number of trees, is global.

  20. If someone asks you why you deny climate change, just say ”you are asking the wrong question because you do not understand the definition of climate”

    They say…”what’s the definition of climate”?

    You say…..”it’s made up”

    They say.. ”what do you mean it’s made up?”

    You say.. ”The going definition of climate is the average weather over thirty years”

    They say.. ”Ok so that means the climate has changed because it has got warmer in the last 30 years”

    You say… ”The 30 year figure is a completely arbitrary. It was made up to have a point of reference”

    They say… ”But you need a point of reference to determine weather something is changing”

    You say… ”Yes you do”

    They say… ”So what is the correct definition?”

    You say…. ”No one really knows but it’s probably many thousands of years going by the localized evolution of organisms”

    They don’t say anything….

    • “You say…. ”No one really knows but it’s probably many thousands of years going by the localized evolution of organisms””

      So explain why it is that the climate time period must match the evolutionary period of organisms.

      • Because the vast majority of plants, for example, have evolved to grow within a very limited range of temperatures and rainfall patterns which need to remain stable for huge expances of time. This can be evidenced by the fact that I can grow cold climate tree in my area but it’s seed will not be viable because it’s not cold enough. It needs a specific temperature range. A few degrees colder and it will die out, a few degrees warmer and it will die out. And yet there it is after thousands of years. Remember that some of these trees are still alive today after several thousand years. Therefore the temperature range in which it has evolved in has remained fairy constant for the thousands of years required for it’s evolution from warm climate to cool or vice versa. And therefore to use 30 years as a block of time to define climate, and worse, claim changes in climate is absolute nonsense.

        • The Wollemi Pine first appeared in the fossil record 200 million years ago.
          On the 10th of September, 1994, 74 trees were discovered alive and well, 150 Kms west of Sydney, Australia.
          They were thought to have become extinct between 2 million and 40 million years ago.
          Either they aren’t effected by climate change, or the climate hasn’t changed that much in 200 million years. Take your pick.
          Read some more here… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wollemia

        • Plants have evolved over millions of years. We don’t need to wait millions of years – or even thousands – to know that severe drought is bad for plants, or for grazing animals. We don’t need to wait thousands of years to know that receding glaciers will cause water availability problems for 100s of millions of people. We don’t need to wait thousands of years to know that if Greenland and Antarctica melt, it will have catastrophic impacts on coastlines.

          • Chris

            What sever droughts other than those we already live with are you talking about?

            Receding glaciers produce water. Advancing glaciers don’t. Think about it, take your time now.

            We do need to wait thousands of years for Greenland and Antarctica to melt though, because that’s how long it’ll take them.

            Nor would any coastline change be accomplished by some mega tsunami, it will take hundreds of years, plenty of time for humanity to adapt.

            Stop re running Sharknado to frighten yourself.

          • This whole sea level rise threat is such a farce anyway. Even if all 200000 glaciers in the world melted the sea level rise would only be 400mm. That is less than 16 inches. Antarctica will never melt; even if global average temperatures go up 4C; because almost all of the continent is way below freezing even in the Antarctic summer. Since the Arctic ice sits on the ocean; sea level would only rise by about 20mm (because most of that ice is salty) if the whole Arctic melted. What is left to melt? Greenland. Okay Consider this. So even if the CAGW alarmists are right and the temp rises to 4C over today, how much of Greenland would melt? Well in the vast interior of Greenland only the very top of the ice melts in the summertime. Even the IPCC has stated that a 3C global rise in temperature over the next 80 years would only result in a 1 metre rise in sea level. I dispute that because the vast majority of Greenland’s ice sheet never even comes close to reaching 0C. It would take a much larger increase of temperature to melt it. Everybody just seems to take the alarmist view on this without looking at the actual size of ice that would have to melt. Recently an engineer calculated that it would take 105000 years to melt the Antarctica even if you had all the energy of the world running blowtorches melting the ice. Greenland is not nearly as big but to try and melt even a thousandth of Greenland even if you had access to industrial melters on every last inch of the Greenland interior, would be a futile task. Greenland has 2,850,000 km3 of ice.
            All of it would have to melt to raise sea level by 7 metres. This is just not going to happen especially even with a 4C average global temperature rise which is at the high catastrophic range of IPCC predictions. You just cannot melt that large a block of ice with air temperatures 4C higher . This is because you are dealing with averages here. The summit which is 2 miles above sea level in the interior has an air temperature range of -26C in winter to 0C in summer. Summer in this part of Greenland is only 2 months long. Temperatures in the other 10 months of the year are below
            -10 C. So 2 months of summer is just not enough time to melt an appreciable amount of ice. Increasing the average global temperature by 4C will not make the interior go above freezing because of the elevation.
            Additionally, the weight of the Greenland ice has depressed the interior of the continent and disrupted any drainage that existed prior to being covered in ice. If the ice should be completely melted, a significant fraction of the water won’t make it to the oceans until isostatic rebound removes the ‘bowl.’ The bottom line is that theoretical calculations converting the ice volume of Greenland to an increase in ocean level overstates the immediate effect.

            I would also like to draw your attention to this graph


            It shows the alltime record summer temp for Summit station in inland Greenland. Notice that it barely got above 0C. Since summers are only 2 months long here how in the hell is Greenland supposed to melt any appreciable amount even if global temps went up 4C. The summit is 2 miles high and the mean thickness of the ice in all of Greenland is 2135 metres or 7000 ft. Since this total of ice is 2850000 km3 , how would this melt in 2 months? It wouldn’t. fall and winter would come and the ice would refreeze. Spring would come again and as you see on the graph there wouldn’t be any melting in the spring even if global world temperatures soared above an increase of 4C. Sure Greenland has been losing ice mass over last 20 years but this has happened thousands of times in the past. There was less ice at the end of the 1930s in Greenland than there is today. A new study by Niesen et al.,2018 shows that 8000 years ago was 2-3 C warmer than today with peaks as high as 5C higher and the greenland ice mass diminished only 20% in 3000 years at those increased temperatures.

            To further cement this hypothesis of Greenland ice sheet not melting from of top, there have been studies that the melting is happening from underneath because of a volcanic ridge extending from Iceland right to the Arctic. Even the alarmist scientists are admitting that the top of Greenlands interior ice sheet is not melting and that the upper surface every year gets fresh snow/ice and the reason that there is a net loss of ice is the amount of icebergs calving off on the shore line. These icebergs have calved off for millions of years and the volcanic activity has come and gone for millions of years.The alarmists will argue that the calving of the icebergs on the coast of Greenland is increasing with global warming.
            However, that demonstrates a lack of understanding of just how calving works. Calving is a breakup of ice shelfs at the coast caused by pressure from the ice sheets as the ice is forced to the sea. Calving is just as likely to happen when it is cold or warm. Calving has been going on ever since Greenland formed ice sheets.

            The global alarmist position is a farce on every level.

          • No we don’t need to wait thousands of years to know your issues above are bad.
            No-one ever said that.
            What I am saying is that you cannot claim that climate is changing right now. All you can say is that the weather has changed somewhat lately and that climate MAY be changing but there is no proof whatsoever. And, given history, it almost unquestionably is not changing.

        • “Because the vast majority of plants, for example, have evolved to grow within a very limited range of temperatures and rainfall patterns”

          This is not true.

          • You obviously know little about horticulture. Why is it that European beech will not set viable seeds where I am (coastal) yet up in the hills a mere 30 miles from here where the average temps are perhaps 4 or 5 degrees cooler on average, they can? I would say 4 or 5 degrees C is a narrow range. No plant can exist for long at temps below 0 C and above about 55 C. It takes several generations (perhaps hundreds) of genetic mutation to keep up with a permanent change in climate and then only up o a point. Or maybe you believe evolution takes a matter of a few decades?
            How long has the Great Barrier Reef been there?
            It’s quite obvious that this planet has, by pure chance, a self regulating moderate climate and lucky for us! Steady enough for long enough and in enough places for life to exist regardless of huge past Co2 variations, glaciations, ice ages and etc.

    • If we are talking 30 years, shouldn’t we recalculate every year using the past 30, record changes and present all thirty year periods separately in a chart?

  21. Kip,

    That second claim (“Human activity causes [some of] it.”) you should ‘deny’, because it simply isn’t true. There is absolutely no observational evidence from the real Earth system to support it. In fact, all the relevant data point in the opposite direction; the Sun, not Man, is responsible:




      • Chris – Re your reference. As an excellent statistician pointed out to me often: “corellation is not causation.”

        • Correlation might or might not indicate causation. Lack of correlation definitely indicates lack of causation.

          • Technically, the causation is separation from the correlation. You are correct in the lack of correlation excludes causality (except when we don’t want it to) so looking at correlation first can exclude factors that are not causal.

        • “Chris – Re your reference. As an excellent statistician pointed out to me often: “corellation is not causation.””

          Except that is not only correlation.
          It is a direct measurement of increased forcing of back-radiated LWIR due to increasing atmospheric CO2 levels from 2 dry locations, over a continuous period of 10 years.
          Spectrographically measured.
          If you dont like the forcing calculations from Radiative transfer physics then you need to get onto the Gov as MODTRAN was part developed by the military.


          “Some aspects of MODTRAN are patented by Spectral Sciences, Inc. and the US Air Force, who have shared development responsibility for the code and related radiation transfer science collaboratively since 1987. The acronym MODTRAN was registered as a trademark of the US Government, represented by the US Air Force, in 2008”

          • Anthony Banton

            The measurement methods aren’t the problem, the data source is the problem. See my response to Chris above.

      • The study demonstrates the “greenhouse effect”. So what?
        When they make the leap to blaming humanity is when the study stops being scientific and moves into the realm of superstition and witch-finding

        • Duh, the measurements – not “the study”- shows the increase in forcing due to higher CO2 levels.

          • Yep, the measurements certainly do. As I said, it demonstrates the greenhouse effect. As for the self-flagellation that the study then begins to delve into, well that’s just religious belief.

          • It doesn’t just demonstrate the greenhouse affect, it demonstrates the increasing in forcing that has occurred over time due to CO2. Maybe you didn’t read that part of the article.

          • Define forcing and exactly where we got that term from. As far as I can see, it’s fudge factors to get the answer desired.

          • You are making the case that you don’t understand that correlation does not prove causation. And, it looks like you are going to stick to it.

          • That CO2 will have the same affect in nature that it does in a lab is an assumption. It is not proven.
            Nature is dominated by negative feedbacks, most of which are still poorly understood.

          • David Dirkse

            Kip’s statements were:

            1. Global Warming is happening
            2. Human activity causes [some of] it.

            Kristian’s statement was:

            “There is absolutely no observational evidence from the real Earth system to support it.”

            Chris’s response was to post a discredited paper that has been occasionally brandished by idiotic alarmists who can’t be bothered to check the credibility of it, as evidence that man made CO2 causes global warming.

            The paper wasn’t investigating temperature per se, but to ‘prove’ it’s point, it had to use a temperature range, which was bogus.

          • They were measuring the increase in downwelling IR as it relates to the increase in ppm concentration in the time period. Your posting a temperature graph is irrelevant to what they actually measured.

          • David Dirkse

            “That is the point I made.”

            No it wasn’t, and kindly don’t misrepresent what I post.

          • HotScot criticizes David for supposedly misrepresenting his post, but is quite happy to misrepresent mine. The paper has not been discredited, if it has please post links to that.

            The paper makes no mention of temperature, it’s false to say that it did. In fact, I just reread the article, the word temperature doesn’t appear anywhere in the entire article.

          • Chris

            I didn’t misrepresent you post. Crying ‘why me’ again doesn’t make you look any better. I said the measurements are bogus. That’s not a misrepresentation.

            And here’s the evidence to discredit your study. Chapter and verse if you have the gumption to actually read it.


            Like I repeat time after time. 40 years of the best scientific minds in the world desperate to demonstrate CO2 causes global warming, and the best they can come up with is this. A single discredited paper in all that time!

            Either they are utterly incompetent or the phenomenon just doesn’t exist.

            Which is it Chris? Two simple choices, or is even that beyond you?

          • HotScot – the paper doesn’t remotely refute the findings. It calls the forcing measurements theoretically derived, which is false. They were measured.

          • Oh, and you are lying when you said you did not misprepresent my post. Your temperature graph is from the HockeySchtick blog, not even from the paper. There is no mention of temperature in the article I posted.

          • Chris

            Possibly why it wasn’t included in the article. It’s a graphical representation that makes it blindingly obvious the temperature ranges selected are inappropriate, to say the least.

            Where is it writ that a critique of a paper can’t include information not provided therein?

            And yes, you did post an ‘article’ not the paper.

          • HotScot, criticizing a paper about forcing measurements using temperature data is irrelevant. The words “temperature ranges selected are inappropriate” are irrelevant. The paper is about forcing measurements.

            [?? .mod]

      • I hold a similar position to Kip and I’m OK with this study. If it holds any surprises at all, it is how little increase there was. Over 10 years they measured an increase in what they call “Surface forcing” (a.k.a. back radiation) of 0.2 W/m^2.
        That’s nothing! (or have I made a mistake?) That’s only 2 W/m^2 per century.

    • That any change that could be caused by CO2 still less than natural variability is not evidence that there is no change being caused by CO2.

    • Kristian ==> That “Human activity causes [some of] it.” is not controversial, even among hard-core fringe skeptics. Urbanization, nearly clear-cutting half a continent, massive CO2 emissions, etc are certainly enough to allow that “Human activity causes [some of] it.”

      There are basic physical principles that must be allowed to rule the physical world.

      The nut in contention is “causes how much?”, “which causes cause how much?” and “what do we think the mid- to long-term results will be?”

  22. Kip – wrt Judith Curry’s chart above:

    The Paleoclimatologists I know belong on the right-hand side of the chart, not the left.

    – Because atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by hundreds of years in the ice core record.

    – Because climate tends to follow solar activity, not CO2.

    • Allan ==> Yes — maybe so… the “whose is on which side” issue is sticky as it is obviously a very personal understanding — and in CliSci, if one is a professional (whose job and reputation are on the line), then one keeps contrary understandings to oneself or disguised as “interesting findings”.

  23. The mainstream debate between global warming alarmists and skeptics is about ONE parameter – the sensitivity of climate to increasing atmospheric CO2.

    Global warming alarmists have consistently used highly inflated values of climate sensitivity to push their very-scary and very-false story – that we’re all gonna burn.

    There is NO evidence that climate sensitivity is high enough to cause catastrophic global warming, and ample evidence that any CO2-driven warming will be mild and net-beneficial to humanity and the environment.

  24. Kip,

    “Climate Consensus — usually said to be represented by the latest reports and policy recommendations put out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its supporters; political, ideological and scientific.” This is not the “consensus” as I understand it. The consensus is among climate scientists. Big difference. And it’s based on several studies. In these studies, it is not based on agreement with the IPCC, but rather with anthropogenic climate change. It has nothing to do with policy. There is far too much in the IPCC that is worthy of debate for most educated, thoughtful people (and especially scientists) to agree with it in its totality.

    The Lamb graph was originally from his 1965 paper. I don’t know what you mean by the Jones et al. reanalysis – is the graph not based on a thermometer reading? Needs explaining, as does the very different results of the measured Central England through 2007.

    “This graph contains the seed of my certainty that “global warming is happening”

    This is odd, since it doesn’t represent global warming at all. And it’s very odd that you say “The Earth’s general climate has warmed since a bit before 1700 CE — i.e., for the last 300+ years” when after a peak at around 1720 the temperature drops and remains fairly stable for about 175 years – up until around 1900. Is that just a “hiatus”?

    Your NOAA graph with all the squiggly lines is for the northern hemisphere, it’s not global.

    Spencer’s 2007 graph (couldn’t find the source) is based on Loehle’s 2007 paper (corrected in 2008), published by Energy & Environment. At the time, it was edited by Sonia Boehmer-Christiansen.

    “Energy & Environment has been accused of abusing the peer-review process, and has drawn sharp criticism for its publication of sub-standard articles. …

    “According to Boehmer-Christiansen, she publishes papers counter to widely acknowledge climate science because, she contends, the skeptic position is often stifled in other outlets: ‘I’m following my political agenda — a bit, anyway,’ she said. ‘But isn’t that the right of the editor?’”
    (https://www.desmogblog.com/energy-and-environment) (E&E has since been sold, and now has a better peer review process.)

    This doesn’t say much for adherence to unbiased scientific standards when the editor admits to following a political agenda.

    But quite apart from that, what makes you choose to show this graph over another? This article lists many problems with the Loehle paper, and it is not evidence from the corrected paper that the problems were completely solved. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/past-reconstructions/

    I find it peculiar that tree ring data was called into question, when it is only the data since 1960 that doesn’t track other measurements.

    “While it is not easy to measure atmospheric CO2 concentrations, it has been being done for quite some time….and we have been able to guess about human greenhouse-gas emissions and their sources. ”

    These are not “guesses.” They are based on measured isotopes.

    Interesting that you would place more emphasis on chaos. While there is an element of chaos to climate, there is much known about the processes that come into play – and much to be learned still, but that doesn’t at all imply that what we don’t know is chaotic. Most of the system can be described by physical, chemical and biological processes, and if we were able to model them at high resolution with an extremely large dataset, the models would improve. The main problem is lack of knowledge (and computing capacity), particularly of oceanic, biological and cloud parameters. Each of those has elements of chaos, but if climate were truly so chaotic we would not see the patterns we do in the paleo record. Complexity does not equal chaos.

    Thanks for posting the cumulative CO2 emissions info. That’s something I’ve long suspected. I think it’s worth noting that it reflects not only output of CO2, but reduced sink due to forest clearing.

    I look forward to your next post.

    Regards, Kristi

      • “I love humans. Always seeing patterns in things that aren’t there”- Paul McGann as the Doctor, Doctor Who 1996

    • Kristi ==> Again, your comment above is “shotgunning” — going on about lots of different points without really making an effort to “make” any of the points at all.

      I find it odd that you seem to want to argue about the points I already concede…

      You seem ill-informed about “chaos” — both Dr. Curry and I refer to “chaos” in the sense used in Chaos Theory — see my Chaos Series here and my essay Lorenz Validated @ Climate Etc. Complexity does not equal Chaos — Chaos is a very special thing.

    • Kristi Silber,

      The only discussion about CO2 should be how it can heat the atmosphere. CO2 absorbs outgoing Long Wave Infrared Radiation, from atmospheric molecules radiating at -80C, plus or minus. The fraction of LWIR from the Earth’s surface at the 15 micron wavelength is small, and is 100% absorbed within a few meters of the surface and immediately converted to kinetic energy of the other atmospheric molecules, also known as “Heat.” This effect has been saturated for millenia, and any changes close to the surface are minimal.

      At the Top of Atmosphere, where there is very little water vapor, CO2 is opaque to this LWIR radiating from molecules around -80 C. More CO2 raises the altitude at which CO2 remains opaque to this outgoing radiation, thus lowering the temperature at which the atmosphere radiates to space, retaining more of this energy in the atmosphere.

      This is rock-solid physics, but I bet no one ever told you this before. Tell your friend Chris too.

      The thing is, no one can calculate the magnitude of this effect. So-called Climate Sensitivity calculations are all based on the assumption that natural variability, responsible for the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Minoan Climate Optimum, and lots of other warm periods just like this one, simply ceased around 1880 and now it is all because of CO2.

      If this Climate Sensitivity is plausible to you then there is no point in further discussion.

  25. Ever since Racial Carsons book “Silent Spring”, we have had people who a a bit like the film “The raqzers edge”are always looking for a reason to justify “The Cause”.

    We now have a whole industry out there, for and against this cause, plus of course the politicians who are always looking for something to scare us with, so they can then offer to Save us from. Just as long as we then vote for them of course.

    But just as with Joseph Stalin long ago said’Useful idiots”those who thought that Communism was a good idea, we still have people who believe in some form of world government, a which the United Nations, dominated by the so called “Third World”countries.

    That term came from the premier of India Neru, who wished to remain neutral during the Cold War between the USA & the USSR. Today it means the difference between the “Have & the Have Not”countries, the later blaming the former for all of their problems & demanding via the UN IPCC and Paris to be paid l lots of money

    Behind all the properganda beware of the man or persons hiding behind the Green Curtain. They want to destroy our way of life, so that just like 1917 Russia we the population will finally accept their version of how the World should be governed.


  26. I too am frequently accused of denying climate change, something which I have never done. As far as I can surmise, the reason for such accusations is that my accusers are unable to refute the actual points that I make.

  27. Kip,

    I respond to the question as follows:

    “My position has nothing to do with DENIAL and everything to do with REJECTION.”

    R E J E C T I O N

    I REJECT the climate Alarmism Narrative. Denial suggests there is truth that one cannot or will not accept. REJECTION asserts that I have the qualifications to review the narrative and the outcome of that review is that the narrative fails completely. I REJECT the climate Alarmism Narrative.

    I’m aware of all of the data you presented so well. However, there are many assumptions that even “skeptics” take for granted. I challenge these assumptions as there is no scientific evidence to support making the assumptions. I’ll try to summarize without writing a novel.

    1. The instrument temperature record is not adequate for scientific endeavor. There are over a dozen scientific reasons as to why the instrument record is a dumpster fire. At best we know the average temperature to +/- 1C, and in that range of uncertainty who knows what is happening? No one knows.
    2. The Earth does not have a singular climate. Why does this not get nailed to the wall immediately by everyone with a scientific background? The Earth has MANY climates. Attempting to understand the overall situation on Earth by averaging is not scientifically sound. 0 and 40 average to 20, just as 19 and 21 average to 20. The 2 sets of numbers obviously represent 2 very different scenarios. The averaging of temperatures (badly sampled spatially and temporally) does not tell us what is happening with the various climate regions of Earth.
    3. Temperature is not adequate to capture the energy stored in the atmosphere, land, earth and ice. It’s all about the energy – not temperature. Talking about temperature is not sound from a thermodynamic perspective. Even in an adiabatic situation where the incoming and outgoing energy are in balance, we can experience an average temperature increase or decrease. Melting ice cools the atmosphere and increasing ice warms the atmosphere (that heat goes from the ice to the air). There is a massive amount of energy that is hidden in state change as water transitions from liquid to solid ice or vice versa. Ocean and lake water evaporating also occupies a massive amount of energy. Vast amounts of energy can be stored in or removed from the ice and oceans – just through the movement of energy – without any net increase or decrease of energy entering or leaving the system from the sun or space. We do not have a good measure of these things and therefore average global temperature is not very meaningful.
    4. This bad temperature data is fed into climate models. There are over 100 models I’m aware of. The exact number that work (back test) is ZERO.
    5. The instrument climate record is completely unremarkable when laid against the backdrop of the paleoclimate proxy record. The absolute temperatures are not noteworthy nor are the slopes of the signal. Look at the Greenland record over the past 10k years and try to find anything alarming about the past 100 years – especially as it relates to warming.
    6. What exactly is “climate change”? What is the definition that everyone agrees to exactly? Where does climate variability end and “climate change” begin? Why do we say that a small change in the average temperature means that climate has or is changing? Glacial periods and interglacial periods are clearly distinct average climate states to my mind. A rain forest becoming a desert is clearly a change to my mind. Everyone talks about “climate change”, but I’m not aware of a universally accepted definition. The discussion goes on to great extend without even a basic agreement about what the subject means.
    7. There appears to be absolutely no ancient historical record showing CO2 even being correlated to temperature. The 800k yr. ice record shows CO2 as the lagging effect of temperature – not the cause. I have links to over 75 peer reviewed scientific papers all showing low or no climate sensitivity to additional CO2. About 20 of those papers say essentially zero sensitivity. The rest show a very low number: 0.02C, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, etc. If you compare that to the worst IPCC figure of 8C for doubling of CO2, then (if you ignore the papers claiming zero sensitivity) you get a 400:1 ratio. It is clear that science does not understand what the effect of additional CO2 is to “average global temperature”.
    8. Storms, floods and wildfires are not more frequent or more severe.
    9. The polar ice appears to be unchanged over the past 100 years. The eustatic sea level rise is likely 0.9mm/yr and is likely fed by ground water (over 30% of liquid fresh water on Earth).
    10. The 97% consensus claim is ridiculous. What is the numerator and denominator driving this percentage? And again, what is the statement that the 97% agree to? Consensus is not a scientific concept – it is a political concept. Consensus is needed in a democratic republic but not in science. What are your top 5 favorite scientific breakthroughs that have come about as a result of scientists reaching consensus? F=ma, V=IR, PV=nRT, the mass of a proton, the charge of an electron? Nope. Doesn’t matter what the vote is. Not one breakthrough can be attributed to consensus. Is there such a thing as “settled” science? The word “settled” is a legal term. Law might be “settled” – but science is never “settled”. Do you “believe” in global warming? What does belief have to do with science? Like “faith”, “belief” is a religious term – not a scientific term. So, when someone says “The science is settled, 97% of scientists believe in climate change and a consensus has been reached” – you know you are not talking with a scientist. You are talking to a politician, lawyer or a priest.

    I REJECT the climate alarmism narrative. Those who accuse me of being a “denier” just show me they have a weak mind.


      • Thanks Jim,

        Here you go: http://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/#sthash.VcuWbQua.R8NoeIWA.dpbs

        Section (a) (at the top of the page) show 31 papers, published starting 1974 through 2018, that claim “extremely low climate sensitivity to CO2”.

        Section (b) (at the middle of the page) shows the papers claiming “close to zero” sensitivity to additional CO2. There are ~43 papers in this section. The papers were published between the years of 1961 and 2018.

        Section (c) (at the bottom of the page) shows papers claiming a “net surface cooling effect” of increasing CO2. 5 papers in total.

        This is just a small collection of papers. How many papers have been published on the subject of “climate sensitivity”? Hundreds? Thousands? How many billions of dollars spent globally?

        How many papers did it take to prove Maxwell’s equations? The Shockley Diode equation? Atomic masses? Charge of an electron? These things are reproducible as mathematical derivatives and empirically confirmable in the lab – at any place in the world to a high degree of agreement – meaning to a few hundredths of a percent. But hundreds or thousands of papers later, we still get a ~400:1 ratio of results regarding “climate sensitivity”. That ratio goes to infinity if you include the zero sensitivity results.

        It’s fun to dig into and discuss all of this cool stuff about climate because most here love to understand how things work. And most people love our world and don’t want to be a part of damaging it. But we need to slam on the brakes when we come up to an assumption that does not deserve to be assumed. Even “skeptics” dutifully genuflect to the “green house” theory; for being skeptical of that is just a bridge too far and is an instant request for a free neon “denier” shirt. The truth is that despite all of the money spent and great minds applied, we don’t know the relationship between CO2 and climate. Politicians and activists have hijacked science and have come to us asking for and demanding out vote to their narrative. I REJECT their request and I proudly wear my REJECTOR shirt.

        People working in the “climate science” field have the unenviable disadvantage that they have no laboratory with which to prove out their theories. The “climate” is just too big – too complex – too chaotic and too non-linear. The result is (sadly) a lot of “science” that is never grounded in reality or proof. We are more likely to lose Manhattan under a flood of climate papers than the oceans. In the world of engineering, the math and science always ground in reality. Either the plane gets you safely to your destination or you end up in a pile of burning metal and jet fuel.


    • William, point no 1 is all that is needed. Though thanks for the rest.

      To be able to “use” the temperature dataset and to be able to use CLT, the sample temperature distributions are assumed to be identically distributed. For example, this is how the SST temperatures are derived. It’s a scientific assumption but not fit for real life use.

      In reality the measurement tools were not designed to give such low uncertainty.

      This is the fundamental problem to many people in the climate science community and many on thsi site.

      If you accept the assumption you are now talking in hypotheticals and cannot apply conclusions beyond the hypothetical. If you don’t accept the assumptions then there isn’t much to talk about.

      • Micky, I agree. It is very tempting to get drawn into the debate. Accepting the bad assumptions makes it very difficult to argue against the massive case that rests upon the foundation of the assumptions. Whether the debate is truly scientific in nature or sadly political, I think it is important to call out the assumptions that can not be supported.

        If there is Climate DENIAL, then my retort to the Alarmists is that they are the ones performing it. They deny the truth that we don’t have the global instrument network or high quality historical data necessary to make scientific advancements. They are in denial because their theories are not supported by any repeatable science.

        Personally, I’m fed up with the fact that there aren’t any strong and capable voices of alarmism rejection making it to center stage. There are plenty of knowledgeable people with the right information, but if they are in the field of climate science they tend to 1) argue timidly for fear of being destroyed as a blasphemer and 2) tend to be too dignified to fight back in a way that puts the alarmists on their heels. Most “skeptics” that make it to the microphone tend to be embarrassments, making all “skeptics” appear to be uninformed clowns. I’m thinking about one US Senator who tossed a snowball around the Senate chamber in April and claimed this showed there is no global warming.

        • William, great comments, thanks.

          “Personally, I’m fed up with the fact that there aren’t any strong and capable voices of alarmism rejection making it to center stage.”

          One reason there aren’t any strong voices heard supporting ‘our’ side of the argument (Climate Change scepticism) is that they are not allowed on the airwaves, generally. There are a few – Lord Monckton and Marc Morano for two but you will never hear or see them on the BBC. Another reason is that ‘scientists’ and well-known supporters of Climate Change refuse to debate with them, because they know they would be shown up as the charlatans they are.

          But I too despair at the lack of balanced debate and to hear the sceptics side being argued for. Having to constantly hear the same drivel being parroted without rebuttal is not good for my blood pressure.

    • William ==> Thanks for contributing to the conversation. I reject the Climate Alarmism Narrative too.

  28. I have, for the entire period I have been a ‘denier’, felt uncomfortable with justifying my stance – and label.
    Denier is for all intents and purposes, a tag given someone with a clinical psychological condition, and ‘denying’ anything after that, merely reinforces the accusers label or aspersions of me – you – or anyone.
    So, in that effort to feel non clinically in denial, I have chosen the word ‘rationalist’ to better describe my position or stance on AGW – for a rational analysis allows far better the chance/hope that a conversation with someone doesn’t disintegrate into the two parties becoming overly partisan….hopefully.

    So, I’m a rationalist who feels just fine now, and will entertain ANY fair discussion of information either side may bring to the party….even dare I say it, I would argue against someone in my own camp, were they not ‘rational’ in their argument.

    This is why I feel too, most comfortable attending this site, as I feel most everyone here is quite rational…with only a rare occasion when denial of the facts seems to be a fare label to tag someone with.

  29. Yes, very reasonable. Look forward to the next installment. Of course there will be disagreement on some points – perhaps the instrumental record as recently reported is being taken a bit too much on faith – not enough consideration to all of the rewritings of the historical record, which is one of my own grounds of unease about the whole subject.

    But the basic line of argument is sound, and it raises the real and fundamental question: what exactly is it that one is obliged to believe to merit the charge of denialism? If you read Real Climate, or the Guardian environment pages (which are really skepticalscience in print) or the Ars Technica postings and comments on climate, you’ll see that the number of the elect is really tiny. There is some sort of credo or Party Line which you are obliged to believe in exhaustive detail, or be a ‘denier’. But it is never laid your clearly and in detail.

    In the end the accusation seems to come down to emotional tone. Various inexplicit tests are being done to see if this guy feels like one of us. Its a matter of identity for the alarmists, its not a matter of scientific propositions. In rather the same way, the proposed policy remedies have to be accepted as a matter of identity, and not because they actually have any effect on the supposed problem as defined.

    Its a very interesting social phenomenon. We have a group which claims to believe that civilisation is under imminent threat of extinction from CO2 emissions, but which refuses to advocate measures which will lower then, and also insists on advocating measures which will not lower them.

    Historians of great popular delusions and the madness of crowds will have a lot of fun with this in another 50 or so years. But its not much fun right now.

  30. Natural variability of Earth”s climate is an order of magnitude greater than anything seen in the past century, from mere weather cycles, plus Urban-Heat-Island effect’s biasing of the pseudo global-temperature ‘data’ record.

    There’s no dah-nile even involved.

  31. I was speaking to an otherwise charming lady the other night who was very concerned about climate change and worried that the artic sea ice might melt and raise sea levels and flood coastal cities etc. She could not understand my comment that it would have no impact whatsoever on sea levels. Once people have selected their reality they don’t want to concern themselves with facts or logic. Keep trying Kip but an appeal to reason is unlikely to work. The fact you are called a denier is easier and more persausive (to the other side) than presenting you with reasoned arguments – which are unlikely in themselves to alter your views. It helps them with their self image.

    I’ve often wondered what evidence it would take to convince me that there is a real climate problem. I can’t think of any off hand except for very obvious man made CO2 induced disasters are frequently occurring – by which time I guess it would be too late. However the breathless media reporting of every rain storm and squall as somehow being linked (may be , might be, could be) to CO2 leaves me unconvinced.

    • The deceptive over reporting of every weather event as *proof* tells me they are selling bs and know it.
      The climate hype strategy of taking current weather extremes, heat or cold, wet or dry, and claiming there will be more of it due to “climate change” is obvious post hoc arm waving. But it is the go to reporting standard.
      The inability of climate obsessed to debate openly.
      And in fact that with few exceptions they flee debate is evidence tgey know they cannot make a rational case.

    • marcjf ==> My purpose for writing here is to help the readers see more clearly through the murky waters of modern science and science journalism. Occasionally I help some one individual….that’s all I can hope for.

  32. Global Warming: How Long Do We Have Left?

    Using the latest statistical techniques, we can now predict, to the minute, when global warming will kill you (accurate to +/- 17 minutes).

    Recently, Mr Tamino wrote an article, called “Global Warming: How Long Do We Have Left?”.

    As you all know, Mr Tamino is an overly optimistic, sort of person.

    I can assure you, that he took no delight, in telling everybody that they would all be dead by the year 2045. This is when we will exceed the 1.5 degrees Celsius temperature limit.

    He even tried to soften the blow, by saying that you might get a couple of years more.

    The only way to avoid total disaster, apparently, is to do exactly what Mr Tamino tells you to do.

    I don’t want to rain on Mr Tamino’s parade, but I noticed that he made a small mistake, in his calculations for the end of the world.

    He forgot to take into account, the fact that different regions of the world, have different warming rates.

    That is ok for some regions, but we have bad news for Region 1 (from 90N to 48N).


    With Mr Tamino’s help, I have created a colour coded map of the world, which shows the outlook for the different regions of the world.

    Region 1 (90N to 48N) – Red – Already dead

    Region 2 (48N to 30N) – Orange- Not feeling very well

    Region 3 (30N to 14N) – Yellow – Don’t take out a long term contract for Sky TV

    Region 4 (14N to Equator) – Light green – Slightly under the weather

    Region 5 (Equator to 14S) – Dark green – Have been better

    Region 6 (14S to 30S) – Aqua – Not feeling too bad

    Region 7 (30S to 48S) – Blue – Never been better

    Region 8 (48S to 90S) – Purple – Feeling great, but it is very cold, and I can’t feel my feet

    People who don’t want to know when they are going to die, should not read this article. You have been warned.


    • Nonsense. Everyone knows overpopulation, overconsumption of resources and global warming killed us all decades ago.

    • I can never see anything in those triangle “graphs” other than a triangle with lots of pretty colors. Am I the only one that finds this “new” method of graphing absolutely worthless?

  33. Excellent review that needs more energy.
    The outrage is that ckimate believers, by tacitly linking agreement with them as somehow magically influencing the weather are practicing a shamanist pseudo religion/political obsession.

  34. According to Lord Monckton, the net anthropogenic forcing as of 2018 (according to the IPCC) = 2.85 W/m^2 (includes 2/3 of negative aerosol forcing added back in). Because this supposed excess of heat each year isnt really increasing the air temperatures very much, all the alarmist climate scientists are saying that the heat is going to the oceans and eventually will come back to bite us. I wanted to check the amount of actual heat flux that the alarmists scientists say is actually hiding in the oceans all this time. The time scale will be 1955 to 1998 because that is when the period of data that was analyzed ; ended for the important study done in 2004 and published in 2005.


    with Levitus et al on Warming of the World’s Ocean 1955-2003. That study was the 1st one to actually numerate the total amount of extra forced heat flux that the atmosphere dissipated(because of global warming) to either the oceans, melting of continental glaciers, heat permanently absorbed by the troposphere, Antarctic melting, melting of mountain glaciers, melting of northern hemisphere sea ice, and melting of Arctic sea ice.

    They give a figure detailing each of the above categories. The total of all categories is 17.3 x10^22 joules. We will call this the OHC%. Ocean heat content % By far the most important one
    is the ocean absorbed heat. The authors state that it is 83.8% of the total or 14.5 X 10^22 joules for the Zero to 3000 metre depth. This amount came from the studies of ocean plankton!!!!!! used as a proxy for ocean temperatures. This data is apparently stored in the WORLD OCEAN DATABASE (Conkright et al 2002). In the study they state that the period of 1957 -1990 is used as a reference period for their estimates. They have had to use estmates of the linear trend for 6 ocean areas covering the globe, presumably because even though their plancton datbases contain over 2 million data points, even that is not enough to cover all 6 parts of the oceans. of course they combine that with the old bucket and expendable bath thermograph measurements. These days all the researchers use the Argo buoy float data and the plancton based database seems to have been forgotten. It may be because of the following. I am not familiar with using plancton as a proxy for seawater temperatures as an after the fact historical measurement. However the following study says some very important things on the matter.


    “Temperature does not seem to be very important in the production of phytoplankton in the sea.”

    Nevertheless the author presses on to find a maximum temperature that sets an upper limit on plancton growth rates. In the study the limit on temperature seems close to 40C. It is not saying that the temperature of the water cannot exceed 40C; only that the plancton growth curve levels off after that. Using this kind of proxy to estimate sea temperatures is fraught with huge error bars, but the important point is that the supposed total of 17.3 x10^22 joules that was the result of 50 years of imaginary forcing has not gone away. Present day climate scientists are still using the OHC% figures today and the media are going along with this of course. However it is curious that over the years, the OHC% figure has crept up from 83.8% to 93% . However since the invention of the Argo float buoy data, no one talks about plancton heat studies anymore. My contention is that I will prove that the accumulated heat that was found from these studies was bogus anyway. The result will be that even though the alarmists will argue that that heat will eventually cause CAGW, they have no credible source for the amount of heat that was hidden away and they are increasingly desperate ( because of the ARGO float buoy data) to show that any modern day heat is being hidden away in the deep oceans.

    The 1st study mentioned above was where the breadcrumbs ended up in my search for the now often quoted “93% OHC% of the heat radiative imbalance in the atmosphere ends up in the ocean”. This is important for the following reason. When the UHA satellite temperature data set finally nails down that there is no atmospheric warming or very little, the alarmists will fall back on their 2nd line of defense “The oceans are warming because of CO2 back radiation and we will all die from this heat when it gets released to the atmosphere from its very long cycle of deep ocean currents and heat capacity”.

    So a study that can prove that the oceans are warming is important. Unfortunately for the alarmists, the ARGO ocean buoys are increasingly showing that the amount of heat increase in the oceans is so minimal as to be laughable with estimates of 400- 600 years for a 1C rise. The buoys came into existence after the top study was finished. However the 80% figure has persisted and even increased in time and every study on ocean temperatures now always quote the OHC% figure. Even though the ARGO buoys are hard to argue against for the alarmists, the oceans are so vast and deep; that they will say that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean and will some day come back to haunt us. Most ARGO floats are good for depths down to 2000 metres but the newer ones are now measuring down to 4000 metres. Every time the data comes back that there is no increase in heat for certain depths, the alarmists say that the heat has sunk even further down. That is why we skeptics will never be able to prove that the oceans are not hiding the heat because it is a perfect deep umeasurable sink for their heat global warming meme. The big problem for the alarmists is that it conflicts with the “Climate Change has already happened meme and is causing all our extreme weather events.” However my purpose here; is to show that mostly based on the top study above, the alarmists position of total heat flux hiding in the deep ocean doesn’t add up. As usual with one lie built on top of a 1000 lies, the whole meme breaks down when you really look at the data. We skeptics have 2 things on our side 1) the truth 2) there is no central body of alarmist central office coordinating all the lies so that they can fit together as 1 credible thesis of global warming. Michael Mann tries to do this but even he cant keep up with 1000’s of researchers and 100’s of organizations that every once in a while let the truth slip out or else present stats to counter the global warming groupthink.

    So Let us start from the beginning of my quest for the origin of the “80-93% of missing heat is in the oceans” figure and follow the breadcrumbs back to the top study. My quest began with a 2016 NASA study that came out titled “Warming of the global Ocean : Spatial Structure and Water Mass trends”. I will dismiss that study by simply quoting from the study “To support the results from the observational datasets we analyze the Simple Ocean Data Assimilation reanalysis ……..SODA fills in the missing data by optimizing the model physics and forcing….”

    Then I switched to a 2015 study by Roemmich that is titled “Unabated planetary warming and its ocean structure since 2006”. While the 2015 study is paywalled, reporters did mention a 93% OHC%. In the study the authors mention “Global mean SST has increased by about 0.1 [degrees Celsius per] decade since 1951 but has no significant trend for the period 1998-2013.” It is interesting to quote Trenberth on commenting on the 2015 study ” It is disappointing that they do not use our stuff (based on ocean reanalysis with a comprehensive model that inputs everything from SST, sea level, XBTs and Argo plus surface fluxes and winds) ” ……”It is a nice paper but sad that oceanographers are slow to utilize all of the available information to produce better estimates. They seem to take pride in… “exclusive use of Argo” data with no use of anything else, including sea level.”

    So Trenberth believes that models will give a better estimate of sea water temperature than actual observations. Such is the sad state of climate alarmism today.

    WUWT covered this topic in 2016 in an article criticizing another study called “15 years of ocean observations with the global Argo array”. In that 2016 study Riser claimed the 90% OHC% figure. I should also mention NASA’s contribution to this topic.

    I ntracked down the report where the 93% OHC%(mentioned above) was used.

    In the media article above; where Trenberth was quoted, it mentions his study in 2013. “Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content” Because of Trenberth’s penchant for using models I didnt bother reading much of his study. However he left an important breadcrumb. “Over the past 50 years, the oceans have absorbed about 90% of the total heat added to the climate system(Bindoff et al 2007).”

    In Bindoff’s lead author contribution to the IPCC Assessment papers of 2007, Bindoff does not mention the OHC% content, but the other IPCC report by Lead authors Monika Rhein and Stephen Rintoul do. They say 93% again. and they left 3 more breadcrumbs 1) by Domingues 2008(for studies from 0 to 700 metres, 2) Levitus 2012 for depths from 700-2000 metres and 3) Purkey and Johnson 2010 for 2000 metres to the bottom.

    Dominigues gives a total heat flux of 16+ or – 3 x 10^22 joules from 1961 to 2003 which is in the same ballpark of the 2004 Levitus study referenced in my 1st paragraph. But that figure only inculdes the top 700 metres.

    Levitus 2012 was dealt with by Willis Eschenbach in a devastating critique on WUWT.

    The Purkey and Johnson study left me another breadcrumb by saying ” Over the past few decades, roughly 80% of the energy resulting from this imbalance has gone into heating the oceans (Levitus et al. 2005)”

    So now we have worked our way back to the study that I referenced in the 1st paragraph. The Levitus study was actually finished in 2004 but not published till January 2005.
    So let us do the numbers . As you will recall in the 3rd paragraph above , the total heat content was 17.3 x10^22 joules. This a time period from 1955 to 1998. The total solar insolation assuming nearly constant of 340W/m^2 all during that time would be 2.35 x 10^26 joules based on a total earth surface of 5.1 x 10^14 m^2. This is 1358.38 times the amount of heat that got trapped ( according to the alarmists). or 3% per year. which works out to 10W/m^2 per year. Compare that to what Lord Monckton says is the present day alarmist figure of 2.85W/m^2 that is getting trapped , you can see that there is a big discrepancy. Since the total heat trapped figure was basically taken from plancton studies which are now all but forgotten because of their inaccuracies and modern day Argo buoys, it is no wonder that the alarmists do not tell you exactly how much heat is down in the Mariana trench (11000 metres deep) and elsewhere in the deep ocean hiding away. It is because they have no credible source for the amount.

    As a skeptic, I dispute their present day figure of earth energy imbalance of 2.85 W/m^2. I would like somebody to prove the earth energy balance equation with the parts that have had exact measurements and the parts that are only estimates. NASA figures give 5 or 6 W/m^2 which are pure fantasy based on their diagram. I accept the solar input figure of 340 W/m^2 and the evapotranspiration figure of 86.4 W/m^2. All other figures are only estimates or are bogus. Any thoughts?

  35. So now we recognize the fact of climate change. It is a very important step forward, but what is the reason for denial? There are three percent among scientists, such as the Holocaust and the travel to Moon. It is a pity that the government is also part of the three percent.

    • It really is amazing how tightly the alarmists cling to their myths.
      1) Nobody denies that the climate has changed.
      2) The claim that 97% of scientists agree that CO2 is a huge problem has always been a lie.

      • I would be the happiest person to find out that there is no problem with the climate. However, if there is a problem then everything must be done to resolve it and not deny it.

        • Sharknado’s will destroy the world unless you give me control of all the world’s governments so I can direct them in the only methods that will prevent Sharknados. Now that I’ve identified the problem are you really willing to do everything that must be done to resolve it (IE get the governments of the world to hand over their power to me, making me king of the world) or will you deny it? Or does your willingness to take action depend on me proving that 1) Sharknado’s are real, 2) that if they are real they will have the effect that I claim they do, and 3) that my proposed solution will have the results I claim it will?

  36. The true “Climate Deniers” are those who cannot accept or will not accept that the Earth’s Climate changes fairly regularly from a geological viewpoint!

  37. Too many graphs.

    Ask of your accuser just one of these questions then jump to step 6 below
    1. If Greenhouse Gas Theory does work as the ‘settled science’ says, how come we are here even talking about it?

    2. Why is the temperature at solar noon on the Moon always over 50 degC hotter than at solar noon on Earth when GHG theory says Earth should be 33 degC hotter than the Moon? This is 80+ degrees Centigrade of difference to explain away – not trivial.

    3. What happened in the Garden of Eden (the area between the 2 big rivers in modern-day Iraq) – so that it is now a huge sandy desert?

    4. Which comes first in a Tropical Rainforest – the rain or the trees?

    5. Supposing there was a Medieval Warm Period, = A Time of Plenty as witnessed by all the churches and cathedrals that were built, do we assume England was comprehensively forested at that time?
    We actually *can* assume a large forest because Henry 8th and his daughter Elizabeth 1st cut huge numbers of trees in order to build warships and make charcoal for armament production. Plus huge amounts of wood went into fine & stately homes their friends & favoured courtiers liked to construct – *especially* the myriad folks who fancied themselves as suitors for the ‘Virgin Queen’
    (The process of ‘Romance’ at work and hence become a large part of England’s modern-day tourism industry)
    After the trees disappeared, the story has it that England went into a ‘Little Ice Age’
    Charles Dickens anyone?
    The England we’re talking about being *the* most intensively drained, water-managed and farmed patch of dirt on this planet *and* the very place where the Gold Standard of temperature records was/is collated & maintained (the CET)
    Any Cause & Effect going on in there or is it all just pure coincidence?

    6. You receive a coherent answer and progress to another question selected from the above.
    If not, you change the subject or, make a trivial excuse (possibly crack a lame joke about the weather haha) and walk away to allow them time to think.
    Think to yourself as you do walk that you have the perfect excuse; as they themselves are telling you that ‘Life is, or going to be, ‘too short’

    • #4—I have read that a few trees come first, then more rain, then more trees, then more rain…..It’s all intrisically tied together. The trees increase the rain as they increase in number.

    • Peta ==> Just think of them (the graphs) as pictures for the reading impaired — it is easier to “see” that six major groups of scientists have produced six major data sets that say the same thing, than it is to write it all out….many would get confused by all those words anyway.

        • Peta and Hot ==> I do try and say in words what the graphs mean to me — and make an effort to add annotations where it may not be obvious. I’ll try harder for the “not a graph learner-types”.

          • Kip

            I didn’t mean it as a criticism. You know I’m neither bright nor educated and when I see a graph it is almost meaningless to me. Even well annotated ones are a struggle and I have no idea if it’s a kind of graphical dyslexia, but other than the most basic of graphs, they are a real struggle. Educated people are inclined to expect people like me understand what commonly accepted terms/phrases/scientific shorthand means, but often we don’t. Sorry.

            It doesn’t help that it seems most are (necessarily) compressed to fit the width of a PC screen which distorts them so they just don’t make any sense to me. A graph plotting tenths of a degree over thousands of years represented as terrifying plot of an inch or so in height when it should be utterly indistinguishable just doesn’t make sense to me.

            This, on the other hand, whilst compressed, makes entire sense:


            As does this


            Basic and simple, and I have to refer back to them constantly to get into perspective what the world is worrying about. Absolutely nothing.

            Don’t stop doing what you’re doing though, there’s more important people on here than me who will understand what you’re presenting.

    • mike

      I’m even more terrified that had humans not started burning stuff, atmospheric CO2 might have dropped below 150 ppm.

      I believe that in the not too distant past the planet was around 180 ppm. Now, I’m not a religious man but I reckon it’s quite some coincidence that naturally but unintentionally sequestered CO2 was discovered by man who also figured out how to start a fire.

      Now we’re moving gradually, but steadily away from the CO2 starvation threshold, and people are complaining?

  38. With some 7.5 billion people generating a conservative 2400watts and 2.3lbs of CO2 per day each, it is clear that humans are causing the climate to warm and adding to atmospheric CO2. We can all agree with the 97% of scientists who say humans are causing Global Warming… That is to say, the climate is warmer than it would be without humans.
    So it’s really just a question of degree(s), something which has yet to be quantified with any level of meaningful accuracy.

    We’re not deniers, we’re agree’rs.

    • I don’t agree. With 0.04% of our atmosphere composed of co2, geological time frames when co2 has been much higher and no subsequent increase in temperature, the variable most likely correlated with climate being energy input (ie sunshine ala the Milankovich cycles), co2 volumes sequestered in and released periodically from the oceans vastly out weighing any man made co2, I believe that any effect from man made co2 is immeasurably small and lost in the noise of the system. The concept of man materially effecting climate is ridiculous on its face. I’ll give you local heat island effects but with 70% of our planet covered by water, these are negligible.

      • Negligible being the key word here, along with immeasurable. I was being sarcastic, if accurate, in that the mere existence of humans and our radiant heat and CO2 exhaust does in fact cause warming, whether the overall climate is warming or not. I agree that it’s negligible, and was just offering a point that we could share, that we are causing warming, and so far, not just our bodies, but our actions, are immeasurable. I hold that we are not a primary forcing, and are in the noise.

      • JimG1

        ~0.0012% of the atmosphere is man made CO2. 0.0009% if the 25% or so plants consume is accounted for.

          • JimG1

            0.04% represents the total amount of CO2 in our atmosphere i.e. ~400 ppm. Or ~4% of all greenhouse gases

            Man’s portion of CO2 as a % of greenhouse gases is ~0.12%, so his portion of all atmospheric gases is therefore ~0.0012%.

          • Gotcha. And I wonder how accurate our estimate of man made co2 existant at any one time actually is as opposed to our estimate of how much we produce. Do all of the fires burning globally get added to our tab as “man made”? And if we didn’t have oil, gas and coal to carry our energy baggage, what about all the wood we would be burning and methane from the horse turds for which we would be responsible? I guess, as far as the leftists are concerned, we should just all go out and shoot ourselves to protect mother earth.

          • JimG1

            I imagine estimates of atmospheric CO2 are just that, estimates, at a particular point.

            It’s like everything else, one could average anything but it is a theoretical number that may never be present anywhere in the world at any given moment. A bit like earth’s ‘average’ temperature.

  39. Why do they deny that climate change is primarily natural, and certainly nothing man has control over?

  40. It’s a psychological warfare … There is/has been no debate. If AGW had the means, they’d shut this site down 10 years ago. AGW has piggy backed on the holocaust usage of the term ‘ denier ‘ as if that didn’t happen. AGW has used that at the outset.
    As critics of AGW, it’s difficult, but not impossible to separate the two issues.
    1. Yes it has been warming
    2. The cause isn’t co2

    There is hope. AGW has been pushing this in American schools for the last 20 years. The people that have gone through this process can see it for what it is… a scam.

    Here and elsewhere, it is easy when everybody around you thinks the same way to concluded that only a few people don’t think like you do and are holding up saving the planet. We moved around a lot when I was a kid. It was inconceivable that George Wallace wouldn’t be president in Alabama, some kid on the bus disagreed and said Johnson would be. The bus went silent.

  41. Kip, you might want to re-work the paragraph that starts “On the right is Dr. Curry’s general view…” Just a typo/edit issue.

    • Ron ==> someone above corrected one error — I’ll take a second look, thanks for reading closely and paying attention….proofreading is the hardest part of an author’s work, and is usually dependent on a second set of very highly trained eyes.

      • Indeed. I’m a terrible proofreader of my own work, as my various and numerous typos in posts over the years can attest.

  42. So Kip “the denier” [sarc], if I understood your position,

    – You accept that the surface of the planet has been warming for centuries.
    – You accept that the levels of atmospheric CO2 are extraordinarily high, according to what we know, for the past 800,000 years.
    – You accept that humans are mainly responsible for the increase in CO2 levels.
    – You accept that the increase in GHGs might have some (unquantified) effect on climate in the direction of warming.
    – You are skeptical (reject?) that the increase in GHGs is the main cause for the recent (last 45 years) warming.

    OK, so far so good because we agree on all that. You have said you don’t like arguing, but do you like discussing? Because to me the most important part is the discussion about the possible causes (could be more than one) for the observed warming, both centuries ago and these last decades. As you are quite knowledgeable I would like to know if you have an opinion in this important matter. If there is no reasonable alternative it will be difficult to reject the notion that the increase in GHGs is responsible for the great majority of the recent warming.

    • “If there is no reasonable alternative it will be difficult to reject the notion that the increase in GHGs is responsible for the great majority of the recent warming.”

      If we can’t prove that GHG’s are responsible for recent warming and we have no reasonable alternatives to GHG’s causing recent warming, wouldn’t it be better science to simply accepting that we currently don’t know what caused recent warming and continue to study the problem in an unbiased way?

      • The human mind abhors the vacuum. If we don’t have an explanation we invent one. In science you can’t replace a theory by the absence of theory even if it doesn’t look correct.

        • ” In science you can’t replace a theory by the absence of theory even if it doesn’t look correct.”

          In science you can’t use an unproven theory as an explanation.

          • “In science you can’t use an unproven theory as an explanation.”

            Of course you can. It is done all the time. It is what hypotheses are for. The claim to fame is choosing or inventing a hypothesis and becoming a champion for it in the hope that it is the right one.

          • Yes but a hypotheses is only a possible explanation. You need proof for it to be upgraded to a theory.

        • Javier ==> Perfectly right — I’m not sure that it is a “feature” — rather think it is a “bug”.
          Just plugging in any old thing is not a solution to “we don’t know yet”. But it is often what “science” does….society too.

          • “I’m not sure that it is a ‘feature’ — rather think it is a ‘bug’.”


            That’s a very good observation, I had not thought of it that way before. I will defer to you and Javier on this discussion.

    • My 2 cents worth…

      IMHO the 0.5 degree C. attribution of the late 20th century warming to Anthro CO2 is nowhere near affirmed. The academic emphasis on CO2 seems to have removed the importance of the scrutiny required for the dismissal of the other arguments…Cloud cover variance, ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) in combination with the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) and the AMO (Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation), variances in solar activity and irradiance, libration’s impact on the magnetic fields and Earth’s orbital mechanics including the subtle changes of insolation in response to the Precession nutations…to name a few.

      Furthermore, I don’t undertand the nonsense (hothouse, fire, ice cap melt, sea rise, extreme weather, acid ocean etc.). As Lindzen suggests these people really don’t have the right to infer large climate change from an effect measured in tenths of a degree.

      Freemon Dyson says there may be some effect at night in the colder regions…no reason for alarm. IMHO for example, at night the temperature drops to 17.6 degrees C. instead of 17.7 and during the day the temperature peak reaches 27.7C instead of 27.6…no big deal, no cause for concern.

      Love your work Javier…thanks.

      • I fully agree, and I also think Freeman Dyson’s opinion on the matter is worth listening to. He is one of the foremost intellects of the 20th century and he looked into the issue from the very beginning.

    • 1) The warming started long before the rise in CO2.
      2) CO2 levels have been dropping for the last 100 million years. Why is returning those levels to something closer to the historical norm a bad thing?

      If CO2 didn’t cause most of the warming over the last 200 years, why should we assume that it caused most of the warming over the last 45 years?
      Over the historical record, there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature. Why should we assume that just because there has been correlation over the last 45 years, that CO2 has suddenly acquired the ability to control temperature?

      • Citation for your claim that CO2 levels have been dropping for the last 100 million years.? Ice core data shows them to be at the highest level in the past 800,000 years.

      • To take the devil’s advocate role that does not belong to me:

        “1) The warming started long before the rise in CO2.”

        It doesn’t demonstrate that the modern warming (last 45 years) cannot have a different cause than the older one.

        “2) CO2 levels have been dropping for the last 100 million years. Why is returning those levels to something closer to the historical norm a bad thing?”

        It depends on the climatic consequences of the change. If they are small then it is not a bad thing. If they are large then it is a bad thing. Any abrupt climate change is bad by definition, as our complex, very extended society is adapted to the current situation.

        Having said that I agree that there is no definite evidence that the increase in GHGs has importantly altered the climate so far or that it will do so in the near future. But the question should be further studied because we cannot discard important negative effects in the future either.

        • “It doesn’t demonstrate that the modern warming (last 45 years) cannot have a different cause than the older one.”

          That all depends on whether you view your role as being a scientist or an advocate.

          A scientist would say that since we don’t know what caused the previous warming, we can’t rule it out as a cause for the current one.
          An advocate will claim that since we don’t know, we must assume that CO2 caused the current warming.

          • We can leave politics and advocacies outside and examine the question on pure scientific principles. Scientists support opposing hypotheses all the time in many subjects, and they do it based on the same available evidence, just by giving more weight to some evidence over other. And the only hypotheses that can be rejected are those that have been demonstrated to be false. The dual cause for the warming (one before anthropogenic CO2, and then CO2) has not been demonstrated to be false and is supported by many scientists. The single cause for the warming hypothesis (i.e. not CO2) has in principle a better case due to Occam’s principle.

            Careful examination of the available evidence, in my opinion supports the single cause for the warming hypothesis, but clearly there is not enough evidence to demonstrate that the dual cause hypothesis is wrong.

            I know this is probably not the place to say that skeptics have failed so far to demonstrate that the dominant hypothesis is wrong, and that is why we are reduced to wait until climate provides new evidence, a process that is taking decades.

            Of course it doesn’t help that skeptics are bitterly divided between those that think the evidence supports an important role for solar variability, and those that think it doesn’t and don’t have a clear candidate cause for the warming. So in reality for the same evidence we have multiple hypotheses and the stronger one is the CO2-hypothesis.

          • Javier ==> “skeptics have failed so far to demonstrate that the dominant hypothesis is wrong”…..”THE DOMINATE HYPOTHESIS” is not a stand alone, single-factor hypothesis, it is more like a generalized scenario, thus CliSci is having a difficult time finding a definitive answer. I’m sure you realize that this is the problem.
            Many of the parts of the overall scenario have taken serious hits — climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling for instance. Many parts of the scenario, necessary to support the whole, are still in the realm of “known unknowns”.
            This speaks to the whole purpose of this two part essay…there are many bits of the Consensus Scenario that are simply true — supported by facts with which most reasonable educated people don’t disagree — yet the Consensus Scenario remains far from convincing — this is Science, so we say “at least ‘so far’.

          • Javier,

            The CO2 hypothesis has repeatedly been shown false.

            Callendar, following Arrhenius, thought that the early 20th century warming was due to man-made CO2, rather than the CO2 being due to natural warming. And of course, he, like Arrhenius, considered the warming effect beneficial.

            But then came the global cooling after WWII, despite CO2 rising even more than in the 1920s. This showed Callendar’s hypothesis false, shortly before he died after the bitterly cold British winters of the early 1960s.

            CO2 rose from 1945 to 1977, when the PDO flipped, yet Earth cooled dramatically, causing concern over a coming ice age. Then slight warming happened to coincide with continued increase in CO2 for about 20 years, capped off by the 1998 super El Nino. This brief interval of natural warming was followed by accelerated CO2 rise and global average temperature staying flat. Then came another super El Nino in 2016, which caused a brief spike in temperature, as in 1998.

            No correlation means lack of causation.

      • MarkW – I agree with you for most part. The only problem I see with your view is, to wit: the .5Deg of warming since 1980, but only if that increase is unusual for a 50 year timeframe.

        Can the agw “consensus” say with confidence and accuracy that this 50 years is unusual, given the short time we have had the modern temperature record? I would think not – that the temperarure record prior to 1900 (perhaps later) is not accurate enough to resolve such an increase.

        In other words, Javier’s hypothesis about the most recent warming is flawed assuming the second paragraph is accepted.

        Opinions on this please, Kip.

    • Javier ==> Thanks for weighing in here. You got all the “accept’s right.

      Bring up the point again after reading Part 2, which should be out tomorrow or the next day….as I will have laid my logical path a bit further.

  43. A comment I posted yesterday, 8-25-2018, is missing. Though, I certainly would not overrule a glitch on my end.

    Anyway, here it is:

    Excellent article Kip!

    This article should be added to WUWT’s Reference pages!

  44. The term “climate denier” is so idiotic and bumper-stickerish it can only be one thing…a political label.

  45. The stratosphere is not cooling, and the tropical troposphere is not “trapping heat” as prophesied. End of story. Period. The enhanced greenhouse effect hypothesis is falsified.

    Also, only the sun can warm the oceans to any measurable degree. There is no mathematical equation that can explain otherwise.

  46. I’m a denier. Among other things I deny that the Earth is flat and that it is only a few thousand years old. Lots of other demonstrably false claims as well. CAGW is just one of them.

  47. If I were asked, ““Why do you deny climate change?”, then

    I might answer, “Your question is absurd?” Absurd questions do not have intelligent answers, so ask me a question that is not absurd, and maybe I can answer it.”

    I sense that the question is really intended to be condemnation, disguised as an inquiry. I, therefore, deny the legitimacy of even asking such a question, because I suspect that its intent is NOT an inquiry at all, but bait to lure your censure founded on falsehoods.

    I cannot answer such a question, and so I refuse to answer such a question, because the question is a lie. It harbors assumptions that are false. It assumes shared definitions of words or phrases that I do NOT share. It forces definitions onto terms to which I do NOT assign such definitions. It misuses words by omitting clarifying adjectives that give proper, intelligent context.

    “Climate” refers to long-term patterns in weather.
    “Change” refers to alterations in patterns.

    “Climate Change”, then, refers to alterations in long-term patterns of weather. These sorts of CHANGES have always occurred. Nobody DENIES such things, and so, to ask ME, why I deny them is to ask a silly question, since I am one of the MANY (most) who NEVER has and never will “deny” that such changes DO exist and have ALWAYS existed.

    So, why would anyone ask me the posed question? Do you truly believe that there are people who do not believe in long-term changes in weather? If no, then ask me what you REALLY mean. Use language correctly. Use clarifying adjectives, and do not assume that I understand how you might understand a particular word that has NEVER been the overriding understanding of this word’s meaning put forth in dictionaries.

    What do YOU mean by the word, “climate”? Now ask me whether I agree with YOUR meaning. Once we agree on what YOU mean by “climate”, then we will be on better footing to have a conversation. Until then, according to the general understanding of what your words mean, the question posed is, again, utterly ABSURD.

    Now let’s assume by “climate change”, you REALLY mean “human-caused climate change”. If YOU mean this, then YOU need to say this exactly this way, because “climate change” does NOT mean “human-caused climate change” automatically. You cannot just leave out an adjective from a universally understood phrase, and then use just part of what you mean disguised in a question intended as a condemnation to attract a response that allows you to bolster your own beliefs. This is NOT an inquiry. This is a set up for your own self gratification, and so my first response to someone seeking self gratification in such a manner is, “Go F yourself.” I would hope that this latter response adequately answers anyone who might ask me such a question.

  48. Well, well, the CBC always finds the right guy to explain the right things…

    “Climate change is on a lot of people’s minds during this summer of extreme heat and lethal wildfires across the Northern Hemisphere.
    People see its devastating effects not as an abstract possibility in some hypothetical future, but unfolding in front of their own eyes. Scientists make ever more dire projections about the decades ahead if substantial reductions are not made to carbon emissions.
    That paradox may be due, in part, to the large numbers of people who simply don’t believe that climate change is real in the first place.”

    Straw man typical of CBC’s propaganda, this time from some sociologist Keith Kahn-Harris.

    Meanwhile weather porn alarmist stance stuck the August 24, 2018 The National edition on hurricane Lane: http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/hurricane-lane-downgraded-canadians-still-stuck-in-hawaii-1.4798964
    Check at starting at 3:05 in the video how CBC Meteorologist Johanna Wagstaffe will claim that the storm is, you guessed it, “unprecedented”…
    Well at least since Iniki in September 1992, Iwa in 1982 etc…

  49. I have a question for all those who dread the coming catastrophe: How does an interglacial period develop? Does it not continue to warm until it doesn’t?

  50. “From where does my skepticism arise then? Well, there is no more — general warming started about 1650-1700, maybe a little earlier, and has been ongoing. When warming doesn’t start is 1880/1890 — it starts a hundred and fifty to two hundred years earlier — earlier than the start of the increased CO2 output of the modern Industrial Era. This makes me very skeptical indeed of the claim that the industrial revolution and modern warming are intrinsically entwined.”

    I’d suggest the observational evidence is better than the proxy one, especially as there is large variation around that time in them and Loehle being the outlier coldest

    The globe ….


    And one for central England ( England didn’t start warming around 1650-1700).


    Both show a warming from the late 1800’s, with an oscillating but flat trend before.
    Besides didn’t we have an ongoing Little Ice Age between those 2 dates?
    If the LIA had it’s coldest period 1650-1700 maybe it was a recovery from the depths of that merged into warming from the start of industrialisation.

    “the narrative that global warming was caused by the start of the Industrial Revolution and its subsequent CO2 emissions — this fact seems to have been down played or ignored.”

    No the “narrative” is that there was a LIA and there is modern warming.
    It appears to me that you are adding one to the other from the deepest depths of the LIA (if one cares to accept Loelhe’s proxies in particular).

    • Anthony ==> I am puzzled by your comment. The first graph ONLY shows temperatures from 1850 so we can’t know about anything earlier. The second demonstrates my point quite nicely — warming from the beginning of the graph at 1650.
      The easiest to see if the multi-sourced NOAA NCDC graph used in the essay:
      I have tried to use data acceptable to all sides of the Climate Divide, so that there is no silly bickering about sources.
      You may not agree with the NCDC, which is your privilege. But anytime someone insists on claiming that warming began at the beginning of the Industrial Era, they are simply misrepresenting the hard-won knowledge of climate science.
      So, if one accepts what the data says — warming began at the end of the LIA (1650-1700), then one has a point to make about the Attribution Question.

  51. Kip: Initially (20years ago), I had no reason to disagree with the prevailing science. It clearly had warmed and, up to that point, scientists enjoyed an honorable status built on several centuries of exceptional work. Bad science inexorably got weeded out in time. I didn’t immediately consider natural variability, although as a geologist and one who had studied paleoclimate in historical geology, I knew we had had ice ages (we didn’t call the whole ~3 million years an ice age at the time – 1950s) and, living on the floor of Lake Agassiz for the first third of my life (Winnipeg) and mapping some of its last ancient shorelines in northern Manitoba where the lake had emptied in a series of sudden episodes with time to re-establish new shorelines before it was gone (Lake Winnipeg and Lake Manitoba are vestiges that remain, although, with isostatic rebound continuing, who knows if they are permanent), I knew the climate of earth had been highly variable.

    I discovered, as I began to protest the consensus view of a longtime stable earth climate pre-homo sapiens sapiens (except for the orbital stuff for long term events), that I knew stuff about climate that climate scientists appeared to be just learning. We had the knowledge of radiative physics for over a century, but the “compelling” evidence for a CO2 control knob, seemed to come from James Hansen’s thoughts on Venus’s atmosphere and the “runaway” warming that appeared to have taken hold on that planet’s surface. This was a decent conjecture. But when prominent scientists began to fight rearguard actions to deligitimize the reality of the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period – historical proof of natural variability of a magnitude that included everything we had seen to date, I began to realize that it wasn’t pure science we were dealing with. And when I began looking into the history of the whole thing and finding that a fellow Manitoban called Maurice Strong – a very smart high school drop out and a lifelong коммунист- was the creator of the Stockholm Conference, The Brazil Earth Summit, the UNFCC, Kyoto, and the IPCC, I began to understand the “rearguard action” and the increasingly bullying tactics of the consensus. Maurice who retired to Beijing and died there:

    “…So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

    CO2 (fossil fuels) is indeed the control knob, not for climate but for the people of the earth.

    • Gary P ==> Thanks for your thoughts.

      The “Venus” thing is just plain bad science…..Venus is not hot because of CO2. It just isn’t so.

  52. APOLOGIES ==> To all the readers who have left comments addressed to me….I have priority responsibilities at Church on Sundays that keep me busy until mid-afternoon.
    Here now though, and will try to address your concerns starting with new comments (from this time) and oldest comments — burning the candle from both ends. — Kip

    • Kip

      I’m not a churchgoer but respect those who are. I might need you someday. 🙂

      An observation I have, however, if one can call it that, is that not too long ago nature sequestered enough of the atmosphere’s CO2 into what we now term fossil fuels. To such an extent that not too long ago I believe atmospheric CO2 dropped to 180 ppm. Dangerously low for the survival of the garden of Eden.

      Shortly afterwards, humankind rocked up and discovered fire. Thereafter he discovered how to burn wood animal fats and oils, then dig up coal to burn and eventually drill for oil to burn.

      Thanks to these discoveries man flourished, technology accelerated, and by complete coincidence, atmospheric CO2 increased and the planet began to green even in the face of supposed destruction because of man.

      Whilst I’m not religious, I find this a ‘miraculous’ coincidence. Astonishing really.

      I also happen to believe that when man becomes too big for his CO2 boots; populations do become too big, and life too difficult, there will be a natural adjustment. Possibly plague, pestilence, war etc. but we are far from that now.

      I once asked a Geography teacher of mine in the early 70’s whether he believed in God. He said, only to the extent that he put man on the planet to see what would happen.

  53. Honestly, I don’t know what the best reply to such a question is. They are clearly not an intelligent well-informed person up for a rational debate.
    Do your best, and maybe go to the gym more often beforehand, just in case.

    • When Asked “why do you deny climate change?” I’d reply “for the same reason you stopped beating your wife”.

  54. History is important! Remember, the GW meme started in the the late 19th century with a back of the envelope calculation by Svante Arrhenius . It was way, way off through lack of information.
    The idea bounced in and out of style until just prior to the establishment of the World Meteorological Organization in 1950. WMO primarily collected information and records for aviation, planning, and forecasting until the 1970’s. The United Nations Environment Program was founded by Maurice Strong, its first director, as a result of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm Conference) in June 1972 and has overall responsibility for environmental problems among United Nations agencies but international talks on specialized issues, such as addressing climate change or combating desertification. The The World Meteorological Organization and UN Environment established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 specifically to address “human caused” environmental change.

    These progenitors resulted in the over arching United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Initially, an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) produced the text of the Framework Convention during its meeting in New York from 30 April to 9 May 1992.

    All of these organizations were founded and funded to study SOLELY human-caused changes to the climate. Carbon dioxide was seen as a key variable that could be used to instigate global action by forcing more developed countries to subsidize less developed countries to “battle climate change”. or to quote Christina Figueres(2015)
    “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,” to replace “capitalism” with a UN centrally controlled world economy.

  55. Personally I have never denied that the climate is changing nor have have I denied it was warming. I could have made that statement in 1960. As I understand it the climate has been generally warming since the last glaciation, with cold hiccups along the way like the Little Ice Age. For a few years I even was willing to even consider that anthropogenic gas emissions might be playing a roll. However even before being trained as a scientists I have been a skeptic and as my wife says, “he must have data, good data.”

    Can’t say what triggered my major skepticism about AGW. I did begin to dig into the whole issue back even before NASA Hansen’s testimony. Now I admit I am not a ‘climate’ scientist. I did begin to “ask questions” about the models, the data, etc, etc. Very few of the answers I received were satisfactory and some caused me to dig deeper. One of the biggest drivers of my skepticism was when I learned that major data sets were being manipulated in such a fashion as to “demonstrate” that the climate was supposedly warming faster than it was. Another was the fact that the original models barely included the influences of the world’s oceans, 75% of the earth’s surface. Then I began to read statements, especially of those associated with the UN, that caused me to question what the real motivation behind the gloom and doom, hyperbolic scenarios being sold to us. It became apparent that regardless of whether AGW was happening or not that the driving force behind what had clearly become an orthodoxy, pseudo- religion was something other than saving the planet.

  56. The greenhouse effect on Earth is as old as the planet itself and is one of the causes of life in it. If the Earth were not able to retain certain gases around it, life as we know it would be impossible. Moreover, the very existence of the Earth’s atmosphere is linked to the greenhouse effect. So talking about the greenhouse effect or global warming is as old a subject as the planet we inhabit. The fundamental question is whether only the action of men will be able to modify the temperature in such a high amount that the hecatomb that some predict or if there are other factors outside the intervention of man will be caused. https://planckito.blogspot.com/2018/08/el-efecto-invernadero-y-el-cambio.html

  57. Scientific evidence:
    Past climate reconstructions
    using climate proxies
    show no evidence of
    CO2 levels
    leading temperature levels.

    Predictions of the future:
    Wild guessing
    and unproven theories
    by government bureaucrats
    claim CO2 controls the temperature.

    So, who are you going to believe?

    Scientific studies of the past climate
    (general findings, as a group of studies),

    Wild guess computer games
    played by government bureaucrats
    whose jobs depend on a coming
    climate “crisis”, and who not only
    make wrong climate predictions,
    but they also control
    and frequently “adjust”
    temperature data
    to make their predictions
    look better
    (and yet they are still
    awful predictions! ) ?

    In 21 years of reading about climate science
    I have never read or heard anyone
    deny that the climate on our planet changes.

    Name calling (“climate denier”)
    is a tool of smarmy leftists
    with not enough intelligence
    (or ammunition) to debate
    real climate science !

    My climate change blog:

  58. The term climate “denial” is of course, first and foremost, odious in two ways: first by its implied linkage with genocide denials, and second by its equally offensive association with denial as a mental illness, such as being in “denial” of a traumatic event such as death of a loved one.

    The term is also ambiguous, vague, confusing and imprecise. Do they mean denial that climate changes at all, or specifically that climate has warmed in the last century or so? Or does it mean denial of human agency in global warming?

    Of these three, the first one – denial that climate changes at all, is pure projection and hypocrisy, since it is the warmist-alarmists themselves that take the deeply unscientific null hypothesis, strongly implied if not stated outright in all their narrative, that climate is normally static and that any change is unusual, alarming and must arise from some unusual external agency. Thus it is the warmist-alarmists who are the deniers of climate change in this most general sense.

    The second variant – contesting whether last-century warming has happened, is the position only of a minority on the climate skeptic side. While disputing the politically doctored instrumental temperature record, few serious voices on the skeptics side argue no warming in the last century. To do so is to also deny the little ice age (LIA) – with no recent warming there is no LIA. Since the LIA is a major feature of climate skeptic narrative, then alledging this kind of denial is contradictory and confused if not deliberately inaccurate. Again it is the warmists themselves who deny natural fluctuations in climate such as the LIA, MWP and earlier excursions.

    The third option is what Judith Curry with logical precision and economy of words describes as the issue of “attribution”. Yes the climate has warmed, but how much of it – if any – is human caused? For most academic climate skeptics this third variant is the true one – disagreement on attribution.

    Therefore the use of the term denial / denier in the climate discourse is deeply offensive and also muddled, contradictory and unclear. Its use displays only a wish to either offend and vilify or to cloud and confuse the debate. Its use precludes and serious desire for any constructive scientific dialog.

  59. Kip:

    I just wanted to thank you for starting this discussion; the discussion is interesting and, for the most part, civil.

    Also, a special thank you to Anthony Watts for sponsoring the discussion on his Web Site; discussions like this are what make this such a great site to visit.

  60. Kip – very interesting. What you have demonstrated here is that correlation is shaky.

    What has always bothered me is even if correlation were sound, it does not imply causation. I have just never seen anything that looks to me like argument for causation rather than just correlation. Have you ever encountered anything that argues (rather than merely assumes) causation?

    • John ==> Read historical posts at Dr. Curry’s blog on Attribution — the stickiest question in CliSci. Lots of information and opinions….

  61. Kip: Have you ever considered that both sides in Judith Curry’s “climate control knob” vs “chaos” picture could be right? Of course, chaotic changes in climate could overwhelm the forced signal from rising CO2. They certainly do on the decadal time scale with ENSO. Even the IPCC admitted in the FAR that forced change at that time was comparable to natural variation due to unforced variability (chaos) and “naturally-forced” variability (solar and volcanic). On the other hand, CO2 does slow down radiative cooling to space, which must force to planet to warm on the average. If one has a large enough radiative forcing from rising CO2, climate forcing knob will dominate and chaos will average out – at SOME point and on SOME time scale. The dividing line between these positions depends on climate sensitivity.

    Since the FAR, the IPCC has chosen to ignore climate change during the Holocene and assess the contributions of both CO2 forcing and chaos (unforced variability) with AOGCMs. These models don’t produce realistic unforced variability and they currently appear to exaggerate climate sensitivity. Even worst, the climate sensitivity of a model is a consequence of choices may in the ad hoc tuning of a model, a process that is not guaranteed to produce an optimum model.

    • Frank ==> Bluntly, “nobody knows”. The is what CliSci ought to be working on, “what is causing what?” rather than trying to “prove” the CO2 Control Knob hypothesis.
      The state of the science today is: Could be this….could be that….could be both….could be neither.

      • Kip: Thanks for the reply. I respectfully disagree with: “Could be this….could be that …” That is just evading the issue.

        The climate chaos perspective is obviously correct, because chaos produces ENSO and longer variations such as AMO. Today, even the IPCC’s dubious conclusion that at least 50% of current warming is man admits the possibility that the other half is chaos.

        However, the Holocene offers no precedent for global changes of 4 K due to natural climate variability. That is close to the difference between glacial and inter-glacial. If AOGCMs are correct that ECS is 3 K/doubling or higher, the CO2 control knob perspective almost certainly will dominate the climate chaos perspective.

        The debate WILL BE settled by climate sensitivity and total emissions. Since international cooperation is implausible, total emissions likely will be determined by the rate at which technology finds a replacement for coal.

        You are certainly correct that we don’t know what climate sensitivity is. The IPCC (and Judith?) is lacking candor.

        • Frank ==> “The state of the science today is: Could be this….could be that….could be both….could be neither.”

          Not my opinion, it is my opinion on what Climate Science really knows with certainty as to the causes of various climate phenomena over the long-term history.

          • Kip: Laboratory experiments have accurately measured the interactions between CO2 and thermal infrared radiation. The parameters obtained from those experiments accurately predict the spectra of OLR reaching space and DLR reaching the surface, and how DLR changes with the changing concentration of one GHG, water vapor and with temperature. These parameters predict that a doubling of CO2 will slow down the rate at which thermal infrared reaches space by about 3.7 W/m2. Conservation of energy demands that the planet will warm until its emission to space has risen 3.7 W/m2. IMO, COE and IR spectra are things we know with reasonable certainty.

            ECS is equivalent to asking how much the earth must warm to emit another 3.7 W/m2 – after all of the climate chaos has average out. If the Earth were a simple gray body, it would emit an additional 3.3 W/m2/K and warm 1.2 K/doubling. Observations of seasonal change should that the Earth doesn’t behave like a simple gray; it emits about 2.1 W/m2/K of LWR due to positive feedbacks.

            The long-term history of climate chaos during the Holocene has been recorded by ice-cores, ocean sediments and less definitive temperature proxies. This evidence shows that climate chaos does have a long-term average and therefore doesn’t drift like a random walk process. (If the drift from random walk process produced 1 K of warming during the previous century, then the expected drift would be 10 K during the last 100 centuries of the Holocene.)

  62. I’ve found that most of the everyday people who are global warming advocates, have no idea what are the mainstream skeptic positions. They prefer to argue against things that almost nobody believes. I suppose that’s easier. Conversely, arguing that CAGW is a hoax, or a fraud, is not the most productive path. Even if it were to be a global wealth transfer scheme cooked up by the UN, it’s an unnecessarily high bar to set to try to prove it.

    All that matters is that based on what we know today, radical and expensive actions to reduce carbon emissions are not warranted.

    • Steve O: In theory, radical and expensive actions to reduce CO2 emissions are warranted if the net present value of future damage due to climate change is higher than the cost of reducing emissions. Our ability to estimate future damage from climate change is limited and choosing the proper discount factor for NPV is challenging. Intuitively, poorer countries that expect their descendants to be much richer than they are will apply a lower discount rate and ivory tower academics who think we have already ruined the planet for future generations will use a high discount rate. A global consensus on CO2 reduction is unlikely.

  63. Epilogue:

    My heart-felt thanks to all who read this rather long essay (and will read Part 2 later today).

    Quite a few (nearly 600) comments from all over the map — both physically and intellectually.

    As a reminder, “feeding the trolls” can sometimes seem fun and entertaining, but it does not add to the conversation, much of it being trading insults and competing “talking points” of the Climate Wars.

    I was surprised and pleased that there has been almost no push-back on my acceptance of various data facts on the climate issue — to me this shows that Climate Skepticism is maturing.

    Thank you for reading.

    # # # # #

  64. I am in full and complete denial that even if everything the alarmists say is true, that higher taxes, windmills, and wealth transfers will solve the problem. In fact, wealth transfers to poor “vulnerable” countries would only make the global warming problem worse as their new spending would be guaranteed to increase carbon emissions. It’s not hard to imagine governments getting on board with something that justifies higher taxes.

    Actions that result in the expenditure of resources need to be justified on the basis that the expected benefit should exceed the expected cost. There is nothing anywhere that justifies radical action.

    There is this idea that if warming is caused by mankind and is dangerous that it should be abated. That fails the test of logic. If warming is dangerous AND IF we can do something worthwhile about it, then it should be abated whether or not mankind is the cause. Global warming mitigation strategies rely on the assumption that it is possible. Where is the evidence for that? And where is the evidence that the benefits exceed the costs? An editorial in the WSJ a long time ago estimated that the Kyoto accords would cost $10 Trillion dollars, and that the benefit would be that we reach the same levels of warming anyway, with a six year delay. Does that sound like the benefits justify the costs?

    Maybe instead of blowing our wad trying to interrupt the global climate cycle, we should expend resources adapting to it.

  65. “Why do you deny climate change?”

    It has nothing to do with climate, nor even weather.

    ‘Climate change’ is orthodoxy. You reject their orthodoxy. That is primal sin.

  66. IMO there is no evidence that humans have had a detectable effect on global temperature, which means that we don’t even know the sign of any such effect, if it exist.

    Our industrialization probably cooled the earth before developed countries cleaned up their air late in the last century, but now China, India and other developing countries are dirtying it up again, blocking sunlight.

    We have had local effects on temperature, due to urban heat islands, irrigation, etc, but not enough significantly to affect a global average, if such can even be measured.

    OTOH, our CO2 emissions have demonstrably greened the planet.

  67. The label “Denier” just shows the power of narrative and propaganda. The first thing out of my relatives mouth when I indicate skepticism is “Your’e not a “denier” are you?” And, of course they have not taken the time to even explore the issue. The lack of basic inquisitiveness is frightening. Its as if CNN were the font of all wisdom.

Comments are closed.