How fast is the world warming? Is it burning?

Reposted from The Fabius Maximus Blog

Larry Kummer, Editor Climate change, Science & Nature 17 August 2019

Summary: Let’s take a break from political bickering to see how fast the Earth is warming. Just the facts, please.

Burning World - dreamstime_108149276

ID 108149276 © Ig0rzh | Dreamstime.

The world has been warming since the middle of the 19th century. Human-caused warming has become the dominant cause of warming since roughly WWII. The core consensus of climate scientists, proven by a bizarre number of studies (pouring more water on a rock doesn’t make it wetter), was clearly stated in the Summary of Policymakers by Working Group I of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report.

“It is extremely likely (95 – 100% certain) that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2010.”

Alarmists slap the “95% of scientists believe” label on all sorts of claims, many quite delusional. But as somebody said, “God is in the details.” So is science. How fast is the world warming? Journalists eager for clickbait headlines, seldom give us this vital information. Fortunately, in the 21st century this information is easily available at NOAA’s invaluable “Climate At A Glance” website.

Global warming from NOAA's "Climate at a glance" website.

Fiddling with the controls tells us the warming rate over different periods of time. Left and Right pick random periods that suit their needs. The most recent month is July 2019.

  • 0.08°C/decade (0.14°F) – 1880-2019 – The full instrument record. Of course, the earlier data is much less reliable.
  • 0.12°C/decade (0.22°F) – 1918-1950 – The instrument record for the pre-anthro era for those skeptical of global temp. data before WWI.
  • 0.14°C/decade (0.25°F) – 1950-2019 – The anthropogenic era, per the finding of the IPCC’s AR5.
  • 0.19°C/decade (0.34°F) – 1989-2019 – The past 30 years, the period for climate metrics defined by the World Meteorological Organization.
  • 0.16°C/decade (0.29°F) – 1998-2016 – What an economist might use: the warming rate from peak to peak (18 years) of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

Whatever we choose, there are two obvious and incontrovertible conclusions. First, the rate of warming is very slow. It is small compared to natural intra-annual variations and those over decades – and small compared to natural variations over centuries and millennia. This puts a big burden of proof on those saying that we have already seen severe weather changes from anthropogenic warming. So far it has not (a subject for a future post).

Second, the rate of warming has accelerated in the anthro era (i.e., due to us).

The seas are equally important!

The eminent Roger Pielke Sr. (see Wikipedia) has long said that the focus on the surface air temperature was inappropriate, and that…

“The spatial pattern of ocean heat content change is the appropriate metric to assess climate system heat changes including global warming.” (Source.)

This, along with his many other now accepted insights, earned Pielke smears by climate activists (“denier”), such as those at Skeptical Science (Dana Nuccitelli’s launch pad, which should be called “skeptical of science”). See this note for more detail about that pitiful story. The “pause” or “hiatus” in warming brought recognition that he was correct (see links to papers in section 7 here). So what are the oceans, Earth’s giant heat reservoirs, doing?

Again we turn to NOAA’s invaluable website. Ocean heat measurements became quite accurate after roughly 2004 with data from the ARGO float network (after implementation of the OW quality control method). See the graphs here. The oceans warm more slowly than the atmosphere due to their vastly larger thermal inertia. The ocean’s top 100 meters have warmed approximately 0.12°C (0.22°F) over 2004-2018 – or ~0.09°C/decade (0.16°F). Similar to the long-term change (since the Little Ice Age) in the surface temperature record. This warming affects the oceans’ ecosystems as much or more than warming affects the surface world.

The top 700 meters have warmed more slowly than the upper ocean: ~0.04°C/decade (0.07°F).

Conclusions

The most obvious one: the world is not “burning”, despite the thousands of hysterical screams by climate activists. But the warming warrants policy action. The RCP’s provide a basis for that analysis and planning. But that science is insufficient to push the public to support climate activists’ goals. Hence the current propaganda barrage. Science is exaggerated and misrepresented. Normal extreme weather is attributed to anthropogenic climate change. (See links below for examples.) This makes effective policy action more difficult. It is the big reason that we do so little to prepare for climate change.

But anthro warming is cumulative, and we will see big changes – certainly unpleasant – if warming continues at this rate during the 21st century. Taking the logical warming rate (and highest recent rate) – that is, using the WMO standard, the past 30 years – global temperature would increase by 1°C (1.8°F) roughly every 50 years. That does not mean an Apocalypse would arrive in 2070 or that climate change is the most serious problem we face (e.g., continuing to wreck the oceans might create an apocalypse by 2070).

That rise of 1°C (1.8°F) becomes likely if the centuries-long trend in technological progress slows and if fertility stops falling. Those are key assumptions in RCP8.5, the worst-case assumption in AR5. A large body of research shows that under RCP8.5 the results would be terrible by 2100. Such a slowdown in tech seems unlikely since a new industrial revolution appears to have begun – including, among other things, radical changes in energy tech (perhaps even fusion). There is no evidence that global fertility is stabilizing, nor have I seen any plausible case for that happening in the next decade or so.

But even smaller increases in global temperature would be unpleasant, and are worth avoiding. Especially since the logical path is reducing emissions from fossil fuels through improved efficiency and use of cleaner energy sources. For instance, replacing coal, which is especially polluting to mine and burn, with natural gas. Also effective would be continuing research to produce less expensive electric vehicles and providing reasonable incentives for their purchase.

America’s cities were wired for electricity and telephone over two decades, a radical change beyond anything we have seen since. We can make such jumps today. We need only invest in the necessary research and the will to make it happen.

Examples of climate misinformation
  1. Activists hope that fake news about droughts will win.
  2. The North Pole is now a lake! Are you afraid yet?
  3. A look at the workings of Climate Propaganda Inc.
  4. New climate porn: it forces walruses to jump to their death!
  5. Another heartbreaking story of climate doom! – About the Okjökull glacier in Iceland.
  6. An example of climate activists at work that shows why they lost.
  7. Terrifying predictions about the melting North Pole!
Normal weather becomes evidence of a Climate Apocalypse!
  1. 90% of the biggest Yosemite glacier has melted. Did we do it?
  2. What we learned from the freak storm that “melted the North Pole” on December 30.
  3. This El Niño is not Godzilla. What can we learn from the 2 years of hype?
  4. Lessons learned from the end of California’s not so “permanent drought.”
  5. The Texas drought ends; climate alarmists wrong again!
  6. Daily stories of climate death build a Green New Deal!
  7. Weather porn about Texas, a lesson for Earth Day 2019.
  8. Wildfires and climate change: fake news in action.
For More Information

Ideas! See my recommended books and films at Amazon.

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. For more information see all posts about doomsters, about peak oil, about The keys to understanding climate change and especially these…

  1. Let’s prepare for past climate instead of bickering about predictions of climate change – Doing something is better than nothing.
  2. Focusing on worst case climate futures doesn’t work. It shouldn’t work.
  3. The Extinction Rebellion’s hysteria vs. climate science.
  4. “Climate’s Uncertainty Principle“ by Garth Paltridge.
  5. Listening to climate doomsters makes our situation worse.
To help us better understand today’s weather

To learn more about the state of climate change see The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters & Climate Change by Roger Pielke Jr., prof at U of CO – Boulder’s Center for Science and Policy Research (2018).

The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters and Climate Change

Available at Amazon.

Advertisements

299 thoughts on “How fast is the world warming? Is it burning?

  1. “How fast is the world warming?”

    That’s easy: drastically, according to the latest scientists, which is even more dramatic than experts who study histrionic climate change for a living fantasized possible.

    Of course, you “skeptics” won’t like this fact. But just because the science is melodramatic doesn’t make it go away.

    “Is it burning?”

    No, but it has a fever, and climate physicians warn that unless we reaffirm our dedication to our 2020 commitments, it’s “on track”* to boil at best, or burn up at worst.

    * Sorry for the scientific jargon, but there are some topics that can only be communicated using dry technical language, I’m afraid. Yet another excuse for Flyover America to ignore the hard science, I spose.

    • The science IS hard. But what is NOT hard to understand is that the rates of past warmings are NOT known in segments of 10 or 20 or 50 years, which means the phrase “drastically” contains ZERO scientific authority or weight… If you, yourself, accept such weightless hand waving as “hard science,” well, that is not a good look for you or anyone…

      • Dave,

        ” which means the phrase “drastically” contains ZERO scientific authority or weight”

        Yes, it does. The dictionary definition is “likely to have a strong or far-reaching effect” – which for climate change, means effect on us. That’s important. Historical rates of warming are irrelevant to this.

        The question is which of those rates by NOAA seem “drastic” to Brad. None seem drastic to me in any operationally useful time frame.

        • Historic warming will not make us feel any cooler but it is HIGHLY relevant in understanding cause and whether the whole 2020 and beyond “commitments” have any use or meaning at all.

          Drastically is no scientific response to the question “How fast is the world warming?” Like the rest of Brad Keyes brainless, breathless comment it is just alarmist hyperventilation.

          I’m not sure why Larry Krummer is so keen on NOAA’s site. Ease of use is fine but don’t let that distract from the validity of the data it is pushing. Notice how 1998 is almost expunged from the record. This is largely due to the Karlisation of the SST data, which was corrupted by “correcting” SST using nocturnal air temperature. As noted air warms twice as quick as water so “correcting” SST using air temps is simply adding even more warming.

          Also adding and averaging land and sea is not scientifically valid and has no practical meaning either. Marine species do not give a damn how hot the land air is and vice versa.

          If you want to look for the effects of AGW, you need to look at SST. The rest is politics and pseudo-scientific red scarf tricks.

          • And if as you rightly say you need to look at SST’s you have to look at the effects of the LIA on those measurements.

            A cold world with freezing nights compounded by pollution from new industries blocking the sun are going to severely cool the SST’s and it is going to take decades/centuries for them to start to return to pre LIA values.

            Which is likely what is happening at present

            tonyb

        • Larry, historic rates of warming are very important because they, especially over some interval of earth history (like geological time) show what natural variation is. The problem here is that that historic rates of warming are difficult to calculate but that results are fairly easy to calculate. The recent geological record says sea levels of 50 meters higher and 150 meters lower are normal. Therein is the CAGW problem, there is no (anthropocene) signal detectable against the noisy background of natural variation. This is why Prof. Mann invented the Hockey Stick, to try to claim rate of change, when he couldn’t show absolute change, ie, there is no signal detectable against the noisy background.

          • “…there is no (anthropocene) signal detectable against the noisy background of natural variation.”

            This, Mr. Kummer, is an “incontrovertible” statement. Which is why it is difficult to read beyond your bombastic second sentence: “Human-caused warming has become the dominant cause of warming since roughly WWII.”

        • Yes, it does. The dictionary definition is “likely to have a strong or far-reaching effect” – which for climate change, means effect on us.

          If that’s the case, then the increase in food crops & the biosphere in general due to the increase in CO2 fertilization is “drastic”, and in addition, less % deaths due to cold weather and cold-weather energy requirements.

          I see equally negative affects, OTOH, to be fiction or at best hard/impossible to quantify.

      • Like many before you, the biting satire delivered by Brad Keyes has eluded detection by your sarcastometer.
        I for one am glad to hear from Mr. Keyes.
        He never fails to amuse, although I hear he once almost had a very bad time when he ran into Joe Pesci at an Italian restaurant.
        The plain fact is, every single temperature reading adjustment has proven to be far more dramatically awful than “experts who study histrionic climate change for a living fantasized possible.”
        Excuse me, I am going to reread his comment a few more times until I choke on my own laughter.

          • When sarcasm—the lowest form of wit—manages to go over your head, you might be Nick Stokes.

            No, all seriousness aside, do go on, Nick. I yearn to hear more about this New Logic.

          • “Then it is pretty dumb satire.”
            Then it went entirely over your head.
            I find it difficult to believe you never heard of Poe’s Law, so I wonder what you find dumb about it?
            The whole point of some satire is to be so subtle the person or person’s being satirized are the last to get it.
            But do not worry Nick…everyone knows exactly what you are saying when you say it, and no one has ever accused you of having a sense of humor.

          • If Brad was attempting ridicule by parody, it fails because people really are that stupid and there always seems to be one or two totally sincere fools popping up on WUWT to post this kind of breathless “reality”.

            The trouble is that , as has been noted here several times in the past, it is impossible to parody the stupidity of climatology and the medias coverage of it.

        • Well, you have to admit that people who are not familiar with Brad might mistakenly think he is an alarmists sometimes. 🙂

          • I wasn’t sure if the Keyes comment was satire until after I posted a response.

            Assuming now that it was satire, done well, it gives Brad a huge advantage in speaking with true climate alarmists.

            He can easily fit in, and prevent them from becoming defensive — so he’ll hear what they really think.

            When I hear climate alarmists pontificate, I have to work hard to keep from telling them that they are gullible nitwits:

            I use the “double-down” technique: If they tell me the world is going to end in 12 years, I tell them I just read an impressive study that proved we only had 6 years … and they’ll almost always believe my fake news about he climate, because I tell them things are even worse than they thought — leftists love that !

          • Tom,
            There is no might about it.
            He has a website dedicated to demonstrating that Poe’s Law applies to warmistas so completely, that it is almost as if they were the original case study from when the Law was established.
            If one looks back several years on this site, there was a very long period of time where essentially zero people knew Brad was doing satire.
            He never said a word to dispel the confusion, hence my reference to the Magician’s Code of Ethics.
            He has another blog website besides Climate Nuremburg, although the name eludes me at the moment.
            He posted an essay here a while back that remains the single best takedown of the consensus, and the entire idea of doing consensus “research” and calling it science.
            And it is regarding all of the consensus claims and studies, with particular attention to the worst offenders.
            It is my go-to reference on the entire subject.
            Pretty much a comprehensive accounting and refutation.
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/23/oreskes-harvard-and-the-destruction-of-scientific-revolutions/

            Brad Keyes is one of the true heavyweights of climate skepticism.
            IMO, he deserves and ought to be accorded heaps of respect.
            He definitely gets my nod as The Most Misunderstood Man in Climate Science.
            The other thing about his writing is that it is broadly applicable and not merely specific to so-called climate science.

        • If Brad was attempting ridicule by parody . . .

          Only the Ilks of Thee would submit such a proposition. I should know. I was you.

          Once.

          Parody? No. Even were it possible for Mr. Keyes to parody, he’d have no choice but to parody himself, in which case the work would still be autochthonous. Anything less wouldn’t do.

          . . . it fails because people really are that stupid . . .

          Don’t you mean it succeeded because what you originally thought was non-parody failed to convince you it was parody after all?

          🙂

          • I still think he leaves ample clues for anyone really reading every word and thinking carefully.
            One of the points he makes is that at least some people, no matter which side of the issues they take, simply scan, rather than read.
            I am given to sarcasm myself, and I try to read every word of the comments, most especially those ones I respond to, and particularly if that response is going to be to take issue with the person or the comment.
            When I first came across his comments on WUWT several years ago, I was pretty sure he was being sarcastic, but since he never once explained that he was being sarcastic I was confused. Because there were places where long threads consisted of people attacking him, for days on end at times.
            Finally at one point I came across Climate Nuremberg.
            It is not hard to find…if you click on his name you are taken there.
            On this thread right here, even being informed, several people are not so sure he is not a real warmista.
            Further down I took the time to unpack his first comment, thinking that it would then be obvious to everyone, and they would realize they did not really read his comment with brain switched to the “On” position.
            Example: Warmistas have said the Earth has a fever, in fact it is one of ManBearPig’s favorites. But I never heard any of them refer to “climate physicians” as the people who are on the scene to treat the ailment.

            A skilled magician might take it as insulting to the hard work over many years that were devoted to perfecting their craft, if people decide he must be using ACTUAL magic, and so discount the skill involved in complex prestidigitation.
            And no true comedian ever EXPLAINS a joke, unless the explanation is part of the joke.
            But the counterpoint to those examples is…warmistas fraudulently adjust the historical temperature data, and then get into a PANIC over the FAKE graphs!
            One thing they never do, however, is mock themselves.
            Sufficient clues are given.

    • Brad,

      “That’s easy: drastically, according to the latest scientists, ”

      Since the actual data is presented to you by NOAA, your answer is a bit odd. Which of those numbers seems “drastic” to you?

        • That correlation between CO2 and temperature in the second graph is Too Perfect! This is NOAA and NASA Climate’s “evidence” for human-caused global warming. They worked hard at getting this match just right! 🙂

          • First they make it up.
            Then, they channel the mythical liar who is so good at lying, he/she believes his/her own lies.
            It does not get any more inane than that.
            The graphs they present to us now as proof of a global catastrophe bears no resemblance to the information that was gathered in the places and at the times it originated.
            It is not data, and such people are not doing science.
            It is hard to say what it is, unless one looks at what the endgame of it all consists of.

      • Why is “drastically” the term you seem most concerned by? the article makes it clear even on a conservative interpretation of the actual data that there is man made global warming of the expected temperature allowing for natural variations. It even says we should address this so whether it is drastic or not is irrelevant. It also seems a reasonable assumption that a variation in the earths temperature that is not caused by a known natural variable is likely not to be compensable by natural factors and therefore should be addressed by those who can – i.e. us.

        I also notice in a quick purview of the climate sceptics (all scientists are sceptics by the way – it is the nature of scientific methodlogy) that they do not include two things in their articles or comments – firstly any margins of error in their critques (e.g. I read one from 2013 where selective data still showed warming but which was used to criticise the HADGEM UKMO model wihtout showign the margins of error to seeif the claimed data trend was in fact within the margins of error) and also fail, as every scientific paper requires, to put their qualifications (or as is more likely, their pseudo-qualifications). I have asked Delibngpole and his misleading mate he keeps citing with false data but they refuse to say whether they have a degree, or A levels or event O levels in any science or maths. As a result every time I read the “skeptics” analysis I question it becaue without a scientific background they won’t really understand how to read or analyse science. ON the +ve side the writer fo this blog admits he has no climate science background (thogh doesn’t say if he has any formal science background). I should also say that even when I have read osmething from someone who has a claimed scientific background (like the geezer who claims stalactites in a Yemeni cave invalidate all climate change science by misquoting or misunderstanding falsifiability and Popper) the ymaje basic mistakes in scientific methodology which invaldiates any point they wished to make. BTW I passed two years Physic and Philosphy at degree level before changing to Philosophy. Not a scientist but methodology of science was my speciality and most of my science and maths is way above that of climate change sceptics.

        • Thank you for your support, Trudat.

          It can feel like a lonely job sometimes, championing the consensus, can’t it? But fear not—there a couple of others of us out here trying to do the same thing. The skeptics (sorry—I refuse to call them sceptics, as all scientists are sceptics) may have the numbers, but we consensualists have the credentials. Never stop hammering that argument home.

          • So… what you’re saying is that all scientists are outside North America, and all the sane people are in North America? LOL

            { Skeptic is the preferred spelling in American and Canadian English, and sceptic is preferred in the main varieties of English from outside North America. }

            If the ‘consensualists’ don’t have the numbers, they’re not ‘consensualists’. They’re ‘wrong’. LOL

            I, too, have ‘purviewed’ the climate ‘sceptics’ (ie: all the scientists, who are all outside North America), as Trudat has… not quite as quickly as he has. In fact, I took my time at it. My perusal shows their intellect is limited in scope. LOL

            Word play is fun!

          • Although your comment is wrong, LOL, I’m forced to thank you for taking me seriously, at least. What moves me to tears of frustration is that new breed of climate disbeliever (sorry—I refuse to call you people unbelievers, as that would imply that believing the science is a matter of belief), of the kind exemplified by Mr McGinley, who think it’s oh-so-clever to pretend the scientific arguments I present are ironic, satirical or parodic.

            Then again, the science is so terrifyingly appalling that, on some level, I can’t really blame weak minds for resorting to such a defense mechanism. If laughing at the facts gets you through the night, knock yourself out. For the truth is dark, and full of terrors.

          • If you’re actually a reality denialist, Brad Keys, then I most certainly do not take you seriously. You have what amounts to a religious belief in a physical impossibility… CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) never has happened, nor will it ever happen. It’s physically impossible for it to do so.

            You’ve only been told half the story by the climate alarmists as means of their pushing a narrative which would allow them to achieve ends they otherwise would be unable to achieve. And you bought that half-a-story hook, line and sinker without once checking for yourself that it represented reality.

            My prior comment (below) is what you’re not being told… do try your very best to understand it, because even you must realize that your comments have been so cartoonish that everyone thought for sure that you were a skeptic who was using word play to mess with the climate alarmists… but you’re serious, apparently. Which means you’re seriously unhinged.

            As I always say, “You can educate yourself, or you can continue to embarrass yourself.”

            I’d recommend you educate yourself.

          • OOPS—I meant ‘for the night is dark and full of errors.’ But if you think my typo is enough to overturn 150 years of science (plus large chunks of radiative physics), I hate to break it to you: it doesn’t, because I’m not a scientist. Sure, it undermines the science somewhat, but it’s still broadly sound.

            “If you’re actually a reality denialist,”

            Congratulations. That epithet’s even more offensive than ‘warmist,’ which I didn’t think was possible. Try getting that kind of hate speech into the peer-reviewed literature! (All you have to do is hijack a journal.) Then maybe, just maybe, your abuse will have more credibility than an online smackdown, which, let’s face it, nobody of any legitimacy is reading.

          • I am convinced of your phlegmatic earnestness by the paucity of your verbosity.

            As they say, “From benighted mouths fall the most abstruse concoctions.”

            Who says that? Exactly.

            I am certain you will cede the point that you have confuted the CAGW error by succumbing to the oldest fallacy in the books.

            Which books? Exactly.

            The night is dark, except for the poles, where day can be dark and night bright… sometimes.

            This unerring apriorism thus confutes all specious scientific postulation, evincing a nondeterministic universe which does what it damn well pleases, when it pleases… which it typically abjures.

            In short, the bonanza of concretely mendacious dissimulation is a cunning sophism of ambiguity, therefore our only option is circumvention of rampant snollygoggling by application of plausible verisimilitude, where felicitous.

            Or where applicable, the axiomatic ingenuousness of exactitude could be employed in a discriminative manner if verity constitutes desideratum to those wishing to oppugn the prevaricative dissemination by iniquitous defalcators.

          • Dear ROFL (do you mind if I call you ROFL?),

            That’s a new one. I have never been accused of a dearth of prolixity before. Nor is phlegm usually said to be my defining humor. As a person of choler, I no longer feel safe in this space.

            Enjoy your privilege.

          • I can assure you most um…assuredly, that I am not, in fact, a disbeliever in climate.
            Quite to the contrary, I am and have always been convinced beyond all doubt that there is a climate…somewhere.
            There might even be someplace with a global average temperature.
            That place might even have a fever, and at this very moment be reading a five year old copy of Golf magazine in the waiting room of a climate physician’s office, hoping to be told to take two aspirins and call back in the morning, or some such climate physician voodoo.
            I believe, oh yes I do, that there is and always has been climate.
            And who can doubt the validity of the stern admonition of a True Believer who self-assuredly uses their real and bestest made up online moniker when they debunk climate skepticism and disbelievership by casting such firm and well placed doubt on the master oracle of all true climate scientism skepticism, the vaunted Yemani stalactites!
            Golly I am convinced.
            From now on I am only going to be guided by the climate prognosticating wisdom of Yemani stalagmites.
            I know when I been licked, not to mentioned stamped and delivered.
            Overnight and on-time.
            *walks away mumbling incoherently about tin foil hats and mystic cave prophesy*

          • By the way, y’all talks funny.
            But gardyloo, I got’s me a puissant svenen that thissa here contumelious excogitate is for real just big ole heap o twattling galimumfry.

          • Mr McGinley,

            you may like to know the circumstances in which my Klimanürnberg blog, which started as a humble organ for reporting the weather conditions in and around the cultural capital of Germany’s beautiful Middle Franconian region, found its second life as a bastion of climate anti-skepticism, a malleus hereticorum as you will. It was all inspired by a comment from my friend David Roberts, he of Grist, who muttered that “no ordinary prison could ever be punishment enough for these bastiches”—meaning climate infidels and other planetary traitors—”but a Stalag might.”

          • Brad Keyes wrote:
            “Dear ROFL (do you mind if I call you ROFL?),”

            Don’t be so decorous, Mr. Bradlikins Mumpsimus Keyes. ROFL is my my father. You may call me LOL.

            Brad Keyes wrote:
            “That’s a new one. I have never been accused of a dearth of prolixity before.”

            I was pondering whether to accuse you of being profusely breviloquent, but it seemed injudiciously comme il faut.

            Brad Keyes wrote:
            “Nor is phlegm usually said to be my defining humor.”

            Nor is bile, it appears. Your irresolute adamancy is implacably complaisant.

            Brad Keyes wrote:
            “As a person of choler, I no longer feel safe in this space.”

            Your circumspection is temerarious, your portentous plight is innoxiously incommodious.

            Brad Keyes wrote:
            “Enjoy your privilege.”

            My privilege is mere appurtenance to my consummate dominion.

    • If you consider any of what you wrote to be “scientific jargon”, then you’re in trouble from the jump. I can prove utilizing particle physics that CO2 is wholly incapable of causing catastrophic atmospheric warming… if my other comment makes it through moderation, review it.

      If a process (catastrophic atmospheric warming) cannot occur at the quantum level, it most certainly cannot occur macroscopically… and it cannot occur at the quantum level.

      • LOL,
        I would love to see a proof that CO2 is incapable of causing catastrophic atmospheric warming
        that utilises particle physics. Given that particle physics normally involves the behaviour of sub-atomic particles and has nothing to do with the absorption or emission of molecules such a proof
        would be extremely interesting to see.

          • Firstly the website is nonsense, the claim that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will
            result in cooling is not something that any competent scientist would believe. And
            secondly nothing on the website has anything to do with particle physics. As discussed
            above particle physics deals with the interactions of sub-atomic particles and the strong
            and weak nuclear forces. Such forces and particles play no role in the emission and absorption spectra of gases.

        • Not sure how you can state that particle physics “has nothing to do with the absorption or emission of molecules [sic]” (I think you mean photons, rather than molecules)… the entire underlying premise of quantum mechanics is quantization… the discrete energy levels necessary for excitation of quantum states (absorption) and the discrete energy levels emitted.

          Particle physics studies how these fundamental particles interact… to include when they are bound to, absorbed by or emitted from atoms and molecules. Do you not consider the photon to be a fundamental particle? Because the Standard Model does.

          Perhaps I should have been clearer… in my paper, I state that quantum mechanics and particle physics nullifies the CAGW hypothesis.

          A synopsis of the full paper is below. A shorter version of the paper containing only the mathematics, comprising ~60 paragraphs, is also available, although I doubt 60 some-odd paragraphs would make it through moderation.

          • LOL,
            Thanks for picking up my typo. It should have been emission by molecules of course.
            You are however confusing quantum mechanics and particle physics. Quantum mechanics does of course determine the emission and absorption spectrum of molecules. Particle
            physics is a subfield of quantum mechanics that deals with the strong and weak nuclear forces. It does not cover emission of radiation by molecules.

          • Izaak Walton wrote:
            “Particle physics is a subfield of quantum mechanics that deals with the strong and weak nuclear forces. It does not cover emission of radiation by molecules.”

            Incorrect. Particle physics is a branch of physics which studies the nature of and fundamental interaction of fundamental particles… particles which constitute matter *and* *radiation*.

            If your definition were correct, then particle physics would not study:
            photons
            gravitons
            Higgs bosons
            exotic hadrons
            Bose-Einstein condensates
            fermionic condensates
            quantum spin liquids
            Rydberg polarons
            dark matter
            photonic matter

            Yes, there is photonic matter… matter created directly from photons in accord with the mass-energy equivalency principle. It is also the clearest example that your definition of particle physics is incorrect.

          • LOL,
            This is a pointless discussion since clearly there are several different definitions
            about what constitutes particle physics, none of which changes the validity of the
            underlying science. Can I ask how you define particle physics as opposed to quantum
            mechanics?

            I know many people who study particle physics and I also many people who study
            Bose-Einstein condensates and the two sets of people do not overlap. Particle physicists tend to work at CERN or other large accelerators while people studying BECs do so in
            laser labs and are often part of optics departments.

          • Many people view them as synonymous. They are in some contexts, but not in all.

            The distinction is in the names… physics vs. mechanics.

            Particle physics is the branch of physics which studies the properties and interactions of all fundamental particles (even if those fundamental particles are bound to, comprise, are absorbed by or are emitted by atoms or molecules), whereas quantum mechanics is the branch of physics that deals with the action of forces on invariant-mass objects or relativistic-mass entities.

            In this case, particle physics describes how the fundamental particle known as a photon interacts with atoms and molecules, whereas quantum mechanics describes the behavior of the harmonic oscillators known as atoms and molecules, both when they are excited by photons, and when they are not.

          • And of course, we have to throw in classical physics as well, because we’re dealing with:

            Rotational mode quantum state energy (which is quantized).
            Vibrational mode quantum state energy (which is quantized).
            Electronic mode quantum state energy (which is quantized).
            Translational mode energy (which is not quantized).

          • LOL,
            Thanks for that definition. It is however not one commonly accepted in
            the English speaking world. Look for example at the PACS codes developed
            by the American Physical Society and is a hierarchical partitioning of the whole spectrum of subject matter in physics. This clearly separates out particle physics
            and atomic spectra into two distinct areas of physics. Particle physics has a
            PACS code of 10.XX while atomic and molecular physics is 30.XX. And Bose-Einstein
            condensates is labelled under 60.XX for condensed matter.

          • Izaak Walton wrote:
            “Thanks for that definition. It is however not one commonly accepted in the English speaking world.”

            Sure it is. In fact, it is the accepted definition. Had you not shifted the goal-posts from “quantum mechanics” to “atomic and molecular physics”, you’d have to admit that.

            Atomic, Molecular and Optical physics includes classical, semi-classical and quantum treatments. Atomic physics is a subset of AMO which studies atoms as an isolated system of electrons and nucleus, while molecular physics is the study of the physical properties of molecules.

            Quantum mechanics is the branch of physics that deals with the action of forces on invariant-mass objects or relativistic-mass entities. It does not utilize semi-classical nor classical formalisms.

            I’m assuming you were attempting to conflate ‘quantum mechanics’ with ‘atomic and molecular physics’, rather than conflating ‘particle physics’ with ‘atomic and molecular physics’, because the latter would just be silly… particle physics studies the properties and interactions of all fundamental particles, not atoms nor molecules.

            If you’re merely trying to be ‘not wrong’ you’ll fail.

            Remember, it was you who wrote (corrected):
            “particle physics normally involves the behaviour of sub-atomic particles and has nothing to do with the absorption or emission of [photons by] molecules”

            and you reiterated with:
            “As discussed above particle physics deals with the interactions of sub-atomic particles and the strong and weak nuclear forces.”

            But particle physics is the study of the nature and interaction of all fundamental particles, amongst them the photon, which only interacts via the electromagnetic interaction. So your definition was wrong from the outset.

            And the study of those fundamental particles extends to when those fundamental particles are bound to, comprising, absorbed by or emitted by atoms or molecules. Or weren’t you aware that atoms and molecules are comprised of fundamental particles?

            I’m looking at the issue from different viewpoints… from the viewpoint of the photons (particle physics), and from the viewpoint of the molecules (quantum mechanics).

            Of course, you also wrote:
            “the claim that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will result in cooling is not something that any competent scientist would believe.”

            You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. I suggest you study the issue in depth, and when you’re competent to speak on the issue, come back to apologize to everyone for attempting to lead them astray.

            Because you’ve just called all the below scientists (to include NASA scientists) incompetent. You should personally apologize to each and every one of them.

            https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/03/05/dr-fred-singer-co2-no-longer-affects-the-climate-all-co2-effects-are-overshadowed-by-climate-oscillations-and-changes-in-solar-activity/
            “Based on all the foregoing discussion, of the log-dependence of CO2 forcing (Myhre et al., GRL, 1998, vol. 25, doi: org/10.1029/98GLO1908) and its possible climate-cooling effect, I have a simpler hypothesis on the ineffectiveness of CO2 in warming the climate. I realize that this explanation is unacceptable to the IPCC and to many climate-warming advocates. I believe that the ‘gap’, now 40 years long, according to Christy, has existed throughout the Industrial Revolution — and probably during the whole of the Holocene. In other words, I consider that the ‘pause’ may be permanent.”

            The Thermosphere Has Cooled:
            https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/tci.png

            The Stratosphere Has Cooled:
            https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/strattempanom1960-2011.gif
            The graph shows multiple analyses of data from radiosondes that have measured stratospheric temperature for several decades. Graph adapted from Figure 2.7 in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, State of the Climate, 2011.

            Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
            http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.306.3621&rep=rep1&type=pdf
            “Abstract: The writers investigated the effect of CO2 emission on the temperature of atmosphere. Computations based on the adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming of the Earth’s atmosphere.”

            How increasing CO2 leads to an increased negative greenhouse effect in Antarctica
            https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2015GL066749

            Why CO2 cools the middle atmosphere – a consolidating model perspective
            https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/7/697/2016/esd-7-697-2016.pdf

            Observations of infrared radiative cooling in the thermosphere on 2 daily to multiyear timescales from the TIMED/SABER instrument
            https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20100011897.pdf
            “Abstract:. We present observations of the infrared radiative cooling by carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO) in Earth’s thermosphere.”

            A Guide to CO2 and Stratospheric Cooling
            https://climatephys.wordpress.com/2015/05/22/a-guide-to-co2-and-stratospheric-cooling/

            Cooling of the mesosphere and lower thermosphere due to doubling of CO2
            https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00585-998-1501-z
            The sensitivity of the mesosphere and lower thermosphere (MLT) to doubling of CO2 has been studied. The thermal response in the MLT is mostly negative (cooling) and much stronger than in the lower atmosphere. An average cooling at the stratopause is about 14 K. It gradually decreases to approximately 8 K in the upper mesosphere and again increases to about 40–50 K in the thermosphere.

            https://phys.org/news/2012-11-atmospheric-co2-space-junk.html
            The enhanced cooling produced by the increasing CO2 should result in a more contracted thermosphere, where many satellites, including the International Space Station, operate. The contraction of the thermosphere will reduce atmospheric drag on satellites and may have adverse consequences for the already unstable orbital debris environment, because it will slow the rate at which debris burn up in the atmosphere.

            Climate “Science” on Trial; Evidence Shows CO2 COOLS the Atmosphere
            https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/29/climate-science-on-trial-evidence-shows-co2-cools-the-atmosphere/

            Spectral Cooling Rates For the Mid-Latitude Summer Atmosphere Including Water Vapor, Carbon Dioxide and Ozone
            https://co2islife.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/spectralcoolingrates_zps27867ef4.png

            Note the CO2-induced spectral cooling rate in the Clough and Iacono study’s graphic (positive numbers in the scale at right) extends right down to the surface of the planet, whereas CO2 shows just a slight bit of warming (negative numbers in the scale at right) only at the tropopause (ie: just above the clouds, where it absorbs a greater percentage of reflected solar insolation and radiation from cloud condensation).

            BTW, the hotgas.club website is not mine, I don’t know who Eddie Banner is, and his research, while it may come at the problem from a different direction to arrive at a somewhat similar conclusion (if you squint your eyes and cross them a bit), is not my research.

          • Another study, this one directly relevant to the data in my paper… in fact, it explicates the exact same energetic pathways, but using older nomenclature, given that it was written in 1971.

            https://web.archive.org/web/20190702044509/https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/725111.pdf
            “The absorbed energy in Reaction (33) once again comes from translation. Two reactions of type (33) must occur for every one of the type indicated by Reaction (32) to maintain the CO2 in thermal equilibrium. The removal of energy from the translational modes by Reactions (32) and (33) cools the CO2 molecular system, and, concomitantly, the air.

            The same interactions as shown in the study above, using modern nomenclature and accounting for higher vibrational mode quantum state excitation:

            X (at ~288K+) + CO2{v20(0)} (at ~288K+) –> X + CO2{v21(1)} –> CO2{v20(0)} + 667.4 cm-1

            X (at ~288.1K+) + CO2{v21(1)} (at ~288.1K+) –> X + CO2{v22(2)} –> CO2{v21(1)} + 667.8 cm–1 –> CO2{v20(0)} + 667.4 cm-1

            X (at ~288.2K+) + CO2{v22(2)} (at ~288.2K+) –> X + CO2{v23(3)} –> CO2{v22(2)} + 668.10 cm–1 –> CO2{v21(1)} + 667.8 cm–1 –> CO2{v20(0)} + 667.4 cm-1
            Where X is any atmospheric molecule.

            Emission (and absorption) wavelength is dependent upon isotopic composition of the atoms comprising the CO2 molecule. Lower atomic weight isotopes result in shorter wavelengths, whereas higher atomic weight isotopes result in longer wavelengths. The inverse centimeter values above are for the primarily 12C isotope CO2 which make up the majority of CO2 molecules in Earth’s atmosphere.

        • Hi LOL- on your website, hotgas.club, you do a calculation that translate primary energy over 50 years to a temperature anomaly. When compared to the “accepted” anomaly, there is a still a gap. You then state the gap is due to “the ocean effect”, but you do not describe anywhere on this site what the “ocean effect” is. Is that described elsewhere? Just stating it si an ocean effect does not answer the question.

          • That website is not mine. I don’t know who Eddie Banner is.

            While Eddie Banner’s research approaches the problem from a different direction to come to a similar conclusion, his research is not mine.

          • Yeah, but yah gotta admit that Eddie Banner knows how to pick a great website name for his climate cybersquatting.

    • The best part of reading a comment from Brad Keyes is the inevitable storm of outrage and demands for clarification that follows.
      I have gone back and found entire days long comment threads in which perhaps one or two but more commonly zero people truly understood the gist of his offerings, and likely could not, even if it struck them like a ball peen hammer square on the ulnar nerve where it passes by the elbow.

      • It is interesting to the reader that for all the talk about temperature measurements, there are no reported uncertainties – a cardinal sin for any scientific report.

        NOAA’s calculated warming rates have no validity unless accompanied by a stated uncertainty, i.e. the uncertainty value and the confidence claimed for changes (all of them) are much smaller than any realistic calculation of the uncertainty of the result. Any “expert” scientist working in any field of endeavour knows this. If I measure my height using a ruler marked in metres, I can’t come up with a result accurate to one millimeter. That is not how the world works.

        It may be true that the global average temperature of the atmosphere has increased 0.15 degrees per decade, on average since year X. But properly stated, when the detected change is substantially less than the uncertainty, it may only be claimed with a confidence of 3% or 5%, or even less.

        And while I am being pedantic:

        “The oceans warm more slowly than the atmosphere due to their vastly larger thermal inertia.”

        Should read “…vastly difference thermal masses.”

        Readers should also be aware that even modeled atmosphere should include uncertainties about simulated measurements lest they have no practical application (and testing to see if they are true). That’s the part called validation. If you are going to claim an output has meaning in the real world, and you have guessed what the inputs are, some uncertainty also has to be assumed, and propagated through each calculation.

        NOAA’s website figures seem inordinately certain for a result that comes from so many physical measurements.

        Need examples? Read any article in The Lancet, even an abstract. That is how to express results.

        Anthony, perhaps we could put together an article by an expert on how relative measurement errors and absolute errors are determined, reported and propagated. A good example would be to determine and report the average temperature of 1000 cups of coffee using the specifications of two different (real) instruments. It is a simple mental experiment everyone can understand. An important aspect of the lesson would be to explain the difference between measuring the temperature of 1 cup of coffee 1000 times and the temperature of 1000 cups once each.

        • I did that years ago, Crispin, including posts at WUWT, here, for example.

          It’s all just been ignored.

          The people who compile the surface temperature record don’t even know to account for the resolution limits of the historical instruments. They are utterly incompetent.

          • I had not seen your essay before, sorry. It is right to the point about how so called climate scientists do not have a clue about physical measurements. This has been a pet peeve of mine for a long time. Statements that average temperatures have increased by 0.01 degrees over the 19th and 20th century temps with no included error budget are simply fantasy used to let the mass media exclaim how bad it is.

            There appears to be too many mathematicians ( both statistical and analytical), computer coders, and others that have no idea about making measurements in the real world. They take recorded temperatures from the past as gospel with no errors. They do not understand that the central limit theory can not reduce measurement error when averaging recorded temps from different places using different measuring devices.

          • Or even, as the work by Pat Frank shows, in the same place with the same instrument on different days.

          • Thank-you Jim Gorman. And thank-you even more for pointing out that the CLT is commonly violated in real world measurements.

            I once discussed measurement error by email with a student of a prominent ocean researcher. When I asked her how all the SST error went away, she replied, ‘the law of large numbers and the central limit theorem.’ Things pretty much stopped there.

            Nicholas, you are correct. Hubbard and Lin published that result in 2002. It’s been ignored by consensus AGW workers ever since.

        • An important aspect of the lesson would be to explain the difference between measuring the temperature of 1 cup of coffee 1000 times and the temperature of 1000 cups once each.

          I’ve been around this barn, too, and I believe that the Law of Large Numbers (which is what we’re talking about) is applicable in both cases, tells us something useful in both cases, but that useful thing does not have the same meaning in each case. That useful thing is the standard error of the mean.

          In the case where the temperature of a single cup of coffee is recorded by 1000 thermometers simultaneously, the standard error of the mean tells us how precise the calculated mean of the 1000 measurements is in relation to the true mean value of the measurements.

          In the case where the temperature of a 1000 different cups of coffee is taken by one thermometer for each cup, the standard error of the mean tells us that if we took the temperature of a completely different set of 1000 cups of coffee, there would be a 67% chance that the mean of those 1000 cups would fall within one standard error of the mean from the first experiment.

          In the first case, the entire population of cups of coffee is known: there’s one of them. In the second case, the 1000 measurements is a sample of a population of practically infinite size.

          In the first case, the 1000 measurements give a higher-precision calculation of the true temperature of the cup of coffee at the time of measurement. In the second case, the 1000 measurements give a calculation of the probability that if you repeat the measurements at 1000 different sites, you’d have a 67% probability of getting a mean that falls within one standard error of the first mean.

          That’s a big difference.

        • Crispin
          Kip Hansen, Pat Frank, and I have addressed the issue with several articles. As Pat observed, it has all largely been ignored — business as usual!

      • As Brad points out in his about page on the C. N. site, it seems a lot of people do not actually read what other people write:

        “You’re kidding. How could anybody be so irony-blind?
        Whoa—don’t get all judgy! Several factors are at play.
        The simplest one is that on the Internet, readers don’t actually read anything writers write.
        They scan. And once a given text has activated either of the 2 known climate-rhetoric schemata (Affirmative or Negative), it becomes all too easy for the reader’s brain to start missing or actively suppressing the little deviations from the template that a satirist includes in order to be… well, satirical.
        Such blindness to detail isn’t necessarily a bug in the reader’s neural software—you could even think of it as a tribute to her built-in powers of noise correction and tolerance—but it does make it a lot harder to get subtleties across to her.
        Another thing nobody likes to talk about, because it isn’t funny, is that parody and satire come from a place of respect, even affection. You can’t take the piss out of people whose mentality you can’t relate to, at least on some level.
        We all have someone in our lives who’s a climate believer—a mother, a brother, a friend, a colleague—and hopefully we’ve figured out by now that it’s not really their fault. It doesn’t mean they’re stupid, gullible or immoral. It only means they never learnt how science works, which is hardly an indictment of them. After all, 98% of the population has never been taught.
        They haven’t even been taught that they need to be taught!
        They’re invariably under the impression that the scientific method is some kind of birthright of all modern citizens, and that anyone can piece it together from snippets remembered from high school and the movies. Just try questioning a person’s understanding of how science works: they’re guaranteed to take this as a personal insult. For some reason, people can quite easily handle the truth that they don’t know how (say) Icelandic grammar works—they’re usually fine with this reality, because, after all, they’ve never studied the subject—but if you dare suggest they might not know how science works either, they’ll deny and confabulate til they’re blue in the face.”

        https://climatenuremberg.com/me/

        People do not read, they scan.
        How else could someone read a sentence that says, in part “…experts who study histrionic climate change for a living fantasized possible” and come away thinking that this person studies histrionic climate change, or fantasizes about climate doom, for a living?
        Dunno.

    • Or in line with natural variation as shown by previous warming episodes perhaps. Alarmists might not like that, but it remains perfectly plausible.

      But just because science isn’t melodramatic doesn’t make it untrue. As for scientific jargon, your entire post shows how little you understand of science – I did a science degree at a world-renowed university – you?

      • I doubt he will take the time for someone who did not take the time.
        You could have looked it up in as much time as it took you to smugly ask a question as if you knew the answer ahead of time, which you clearly did not.

      • There were hundreds of kids (oops, young adults) doing science degrees in my world-renowned uni. We picked the top 10% and gave them the opportunity to work on real research. Not one knew the difference between SD and SEM until they got their own data, and after that they never forgot.

    • Thanks for taking a break from ‘Climate Nuremberg’ to point out to flyspeck bedecked yobs in America that Science is out there whether or not and must be paid attention to Mr Loman. However no excuses are necessary here as Americans of all hues rightfully declare that the ‘We don’t need no stinking science’ resolution applies broadly and absolves all from frontal lobe exertions leading to the false path taken by the virtue signaling authority pearl clutching argument sky gazing finger to the wind up putting adherents of GIGO OHNO long term climate moral forecasting leading to cult like reinforcement of dopamine release by their social high table aspiring tut-tutters approbation.

    • “How fast is the world warming?”

      Nasa says temperatures have increased 0.8 degrees in 140 years…

      ..that’s 0.0057…..57/10,000th of a degree a year

    • Mr. Keyes:

      From 1940 through 2018, lots of CO2 was added to the atmosphere.

      NASA-GISS surface temperature data show that 1979 had the same global average temperature as in 1940.

      The far more global, requiring far less infilling (wild guessing) for missing data, UAH satellite temperatures, show about +0.5 degrees global warming from 1979 through 2018.

      Let’s be conservative, and round the +0.5 degrees up to +0.6 degrees C.

      In conclusion, the global warming from 1940 through 2018, using the best data available, was about +0.6 degrees C., which is equivalent to +0.77 degrees C. per century.

      There is no logical reason to assume (wild guess) a much faster warming rate in the next 78 years, based on unverified computer games, and unproven theories.

      Those computer games, excluding the Russian model ( obviously in collusion with Trump ! ), predict about +3 degrees C. warming over the next 100 years, on average — roughly QUADRUPLE the actual global warming rate from 1940 through 2018.

      And the scientific proof of the dire climate predictions is: “We’re big shot government bureaucrats with science degrees, and we say so ! ”

      We already have 78 years (1940 through 2018) of experience with REAL global warming — 100% good news.

      So there is no need for always wrong, wild guess computer games, “predicting” a horrible FUTURE climate — 100% bad news that never arrives — but that’s what gullible leftists, like you, want to hear.

      We found out ACTUAL global warming was mainly in the northern half of the Northern Hemisphere, mainly during the coldest six months of the year, and mainly at night …. in addition to being mild, intermittent and harmless — beneficial if you consider the ‘greening’ of our planet.

      Brad Keyes:
      I could not figure out if your comment was serious, or a joke — I wasn’t sure if you intended to be sarcastic, or really believed the climate alarmists’ dire predictions of the FUTURE climate — they are always confident, but always wrong (typical leftists).

      My climate science blog:
      (Stay away Brad Keyes, I just cleaned)
      http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

    • “Yet another excuse for Flyover America to ignore the hard science, I spose.”

      You mean were those ignorant farmers live, the ones who grow all the food that feeds the world? The guys that probably have a better understanding about climate than you and your computer models will ever hope to guess at?

      What a snarky condescending comment. Brad your leftist Elitist Bureaucratic skirt is showing but your knowledge about climate is sorely lacking by that poop you just flung at the comment board.

    • Richard & Bill,
      Seriously guys?
      Let’s just isolate a few phrases and word choices here.
      This post by Brad is overlapping densely packed layers of satire.

      How fast?
      “drastically”

      “the latest scientists”
      LOL!

      “experts who study histrionic climate change for a living”
      “fantasized possible”

      ROFL!

      “skeptics”

      In quotation marks!

      “this fact”

      No facts were given.

      “the science is melodramatic”

      Look up what exactly “melodrama” is:
      NOUN
      a sensational dramatic piece with exaggerated characters and exciting events intended to appeal to the emotions.

      “climate physicians”
      OMG! LMAO!

      “unless we reaffirm our dedication to our 2020 commitments”

      This is master level derision of virtue signaling.
      Reaffirmation of dedication to commitments is what will prevent a planetary meltdown.
      No need to actually change a single darn thing…just mouthing the correct words oughta do it.
      Then blame the feared but never seen meltdown on those who failed to do the kowtow & kabuki dances properly.

      “boil at best, and burn up at worst”

      If you are still taking this seriously at this point…um…

      “on track”*

      * technical jargon, meaning “Oh, hell, who knows…it might!”

      “dry technical language”

      Brad hater: “I missed that language, but did not go back and reread because I already decided, well…shoot! I hate this guy and know everything I need to about him.”
      Of course regular folk cannot be expected to absorb such densely packed science lingo, or such a complicated assemblage of meaningless bafflegab and malarkey.

      In fact he never said a single darn thing.
      Obviously all right thinking people will send out the appropriate reaffirmations and burning up or boiling over will be off the table…clear through until the next deadline those in the know will then invent off the top of their dang head.

      The fact that this is indistinguishable to anyone from the actual verbiage sported by alarmist doomsday mongers is the real joke here.
      Our resident warmista trolls defend Brad and back him up, standing behind this language like a doctors office knee jerk when they pull out that cute little miniature rubber mallet.

      If you look carefully at Brad’s post, and reflect on how it fooled a bunch of people into thinking it is actual alarmist drivel, it becomes obvious how far off the deep end and over the line of hysteria the warmistas alarmists are.
      This a veritable Rubik’s Cube of alarmist memieness packed into a Faberge Egg of panic mongering trollery.

      • Nicholas McGinley,
        you naughty boy,
        for scolding us like we
        were six years old:

        Statements from climate scaremongers are so bizarre that it’s very hard to know if they are being sarcastic, serious, or if they are just drunk.

        • In my experience, the true warmistas are a humorless lot, not given to self -deprecating jocularity.
          They definitely never make fun of their own religion, although they are smug enough when condescending to those who they deem to be among the Unenlightened.
          In any case, I was trying to be helpful, believe it or not.
          I do understand that you had posted the comment down here and later made one further up in which you expressed some uncertainty, so mostly I was just trying to head off a legion of WUWT semi-regulars from wasting a truckload of ammunition on friendly fire.
          Which may make me a spoilsport to some, and sounding like a scold to others.
          But it came from a place of love.
          Trust me.
          😉

    • “But just because the science is melodramatic”

      No Brad, the science is not melodramatic, it is the activist and advocate scientists and their acolytes that are melodramatic. Larry has just demonstrated that the facts of climate are not close to melodramatic even if you accept NOAA, GISS and the IPCC as being neutral and unbiased (which some of us do not with justification).

    • Please tell us more about the subject matter of “experts who study histrionic climate change for a living fantasized possible.”

    • “Yet another excuse for Flyover America to ignore the hard science, I spose.”

      Yet another example of activists preferring politics over science.

      Once again rather than actually deal with the claims made against the data that he worships, Brad chooses to just insult and look down on those who dare to not be him.

    • If the humans are not the cause of the warming then us going back to a paleolithic lifestyle will not affect the global temperature a milli Kelvin.

      Why are you folks unable to grok this ? oh that’s right, you want $93 TRILLION for your ‘Green New Deal’ scam, which will also not affect the planet’s temperature in any meaningful way – but it’ll make you a lot richer with the wealth you have extorted from the masses.

      “Sorry for the scientific jargon, but there are some topics that can only be communicated using dry technical language, I’m afraid. Yet another excuse for Flyover America to ignore the hard science, I spose.”

      Lol. So arrogant. Lots of us here have PhD’s in physics and the like. What do you have that qualifies you to look down on us in that way ? your assumed moral superiority is borne of delusions of grandeur. You’d be more persuasive if you stopped it, amigo.

    • I’d say the Celsius scales are deceptive when applied to “climate change”, in that they cover such a short range.

      A rise from 35 to 36 degrees C = a 2.94% rise. But in Kelvin it’s 310/309 = 0.32%.

      Not gonna persuade the public with small changes like that!

    • global average air temperature is about 15 C
      Northern hemisphere is about 1 C warmer than Southern
      hemisphere.

      US average temperature is about a bit less than 10 C
      and in 1950s US was a bit less than 9 C
      Canada average temperature is about -3.5 C and in 1950s
      it was about – 4.5 C
      China has average temperature of about 7.5 C
      And 1950s: less than 7 C
      India has average of a bit more than 24.5 C
      and 1950s: a bit more than 24 C
      http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/india
      http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/country-list/

    • Hardly worth the effort, but you asked.
      I do not have NOAA absolutes, but I do have NASA-GISS. The two mirror each other nearly perfectly, so the absolute references between the two has to be extremely close, on the order of a few hundredths of a degree.
      Here is the statement as it appears at the end of the temperature data file. The file is for Global, Land + Ocean and cover through Aug. 2015.

      “Best estimate for absolute global mean for 1951-1980 is 14.0 deg-C or 57.2 deg-F,
      so add that to the temperature change if you want to use an absolute scale
      (this note applies to global annual means only, J-D and D-N !)”

      Note: This statement was removed from the download data files not long after, and has not appeared since. As far as I know it must still be valid, as to my knowledge, the baseline period has not changed.
      Disclaimers:
      Use at your own risk.
      May have side effects, see your doctor.
      Your mileage may vary.
      Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

  2. I can find no evidence to support the claim that warming has accelerated since WWII, much less to support the claim that said warming was caused by us.

    • Mark,

      “I can find no evidence to support the claim that warming has accelerated since WWII”

      The NOAA data provides evidence. You can choose to not agree with it, but you can’t say you didn’t see it.

      • Larry, I suspect you have NO scientific background or understanding.

        Before 1979 we had NO global data for the temperatures of the atmosphere. For the oceans, that began in 2004 with the start of the ARGO bouy data.

        Everything before was done in a half-assed, hap-hazard way, covering only small fractions of the earth and oceans.

        If you truly believe that NOAA “data” is evidence of human-induced “climate change” on a global scale you are truly a deluded human being.

      • The trend from 1910-1945 is indistinguishable from 1960 to 2019 trend. Although the length of the periods is different, much of that difference is due to adjustments made by NOAA to GHCN, such as erasing/diminishing the Pause and suppressing “The 1940 Blip.”

        That trend similarity cannot be explained by GHG theory. The oceans rule. CO2 not so much.

        • Joel O’Bryan is WRONG
          “The trend from 1910-1945 is indistinguishable from 1960 to 2019 trend.”

          Two problems:
          (1) Linear trends are often deceiving for non-linear temperature data,

          and

          (2) Global average temperatures before 1940 include very little Southern Hemisphere measurements, and a lot of infilling.

          • Richard,

            Infilling is even more of a problem for “data” after 1940, plus lots of other unwarranted adjustments.

            Since its establishment in 1958, there has been no warming at the US South Pole station.

          • Yet the dry, frigid air above the South Pole is exactly where the GHE should be most pronounced from atmospheric enrichment over the past century by a fourth molecule of plant food per 10,000 dry air molecules.

      • Larry wrote:
        “The NOAA data provides evidence. You can choose to not agree with it, but you can’t say you didn’t see it.”

        Given the evidence that the data has been tampered with (even the raw, ‘unadjusted’ data has recently been ‘adjusted’), given the article [1] which shows that 100% of US warming is due to NOAA data tampering, I’ll choose not to agree with it, and side with the hard sciences, which nullify the ‘soft science’ of CAGW.

        See my other comment below. Particle physics nullifies the CAGW hypothesis.

        There has been no one to date capable of refuting the data I promulgate… not even physicists. It is the ultimate ‘red-pill’.

        No matter how many pictures of sick polar bears the alarmists put up, no matter how many flawed computer climate models they cite, no matter how many graphs with cherry-picked date ranges and manipulated data they point to, they have no recourse but to concede defeat in the face of irrefutable evidence that their underlying premise is fallacious.

        If a process (catastrophic atmospheric warming due to CO2) cannot occur at the quantum level, it most certainly cannot occur macroscopically.

        They made their bed when they hypothesized that vibrational mode quantum state energy of CO2 always flows to translational mode energy of other molecules under all circumstances… if you’re going to use particle physics as the underlying premise of your hypothesis, you’d better be sure that your hypothesis actually follows the dictates of particle physics. CAGW does not, and that’s a bed they’ve got to lie in.

        It’s time to tear down the entire CAGW-scam edifice, fire the alarmist ‘scientists’, review and correct the tampered data and set things right.

        [1] https://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/

          • You mean the adjustments have been “explained” by Berkeley Earth. Your link is to a feel good propaganda article that does not have any scientific or mathematical explanation of the adjustments, especially the values of the adjustments. Even if the reasoning that says adjustments are needed is valid reasoning, where is the explanation of how those adjustments are verified as correct?

          • It’s not skeptics’ responsibility to do anything. Those making the adjustments need to justify their reasonings.

          • the scientists involved have made it clear that the process and reasons are transparent and open to scrutiny, I haven’t heard any skeptic climate scientists dispute that claim, these days the only ones suggesting the adjustments aren’t justified are those that haven’t evaluated the evidence even though it’s available.

          • It matters not how, when or why they adjust the data… any adjustment skews the data away from what was measured (if there’s a problem with the thermometers, fix that, not the data), and inserts a subjective interpretation made only by those alarmist climate ‘scientists’. In many cases, the data is wholly manufactured out of thin air, as quotes from climate ‘scientists’ admit via the ClimateGate emails. In other cases, inconvenient data is thrown away (for instance, the ClimateGate emails admitting that the climate ‘scientists’ threw away all data after 1960 and manufactured data to fit their narrative).

            No matter how many pictures of sick polar bears they put up, no matter how many flawed computer climate models they cite, no matter how many graphs with cherry-picked date ranges and manipulated data they present… if the underlying process upon which they’ve hinged their premise is found to be physically impossible, that makes all their work a giant case of PBEM (policy-based evidence manufacturing)… cherry picking, data manipulation.

            It doesn’t matter what their manipulated data states… particle physics and quantum mechanics shows that CO2, far from being capable of causing catastrophic atmospheric warming, obeys the fundamental physical laws.

            When the combined translational mode energy of two colliding molecules is sufficient to vibrationally excite CO2’s vibrational mode quantum states, energy will flow from translational mode to vibrational mode… the exact opposite to what the climate alarmists claims happens under all circumstances. In other words, the atmosphere obeys 2LoT.

            This takes place via 5 energetic pathways… three of them via direct t-v (translational-vibrational) excitation of CO2, two of them via t-v excitation of N2, then transferred to CO2.

            This begins occurring significantly at ~288 K, the stated average global temperature, and as temperature increases the net energy flow is increasingly from translational mode to vibrational mode.

            This increases the time duration during which CO2 is vibrationally excited and therefore the probability that CO2 will radiatively emit. Any emission to space of the resultant radiation is, by definition, a cooling process.

            The climate alarmists claim that CO2 always, under all circumstances, transfers its vibrational mode energy to translational mode energy of other molecules, which is their basis for their claim that CO2 can cause catastrophic atmospheric warming… but that claim violates 2LoT and the Equipartition Theorem.

            In short, CAGW is built upon a fallacious premise, and therefore it cannot represent reality.

          • Andrew_W August 19, 2019 at 10:59 am

            Far from being open and transparent, “climate scientists'” adjustments and algorithms had to be dragged kicking, screaming and holding on to door jambs by repeated FOIA requests.

            Maybe you missed HadCRUT’s Phil Jones famous complaint about having to share with people who might criticize his methods. Also his admission of raising SSTs so that they jibbed with the already cooked to a crisp land station “data”.

          • MarkW August 19, 2019 at 3:38 pm
            “The skeptics have already shredded these excuses.”

            The problem with your claim is that skeptic scientists stopped complaining about lack of access to the data and information on the adjustments years ago, the only people complaining are those, like you, who have no first hand experience in seeking that data.

          • @John Tillman August 19, 2019 at 2:49 pm
            “Maybe you missed HadCRUT’s Phil Jones famous complaint . . .”

            Maybe you missed that that was 10 years ago, your observation illustrates a common theme with many bloggers and amateur contrarians, even though the debate changes and moves on they cannot let go of a talking point no matter how dated and irrelevant it has become. Those involved in the science move on, those not – don’t.

          • Andrew_W wrote: “The reasons why US temperature adjustments are mostly in one direction has been explained”

            Andrew, could you point me to the explanation for this NASA Climate adjustment?

            https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/NASA-US-1999-2016-2.gif

            As you can see, NASA Climate has changed James Hansen’s 1999 US surface temperature chart which orginally showed 1934 as being 0.5C hotter than 1998. But the 2016 version of this chart now shows 1998 to be hotter than 1934. I guess this means James Hansen wasn’t very accurate with his temperature measurements, since NASA Climate chose to change it all up.

            You say that the explanation for this change is available to the general public. Would you be so kind as to point us in the right direction so we can understand this NASA Climate temperature adjustment?

            Thanks in advance

          • Andrew,

            You missed that nothing has changed in the intervening ten years to change the significance of that admission.

          • John Tillman August 20, 2019 at 4:37 pm
            The change is that contrarian scientists are no longer complaining that they don’t have access to the relevant data, if you believe otherwise show evidence.

          • Andrew,

            A) The original problems still exist, not having been corrected, or, in the case of the temperature “data” misused by HadCRU, they are still “lost”.

            B) Many “climate scientists” still don’t archive their data, if such their product be.

          • Your claim of the issue being ‘dated’ doesn’t change the fact that the climate scientists admitted in emails hacked and made public via ClimateGate 1.0, ClimateGate 2.0 and ClimateGate 3.0 that they threw away data which didn’t fit their narrative, and manufactured data which did fit their narrative.

            Further, far from being ‘dated’, that manipulated and manufactured data still resides in the data used today, so it is as relevant today as the day the manipulation and manufacture of that data was made known.

            “Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were. Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing in the MXD data set (due to decline), and the method will infill these, estimating them from the real temperatures – another way of ‘correcting’ for the decline, though may be not defensible!” – Tim Osborn, via email (ClimateGate), admitting to committing fraud by altering the temperature record to hide the temperature decline

            “How can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data? – Tim Osborn, via email (ClimateGate), admitting yet again to committing fraud by altering the temperature record to hide the temperature decline, while implicating a colleague in the fraud

            “But it will be very difficult to make the MWP [Medieval Warm Period] go away in Greenland.” – Henry Pollack, via email (ClimateGate), University of Michigan, admitting to planning to alter the temperature record to more align with the climate propaganda

            I’ve just completed Mike’s [Michael Mann] Nature [the journal Nature, where Mann published his hockey stick graph] trick [appending different data sets, discarding ‘inconvenient’ data] of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the [contemporary temperature] decline.” – Phil Jones, via email (ClimateGate), admitting to committing scientific fraud to alter the temperature record by using the same method Michael Mann used to create his fraudulent Hockey Stick graph (which the IPCC first vociferously defended, then removed from their publication ‘due to issues with data and methods used’ after it was proved to be fraudulent)

            “Tim, Chris, I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020.” – Phil Jones, via email (ClimateGate), 2009

            – If warming really threatens to destroy human civilization, why was Jones hoping for warming?

            – If the world was still warming in 2009, why did Jones refer to “lack of warming lasting until 2020”?

            “I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us – the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.” – Mike MacCracken, via email (ClimateGate), in response to Phil Jones above, CC’d to John Holdren (Obama’s chief science advisor), advising Jones to have a backup explanation (however false it may be) for why the planet is cooling rather than warming… so they knew the planet wasn’t warming, and intended to implement the climate change agenda anyway… that’s not scientific, that’s political. It was a scam from the get-go.

            “I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this [altering the temperature record to support the propaganda] much longer.” – Tim Barnett, via email (ClimateGate), Scripps Institution of Oceanography, USA

          • LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
            When skeptic climate scientists that actually research the adjustments start complaining again about not having access to data or the nature of the adjustments I’ll start taking whining such as yours seriously.
            Incidentally, did you see Dr. Curry’s recent post on her review on the maximum warming and SLR we can expect this century? There was no criticism in it of the mainstream IPCC conclusions. It’s become very noticeable that professional skeptic scientists (those who actually do the science, not to be confused with professional skeptic spin doctors many of whom are long retired scientists and engineers), have abandoned the delusional “hoax” and “fraudulent” narrative against the AGW mainstream that the amateur and scientifically uninformed contrarians like you persist with.

          • Wait a second…it took me a while to respond cause after I read Andrew’s commentary I laughed so hard I blew my cornflakes back out through my nose cause I was also punching my monitor into next week.
            So I had to wait for the pain to subside and my timestream to catch up with my monitor again.
            Andrew is obviously a climate troll.
            Who on earth can take anyone seriously who in one breathe says that Phil Jones’s detractors gave up and stopped harping on his lack of ethics, and then said that anyone still complaining ought to stop since other people have given up long since and therefore the conversation has moved on!
            Hard to tell if he is so stupid he believes his own lies, if he has stock answer on cue cards and recites them without paying attention to himself (Is he Climate Joe Biden?), or if he is so damn smart he forgot somewhere along the line that sophistry still makes no sense no matter how earnest your trolling is?

          • Nicholas McGinley
            Yeah, it is hilarious! All the scientists that are actually involved in researching the science have moved on from their original claims with regard to AGW that “it’s all a fraud” and all become lukewarmers, accepting that AGW is indeed real and significant, while many of the uninformed adherents to the original AGW conspiracy theory just keep on making the same claims that they were making 15 years ago, not even noticing their Profits leave! Curry, Spencer and the others left the extremist contrarian cause and now accept AGW is real and significant!
            Yes! atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been rapidly increasing since the industrial revolution due to human activity!
            Yes! Sea levels are rising due to warming from the increase in atmospheric CO2 as a result of burning fossil fuels!
            Yes! The hockey stick stands, and yes, it has been verified many times!
            Yes! The rate of twentieth century and now twenty first century warming is unprecedented since the start of the Quaternary Period.
            And yes! The warming is mainly due to the increase in GHG’s and not the Sun!
            Ask them straight if they accept the above, I doubt they’ll give you a straight answer, but you can at least ask!

          • Nicholas McGinley
            In one of the comments here Davidmhoffer asks: “This guy (Kummer) keeps getting published here why?”

            Now you know, WUWT has also moved on from AGW skepticism to CAGW skepticism.

            Correction to above comment “prophet” not “profit”, unlike others here I don’t stubbornly adhere to a religion so don’t often use that term.

          • Andrew W wrote:
            “When skeptic climate scientists that actually research the adjustments start complaining again about not having access to data or the nature of the adjustments I’ll start taking whining such as yours seriously.”

            Your disingenuous attempt at diverting attention away from the context of my prior comment is noted. What you’ve not answered to is the fact that the manipulated data remains in the temperature record, it does not represent reality, it has been shown to have been adjusted to increase its correlation to rate-of-rise of CO2, and it is still relevant because public policy is being based upon that temperature record.

            Dr. John Bates, who led NOAA’s climate-data records program before retiring in 2016 after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science, revealed in 2017 that Karl et. al. released a hastily-prepared and fundamentally flawed paper which purported to disprove the ‘global warming’ hiatus, following on the famous Karl et. al. 2015 paper which skewed SST to arrive at its conclusions. The Karl 2017 paper (which purported to be an official NOAA report, but was not… it was merely hastily created by alarmist ‘scientists’ to sway opinion during that year’s climate summit) was so problematic that a Congressional committee hired Mitre to review the study… they found no intentional manipulation of data, yet we know that data manipulation took place, leaving only incompetence as the explanation.

            How do we know this? Because the pause continues.

            1998-2012:
            https://www.nature.com/articles/nature22315.epdf

            1998-2013:
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/24/another-paper-confirms-the-pause/

            1998-2014:
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/list-of-excuses-for-the-pause-in-global-warming/

            1998-2017:
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/29/latest-excuse-for-the-global-warming-pause-the-bali-volcano/

            1998-2017:
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/26/warming-and-the-pause-explained-by-wind-upwelling-and-mixing/

            1998-2018
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/03/global-temperature-report-march-2019/
            “The 2018 global anomaly changed by only 0.003°C” – it cooled.

            The only warming shown is from NOAA-18 and NOAA-19 satellite drift, which NOAA didn’t correct for because it supported their narrative.

            Just when was that ‘global warming’ pause supposed to have paused, exactly? The only reason you climate catastrophists are out en force is because it’s summer. When you’re huddled in your hovels trying to stay warm enough to stay alive, we generally don’t hear a peep out of you. LOL

            Andrew W wrote:
            “Incidentally, did you see Dr. Curry’s recent post on her review on the maximum warming and SLR we can expect this century? There was no criticism in it of the mainstream IPCC conclusions. It’s become very noticeable that professional skeptic scientists (those who actually do the science, not to be confused with professional skeptic spin doctors many of whom are long retired scientists and engineers), have abandoned the delusional “hoax” and “fraudulent” narrative against the AGW mainstream that the amateur and scientifically uninformed contrarians like you persist with.”

            Really?

            “The largest rates of warming that are often cited in impact assessment analyses (e.g. 4.5 or 5 oC) rely on climate models being driven by a borderline implausible concentration/emission scenarios (RCP8.5).”

            “Even the more moderate amount of warming of 3.1oC relies on climate models with values of the equilibrium climate sensitivity that are larger than can be defended based on analysis of historical climate change.”

            “Estimates of 21st century sea level rise exceeding 1 m require at least one borderline implausible or very weakly justified assumption. Allowing for one borderline implausible assumption in the sea level rise projection produces high-end estimates of sea level rise of 1.1 to 1.6 m. Higher estimates are produced using multiple borderline implausible or very weakly justified assumptions. The most extreme of the published worst-case scenarios require a cascade of events, each of which are extremely unlikely to borderline impossible based on our current knowledge base. ”

            Try reading for context… or try learning to read. LOL

          • LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks August 23, 2019 at 6:39 pm

            “What you’ve not answered to is the fact that the manipulated data remains in the temperature record, it does not represent reality, it has been shown to have been adjusted to increase its correlation to rate-of-rise of CO2, ”

            You make a claim, you provide no supporting evidence, despite you obviously being keen to do so when you think you can – as illustrated by the links you have supplied.

            “Dr. John Bates, who led NOAA’s climate-data records program before retiring in 2016 after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science, revealed in 2017 that Karl et. al. released a hastily-prepared and fundamentally flawed paper which purported to disprove the ‘global warming’ hiatus, following on the famous Karl et. al. 2015 paper which skewed SST to arrive at its conclusions.”

            Again, claims without evidence.

            ” . . .they found no intentional manipulation of data, yet we know that data manipulation took place, leaving only incompetence as the explanation.”

            And again, claims without supporting evidence.

            “How do we know this? Because the pause continues.”

            Could there possibly be evidence available that the “pause”does not continue? Well there’s this article:
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/18/how-fast-is-the-world-warming-is-it-burning/

            And there’s all these data sets that show continued warming since the El Nino of 1998:
            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/plot/uah6/from:1998/trend

            So that claim of yours is not only unsupported, it’s totally refuted by both the surface and satellite data sets.

            ” “The 2018 global anomaly changed by only 0.003°C” – it cooled.”

            When there is a “pause” it is always led by a strong El Nino and followed by weaker El Nino and La Nina – ALWAYS.
            And to suggest that a small change in temperature between two consecutive years is of significance is . . . well, it’s just stupid.

            “The only reason you climate catastrophists are out en force is because it’s summer.”

            Wrong on two counts :
            1. Not here, here it’s the end of winter, I’ll explain that paradox to you sometime.
            2. Here’s a comment I made twelve years ago: “I have never come across what I consider to be good evidence that global warming is a crisis, present or future, either to Man or the planet, and none was presented in the debate.”
            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/adventures-on-the-east-side/comment-page-4/#comment-28501

            My position has not changed, so again you make assumptions without evidence, I applaud the abandonment of AGW skepticism and a move to CAGW by the skeptic scientists because it brings them very close to my position. But you assumptions reveals a lot about yourself, for you the AGW debate is all about ideology, that’s because you base your beliefs not on the scientific evidence but rather on your own stubborn ideology.

            Quote from Dr. Curry: “The largest rates of warming that are often cited in impact assessment analyses (e.g. 4.5 or 5 oC) rely on climate models being driven by a borderline implausible concentration/emission scenarios (RCP8.5).”

            Often cited in the media, RCP8.5 is based on high climate sensitivity and on high emissions, it’s one scenario, while the media might like to reference it because it makes the story more sale-able mainstream scientist do not consider it to be a high probability outcome, they consider it to be a low probability outcome, that’s why it’s at the extreme range of forecasts.

            Quote from Dr. Curry: “Even the more moderate amount of warming of 3.1oC relies on climate models with values of the equilibrium climate sensitivity that are larger than can be defended based on analysis of historical climate change.”

            Here with “larger than can be defended” I think Dr. Curry is pushing the envelope in her not-peer-reviewed opinion piece.

            Quote from Dr. Curry: “Estimates of 21st century sea level rise exceeding 1 m require at least one borderline implausible or very weakly justified assumption. . ”

            Here’s a graph of the AR5 SLR projections:
            https://www.carbonbrief.org/what-the-new-ipcc-report-says-about-sea-level-rise

            Even RCP8.5 doesn’t project SLR of a meter.

            You included a link to an anonymous article, perhaps by accident: ‘Warming’ and ‘The Pause’ Explained By Wind, Upwelling And Mixing.

            If the article has any merit in your eyes let me explain why it shouldn’t:
            1. The author is anonymous
            2. It’s at best a speculative untested hypothesis, untested means it’s not science.
            3. It’s easily tested, the article starts with the supposition that decreasing wind speeds over the last century have reduced to amount of cold water being brought to the surface, thus causing less oceanic cooling of the atmosphere. That’s easily tested: Is there a century long trend of declining wind speeds? I’ll bet the house that that hypothesis has already been examined and been proven not to be the case.

          • Correction to my above comment: “I applaud the abandonment of AGW skepticism and a move to CAGW by the skeptic scientists . . .”

            Should be: “I applaud the abandonment of AGW skepticism and a move to CAGW skepticism by the skeptic scientists . . .”

          • Andrew W wrote:
            “You make a claim, you provide no supporting evidence, despite you obviously being keen to do so when you think you can – as illustrated by the links you have supplied.”

            Do you deny that the manipulated data remains in the temperature records? While at the same time presenting a graph showing a 4-fold increase in temperature in that record over the satellite record? LOL

            Andrew W wrote:
            “So that claim of yours is not only unsupported, it’s totally refuted by both the surface and satellite data sets.”

            Not ‘refuted’ at all… in fact, the 4-fold faster increase in the NASA GISS data as compared to the UAH satellite data pretty much definitively corroborates exactly what I’ve said.

            Your disingenuous attempt at sheep-herding the masses over to your blatantly-obvious AGW camp fails… try arguing honestly next time. LOL

            CAGW is merely the alarmist version of AGW. I suspect the AGW crown will attempt to win converts, then slide into CAGW alarmism from there. This isn’t the first time that they would have tried such slimy tactics.

            My CAGW and AGW skepticism is based upon the fact that the fundamental physical laws dictate that CO2 does not and cannot cause warming above what the stated average global temperature already is.

            The ‘transition temperature’ at which the combined translational mode energy of two colliding molecules can begin vibrationally exciting a radiative molecule’s vibrational mode quantum states dictates when that radiative molecule changes from being a net warming molecule (transfer of vibrational mode energy to translational mode energy) to a net cooling molecule (transfer of translational mode energy to vibrational mode energy).

            Obviously the temperature at which the combined translational mode energy of two colliding molecules will be sufficient to excite any particular molecular species’ vibrational mode quantum states will be different between molecular species, but the same hold true for any molecular species capable of emitting radiation.

            For CO2, that ‘transition temperature’ is ~288 K.

            The vibrational mode quantum state energy levels of CO2:
            https://i.imgur.com/Lj8WbrW.png

            https://web.archive.org/web/20190702044509/https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/725111.pdf
            “The absorbed energy in Reaction (33) once again comes from translation. Two reactions of type (33) must occur for every one of the type indicated by Reaction (32) to maintain the CO2 in thermal equilibrium. The removal of energy from the translational modes by Reactions (32) and (33) cools the CO2 molecular system, and, concomitantly, the air.

            The energetic pathways by which translational mode (kinetic) energy (which we sense as temperature) is converted to vibrational mode energy then to radiation (utilizing modern nomenclature and accounting for higher vibrational mode quantum states).

            X (at ~288K+) + CO2{v20(0)} (at ~288K+) –> X + CO2{v21(1)} –> CO2{v20(0)} + 667.4 cm-1

            X (at ~288.1K+) + CO2{v21(1)} (at ~288.1K+) –> X + CO2{v22(2)} –> CO2{v21(1)} + 667.8 cm–1 –> CO2{v20(0)} + 667.4 cm-1

            X (at ~288.2K+) + CO2{v22(2)} (at ~288.2K+) –> X + CO2{v23(3)} –> CO2{v22(2)} + 668.10 cm–1 –> CO2{v21(1)} + 667.8 cm–1 –> CO2{v20(0)} + 667.4 cm-1

            X denotes any atmospheric molecule. The Equipartition Theorem dictates that all molecules at exactly the same temperature will have exactly the same translational mode energy, regardless of their molecular weight. Lower molecular weight molecules will have a higher speed, whereas higher molecular weight molecules will have a lower speed, but at the same temperature, they’ll all have the same translational mode (kinetic) energy.

            In order for CO2 to be vibrationally excited, it requires the energy equivalent to a 14.98352 µm photon, equating to a CO2 speed of 425.92936688660114 m/s or an N2 speed of 533.8549080851558 m/s. For CO2, the Boltzmann Factor probability of one of its molecules being at a speed of 425.92936688660114 m/s; and for N2, the Boltzmann Factor probability of one of its molecules being at a speed of 533.8549080851558 m/s is 0.8461 at 288 K. In other words, at 288 K, for every 100 molecules which are at the Most Probable Speed, another ~84 molecules will be at the speed necessary to vibrationally excite CO2.

            The Maxwell-Boltzmann Speed Distribution of N2 and CO2 at 288K:
            https://i.imgur.com/v8adCi2.png
            You’ll note the ratio between the top-left and top-right ‘fraction of gas’, and the bottom-left and bottom-right ‘fraction of gas’ in the image above is ~0.84… the Boltzmann Factor probability mentioned prior (0.8461 at 288 K).

            The conversion of translational mode energy (which we sense as temperature) to vibrational mode energy is, by definition, a cooling process.

            Emission of any of the resultant radiation to space is, by definition, a cooling process.

            An increased atmospheric CO2 concentration will increase the likelihood of atmospheric molecular collision with CO2, thereby increasing the time duration during which CO2 is vibrationally excited and the likelihood of CO2 radiatively emitting, thereby increasing the radiative cooling effect.

            Likewise, an increased atmospheric CO2 concentration will increase the number of molecules capable of emitting, increasing photon flux and thus radiative emission to space, thereby increasing the radiative cooling effect.

            Therefore, CAGW is a physical impossibility by the above interactions alone.

            But there are other interactions:

            X (at ~288K+) + N2{v1(0)} (at ~288K+) –> X + N2{v1(1)} –> N2{v1(1)} + CO2{v20(0)} –> N2{v1(0)} + CO2{v3(1)} –> CO2{v1(1)} + 961.54 cm-1

            X (at ~288K+) + N2{v1(0)} (at ~288K+) –> X + N2{v1(1)} –> N2{v1(1)} + CO2{v20(0)} –> N2{v1(0)} + CO2{v3(1)} –> CO2{v20(2)} + 1063.83 cm-1

            We can use the Boltzmann Factor to determine the vibrationally excited population of N2 due to translational-vibrational (t-v) collisional processes.

            N2{v1(1)} (stretch) mode at 2345 cm-1 (4.26439 µm), correcting for anharmonicity, centrifugal distortion and vibro-rotational interaction

            1 cm-1 = 11.9624 J mol-1
            2345 cm-1 = 2345 * 11.9624 / 1000 = 28.051828 kJ mol-1

            The Boltzmann factor at 288 K has the value 1 / (2805.1828 / 288R) = 0.10266710 which means that 10.26671% of N2 molecules are in the N2{v1(1)} excited state due to translational-vibrational (t-v) processes.

            Given that CO2 constitutes 0.041% of the atmosphere (410 ppm), and N2 constitutes 78.08% of the atmosphere (780800 ppm), this means that 4.1984 ppm of CO2 is excited to its {v3} mode quantum state via collisional translational-to-vibrational (t-v) processes, whereas 80162.3936 ppm of N2 is excited via the same (t-v) processes. This is a ratio of 1 vibrationally excited CO2 to 19093 vibrationally excited N2. You’ll note this is 10.028 times higher than the total CO2:N2 ratio of 1:1904, and 195 times more vibrationally excited N2 molecules than all CO2 molecules (vibrationally excited or not). Thus energy will flow from the higher-energy and higher-concentration vibrationally-excited N2 to vibrationally ground-state CO2.

            The conversion of translational mode energy (which we sense as temperature) to vibrational mode energy of N2 is by definition, a cooling process.

            The transfer of that N2 vibrational mode energy to vibrational mode energy of CO2, then that energy being emitted to space as radiation is, by definition, a cooling process. The resultant radiation from the last two energetic pathways is in the Infrared Atmospheric Window, thus any upwelling radiation has a nearly unfettered path out to space.

            An increased atmospheric CO2 concentration will increase the likelihood of vibrationally-excited N2 colliding with CO2, thereby increasing the likelihood of CO2 radiatively emitting, thereby increasing the radiative cooling effect.

            Five energetic pathways which show that CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming due to CO2) is a physical impossibility.

            So it matters not how many pictures of sick polar bears the climate catastrophists show, nor how many charts with cherry-picked date ranges and manipulated data they present, nor how many flawed computer climate models they cite.

            In an atmosphere sufficiently dense such that collisional energy transfer can significantly occur, all radiative molecules play the part of atmospheric coolants at and above the temperature at which the combined translational mode energy of two colliding molecules exceeds the lowest vibrational mode quantum state energy of the radiative molecule. Below this temperature, they act to warm the atmosphere via the mechanism the climate alarmists claim happens all the time, but if that warming mechanism occurs below the tropopause, the net result is an increase of Convective Available Potential Energy, which increases convection, which is a net cooling process.

            If a process (catastrophic atmospheric warming due to CO2) cannot occur at the quantum level, it most certainly cannot occur macroscopically.

          • LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks August 24, 2019 at 2:12 pm
            “Do you deny that the manipulated data remains in the temperature records? While at the same time presenting a graph showing a 4-fold increase in temperature in that record over the satellite record? LOL”

            You’ve made a claim, I’m just waiting here quietly for you to provide evidence supporting that claim.

            “Not ‘refuted’ at all… in fact, the 4-fold faster increase in the NASA GISS data as compared to the UAH satellite data pretty much definitively corroborates exactly what I’ve said.”

            No, your claim was that “the pause continues”, which is refuted. The different rates of warming between the GISS and Hadcrut data sets is likely due to Hadcrut not including all areas at high latitudes when GISS does the discrepancy between RSS and UAH is harder to explain, but Spencer has been having trouble with correcting for drift and atmospheric drag.

            “My CAGW and AGW skepticism is based upon the fact that the fundamental physical laws dictate that CO2 does not and cannot cause warming above what the stated average global temperature already is.”

            “Propagation of High-Energy 10.6-Micron
            Laser Beams Through the Atmosphere”
            And subsequent assertions.

            You (or rather the non-science blog you bought that theory from) are only looked at half of what’s going on, like looking at income but ignoring expenditure. Certainly the t-v process is a cooling process, but the v-t process is a warming process and that process is also going on in the atmosphere, and the more molecules capable of absorbing photons there are the more quickly those photons will be absorbed as they travel through the atmosphere with the result being an increase in the time taken to travel to the TOA and escape into space.
            Quickly after absorbing a photon the excited state GHG molecule sheds energy to surrounding atmospheric molecules in the v-t process, with more GHG molecules in the atmosphere that process becomes more common, so the atmosphere would warm through that process alone – except that the rate of the t-v also increases and by the same amount.

            The half life for a CO2 molecule remaining in its excited state after absorbing a photon is on the order of 1 second, in the lower atmosphere each molecule collides with others about a billion times a second (mentioned in your link), so an excited GHG molecule has many opportunities to shed its vibrational energy to neighboring non-GHG molecules, and the more GHG molecules there are the more that’s going to happen (and the more the opposite process – the one you’re attached to – will also happen). The non-GHG molecules opportunity to shed their t energy to GHG v energy also increases, both of those processes will balance, but it’s that time to TOA that is increased that results in atmospheric warming because the slower energy escape means the equilibrium of the energy in the atmosphere increases.

          • Andrew_W wrote:
            “You’ve made a claim, I’m just waiting here quietly for you to provide evidence supporting that claim.”

            You’ve done that for me, Andrew. You provided the non-statistically significant UAH trend, and the manipulated NASA GISS data which is 4-fold what the UAH trend is. Then you maintained that the NASA GISS data was unmanipulated, despite the hacked emails showing that that’s exactly what they were doing (and very likely continue to do).

            Andrew_W wrote:
            No, your claim was that “the pause continues”, which is refuted. The different rates of warming between the GISS and Hadcrut data sets is likely due to Hadcrut not including all areas at high latitudes when GISS does the discrepancy between RSS and UAH is harder to explain, but Spencer has been having trouble with correcting for drift and atmospheric drag.

            So you’re saying that the UAH 0.1 C trend over 30 years is statistically significant? LOL

            Andrew_W wrote:
            You (or rather the non-science blog you bought that theory from) are only looked at half of what’s going on, like looking at income but ignoring expenditure. Certainly the t-v process is a cooling process,”

            Good to hear you admit it, Andrew. Now the fun begins.

            Andrew_W wrote:
            “but the v-t process is a warming process and that process is also going on in the atmosphere, and the more molecules capable of absorbing photons there are the more quickly those photons will be absorbed as they travel through the atmosphere with the result being an increase in the time taken to travel to the TOA and escape into space.”

            But Andrew_W, those photons do not cause an increase of translational mode energy, it is physically impossible for them to do so, since they carry insufficient angular momentum to do so. That energy flows into vibrational mode quantum states.

            Now, Andrew… if the combined translational mode energy of two colliding molecules is already higher than the vibrational mode energy of the molecules capable of absorbing radiation… where, exactly, is that energy going to flow to?

            You have only looked at one side of the coin, that side which represents the vibrational mode energy of the radiative molecules… and you completely disregarded the combined translational mode energy of two colliding molecules (you do realize the molecules collide, yes? LOL), which increases as temperature increases.

            Andrew_W wrote:
            “Quickly after absorbing a photon the excited state GHG molecule sheds energy to surrounding atmospheric molecules in the v-t process, with more GHG molecules in the atmosphere that process becomes more common, so the atmosphere would warm through that process alone – except that the rate of the t-v also increases and by the same amount.”

            Untrue. The t-v process increases with increasing translational mode energy, the v-t process decreases with increasing translational mode energy, where the combined translational mode energy of two colliding molecules is greater than the energy necessary to excite the radiative molecule’s lowest vibrational mode.

            That’s 2LoT in a nutshell… you’ve just denied the fundamental physical laws, Andrew! LOL

            Andrew_W wrote:
            “The half life for a CO2 molecule remaining in its excited state after absorbing a photon is on the order of 1 second”

            Wrong. The excitation time for CO2 is much shorter than that… unfortunately for you, there is also the N2{v1(1)} vibrational modes excited via t-v processes… and those modes are metastable and relatively long-lived, what with the N2 molecule being a homonuclear diatomic.

            Now Andrew… if translational mode energy is high enough to significantly flow to vibrational mode quantum state energy of CO2, and N2 vibrational mode energy is flowing to CO2 vibrational mode quantum state energy… where is that energy going to go? Oh, that’s right… it increases the time duration during which CO2 is vibrationally excited and therefore the probability that CO2 radiatively emits, breaking LTE.

            What happens when LTE is broken, Andrew?

            Andrew_W wrote:
            “in the lower atmosphere each molecule collides with others about a billion times a second (mentioned in your link), so an excited GHG molecule has many opportunities to shed its vibrational energy to neighboring non-GHG molecules”

            Not if those neighboring non-GHG molecules are already carrying sufficient translational mode energy such that upon collision, the combined translational mode energy is higher than the vibrational mode energy of CO2. And at ~288 K, they do… the Boltzmann Factor probability for CO2 and N2 at 288 K is ~0.84, meaning for every 100 molecules at the Most Probable Speed, another ~84 molecules are at the speed necessary to vibrationally excite CO2… and then you’ve got the much higher-concentration and higher-energy vibrationally-excited N2 to take into account, as well.

            You’ve blathered that temperature records with a 4-fold faster increase over known-untampered data isn’t indicative of data tampering in that record; you refuse to admit that the tampered data remains in the temperature record to this day; you attempt to claim that because the caught-red-handed data tampering happened a decade ago that it shouldn’t matter; you’ve claimed that because scientists no longer complain about a lack of access to the underlying data and methods of the climate alarmists, that the hidden nature of that data and those methods is just fine; you’ve completely disregarded two significantly contributory energetic pathways by which CO2 acts as a net atmospheric coolant above ~288 K; you hinted that you don’t believe in the fundamental physical laws by claiming exactly what the climate alarmists claim (that CO2 transfers its vibrational mode quantum state energy to the translational mode energy of other molecules under all circumstances at low altitude)… this isn’t looking good for you, Andrew. LOL

          • You’ve resorted to out shouting rather than out thinking, so there’s no point continuing but:
            Again you make claims unable to support evidence.
            The difference in rate of increase between UAH and GISS data on the graph is not 4 fold, it’s just over 2 fold, you not being able to read a graph isn’t surprising.
            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/trend/offset:-0.36/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/trend/offset:-0.285/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/offset:-0.15/plot/uah6/from:1998/trend

            “. . those photons do not cause an increase of translational mode energy, it is physically impossible for them to do so, since they carry insufficient angular momentum [you mean linear momentum] to do so. ”

            Here you illustrate your ignorance of the difference between the Newtonian laws of the macroscopic world and the quantum mechanics in the microscopic world, when an object absorbs a photon what’s happening is the molecule absorbing that photon gains vibrational energy – but the molecules in an object when it’s warm have more translational energy than than when it’s cold. Using your logic since vibrational energy can’t be converted into translational energy in the microscopic world sunlight cannot warm objects up.
            That’s it, I’m not continuing a discussion with someone so far out of their depth as you are but unable to understand it.

          • Andrew_W wrote:
            “You’ve resorted to out shouting rather than out thinking, so there’s no point continuing but:”

            No “shouting” in evidence, you lying kooktard. You mean out-maneuvering your blatantly obvious CAGW alarmist stance which you’re desperately trying to hide behind an AGW veil… remember it was you who clearly stated that you believed atmospheric molecules at all times transferred their vibrational mode energy to translational mode energy, in direct contradiction to 2LoT and the Equipartition Theorem.

            But at least I got you to admit that CO2 can and does act as a net atmospheric coolant, obeying 2LoT and the Equipartition Theorem, eh? That’s a huge win for me… because that destroys even your claimed AGW stance, which you use to hide your CAGW stance. LOL

            Andrew_W wrote:
            “Again you make claims unable to support evidence.”

            Says the one making claims sans evidence. LOL

            Andrew_W wrote:
            “The difference in rate of increase between UAH and GISS data on the graph is not 4 fold, it’s just over 2 fold, you not being able to read a graph isn’t surprising.
            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/trend/offset:-0.36/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/trend/offset:-0.285/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/offset:-0.15/plot/uah6/from:1998/trend

            The start of the trend between UAH and NASA GISS is more than 4-fold greater, which you attempt to hide with your offsets. Look at the left-hand side of the graphs:
            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/plot/uah6/from:1998/trend

            Start from a higher level and even if the trend is exactly the same as the unaltered data, it’s going to look worse. Your disingenuous debating tactics are slimy… one must wonder why you do it?

            LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks wrote:
            “. . those photons do not cause an increase of translational mode energy, it is physically impossible for them to do so, since they carry insufficient angular momentum [you mean linear momentum] to do so. ”

            No, I do not mean “linear momentum”. You display your ignorance of the fundamentals of photons, and therefore the fundamentals of the physics of energetic exchange in the atmosphere.

            It is the interaction of the electronic and magnetic fields, oscillating in quadrature, geometrically transformed into a spiral (because a sinusoid is a circular function and a circular function spread axially over space-time is a spiral) which gives a photon its energy.

            http://staff.washington.edu/bradleyb/spiralsynth/fig3.1.gif

            So angular momentum, not linear momentum. The photon, being massless and circularly polarized when considered singularly, doesn’t carry its energy in its linear momentum, it carries it in its angular momentum. This is why, when traveling through transparent mediums of differing refractive indexes, the photon energy does not change, while the apparent photon speed does.

            E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4
            pc is the magnitude of the momentum vector. Since c is fixed in vacuum, p must change for the photon’s energy to change.

            p=ħk
            where k is the wave vector (where the wave number k = |k| = 2π/λ), ω = 2πν is the angular frequency, and ħ = h/2π is the reduced Planck constant.

            The energy and momentum of a photon depend only on its frequency (ν) or inversely, its wavelength (λ):
            E= ħν = hc/λ

            A photon’s energy is contained within the electronic and magnetic fields oscillating in quadrature… in other words, angular momentum.

            This is why Planck’s constant has units of angular momentum (J-s), and the reduced Planck constant represents the quantum of angular momentum.

            Now you’re arguing about things you have absolutely no clue about… which is everything this topic covers… you’re clueless and babbling out stuff which isn’t even remotely close to reality. LOL

            Andrew_W wrote:
            “Here you illustrate your ignorance of the difference between the Newtonian laws of the macroscopic world and the quantum mechanics in the microscopic world, when an object absorbs a photon what’s happening is the molecule absorbing that photon gains vibrational energy – but the molecules in an object when it’s warm have more translational energy than than when it’s cold. Using your logic since vibrational energy can’t be converted into translational energy in the microscopic world sunlight cannot warm objects up.

            You’re attempting to misquote me, another of your slimy debating tactics. I never said that “vibrational energy can’t be converted into translational energy”, I said the photons don’t carry sufficient angular momentum to directly affect translational mode energy, and thus that energy flows into vibrational modes.

            Now, Andrew_W… if the translational mode energy of the molecules is such that upon collision the combined translational energy is already higher than the vibrational mode energy… WHERE DOES THAT VIBRATIONAL MODE ENERGY GO? It cannot flow to translational mode, it must be emitted by the radiative molecule, breaking LTE.

            Andrew_W wrote:
            “That’s it, I’m not continuing a discussion with someone so far out of their depth as you are but unable to understand it.”

            Bwahahaha! Andrew_W blathered that temperature records with a 4-fold higher start of the trend over known-untampered data isn’t indicative of data tampering in that record; he refuses to admit that the tampered data remains in the temperature record to this day; he attempted to claim that because the caught-red-handed data tampering happened a decade ago that it shouldn’t matter; he’s claimed that because scientists no longer complain about a lack of access to the underlying data and methods of the climate alarmists, that the hidden nature of that data and those methods is just fine; he’s completely disregarded two significantly contributory energetic pathways by which CO2 acts as a net atmospheric coolant above ~288 K; he’s hinted that he doesn’t believe in the fundamental physical laws by claiming exactly what the climate alarmists claim (that CO2 transfers its vibrational mode quantum state energy to the translational mode energy of other molecules under all circumstances at low altitude), then he attempts to misquote me, present graphs with offsets to hide the data manipulation, and when all else fails, he barfs out an ad hominen and runs away. LOL

            Go educate yourself, Andrew_W… or continue to embarrass yourself.

            But thanks for admitting that the atmosphere obeys the fundamental physical laws via your admission that the t-v process is a cooling process. Now all you have to do is figure out that when translational mode energy is higher than vibrational mode energy, there is no way for vibrational mode energy to flow to translational mode energy, therefore CAGW (and AGW in general) is built upon a fallacious premise. LOL

      • Larry,

        It would be very nice to not bring NOAA modification twist show here. NOAA and NASA both have “made” global warming data, in paper. Not outside their office.
        When they wipe away last centurys first warm period, it´s not data anymore. If you agree that “data”, you accept their fraud.
        In this real world MarkW is right. There is no evidence. After WWII world cooled to 70´s. To ice age, remember?

      • “The NOAA data provides evidence. You can choose to not agree with it, but you can’t say you didn’t see it.”

        I’ve seen photographic evidence of Bigfoot. I can choose to not agree with it, but I can’t say I haven’t see it.

        In case you were being serious, check out this graphic depiction of the temperature data NASA/NOAA use for evidence. 90-95% of the earth didn’t have thermometers from 1880 to the mid 20th century. Scroll down to the globe graphic and change the From:/To: dates (specify unadjusted data). There were only 430 locations in the whole world measuring temperatures in 1880. Their computer-generated temperature data for everywhere else are as real as Bigfoot.

        https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v3/

      • Wrong again Larry.

        Data before World War II include few measurements made in the Southern Hemisphere.

        Almost no SH measurements before 1920.

        That means data before 1940 are NOT global, contain a lot of wild guess infilling, and should not be used for comparisons with data after 1950, when there were more (but not enough) SH measurements … however they are good enough for “goobermint work”.

      • What you believe to be evidence, isn’t.

        At best it’s pathetic curve fitting and ignores all of the other factors involved.
        Just because you want to believe something, doesn’t make it so.

  3. If I were only 20 years old, with no direct experience with the ‘climate’ over the past few decades, I just MIGHT be willing to believe the hype and outright BS being pushed out as the ‘truth’ by Warmist’s. But, having LIVED through the past 8 decades and actually experienced some of the hottest (AND coldest) I can safely saw that it’ s ALL BS! Todays temperatures, in the 80’s and 90’s, are NOTHING compared to what we saw back in the 50’s and 60’s, in the Midwest! There have always been HOT days in the Summer months and COLD days in the Winter months. There have always been hurricanes and tornados and whatever else! The re always WILL be, in the future. Someone is busily making $Billions off these scare tactics! Nothing that we humans can do will have any effect on either the climate OR the weather! The sun, our star, is in full control and it doesn’t listen to us, nor does it even CARE what we do! We are starting to sound like the Cargo Cultist’s! Some of us have the pea-brained idea that we can affect the cosmos and appease the Gods! Small minded people do that.

    • IAMPCBOB,

      That is a common arguement used by alarmists. But they claim to remember past weather, saying it was much cooler.

      In fact neither side’s anecdotes are meaningful. Local weather tells us nothing about global weather. Nobody can personally recall changes of 1°C or less over decades, given the wild swings of each year.

      “There have always been HOT days in the Summer months and COLD days in the Winter months. ”

      But climate changes always – often harming a civilization. What matters is not the binary “are there hot days” but “how many” and “how hot”? History is the change in frequencies and magnitudes.

      • Nobody can personally recall changes of 1°C or less over decades, given the wild swings of each week!

        Our temperature record for the seven days ending yesterday morning was: max 34.7°C; min 14.4°C! And we’re supposed to panic because the globe is (allegedly) about 1°C warmer than it was 100 years ago! And even Hansen has said that global average temperature is “not a useful metric”!

        • “And even Hansen has said that global average temperature is “not a useful metric”!

          I love it!

          Yeah, regional Tmax is a much better metric to use when you want to know which was the “Hottest Year Evah! in the instrument record.

          The problem for Hansen and all the other alarmists is that if they use Tmax charts the charts show that it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today. That means there is no unprecedented warming today, and no CO2/CAGW problem.

          • “Yeah, regional Tmax is a much better metric to use when you want to know which was the “Hottest Year Evah! in the instrument record.”
            It “may” be for a location, but it is worthless for global analysis.

          • Well, if you want “global analysis” you would be better off reading old newspaper accounts of the weather than looking at a bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart.

            The Hockey Stick global analysis you are so in love with doesn’t incorporate data from the whole Earth. Most of its data is estimated (not to mention bastardized).

            Tmax regional charts cover as much of the world temperature data as the “global” Hockey Stick. And Tmax data is better because it is actual data rather than estimates. Tmax charts, when taken together, are just as global as the Hockey Stick.

      • Climate changes always, and this “catastrophic climate change” has been very good to human and even better to nature.

        Cold is bad. Very bad news from Bangladesh. Very cold weather (+22C) is so cold that old people must stay inside. They were very worried. And this is also a proof that human can adapt so well that they can feel +22C too cold.

        Some total idiots say that 2C change is the end of the world.. Wake up!

        • “So educate yourself and spend some time reading the Actual data at
          https://realclimatescience.com/
          It includes anecdotal evidence from the periods quoted.”

          Yeah, anectdotal evidence like the two newspaper headlines below:

          “The New York Times, July 25, 1934

          Record Heat Grips West; Deaths to Date Put at 700;Chicago 105F, St. Louis 110.2F

          Cattle die by Thousands in Oklahoma;All Farmers Fightig to Obtain Water

          64-year Mark Surpassed; 117 Degrees Is Reported in Oklahoma and 106 in Omaha; Drought Ruin Spreading

          and

          The Bulletin, July 25, 1936

          Heat Wave Toll Over 12,000 in 86 Cities in Week

          The census bureau released mortality statistics today for the week ending July 18, showing 3332 more deaths in 86 cities [in the US] than in the worst heat week of 1934. For the week ended July 18, the bureau reported 12,183 deaths this year compared with 8,851 deaths in the same 86 cities for the week ended July 28 in 1934.

          end headline excerpts

          These are only a couple of headlines from the 1930’s. Has there been anything like this kind of weather in the 21st century? No, not even close.

          And this 1930’s decade of disaster was not limited to the United States. Tens of thousands of people worldwide died during this decade from weather-related events.

          If weather like this was happening today, eveyone would be on board the CAGW train. But it’s not, despite NOAA and NASA Climate and the rest of the Data Charlatans best efforts make it look like we are living in the hottest era in human history.

      • Tom Abbott
        I think you are a little confused. The strength of the hockey stick was it’s historic recount, not it’s measurement of the 20th century and till now. We have thermometers for that that do a pretty good job. What people got upset about (many here) with the HS stuff(which incidentally has been reproduced many times since) was that it minimised some of the older warm periods so making recent warming look unprecedented. Please tell me how your Tmax data measured temperatures back in 1152? And once again if you don’t like the data, be specific, what is wrong with it? Don’t just wave your arms around like the robot in Lost in Space. This is where skeptics fall over. They know the data loos bad, but they can’t actually find fault with it’s production.

        • “I think you are a little confused. The strength of the hockey stick was it’s historic recount, not it’s measurement of the 20th century and till now. We have thermometers for that that do a pretty good job. What people got upset about (many here) with the HS stuff(which incidentally has been reproduced many times since) was that it minimised some of the older warm periods so making recent warming look unprecedented. Please tell me how your Tmax data measured temperatures back in 1152?”

          No, I’m not confused. There are two Hockey Sticks. The first is the one Michael Mann creatd to erase the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period and bastardizes the historic record. The second Hockey Stick is the Modern-era Hockey Stick which bastardizes the historic instrument record. Whenever I refer to a Hockey Stick, I’m referring to the modern-day bastardization of the temperature record. I have described this in previous posts, so I think you are the one that is confused..

          • Tom Abbott
            So how do you explain that the hockey stick has been reproduced many times by independent bodies with no link to Mann? It really is time to move on and accept that the recent warming is something to be considered and probably just a tad concerned about. Unless you want to live your life swallowing sand with your head buried.

          • Hey guess what?
            There are also Ponzi scheme fraudsters and con men with no link whatsoever with Bernie Madoff.
            So other people have made BS graphs.
            And?
            Business is brisk at Fake Graphs R Us, no surprises there.
            The other thing that has not changed is how quickly and thoroughly each and every steaming heap of faux doggy-doo has been smeared right back on the smirking faces of the liars who concocted it.

  4. We don’t actually know what the natural temperature change since 1950 would be. That means that we have no clue what the human contribution is.

    As Dr. Curry points out, the early 20th century warming is hard to distinguish from the late 20th century warming. It is very possible, maybe even probable, that the late 20th century warming was entirely natural. Everything else is castles in the sky.

    • “We don’t actually know what the natural temperature change since 1950 would be. That means that we have no clue what the human contribution is.”

      We know what it is in the United States: It’s cooler today than in 1934 by about 1C. So says Hansen. That means CO2 has added NO warming to the atmosphere over the United States.

      Here’s a link to Hansens U.S. surface temperature chart (alongside a bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart)

      http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

      As you can see, the chart shows 1934 as about 0.5C warmer than 1998, which would make 1934, 0.4C warmer than 2016 (using UAH). So the U.S. has been in a temperature downtrend since 1934 despite all that extra CO2 in the air. Don’t ask me why the U.S. is a special case, but that’s what Hansen says (read the text in the link).

      I, myself, after looking at Tmax charts from around the world, and other unmodified charts think that the Hansen 1999 US surface temperature chart actually represents the true temperature profile of the globe, which is that it was just as warm in the Twentieth Century as it is today. No unprecedented warming, and no CAGW problem.

      Now look at these Tmax charts (below) from all around the world and see which you think they resemble more closely, the Hansen 1999 US chart or the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart? Do you see any “Hotter and Hotter” in the Tmax charts or the Hansen chart?

      The bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick is all alone. It doesn’t resemble anything but itself and it doesn’t represent reality. It is a figment of the fevered imaginations of the Climategate Data Manipulators. The unmodified charts tell a completely different story.

      So which to believe? Well, we know that the modern surface temperatue record has been drastically modified on purpose for political reasons according to the Climategate emails.

      Otoh, the data recorded for the Hansen 1999 US chart was not manipulated (well, not much), and the Tmax charts are not manipulated and noone back in the middle of the 20th century had any reason to fudge the data. So for me, I’m going with the regional, unmodified charts as my guide to the past, and am rejecting totally the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart and all those comparisons of bogus temperature readings. GIGO.

      Tmax charts

      US chart:

      https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/Figure-11.png

      China chart:

      https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/Figure-12-1.png

      India chart:

      https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/Figure-13-1.png

      Norway chart:

      https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/Figure-13-2.png

      Australia chart:

      https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/Figure-12-2.png

      • Disagree.
        The 1999 Hansen graphs were already highly modified, just not as much as he would later modify them.
        Since his departure, Gavin and the rest have taken the baton and ran with it.
        It is not one region or another, and it is not just the temperature data.
        None of the data sets used by alarmists bears any resemblance to the same information as it was presented and accepted prior to the advent of global warming alarmism.

        • “Disagree.
          The 1999 Hansen graphs were already highly modified, just not as much as he would later modify them.”

          Well, I did acknowledge that there had been changes. I did so to head off that comment you (or someone would have) made, but I guess it didn’t work. 🙂

          Hansen 1999 is not pristine but it is good enough for me. It shows 1934 as being 0.5C hotter than 1998, which makes 1934, 0.4C hotter than 2016 (using UAH comparisons), and that satisfies my assertion that it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today.

          The subsequent adjustments to the Hansen chart are the reason I only use Hansen 1999, because it is the least adjusted version of the U.S.surface temperature chart and I use UAH to extend it past 1999 to the present day. UAH and Hansen 1999 overlap for twenty years.

          Btw, somewhere in the Climategate emails an associate of Hansen confirmed Hansen’s 1999 chart reading. Hansen said 1934 was 0.5C warmer than 1998, and this associate came up with a figure that was very close to it, although I don’t recall the exact number. So there are two sources at least for declaring 1934 hotter than 1998, by a margin of abut 0.5C.

          And think about it: Hansen didn’t really have a reason to highly modifiy his US surface temperature chart because at the time, his CAGW theory was working out just fine. He had predicted that temperatures would rise back in the 1980’s, and they did, and he predicted that the temperatures would continue to rise to unprecedented levels and in 1998, it looked like he might be correct because 1998 was getting very close to being as hot as 1934, so when he produced his 1999 chart he had no reason to assume the temperatures would not continue to climb and surpass 1934, and he had no reason to drastically adjust the temperature record at this time to prop up his CAGW speculation.

          I wonder what James Hansen thinks about all these adjustments to his US. surface temperature chart. On the one hand, these adjustments make Hansen look like he can’t read a thermometer very well, and on the other hand, the adjustments promote his CAGW speculation. He must be a little conflicted about it, I think. He should be anyway.

          • I should have been more careful to say I did not disagree with most of what you said, only that one part.
            At that point, the global time series had already been completely changed from what everyone ten years prior had agreed was the case.
            Probably because it was a matter of inventing fake numbers to fill in gaps.
            Rewriting the historical data from the US was much larger of a fraud.
            And riskier, because the data resides/resided in so many separate places.
            I have recently thought of going back and looking at newspaper records from as far back as they are available from as many places as they are available, and searching out the weather pages from them all.
            This was typically a small section, usually a list of national and international cities with the temp from prior day, forecast for the present day and sometimes the following day.
            But it was in there every day!
            This could give a pristine record of what was being recorded at the time, from an unbiased source.
            It is very unlikely to have been altered, even theoretically, since this info is stored as digital images copied from old microfiche records kept by libraries.

          • As for Hansen, I think he will have a special place in history, along with a select few others.
            Names have a way of attaching themselves to behaviors and becoming part of language in the future, and can persist for millennia, if the reason is big enough.
            Mudd, Crapper, Brutus, Einstein, Midas, Judas…
            These names are now enshrined in the lexicon, indicating bad and good, smart, fortunate, evil…
            Hansen, Mann, perhaps a few others. Their names are Mudd.
            And if someone can be seen as the person who overturned it all and flushed it down the crapper?

          • “Rewriting the historical data from the US was much larger of a fraud.
            And riskier, because the data resides/resided in so many separate places.”

            I think that’s why Hansen settled on claiming the US surface temperature record and the global record were different from each other. That way he could maintain his US chart without change while pretending the Hockey Stick is the real global temperature profile.

            Over recent years, NASA Climate has become very bold and has now started bastardizing the US surface temperature record and even temperature records of the States. They “disapperared” 1998 right before our eyes. Another reason why I stick with the Hansen 1999 chart and UAH going forward beyond 1998.

            The link below has Hansen’s lame explanation for the difference in the looks of the US temperature chart versus the bogus Hockey Stick chart:

            http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

          • “I have recently thought of going back and looking at newspaper records from as far back as they are available from as many places as they are available, and searching out the weather pages from them all.
            This was typically a small section, usually a list of national and international cities with the temp from prior day, forecast for the present day and sometimes the following day.
            But it was in there every day!
            This could give a pristine record of what was being recorded at the time, from an unbiased source.”

            I absolutely agree. We need a list of all the weather headlines from 1930 to 1940 to let people understand just how horrific the weather was in the decade worldwide. And we especially need this kind of information to offset the lies and distortions being put out by the Data Manipulators who claim we are living in the hottest era in human history. It’s just not true and newspapers can put the lie to it not only in the United States but around the world.

            Tmax charts and newspaper headlines will lead us out of this false reality of “hotter and hotter and hotter”. and “Hottest Year Evah!”.

            I had a small list of weather disasters that occurred during the 1930’s but I must have misplaced it because I can’t find it now. Lots of weather-related death and destruction in the decade of the 1930’s. I’ve been copying some of Tony Hellers newspaper offerings but haven’t been able to do very many. Tony is the guy that needs to make this list. He has all the tools. 🙂

      • Tom Abbott
        Your Hansen graph is 20 years old man. Why would you post something that redundant… unless….

        • “Your Hansen graph is 20 years old man. Why would you post something that redundant… unless….”

          Simon, read my posts above in this comment thread and you will know. I explain the reasons I use a US temperature chart that is 20 years old

          If those explanations don’t sufice, let me know..

          • Hansen 1999 is not pristine but it is good enough for me. It shows 1934 as being 0.5C hotter than 1998, which makes 1934, 0.4C hotter than 2016 (using UAH comparisons), and that satisfies my assertion that it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today….
            Seems to me Tom, you are happy to use an old chart because you want to believe what it says. The fact the modern more accurate data doesn’t help your ageing ideas makes it tough for you and can I suggest will make it tougher going forward.

          • “Seems to me Tom, you are happy to use an old chart because you want to believe what it says. The fact the modern more accurate data doesn’t help your ageing ideas makes it tough for you and can I suggest will make it tougher going forward.”

            Basically, I use Hansen 1999 because it is the least modified US surface temperature chart I have available to me. I can trust the data in it more than any subsequent version. I can trust that 1934 was warmer than 1998, with Hansen and an associate as confirming sources. They had no reason to lie. Then.

            That, and the UAH satellite, which is the only global temperature chart I trust, are all that is needed to show that it was warmer in the 1930’s than it is today, and that fact destroys the CAGW speculation all by itself.

            Now, some will claim that the US chart only applies to the US, although I would love to see them give an adequate explanation for why the US temperature profile would look completely different from the rest of the world, as represented by the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick global surface temperature chart.

            Hansen 1999 on the left and the Bogus, Bastardized Hockey Stick on the right in the link below:

            http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

            And then we have the Tmax surface temperature charts from all over the world, with as much global coverage as anything else available, including the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick, which also show the same temperature profile as the Hansen 1999 chart, i.e., it was just as warm in the middle of the 20th century as it is today, thus confirming this global temperature profile, and confirming the world is not experiencing unprecedented heat today.

            The year 1934 was warmer than today which means there is no unprecedented warming today, and that means there is no CAGW today. That’s what I take away, going forward.

            A huge fraud has been perpetrated on the people of the world with the creation of the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart. It has completely skewed the CO2 debate, as it was meant to do, and has fooled many people into believing things that have no basis in fact, like the lie that we are living in the hottest period in human history today. It was just as hot in the the recent past, as unmodified historic regional temperature charts show.

          • Is Simon for real?
            Modern more accurate charts of data recorded early in the last century which has been “modernized” by erasing it and penciling in new numbers that just happen to make the time series match up perfectly with the CO2 concentration of the air, which of course was never the case prior to the jackasses in the climate scientism racket acquiring the brass balls to simply erase the past and make up fake crap in a slow motion game of switcheroo?
            But why should they worry about outright fraud, when they have legions of gullible dupes and clueless apologists walking along behind them to spritz the crap they leave in their wake with the sweet perfume of fawning beguilement?
            Who knew that green as the grass lickspittle lackeys with zero compunctions and even less actual knowledge were so easy to come by?

    • I agree 100%.
      It is flat out impossible to say anything about how the globe might otherwise have changed absent human beings.
      The most one can say with any degree of certainty is that we have made changes that have causes local alterations due to land use, removing trees, planting crops, irrigation, construction and paving, etc.
      How these have added up, and their global net effect, no one can say.

  5. Right off the bat, there is no consensus on the AGW conjecture. It is all just speculation. Scientists never registered and voted on the validity of the AGW conjecture. But even if they had such a consensus would be meaningless because science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated via a voting process.

    The reality is that, based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change that we have been experiencing today is caused by the sun and the ocean over which Mankind has no control. despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. The current warming up from the Little Ice Age looks very similar to the previous warm up from the Dark Ages Cooling Period. This has happened before and has nothing to do with mankind’s use of fossil fuels.

    The AGW conjecture sounds plausible at first but upon closer inspection the AGW conjecture is full of holes. For example, the AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere provided for by trace gases with LWIR absorption bands. Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere, or anywhere else in the solar system for that matter. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well.

    • Michael Crichton noted that consensus is only ever invoked when the science is NOT settled. And he also noted why it is dangerous for a society to then to allow political imperatives to control the science narrative when it is not settled.

      Crichton used the example of Einstein’s Special Relativity. It has been independently confirmed so many times across the world by so many, for so many years, no one speaks of a “consensus” on SR or the E=MC^2 bottomline.

  6. I am astonished at the high volume of pageviews this post has gotten at the FM website (almost what a new Taylor Swift video gets in a nanosecond, which is a big number)!

    The comments show that despite the daily bombardment of news about climate change, many people are unaware of the actual numbers. Descriptions of a burning world and seas covering the Statue of Liberty aren’t accurate. Who knew?

    • And yet it uses the most ridiculous data set on temperature time series ever to be endlessly reinvented.
      Yet.
      Going by one graph to make a point about the future direction of national and world policy making?

  7. “Human-caused warming has become the dominant cause of warming since roughly WWII.”

    “But anthro warming is cumulative, and we will see big changes – certainly unpleasant – if warming continues at this rate during the 21st century. ”

    “Hence the current propaganda barrage”

    There is no “anthro” warming. Stop propagandizing that there is.

    What Pielke said was right, but he didn’t go far enough. The climate energy balance should be set at the sea surface, which works well.

    • It is Larry Kummer of the self promoting self aggrandizing Fabius Maximus website. If he says that we will see big changes and is certain that they are unpleasant… Well he says so with all the certainty of an alarmist politician, complete with the lack of both credentials and not one scintilla of evidence, so obviously we should take him at his word.

      Sarcasm off. Nothing new in this article. No new evidence, data, or analysis, and statement made with complete certainty (certainly unpleasant!) and nothing to back them up. This guy keeps getting published here why?

      • I read it, and was going to comment on some of the points I thought most egregious, then I realized, just not worth it. This is the guy who wanted to “Restart The Debate”, so he could bend “Debate 2.0” his way.

        I will just pass by any more Kummer and Fabius Maximus articles.

        • Maybe there shoud be “Debate 1.0” first. If that had been done, the “case” would have been closed decades ago.

      • David,

        “Nothing new in this article. ”

        It gives information that many people don’t know, even if it isn’t new. That’s what most articles do. Esp those, like this, that discuss history.

        • This article contains claims of certainty that are highly questionable and made without foundation. That it is entirely repetitive is the least of its sins.

        • Larry

          **Esp those, like this, that discuss history.**

          Discussing modified history is discussing what is the best way to brainwash ignorants. That discussion is relevant in communist dictators breakfast tables. Not here. Not yet.
          Changing history day by day is not science. What is your agenda?

          • “Also effective would be continuing research to produce less expensive electric vehicles and providing reasonable incentives for their purchase.

            America’s cities were wired for electricity and telephone over two decades, a radical change beyond anything we have seen since. We can make such jumps today. We need only invest in the necessary research and the will to make it happen.”

            He is a big advocate of EVs, regardless of their cost.

          • The infrastructure that was built in those two decades is qualitatively and quantitatively a world apart from what exists and would have to be replaced now.
            Seriously, it was barely a pale shadow of what now covers not just the US but all of the industrialized world.
            The Rural Electrification Act was not even PASSED until 1936.
            On top of that…securing rights of way, environmental impact reports, the grievance and protest industries…very little of what takes up all the time and the money, simply from a bureaucratic standpoint, even existed back then.

          • Consider how long it took and how much money it cost to build the transcontinental railroad back then, with the money and time it took to TRY to built one segment of high speed rail in California recently.
            And back then much, perhaps even most, of the work was done with picks and shovels and muscle power, and it was done over hostile territory that was a veritable war zone, it was done even though the land had never been so much as surveyed.
            In the 1960s nuclear power plants went from the drawing board to operational in a matter of years.
            Since TMI, several plants have taken several decades to even complete once started, and several never even broke ground.
            Look at the stats on new plants being built from the ground up in recent decades.
            It is sobering.
            Depressing really.

  8. Reposted from The Fabius Maximus Blog
    Larry Kummer, Editor Climate change, Science & Nature 17 August 2019, wrote:

    “Conclusions
    The most obvious one: the world is not “burning”, despite the thousands of hysterical screams by climate activists. BUT THE WARMING WARRANTS POLICY ACTION.”
    ___________________

    I STRONGLY DISAGREE. WE have known for decades that CO2 is NOT a major driver of global temperature, and there is no real catastrophic global warming crisis.

    NO policy action is needed, except to cease all CO2 abatement and related green energy schemes, and imprison the leaders of this climate fraud.

    The global warming extremists have NO credibility, since their hypothesis is based on “the future causing the past” – IMPOSSIBLE within our space-time continuum.

    – Allan MacRae
    ______________________________________________________

    CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY
    by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., P.Eng., June 2019

    ABSTRACT

    Global warming alarmism, which falsely assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes catastrophic global warming, is disproved – essentially, it assumes that the future is causing the past. In reality, atmospheric CO2 changes lag global temperature changes at all measured time scales.

    Nino34 Area Sea Surface Temperature changes, then tropical humidity changes, then atmospheric temperature changes, then CO2 changes.

    The velocity dCO2/dt changes ~contemporaneously with global temperature changes and CO2 changes occur ~9 months later (MacRae 2008).

    The process that causes the ~9-month average lag of CO2 changes after temperature changes is hypothesized and supported by observations.

    The ~9-month lag, +/- several months, averages 1/4 of the full-period duration of the variable global temperature cycle, which averages ~3 years.

    Based on the above observations, global temperatures drive atmospheric CO2 concentrations much more than CO2 drives temperature.

    Climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 must be very low, less than ~1C/(2*CO2) and probably much less.

    There will be no catastrophic warming and no significant increase in chaotic weather due to increasing CO2 concentrations.

    Increasing atmospheric CO2 clearly causes significantly improved crop yields, and may cause minor, beneficial global warming.

    Atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high, it is too low for optimal plant growth and alarmingly low for the survival of carbon-based terrestrial life.

    Other factors such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc may also increase atmospheric CO2. The increase of CO2 is clearly beneficial.

    “Green energy” schemes are not green and produce little useful (dispatchable) energy, primarily because of the fatal flaw of intermittency.

    There is no widely-available, cost-effective means of solving the flaw of intermittency in grid-connected wind and solar power generation.

    Electric grids have been destabilized, electricity costs have soared and Excess Winter Deaths have increased due to green energy schemes.
    _______________________________________________

    PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE SUGGESTING TEMPERATURE DRIVES ATMOSPHERIC CO2 MORE THAN CO2 DRIVES TEMPERATURE
    Allan MacRae, June 13, 2015

    Observations and Conclusions:

    1. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt is closely correlated with temperature and thus atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record.

    2. CO2 also lags temperature by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.

    3. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.

    4. CO2 is the feedstock for carbon-based life on Earth, and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.

    5. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.

    6. Recent global warming was natural and irregularly cyclical – the next climate phase following the ~20 year pause will probably be global cooling, starting by ~2020 or sooner.

    7. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.

    8. Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates. There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA and about 10,000 in Canada.

    9. Green energy schemes have needlessly driven up energy costs, reduced electrical grid reliability and contributed to increased winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.
    10. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.

    Allan MacRae, Calgary, June 12, 2015
    ________________________________________

    CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING:
    THE FUTURE CAN NOT CAUSE THE PAST
    by Allan M.R. MacRae, February 6, 2008
    http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/

  9. That assumes, of course, that CO2 is capable of actually causing warming… but it isn’t.

    For CO2 to cause the catastrophic warming the climate alarmists claim it is capable of would lead to conclusions which are not supported by the fundamental physical laws. In particular, CAGW violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the Equipartition Theorem at the quantum level.

    One side effect of believing in CAGW is that you also have to believe that CO2 lasers could not possibly work the way we know they do… CO2 acts as a net coolant by emitting as radiation that energy it receives from vibrationally-excited N2 in the gas discharge tube. The same process (described below) occurs in the atmosphere, only the means by which N2 becomes vibrationally excited is different.

    The below data is a synopsis of a more than 60 paragraph scientific analysis of the particle physics of the atmosphere, so it is by necessity limited in scope. Anyone interested can request the full text, which is but a synopsis of a full paper of 23 pages in length, but also includes related QM data and corollary CAGW information.

    The public has been told only half the story as regards energetic interactions of atmospheric molecules. They’ve been told CO2 causes warming by conversion of vibrational mode energy to translational mode energy under all conditions… and that this process can cause catastrophic warming. Yes, CO2 can cause warming under certain circumstances… up to a certain temperature and at certain altitudes.

    The below is what they’re not being told… that above ~288 K, the combined translational mode energy of two colliding molecules is sufficient to begin significantly vibrationally exciting CO2, which increases the time duration during which CO2 is vibrationally excited and therefore the probability that it radiatively emits.

    The energetic pathways by which translational mode (kinetic) energy (which we sense as temperature) is converted to vibrational mode energy then to radiation.

    X (at ~288K+) + CO2{v20(0)} (at ~288K+) –> X + CO2{v21(1)} –> CO2{v20(0)} + 667.4 cm-1

    X (at ~288.1K+) + CO2{v21(1)} (at ~288.1K+) –> X + CO2{v22(2)} –> CO2{v21(1)} + 667.8 cm–1 –> CO2{v20(0)} + 667.4 cm-1

    X (at ~288.2K+) + CO2{v22(2)} (at ~288.2K+) –> X + CO2{v23(3)} –> CO2{v22(2)} + 668.10 cm–1 –> CO2{v21(1)} + 667.8 cm–1 –> CO2{v20(0)} + 667.4 cm-1

    X denotes any atmospheric molecule. The Equipartition Theorem dictates that all molecules at exactly the same temperature will have exactly the same translational mode energy, regardless of their molecular weight. Lower molecular weight molecules will have a higher speed, whereas higher molecular weight molecules will have a lower speed, but at the same temperature, they’ll all have the same translational mode (kinetic) energy.

    In order for CO2 to be vibrationally excited, it requires the energy equivalent to a 14.98352 µm photon, equating to a CO2 speed of 425.92936688660114 m/s or an N2 speed of 533.8549080851558 m/s. For CO2, the Boltzmann Factor probability of one of its molecules being at a speed of 425.92936688660114 m/s; and for N2, the Boltzmann Factor probability of one of its molecules being at a speed of 533.8549080851558 m/s is 0.8461 at 288 K. In other words, at 288 K, for every 100 molecules which are at the Most Probable Speed, another ~84 molecules will be at the speed necessary to vibrationally excite CO2.

    The conversion of translational mode energy (which we sense as temperature) to vibrational mode energy is, by definition, a cooling process.

    The emission of the resultant radiation to space is, by definition, a cooling process.

    An increased atmospheric CO2 concentration will increase the likelihood of atmospheric molecular collision with CO2, thereby increasing the likelihood of CO2 radiatively emitting, thereby increasing the radiative cooling effect.

    Therefore, CAGW is a physical impossibility by the above interactions alone.

    But there are other interactions:

    X (at ~288K+) + N2{v1(0)} (at ~288K+) –> X + N2{v1(1)} –> N2{v1(1)} + CO2{v20(0)} –> N2{v1(0)} + CO2{v3(1)} –> CO2{v1(1)} + 961.54 cm-1

    X (at ~288K+) + N2{v1(0)} (at ~288K+) –> X + N2{v1(1)} –> N2{v1(1)} + CO2{v20(0)} –> N2{v1(0)} + CO2{v3(1)} –> CO2{v20(2)} + 1063.83 cm-1

    We can use the Boltzmann Factor to determine the vibrationally excited population of N2 due to translational-vibrational (t-v) collisional processes.

    N2{v1(1)} (stretch) mode at 2345 cm-1 (4.26439 µm), correcting for anharmonicity, centrifugal distortion and vibro-rotational interaction

    1 cm-1 = 11.9624 J mol-1
    2345 cm-1 = 2345 * 11.9624 / 1000 = 28.051828 kJ mol-1

    The Boltzmann factor at 288 K has the value 1 / (2805.1828 / 288R) = 0.10266710 which means that 10.26671% of N2 molecules are in the N2{v1(1)} excited state due to translational-vibrational (t-v) processes.

    Given that CO2 constitutes 0.041% of the atmosphere (410 ppm), and N2 constitutes 78.08% of the atmosphere (780800 ppm), this means that 4.1984 ppm of CO2 is excited to its {v3} mode quantum state via collisional translational-to-vibrational (t-v) processes, whereas 80162.3936 ppm of N2 is excited via the same (t-v) processes. This is a ratio of 1 vibrationally excited CO2 to 19093 vibrationally excited N2. You’ll note this is 10.028 times higher than the total CO2:N2 ratio of 1:1904, and 195 times more vibrationally excited N2 molecules than all CO2 molecules (vibrationally excited or not). Thus energy will flow from the higher-energy and higher-concentration vibrationally-excited N2 to vibrationally ground-state CO2.

    The conversion of translational mode energy (which we sense as temperature) to vibrational mode energy of N2 is by definition, a cooling process.

    The transfer of that N2 vibrational mode energy to vibrational mode energy of CO2, then that energy being emitted to space as radiation is, by definition, a cooling process. The resultant radiation from the last two energetic pathways is in the Infrared Atmospheric Window, thus any upwelling radiation has a nearly unfettered path out to space.

    An increased atmospheric CO2 concentration will increase the likelihood of vibrationally-excited N2 colliding with CO2, thereby increasing the likelihood of CO2 radiatively emitting, thereby increasing the radiative cooling effect.

    Five energetic pathways which show that CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming due to CO2) is a physical impossibility.

    If a process (catastrophic atmospheric warming due to CO2) cannot occur at the quantum level, it most certainly cannot occur macroscopically.

    • The only thing I see omitted is that 95% of earth’s annual emission of CO2 is entirely natural, and is the baseline. It is the 5% of EXTRA CO2 caused by humans that is claimed to do ALL of the climate change. How many parts per million is 5% of 400 parts per million? Does that amount of ‘extra’ CO2 tilt our world into unknown climates? I think not. That claims that only 20 parts per million of CO2 is responsible for ALL climate change. Just think about that…

    • I don’t see a problem with your analysis. Perhaps Brad can bring some melodrama to the discussion.

    • This analysis provides some useful information about vibration mode, energy transfer and radiation but it is not compelling as presented here. The primary weakness as presented is that not much of Earth’s atmosphere is at a temperature of 288K or above.

      To produce a decisive picture would require looking at what is occurring from both absorption and emission of CO2 over the atmospheric column for all locations over the globe in combination with the most significant IR responsive radiative gas, H2O, in the column over all locations.

      I expect such an analysis would show the average radiating temperature was lower in the presence of CO2 compared with no CO2, thereby requiring a warmer surface to achieve radiative balance.

      The global average temperature is maintained in a narrow range by the properties of water and its global distribution. Tropical oceans do not get much warmer than 30C due to the rapid rise in atmospheric water content above 25C causing more reflective cloud at higher latitudes as the air cools in its circulation patterns. In the polar regions the water surface is never colder than -2C. The average global surface temperature is close to the middle of these two extremes – hotter average results in more reflective cloud; colder results in more insulating sea ice . Heat transfer from the Pacific to the Atlantic is an important factor for global weather, making the Bering Strait and Drake’s Passage key geological features for global weather – not so much for global average temperature as Pacific would be warmer and Atlantic would be cooler.

      Point is that restoring atmospheric CO2 level conducive to more productive plant life around the globe is not going to cause any catastrophic climate tipping point.

      • RickWill wrote:
        “I expect such an analysis would show the average radiating temperature was lower in the presence of CO2 compared with no CO2, thereby requiring a warmer surface to achieve radiative balance.”

        Something like this, perhaps?

        Brightness temperature is the temperature a black body in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings would have to be to duplicate the observed intensity of a gray body object at a frequency v.

        A brightness temperature lower than the equivalent gray body temperature implies that energy is flowing from that equivalent gray body temperature to the matter with that brightness temperature, which is shedding energy via radiative emission.

        Matter emits according to the law: B = Sigma * T4
        Sigma is the Stephan-Boltzmann constant, B is the brightness and T is the absolute temperature

        Therefore a lower Brightness Temperature implies an absolute temperature below the temperature of the environment from which CO2 is attaining its energy. In this case, it means CO2 is radiatively cooling the atmosphere, as explicated in the studies linked in the references section.

        https://i.imgur.com/fPkPALO.png

        The image above shows the brightness temperature versus altitude. Note that as tropospheric temperature decreases (altitude increases), brightness temperature decreases. Thus, the decreased brightness temperature is due to the lapse rate of our troposphere, or framed differently, the deviation from the adiabatic lapse rate of our troposphere is partly due to the progressive radiative emission of energy to space with increasing altitude.

        So while the alarmists claim that increasing CO2 concentration in our atmosphere has caused that ‘dip’ in brightness temperature to deepen because CO2 is ‘trapping’ more energy in the atmosphere, in reality the ‘dip’ has deepened because the upper atmosphere has experienced a long-term cooling trend (and ironically enough, that long-term cooling trend is because of the increased CO2 concentration emitting more radiation to space).

        In other words, dips in the Brightness Temperature below the profile average indicate a cooling process, whereas spikes above the profile average indicate a warming process (usually due to absorption of solar insolation). Thus the dip that the alarmists point to as causing warming is actually indicative of cooling, whereas the narrow-band upward spike in the bottom center of that dip indicates a diminution of that relatively wider-band cooling process (but under no circumstances does it indicate actual warming… it’d have to spike above the emission profile average for it to indicate that). This alone destroys the CAGW hypothesis.

      • We should be able to calculate the atmospheric temperature response to varying concentrations of any radiative molecules (the name I use to describe any molecules with a net magnetic dipole and thus able to emit radiation).

        Calculate the lowest vibrational mode quantum state energy of each isotope of each radiative molecular species, and calculate the translational mode energy of two colliding molecules necessary to significantly excite those vibrational mode quantum states, then convert that translational mode energy to temperature.

        Then use Eddie Banner’s calculations of photon flux and power density to calculate the photon flux from any given molecular species.

        Then compare that to incoming solar insolation to arrive at a ratio of power in vs. power out for any given temperature.

        That would give you the warming or cooling effect of any radiative molecular species at any given atmospheric concentration and for any given temperature.

        2LoT and the Equipartition Theorem dictates that if the combined translational mode of two colliding molecules is higher than the energy necessary to vibrationally excite a radiative molecule, then the energy will flow from translational mode (which we sense as temperature, and is therefore a cooling process) to vibrational mode. That increases the time duration during which that molecular species is vibrationally excited and therefore the probability it will radiatively emit.

        The confounding factors:
        1) The translational energy of two colliding molecules, while cumulative, is dependent upon angle of collision, and there are a nearly infinite number of angles of collision.

        2) The isotopic composition and concentration of each molecular species in the atmosphere would have to be known.

        3) One would have to calculate the net photon vector, factoring in the change in mean free path length with altitude.

        4) As altitude increases, collisional processes decrease and radiative processes increase in prominence.

        5) The variation in water vapor and cloud cover. This would also likely need to be correlated to temperature.

        6) The convective nature of our troposphere moves energy around in the atmosphere, so there is no temperature uniformity.

        I’m probably forgetting at least a few confounding factors. Satellite data would be needed.

        I suspect a climate model based upon the above would be far more accurate than the amateurish models the so-called climate ‘scientists’ are using now, merely for the fact that it takes into account clouds and water vapor, and is based upon the fundamental physical laws, whereas current climate models do not and are not.

    • I agree that CO2 has no affect on climate. Never has – history shows us temperature changes before CO2 changes. But, the numbers above may need a little rework for one very good reason: Human emitted CO2 is only 5% of the total exchanged by the earth naturally. So, it would only be that 5% that would be responsible for ALL of the human caused global warming, not the whole 410ppm. That makes it 20.5 ppm of CO2 that would be responsible for ALL of the global warming. Cmon, really? Even a politician should be able to recognize that foolish notion…

    • “The emission of the resultant radiation to space is, by definition, a cooling process.”

      Well, that is true for the atmospheric CO2 molecules, and by inference the percentage of excited GN2 molecules involved in exciting the CO2. However, the simple truth is that if the CO2 molecules emit their radiation isotropically, which they do, then some amount of that emitted radiation will be in directions back toward Earth’s surface. That radiation represents an additional energy (“heat”) source that would not be present if the Earth’s LWIR radiation otherwise passed directly into space, unimpeded by CO2. (Same argument, of course, is true for water vapor and all other “greenhouse gases”.)

      I appreciate your detailed explanation of the energy exchange process for GN2-CO2 interactions, but global warming is (currently) mostly concerned by Earth surface-CO2 energy exchanges.

      • That energy (from the sun) is already in the system known as “Earth”. View Earth and its atmosphere as a system unto itself… energy in from the sun, energy out to space. All energy emission to space is, by definition, a cooling process because it represents a loss of energy from the system known as “Earth”. That energy’s almost never coming back to Earth, there are very few reflectors in space near our planet. It’s gone. A loss of energy from the system, a cooling process.

        Further, the net overall photon vector for atmospheric-origin (ie: non-solar-insolation) radiation is upward… emitted by a vibrationally-excited molecule with an essentially random emission direction… as atmospheric density decreases (altitude increases), mean free path length for the photons increases, and vice versa. This means that for an upwelling photon, it’s somewhat akin to ‘2 steps up, 1 step down, 2 steps up, etc.’, whereas for a downwelling photon, it’s somewhat akin to ‘1 step down, 2 steps up, 1 step down, etc.’ on average.

        The radiation from the energetic pathways:
        X (at ~288K+) + N2{v1(0)} (at ~288K+) –> X + N2{v1(1)} –> N2{v1(1)} + CO2{v20(0)} –> N2{v1(0)} + CO2{v3(1)} –> CO2{v1(1)} + 961.54 cm-1

        X (at ~288K+) + N2{v1(0)} (at ~288K+) –> X + N2{v1(1)} –> N2{v1(1)} + CO2{v20(0)} –> N2{v1(0)} + CO2{v3(1)} –> CO2{v20(2)} + 1063.83 cm-1

        …when downwelling, is sufficiently energetic to cause warming… but below the tropopause the net effect is an increase of Convective Available Potential Energy, which increases convection, which is a net cooling process.

        • Here’s a very simple question for you: at night, with no sunlight, does the predominant greenhouse gas, water vapor, function to lower the rate of surface cooling or to increase the rate of surface cooling?

          Hint: consider the relative rates of nighttime surface cooling in the polar regions and largest deserts (having the most arid of Earth’s atmospheric humidity range) versus the rates of nighttime surface cooling in humid locales, such as forests and tropical islands.

          You see, it’s a total energy balance thing, no matter how many individual steps and directions you want to slice it into.

          The answer will tell you what the NET effect of greenhouse gases is, without any obfuscating math that can lead one to the wrong answer. Of course, you can try to convince me that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas exactly opposite to how H2O acts.

          As Richard Feynman famously said, “If it disagrees with experiment (observation), it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make a difference how beautiful your guess is. It doesn’t make a difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”

          Earth performs the needed experiment for us daily, as has been done for billions of years.

          • It depends upon the temperature, as dictated by 2LoT and the Equipartition Theorem.

            In an atmosphere sufficiently dense such that collisional energy transfer can significantly occur, all radiative molecules play the part of atmospheric coolants at and above the temperature at which the combined translational mode energy of two colliding molecules exceeds the lowest vibrational mode quantum state energy of the radiative molecule. Below this temperature, they act to warm the atmosphere via the mechanism the climate alarmists claim happens all the time, but if that warming mechanism occurs below the tropopause, the net result is an increase of Convective Available Potential Energy, which increases convection, which is a net cooling process.

    • Almost forgot the graphics.

      The vibrational mode quantum state energy levels of CO2:
      https://i.imgur.com/Lj8WbrW.png

      The Maxwell-Boltzmann Speed Distribution of N2 and CO2 at 288K:
      https://i.imgur.com/v8adCi2.png
      You’ll note the ratio between the top-left and top-right ‘fraction of gas’, and the bottom-left and bottom-right ‘fraction of gas’ in the image above is ~0.84… the Boltzmann Factor probability mentioned prior (0.8461 at 288 K).

      To calculate the Maxwell-Boltzmann Speed Distribution yourself, you can download the Wolfram Player executable (it is large, >1GB), and download the Wolfram Player file for the Maxwell-Boltzmann Speed Distribution calculations (82.7 KB).

  10. There seems to be ample evidence that the birth rate has dropped markedly in most of the world and would probably do much the same in the rest if so much wealth was not being wasted on the green energy nonsense and perhaps more was instead aimed at improving the lives in the remaining high birthrate areas. Maybe just finding some way to get the activists off the practices that prevent those improvements would help considerably. Of course, if you think the evidence of greatly falling birthrates everywhere prosperity is increasing is fraudulent, you should be able to produce real evidence of that.

    One interesting summary

    • Hans Rosling was an inspiring and entertaining communicator. His presentations ensures his legacy. Possibly the greatest product of the United Nations.

      A message that comes across to me from his presentations is that assistance programs need to be highly targeted. Educating young women is, without doubt, the most effective means of stabilising global population and dramatically improving mortality rates.

  11. Larry Kummer writes, “But even smaller increases in global temperature would be unpleasant, and are worth avoiding.” Um, just how are we to avoid increases in global temperature when the Sun is slowly growing brighter and therefore slowly making the Earth warmer?

    • David,

      Economic effects are largely results not of the kind of change, or the level of change, but the rate of change. For example, a low rate of inflation over two decades is easy for an economy to adapt to. The same change over two years is destabilizing.

      We have adapted to the current climate: where we live, what we farm, the design of our infrastucture. Rapid climate changes could be expensive and painful, even if small in terms of past geological changes.

      But changes from the Sun growing brighter are smaller than microscopic on a generational basis. If we don’t have the tech to deal with them when – in the distant future – the level of warming becomes a problem, then perhaps we will have failed as a species.

      But it is not something to worry about now.

      • Larry,

        As you showed in your OP, the changes in temperature from GW (whether anthropogenic or not) are *really* small and *really* small. We adapt to *much* larger changes with aplomb on much smaller timescales. Adapting is one thing humans do really, really well. Meanwhile, the “mitigation” policies proposed tend to be both expensive and have dramatically little effect on forcing, the worst of both worlds.

        You say that “A large body of research shows that under RCP8.5 the results would be terrible by 2100”, but RCP8.5 posits a much *wealthier* world generating more CO2 as a result of economic activity — the high end economic damage estimates are based on comparison to what they project the economy would be without it, not to current levels. If the economic models are correct it could make mitigation a cost-effective policy, but it does *not* represent any sort of hellish disaster for the far richer future world. But are they correct? At least GCM’s get the anomoly trend sort-of right, if your expectations are low. The economic models are completely unvalidated.

        But that’s no surprise, considering the state of the impact literature. I believe I’ve read every non-paywalled impact paper mentioned in AR5 and I can’t remember a one that impressed me. Not only are they tilted towards looking for negative impacts, the damage calculations almost always assume a lack of adaptation. But what choice do they have? It’s a severe handicap for the agricultural studies that during the modern warming period agricultural productivity has increased *dramatically*, so they are reduced to dubious projections of what it *would* have been without warming (invariably a small scale effect compared to the total productivity gain), and then they apply that harm to the future while assuming farmers do absolutely no adaptation whatsoever.

        There’s three unknowns related to anthropogenic warming:
        1) What is the climate sensitivity to doubled CO2
        2) What is the practical effect of the sensitivity in #1
        3) What is the proper policy response to #2

        As near as I can tell, the evidence right now supports “Not much” for #1, “very little” for #2, and “adapt if/when we have to” for #3.

    • TSI has declined over the last 60 years, if by “when the Sun is slowly growing brighter” you’re referring to the long term increase in solar output as theories on stellar evolution suggest you should try not to worry, for the Sun the increasing in long term output is expected to be at a rate of around 0.000001% per century.

  12. The biggest scare the Climate Cult has is sea level.

    People know the drought scare was a paper tiger, the California reservoirs are full again. They know that hurricanes aren’t really more frequent – after all, we had a ten year absence on the Atlantic coast. More than a few people know about the dust bowl. And a lot of people realize those windmills popping up everywhere are government subsidized boondoggles.

    Sea level though, strikes a nerve. Media stories about sea level rise are more likely to be taken at face value because the lack of experience to the contrary.

    • Steve,

      “The biggest scare the Climate Cult has is sea level.”

      That’s true today. A few year ago it was burning temps, then more and bigger hurricanes, then drought. Tomorrow it will be whatever the most recent extreme weather is.

      Or, as you suspect, perhaps one of these campaigns will catch hold of the public’s imagination and bring victory to the alarmists.

      Or perhaps the specifics don’t matter. The bombardment to boost fear is what counts.

    • “because the lack of experience to the contrary.”
      Mostly only by people who don’t live near the sea or who never go by actual evidence.

      • Here in Finland redgreens are hysteric (of course) about sea level rise. I told them that land here rises 7-11mm/year. And it means that sealevel rise must first catch that, and then (after few thousand years maybe) you can be worried for that. Fingers point to me “so you are denier”. Yes I am, and a proud one.

  13. Down here is Sydney, we are suffering a cold winter and not getting our usual warming August weather. Where is our share of that old-time Global Warming? Also the sea level at Sydney Harbour has not gone up since 1886 when current records began. Where is our extra water?

    • Nicholas,

      I’m sure Sydney is a nice place, but what matters is the global temp. As Roger Pielke Sr has long said, local factors produce local weather – which might not match global trends. See the NOAA website, which confirms what the news media have been saying: the past few months have been warm.

      Ditto sea level. See the U of CO sea level page. Like every expert group in the field, it shows a steady slow rise in the global average. But in some areas the land is rising (sea level falling); in some the land is falling (sea level surging).

      http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

      • “I’m sure Sydney is a nice place”
        It is, as you can tell from the fact that the “not getting our usual warming August weather” bewails a daily average max for August so far of 19.7°C (winter!). But as to usual, the historic mean max is 17.9°C. It’s nearly 2°C above that.

        • You just flunked Statistics 101 Nick. Without a SD or variance specified, the mean is meaningless.

          • I was responding to a comment that said it was below “usual”. No SD or variance. I pointed out that it was 2°C above “usual”. That is perfectly meaningful in refuting the statement.

          • Stokes definition defense protocol initiated. Stokes has made a “perfectly meaningful” but “refuting the statement” because “perfectly meaningful” is subjective as defined by Stokes.

            He didn’t say it was scientifically meaningful or statistically meaningful .. when you play with trolls definitions matter.

          • “He didn’t say it was scientifically meaningful “
            And so it goes here. Someone says
            “we are suffering a cold winter and not getting our usual warming August weather”
            Right on, baby!
            But I say, no, it was actually 2°C above average
            “What, you looked up a number? What about statistical significance? Error bars?”

          • The problem here is your consistency, when anyone has given you other layman expressions (think back to news article headlines you got a slap from me).

            What you do is flip-flop on layman norms and it depends on which suits you.

            The issue seems to be to go to ridiculous lengths to not be wrong, even if it means arguing stupidity. Most of us real scientists know that we will be wrong countless times it goes with the profession and we don’t get hung up about it.

      • I would argue the opposite. A global trend is meaningless if it’s driven by areas of anomalous warmth or cold, while other areas show little change. It’s the old “Head in the freezer, feet in a bucket of hot water, my average temp is just great!” scenario.

    • I regret to inform you that your share is hiding in northern British Columbia where it’s mid-summer. Oh, wait… this just in:

      3:45 PM PDT Sunday 18 August 2019
      Snowfall warning in effect for: Fort Nelson

      A long period of snowfall with total amounts of 20 to 30 cm continues…

      • Rex, sea levels at Sydney are falling. Check the latest mean sea level at Fort Denison:

        http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_60370_SLD.shtml

        The first mean sea level recorded by the Bureau of Met in May 1914 was 1.111 meters and the last one recorded in June 2019 was 1.058.

        A FALL of 53 mm [2 inches] in 105 years.

        The seas and oceans to the east of Australia form the largest body of water on Earth so it represents a very relevant global sea level indicator.

  14. Wow. So 1998 has now been ‘adjusted’ to be nearly a degree cooler than recent years? They really have been busy.

    Meanwhile, after all this warming, we almost had a frost overnight… in mid-August when the daytime temperatures should be around 30C.

    • “Wow. So 1998 has now been ‘adjusted’…”
      Great catch, I missed that one completely. Now the super El Nino is barely a blip.
      Also, the “Great Pause” from ~2000-2015 has been disappeared. All the better because the Pause was the motivation for the “Karlization” of the SSTs, so they knew it was there. Not anymore.

      • The time series used here and discussed as if it was gospel, is the worst of all of the heavily adjusted and mangled time series’.
        It is just ridiculous garbage.
        They have constantly cooled every recent year as soon as it passed, and now alter recent data more than old data from a hundred years ago and more.
        No justifications given.
        This graph shows 2010 as warmer than 1998!
        They truly have no shame.
        The fact is, as of 1989, NOAA and NASA GISS reported that there had been no net global warming in the 20th century after 1919. At that point it was not contested that cooling since 1950 had erased most all the 20th century warming.

        https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1160940811699347456?s=20

        https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1152807348555137024?s=20

        https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1150656287878914050?s=20

        https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1150655100509143040?s=20

        • I should have said they ADJUST every recent year as soon as it is passed.
          Those Twitter links are to graphs from years past, and demonstrate how wildly the present graphs differ from what was recorded by people at the time it happened who were reading the actual thermometers.
          Anyone who accepts adjustments that change not just the magnitude by the direction of multiyear trends, such that every single such alterations forces the graphs into compliance with their own unevidenced hypothesis, is just too gullible to even bother with.

          • Maybe they have to do that because they read the current thermometers hotter than they actually are, to get a good scare-mongering going, then they adjust them to what they actually were after that year is passed.

            Or, they’re cooling the past to make the present look warmer without it actually being warmer.

            Same effect, two different ways of getting there.

            Either way, that’s scientific fraud… and given that they’re doing it to maintain funding, that’s actionable fraud.

        • “At that point it was not contested that cooling since 1950 had erased most all the 20th century warming.”

          And if you look at the bogus Hockey Stick chart you see the Data Manipulators have changed the slope of the 1960’s/1970’s and have erased the cause for all the concern back then that the Earth was going into a new Ice Age.

          Look at this comparison (below) of the Hansen 1999 US chart to the Hockey Stick chart. The Hansen chart shows exactly why climate scientists in that era thought the trend was down, as temperatures declined from the 1940’s to the late 1970’s. If you look at the Hockey Stick chart you would have to wonder what all the fuss was about since temperature declines from 1940 to 1980 don’t appear to be that dramatic in the Hockey Stick chart.

          The Data Manipulators had to erase the Ice Age scare in order to make the chart look like things have been getting hotter and hotter for decades, instead of what is really happening, which is the globe warms up for a few decades and then the globe cools off for a few decades and the maximum temperatue for the highs is very close to the same temperature figure decade after decade, cycle after cycle.

          http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

          • Tom,
            Yes, and I think the actual case to be made is somewhat larger than you imply.
            Overall, I mostly agree with your post.
            I only say mostly because if there is an overall warming since the end of the LIA, I fail to see how anyone could even try to make the case that is a bad thing.
            Or why anyone would want to.
            Considering that all temperature graphs on any time scale are generally trending either up or down, and that the LIA was the coldest period in a long series of ever colder low temperature periods, and I think it is insane to even want to push a lever to lower the temp, now that we are in what surely is the most clement period in the past 1000 years, at least.
            Even if we had such a lever to push…which I sincerely doubt we do.
            More CO2 is a stupendously huge net positive.
            Warmer temps, that are actually better described as milder temps, is a good thing on a cold planet.
            The only indication that warming is bad is a naked and unsupported assertion.

          • Early proponents of man-made global warming via CO2, such as Arrhenius and Callendar, regarded it as beneficial. And to the extent that GHG-driven warming has occurred, at best negligible, they were right. But better yet has been the fertilizing effect of more atmospheric plant food.

          • And I believe the fact that Hansen 1999 shows the Ice Age scare much more clearly than does the Hockey Stick chart is another reason to say Hansen 1999 is more representative of the global temperaure profile than the Hockey Stick chart.

  15. ” But the warming warrants policy action. The RCP’s provide a basis for that analysis and planning. But that science is insufficient to push the public to support climate activists’ goals.”
    Human emissions account for less than 3% of atmospheric CO2. Changes in emissions rates display no response in atmospheric content. There is no signal for human emissions in any global temperature record.
    The RCP calculations ignore these three facts and assume our emissions cause all of the increase in atmospheric content and temperature. Enacting a policy that changes our emissions can have no climatic effect that can be observed.

  16. But anthro warming is cumulative, and we will see big changes – certainly unpleasant – if warming continues at this rate during the 21st century… But even smaller increases in global temperature would be unpleasant, and are worth avoiding.

    No they are not. Warming is entirely beneficial. It won’t be unpleasant at all. Warming will be wonderful. More rain, longer growing seasons, more biological productivity, more wealth, more happiness, etc etc.

    If, that is, the world gets any warmer, which is doubtful, and certainly not “proven”. This article is so full of BS it hurts. The author has a big problem with “fertility”, which I interpret as a death wish for humanity. You know: kill all the babies. What a nice guy. May he experience his own soon, for the good of the planet I mean.

  17. Are we trusting NOAA now with the temperature record? What happened to the 1930’s when it was definitely as warm as it is now, not only in the USA but many other places they actually took temps? And of course, most places on the planet had no temperature record in the 1930’s or before. I don’t believe much of this post. It looks like, at least from the graph the we are now cooking.

  18. Ah, the boil a frog gimmick, from the unfortunately named Kummer. Let me paraphrase:

    “You see, alarmists have been screaming “Earth is burning up!” for decades. Yet many seemingly reasonable people persist in saying that they don’t detect climate change.. (and some have been around for quite a while). I’ll admit, the climate hasn’t performed like we had hoped…I mean expected. But here’s the deal….. latest research shows the climate changes so slowly you won’t detect it! But rest assured! Like a frog in a slowly heated pot, it is DEADLY… just in a so-slow-you-can’t-detect-it kind of way! Don’t trust your senses! Trust our highly curated graphs! So, in order to combat this pernicious and sneaky evil, you need to let globalist elites take complete control of your lives. And, of course, you need to keep funding us climate scientists….or else things could get quite….unpleasant.”

  19. The key takeaway for me is that Coal should be replaced by gas and technology will sort the future out.

    Any of the purported solutions, namely wind farms, solar panel, wood chips and electric vehicles are a joke at any level and reveal the rent seekers as fraud’s even if global warming is an issue or not.

    The tragedy is that the big risk to the world is that the rent seekers will be uncovered and a real crisis will then be missed be what it may.

    • No, it “shouldn’t” be replaced. To some extent it has been, but we do still need coal, and will for decades hence. We certainly don’t need government deciding what we use for energy. In fact, government meddling, aside from being unconstitutional always creates wrong outcomes. One only need look at the ethanol mandate for an example.

  20. Forget since the Industrial Revolution, that coincided with the Little IcE Age.
    How much warming has occurred since the period before the Little Ice Age began?

    • It was warmer then.
      Back then, Native Americans were unable to grow corn in Wisconsin and other areas of what is now the corn belt. But never mind that.
      Back then, in Greenland, Vikings grew barley and were self sufficient, and carried on for hundreds of years with a grazing and farming economy and culture. Those same areas where they did that have barely thawed out enough to dig the soil enough to do proper archeology on their sites. It remains impossible to farm there, let alone raise a grain crop. But never mind that.
      Apologists have pointed out there is agriculture in Greenland today. But neglect to mention that it is done in modern glass greenhouses, and requires huge and regular imported shipments of fuel for heat, fertilizer, uses LED lighting in the dark months, and is in no way akin to middle ages subsistence farming by an autonomous culture. But never mind that.
      While we are on Greenland- Planes that landed on the ice sheet in Greenland during WWII, and were subsequently buried by 30 years of global cooling, which BTW highly adjustamicated “modern” graphs of those years show never was doing anything but warming, have recently been dug out from under the 260 feet of ice they had been buried under, but never mind that.
      If we are fortunate enough to get to a point we are as warm as or warmer than the MWP, we have been assured that this next time, rather than being a fortuitous reprieve from ruinous cold, it will be an unsurvivable Hell, even though that amount of difference in sensible heat is barely perceptible to a human being and represents an altitude change of a few hundred feet or a change in latitude of less than 200 miles, and is orders of magnitude less than ordinary diurnal, seasonal, and yearly variations.
      But never mind that.

  21. CTM, I’m uncertain what your definition of “World” is. I can say with 100% certainty this is warmest Alaska summer since I moved here in 1988. Alaska is 80% of my world and July temperatures were hot…just like the fishing!

    But, it’s not just me who says July temps were hot. The Alaska Climate Research Center http://akclimate.org/sites/Default/Files/201907_July_summary.pdf reports….“Alaska continues to experience extremely warm temperatures….The highest temperature departures are recorded once again in the Arctic region. The most extreme station is Kotzebue, with an impressive mean monthly temperature of 63.8°F, 9.2°F warmer than the normal for the period 1981-2010. The mean temperatures at Utqiaġvik were 48.3°F, which was 7.5°F warmer than normal. Much warmer temperatures are recorded also in Southern Alaska: The observed mean monthly temperatures at Anchorage, Kodiak, King Salmon and Yakutat were 65.3°F, 60.4°F, 61.2°F, and 59.6°F, resell pectively 6.5°F, 5.9°F, 5.7°F, and 5.2°F warmer than normal.”

    The location of these temperature recordings encompasses a large area about one-fifth the size of lower 48 US states. Very anomalous and hard to explain by UHI or any other single factor. Maybe weather, or maybe climate? We don’t know.

    • And to the east and west of Alaska it was anomalously colder. Eastern Europe, transcontinental Russia, China, Canada were all colder. That’s what happens when the jet stream becomes meridional, rather than zonal.

      • It just depends on your location in relation to high-pressure systems as to whether you experiece extra wamth or extra coolness. Inside the high-pressure system, you are going to heat up. Outside, on the perimeter of the high-pressure system, you could be getting warm air circulating northwards from south of the high-pressure system (northern hemisphere) or you could get cold air circulating southwards from the north of the high-pressure system. And this relationship changes as the position of the high-pressure systems change.

      • Almost no one bothered to mention that in between the two periods of a few warm days this Summer in parts of France, were several frigidly cold ones, and there was frost the hottest part of the Summer in Saxony, and temps in the low 40s all the way to Toulouse and over to and past the Cote d’Azur, and ditto along the Atlantic coast of Africa, many hundreds of miles south of Gibraltar, and clear over to Turkey.

    • NOAA cooks its books, but AK has been warmer than average at times this summer. However the Pacific NW was cooler.

      Weather is air masses moving around. Except for a few days under high pressure systems down here, you basically got what would have been our weather.

      • In the first half of August, southern AK was warmer than average, while northern was cooler. The Yukon and northern BC were downright cold.

        At the bottom of this site, there’s a map of Arctic air temperature departures from average, Aug 1-13:

        https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

  22. Why “certainly unpleasant”?

    Where did the certainty come from?

    And really, how bad is unpleasant?

    In 100 years, things will be unpleasant.

    Terrifying.

  23. The world has been warming since the middle of the 19th century.

    We often see this claim made here. Yet the global temperature trend in HadCRUT4 for the first 80 years of the record (1850 to 1930) is dead flat.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/to:1931/plot/hadcrut4gl/to:1931/trend

    BEST, which has a wider spatial distribution than HadCRUT4, is flat from 1850 to the mid 1920s, more than 70 years. NOAA and GISS, both of which start in 1880, also have flat or negative trends up to ~1935, the first 55 years of their respective records.

    So where does this frequent claim that “the world has been warming since the middle of the 19th century” come from? What evidence is there for it? Yes, it is warmer now than it was in the 1850s, but that warming has really only occurred over the past 70-80 years.

    • You obviously fail to see the problem of using data from 1850-1930 and claiming anything.

      So lets use Australia as an example and here are sites for all the early temperature recordings
      Look at figure 1
      https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gdj3.19
      Notice the problem most of the sites are on the coast and the data is from one small area

      It really doesn’t improve by huge amounts until after the war in 1945. So you really the entire Southern Hemisphere data is probably less than useless up to 1945. I suspect much of Asia and India will be the same in the Northern Hemisphere.

      The message here is don’t use wiggly lines on graphs as evidence unless you understand the data behind those wiggly lines.

      • “You obviously fail to see the problem of using data from 1850-1930”
        You obviously didn’t read your link. It describes data sources for South East Australia up to 1859. And yes, they are sparse.

      • LdB

        You obviously fail to see the problem of using data from 1850-1930 and claiming anything.

        Odd that you didn’t use this same reasoning to question the author of this article’s claim that ‘the world has been warming since the middle of the 19th century’. If we can’t rely on global temperature data before 1945 then how can anyone know whether the world was warming or not?

        In any case, the paper from your own link states ‘that the historical records are of good quality, and are capable of providing information on relative climate variability in SEA’; so much so that the authors say the historical observations they used are of sufficient quality to be ‘used for long‐term analysis of climate variability in Australian and the wider Southern Hemisphere’.

        How does this support your view that older records are unreliable?

        • You can argue anything you like with the old records they are problematic, what you can’t do is use them as conclusive proof of anything. Other than that knock yourself out argue whatever what do I care.

        • Nick try looking up the foundation dates of major townships in Western Australia 🙂
          Off Hand I would say Perth, Fremantle, Albany and perhaps Geraldton exist in 1850. I didn’t bother looking because I know most won’t exist only the Port Towns. I know Kalgoorlie as one of the larger central towns was not establish until 1889 🙂

    • I do believe the author made a typo in this statement and meant instead to say “. . . middle of the 20th century.” The presented NOAA chart of global land and ocean temperature anomalies following this sentence starts at 1880, which is beyond the middle of the 19th century and it even displays COOLING from 1880 to about 1911.

      Furthermore, in the paragraph immediately below this chart, the author references “1880-2019 – The full instrument record.” So clearly (to me at least), there never was intent to discuss temperatures around the mid-1800’s, which from the data presented was a period of indicated cooling (fully recognizing the failings of obtaining accurate “global” temperatures during those times).

      • “and it even displays COOLING from 1880 to about 1911.”

        Yes, around 1911 is one of the coldest periods of the recent past, equivalent to the cold of the late 1970’s, according to the Hansen 1999 US chart.

        It went like this: 1910, cold period, warms up to the 1930’s, then cools down from 1940’s to the late 1970’s to just about the same cold level as 1910, then the weather warms from the late 1970’s to the present and the highest temperature reached in the present is equal to or less than the high point of the 1930’s. And since reaching the current high point (2016) the temperaures have cooled by about 0.5C.

        So, like President Trump says, the temperatures go up a little, and then they go down a little, and then they go up a little, again.

        That is the “normal” behavior of the Earth’s climate. There is nothing scary here.

        The alarmists want us to believe that the temperatures are at record levels now (hottest July evah!) and will continue to climb as we increase the amount of CO2 we produce. Their only “evidence” for this is the fraudulent Hockey Stick chart. Without it their whole argument is dead in the water. It’s the only thing they can point to. Take it away and they have nothing. Nothing on which to base Trillions of dollars in taxpayers expeditures.

        Hansen 1999 US:

        https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/uhcnh2.gif

  24. I wonder what Steinbeck would say if he looked at that NOAA graph between 1930 and 40. Definitely ‘man made global warming’ but through adjustments, otherwise he would have to rewrite all his books.

  25. The world is not currently warming. For a start most of the warming in that bogus graph is due to effects like urban heating and bogus adjustments like time of day. THEY HAVE NO VALIDITY IN ASSESSING LONG TERM TEMPERATURE CHANGE. Instead, the only credible global temperature comes from satellites.

    That clearly shows that since 2016 it’s been cooling and for the last 20 years there’s been no meaningful change that cannot be explained by the El Nino cycle.

    But even though the ground based stations are clearly massively contaminated by measurements and adjustements, no change in the last century has exceed what would be expected from natural variation and as we know we were coming out of a little ice-age there is no way any actual scientist would ascribe warming with any certainty to humanity. Particularly as those models based on human caused warming have been spectacular failures.

  26. I know that NOAA and others adjust historical and current data for various reasons. What I don’t know is if it is a blanket adjustment, incorrect in my view, or on a station by station measurement by measurement adjustment, which is not perfect but more acceptable. When making UHI adjustments you have to know the conditions at the time of measurement, things like wind speed and direction, cloud cover, precipitation to name a few. I suspect none of this is available or taken into account making adjusted data worthless.

  27. “Fortunately, in the 21st century this information is easily available at NOAA’s invaluable “Climate At A Glance” website.”

    BUT can you trust it – almost certainly not.

    However, it will certainly not underestimate any warming, so if the data is still not indicating an impending apocalypse, we can safely assume there isn’t much of an issue.

    Most, if not all, the increasing heat people experience is simply down to living in densely urbanized areas.

    Any feeling that weather events are actually getting more extreme is simply down to hysterically dishonest obsessive propaganda from much of the MSM, the data simply does not support that convincingly.

    • “How fast is the world warming?”

      It isn’t.

      The record shown in the article is little more than urban land temperature, which can’t be separated from urban development. The only real record of the earth’s temperature is from satellites, which goes back only a couple of decades.

      Is the earth’s average temperature a bit warmer today than it was half a century earlier? Yes.

      Is the earth’s temperature changing systematically? NO.

      See the lecture by Professor Salby:

      https://youtu.be/b1cGqL9y548 at (16:00)

  28. Note the following two points:

    •0.12°C/decade (0.22°F) – 1918-1950 – The instrument record for the pre-anthro era for those skeptical of global temp. data before WWI.
    •0.19°C/decade (0.34°F) – 1989-2019 – The past 30 years, the period for climate metrics defined by the World Meteorological Organization.

    That first bulletpoint is warming of 0.12 degC per decade BEFORE the IPCC says that man-made influences are significant.
    The second bulletpoint is the higher warming rate in the current period, which the IPCC says has anthropogenic influence – at least 50% is caused by man. Not 100%, at least 50%

    BUT if we take the first period as natural we can subtract the first rate from the second rate to give a possible bound for anthropogenic influence which is 0.19 – 0.12 = 0.07 degC/decade, which is actually less than the 50% plus claim by the IPCC. The quasi-periodicity of about 60-70 years in the temperature and sea level rate curves (and UK precipitation) suggest the recent period could have a natural warming element the same as the earlier period in the 20th Century.

    If we take this lower bound, it implies that anthropogenic influence could be as low as 0.7 degC warming over a century. Which looks much more consistent with a sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 (without adding unproven water vapour feedback) in the order of 1.0 degC per doubling. Note also that the IPCC “at least 50%” claim itself puts a lower bound of 0.19/2 = 0.095 degC/decade, or about 1 degC per century.

    Doesn’t look very alarming when you actually parse what the IPCC says. Climate hysterics claim Armageddon, but the IPCC itself states a lower bound of only 1 degC per century is possible.

      • Authorized maybe, but valid?
        They all add up to a straight line when plotted vs CO2 concentration.
        And whatever the reasoning, it amounts to sophistry when then correction for UHI winds up resulting in lowering temps that were recorded in the past, this making the trend towards warming steeper.
        UHI adjustments, if made, ought to remove excess heat from recent temps, and leave older ones alone.
        Instead they remove heat from older temps, and leave newer ones alone.
        Total BS, and everyone who has every payed attention to the temp difference in increasingly urbanized areas knows that UHI makes it hotter, so correcting for it should make it cooler in recent years than what was measured.
        Besides for that, this seems to be the only look at the switch to MMTS and concluded they produced a cooling bias.
        Authorized wrongness is still wrong, authorized sophistry is still sophistry, and whatever the reasons and excuses given for each incremental adjustment, when they add up to this:

        (Link to photo)
        https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1137944770003767296?s=20
        then they are not just mistaken, but deliberately fraudulent.

  29. Anytime long term NOAA and GISS temperature data are being used is an indication that you WILL get misleading results.

    Try the RURAL data only and make REGIONAL data sets too.

    A single global temperature will lead you to a false conclusion.

  30. Current UK Met office records for the period 1929 to 2018 show a significant increase in annual sunshine commencing from around 1980. This seems to indicate a decrease in cloudiness over this period and maybe a reduction in air pollution a result of the Clean Air Act (1968). The trend is matched by an increase in mean annual temperature of about 1deg C. (www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/summaries/index).
    I cannot see any linkage of decreased cloudiness to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Surely this data must cast doubt on the orthodox global warming theory, but nobody I talk to seems to consider these findings significant. Am I barking up the wrong tree or simply barking.

  31. “But the warming warrants policy action”

    Bull. No other way to say it but bull. You don’t know any better than anyone else how much warming CO2 is causing, you cant control it and like so many, you quickly fall into the trap of ‘pull the government levers.

    Until you can prove that warming is caused by CO2 rather than the blanket nonsensical statement that ‘it is’, you cannot claim that policy action is needed. More than that, you then have to demonstrate that some ‘policy’ can do something that is actually beneficial.

    How the hell do you people know that a little bit of warming isn’t a lot better for us? How are you so self-certain, so amazingly knowledgeable that you can recommend policy actions to correct something that you cannot even state is a problem?

    I have heard the same thing from some outwardly very smart people, but you who believe in ‘action’ are all wrong – and demonstrably so.

    • Disparate groups want policy action for their own ends: some to accrue political power, some to accrue money. I suspect Larry falls into the latter group.

  32. CO2 is apparently quite a magic molecule when it chooses to participate—or not—in global warming. As the NOAA chart in the above article clearly shows, there was a period of global cooling from 1940 to 1970. During this interval, the world released 15% of the total CO2 attributed to mankind’s activities up to 2019. Yet despite this, the globe cooled down!

    In fact, by 1970, a total of 26% of the cumulative total of CO2 attributed to mankind’s activities up to 2019 had been put into Earth’s biosphere.

    • Re: my last sentence above: actually, the combination of atmosphere and biosphere. I cannot venture to tell you what the split is.

    • “n fact, by 1970, a total of 26% of the cumulative total of CO2 attributed to mankind’s activities up to 2019 had been put into Earth’s biosphere.”

      By the 1970’s climate scientists were telling us it was likely we were entering into another Ice Age because the temperatures had been cooling for decades, with no end in sight. All the while, CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. I sense a disconnect here with Alarmist theory. 🙂

  33. Larry Kummer, “Human-caused warming has become the dominant cause of warming since roughly WWII.

    There is zero evidence any of the warming is human-caused. The IPCC touts models that have zero predictive value.

    And then, to prove your case, you go on to cite temperature trends of 0.14 C per decade using data that’s not good to better than ±0.5 C.

    You’re no more rational than the worst of the alarmist coterie, Larry.

    None of you people know how to think in detail. After all, if you did do, you’d have nothing to talk about. Can’t have that.

    • I agree with you Pat. He literally writes that he doesn’t know how strong the effect is, makes a massive unsupported assumption in the middle that warming is mostly human emission induced, and then concludes ‘do something!!!’ when there is nothing to do.

      It is the worst problem because we still get the crazy socialist ‘something’ with no consideration of outcome. Hell, warmer might actually be a lot better, does he even think for a second about that? No, he does not. I know personally that I’m more concerned about the next ice age than I am about a tiny bit of warming – and I’m not that worried about either.

    • “There is zero evidence any of the warming is human-caused.”

      If we are talking about that graph, and others like it, rather than the actual atmosphere…I think we can safely say with little uncertainty that virtually all of the warming seen is Mann-made.
      But not all.
      Some is Hansen-made, and some is Gavin-made.

      Very little of it is real, and what is, or may be, is lost in the noise and BS on those graphs.

      The statistical treatment of individual measurements, in many places over a long period of time, as if it was multiple measurements of the same thing, is perhaps even worse than the problem of inadequate device resolution for the numbers being offered as evidence of warming.

      • I am glad that more and more folks are recognizing that the various proclamations of temperature increases are really within the noise boundaries of errors, both systemic and measurement resolution.

        Error of the mean when used with measurements of different things, with different devices, at different times only tells you how accurate your calculations were. That is all.

        Averaging temperatures from Kansas City and Omaha that were recorded to +/- 0.5 degrees simply can’t decrease the measurement error of either reading and therefore the average error is similar to the original measurement error. The +/- 0.5 degrees must carry through, like it or not.

        • The way things are routinely done and reported in climate scientism is directly counter to literally everything I ever learned about the treatments of accuracy, precision, significant figures…everything involving error and uncertainty.
          These things can even be looked up and the methods used compared to the standards of the science of metrology.
          Once upon a time there were error bars on many and perhaps most of the time series graphs of temperature.
          But nowadays, the people doing this “work” behave and speak, and apparently actually believe, that where there is a broad range of uncertainty, the center line drawn through these values is the “real” value.
          That wide area of uncertainty?
          Not even mentioned.
          Like with Marcott 2011:
          https://twitter.com/Kenneth72712993/status/1141481325972611072?s=20

          Which is morphed to this:
          https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1147971369344389120?s=20

  34. The world has been warming since the end of the 17th century, during the depths of the Little Ice Age in the Maunder Minimum. Warming cycles since then have been interrupted by cooling cycles, but the secular trend has been warming. The early 18th century warming, rebounding from the cold Maunder, lasted longer and warmed more than the late 20th century warming. The early 20th century warming was comparable to the late 20th century warming. Those two cycles were separated by a pronounced cooling from the 1940s until 1977, when the PDO flipped mode.

    Thus during the first 32 years after WWII, earth dramatically despite steadily rising man-made CO2. Thus it’s not valid to conclude that “human-caused warming has become the dominant cause of warming since roughly WWII”. The bizarre number of studies does not support the “core consensus of climate scientists” asserted in the Summary of Policymakers by Working Group I of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report:

    “It is extremely likely (95 – 100% certain) that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2010.”

    It’s not possible to separate human causes from those which would have occurred had we remained at a preindustrial level of development with half a billion hungry, sick and cold people with nasty, brutish and short lives, ie cutting fewer forests, farming fewer acres, dirtying, then cleaning the air, irrigating more land, burning fossil fuels, etc. We definitely do affect local climates, such as urban heat islands, through farming practices and real pollution. But globally, due to putting more plant food in the air, not so much.

    Science knows too little to conclude that we are mainly responsible for the balmier weather we’ve enjoyed in recent decades. It’s not possible to reject the null hypothesis that nothing observable lies outside normal variation.

    Unfortunately, the longer term cooling trend of the past 3000 to 5000 years remains intact. The East Antarctic Ice Sheet, repository of most of the planet’s surface fresh water, stopped retreating about 3000 years ago, after the Minoan Warm Period, despite the cooler Roman, Medieval and Modern Warm Periods. This fact bodes ill.

  35. “But anthro warming is cumulative, and we will see big changes – certainly unpleasant – if warming continues at this rate during the 21st century.”

    Putting my polite hat on: Go on, convince me.

    • Exactly. Slowly changing temperatures should be easily accommodated and accepted as reality. Where is it written that warming can only have negative effects?

  36. Instead of looking at current warming trends (which are biased by UHI anyway) with no context, one should look at them compared to other similar periods, like the Roman Warm Period. If the warming trend looks wildly different, then one can “suppose” that mankind might be impacting it. (Still hard to prove anything)

    When I compare older warming trends with the current one, I see nothing wildly different, therefore I conclude that mankind has little effect on warming.

    The problem remains that accounting for UHI is extremely important and the climate scientists seem determined to ignore it. UHI could easily account for half of the modern observed “warming”. If the IPCC says that at least half of modern warming is not natural – well, I kind of agree with them. Not only is it not natural, it isn’t happening anywhere but in urban areas.

  37. Larry
    “I’m sure Sydney is a nice place, but what matters is the global temp. As Roger Pielke Sr has long said, local factors produce local weather – which might not match global trends. See the NOAA website, which confirms what the news media have been saying: the past few months have been warm.”
    So.
    What might be the error range of this “global Temperature”?
    Presuming such a creature could exist?
    Did you perhaps mean the “Estimate Average Global temperature?”
    And what might that have been on 1950?
    To what degree of accuracy?

    Face it,we cannot be sure if we are warming or cooling, when the proclaimed “signal” is less than the error range.

    Brad Keyes.
    Nice to see you still got the magic.

  38. My only question is, how was the zero line on the graph chosen? Since we have only been measuring the temperature for the past 180 years. How does the zero line relate to the past 180 million years?

    • That is a good question. Obviously it is not using the accepted baseline of the current climate period average, which is 1980 to 2010 (it will change next year to the 1990-2020 avg).
      Maybe they are using the average of the entire period shown, but it is not labelled and it should be.
      Here is what the graphs look like without the misleading scaling:
      https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1137580002663440385?s=20

  39. ctm,

    again beginning with

    “The world has been warming since the middle of the 19th century. Human-caused warming has become the dominant cause of warming since roughly WWII.”

    and again the attempt to appear objectively with the quote

    “Similar to the long-term change (since the Little Ice Age) in the surface temperature record. This warming affects the oceans’ ecosystems as much or more than warming affects the surface world.”

    But you base your theses on “temperature anomalies” and hide the absolute temperature history to go over to

    Conclusions:

    [ … ] the warming warrants policy action.

    [ … ] science is insufficient to push the public to support climate activists’ goals.

    [ …] Normal extreme weather is attributed to anthropogenic climate change [… ] This makes effective policy action more difficult. It is the big reason that we do so little to prepare for climate change.

    But anthro warming is cumulative, and we will see big changes – certainly unpleasant – if warming continues at this rate during the 21st century.

    [ …] That does not mean an Apocalypse would arrive in 2070 or that climate change is the most serious problem we face (e.g.,

    continuing to wreck the oceans

    might create an apocalypse by 2070).

    _________________________________________________________

    “science” tells about “anthro warming” “continuing to wreck the oceans”

    with no underlying facts: this is short and simple implausible.

    Aber nur weiter so, nur Mut. Nach einem weiteren Jahrhundert wird die Wahrheit offen sichtbar sein … oh wait, ein Jahrhundert später werden deine gleichgesinnten genauso weitermachen auf gut Glück.

    But keep it up, full courage. After another century, the truth will be openly visible … oh wait, a century later your like-minded people will go on doing the same as you, full courage.

    Good luck!

Comments are closed.