Home > Community Lounge > Politics > Global Warming: For Experts Only

Global Warming: For Experts Only

  1. I am wondering what the experts on EliteTrader think about Global Warming. While I don't believe that the frequency of storms say anything about Anthropomorphic Global Warming, I do believe that the strength and the rain fall that they seem to be dropping in modern times is a red flag.

    And now, we have Jose following Irma in the Atlantic!

    I am not climate scientist, but I hear this guy is and he makes a strong argument:

  2. Now wait for Seth Rich conspiracy theorists to lecture everyone on science.
  3. [​IMG]
  4. Carbon dioxide captures heat. Its basic physics. You can prove this in a lab or a simple home experiment, and you can show how much heat it captures. There isn't any doubt about it...
  5. The question under debate is the effect of Man Made CO2
  6. Rainfall and wind speeds were much higher in the past. Any temporary global warming or cooling is due to sunspot activity/solar flare cycles. Humans like Extra Goat Roper, Phony Snark, False Currency and Yak Barn are arrogant enough to think that their actions could affect the way the world behaves and reacts.---They have no clue and know not their insignificant place in history.---
  7. Yes----there is.
  8. The Earth is in a long term cool-down. Be glad that we live in a section of the Earth's life where temperatures are such that we may exist and flourish here. --It won't last forever--. The Earth doesn't even notice that we're here.
  9. There is doubt about the physics? CO2 is relatively transparent to visible frequencies and relatively opaque to infra-red. A number of gasses have this property including water vapor.

    The Sun emits plenty of infrared heat, CO2 absorbs way more than say nitrogen or oxygen, the other visible frequencies that become heat when they strike the surface of the Earth are further trapped.

    The problem is the emotional attachment some have to their pseudoscience. Cliffy Clavin was at least amusing.

  10. The earth naturally heats up and cools down in cycles, currently we transitioning from a 400year hot cycle towards a 400year cold cycle, you always see new highs before the reversal but will probably take a few decades to play out. Then you have the stupidity of the human race pumping beyond idiotic amounts of synthetic chemicals in to the atmosphere, 10fold in the past 40years such as ammonia. To counteract that the planet has to readjust, the oceans are the collecting ponds for the toxic substances so you can believe the sea levels will rise. We've been seeing bipolar weather patterns these past years, now we're getting to the angry schizophrenic weather patterns with Harvey and Irma, just wait for the psychotic patterns to emerge, that's going to be a show, they suggest California could break off in one of those.
  11. The equation they use to calculate temperature change from carbon dioxide is:

    dT = λ * 5.36*In(C/C0) where
    • dT is change in temperature in celsius
    • C current carbon ppm (ie 400 )
    • C0 base carbon ppm (280 the start of the industrial era)
    • λ = climate sensitivity - somewhere between .5 and 1.2 generally they use .8. If you are a 'skeptic' you use .5 if an alarmist you use 1.2.
    Put that into an excel spreadsheet and you get 1.5 for the increase in temperature from C02 since the start of the industrial era... which is about right. In excel use LN to calculate the natural logarithm.

  12. You say that like it's a bad thing.

  13. Part of the issue here is
    Hey, I'm all for it. I have ~300 acres in southern California. I'm entitled to a US passport but that IRS global earnings bullshit.. now if Cali dropped that heheh.

    Let the flyover states farm and do their god with a small g and stuff. Four new manageable territories (5 if you add the Conch Nation of Key West). Trump style, instead of one big country/company have things in lots of small ones.

    That should be the next lobbyist thing, the climate change deniers will fall for that also.
  14. The difference in the graphs below are the start dates.
  15. [​IMG]
  16. Global Tropic Cyclones at 45-Year Low

  17. Global Hurricane Frequency

  18. “Atlantic Tropical Storms Lasting More Than 2 Days Have Not Increased in Number”

  19. Don't post math, post cartoons and Breitbart links, that's where the real science is.
  20. Emphasis is mine below.


    Volcanoes and ozone are missing from the climate change debate

    How could carbon dioxide have become so important scientifically, economically, and politically without greenhouse-warming theory ever having been verified by experiment, a cornerstone of the scientific method?

    I have now completed experiments showing that air with more than 23-times normal concentrations of carbon dioxide is heated no more than 0.2 degrees more than normal air when exposed to the same infrared radiation. Air with more than 10-times normal concentrations of carbon dioxide covered Earth 400 million years ago when ice ages were common.

    Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have been rising steadily since 1945 at ever increasing rates. These rates do not change suddenly in 1969, 1998 and 2014 when rates of global warming changed.

    Throughout the past 800,000 years, increases in concentrations of carbon dioxide do correlate with increases in ocean temperatures, but concentrations typically increase a few hundred years after observed warming. Oceans are well-known to lose carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as they warm, much like your warming beer loses its fizz.

    Cores drilled through Greenland ice show that the greatest warming observed in the past 130,000 years occurred from 12,000 to 9500 years ago, when sea level rose more than 400 feet. This was the time when 12 of the 13 best-dated, basaltic, volcanic centers in Iceland were active, the highest rates of volcanism recorded in all of Greenland ice.

    Throughout written history, eruptions of large amounts of basaltic lava were contemporaneous with the onset of rapid global warming, including the Medieval warm period and the Roman warm period. Ice cores in Greenland document that 25 times in the past 130,000 years, the world warmed at least halfway out of ice-age conditions within a few years when basaltic volcanoes were erupting, followed by slow cooling over centuries to millennia.

    These irregular sequences averaged every 4000 years, but they were highly erratic. They were not cyclic. These footprints of climate change cannot be explained by greenhouse gases or by any of the numerous theories claiming that cyclical processes cause climate change.

    Despite such clear and widely reported data, the number one “key finding” of the recent Climate Science Special Report by the U.S. Global Change Research Program concluded with “very high confidence” that “global climate continues to change rapidly compared to the pace of the natural variations in climate that have occurred throughout Earth’s history.”

    This “key finding” is clearly mistaken.

    The greatest known global warming and mass extinctions occurred 251 million years ago when basaltic lava covered an area of Siberia equivalent to 87 percent of the contiguous United States. Throughout Earth’s history, periods of rapid warming occurred when basalt flowed out over large areas.

    The largest, most rapidly formed basalt flow since 1783 erupted in Icelandfrom August 2014 to February 2015, most likely leading to the observed very rapid global warming since 2014. This is why 2016 is the hottest year on record and 2017 may even be warmer.

    On the other hand, global cooling appears to be caused by large explosive volcanoes that eject water vapor and sulfur dioxide into the lower stratosphere forming a sulfuric acid aerosol or mist that reflects and scatters sunlight, cooling Earth 0.9 degrees for two to four years, but lowering ocean temperatures for nearly a century.

  21. Can you link me to this guy's peer reviewed papers where he has published all this.
  22. He lists at least nine peer-reviewed papers and provides links to them directly at the top.

    Are you blind or just being willfully ignorant?
  23. However, my problem with Dr. Ward’s theory is how he claims to “prove” that it is physically impossible for increased CO2 to cause global warming. He lists off many claims that are wrong in a number of ways.

    Let me go over a few examples.

    “[models assume] there is more thermal energy contained in Earth’s infrared radiation absorbed by greenhouse gases than in the solar ultraviolet-B radiation that reaches Earth when ozone is depleted. Common experience… confirms that this is not true: you feel hotter standing in … radiation from the Sun than you do standing outside at night with infrared radiation welling up from Earth’s surface.”

    There are many issues with this statement, but it is a good example of how someone can confuse the anthropogenic global warming with all the other things that naturally occur in the energy budget of the climate system. The fact that the warming from CO2 is relatively small compared to other things does not prove that it is harmless. The change in the earth’s radiative budget by elevated CO2 is roughly 4 W/m2 of of extra downwelling radiation, considering all the feedbacks. Think about a 4W incandescent light bulb warming a square meter of the surface. It’s not something you would immediately notice on your skin, especially when standing in direct sunlight. However, adding this up over a long time, it amounts to a great deal of extra heat in the climate system.


    Even without increased CO2, the atmosphere is always radiating down on us. If you were standing outside at night and the atmosphere stopped radiating down on you, you would feel a lot colder!

    “Greenhouse warming theory also assumes that the heated air radiates energy back to Earth’s surface, and that this return flow of heat energy warms Earth. The problem with this is that the [lower atmosphere is] colder than Earth’s surface. Heat cannot physically flow from cold to hot. You do not stand next to a cold stove to get warm.”

    Heat “flows” in a few different ways, but heat is radiated in all directions. In a way, he is correct that the net “flow” of heat is always from warm to cold, but the downward radiation from the atmosphere slows this net cooling of the planet considerably. This downward radiation is actually really important, it is a key reason why Earth is not a lifeless ball of ice. He is obviously confused about how global warming works, because no one is proposing that there is a net gain of heat from downward radiation. Instead, the idea is that the net loss of heat from the surface is slowed by CO2, which naturally results in a net warming.

    ( less radiation output ) + ( same radiation input ) = ( more internal energy )

    There are more examples of Dr. Ward confusing simple facts about the physics of the atmosphere. Hopefully you can see just how wrong he is about the science of global warming.

    There are also many issues with his ideas about warming from ozone, but I don’t really want to dwell on them. One of the big ones is that he claims ozone loss can explain polar amplification, since ozone depletion is strongest at the poles. Polar amplification is expected to occur most strongly at the north pole, due to the vast areas of sea ice. However, the most destruction of ozone occurs at the south pole, because of the type of polar stratospheric clouds that form there. To add insult to injury, the south pole has seen less warming in observations than the north!

    So in summary, his theory is garbage. Hopefully this can help steer people away from his ideas.

  24. The first one is clearly not which is what I asked for

    "I have now completed experiments showing that air with more than 23-times normal concentrations of carbon dioxide is heated no more than 0.2 degrees more than normal air when exposed to the same infrared radiation. Air with more than 10-times normal concentrations of carbon dioxide covered Earth 400 million years ago when ice ages were common."

    Where does he prove this in a peer reviewed manner? The guy doesn't even understand the area he is researching (as noted above), his peer reviewed papers in other areas are irrelevant.
  25. The gentleman is an expert in this area. I would urge you to read all of his information and citations that are relevant to your interests. I provided the link that has the information, the rest is up to you.

  26. In summary some "climate change" advocacy organization disagrees with his theory but can provide little evidence to dispute it.
  27. The evidence was provided in details, it just went over your head.

    Again, where is the peer reviewed paper of this Ward guy's experiments?
  28. The guy is a fake as proven above, expertise in one area doesn't translate to another area just because one wants to. Your link has no peer reviewed papers by him on AGW.
  29. Are you blind or just willfully ignorant?

    From the webpage link ...

    Sulfur dioxide initiates global climate change in four ways: Thin Solid Films, v. 517, no. 11, p. 3188-3203, doi:10.1016/j.tsf.2009.01.005.

    Ozone depletion explains global warming Current Physical Chemistry, v. 6, no. 4, p. 275-296.

    The physics of global warming (in review)
  30. Again, I asked for the peer reviewed papers for the 'experiments' quoted in TheHill article, his expertise on ozones isn't the problem, his AGW predictions are.
  31. 1. CO2... is also a coolant. It also reflects the sun energy back into space.


    2. CO2 levels trail ocean warming and cooling... peer reviewed


    3. The oceans have been heating up since the last ice age.

    4. We don't know that man made co2 is actually increasing the amount of co2 that would be in our atmosphere being that we have co2 sinks like the ocean and we could off gas it. In short... its not a closed system.

    5. Long term temperature records are spotty. You can't really compare current instrument data with the proxy temps. the proxy data could be set a little cooler than it really was.

    6. Given the raw temperature data there is not proof we have been warming outside statistical norms.

    7. There is no peer reviewed science stating man made co2 is causing warming outside of failed computer models.

    So, we don't know if man made co2 is causing warming.

  32. "So, we don't know if man made co2 is causing warming."

    LOL....again....still....you persist with this absurd statement.

    Wrong. You are a fucking liar.

  33. The best you can do is post a link to a website maintained by graduate students at the California Institute of Technology as your evidence to refute "we don't know if man made co2 is causing warming." Guess, as always, you have no scientific facts or data to dispute this statement.

    Of course, you probably have posted your meaningless link over 300 times now.
  34. Yes the best I can do is show what all of the world's science says and refute jerm's absurd statements.

    Those science orgs actually said those things. Do you dispute that or do you only put up red herrings? is that the best you can do?

    Are you working for a think tank also? You seem to have no interest in truth.
  35. [​IMG]
  36. could you tell us where in the scientific method "consensus" is monitored?

    when I go over the school projects with my kids... they never include consensus in their experiments.

    When i look at the projects at the science fair... I have never seen one of the steps being - arrive at a consensus.

    has science changed... I thought all the science types honored galileo for challenging the consensus with science.

    so given those groups represent thousands of scientists... could you find one scientist on those groups who states that one form of scientific proof or scientific evidence is "consensus".


  37. I suggest that you explore this site. It also speaks to the science. But you have no interest in it because you are a deranged liar.

  38. Ok can I hazard another angle on this to to see if both sides might find common ground in one area?

    Regardless climate change, is using oil and other fossils like we are now a good idea?

    I read that about 70% of oil is used a fuel, 30% for making most chemicals & paints, plastics, fertiliser (nudge nudge) and the list is very long. 10 to 15 calories of fossil fuel energy are used to create 1 calorie of food.

    As traders there must be some appreciation that oil/gas & coal are a VASTLY undervalued asset. The illusion that oil for example is cheap is a fantasy of epic proportions.

    As traders we might also consider say, how much of the US's defense budget is and has been spent on protecting oil supplies?

    How accurate is this statement from an article in 2010? I have not done the numbers but you get the gist:
    "According to estimates, we spend nearly half of our entire $685 billion defense budget protecting and ensuring the free flow of the approximately 730 million barrels of oil that we import annually from the Persian Gulf.

    And given the realities created by such terrifically large numbers, this means we spend an additional $469.00 on each of these units in order to bring them safely to market.

    So while we can all now happily fill up at a mere $2.70 per gallon, the actual price of that gas is much higher, once you figure in the cost of the defense dollars necessary to bring it all to market."

    We will be on the planet for a bit but we are using finite resources like there is no tomorrow, literally. Our population is growing exponentially and people keep looking at their shoes as if that is going to magically not screw us very soon. Technology might save our ass but..

    A conservative in the true sense should do the math. Any conservative who does will realise that there are stupendously compelling reasons to put huge effort into going past burning fossils for heat. Even if there is no climate issue, it is an essential thing to do anyway.
  39. That's why it is important for everyone to drive a Tesla- because when you plug it in it recharges with electricity that is generated by the electrical outlet somewhere there at the end of cord you plugged in. It does not use any oil, coal, nuclear or other undesireable sources. Astute viewers will see that I have told a joke.

    The future is in hydrogen. Note that I said future, which does not mean the end of next week. I am well aware that the energy required to produce exceeds the energy gained but I also see advances on that with increasing frequency.
  40. Venus is hotter than Mercury even though Mercury is closer to the sun. Why? Because Venus has an atmosphere with a high concentration of CO2.

    There is almost no controversy about the equation I gave above. The only debate is the value of λ.

    If you think that there is even the slightest possibility that this equation is wrong you can try this simple experiment.Take 2 plastic bottles and fill them 30% with water. Put an alkaseltzer tablet in one to generate carbon dioxide. Put the bottles equidistant to a heat source such as a light bulb. Measure the water temperature after an hour or so. Add a second alkaseltzer and see what difference it makes. The difference in temperature should be roughly as predicted by the equations above. If not either you are doing the experiment wrong or you are on your way to a Nobel prize...
  41. Temporary changes in Earth's climate are caused by sunspot activity/solar flares and precession. The Earth is in a long term cooldown with temporary ups and downs much the way markets trend on long term charts but short term trade back and forth and have short term trends. Anyone who doesn't understand this is a fool of the first division and is part of a growing problem.
  42. You are the Dunning-Kruger effect personified my man. :) Maybe it is a dietary issue.

  43. Fool number 1 has arrived. Who else wants to come forward?
  44. This would have to be classified as a posting by Fool number 2. --This progressive compares a planet with no atmosphere against a planet with an extremely dense atmosphere shrouded by sulfuric acid clouds. --The left and progressives have nothing-----I mean absolutely nothing.
  45. From what I can tell, the only rational explanation left for the warming of the earth and therefore the rise in sea levels, is the burning of fossil fuels. It is not the amount of energy reaching the earth, it is the amount of energy being trapped by the earth. The earth has become the ultimate roach motel: Energy can come in. But it can't get out.

    This short article debunks most of the usual exogenous explanations given by deniers:

    "Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a cooling trend. However global temperatures continue to increase. If the sun's energy is decreasing while the Earth is warming, then the sun can't be the main control of the temperature.

    Figure 1 shows the trend in global temperature compared to changes in the amount of solar energy that hits the Earth. The sun's energy fluctuates on a cycle that's about 11 years long. The energy changes by about 0.1% on each cycle. If the Earth's temperature was controlled mainly by the sun, then it should have cooled between 2000 and 2008.

    Figure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASAGISS. AnnualTotal Solar Irradiance(thin light blue) with 11 year moving average ofTSI(thick dark blue).TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007.TSIfrom 1979 to 2015 from the World Radiation Center (see their PMOD index page for data updates). Plots of the most recent solar irradiance can be found at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics LISIRD site.

    The solar fluctuations since 1870 have contributed a maximum of 0.1 °C to temperature changes. In recent times the biggest solar fluctuation happened around 1960. But the fastest global warming started in 1980.

    Figure 2 shows how much different factors have contributed recent warming. It compares the contributions from the sun, volcanoes, El Niño and greenhouse gases. The sun adds 0.02 to 0.1 °C. Volcanoes cool the Earth by 0.1-0.2 °C. Natural variability (like El Niño)heats or cools by about 0.1-0.2 °C.Greenhouse gases have heated the climate by over 0.8 °C.

    Figure 2 Global surface temperature anomalies from 1870 to 2010, and the natural (solar, volcanic, and internal) and anthropogenic factors that influence them. (a)Global surface temperature record (1870–2010) relative to the average global surface temperature for 1961–1990 (black line). A model of global surface temperature change (a: red line) produced using the sum of the impacts on temperature of natural (b, c, d) and anthropogenic factors (e). (b) Estimated temperature response to solar forcing. (c) Estimated temperature response to volcanic eruptions. (d) Estimated temperature variability due to internal variability, here related to theEl Niño-Southern Oscillation. (e) Estimated temperature response to anthropogenic forcing, consisting of a warming component from greenhouse gases, and a cooling component from most aerosols. (IPCC AR5, Chap 5)

    Some people try to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures by cherry picking the data. They only show data from periods when sun and climate data track together. They draw a false conclusion by ignoring the last few decades when the data shows the opposite result.

    Basic rebuttal written by Larry M, updated by Sarah

  46. Classic cherry picking of short term (data?) -within a planet life of 4.6 billion years so far. Fool number 3 has arrived.
  47. The agw argument may be wrong because of data we have not seen and recorded may contradict the models.

    But your argument is falsified by data starring you in the face!
  48. One unmistakable sign of agw is the signature of the way the upper atmosphere is warming. "The" atmosphere is composed of several "layers". The statistical signature of the way the atmosphere warms is a key fingerprint, of what the cause for the warming is.

    This short lecture explains it nicely:

  49. If someone farts, a really really vegany smelly fart and wafts it about in your car saying "woo wee, that a wet-un" with their hand, I'm sure you will not react.

    Considering the whole lifespan of the car, it is nothing :)

    DK-1 is you new fragrance.
  50. Wrong. Venus has an incredibly thick atmosphere and traps the heat from the Sun.

    The atmosphere traps the heat. No atmosphere....No heat...
  51. I am a conservative who believes in conserving the environment.
    In the past I volunteered my professional time to clean bay and ocean groups.

    I agree with your statement here... entirely. Very strong point.
    For the market to efficiently distribute resources and for price to be a good signal the price should include all the costs. Many times I have argued nuclear is improperly priced because we have not figured out how to store nuclear waste properly.

  52. 1.You missed a very large contributor... underwater vents and volcanoes.

    the oceans have been warming since the last ice age.
    change in oceans temps lead change in atmosphere co2.

    Ocean warming can be caused by sun and underwater vents and volcanoes.

    In fact the vents and volcanoes are melting ice at the poles as we speak and warming the Indian Ocean right now. Which is where most of the warming in the ocean and therefore on earth is located.

    2. There have been numerous recent peer reviewed studies...that have shown the sun and the tides do lead and therefore seem to drive temperature.

    WeTodd has been presenting them almost monthly here.
    Do a search.

  53. And I will add that there are many other reasons to move away from oil & coal beyond "climate change". Oil imports have a relationship with geo-dependence on unfriendly regimes (e.g. Venezuela). Oil, natural gas, and coal are very dirty fuels in terms of extraction pollution. Coal causes significant hard particle pollution when used (even with scrubbers).

    There are host of reasons to move towards green energy such as solar and wind over oil, natural gas, and coal. Supporters of green energy should focus on these issues which are obvious rather than "climate change" when directing the discussion about "going green". Building their focus points around "climate change" is a path that hinders the adoption of green energy and leads to resistance from nearly half the population.
  54. 1. your video... assumed earth is a closed system. As I said before we have co2 sinks and the ability to off gas Co2. So we could find man made co2 in the atmosphere... but it could have just displaced naturally occurring co2.

    CO2 levels trail changes in ocean temps.

    2. we know that co2 in the upper atmosphere acts as a thermostat according to NASA.
    It prevents some of the suns warming energy from getting to the earth...
    I just linked to that recent proof a few pages ago.
    Your video did not seem to take that into account.

  55. [​IMG]
  56. Not knowing the difference between weather and climate -- eye roll

  58. As there was many times in the past...

  59. I have no idea why you people continually carry water for the polluters out there.
  60. We don't know why you so firmly believe in fiction - climate change, the easter bunny, santa claus, and the tooth fairy.
  61. Two part question:

    1. Can you post a link to all the known underwater vents and volcanoes around the earth, and what your model predicts that these agents contribute to the seen global mean temperature rise?
    2. Another clarification. Are you saying that the seas are warming as a result of underwater volcanic and underwater vents? Or are you saying the atmosphere is due to these effects?
  62. If the general consensus among scientists say GW is real, then GW is real until proven otherwise. Science is not a jewish conspiracy.
  63. Actually the consensus among most scientists is that there is insufficient evidence that man contributes CO2 to cause global warming that is dangerous. In fact all the raw data and measured evidence supports the assertion that there is no proof of dangerous global warming (AGW) caused by man.

  64. Good chance that they are on the payroll of a think tank. There's really no other good reason to lie as they do.

    Or it could be that their egos are so fragile that they cannot admit being wrong. Stubbornly stupid.
  65. The post that there are lots of hurricanes is not necessarily predicted by climate science. What it does predict is the intensity of them, and the amount of rain they are able to carry.

  66. And that is a fucking lie, you fucking liar. Can't call it ignorance anymore. You are just baldfaced lying. You lying sack of shit.

  67. Good chance you and others are merely skeptical science "crusher crew" members working "drown out" the opposition while posting a continuous stream of nonsense as dictated by your collaborators.
  68. I have been following this for years. Stories come out every few months about science finding new ones.

    here is one of many...

    try google...


    Now, a new study finds that these subglacial volcanoes and other geothermal "hotspots" are contributing to the melting of Thwaites Glacier, a major river of ice that flows into Antarctica's Pine Island Bay. Areas of the glacier that sit near geologic features thought to be volcanic are melting faster than regions farther away from hotspots, said Dustin Schroeder, the study's lead author and a geophysicist at the University of Texas at Austin.


  69. Yes that is how many time you have lied about this you fucking piece of shit liar.
  70. JAWS

    regarding heating from vents.

    1. plenty of studies show that ocean tides have a lot to do with earth temps.
    2. scientists are just now developing models on how oceans exchange heat through the tides.
    and they are not sure how much the vents and volcanoes impact the temps.

    but.. there are articles I have read which state that the Indian ocean has significantly more warming vents and volcanoes than were expected.

    here is one story for background...
    again google helps... so would a search of this site.


    "A normal hydrothermal vent might produce something like 500 megawatts, while this is producing 100,000 megawatts. It's like an atom bomb down there."

  71. It's not volcanoes you fucking liar.

  72. and if you examine the data in your chart... you see the change in ocean temps precedes the change in atmopheric co2.

    you are also grafting instrument data onto proxies. Proxies are good for comparisons...not exact temperatures.

    Does a tree ring or ice core give you an exact temp.
    Here is a hint... recent tree ring data says we are cooler than the thermometers...
    so your side no claims tree rings recently stopped working.

    the peer reviewed studies we have show the sun and the tides in the ocean contribute to some or all the warming.

    What causes the ocean to warm? Logically it would be the sun and vents and volcanoes because our ocean has been warming since the last ice age. Man made co2 would not be doing that.

    warming the ocean drives the gas out of it.

    its really funny watching futurecurrents get triggered by science.
    its science fc not politics.

    you fight science with science.

  73. Sadly, Libs and Progs are arrogant enough to think that they could affect climate change. That's really the larger point here. ----Even if CO2 were causing global warming, there is absolutely nothing that humans could do about it to change it. The Earth goes through temporary cycles of warmth and cool and this is natural. --Libs and Progs are wasting their time and ours bothering with it.

  74. Yeah, sure.
  75. With the best will in the world futurecurrents, it is clear that you care but there is no getting through to these guys, they lack so much and don't even know it.

    It is what we used to see as an IRA/Sinn-Fein mindset in the South of Ireland. Observing terrorist supporter's mindsets growing up I learned a bit. I had several kids in my class at school who came from serious IRA/Sinn-Fein households.

    Talk until your blue in the face, get them to see another side and as soon as they went home to their families they were reset and back to scratch in school the next morning. Cult followers reprogramming themselves, you could see it in their face even as they walked away.

    The Cranberries wrote that song Zombie about it.

    Of course one will now say, back at you buddy as a knee-jerk response to me saying this but zombies do what they do.

    Informative items giving the rational portion of the site some heads up is great stuff, whatever is going on in their minds, climate change is just a proxy for something else.
  76. From an article at counterpunch.org.

    "Ruinous flooding of Houston in 1929 and 1935 compelled the Corps of Engineers to build the Addicks and Barker Dams. The dams combined with a massive network of channels—extending today to over 2,000 miles—to carry water off the land, and allowed Houston, which has famously eschewed zoning, to boom during the postwar era.

    The same story unfolded in South Florida. A 1947 hurricane caused the worst coastal flooding in a generation and precipitated federal intervention in the form of the Central and Southern Florida Project. Again, the Corps of Engineers set to work transforming the land. Eventually a system of canals that if laid end to end would extend all the way from New York City to Las Vegas crisscrossed the southern part of the peninsula."

    pics from the '47 archives in south florida:



    It's happened before. It's not global warming malarky.

    ...and there's this from businessinsider.com:

    Florida Keys hurricane, 1935 - 185 mph


    An unnamed storm that tore up the Florida Keys over Labor Day in 1935 is still considered one of the "most intense" storm in US history, based on wind speeds and pressure. The wind was so powerful it knocked a train, pictured here, off the rails as it was delivering emergency supplies.

  77. I am going to be laughing in about 40 years when the world is dealing with natural global cooling and AGW has been debunked as the greatest scientific fraud in recent memory with Al Gore regularly mocked by comedians on late night media.
  78. From Reddit:
    "Hi, my name is Negator and im addicted to talking to flattards.

    I think it's a sort of morbid curiosity we have about intellectual failure, and the weird thing is sometimes you can relate to the flat earthers. A healthy way to be involved with this is to use it as a chance to learn about the scientific method and learn how to cross-examine other people's data and do your own experiments and account for measurement error and uncontrolled variables.

    Personally I'd advise against prolonged exposure to any adamant flat earthers in real life, I had an experience living with a (possibly bipolar) old Christian lady (not a flat earther but equally ignorant of electrical power yet quite vocal on how to conserve it*) who often waited on the couch for me to get home to yell at me about insignificant mistakes I made. I tried to use science to show her she was deluded, only made things worse. You have to be tough skinned if you want to be scientific.
    • reply1
      Same here, its like watching something horrific while knowing that you should be looking away.
      • reply2
        It's scary when they say they have kids because you know they're going to be useless to them education-wise."
    Man made climate change deniers, the same zombie "flattard" mindest. These flat-earthers are obviously completely and utterly fucking stupid to even the climate change deniers here.

    Problem is the climate change deniers are the same looney bunch of patchy logic morons to us. FHL et all is what happens when your in the valley between actual useful knowledge and not a clue.

    *I met the same women in New Mexico I recon. On unplugging an appliance a plastic plug had to be inserted to stem the wasteful flow of electricity from the sockets.
  79. Yeah Start, the psychology of these denier cultists is interesting and vexing.

    I play golf with a denier. When I ask him why, he says "I just don't believe it" When I ask why he says "I just don't". There is no logic. It is just the stance he has taken and nothing will change his mind.

    It's like those that have religious "faith". They need no logic for it and no logic will change their minds.
  80. Actually jem and others have presented significant scientific evidence that man-made CO2 is not globally warming the earth to levels that are dangerous. All supported by leaders of climate departments at major universities such as Dr. Judith Curry.

    The climate change cabal is a religion; they have faith that AGW exists but limited scientific evidence based on realistic non-altered data.

  81. Curry is in the consensus. Try again.

    Beyond the 97% consensus, no respected publishing climate scientist in the world denies man made global warming. None.
  82. Yeah... let's take a look at Dr. Curry's most recent congressional testimony.

    On the Falsity of Climate Consensus: Judith Curry’s March 29, 2017, Testimony

    “Groupthink” … “sausage making” … “bullying” … “substantial uncertainties” … “premature consensus” … These terms were used by the scholarly Judith Curry in her important, the-future-will-note Congressional testimony last week against the neo-Malthusian, nature-is-optimal natural-science community.

    And what has she endured by leaving the “consensus”? Among other things, she has been labeled “serial climate disinformer” … “anti-science” … “denier.” It happened with Julian Simon regarding resource exhaustion and the ‘population bomb’ in the 1970s and 1980s; and it is repeated by the same crowd (with new faces) in the current era against skeptics of climate alarm.

    The panel experience was “bizarre,” according to Curry, who began her column: “where the so-called ‘deniers’ behave like scientists [Curry, John Christy, and Roger Pielke Jr.] and the defender of the establishment consensus [Michael Mann] lies.”

    The panel was another blow against ‘consensus science”. It was not so much the three-to-one advantage (welcome to the new politics!) as it was the performance of Michael Mann, whose emotionalism and lack of veracity were on full display. Surely at least some of the membership of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) took note of their bad apple.

    Will new voices in the physical science mainstream emerge in the new political climate to say, enough is enough? Can critics of high-sensitivity climate modeling (or modeling climate at all given the present state of theory) be given jobs or promotions in academia? Or has crony science taken over the profession?

    Will Michael Mann further self-destruct? Will he become a liability to The Cause like Al Gore? Might Mann’s ego be big enough to step on the stage against Alex Epstein?

    Here is the entirety of Judith Curry’s written comments, part of her submitted testimony as part of House Committee on Science, Space, & Technology hearing: Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method. It says much in its 620 words.

    Prior to 2010, I felt that supporting the IPCC consensus on human-caused climate change was the responsible thing to do. That all changed for me in November 2009, following the leaked Climategate emails, that illustrated the sausage making and even bullying that went into building the consensus.

    I came to the growing realization that I had fallen into the trap of groupthink in supporting the IPCC consensus. I began making an independent assessment of topics in climate science that had the most relevance to policy. I concluded that the high confidence of the IPCC’s conclusions was not justified, and that there were substantial uncertainties in our understanding of how the climate system works.

    I realized that the premature consensus on human-caused climate change was harming scientific progress because of the questions that don’t get asked and the investigations that aren’t made. We therefore lack the kinds of information to more broadly understand climate variability and societal vulnerabilities.

    As a result of my analyses that challenge the IPCC consensus, I have been publicly called a serial climate disinformer, anti-science, and a denier by a prominent climate scientist. I’ve been publicly called a denier by a U.S. Senator. My motives have been questioned by a U.S. Congressman in a letter sent to the President of Georgia Tech.

    While there is much noise in the media and blogosphere and professional advocacy groups, I am mostly concerned about the behavior of other scientists. A scientist’s job is to continually challenge their own biases and ask “How could I be wrong?” Scientists who demonize their opponents are behaving in a way that is antithetical to the scientific process. These are the tactics of enforcing a premature theory for political purposes.

    There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus. This pressure comes from federal funding agencies, universities and professional societies, and scientists themselves. Reinforcing this consensus are strong monetary, reputational, and authority interests. Owing to these pressures and the gutter tactics of the academic debate on climate change, I recently resigned my tenured faculty position at Georgia Tech.

    The pathology of both the public and scientific debates on climate change motivated me to research writings on the philosophy and sociology of science, argumentation from the legal perspective, the policy process and decision making under deep uncertainty. My analysis of the problems in climate science from these broader perspectives have been written in a series of posts at my blog Climate Etc. and also in 4 published journal articles. My reflections on these issues are summarized in my written testimony.

    The complexity of the climate change problem provides much scope for disagreement among reasonable and intelligent people. Why do scientists disagree about the causes of climate change? The historical data is sparse and inadequate. There’s disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence, notably the value of global climate models and paleoclimate reconstructions. There’s disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence. And scientists disagree over assessments of areas of ambiguity and ignorance.

    Policymakers bear the responsibility of the mandate that they give to panels of scientific experts. In the case of climate change, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change framed the problem too narrowly. This narrow framing of the climate change problem essentially pre-ordained the conclusions from the IPCC assessment process.

    There are much better ways to assess science for policy makers than a consensus-seeking process that serves to stifle disagreement and debate. Expert panels with diverse perspectives should handle controversies and uncertainties by assessing what we know, what we don’t know, and where the major areas of disagreement and uncertainties lie.

    Let’s make scientific debate about climate change great again.

    This concludes my testimony.

  83. [​IMG]
  84. I presented you science... and this was your response.
    in psychology they call what you do projection.

    How the hell could you be so purposely ignorant of the science and then call those presenting peer reviewed science those names.

    If you really understood the science you would say... well we are not sure but it seems co2 may augment natural warming we are just waiting for the science to prove it.

    but no, after your propaganda is destroyed by science you go with leftist detritus.

    You just exhibited a tremendous lack of intellectual integrity.

  85. More co2 and less landfall hurricanes.

    Resist the globull warming scam.

  86. Carbon dioxide captures heat. If the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing then the temperature will go up.

    Can someone please give me an executive summary of where the controversy lies? Just in a couple of sentences.

  87. Maybe you wizards of science can explain how taxing me will prevent China, India, and Russia from polluting. Perhaps you can enlighten us that after all we have done to clean up our own environmental mess, the USA is still asked to do more while the rest of the major polluters do next to nothing. And when you're done with that, then you can explain all the MANY climate shifts that happened before a smokestack ever darkened the sky.
  88. I don't believe anyone is saying that CO2 is the ONLY factor influencing the climate. There is the sunspot cycle, the amount of sulphur in the atmosphere, volcanos, El Nino and so forth. I also would agree that there is massive hypocrisy in the environmental movement. However this does not alter the fact that greenhouse gases are causing climate change, and ultimately could fry us all.
  90. Now almost 50-years of global hurricane data. No trends in frequency in number of named storms or those that reach hurricane-force

  91. Change in Ocean temps leads change in surface temps by 3 months which leads change in co2 levels by 9 months.

    peer reviewed.

    so now you have a good idea why there is no peer reviewed science stating man made co2 is causing the warming. co2 levels trail ocean warming.



  92. Just as a matter of interest how did you get the actual paper? I only read the abstract.

    It has been critiqued on the following grounds:
    •These conclusions stem from methodological errors and from not recognizing the impact of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation on inter-annual variations in atmospheric CO2.
    •The conclusion of natural CO2 rise since 1980 not supported by the data
    •Their use of differentiated time series removes long term contributions.
    •This conclusion violates conservation of mass.
    •Further analysis shows that the natural contribution is indistinguishable from zero.
    •The calculated human contribution is sufficient to explain the entire rise.
  93. The full paper has been available for free if you click around you might find it.
    I have probably linked to it here in the past. I read it.

    1. conservation of mass is an amateur argument.
    the earth absorbs co2, and there are articles showing it also off gases co2. We are far from a closed system.

    2. The use of the differentiated time series is designed to show longer trends and eliminate the shorter term influence of seasonality.

    Its well designed to pick up long term trends. Any seasoned trader knows that technique. The author of that critique obviously was throwing out buzzword without any comprehension.

    3. CO2 has risen per data from mona loa.... Not sure how you could conclude natural co2 has not risen unless you disregard there are natural sinks and off gassing. I can show you charts showing the rise in co2 corresponds most closely with natural emissions and the human contribution does not.

    here is more for your edification... we really don't have proof...


    As a first step, if we do simple correlations between the atmospheric CO2 variations with the other variables we find the highest correlation between temperature and CO2, and a little lower correlation with anthropogenic emissions:

    Correlations with Yearly Atmospheric CO2 increases (1959-2012)
    T_ocean : 0.70
    T_land: 0.71
    Fossil Fuels: 0.67
    Ocean sink: 0.63
    Land Use: -0.36

    The fact that temperature has a higher correlation with yearly CO2 changes than does the anthropogenic source shows just how strongly the temperature variability affects atmospheric CO2 content.7
    But correlating data with substantial trends in the data can be deceiving. Strictly speaking, all linear trends are perfectly correlated with each other, even those which have no causal relationship whatsoever between them.

    So, we can detrend all of the data, and see what information is contained in the departures from the linear trends. This reduces the correlations substantially, since the variability associated with the trends has been removed:

    Correlations with Yearly Atmospheric CO2 variations (1959-2012, detrended)
    T_ocean : 0.35
    T_land: 0.34
    Fossil Fuels: 0.13
    Ocean sink: 0.01
    Land Use: 0.00

    We see that the correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature remains the strongest, but the fossil fuel signal is very small, possibly because the detrended variations in anthropogenic emissions are quite small, and so subject to greater errors.

    more at link...
  94. The Weather Channel describes some benefits of hurricanes.

    Drought buster

    Hurricanes can bring much needed moisture to drought stricken areas, replenishing lakes, rivers and reservoirs. Sure, there can be too much of a good thing. Mother Nature didn’t mandate that the Houston and South Florida be paved over. Roads, parking lots, buildings, all covering the landscape, preventing water sinking into the ground.


    Hurricanes oxygenate the surface waters, breaking up bacteria and the red tide common along the Gulf Coast.

    Heat balance

    Hurricanes, due to their size and extension into the atmosphere are an efficient means of dissipating equatorial ocean heat. As warm water is sucked into the hurricane, cooler water from ocean depths replaces the warm water, balancing the temperature, leaving cooler water in its wake. This may weaken subsequent storms, as evidenced by Hurricane Jose, on the heels of Irma, petering out and not reaching US mainland. Without this heat balance, the poles would get colder and the tropics hotter. Hurricanes maintain the balance.

    Island rejuvenation

    Hurricanes, by sucking up sand and nutrients from the ocean floor, pushing this toward the barrier islands, builds them up, preventing natural erosion which would eventually cause these islands to sink into the ocean.

    Johnny Appleseed

    Hurricane winds carry seeds and spores hundreds of miles inland, far from where they normally fall. Strong winds remove weak or damaged trees and branches, much as forest fires do, a form of a haircut for plant life.
  95. upload_2017-9-16_6-58-6.jpeg
  96. Its not clear how one can distinguish between natural and anthropogenic emissions. Animal agriculture, deforestation, desertification are all contributing to rising CO2 and are caused by humans. There is almost no part of the globe that is not affected by human activities. Fossil fuels are a relatively small component.

    The website you link to questions the level of climate sensitivity. This is exactly the point I made earlier in this thread. The debate is all about λ not the actual equation itself. The basic science is not in question.
  97. We don't need to question the basic science to question whether man made co2 causes warming.
    CO2 can warm... CO2 also cool per NASA.



    The question is does adding man made co2 cause warming.
    we don't know... inter alia...

    a. atmospheric co2 levels follow change in ocean temps. So the excess that added by man might be off gassed or absorbed

    b. As you add more co2 to the atmosphere is loses its impact as a blanket logarithmically.
    So at some point adding co2 and its start moving up in the atmosphere it may start acting as more of a shield than a blanket.

    Finally I agree man could be causing warming.
    Either by agriculture and bunching up in cities and eating meat or by changin the instrument readings. There is also a slight chance adding co2 might cause a very small amount of warming. I suspect sun the tides and the earth itself do most of the warming and cooling. CO2 is probably part of a feedback system.

  98. If CO2 is a coolant then I would have to agree that anthropogenic global warming makes no sense. And, as you say, that article in NASA does say exactly that.

    The best way to determine this is to do the experiment I suggested earlier in the thread with plastic bottles. I have to confess that I've never bothered to do it, but I will try it right now. Maybe you can do the same for independent verification.
  99. How are you measuring the amount of CO2 in your bottle- to make sure you get roughly 400 parts /million only ? (0.04%)
  100. What are you expecting a deeply flawed nonscientific experiment to prove?
  101. At the following, you can find a well documented similar experiment.


  102. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You still seem to not understand what that means.

    Or you do and you are just a deranged fucking POS liar.

    I'm going with the latter.
  103. @jem @yabz this article does a good job at explaining CO2's role at different levels in the atmosphere. The article jem posted was about CO2 in the thermosphere, not the troposphere. The important takeaway is that CO2's properties have different affects on the atmosphere at different altitudes.

  104. jerm knows that. He is not interested in the truth. No reason to be respectful of him. He's a fucking liar. The kind that defended big tobacco. The kind that will cost this earth dearly.
  105. I will have to order 2 thermometers. Once the experiment is set up I will report back on this thread, if anyone is interested.

    It would be great if others would try this experiment or devise a better one if possible....
  106. It's completely transparent to visible light but also a poor infrared absorber. It has only one active IR absorbing vibrational mode, an asymmetric stretch. The symmetric stretch is IR inactive. And of course it is only present in trace amounts. When its ppm is reported it is always for dry air air that has had all of the water vapor absorbed out of it. It's ppm concentration in natural air is less of course, much less in the case of moist air.

    All in all , it is an extremely ineffective greenhouse gas because of low concentration combined with weak IR absorbtion properties. Water vapor is an even worse IR absorber for the wavelengths emitted from the Earth's surface than CO2, it does absorb fairly strongly in the near IR region however. Neither Water vapor nor CO2 is a good greenhouse gas. There is usually so much more water vapor than CO2 in the atmosphere, however, that water vapor is the most important green house gas. If you go out in the desert late at night under a cloudless sky you'll note it is surprisingly cold even though the daytime temperature may have been over 100 deg F. That's because there is low humidity and CO2 is such a poor green house gas.If there was low hanging cloud cover you'd be much warmer.

    The greenhouse affect has been way overplayed in the media as though it were the only phenomenon moderating temperature on the Earth's surface. Water is far and away the most important moderator of temperature swings. That's because water is effective in all three physical phases -- liquid, solid and gas, and there is so much of it. It is extremely effective as the aerosol that we call clouds.

    Hansen had to incorporate positive feedback in every one of his models, because if he didn't, even if he doubled the CO2 concentration, CO2's effect on temperature was negligible. Fortunately for us, the atmospheres response to rising temperature incorporates negative, not positive, feedback, and that, and many other reasons, are why all Hansen's early predictions of catastrophic warming by the early twenty second century were way off the mark. (Had positive feedback been operative for very long, none of us would be here of course; the Earth by now would be unbearably hot. This simple, but obvious, fact seemed to have eluded Hansen. Of course if at some point in our recent history we reached a tipping point from negative to positive feedback we could be in terrible trouble. )

    Hansen's hypothesis is that man was contributing enough CO2 to the atmosphere to cause significant warming, and perhaps even catastrophic warming. The hypothesis has taken on changing popular names; first Anthropomorphic Global Warming or AGW, then Global Warming, and now Climate Change. Despite what we hear in the popular media, there is no consensus, none whatsoever, on the Hansen Hypothesis itself, i.e., whether man, through CO2 emission, is adversely affecting climate. An issue of the 2014 Bulletin of the American Meteorology Society has statistics from a poll of both meteorologists and atmospheric physicists working and publishing in the area of 'Climate Change'. Opinions are all over the map. look it up. It's interesting.
  107. Oversimplification is very problematic Piezoe.

    I get what your saying I think though dry vs wet air, vibrational mode & asymmetric stretch... sounds good however..



    So the PPM change is not a great as someone who has not got figures reading your post would imagine.

    The atmospheric "greenhouse" effect is really a series of absorption-emission processes rather than just heat trapping as a real greenhouse does. One could explain how EM frequencies change as photons strike materials of different temperatures and a score more things but...

    I'm bored writing this, there is little point going on as the right wing boys reading this are just seeking gotchas so they can be 'right'.They are only taking contrarian positions as they perceive this as a 'lefty' holy to piss on. It is just teams.

    One might as well talk to the cat about the economics & epidemiology of free range vs farmed chicken. :)

    When I was a kid it was all about acid rain in Europe. That was easy enough for the common man to grasp and huge changes were made for the better of everyone. Make the cause and effect a little more abstract...

    Interesting article on which 'wins', water vapor or CO2.


    Here is a great simple experiment I was showing my 11 year old nephew. The number of ways it can be misinterpreted in respect to CC is boggling. Pop science explanations like in the video are a double-edged sword, he uses the word "absorbed" for example. However one can see that pure CO2 is strongly opaque in heat wavelengths. The rabbit hole after that..

    Our exponentially growing population is perilously dependent of 20th century temperatures. Disregarding the millions of species being wiped out by us (oceanic acidification.. the evil twin) our ability to adapt lessens as the population grows.
  108. I apologize for such a wordy response. You won't hurt my feelings if you skip much of it.

    There are a couple things I could have better stated. One is that how good a particular gas is as a 'green house' gas depends on two things: 1. its absorptivity at the wavelengths of emr emitted by the Earth's surface; 2. its concentration.

    So I should not have said, "Neither Water vapor nor CO2 is a good greenhouse gas." This is technically, if not incorrect, is at least misleading. CO2 is a weak green house gas and water is a somewhat more effective green house gas because of its concentration. Most of the gases in the atmosphere have no green house properties. A gases like methane and 'freons' have move IR active vibrational modes than either water or CO2 and are therefore potentially much better green house gases, but fortunately there is only trace amounts of either in the atmosphere, as your nice table shows.

    I really like that kool video though it doesn't do much to explain the green house effect. It beautifully demonstrates that CO2 can absorb infra red, so the signal to his infrared camera goes away. (If he'd have used a camera sensitive to visible light only of course you wouldn't have seen anything because CO2 doesn't absorb in the visible.) Of course what's misleading here is that you get the impression CO2 is a strong absorber of IR, when actually it is a relatively weak absorber! Had he just let air into the tube you'd see no absorbance using his set-up, even though there would then be over 200 ppm CO2 in the tube. You could see the absorbance just fine of course with a regular IR gas spectrometer. But in this
    case he's hooked his evacuated cylinder to a tank containing pure CO2 at about 2700-3200 psi. We are now on a planet far different than Earth. But anyway its a cool demonstration, even if a little misleading.

    Here is a problem I see. Because this expression 'green house gas' has been so over used in the popular media many people just assume that the 'greenhouse mechanism' is the only mechanism that prevents our planet from plunging into very low temperatures at night like the moon for example. This is not true. The greenhouse mechanism is important. But Liquid water, which covers most of the Earth, is also very important in that regard. Water has a tremendously large specific heat that is greater than that of rock, sand, asphalt etc. This makes the oceans an almost unbelievably large heat sink for storage of thermal energy. Winds driven by differences in air density caused in turn by differences in thermal energy content (i.e., temperature) move the gases in our atmosphere over the Earths surface as well as from the Earth's surface to the upper atmosphere and back down. This convection facilitates transfer of thermal energy from the oceans to the land at night (the sea breeze) and vice versa during the day (the land breeze). Also we experience net IR radiation from the Oceans and land at night and net absorption of IR and visible and uv wavelengths during the day (the visible and uv reappear as longer wavelength IR when they are later emitted by these absorbing surfaces.) So it isn't just the atmosphere, and certainly not just CO2's green house effect that are responsible for moderating the temperature swings on our Earths surface, but a myriad of related phenomena as well , including many I haven't mentioned.

    There is a guy here who continually posts that CO2 is a green house gas and therefore we should all be heating up if we continue to pump CO2 into the air. I cringe every time he does this because his over simplified view ignores the dependence of the green house effect on both absorptivities and concentration and pays no attention to the relative role of CO2 in comparison with water and the myriad of mechanisms that are responsible for making our Earth habitable. He shows no understanding of the complexity of our climate mechanisms or the difficulties in modeling climate. He clearly does not understand that modeling is a tool for trying to understand specific mechanisms and how they might effect climate and temperature. So far there are no successful models that can accurately model our Earths climate system. It's chaotic and there is little possibility that the conventional approaches to modeling
    will ever be successful in modeling a chaotic and very complex system. In this regard, I think former NASA-GISS physicist Ferenc Miskolczi's innovative approach* based on first principles and energy flow was a promising step forward. As with nearly every truly innovative approach, it may take years to be properly critiqued and vetted. But thank goodness someone is thinking in new directions because we are more or less at a dead end with the current approach. Sadly for sciences sake, GISS administrators tried to suppress publication of his work -- he resigned over it -- not because they could identify fatal flaws, but because it's conclusions did not support mainstream thinking. This is wrong, but scientists are also human and make mistakes for very human, as opposed to scientific, reasons. (*Note: Miskolczi was not attempting to model climate, rather he was addressing whether the assumptions in current models, eg., positive feedback, etc., could be supported from an energy flow perspective.)

    You were wondering why we use use mole fraction 'X' to represent CO2 concentration. The reason we don't use a ppm value based on weight in this particular application is that if we are interested in the greenhouse effect, we are interested in the physical number of emr absorbers, not their weight. Thus mole fraction suits our purposes. Recall that a mole is just the name of a number, six times ten to the twenty-third, it has no dimensions and therefore no units. Just as we get % (percent is the same as parts per hundred or pph) by multiplying a dimensionless fraction based on any consistent measure, weight, volume, color, whatever, by 100, we can get ppm by multiplying mole fraction, a dimensionless number based on number of molecules, by one million. Therefore, if the ppm of CO2 is say 400ppm, based on mole fraction, then the mole fraction of CO2 is 400/1,000,000 or 0.0004.
    You can interpret 400 ppm CO2 as 400 molecules of CO2 per every million molecules of atmosphere.

    I'm not a climate denier, I'm a scientist whose is dismayed by the unprofessional conduct of some of my science colleagues, and one in particular, James Hansen. You can't decide scientific questions with media polls. The evidence is piling up that Hansen's original hypothesis, which proposed runaway catastrophic warming due to man induced rising CO2 is wrong. Other questions remain to be answered, and will be in time. We should not have pulled out of the climate accord, because regardless of Hansen's Hypothesis being dead wrong, there is great value in developing more environmentally friendly methods of energy production.

    In my opinion Marshall Shepard is wrong regarding CO2 determining the Earths Temperature. It clearly does not. He is correct that temperature drives changes in atmospheric moisture; an important part of the negative feedback mechanism in response to both increasing and decreasing temperature. Without including positive feedback, the effects of changes in CO2 concentration we have seen in the past hundred years are far to feeble to be responsible for any significant mean change in global temperature, and the assumption of positive feedback which the probity of Shepard's often parroted explanation depends on, has been disproved. (Actually Shepard is parroting an explanation for CO2 driving temperature first advanced by GISS. It's wrong however. Solar irradience and geothermal energy release are vastly larger contributors to the Earths temperature than the very feeble effects of changes in CO2. And all of these contributors are countered by the Earths very effective negative feedback mechanism, featuring mainly water's role. The Earths temperature changes are cyclical rather than linear. The Earth under goes both warming periods and cooling periods but CO2, like water vapor, responds to these changes, rather then driving them. None of these considerations, however, rule out man's activities contributing to total atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    By the way we always report the concentration non-condensing gases as the value in dry air, because otherwise the values would very due to relative humidity.
  109. delta your article seems to confirm what I was explaining NASA stated.

    a. as you add more co2 it migrates up becoming more of a shield. so in the upper atmosphere co2 acts as a shield and in the lower it warms...

    then couple that info with this...

    in the lower atmosphere... as you add more co2 its impact diminishes logarithmically. This info has been published in studies which you can find on the net... but here is info that the IPCC even acknowledges this....

    "IPCC Published reports, (TAR3), acknowledge that the effective temperature increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere radically diminishes with increasing concentrations. This information has been presented in the IPCC reports. It is well disguised for any lay reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate) [1]. It is a crucial fact, but not acknowledged in the IPCC summary for Policy Makers[2]"

    The rapid logarithmic diminution effect is an inconvenient fact for Global Warming advocates and alarmists, nonetheless it is well understood within the climate science community. It is certainly not much discussed. This diminution effect is probably the reason there was no runaway greenhouse warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppmv. The following simplifying diagram shows the logarithmic diminution effect using tranches of 100ppmvup to 1000ppmv and the significance of differing CO2 concentrations on the biosphere:


  110. what the hell is wrong with you? seriously..
    I back up my statements with links to science and you call me a liar?

    I state we don't know if adding man made co2 creates more warming.
    I explain why.

    Instead of providing science you go into your no brain game. Then you call me a liar.
    Its fools like you who damage your side.

  111. There is a lot there but I'll try and get to it. I'm not hung up on CO2, it has to be accounted for but I'm happy that the reasons to not wastefully burn fossil fuels are hugely compelling anyway. I'm conservative regarding preserving that asset for the future.

    Not nitpicking but on first read and I'll try and have a clear thought tomorrow.

    It is a neat experiment if only for the purpose of getting an empirical sense of selective absorption/re-emission. If you look again at that video you will see that it is just a very thin plastic/saran wrap on the end of the cylinder. The experiment is therefore run at atmospheric pressure I would conclude so about 14.7 PSI at sea level.

    At atmospheric pressure just a couple of feet at near-ish 100% concentration, 1M PPM is sufficient to stop/diffuse the IR heat wavelengths, from a candle. At 380-400ppm would look only very, very slightly milky to infrared but miles of air and..

    We did equivalents experiments in high-school using a calibrated heat source and receiver + a little dry ice in a tube. Not for climate change talk back then, just basic physics class. From that I can feel happy to accept figures I've read from NASA that CO2 is about 20%? of what stops us freezing to death at night.

    Anyway, my single remaining brain cell might die if I don't get to sleep, in England this moment.
  112. Oh my god. I just read my long post of yesterday above and there are so many grammatical and punctuation errors? Yikes! If you couldn't wade through that mess I don't blame you. We all deserve to be served better English. Unfortunately ET limits the time for editing. And I could not stick around to edit it properly. My sincere apology.

    Just a couple of comments. It is not that in the Video the experimenter was using pressure above atmospheric, it is that he was using CO2 at a mole fraction of 1, as you pointed out. In other words, pure CO2. That's why he was able to use a path length (length of his tube) that wasn't extraordinarily long. How long was his pathlength, about 18 inches maybe? If he'd used atmospheric air ,he would have needed a tube approximately 2500 ft long to get a similar result. A little impractical in the lab, but nevertheless well shorter than the approximate depth of the troposphere. However these simple calculations aren't going to help us understand why CO2 is an inefficient greenhouse gas. For one thing the concentration of CO2 decreases with altitude whereas in our 2500 ft long tube its concentration would be uniform throughout. But the main considerations would have to be informed by spectroscopy. We would find that the candles IR emission, although spread over a wide band, would be no where near as wide as the Earth's IR emission, which approximates that of a black body, and our spectrum of CO2 absorption, or H2O, would show that these species are capable of absorbing only a fraction of the Earth very wide emission band. You'd indeed have to have that knowledge before you could estimate what fraction of the Earth's emission would be absorbed by atmospheric CO2. Of course, since the CO2 will emit in all directions as it undergoes vibrational relaxation, a fraction of the absorbed IR escapes to the heavens and a fraction returns to Earth. Not an easy problem? But fortunately we have satellites with spectrometers on board. I did like the video very much! Thank you. [Ooops. I just realized that one spectrum is in wavelength and the other in wave numbers, not very helpful. Sorry. If you want to see where the CO2 absorption band falls on the Earths admission spectrum you'll first have to convert micrometers to cm and then take the reciprocal. IR spectroscopists like to use wave numbers (1/cm) because wave numbers are directly proportional to frequency, and they say that's how molecules think! They selected cm to use as wavelengths in the IR region because when you take the reciprocal values, which they call "wave numbers" you get tidy integers. It's all quite arbitrary, and just selected for convenience.]

    The spectra are from http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS5/5Spectroscopy.html Nice Class! If a person is interested in studying any aspect of Atmospheric Science, the University of Colorado is THE PLACE! the spectra of the individual species are transmittance spectra, and of course the spectra haven't been normalized relative to concentration. These spectra have appeared so often in different places that I guess they may be considered to be in the public domain by now. I have no idea what their original source is.

    upload_2017-9-19_9-9-41.jpeg upload_2017-9-19_9-17-58.jpeg
  113. update for all those who did not believe that some of our warming and ice melt could be coming from below... and not CO2. and for fools like future currents who called me a liar...

    This is from
    NASA's jet propulsion lab... one of your favorite sources...


    Study Bolsters Theory of Heat Source Under West Antarctica

    A new NASA study adds evidence that a geothermal heat source called a mantle plume lies deep below Antarctica's Marie Byrd Land, explaining some of the melting that creates lakes and rivers under the ice sheet. Although the heat source isn't a new or increasing threat to the West Antarctic ice sheet, it may help explain why the ice sheet collapsed rapidly in an earlier era of rapid climate change, and why it is so unstable today.

    The stability of an ice sheet is closely related to how much water lubricates it from below, allowing glaciers to slide more easily. Understanding the sources and future of the meltwater under West Antarctica is important for estimating the rate at which ice may be lost to the ocean in the future.

    Antarctica's bedrock is laced with rivers and lakes, the largest of which is the size of Lake Erie. Many lakes fill and drain rapidly, forcing the ice surface thousands of feet above them to rise and fall by as much as 20 feet (6 meters). The motion allows scientists to estimate where and how much water must exist at the base.

    Some 30 years ago, a scientist at the University of Colorado Denver suggested that heat from a mantle plume under Marie Byrd Land might explain regional volcanic activity and a topographic dome feature. Very recent seismic imaging has supported this concept. When Hélène Seroussi of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, first heard the idea, however, "I thought it was crazy," she said. "I didn't see how we could have that amount of heat and still have ice on top of it."

    With few direct measurements existing from under the ice, Seroussi and Erik Ivins of JPL concluded the best way to study the mantle plume idea was by numerical modeling. They used the Ice Sheet System Model (ISSM), a numerical depiction of the physics of ice sheets developed by scientists at JPL and the University of California, Irvine. Seroussi enhanced the ISSM to capture natural sources of heating and heat transport from freezing, melting and liquid water; friction; and other processes.

    To assure the model was realistic, the scientists drew on observations of changes in the altitude of the ice sheet surface made by NASA's IceSat satellite and airborne Operation IceBridge campaign. "These place a powerful constraint on allowable melt rates -- the very thing we wanted to predict," Ivins said. Since the location and size of the possible mantle plume were unknown, they tested a full range of what was physically possible for multiple parameters, producing dozens of different simulations.

    They found that the flux of energy from the mantle plume must be no more than 150 milliwatts per square meter. For comparison, in U.S. regions with no volcanic activity, the heat flux from Earth's mantle is 40 to 60 milliwatts. Under Yellowstone National Park -- a well-known geothermal hot spot -- the heat from below is about 200 milliwatts per square meter averaged over the entire park, though individual geothermal features such as geysers are much hotter.

    Seroussi and Ivins' simulations using a heat flow higher than 150 milliwatts per square meter showed too much melting to be compatible with the space-based data, except in one location: an area inland of the Ross Sea known for intense flows of water. This region required a heat flow of at least 150-180 milliwatts per square meter to agree with the observations. However, seismic imaging has shown that mantle heat in this region may reach the ice sheet through a rift, that is, a fracture in Earth's crust such as appears in Africa's Great Rift Valley.

    Mantle plumes are thought to be narrow streams of hot rock rising through Earth's mantle and spreading out like a mushroom cap under the crust. The buoyancy of the material, some of it molten, causes the crust to bulge upward. The theory of mantle plumes was proposed in the 1970s to explain geothermal activity that occurs far from the boundary of a tectonic plate, such as Hawaii and Yellowstone.

    The Marie Byrd Land mantle plume formed 50 to 110 million years ago, long before the West Antarctic ice sheet came into existence. At the end of the last ice age around 11,000 years ago, the ice sheet went through a period of rapid, sustained ice loss when changes in global weather patterns and rising sea levels pushed warm water closer to the ice sheet -- just as is happening today. Seroussi and Ivins suggest the mantle plume could facilitate this kind of rapid loss.
  114. It's not undersea volcanoes like the deranged liar jerm or any of the total bullshit that piehole the libertarian think tank operator, spewed out above.

    it's this....CO2....earth's most important greenhouse gas. It must be too obvious for them.

  115. The effect of adding man-made CO2 is predicted in the theory of greenhouse gases. This theory was first proposed by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896, based on earlier work by Fourier and Tyndall. Many scientist have refined the theory in the last century. Nearly all have reached the same conclusion: if we increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the Earth will warm up.

    What they don’t agree on is by how much. This issue is called ‘climate sensitivity’, the amount the temperatures will increase if CO2 is doubled from pre-industrial levels. Climate models have predicted the least temperature rise would be on average 1.65°C (2.97°F) , but upper estimates vary a lot, averaging 5.2°C (9.36°F). Current best estimates are for a rise of around 3°C (5.4°F), with a likely maximum of 4.5°C (8.1°F).

    What Goes Down…
    The greenhouse effect works like this: Energy arrives from the sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation. The Earth then emits some of this energy as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 'capture' some of this heat, then re-emit it in all directions - including back to the Earth's surface.

    Through this process, CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep the Earth’s surface 33°Celsius (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2, and temperatures have gone up. There should be some evidence that links CO2 to the temperature rise.

    So far, the average global temperature has gone up by about 0.8 degrees C (1.4°F):

    "According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)…the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade."

    The temperatures are going up, just like the theory predicted. But where’s the connection with CO2, or other greenhouse gases like methane, ozone or nitrous oxide?

    The connection can be found in the spectrum of greenhouse radiation. Using high-resolution FTIR spectroscopy, we can measure the exact wavelengths of long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.


    Figure 1: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapour is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

    Sure enough, we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming.

    ...Must Go Up
    How long has CO2 been contributing to increased warming? According to NASA, “Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975”. Is there a reliable way to identify CO2’s influence on temperatures over that period?

    There is: we can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.


    Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

    This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.

    The Empirical Evidence
    As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

    We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

    Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

    These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.
  116. I'll repeat this one for the sake of jerm and piehole who for some reason still don't get it.

    Is there a reliable way to identify CO2’s influence on temperatures over that period?

    There is: we can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.


    Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

    This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.
  117. Yeah, magma is incapable of melting ice.

    There is massive geothermal activity under Antarctic. It may have the highest density of volcanoes in the world.

    If you are correct, simply post numbers that quantify how much ice is melting from volcanoes and how much is attributable to CO2.
  118. Yeah, over 100 fucking volcanoes couldn't have anything to do with melting ice you dumb shit.

    POST THE DATA!!!!!

    They don't have the data. That is the answer. The data doesn't exist.

    They don't know how much is from volcanoes or from climate warming religion. But, retarded morons run around stating it is only from global warming religion.

    Quote from article below:

    “The big question is: how active are these volcanoes? That is something we need to determine as quickly as possible.”

    They don't even know the activity of the volcanoes.

    Therefore, only a total fucking moron with no brain would state that it is only from CO2 and not from volcanoes. How in the hell can you make that statement without any fucking data?!!!!!

    They just recently discovered 91 additional volcanoes. To say that the ice melt has nothing to do with volcanoes, is the dumbest fucking thing I have ever heard.


    Scientists discover 91 volcanoes below Antarctic ice sheet
    This is in addition to 47 already known about and eruption would melt more ice in region affected by climate change

    We were amazed,” Bingham said. We had not expected to find anything like that number. We have almost trebled the number of volcanoes known to exist in west Antarctica. [Emphasis mine] We also suspect there are even more on the bed of the sea that lies under the Ross ice shelf, so that I think it is very likely this region will turn out to be the densest region of volcanoes in the world, greater even than east Africa, where mounts Nyiragongo, Kilimanjaro, Longonot and all the other active volcanoes are concentrated.”
  120. There is no ice on top of the below volcano due to global warming.

    That is less retarded than you statement. At least, scientist can measure the activity of the volcano.

  121. An interesting chicken and egg observation on post-glacial rebound.


    "The discovery is particularly important because the activity of these volcanoes could have crucial implications for the rest of the planet. If one erupts, it could further destabilise some of the region’s ice sheets, which have already been affected by global warming. Meltwater outflows into the Antarctic ocean could trigger sea level rises. “We just don’t know about how active these volcanoes have been in the past,” Bingham said.

    However, he pointed to one alarming trend: “The most volcanism that is going in the world at present is in regions that have only recently lost their glacier covering – after the end of the last ice age. These places include Iceland and Alaska.

    “Theory suggests that this is occurring because, without ice sheets on top of them, there is a release of pressure on the regions’ volcanoes and they become more active.”

    And this could happen in west Antarctica, where significant warming in the region caused by climate change has begun to affect its ice sheets. If they are reduced significantly, this could release pressure on the volcanoes that lie below and lead to eruptions that could further destabilise the ice sheets and enhance sea level rises that are already affecting our oceans.

    “It is something we will have to watch closely,” Bingham said."
  122. interesting observation... now lets check the best chart I found since the last ice age and see if the implied threat of man made temperature change is reasonable.

    this is the rise since the last age.
    Slarti is there any way you would claim this was due to man made co2?

    Seriously, when you take the time to explore the science and all the questions...
    you realize what a bunch of speculation posing as science the left is putting out.

    Is it possible man made co2 may be causing temperature rise outside of natural change.
    Is there a way to prove that given all this data and all the variables...
    Not so far.

    I would like to note that temperature in antartica rises... then co2 moves.

    This corresponds with that fact I have been showing you that co2 follows change in oceans temps.

    co2 lags temps.

    It makes sense as antartica warms and the oceans warm they release co2.
    Warmer air holds more water vapor (a very powerful greenhouse gas and co2 a greenhouse gas which acts as a thermostat per NASA)


  123. You know my view I'm sure. CO2 levels are at what an 8-900k year high? Great so nothing to worry about as the levels have been this high before. The curve to get from where the were to where they are now however is vertical. I am conservative, I don't want to wait for 500 and then 600 PPM so you guys can be satisfied something is abnormal.

    A sudden sharp change is rarely well met by biological systems that use multi-generational adaptation/selection (coral etc). When they don't get to do that, you get mass extinction.

    Anyway, the point I made is the point I made about what else it said in the article that WeToddDid2 did not comment on. Glacial thinning could lead to some serious volcanic action in Antarctica.

    We don't need to burn the resource that was accumulated over eons of time. We need it for other things so lets just get on with developing the tech.
  124. could you show us that sharp increase on the proxy data...
    and a long term chart?

    I believe what appears to be a sharp increase only happens when you graft instrument data onto the proxy data.

    I know you are smart enough to understand the problem with making conclusion based on that technique.

    However I do agree with your conclusion.
    I agree with conservation...
    just not the govt controlling our lives, our output and our economic futures with cap and trade or carbon credits.



  125. I understand it perfectly well, the cycles and possible hidden spikes but reality is reality. Billions of years of fossil energy is going up like photographic flash powder. That is new for this planet.

    So lets not find out the hard way by setting off a feedback loop that really screws us. Why are we arguing?

    Peak oil has happened already, because of new discoveries Al Bartlett's (a true national hero) prediction was a decade or so late but so what? Exponential population growth means we burn through the oil really soon.

    We need the oil for very much of our critical chemical industry. We need an order of magnitude of greater energy by 2050 or sooner than oil can provide by just burning it and it will run out anyway.

    The only people who benefit in delaying switching from fossil fuels are a few oligarchs in the short term.
  126. I am not so sure we have reached peak oil.
    And I find the abiotic theory of at least some oil production to be possible...
    I agree we should conserve it since it is so useful.

    but lets say it does come from plants.
    co2 makes more plants and greens the planet right?

    I am definitely against control of our economic rights or wealth transfers through carbon credits. If there are going to be oil taxes they should be on everyone and replace income taxes.

  127. If you have ever spent a few summers cutting turf in a bog you might be more favorable to the plant origin :) I have heard of abiotic theory. Sure a chunk of inorganic hydrocarbons came from the solar system but 4.3 billion years of life has done it's part. I remember a scientific argument that the formation of the stable continents was dependent on granite which would not have formed without organic life spicing up the chemistry of the basaltic rocks.

    I don't care about how a few Americans feel about taxes. I'm not mixing that into climate change, a tiny fraction of 4.4% have a philosophy on taxation that allows them to risk the future of the planet on how they 'feel'? screw them :)

    Yes greening is occurring but a relative matchstick of absorption up against a giant redwood of released gas. Ocean acidification is occurring also. That is really really serious.

    My niece is an ecologist, we rarely talk about this but her area is soil. I assume you know about how slowly soil is created and how quickly farming is denaturing it back to a dead clay. This is catastrophic and when the farmlands are laid to waste, they won't be absorbing much carbon.

    Long and short, there are no scenarios where we don't have to use our genius to replace fossil fuels and soon.

    There is only one way forward, thankfully everyone but the USA is on plan.

  128. I am aware of the soil and the aquifer problem.
    Over population and misuse of resources including water and oceans is an entirely different discussion. I am sure I told you I use to volunteer my professional time for a clean ocean and bay group.

    CO2 control... Carbon credits are not going to simply exist in the United State. Its how the cronies are going to control competition throughout the world.

  129. There are no global warming experts here
  130. Yeah, Sam Clovis has not weighed in on this thread.

  131. I'm not much into the big conspiracy of carbon credits. For every world dominating oligarch there is a competing one so the 'big boys' might use carbon credits but.. they can and do use other instruments.

    I'm glad the US is being left behind, time for some change there as things have become insane in the US.

    I mentioned before that I run into ex-pats here. One guy blew my mind. He did not believe in climate change. Why? because he worked in a Corvette dealership. Climate change talk was bad for his business so he did not "believe it in". That was not my deduction of his philosophy, that is practically a direct quote. It defies reason.

    Sometimes it seems to be that the boomers recon that as long as the music stops around 2040 that is ok, they will be dead after leading fat and happy lives and that is all that matters.

    Arguing over climate change as it relates to fossils and CO2 is counting the number of angels that can stand on the head of a pin or arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

    We need to move on past fossils, bigger problems.
  132. would you mind explaining what you mean by climate change?
    no one would argue that we have not gotten warmer since the last age.

    the climate change issue is whether man made co2 is causing climate change..
    or secondarily if man's activities cause climate change.

    So what is funny to me is that a smart guy like you seems to believe there is science showing man is causing warming...

    but then can never produce a link to a peer reviewed article showing it...
    (there are some 20 year old articles based on models but those models failed.)

    Seriously... how can you feel superior to the corvette guy.

    Your beliefs are just as stunning to me as his.

    We either have science or we have faith...
    If you have science and not faith... show it.
  133. Haha, Sam Clovis. He really does look like the security guard in every science fiction movie who sees a spaceship and drops his flashlight.

  134. Jem, you repeat that a lot. We do know. You just don't know. And you repeat that 'we' don't.

    Not buying it.

    Also my Corvette buddy had rash on his legs from not wearing underwear as it was humid. He did not work out that his own piss drops were burning his skin.

    As I said, the climate is changing. We are for sure affecting this, for global security reasons we need to be in control of the changes we make.

    Acidification is a deadly enough reason all by itself to cut down carbon.
  135. whether you "buy" it or not is irrelevant.
    you either have science supporting your theory of man made global warming or you have faith.

    I am not saying your corvette buddy did not give himself a rash.. but having lived for a few years in florida... I wore underwear to protect my work clothes but... I went commando quite often in my casual clothes. Nothing worse than walking around in sweaty underwear... Lose breathable clothes were the way to go in my book.

    when you go to Hawaii you know why you see so many people walking around in board shorts... that is part of the reason. you know why volleyball shorts were only in a few years here in California back in the 90s... liners. (pockets too if you surfed a lot... but mostly liners.)
  136. Corvette man was from the norther states. I'm sure when he was younger he had been in the heat but he did not have a leaking faucet back then (or had a more vigorous shake).


    "The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France.

    “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.” "

    Complex systems are complex, often so much so they are beyond our ken to model sometimes, no brainer there. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it (measure it) does it make a noise? YES IT DOES in my world.I'm not one for having 'But I was technically correct!' on my tombstone.

    There is every chance we could exceed the envelope on the Earth's natural systems of counterbalances unwittingly. Climate change science is about all the natural interactions and artificial changes. New ones being discovered also.

    Oceanic acidification. Good enough reason to cut down on the CO2?
  137. There are many factors that must be taken into account. The truth is that CO2 is a relatively weak absorber of IR and it is present in only trace amounts. it operates in one phase only, the gas phase. Water vapor in all three phases is vastly more important than CO2 in moderating the Earth surface temperature. CO2 concentration is strongly correlated with atmospheric temperature suggesting that increasing CO2 may be responsible for increasing surface temperatures. However because the concentration of all gases dissolved in all liquids decreases with increasing temperature (Henry's Law), CO2 will be correlated with temperature regardless of whether CO2 is the dependent or the independent variable in the temperature - CO2 function. So to determine what the independent variable is one has to look at something beyond correlation.

    By now many scientists have done that. They look at timing, i.e., phase relationships between changes in CO2 concentration and temperature change and other factors. This requires better resolved data than was initially available. The latest studies all show regular, short term Temperature variation to be the independent variable driving regular, short term, variations in CO2 riding on much longer term temperature and CO2 cycles which are more difficult to resolve. But current opinion seems to be moving in the direction of temperature being the independent variable overall.

    The single most troubling aspect with regard to accepting CO2 as the independent variable is that all models to date require incorporation of a positive feedback mechanism to show any significant effect of rising CO2 concentration. However systems with positive feed back are inherently unstable, and unless the feedback mechanism has changed from negative to positive fairly recently in geologic time, none of us should be here. We should have already faced runaway temperature excursion, as predicted by the early Hansen models.

    When we hear the term 'global warming' we must separate it in our minds from what is called the Hansen Hypothesis. The later is the hypothesis that Humans are putting so much CO2 into the atmosphere that they are affecting temperature in a catastrophic way, i.e., there is positive feedback. At this point no mechanism has been identified that would allow Hansen's Hypothesis to hold unless the feedback is positive.

    Global warming however is a separate issue. The consensus seems to be building that there is some warming occurring globally. But even that is undecided. Some portions of the Earth are clearly warming while others may be cooling.

    The Earth is large and reliable direct surface temperature measurement over the entire surface is is far more difficult than it might at first seem considering that reliable data bases covering many years are needed. We are looking for tenths of a degree change per year against a background two orders greater in daily fluctuation and large local variations having nothing to do with natural cause. Since the late 1980s we began to get satellite data that in principle should be more reliable. In practice it has its own set of problems. Recently there has been an effort to resolve the difference between satellite data and surface based data. The two data sets do not agree unless one or the other, or both, are adjusted. The adjustments have been criticized on a number of grounds.

    So the two questions to be answered are 1) is the average temperature of the entire Earth warming, cooling or staying the same and over what time period, and 2) if the mean temperature is changing over the entire globe, or indeed even in one part and not another, what is the cause. Is it natural, or is it man caused.

    These are separate questions, and science does not yet have a definitive answer to either. Politicians have become involved, and so have entrepreneurs and companies hoping to cash in in the new market for carbon credits. This is certainly not making the science easier. The media in advanced countries seems content to report that temperatures are going up, and we should be reducing CO2 emissions (They call it 'carbon'). The implication is that the questions of Global Warming and Hansen's Hypothesis are both settled science. Neither is. It appears that nearly everyone except the real scientists are convinced that the Earth is warming and Man is causing it. If only one could settle scientific questions by vote we'd have no trouble settling this one.
  138. Piezoe, what is your take on CO2 contributing directly to ocean acidification? The chemistry is simple enough here and the sudden sharp rise not giving life the generations to adapt is also pretty straightforward.


    "Although the change may seem small, similar natural shifts have taken 5,000 to 10,000 years. We have done it in 50 to 80 years. Ocean life survived the long, gradual change, but the current speed of acidification is very worrisome. Emissions could reduce surface pH by another 0.4 unit in this century alone and by as much as 0.7 unit beyond 2100. We are hurtling toward an ocean different than the earth has known for more than 25 million years."

    An ocean that we depend on for a huge amount of our food. From just yesterday:


    or the earlier report:
  139. I know a lot about pH measurement, but I don't know enough about the Ocean pH problem to give you a valuable opinion. What I do know is when people say the ocean is acidifying they mean it is getting less basic. The ocean is buffered against pH change of course and it is alkaline somewhere in the neighborhood of pH 8. That does not mean it doesn't change its pH, it does. It changes over 24 hours, from one place to another and with depth and temperature of course. It's a problem in four dimensions -- x,y,z and temperature! Compared to measuring the change in mean ocean pH, measuring the change in atmospheric CO2 is child's play. And atmospheric CO2 also varies all over the place, and it too is a 4-dimensional problem dimensional problem. but at least you can measure it accurately at any one time, in any one place and at any one air pressure. Far more difficult to do that with pH. (I have a lot of experience in that regard.)

    Folks are claiming a 0.1 change in pH over a century I think (maybe you know better than I) so it is the same problem again: Tremendous variability, and to little and unreliable data compared to the change one is looking for. I guess remote sensing by satellite is now used in addition to direct measurement, but I don't know how the Satellite system works. I found this comment on the What'supwiththat.com, it's a clearly biased site, so I am cautious about anything I read there. However this guy's comment fit exactly with my own personal experience of many long years making these kinds of measurement. Here is what a guy named Steve Short said: see

    Steve Short

    January 2, 2015 at 2:39 pm

    Just a ‘few’, ‘small’, issues, as usual, as follows:

    How many of these values have been correctly normalized to 25 C (as pHs should properly be to allow valid comparison)? I have personally interviewed young grad students freshly off an oceanographic vessel who were found to have been accumulating such data without using a recently calibrated in situ temperature probe on the same platform. When questioned they revealed profound ignorance of the fact that pHs need to be temperature-normalized to allow a valid comparison.

    How many of these values have been accumulated with a pH probe which had been specially manufactured for a (variable) high, ionic strength – in particular for sodium? It is well known in chemical engineering, hydrometallurgy etc., but strangely not environmentally or oceanographically that in a high Na+ (and NaSO4- ion pair) species environment a ‘regular’ pH probe is also responding to a small but significant (in terms of the above analysis) extent to the high free Na+ .

    How many of these values have been accumulated with a pH probe which had not been two-point calibrated with say buffers at 7.000 (or 6.88) and 9.00 etc., the very same day? The mV slope through the 7.0 to 8.5 needs to be checked at least daily and most probes – especially the more modern gel-filled varieties typically degrade noticeably slope-wise over less than a year.

    As a 66 year old geochemist who has truly ‘seen it all’ in respect of the quality and deep thought content of field parameter pH, EC, DO etc., monitoring over a 40+ year career (particularly in the Gen X & Y period ;-), I’d hazard a guess that the above analysis and its inferred trend could well be as deeply flawed historically and methodologically as e.g. the many AGW proponents claim Beck’s analysis of the whole suite of pre-IR atmospheric pCO2 values is. And please….don’t get me started on ice core CO2 methodology…..

    This guy, Steve, is recounting what my personal experience is exactly.

    It is routine to make measurements to 2 significant figure in the lab. Not easy to make them repeatable to 3, and although equipment exists that will read to 4, we joked that the 4th figure was completely meaningless because the mV signal equivalent of the 4th digit is on the same magnitude as the noise. Ive seen papers published where values were reported to 4 significant figures, but any expert on pH measurement will tell you the fourth significant figure is nonsense, for a variety of reasons. So in summary, probably the bulk of historic Ocean pH data is no better than 2 significant figures, and now we are trying to make sense out of the second digit after the decimal, i.e., 3 significant figures. The third figure is probably nonsense because there is probably error in the first digit after the decimal.

    So while I don't know anything about the Ocean pH study, I do know how difficult it is going to be if you are looking for mean changes as small as one digit after the decimal. The ocean is huge and the measures available over time are too few and probably many are of low quality. In a hundred years we might know something.

    I haven't a clue how we know what the ocean pH was 25 million years ago, but if there was life in it that it wasn't too much different from what it is today. 0.7 pH units in a hundred years would be a lot! I doubt that would be good.

    Finally, suppose we were able to determine that the ocean today is on average a little less alkaline than it was 100 years OK. Then we'd be faced with finding out why.

    In my mind, there are plenty of good reasons why we should be cutting back on fossil fuel use and developing alternative energy sources. And I think we may very well be in a warming period. But I have very serious doubts about the Hansen Hypothesis. I think the evidence is piling up against it.
  140. According to scientists who study ocean acidification in detail - ocean acidification is not caused by AGW - https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...matologists-agree.278244/page-13#post-3885898

    In regards to coral reefs - the top causes of coral reef bleaching are Solar Irradiance, Subaerial Exposure, Sedimentation, Fresh Water Dilution, Inorganic Nutrients and Xenbiotics. AGW and CO2 have nothing to do with it. This has been reported by marine biologists who have studying reefs for years but has been ignored by those pushing "climate change".
  141. I find the acidification argument thoroughly unconvincing for a simple reason. The ratio of water mass to CO2 mass is so high that no amount of CO2 available could change the ph of the oceans.
    It's 1.4e18 (ocean mass) / 1.9e11 (50 years of emissions) = .73e7 or approximately 1 part in 10 million if ALL the CO2 we produce winds up in the oceans (of course that doesn't happen).
    Acidification seems a misnomer, anyway, since the oceans are basic at 8.1, so lessening of basicness seems more appropriate, but it doesn't sound so scary , does it?

  142. So much fluff and bullshit in this post that it is difficult to shovel it all. Let's start with the first paragraph.

    "There are many factors that must be taken into account. The truth is that CO2 is a relatively weak absorber of IR and it is present in only trace amounts. it operates in one phase only, the gas phase. Water vapor in all three phases is vastly more important than CO2 in moderating the Earth surface temperature. CO2 concentration is strongly correlated with atmospheric temperature suggesting that increasing CO2 may be responsible for increasing surface temperatures. However because the concentration of all gases dissolved in all liquids decreases with increasing temperature (Henry's Law), CO2 will be correlated with temperature regardless of whether CO2 is the dependent or the independent variable in the temperature - CO2 function. So to determine what the independent variable is one has to look at something beyond correlation."

    In bold..
    Well this is an interesting opinion but it flies in the face of what actual climate scientists (as opposed to whatever piehole is ) say. It is clear to them that CO2 is the chief regulator of earth's surface temperature.

    Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature

    [​IMG]› View larger
    A new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth. Credit: NASA GISS/ Lilly Del Valle

    [​IMG]› View larger
    Various atmospheric components differ in their contributions to the greenhouse effect, some through feedbacks and some through forcings. Without carbon dioxide and other non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. Credit: NASA GISSWater vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.

    The study, conducted by Andrew Lacis and colleagues at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, examined the nature of Earth's greenhouse effect and clarified the role that greenhouse gases and clouds play in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation. Notably, the team identified non-condensing greenhouse gases -- such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons -- as providing the core support for the terrestrial greenhouse effect.

    Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. The study's results will be published Friday, Oct. 15 in Science.

    A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

    The climate forcing experiment described in Science was simple in design and concept -- all of the non-condensing greenhouse gases and aerosols were zeroed out, and the global climate model was run forward in time to see what would happen to the greenhouse effect. Without the sustaining support by the non-condensing greenhouse gases, Earth’s greenhouse effect collapsed as water vapor quickly precipitated from the atmosphere, plunging the model Earth into an icebound state -- a clear demonstration that water vapor, although contributing 50 percent of the total greenhouse warming, acts as a feedback process, and as such, cannot by itself uphold the Earth's greenhouse effect.

    "Our climate modeling simulation should be viewed as an experiment in atmospheric physics, illustrating a cause and effect problem which allowed us to gain a better understanding of the working mechanics of Earth’s greenhouse effect, and enabled us to demonstrate the direct relationship that exists between rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and rising global temperature," Lacis said.

    The study ties in to the geologic record in which carbon dioxide levels have oscillated between approximately 180 parts per million during ice ages, and about 280 parts per million during warmer interglacial periods. To provide perspective to the nearly 1 C (1.8 F) increase in global temperature over the past century, it is estimated that the global mean temperature difference between the extremes of the ice age and interglacial periods is only about 5 C (9 F).

    "When carbon dioxide increases, more water vapor returns to the atmosphere. This is what helped to melt the glaciers that once covered New York City," said co-author David Rind, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "Today we are in uncharted territory as carbon dioxide approaches 390 parts per million in what has been referred to as the 'superinterglacial.'"

    "The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth," Lacis said. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has fully documented the fact that industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is not surprising then that global warming can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general."

  143. Surface PH is measurably changing in stations across the globe abet just a bit. It is about layers of water, not an even mix. A very minor difference in PH has a big effect on the amount of free aragonite used to make shells. Lab tests have shown that a lot of microscopic and larger animals can't tolerate the levels of 2100 on the current curve.

    Sudden sharp changes don't allow for biological adaptation, not in 100 years.

    More reading required but this is not one we want to get wrong.
  144. Ah, good. A climate model. Now we know for sure, because all climate models to date have been completely accurate.
    or... I am I wrong here? Scientific models are infallible, aren't they? I have absolute faith in every thing that anyone who claims to be a scientist says, so ... fuck, I'm all confused now. Just tell me what to think, somebody.

  145. Well you could go by the opinions of politicians and internet experts. Or you could go by the opinion of actual experts.....


    Just to sample the above .....and reiterate that virtually no publishing climate scientist agrees with piezoe's tortured, impressive sounding but ultimately wrong opinion.

    American Geophysical Union

    "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
  146. More evidence that piezoe works for a think tank.....

    He said......"The consensus seems to be building that there is some warming occurring globally. But even that is undecided. Some portions of the Earth are clearly warming while others may be cooling."

    Oh really... lol....classic climate misinformation. Like the kind some libertarian think tanks spew.

    if anyone can still take piezoe's opinion seriously on this matter....after he says something like this.....I have some prime swampland to sell you.


    Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record. Data sources: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Met Office Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit and the Japanese Meteorological Agency.
  147. So, no data. Got it.
  148. this whole article starts off with these words...
    Its a model...

    Every model is off because they don't model water vapor and clouds well.


  149. Please go to the first link given here: https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/10/murry-salbys-latest-presentation/#comments

    This is a talk last year given by the brilliant atmospheric physicist Murry Salby who was fired by McQuarie Univ. in Australia, among other things. It is a slowed down presentation he gave at University College, London that can be understood by the educated layman. His position is my position on these matters. However I am more positive than he re the Paris climate accord. In principle he's right, but I believe there is much good to come from encouraging development of alternative energy sources, though like Salby I'm dismayed by the cost projections. But they are projections, and we know about the risks of extrapolation far into the future.

    Salby's seminar he gave in Hamburg a couple years ago before his research data was seized in Australia was a far more academic and specialized presentation . I thought his phase studies quite brilliant.

    Notice his snide remark midway into his London talk about the many shark species in Australia, not all of them in the ocean! His initial remarks in the next youtube presentation that immediately follows the London talk comes after he returned to Australia. He shows how resilient he has been considering what he has been subjected to. The other guy that is absolutely brilliant as far as I'm concerned is Ferenc Miskolczi , the Hungarian physicist who was run off by Hansen's GISS when they tried to suppress publication of his paper that concludes feedback is negative; not positive. That of course is something believers in Hansen's Hypothesis can not abide, as the Hypothesis , to be correct, depends on feedback being positive.

    If you look the scientists that are well qualified to question Hansen's Hypothesis up on Google,
    you will find that they have all been subjected to relentless attack. It's part of the smear campaign waged against any scientist who questions the validity Hansen's Hypothesis. The more prominent the scientist, and the greater the gravitas of their work, the more vicious the attacks. Quite something to observe. It was exactly the same with the Lysenko affair in Soviet Russia. There were folks trying to get Miskolczi removed from Wiki. They may have succeeded. They can't get Salby removed however, his reputation is too well established for that. He wrote the leading text in atmospheric physics.
  150. A problem in the world Piezoe is one person says black and another will say white. Humanity is in danger of being killed on a zebra crossing.

    Bias creeps in, some see a picture from quite nebulous data and some need their face shoved in it. We have a system of peer review and such that produces fabulous results in every kind of science but in this one, the one that crass lobbiests are paying a fortune to confound, we have doubt.

    I remember as a kid massive deforestation in Europe caused by coal i.e. acid rain. I'm also aware of the incredible effort it took to get governments to agree to legislate against coal despite the fact it was obviously, literally, choking people and turning pine forests brown.

    I think in part we have some issue with the media hyping some aspects of climate change. I think a lot of the passionate deniers are paid scumbags or serious Dunning-Kruger effect examples.

    Man made climate change is real, too many qualified & honest people agree. Some guy in a trailer might think he knows better or it is a vast conspiracy but .. have you met a flat-Earther? :)

    We need to be wary of the great ocean liner effect, by the time we see trouble, absolute proof, it will be too late to turn. We need to predict the trend and get in early. Thankfully smog has led to lower car & factory emissions and Chinese cities are being choked right now. These are not global climate change, they are local but one fix works for both. Again, as you said and I have said we need to get off fossils anyway.

    GWB pointed to a link before for a guy called Cliff Mass. He puts it fairly well however when do we act?
  151. Piehole said above

    "If you look the scientists that are well qualified to question Hansen's Hypothesis up on Google,
    you will find that they have all been subjected to relentless attack. It's part of the smear campaign waged against any scientist who questions the validity Hansen's Hypothesis."

    No they are attacked because they are wrong. Period. And, there is no such as "Hansen's Hypothesis". It's called climate science. But by ad-homing the argument he is trying to diminish the validity. Classic climate misinformation paid scumbag tactics.

    Salby is an industry-paid whore and fool that thinks the CO2 rise is natural and Curry is an attention whore that also, while not quite wrong, doesn't really say much. In addition Curry does not dispute that man is causing the warming.

    Curious that piehole would choose the 1% of industry whores and fools, instead of the 99% that agree that man is causing the warming.

    Salby was fired for fraud, not because of his laughable "science".
  152. I recall Salby's disgrace and Curry has not done any science for years, wrote a book?. The problem is we need to find some consensus, we can all see how endless these threads are.

    I have seen that the position of we don't want to burn all the fossils anyway works for both sides.

    We might as well and we are, moving forward across the globe. The US is seen as a joke anyway and has no authority left. 95.6% of the world disagrees with the US and regard cleaning up as a priority and developing the tech to do so. That will have to be enough. California will lead the way in the US anyway.

    Time to stop giving the naughty American special interests the attention they need to get paid.
  153. AWESOME! It used to be 97%, but presto, now it's 99%. Why would anyone be a skeptic with those ever- increasing numbers? And of course, they're completely valid. No one would ever question Cooke's grad students combing through papers and chalking up every mention of climate change to be in consensus with the hypothesis - only the jerks who's papers were wrongly (according to them) put in as consensus papers idiotically objected. As if they knew they what they really meant when they wrote a paper on climate change. Because if you use the words Climate Change in a paper, then you necessarily agree that it is man-made and catastrophic. I mean, that's science, right? As long as it's peer-reviewed, it's absolutely true. We can prove it because no peer-reviewed paper has ever been refuted. Never mind that many papers that express opposite opinions are peer-reviewed. Peer review = TRUE beyond all doubt. Or am I missing something?

    Can someone explain how consensus is a scientific mechanism, btw?
  154. o_O
    Right - I knew there was a specific quantifiable number that 'disagrees with the US' over no precise criteria whatsoever. Just 'disagrees.' Thank you for pointing it out.
    I also heard that (sound of dice shaking) 84% of all statistics are made up.
  155. That is the % of non-Americans on Earth. The US has 4.4% of global population.

  156. Tell you what. Find us ONE publishing climate scientist that denies man made global warming.

    I mean denies, not casts doubt on or questions the degree of etc.....

    there are none. Whereas, when asked, over 97% of publishing climate scientists, all the world's science orgs, Exxon, The Weather Channel, and common sense, says that our release of greenhouse gasses is causing the world to warm.
  157. I'm a prisoner of my education. I can't deny it. Please do listen to Salby's presentation at University College. It is exceptionally clear. Even non-scientists will be able to follow it. (see the link in the Judith Curry Post) Thanks.
  158. I don't know any that are denying global warming, though there are undoubtedly some. The serious questions all seem to be centered on Hansen's Hypothesis. You have somehow equated these separate issues. That's not clear thinking. Frankly I haven't bothered to give you references to recent papers by expert scientists who question Hansen's hypothesis because I know from experience that you are not going to take the trouble to read them and make the effort it would take you to try and understand them.
  159. 99 percent of the time the person on the internet who brings up the Dunning Kruger is the person who has no facts or science left supporting his or her argument.

    why 99 percent?

    the ones winning the argument have no reason to bring up the DK effect.

    I hope the irony of bringing up the dunning kruger effect when you have no science showing man made co2 causes warming... is not lost on you.

  160. That could have been thought out better.

    Still looking for all these failed models.

  161. that video is so slanted... it lies... Hansen's model has completely failed
    the IPCC keeps making new models with lower temperature projections because as they say we don't have as much sensitivity to co2 as hansen predicted.



    • Essentially, the NASA model predicted temperatures would follow the bright green curve if GHGs were not curtailed. The cyan (aqua) curve datapoints are the predicted temperatures if GHGs were curtailed. Greenhouse gases have continued their accelerated growth, yet the observed temperatures (the green and pink circles) closely match the cyan curve. Simply, the model's predictions have been spectacularly wrong, worsening by the year.

    As stated previously, the IPCC has confirmed the rapid, continuing growth of GHGs since the end of 1999, which per the NASA climate model, should have produced global warming equal to the bright green curve on the chart.

    Instead, climate reality and natural climatic forces intruded - real world temperatures since 1988 resemble the cyan temperature curve of "draconian" emission cuts that Hansen's testimony implied would necessarily make global warming safe by end of 2014.

    As it turns out, some 25+ years later at the end of 2014, we currently have achieved that implied 'safe' global warming that the climate modelers and experts predicted would not happen unless there were forced gigantic emission cuts.

    Objectively, the empirical evidence leads to a couple of reality-based, undeniable and incontrovertible conclusions: policymakers should not rely on the unreliable climate models - they're egregiously wrong and not getting much better; and, climate experts truly do not understand the natural forces dominating the climate system.



  162. What would be the point? Anybody here could easily do a search on the browser and find a list.

    But it wouldn’t matter. You’d just call them “Whore’s of the fossil fuel industry”, spew out a few expletives, call them a name or two, then play the fool by essentially convincing yourself that you expressed an intelligent rebuttal.
  163. I can see looking at that is temperatures are rising just more slowly than predicted. This could mean a partial model failure. But... lets look a little deeper as one of the big predictions has been that the upper atmosphere will cool due to CO2 as the lower heats. As observed on Venus. I recall that from a show called Tomorrow's World in the UK in the 80s :)

    So this leads me after a bit of googling and straight to the found or missing tropospheric hot spot. Now to find the most reliable source.
  164. There goes futurecurrents posting the climate.nasa.gov website again for the 800th time. Of course he ignores that this website is denounced by many NASA employees who demand it be taken down, and is maintained by college graduate students. Hopefully the Trump administration takes this absurdity down shortly.
  165. I am not sure what the value is of that projection relative to whether man made co2 causes warming and cooling..

    in the lower atmopshere co2 acts as a blanket because it bounces heating energy back down.
    in the upper atmosphere it acts as a sheild bounces warming rays back into space.

    co2 is also very powerful coolant and acts as a thermostat.


    Mlynczak is the associate principal investigator for the SABER instrument onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet’s surface.

    “Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

    That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.

    “The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.”

    For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.


  166. CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

    Jem, that is going off into another area. I'm looking at history/accuracy of the earlier chart you posted. It is used on a lot of denial sites.

    From what I can see there are significant measurement issues with the satellites (altitude change etc.) that having been adjust for their data is far better fit with the models.

    The next thing is the balloon measurements. Then finding the source of the chart and checking it's authenticity in the first place.

    Some stuff on how a couple of famous deniers Christie and Spencer were in error about their interpretation of the satellite temperature data.

    Also interesting in the same video is seeing the scientist who developed the data Cruz used explaining how Cruz misrepresented it. Clever to acknowledge Christie's data was no longer acceptable but cheat with newer data.

    Cruz's edited chart data:

    Actual chart:


    Edited: Ok, looking at the chart, from the "Otto et al:" paper, different versions of the chart from skeptic sites I see one issue.

    The temperature trend is upwards so you can argue that the atmosphere is less sensitive than expected HOWEVER.. if you project the median line we still hit the same temperatures, just 10-15 years later.

    To know for sure I would need to attach the missing last few years of data. Looking for that now.

  167. I am not sure of your final point.
    Satellite temperature was adjusted because some papers found that they were not compensating for drag. So I am not sure how old those comments are in the video.
    But, lets grant your argument. Satellite data might slightly underestimate temps.
    We still see the models are missing massively. And... there are still just models.

    That is not science showing man made co2 is causing warming.

    this is guy is a famous agw scientist..

    this wiki article is quoting him from a article in der spiegle I have linked to in the past here.

    Opinion on global warming[edit]
    Storch said in testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2006 that anthropogenic climate change exists:

    "Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."[2]
    He is also known for an article in Der Spiegel he co-wrote with Nico Stehr, which states that:

    "Scientific research faces a crisis because its public figures are overselling the issues to gain attention in a hotly contested market for newsworthy information."[3]
    "The alarmists think that climate change is something extremely dangerous, extremely bad and that overselling a little bit, if it serves a good purpose, is not that bad."[4]
    In December 2009, he expressed concern about the credibility of science and criticized some publicly visible scientists for simplifying and dramatizing their communications. He pointed to the German Waldsterben (Forest dieback) hype of the 1980s:[5]

    Research about the forest die back in Germany may serve as an example at the other end of the spectrum. The science of forest damages was in the 1980s heavily politicized, and used as support for a specific preconceived "good" policy of environmental protection. The resulting overselling and dramatization broke down in the 1990s, and news about adverse developments in German forests is now a hard sell in Germany. An observer wrote in 2004: "The damage for the scientists is enormous. Nobody believes them any longer." Of course, the damage was not only limited to the forest researchers, but also to other environmental scientists and politicians as well.
    In January 2011, Storch was counted among the 100 most influential Germans by the Focus magazine for being a "climate realist".[6]

    On 20 June 2013 Storch stated "So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year."[7]

  168. I was discussing models with my friend, she has some expertise in forecasting. She advised me that the importance of models are overestimated and gave me some stuff to read. I'll need to take some time.
  169. Surprised that the resident leftists haven't posted this. The end is near. maybe it's because the article identifies the real problem.
    "The main reason for the rise is an expected 3.5% increase in emissions in China, the world’s biggest polluter"

    India is the next big player. So the "scientists" tell us that if we don't get this in check by 2020 it's all over. Tipping point is past and we're all gonna' die. Leftist solution? Give the biggest polluters until 2030 to cut back, while leaning on America to do more emissions control even though that won't make any difference. Let that sink in. This is like saying if we let these bank robbers keep robbing our bank we'll be broke by 2020, but we've decided to allow the bank robbers to keep robbing the bank until 2030. The shear stupidity of that is even too much for a leftist to come up with, and that's where their real agenda gets exposed. Clean air isn't the goal. Crippling capitalism and destroying any ability for American industry to compete is the goal. America is evil, has exploited the world, and now must be punished.

  170. No you would NOT find one, let alone a list.

    NO publishing climate scientist explictly denies man made global warming. I mean denies, not casts doubt on or questions the degree of etc.....

    It should be easy to find one, he or she would stick out like a sore thumb. Contrast that with the fact that when asked, over 97% of climate scientists, Exxon, The Weather Channel, every science org in the world and common sense says man made global warming is happening.

    The reason for that is simple. CO2 is an important greenhouse gas that largely controls the temp of the earth and man has raised it's level by 40%. These are facts, not opinions. Do you understand the simple logic in that?
  171. I hope by now you have had a chance to view Salby's important presentation at the University College. I want to point out some extremely important new work by Prof. Nir Shaviv and his colleagues presented here.
    Anyone interested in the debate over Hanson's hypothesis owes it to themselves to be aware of the latest science.

    In the push to politicize and popularize the idea that anthropomorphic CO2 emissions were going to cause a disastrous temperature excursion, Hansen fully embraced the change in terminology from "Anthropomorphic Global Warming" (AGW) to "Climate Change". Unfortunately this has led to obfuscation. The public has lost sight of the real issue, i.e., Hansen's Hypothesis. The debate has always been over what causes climate change, and not climate change itself, about which there is no question. As far as I'm concerned the question of whether we are in a warming cycle has been answered already. We are.

    Please keep an open mind. When you for example mention Salby's "disgrace" please be aware that he, like virtually all other especially prominent scientists whose work calls into question Hansen's Hypothesis, has been subject to relentless ad hominem attacks unrelated to scientific criticism. Sometimes these efforts have resulted in politically motivated vendettas and even termination of research funding. Salby is not an Angel by any means, but his NSF budgetary transgressions were of the sort that would ordinarily have resulted in a reprimand only. Nevertheless he remains highly respected in the atmospheric physics community. He is the author of a seminal text in Atmospheric Physics and many papers in the peer reviewed literature. He is certainly no quack.

    For those interested in how Salby was treated by NSF you may find this interesting: http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/murry-salby-responds-to-the-attacks-on-his-record/

  172. ^Think tank "social media outreach" operator in action. Salby? LOL. No he is NOT a highly respected climate scientist, he's a laughing stock.

    Again with the ad-homing the argument. It's climate science, not the Hansen hypothesis.
  173. The 5 telltale techniques of climate change denial

    1. Fake experts
    Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. This has been found independently in a number of studies, including surveys of Earth scientists, analysis of public statements about climate change and analysis of peer-reviewed scientific papers. How might one cast doubt on the overwhelming scientific consensus? One technique is the use of fake experts.
    We see this in online petitions such as the Global Warming Petition Project, which features more than 31,000 scientists claiming humans aren't disrupting our climate. How can there be 97% consensus when 31,000 scientists disagree? It turns out 99.9% of the petition's signatories aren't climate scientists. They include computer scientists, mechanical engineers and medical scientists but few climate scientists. The Global Warming Petition Project is fake experts in bulk.

    2. Logical fallacies
    The reason why there's a 97% consensus is because of the many lines of evidence that humans are causing global warming. Human fingerprints are being observed in heat escaping out to space, in the structure of the atmosphere and even in the changing seasons. Another denialist technique used to counter the weight of evidence is the logical fallacy.
    The most common fallacious argument is that current climate change must be natural because climate has changed naturally in the past. This myth commits the logical fallacy of jumping to conclusions. It's like finding a dead body with a knife sticking out of its back, and arguing that the person must have died of natural causes because humans have died of natural causes in the past. The premise does not lead to the conclusion.

    3. Impossible expectations
    While many lines of evidence inform our understanding of climate change, another source of understanding are climate models. These are computer simulations built from the fundamental laws of physics, and they have made many accurate predictions since the 1970s. Climate models have successfully predicted the loss of Arctic sea ice, sea level rise and the geographic pattern of global warming. However, one technique used to cast doubt on climate models is the tactic of impossible expectations.
    Some people argue that climate models are unreliable if they don't make perfect short-term predictions. However, a number of unpredictable influences such as ocean and solar cycles have short-term influences on climate. Over the long term, these effects average out, which is why climate models do so well at long-term predictions.

    4. Cherry-picking
    Signs of global warming have been observed all over our planet. Ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are losing hundreds of billions of tons of ice every year. Global sea level is rising. Thousands of species are migrating toward cooler regions in response to warming. The ocean is building up four atomic bombs worth of heat every second. One way to avoid this overwhelming body of evidence is through the technique of cherry-picking.
    For example, a persistent myth is that global warming stopped in recent decades. This is done by focusing on one slice of our climate system -- the surface temperature record. Further, it relies on cherry-picking short time periods. This ignores the long-term trend and more importantly, ignores the many warming indicators telling us that our planet continues to build up heat.

    5. Conspiracy theory
    The global surface temperature record is constructed by teams across the world, each compiling their own independent record. These different efforts, each using their own methods, paint a consistent picture of global warming. Climate science deniers reject this coherent evidence with conspiracy theories.
    The thousands of scientists across the world who develop these temperature records are regularly accused of faking their data to inflate the global warming trend. Of course, critics produce no evidence for a global conspiracy. In fact, a number of investigations into the scientists' methodology has concluded that they conducted their research with robust integrity. How do the conspiracy theorists respond to each exoneration? By expanding their conspiracy theory to include the investigators!

  174. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas or not.

  175. when you argue science is about consensus... you are the epitome of fake news.
    science is about the scientific method... not consensus.
  176. that is probably the 150th time you have asked that moronic question.
    Greenhouse gases can warm and cool.

    Nasa proved CO2 cools in this experiment...


  177. What is the problem with this guy (FC)?
  178. You are doubting his global warming religion. You are a heretic. Facts and evidence don't matter to FC, he merely responds by re-posting the same nonsense over & over again hundreds of times and insulting others.

  179. My problem is that I hate scumbags that lie for profit or ideology when those lies will cause death and destruction. Scumbag.

    I guess you won't answer my question.
  180. I have not had much time yet. I have been digesting some other material.
  181. you purposefully ignorant troll... why do you lie? I have proven this to you over and over.
    Its from NASA and it was proven with experiments.
    Nasa created an experiment with statellites and proved that
    CO2 is also a very effective coolant.

    If you even understood that co2 captures and then re radiates you would understand the same property can either cool or warm depending on where the gas is located and where the energy is coming from.

    Its seems you would rather be ignorant than learn science.

    here is the experiment....


    For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

  182. Fair enough, but please do try to get to it. It's very interesting. Especially the Nir Shaviv research into solar affects on cloud formation. This work presents an entirely new hypothesis for which colleagues in Denmark have already obtained direct, experimental, evidence. It appears to be very high quality work. This may be the missing piece to the puzzle. Somehow I am not surprised. Shaviv is a Brilliant young physicist! We will hear much more from him.

  183. here is the key to why your debunking is not on solid ground...your debunker made a claim about clouds which is not borne out by recent scientific research.
    The recent studies have shown that more clouds may mean warming or cooling depending on which type of clouds they are and where they are located.

    High clouds tend to keep warmth in.
    Lower clouds like the clouds in the tropics keep warming out...


    In order to predict the climate several decades into the future, we need to understand many aspects of the climate system, one being the role of clouds in determining the climate's sensitivity to change. Clouds affect the climate but changes in the climate, in turn, affect the clouds. This relationship creates a complicated system of climate feedbacks , in which clouds modulate Earth's radiation and water balances.

    • Clouds cool Earth's surface by reflecting incoming sunlight.
    • Clouds warm Earth's surface by absorbing heat emitted from the surface and re-radiating it back down toward the surface.
    • Clouds warm or cool Earth's atmosphere by absorbing heat emitted from the surface and radiating it to space.
    • Clouds warm and dry Earth's atmosphere and supply water to the surface by forming precipitation.
    • Clouds are themselves created by the motions of the atmosphere that are caused by the warming or cooling of radiation and precipitation.

    If the climate should change, then clouds would also change, altering all of the effects listed above. What is important is the sum of all these separate effects, the net radiative cooling or warming effect of all clouds on Earth. For example, if Earth's climate should warm due to the greenhouse effect , the weather patterns and the associated clouds would change; but it is not known whether the resulting cloud changes would diminish the warming (a negative feedback) or enhance the warming (a positive feedback). Moreover, it is not known whether these cloud changes would involve increased or decreased precipitation and water supplies in particular regions. Improving our understanding of the role of clouds in climate is crucial to understanding the effects of global warming.

    Atmospheric scientists have learned a great deal in the past many decades about how clouds form and move in Earth's atmospheric circulation. Investigators now realize that traditional computer models of global climate have taken a rather simple view of clouds and their effects , partly because detailed global descriptions of clouds have been lacking, and partly because in the past the focus has been on short-term regional weather prediction rather than on long-term global climate prediction. To address today's concerns, we need to accumulate and analyze more and better data to improve our understanding of cloud processes and to increase the accuracy of our weather and climate models.

  184. "Get'em outahere" I say. Stu, you've got to be joking. That guy Christopher Keating, I don't care if he studied physics one semester on line. Hell I don't care if he graduated from Antonelli College with honors in animal husbandry , or even if he has actually met Barbara Bush! I can tell immediately from his comments that he is not a competent scientist. I am not saying he never was; I am saying he is not. (present tense.) This is a ridiculous response of yours. And on top off everything, like a tiny Maraschino Cherry atop a giant mountain of Cool Whip, he ('Prof.' Keating) refers me to a science journalist. Give me a break! Pleeese.
  185. Stu stepped outside his normal anti-religious wheelhouse.
  186. Experts can conjecture stuff and set themselves up to rule imaginary kingdoms. It suits the introvert personalities that are drawn to science to do that and they do it in every area they inhabit [infest would be a better word]
  187. :D
  188. hey, climate denial IS religious:p

    Me neither piezoe. Hell I don't even care if Keating doesn't support Trump!
    I don't care either if the Shaviv guy is an Israeli-American physics professor , carrying out research in the fields of astrophysics while failing rather miserably to make a splash with his own cosmic ray hypothesis on the side. Although rumor has it he's now trying to adapt his wonky research into making hand held ray guns for space cadets.

    The real question is, does anything Keating say against Nir Shaviv's ideas have real scientific merit.
    So why your (ridiculous) response attacking Keating the messenger:confused:
    If you were being in any way serious about trying to understand the science behind the statements rather than hold a dogmatic determination to refuse any evidence that spoils the climatard belief system, it would have been just as easy for you to take into account information in the second link I gave. Ah but that debunks Shaviv too and by scientist(s) more than competent .
    But you ignored it, presumably because right there, is a professor of Space Environment Physics directly concerned with the subject, who finds the science on solar influence affecting global and regional climate - does not support Nir Shaviv.
    You presumably attack the messenger because as a climate denier you would read in the link the simple fact that actual temperature records are completely inconsistent with any of the solar forcings Shaviv talks of. Maybe you should be more skeptical of your own denial.

    But quite frankly, no amount of denial or protest or refusal to understand it, is going to be any more scientifically reliable than a horse on a staircase.
    horse.jpg and yeah john oliver's end of season show is especially brilliant. Check it out!
  189. if climate change denial is religious could you show us some peer reviewed science that says man made co2 is causing warming?

    Because if anyone exhibits faith its those arguing man made co2 causes warming without any science.

    Note, I did not ask for science which shows co2 has warming properties (because we also know it has cooling properties).

  190. ass over tits. Not how science works
    What there aren't, are any peer reviewed scientific papers, published or not, to counter the very large amount of published peer reviewed scientific papers, which explain how anthropic CO2 is causing warming.

    Funny thing. There are also those who say there are no published peer reviewed scientific papers, which explain how space-time curvature causes gravity .
  191. Actually there is not a single peer-reviewed paper which claims that anthropic CO2 causes global warming which is dangerous to mankind. If there is one... then please provide a link to it.
  192. Actually there probably isn't a single peer-reviewed paper which claims that spacetime curvature causes gravity which is dangerous to mankind either.

    Perhaps they're just the kind of things that are screamingly f'kng apparent if one's being sensible about what's dangerous to mankind from the worst effects of a greenhouse gas like anthropic CO2 , or worst effects of a force like gravity, simply going by what's known about their very nature alone.
  193. show us some science stu...

    post a link to the large amount of papers... or we will know you were lying about science again.

    "the very large amount of published peer reviewed scientific papers, which explain how anthropic CO2 is causing warming."

    by the way there no evidence that co2 causes warming because all the data shows it trails warming and cooling. so if you found anything it would be speculation based on models. Scientists use models to speculate that co2 might amplify the warming once the warming starts. Which may be true.
    But, after a lot of co2 is released it may start cooling.

    NASA experiments show co2 also cools.
    This is again why there is no science showing man man co2 causes warming.
    There is no data to support that finding.


  194. NASA says it's a greenhouse gas, that warms. Or are you trying to re-define what "greenhouse gas" means?

    You, like piehole, are one of those lying scumbags. The kind that will help cause death and destruction from man made global warming. Go fuck yourself.
  195. You troll liar Fraudcurrents.

    Here NASA states CO2 is also a very powerful coolant
    and proves it with this experiment.

    are up denying that CO2 also cools.


    finally we don't even know that more co2 is bad.
    We need more food to feed 7 billion people.

    and the oceans have been rising since the last ice age...

  196. Yes, I know what they say. They say it is a greenhouse that - on balance - warms and without it the earth would be much much colder. Or do you deny that also, you lying piece of shit.
  197. point to the science in peer reviewed papers that proves your statement and then using that paper and others I will explain why we are currently unsure what adding more co2 does in our environment.

    We might actually get somewhere if you start producing peer reviewed science to establish your statements.

    hint there are few if any papers showing co2 causes warming which don't rely on models. One paper admits that warming comes before co2 and then speculates that once the warming started co2 increased the warming.


  198. Yet more evidence that piehole works for a libertarian think tank.

    If anyone wants to know what Shaviv is really all about....


    And still, not a single example of a publishing climate scientist denying man made globa warming.

    "He (Shaviv) does stress anthropogenic causes will most likely be the dominant driver of warming in the 21st century. "

  199. Here you go you fucking lying piece of shit. Knock yourself out. Permanently.

    Revolution. (Credit: Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.) Find out more about ice cores (external site).

    1. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers

      B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46

      Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306

      V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141

      B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.

    2. In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.

    3. National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.


    4. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

      Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.

      The global sea level estimate described in this work can be downloaded from the CSIRO website.

    5. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/



    6. https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20170118/)

    7. Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).

    8. L. Polyak, et.al., “History of Sea Ice in the Arctic,” in Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at High Latitudes, U.S. Geological Survey, Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.2, January 2009, chapter 7

      R. Kwok and D. A. Rothrock, “Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESAT records: 1958-2008,” Geophysical Research Letters, v. 36, paper no. L15501, 2009


    9. National Snow and Ice Data Center

      World Glacier Monitoring Service

    10. "Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change," National Academies Press, 2016

      Kunkel, K. et al, "Probable maximum precipitation and climate change," Geophysical Research Letters, (12 April 2013) DOI: 10.1002/grl.50334

      Kunkel, K. et al, "Monitoring and Understanding Trends in Extreme Storms: State of the Knowledge," Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2012.


    11. http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification?

    12. http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

    13. C. L. Sabine et.al., “The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2,” Science vol. 305 (16 July 2004), 367-371

    14. Copenhagen Diagnosis, p. 36.

    15. National Snow and Ice Data Center

      C. Derksen and R. Brown, "Spring snow cover extent reductions in the 2008-2012 period exceeding climate model projections," GRL, 39:L19504


      Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, Data History Accessed August 29, 2011.
  200. Shaviv thinks, like Salby, that rising temps are the cause of the CO2 increase.

  201. I would never make it as a think tank operator. They are instructed not to insult or get into name calling because it turns people off. Piehole is doing a really good job. Classic trojan horse mode. Appear knowlegable and polite and be correct about everything except the target propaganda. Conservatives are already on the denial side, the real gains can be made on those from the left.

    And if anyone doubts that these think tanks have social media operators out there doing just what piehole is doing, I would like to sell them the Brooklyn Bridge.
  202. you are one crazy troll.
    I asked for science which showed co2 has caused warming here on earth.

    please point to the peer reviewed papers so we can discuss this rationally.
    I know that co2 has warming properties.
    I know temperatures have gone up since the last age.

    I wanted to actually discuss the science and establish what we know and what we don't know when co2 is added to the atmosphere.

    For instance
    Since warming happens before the co2 increases in the atmosphere... how do you know that the co2 causes the warming?

    you best answer it that you think it amplifies the warming...
    but you have no proof.

  203. if you examine the data in your chart... you find that change in ocean temps leads change in air temps by 3 months which lead change in co2 levels by 9 months.

    I showed you the peer reviewed science many many times.
    co2 follows with a 90 percent correlation. but it is the laggard.

    Why do you keep acting like your charts are proving your point?

    talk about denial trolls

  204. "The real question is, does anything Keating say against Nir Shaviv's ideas have real scientific merit."

    They don't. That's why I responded as ridiculously as I did. Nothing more measured would have been appropriate. My hands were tied. I believe absurdinity deserves to be responded to by ridiculosity.

    All I can do is suggest you view Shaviv's youtube presentation and then read Keating's critique. Keating's remark that solar irradiance is down by 0.1 (units not, specified, shall we assume W/sq. meter?, time period not specified) leaves me with no choice but to respond by saying "##*!", and other words to that effect. Keating's response had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with Shaviv's brilliant hypothesis, which has to do with (you decide after viewing Shaviv's presentation). I an not saying Shaviv is right. I am saying Keating is crazeeee.. And then to add a second link to a science journalist' s work, well that was just too, too much! I hope you enjoyed the maraschino cherry sundae I served up.
  205. That makes two of the world's most respected atmospheric physicists agreeing with each other. Perhaps you should take note.

  206. Perhaps you should take note of this chart. Thinktank Scumbag. No more tobacco to defend?

    Respected? By whom? Industry whores and liars is about all. So of course you respect them.

  207. A bottom line here is that none of us, including myself, who might be the only scientist here, is in a position to be believable as critic of scientists working in the area of "global warming". They are the experts; we are not. And although any one, or several of them, can be wrong, their colleagues will eventually have the next to last say. In Science, Mother Nature always has the last say.

  208. Do you fake your orgasms also? LOL
  209. sorry. it should be "it doesn't.."

  210. Oh but I thought that consensus means nothing? Make up your mind.

  211. Note how polite he is^. This is in the think tank playbook. Be nice guy. Win friends and respect. And then lie.
  212. Shaviv has looked at the cause. This is the most important question. Shaviv will get the Nobel Prize a generation from now, ~ 20 yrs. But we should not forget the contributions of Murry Salby, who showed that it can not be CO2, and Ferenc Miskolczi, who showed that the feedback must be negative; not positive.

    In the best of all worlds, all three would share the prize .Hats off to modern physics and its contributions to mankind.

    And hats off to all of science.
  213. I knew you were a sick troll but I held out hope you were not sick in real life.
    now I am not so sure.

  214. Yeah sure. Amazing how you lie with such fake honesty.

  215. And you would know sick trolling.
  216. What is your scientific discipline?
  217. I don't get you piezoe, you lean left on 90% of the issues yet you are anti climate change? Even if you don't believe in climate change itself aren't there some positive environmental side effects to the treatment of climate change that you could believe in? Cleaner air, water ect..ect?

    I'm sure there are people on the left who might not believe in the science of climate change but "climate change" is now the primary environmental focus of the left. These people care about the environment but might not believe in the science of climate change. However, the solutions to combat climate change align with their original "old school" environmental beliefs like saving the rain forests, wet lands, clean air and drinking water ect...

    What I am saying is maybe you don't believe in the disease (climate change) but the "cure" to climate change might align with any of your original environmental beliefs before climate change became the primary environmental focus on the left.

    Let me give you one last off-the-wall analogy. Let's say that you are a doctor and a patient with high blood pressure and lungs that are in poor condition comes to you and says "If I quit smoking then the ghosts will stop haunting my house". Rather than argue if ghosts exist or not wouldn't the benefits of the patient no longer smoking be a better outcome than proving that ghosts don't exist?
  218. Suppose the oceans needed billions and the air needed billions and the fields needed billions and the acquifers needed billions because they were stressed out by having to feed all the people on the planet.

    Now supposed more co2 would green the planet and create more food.
    Would you spend billions and billions on fake science about co2 or would you use the money to conserve and protect the environment directly.

    I am an environmentalist. I have been an advocate for clean oceans and bays.

    And I can tell you after talking to some scientists and then doing a ton of research myself... I learned that this man made co2 is causing warming... is complete horseshit with no peer reviewed science supporting the co2 nutters.

    All this money should be spent fixing the fisheries an cleaning the oceans and protect acquifers... not lining the pockets of scammers so govts can create carbon exchanges and limit our freedoms.


  219. He's a trojan horse. Working for a think tank. The strategy is to win respect and friends on the left in all other areas so his denial of the climate science is more respected. The right need no convincing. No real gains can be made there.

    The think tanks have people like him throughout the internet on sites like this. That's a fact. And they usually pose as some kind of scientist to gain credibility. Some of them ARE scientists. Just like the "scientists" that worked to counter the science on the hazards of smoking tobacco.

    Millions of dollars from conservative and libertarian fossil fuel related groups and individuals go toward paying people - scientists like Salby and non-scientists - to spread doubt about the science.
  220. This makes absolutely no sense.

  221. Sure it does. The rantings of someone like jem are easy to dismiss. He's a crazed right wing ideologue. Those of piezoe are less so since he has the respect of many on the left. Heck, I agree with him on virtually every other matter.

    Do you know the Trojan horse story? Get in the gates as a friend first.

    The libetarian think tanks don't care about the social issues. It's the fossil fuels where the money is.

    Maybe a double agent is a better name.
  222. Jem's posts are excellent and well thought out---Piezoe's are not---yours are not. Thinking he is infiltrator on this site is one of the most ridiculous beliefs I've ever run across. Stop watching so much TV.
  223. No point in posting a link. Everyone who takes any rational interest in the subject knows the internet is full of links to published peer reviewed papers explaining how anthropic CO2 is causing warming. Same for evolution and gravity and moon landings.

    You are someone still in denial of the very large amount of links on the internet that show, explain, describe and confirm an ex-president's birth certificate. So no amount of scientific data is ever going to convince you about any fact or piece of information when it stands in the way of the climate denial you want to believe in.

    You'll always just keep repeat dredging the same old things as you do above, even though non of it has been validated , not formally published, not peer reviewed , not independently scientifically validated, against the vast amount of independently scientifically verified published peer reviewed papers, which explain how anthropic CO2 causes warming.
  224. Dude, for goodness sake! The links I made direct further inquiry towards the hard science out there. It reveals your reluctance to follow through and is another reason why providing links is a waste of time .
    Shaviv and Salby need to make presentation to places like the Royal Society, not youtube.:rolleyes: There is already confirmed science at the RS and everywhere else that matters, which directly pulls the rug from under their so called hypothesis. Their notions simply do not work in scientific terms. If anything, they do more to confirm the current science that anthropic CO2 is causing current excessive global warming as correct , and the solar affect which Shaviv promotes, cannot be correct. After years and years and years, neither Shaviv nor Salby (nor anyone else) has presented a formal scientific proposal for validation which undermines GW science. And for good reason. Their ideas don't scientifically stand. The science that stands is the science that more science cannot knock over. That is why GW science stands. :banghead:

    With both Shaviv and Salsby you seem to have been suckered by watching a couple of semi-charismatic you tube self-promoters. For life long cure, try a few minutes of Justin Bieber instead.
  225. electrochemistry
  226. They do of course.
  227. Only if you equate "climate change" with Hansen's hypothesis. No one is anti climate change unless they are insane. People have completely lost sight of the crucial issue, which is whether man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is going to result in a catastrophic increase in the Earth's surface temperature.
  228. I typed this search..

    anthropic co2 causing warming

    no links to peer reviewed science

    there is zero peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming if there were the author would be more famous than al gore and have all sorts of science awards. (that is not based on now failed models)

    you lied again stu its you who makes claim you can not substantiate.
    I just keep explaining you lie.

  229. You've nicely identified the real problem. It is not the science, it is the politicizing of the science. Science has nothing to do with politics, so identifying a scientific hypothesis like Hansen's with left or right politics is nuts. Why do you suppose this AGW issue had it's name changed to "climate change" in the first place, and why did it become a political football? I think the answer, as always, relates to money, human emotion, and damaged pride. Once individuals become emotionally involved in what should be a science issue, they become incapable of doing dispassionate scientific inquiry. That, in my opinion, is precisely what happened to James Hansen. He is human after all. He is, so to speak, now like a thoroughbred with a gimpy leg. The only humane thing to do is to shoot him and save him from further pain.

    As a guide to .what can happen to science once it is politicized we have a number of fine examples such as the Lysenko affair --my personal favorite-- and the eugenics movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Currently we have both "climate change" and "fracking". These subjects can not be dispassionately approached by many because they are thoroughly wrapped up with commerce and thus politics. Fortunately there are still many scientists who are able to maintain their integrity despite a political fracas. And naturally these folks become the target for all manner of ad hominem attacks, and their science is automatically dismissed by those who have fallen victim to common wisdom driven by politics and emotion. I am not going to go so far as Gore Vidal who said "common wisdom is nearly always wrong", but I do believe it often is. There are many examples to prove this point.
  230. That is a very interesting field. Thanks for the reply.
  231. I typed this search..

    gravity causing falling

    no links to peer reviewed science

    The peer reviewed science must be out there though. Afterall, there is scientific consensus on both.
  232. They don't of course .

    One reason why they don't publish is this...of course

    A study has confirmed that there are no grounds to blame the Sun for recent global warming. The analysis shows that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays (M. Lockwood and C. Fröhlich Proc. R. Soc. A doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880; 2007). Some researchers had suggested that the latter might influence global warming through an involvement in cloud formation.

    “This paper is the final nail in the coffin for people who would like to make the Sun responsible for present global warming,” says Stefan Rahmstorf, a climate scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.
    People like Nir Shaviv.​
  233. Well that's not really the crucial issue is it..
    The crucial issue is will humanity continue to play a game of Russian Roulette with the planet and its climate, when there is no other competing scientifically sound explanation for recent strong levels in global temperature increase other than by man made atmospheric CO2 .

    Or will some be insane enough to only argue controversy, or promote misleading non-scientifically validated ideas that fly in the face of what is scientifically known and understood , for political reasons, or just to fulfill their personal beliefs.
  234. I don't agree.
    You've confused solar radiance. which can't account for temperature changes, with Shaviv's hypothesis, as did the blogger you gave a link to. I'm not going to do it for you, because I can't. But if you take the time to look into Shaviv's work you will find that he has shown that there is very likely another mechanism that can be responsible for cloud formation linked to solar activity. It may be wrong, but unquestionably it is brilliant. More recent laboratory results by others lend support to his hypothesis. You must take the time to read his papers, or if you are not able to do that, you can, at minimum, watch and listen to his fascinating youtube presentation. (I have given you the link.) He did not plan that, it was just something he was invited to do while visiting Washington on unrelated scientific matters. Fortunately for all, he agreed.

    In the end, Mother Nature will have the last say.

    Feel free to look up both Salby's and Shaviv's papers on your own. If you have a University Library nearby go to the reference librarian and ask them for assistence in how to use Science Citation Index. They will be happy to oblige.
  235. you might not be seeing it in peer reviewed papers because Newtons law has been superseded by general relativity. and the way you worded your search seems to be a very newtonian understanding.


    So, to summarize, general relativity says that matter bends spacetime, and the effect of that bending of spacetime is to create a generalized kind of force that acts on objects. However, it isn't a force as such that acts on the object, but rather just the object following its geodesic path through spacetime.

    I hope this has been helpful.


    stu... you really do need to find some science to support our superstition about man made co2 causing warming.

  236. It is very unlikely you'll ever understand what a ridiculous response that is , or how much you managed to pull off such a gigantic WTF??!!o_O moment by totally making and missing my point both at the same time.

    Let me try that
    "you might not be seeing it in peer reviewed papers because anthropic co2 has been superseded by climate change."

    Nah, somehow you just say something absurd and then make it even more so!
  237. Then you (Shaviv & Salby) need better science, your opinion isn't enough.

    I have been careful not to confuse what Shaviv or Salby have been saying. I think the shoe is on the other's foot as far as that is concerned. Or rather in your gushing praise of them, you confuse what science is actually about.

    The science is specific and particular and it covers all aspects of solar influence not just radiance. The science distinctively refutes and thereby dispenses with Shaviv's idea.
    I'm sure you do believe his proposal is brilliant, but the problem remains that it does not conform with observed data and known science, therefore it does not explain as well as or better than the anthropic influences do. Good scientists let their brilliant ideas go to the graveyard when they contradict known scientific facts.
    They use that failure to explain or use as a guide to what is much more likely to be the case and when everything starts pointing toward one thing, like it does with AGW, (and Gravity!) they improve knowledge.

    No matter how many universities or libraries you suggest I use, or video's you are impressed with, information that does not correspond with observed fact, like Shaviv's or Salby's is not a sound basis to argue against AGW. They are little more than a form of promoting controversy not knowledge.
    They should know better. Presumably you should too piezoe.

    She certainly will if you make her.
  238. So far, It does conform.
  239. You can't make her. But you can try. :D
  240. nice try einstein. your dodge is pathetic. Acting like you possess more info is such a typical response from lying lefty with an inflated self opinion.

    I got the physics correct. I looked it up to make sure. Your statement sounded newtonian but of course you will make up some bullshit with a word jungle of misused terms to try and pretend you meant something you did not say. (as you frequently have done in the past when you were caught lying about science.)

    there is no peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming (that does not rely on now failed models) in part because it will be very had to show because changes in co2 trail changes in temperature. But, I note billions of dollars paid out to researchers each year to try and find it.

    arguing the absence of peer reviewed science means its an established fact
    is criminally stupid.

    You are arguing that science is the antithesis of the scientific method.

  241. I love the way lefty trolls make unconditional statements about the sun and it contribution to warming.

    No real scientist could ever say its not the sun. They could only say that their investigations did not find a connection.

    However, if you were not a lefty troll liar you would understand there might be science out there showing it still could be the sun. Here is just one of the recent studies...

    This is how science works. you create experiments...
    This is from CERN not some paid whores with soft degrees in agw "science".


    Sorry, But With Global Warming It's The Sun, Stupid


    Failing to raise any significant research support, Svensmark managed to conduct a boot-strap-funded experiment in 2007 at the Danish National Space Center that yielded convincing validation. Using a particle accelerator, he demonstrated that cosmic rays colliding with molecules in the atmosphere can, in fact, cause gaseous water vapor to condense into cloud-forming droplets. Again, he received little scientific applause for this accomplishment.

    But fortunately, at least one person took the Danes' early observations seriously. Following their presentation at the Birmingham conference, CERN scientist Jasper Kirkby*, a British experimental physicist, told the scientific press in 1998 that the theory "will probably be able to account for somewhere between half and the whole of the increase in the Earth's temperature that we have seen in the last century."

    Furthermore, he too, set out to obtain more proof. But his plan to do so wasn't an easy sell. It took Kirkby nearly 10 years to convince the CERN bureaucracy to create a stainless steel cloud chamber to precisely replicate the Earth's atmosphere and conduct independent experiments.

    It worked! As reported in the Aug. 25 issue of the journal Nature, Jasper Kirkby and his 62 co-authors from 17 institutes in Europe and the U.S. announced that the sun indeed has a significant influence on our planet's temperature. Their "Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets" (CLOUD) experiment proved that its magnetic field does, in fact, act as a gateway for cosmic rays that play a large role in cloud formation. The report stated "Ion-induced nucleation [cosmic ray action] will manifest itself as a steady production of new particles [molecular clusters] that is difficult to isolate in atmospheric observations because of other sources of variability but is nevertheless taking place and could be quite large globally over the troposphere [the lower atmosphere]." In other words, the big influence exists, yet hasn't been factored into climate models.
  242. For goodness sake.
    Didn't I say it's very unlikely you'll ever understand what a ridiculous response you've made?
    I was right!
    and you've doubled down. :D

    Of course there is peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming , just as there is peer reviewed science showing gravity causes motion.

    For every bit of bullshit that says there is no peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming, there is an equal amount of bullshit that says there is no peer reviewed science showing gravity causes motion.

    Arguing against fact is what you are doing. If anything that is the antithesis of science, that is what's 'criminally stupid'..
  243. And yet you cannot dig up a single peer reviewed scientific paper demonstrating that AGW causes global warming that is dangerous to man. Yep, not a single paper you can present on this, eh?

    If it is so obvious, I would think that you would at least be able to find a single peer reviewed paper with this scientific summary, just one.
  244. It does not conform. You are wrong.

    Proceedings of the Royal Society A. Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences.
    DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2007.0347
    Lockwood / Fröhlich
    "[..] all solar forcings of climate have declined since 1987. "
    "The temperature record is simply not consistent with any of the solar forcings that people are talking about,"​

    The way Shaviv and Salby ignore and handwave away peer reviewed science with fancy presentations and ideas not in line with science itself, will be the main reason they choose to make youtube presentations and don't publish as thousands of other scientists have.

    Fact is, science finds no natural causes that can account for the extreme global temperature change being recorded.
    One single glaringly obvious scientifically evident verifiable reason is known greenhouse effects from measured man made CO2 in the atmosphere.
  245. Again your confusing conventional studies of solar radiance with shaviv's work. You'll have to read his papers, or at the very minimum watch his entire youtube presentation, and pay attention, to see that his hypothesis is entirely different from what you apparently think it has to do with..

    Shalby's work is unrelated. Shalby has not shown what warming is due to, but only that anthropomorphic atmospheric CO2 content is inconsistent with Hansen's hypothesis. All scientists agree that doubling of CO2 will cause a rise in mean temperature. However Salby, based on his studies, believes the rise will not just be much smaller that originally projected, but negligible.
  246. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America is full of them.

    They also cover Evolution and Physics too but not moon landings. In your world that must mean there is no single peer reviewed scientific paper demonstrating moon landings cause men to land on the moon.:rolleyes:
  247. Just post the link to one paper. One paper as an example is all we are asking for.

  248. What the hell difference is me posting one to you going to make!?
    Go find one yourself for fks sake.You've just been given one source and the place is full of 'em.

    If I post one on gravity in a flat earth forum, what do you think the response would be?
    Exactly! Same as yours.

    What you won't find in that home of peer reviewed science is one peer reviewed paper demonstrating that AGW is not going to cause global warming .
  249. Yes, and there are thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers that cast doubt on AGW theory. We are provided links to all of these papers previously.

    Trying to tie "climate change" hypotheses where the science is not settled to gravitational theory where the science is pretty much settled is like comparing a duck to mongoose.
  250. Is it to to with solar effect or not! If it is, the science, you know that stuff in the Royal Society, it does not support what he claims.

    Oh come on piezoe, Salby's beliefs are not enough. He has not produced any paper for peer review on his beliefs, while scientific evidence directly contradicts his beliefs!
  251. Stu, I have respect for you but I don't have infinite patience. Statement such as this that you have posted do not reflect well on the knowledge you bring to these forums.

    "...and don't publish as thousands of other scientists have"

    See below. As a scientist I don't mind informing you that this is, allowing for shaviv's current age ~45, one of the most illustrious publication records in all of physics, and he has at least another twenty years to go in his career!
    (By the way, Murry Salby also has published widely. He has over 100 publications and has written 5 books.)

    In rfereed Journals: (This is not entirely up to date)
    1. C. Elphick, O. Regev, N. J. Shaviv,
      “Dynamics of Fronts in Thermally Bistable Fluids”,
      The Astrophysical Journal, 392, 106, 1992 [ADS]
    2. N. J. Shaviv & G. Shaviv,
      “The Mass Distribution in a Merger Model”,
      The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 412, L25, 1993 [ADS]
    3. V. Aharonson, O. Regev & N. J. Shaviv,
      “Pattern Evolution in Thermally Bistable Media”,
      The Astrophysical Journal, 426, 621, 1994 [ADS]
    4. N. J. Shaviv & O. Regev,
      “Interface Dynamics and Domain Growth in Thermally Bistable Fluids”,
      Physical Review E, 50, 2048, 1994 [ADS]
    5. N. J. Shaviv & A. Dar,
      “Gamma Ray Bursts from Minijets”,
      The Astrophysical Journal, 447, 863, 1995 [ADS]
    6. N. J. Shaviv & G. Shaviv,
      “The Galaxy Mass Distribution in a Collapsing Spherical Cluster”,
      The Astrophysical Journal, 448, 514, 1995 [ADS]
    7. N. J. Shaviv & A. Dar ,
      “Fireballs in Dense Stellar Regions as an Explanation of Gamma-Ray Bursts”,
      Mon. Not. of the Royal Astr. Soc., 277, 287, 1995 [ADS]
    8. A. Dar & N. J. Shaviv,
      “The Extragalactic Neutrino Background Radiation from Blazars and Cosmic Rays”,
      Astroparticle Physics 4, 343, 1996 [ADS]
    9. A. Dar & N. J. Shaviv,
      “Origin of the High Energy Extragalactic Diffuse Gamma Ray Background”,
      Physical Review Lett., 75, 3052, 1995 [ADS]
    10. A. Dar & N. J. Shaviv,
      “Origin of the high Energy diffuse gamma-ray background - Reply”,
      Phys. Rev. Let. (Comments), 76, 3879, 1996 [ADS]
    11. N. J. Shaviv & G. Shaviv,
      “Thermonuclear Reaction Rates in Dense Astrophysical Plasmas: I”,
      The Astrophysical Journal, 468, 433, 1996 [ADS]
    12. N. J. Shaviv,
      “The Eddington Luminosity in Multiphased Media”,
      The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 494, 193, 1998 [ADS]
    13. N. J. Shaviv,
      “Can Nonlinear Structure Form at the Era of Decoupling?”,
      Mon. Not. of the Royal Astr. Soc., 297, 1245, 1998 [ADS]
    14. A. Dar, A. Laor & N. J. Shaviv,
      “Life extinctions by cosmic ray jets”,
      Physical Review Letters, 80, 5813, 1998 [ADS]
    15. Adelberger et al. (including N. J. Shaviv ),
      “Nuclear fusion cross-sections”,
      Reviews of Modern Physics, 70, 1265, 1998 (review) [ADS]
    16. N. J. Shaviv, J. S. & Y. Lithwick,
      “Magnetic Lensing near Ultramagnetized Neutron Stars”,
      Mon. Not. of the Roy. Ast. Soc., 306, 333, 1999 [ADS]
    17. G. Shaviv & N. J. Shaviv,
      “Is there a Dynamical Effect in the Screening of Nuclear Reactions in Stellar Plasmas?”,
      The Astrophysical Journal, 529, 1054, 2000 [ADS]
    18. J. S. Heyl & N. J. Shaviv,
      “Polarization evolution in strong magnetric fields”,
      Mon. Not. of the Roy. Ast. Soc., 311, 555, 2000 [ADS]
    19. N. J. Shaviv,
      “The Porous Atmosphere of η-Carinae”,
      The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 532, L137, 2000 [ADS]
    20. N. J. Shaviv,
      “The Nature of Instabilities in Radiatively supported Thomson Atmospheres”,
      The Astrophysical Journal, 549, 1093, 2001 [ADS]
    21. N. J. Shaviv,
      “The Theory of Steady State Super Eddington Winds and its Application to Novae”,
      Mon. Not. of the Roy. Ast. Soc., 326, 126, 2001 [ADS]
    22. N. J. Shaviv & G. Shaviv,
      “Dynamic Screening Corrections to the Nuclear Reactions in the Sun”,
      The Astrophysical Journal, 558, 925, 2001 [ADS]
    23. J. S. Heyl & N. J. Shaviv,
      “QED and the High Polarization of the Thermal Radiation from Neutron Stars”,
      Physical Review D, 66, 023002, 2002 [ADS]
    24. N. J. Shaviv,
      “Cosmic Ray Diffusion from the Galactic Spiral Arms, Iron Meteorites and a possible Climatic Connection”,
      Physical Review Letters, 89, 051102, 2002 [ADS]
    25. N. J. Shaviv,
      “The Spiral Structure of the Milky Way, Cosmic-Rays and Ice-Age Epochs on Earth”,
      New Astronomy, 8, 39, 2003 [ADS]
    26. N. J. Shaviv & G. Shaviv,
      “The State of Be7 in the Core of the Sun and the Solar Neutrino Flux”,
      Mon. Not. Roy. Astr. Soc., 341, 119, 2003 [ADS]
    27. J. S. Heyl, N. J. Shaviv & D. Lloyd,
      “The High-Energy Polarization-Limiting Radius of Neutron Star Magnetospheres: I. Slowly Rotating Neutron Stars”,
      Mon. Not. Roy. Astr. Soc., 342, 134, 2003 [ADS]
    28. N. J. Shaviv & J. Veizer,
      “Celestial Driver of Phanerozoic Climate?”,
      GSA Today, 13, July, 4-10, 2003 [GSA Site]
    29. N. J. Shaviv & J. Veizer,
      “Comments on ‘Cosmic rays, carbon dioxide and climate’ by Royer et al.”,
      GSA Today, 14, 18, 2004. [pdf]
    30. N. J. Shaviv & J. Veizer,
      “Comments on ‘Cosmic rays, carbon dioxide and climate’ by Rahmstorf et al.”,
      EOS Trans. AGU, 85, 511, 2004. [pdf]
    31. G. Shaviv, N. J. Shaviv,
      “Why the Salpeter approximation is not valid in the Sun” ,
      J. Physics A., 36, 6187, 2003 [ads]
    32. N. J. Shaviv,
      “Toward a Solution to the Faint Sun Paradox – A Lower Cosmic Ray flux from a Stronger Solar Wind”,
      J. Geophys. Res.–Space Phys., 108 (A12), 1437, doi:10.1029 / 2003JA009997, 2003 [ADS]
    33. S. P. Owocki, K. G. Gayley & N. J. Shaviv ,
      “A Power Law Porosity Formalism for Continuum-Driven Mass Loss from Stars above the Eddington Limit”,
      The Astrophys. Journal, 616, 525, 2004 [ADS]
    34. T. Piran & N. J. Shaviv,
      “The Low Mass Progenitor of the Binary Pulsar J0737-3039B – Evidence for a New Type of Stellar Collapse”,
      Phys. Rev. Lett., 94, 051102, 2005 [ADS]
    35. N. J. Shaviv,
      “On Climate Response to Changes in the Cosmic Ray Flux and Radiative Budget”,
      J. Geophys. Res.–Space Phys., 110 (A8), A08105, doi:10.1029 / 2004JA010866, 2005 [ADS]
    36. K. Scherer, H. Fichtner, T. Borrmann, J. Beer, L. Desorgher, E. Flükiger, H.-J. Fahr, S. E. S. Ferreira, U. W. Langner, M. S. Potgieter, B. Heber, J. Masarik, N. J. Shaviv, J. Veizer, “Interstellar-Terrestrial Relations: Variable Cosmic Environments, The Dynamic Heliosphere, and Their Imprints on Terrestrial Archives and Climate”, Sp. Sci. Rev., 127, 327–465, 2006.
    37. S. Naoz & N. J. Shaviv,
      “ Open Cluster Birth Analysis and Multiple Spiral Arm Sets in the Milky Way”,
      New Astron., 12, 410, 2007. [ads] [pdf]
    38. A.-J. van Marle, S. P. Owocki, & N. J. Shaviv,
      “Numerical Simulations of Continuum Driven Winds of Super-Eddington Stars”,
      Mon. Not. of the Roy. Ast. Soc., 389, 1353-1359, 2008. [pdf]
    39. N. J. Shaviv,
      “Using the Oceans as a Calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing”,
      J. Geophys. Res.–Space Phys., 113 (A11), A11101, doi:10.1029 / 2007JA012989, 2008. [pdf]
    40. A.-J. van Marle, S. P. Owocki, & N. J. Shaviv,
      “On the behavior of stellar winds that exceed the photon-tiring limit”,
      Mon. Not. of the Roy. Ast. Soc., 394, 595-604, 2009. [pdf]
    41. N. J. Shaviv, T. Piran & E. Nakar,
      “Inhomogeneity in the Supernova Remnant Distribution as the Origin of the PAMELA Anomaly”,
      Phys. Rev. Lett., 108, issue 11, id. 111302, doi:10.1103 / PhysRevLett.103.111302, 2009 [pdf]
    42. C. Dotan, E. M. Rossi & N. J. Shaviv,
      “A Lower Limit on the Halo Mass to form Supermassive Black Holes”,
      Mon. Not. of the Roy. Ast. Soc., 417, 3035, 2011 [pdf]
    43. N. J. Shaviv, R. Wehrse, & G. Shaviv,
      “The maximal runaway temperature of Earth-like planets”,
      Icarus, 216, 403, 2011 [pdf]
    44. C. Dotan, & N. J. Shaviv,
      “Super-Eddington slim accretion discs with winds”,
      Mon. Not. of the Roy. Ast. Soc., 413, 1623. [pdf]
    45. S. Ziskin, N. J. Shaviv,
      “Quantifying the Role of Solar Radiative Forcing over the 20th Century”,
      Advances in Space Research, 50, 762, 2011 [pdf]
    46. C. Dotan, & N. J. Shaviv,
      “The Super-Eddington Nature of Super-Massive Stars”,
      to appear in MNRAS [arXiv]
    47. T. Shacham, & N. J. Shaviv,
      “On Continuum-driven Winds from Rotating Stars”,
      Astrophys. J., 757, 191, 2012 [pdf]
    48. E. O. Ofek, M. Sullivan, S. B. Cenko, M. M. Kasliwal, A. Gal-Yam, S. R. Kulkarni, I. Arcavi, L.
      Bildsten, J. Bloom, A. Howell, A. Filippenko, R. Laher, D. Levitan, E. Nakar, P. E. Nugent, B.
      Sesar, J. Silverman, N. J. Shaviv4, J. Surace, O. Yaron, "An outburst from a SN progenitor one
      month prior to explosion", Nature, 494, 65-67, 2013 [arXiv] [ads]
    49. Ofer M. Springer & Nir J. Shaviv
      "Asteroseismic effects in close binary stars"
      MNRAS 434, 1869, 2013 [pdf] [ads]
    50. Irit Idan, Nir J. Shaviv, Giora Shaviv
      "The Fate of a WD Accreting H-Rich Material at High Rates"
      MNRAS 433, 2884, 2013 [arXiv] [pdf] [ads]
    51. Simone Dall’Osso, Tsvi Piran, Nir J. Shaviv,
      “Binary Pulsar J0737-3039 – Evidence for a new core collapse and neutron star formation mechanism”
      MNRAS 438, 1005, 2014 [arXiv] [ads]
    52. David Benyamin, Ehud Nakar, Tsvi Piran, Nir J. Shaviv,
      “Recovering the observed B/C ratio in a dynamic spiral-armed cosmic ray model",
      Astrophys. J. 782, 34 [arXiv] [ads]
    53. E. O. Ofek, M. Sullivan, N. J. Shaviv, A. Steinbok, I. Arcavi, A. Gal-Yam, D. Tal, S. R. Kulkarni, P. E. Nugent, S. Ben-Ami, M. M. Kasliwal, S. Cenko, S. Bradley; R. Laher, J. Surace, J. S. Bloom, A. V. Filippenko, J. M. Silverman, O. Yaron,
      "Precursors Prior to Type IIn Supernova Explosions are Common: Precursor Rates, Properties, and Correlations"
      Astrophysical Journal, 789, 104, 2014 [ads]
    54. Nir J Shaviv, Andreas Prokoph, Ján Veizer,
      "Is the Solar System's Galactic Motion Imprinted in the Phanerozoic Climate?"
      Scientific Reports 4, article 6150, 2014 ( doi:10.1038/srep06150) [nature]
    55. D. Howard, H. Svensmark, N. J. Shaviv,
      "The Solar and Southern Oscillation Components in the Satellite Altimetry Data"
      J. Geophys. Res., DOI: 10.1002/2014JA020732 [ads]
    56. Ben Margalit, Nir J. Shaviv,
      "Constraining MOND Using the Vertical Motion of Stars in the Solar Neighborhood",
      Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 456 (2), 1163-1171 [ads]
    57. N. L. Strotjohann, E. O. Ofek, A. Gal-Yam, M. Sullivan, S. R. Kulkarni, N. J. Shaviv, C. Fremling, M. M. Kasliwal, P. E. Nugent, Y. Cao, I. Arcavi, J. Sollerman, A. V. Filippenko, R. Laher, J. Surace,
      "Absence of Precursor Eruptions Prior to Type IIb Supernovae",
      The Astrophysical Journal 811 (2), 117 [ads]
    58. N. Smith, N. J. Shaviv, H. Svensmark,
      "Approximate analytical solutions to the condensation/coagulation equation of aerosols",
      Aerosol Science & Technology, 2015 [ads]
    59. E. O. Ofek, S. B. Cenko, N. J. Shaviv, G. Duggan, N.-L. Strotjohann, A. Rubin, S. R. Kulkarni, A. Gal-Yam, M. Sullivan, Y. Cao, P. E. Nugent, M. M. Kasliwa, J. Sollerman, C. Fransson, A. V. Filippenko, D. A. Perley, O. Yaron, and R. Laher
      PTF13efv - An outburst 500 days prior to the SNhunt 275 Explosion and its radiative efficiency, The Astrophys. J. 824, 6, 2016
    60. David Benyamin, Ehud Nakar, Tsvi Piran, Nir J. Shaviv,
      "The B/C and sub-Iron/Iron Cosmic ray ratios - further evidence in favor of the spiral arm diffusion model",
    61. Nir J. Shaviv,
      "A Kinematic Spiral Arm Shock Signature: 'Ringing' in the Vertical Motion of the Stars", submitted to MNRAS
    62. Nir J. Shaviv,
      "The Paleoclimatic evidence for Strongly Interacting Dark Matter Present in the Galactic Disk", submitted to PRL
    63. Stanley P. Owocki, Nir J. Shaviv,
      "The Spectral Temperature of Optically Thick Outflows with Application to Light Echo Spectra from η Carinae's Giant Eruption", MNRAS, 462, 345, 2016
    64. Lara Nava, David Benyamin, Tsvi Piran, Nir J. Shaviv,
      "Spectral map of the diffuse γ-ray emission from π0-decay in a dynamic spiral arm model: comparison with observations",
      Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [MNRAS]
    65. Jacob Svensmark, Martin B. Enghoff, Nir J. Shaviv, and Henrik Svensmark,
      "The response of clouds and aerosols to cosmic ray decreases",
      to appear in J. Geophys. Res.–Space. [JGR-Space]

    1. S. P. Owocki, & N. J. Shaviv, “Instabilty & Evolution Near the Eddington Limit”, in “Eta Carinae and the Supernova Impostors”, edited by K. Davidson & R. Humphreys, to be published by Springer (invited review chapter) [ads] [pdf]
    2. N. J. Shaviv, Die Rolle der Sonne im Klimawandel des 20 Jahrhunderts, in “Die kalte Sonne”, edited by F. Vahrenholt & S. Lüning. Hoffmann und Campe Verlag, 2012. [translation]
    3. G. Shaviv, S. Bressler, S., N. J. Shaviv, “The habitable zone and the generalized greenhouse effect” in “Habitability of other planets and satellites”, eds. de Vera & Seckbach, Springer, 2012
    Conference Proceedings
    1. O. Regev & N. J. Shaviv, "Pattern Formation and Evolution in Astrophysical Fluids". Acta Physica Polonica, 1994, 25, 1005. (Presented at "The Sixth Symposium on Statistical Physics" Zakopane, Poland, Sept. 1993.
    2. N. J. Shaviv, "Inquisitive Correlations in the BATSE gamma-Ray Burst Data", in "The gamma-ray sky with COMTON GRO and SIGMA", eds. M. Signore et al., (Kluwer: Dordrecht), p. 395., 1995.
    3. N. J. Shaviv, "A GRB Model Satisfying Stringent Observational Constraints" in the proceedings of the ESA conference: "Towards the Source of Gamma Ray Bursts", Noordwijk, 1995: Astrophys. & Space Science, 231 (1-2) p. 445, 1995.
    4. N. J. Shaviv & Shaviv G., "The galaxy mass distribution from mergers in a collapsing spherical cluster", IAU SYMP (171) 444, 1996.
    5. N. J. Shaviv & Dar A, "Solution To The Gamma Ray Burst Mystery?", at the proceedings of VIIIth Rencontre De Blois, "Neutrinos and Dark Matter In The Universe'', June 6-12, 1996
    6. N.J. Shaviv & G. Shaviv, "Screening of Nuclear Reactions in Stars", in the proceedings of "White Dwarfs", ed. J. Isern, M.Hernanz & E.Garcia-Berro (Kluwer), 1996.
    7. Dar A., Laor A., & Shaviv N. J., "Life Extinctions By Cosmic Ray Bursts", in the Proceedings of the XXII Rencontre de Moriond, Les Arcs, France, 1997, and in "Results and Perspectives in ParticlePhysics" Proceedings of the 1997 Rencontre de la Valee d'Aosta, Italy, 1997.
    8. N.J. Shaviv & G. Shaviv, "How to calculate the Screening of Nuclear Reactions in Stars", Proc. "Strongly coupled Plasmas", ed. G.Kalman & M., Boston, 1997
    9. Shaviv N. J., "The Instability of Radiative Flows: From the Early Universe to the Eddington Luminosity Limit", Physics Reports 311, 177-185, 1999. (Proceedings of "Astrophysical fluids from atomic nuclei to stars and galaxies", Haifa, Israel, Jan 1998.
    10. Shaviv G. & Shaviv N. J., "Is there a dynamic effect in the screening of nuclear reactions in stellar plasmas?" Physics Reports 311, 99-114, 1999. (Proceedings of "Astrophysical fluids from atomic nuclei to stars and galaxies", Haifa, Israel, Jan 1998.
    11. Shaviv N. J., "Extremely Luminous Atmospheres", in the proceedings of "IAU Coll. 169: Variable and non-spherical stellar winds in luminous hot stars", Heidelberg, Germany, June 1998.
    12. Shaviv N. J. "Striking nonlinear mode coupling in the CMBR", in the proc. of "The 19th Texas Symp. on Relativistic Astrophysics", Paris, France, December 1998. [pdf]
    13. Heyl J. S., Shaviv N. J., Lithwick Y., "The Optics of Neutron-Star Magnetospheres", in the proceedings of the AAS HEAD Division Meeting 1999, Charleston, South Carolina, April 1999
    14. Shaviv G., Shaviv N. J. "The controversy over the electrostatic screening of nuclear reactions in stellar plasmas" (invited), in the proceedings of "Frontier Objects in Astrophysics and Particle Physics", Vulcano, Italy, June 2000.
    15. Shaviv G., Shaviv N. J. "Deriving the Electrostatic Screening of Nuclear Reactions from first Principles", in the proceedings of "Nuclei in the Cosmos", 2000, Arhus, Denmark, July 2000.
    16. Shaviv N. J. "The Winds of Super Eddington Atmospheres", in the proceedings the International Workshop on "Winds from Massive Stars", Îles de la Madeleine, Québec, Canada, July 2000 [pdf]
    17. Shaviv, N. J., Shaviv G., "Electrostatic Screening of Nuclear Reactions" (invited), In the proceedings of "Hot Points in Astrophysics", JINR, Dubna, Russia, August 2000.
    18. Shaviv, N. J., “Super-Eddington Atmospheres and their Winds” in Gansicke, B., Beuermann, K., Reinsch, K., eds., “The physics of cataclysmic variables and related objects”, Proceedings of conference, Goettingen, ASP Conference Series, 2001 [ADS, pdf]
    19. Heyl, J. S., Shaviv, N. J., “What Could Polarimetry tell us about Neutron Stars?” in “Two years of Science with Chandra”, Symposium held in Washington DC, September 2001 [ADS]
    20. Shaviv, N. J., “Classical Novae as Super Eddington Objects” in Hernanz, M., José, J., eds., “Classical Nova Explosions: International Conference on Classical Nova Explosions”, Proceedings of conference in Sitges, Spain, AIP 2002 [pdf]
    21. Shaviv, N. J., “Cosmic Rays Diffusion in the dynamic Milky Way: Model, Measurement and Terrestrial Effects” in the “International School of Cosmic Ray Astrophysics”, Erice, Italy, June 2002. (invited) [pdf]
    22. N. J. Shaviv, “Climate Change and the Cosmic Ray Connection”, in “International Seminar on Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies – 30thsession”, Erice, Italy, August 2003. (Ed. R. Ragaini, World Scientific, 2004) (invited)
    23. N. J. Shaviv & G. Shaviv, “The state of Be7 in the solar core”, Leiden workshop on nuclear reactions, June 2004. (invited)
    24. N. J. Shaviv, “Exceeding the Eddington Limit”, in proceedings of “The fate of the most massive stars”, Grand Teton Natl. Park, May 2004. (invited) [ADS, pdf]
    25. N. J. Shaviv, “The Cosmic Ray / Climate Connection”, to appear in Int. J. Mod. Phys.-A., in proceedings of “The 19th European Symposium on Cosmic Rays”, Florence, September 2004. (invited)
    26. S. Naoz & N. J. Shaviv, “The dynamics of the Sagitarius-Carina spiral arm” in the “International School of Cosmic Ray Astrophysics”, Erice, Italy, June 2004.
    27. N. J. Shaviv, “On the Link Between Cosmic Rays and Terrestrial Climate”, Int. J. Mod. Phys.-A., 20, 666, 2005. [ads]
    28. N. J. Shaviv, & G. Shaviv, "The state of beryllium in the Sun and the possibility of sterile neutrinos", in “Frontier Objects in Astrophysics and Particle Physics, Vulcano Workshop 2006”, Eds. F. Giovannelli & G. Mannocchi., p. 531 [ads]
    29. N. J. Shaviv, “Long-term cosmic ray exposure of Earth”, in the proceedings of “Heliophysics: The Sun, The Heliosphere and the Earth”, Bad Honnef, Germany, May 2007.
    30. A. J. van Marle, S. P. Owocki, N. J. Shaviv, “Continuum-Driven Winds from Super-Eddington Stars: A Tale of Two Limits”, in “FIRST STARS III Conference”, AIP Conference Proceedings, 990, 250-253 (2008). [ads]
    31. T. Piran, N. J. Shaviv & E. Nakar, “Inhomogeneity in the Supernova Remnant Distribution as a natural explanation of the PAMEALA/ATIC Observations”, In proceedings of Recontres de Moriond 2009 Very High Energy Phenomena in the Universe, Les Arcs, France, 2009. [pdf]
    32. N. J. Shaviv, & C. Dotan, “On the Appearance of Super-Eddington States in Various Astrophysical Systems”, in Memorie della Società Astronomica Italiana, Vol. 81, p. 350, 2010 [pdf]
    33. G. Shaviv, N. J. Shaviv, & R. Wehrse, “CO2 cools or heats?", in Memorie della Società Astronomica Italiana, Vol. 81, p. 494, 2010 [pdf]
    34. N. J. Shaviv, “The Climatic role of the Sun—How, how much, and what does it mean?”, in “2010 World Federation of Scientists International Seminar on Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies ” (World Scientific, 2011) [pdf]
    35. N. J. Shaviv, “The Role of the Solar Forcing in the 20th century climate change”, to appear in “2011 World Federation of Scientists International Seminar on Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies ” (World Scientific, 2012) [pdf]
    36. N. J. Shaviv, C. Dotan, “Classical Novae as Super-Eddington Steady States”, to appear in the proceedings of the “Palermo Workshop 2011: The Golden Age of Cataclysmic Variables and Related Objects”, ed. F. Giovannelli. [pdf]
    37. S. Bressler, N. J. Shaviv, G. Shaviv, “The Sensitivity of the Greenhouse Effect to Changes in the Concentration of Gases in Planetary Atmospheres”, ed. F. Giovannelli. [pdf]
    38. I. Idan, N. J. Shaviv, and G. Shaviv, “The Fate of a WD Accreting H-Rich Mate- rial at High Rates”, in proceedings of “Nuclear Physics in Astrophysics V”, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 337, 012051 [ads]
    Ref: http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/cv/cv.html
  252. Here are Shaviv's numbers for you. What you are persistently referring to is solar luminosity that has been thoroughly investigated and its effect on temp change is weak which is referred to in the literature as solar radiative forcing. If you read below you will see that according to Shaviv one has to include cosmic ray flux (CRF) in the overall picture. When that is done, according to Shaviv, the result is quite different! . See Below


    View issue TOC
    Volume 110, Issue A8
    August 2005

    Solar and Heliospheric Physics
    On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget

      • Blogged by 1
        Tweeted by 1
        Referenced in 2 Wikipedia pages
        45 readers on Mendeley
        2 readers on CiteULike
        See more details | Close this
        × " style="display:inline-block;" data-badge-popover="bottom"> [​IMG]
    [1] We examine the results linking cosmic ray flux (CRF) variations to global climate change. We then proceed to study various periods over which there are estimates for the radiative forcing, temperature change and CRF variations relative to today. These include the Phanerozoic as a whole, the Cretaceous, the Eocene, the Last Glacial Maximum, the 20th century, as well as the 11-yr solar cycle. This enables us to place quantitative limits on climate sensitivity to both changes in the CRF, and the radiative budget, F, under equilibrium. Under the assumption that the CRF is indeed a climate driver, the sensitivity to variations in the globally averaged relative change in the tropospheric ionization ℐ is consistently fitted with μ ≡ − (dTglobal/dℐ) ≈ 7.5 ± 2°K. Additionally, the sensitivity to radiative forcing changes is λ ≡ dTglobal/dF = 0.35 ± 0.09°KW−1m2, at the current temperature, while its temperature derivative is undetectable with (dλ/dT)0 = −0.01 ± 0.04 m2W−1. If the observed CRF/climate link is ignored, the best sensitivity obtained is λ = 0.54 ± 0.12°KW−1m2 and (dλ/dT)0 = −0.02 ± 0.05 m2W−1. Note that this analysis assumes that different climate conditions can be described with at most a linear function of T; however, the exact sensitivity probably depends on various additional factors. Moreover, λ was mostly obtained through comparison of climate states notably different from each other, and thus only describes an average sensitivity. Subject to the above caveats and those described in the text, the CRF/climate link therefore implies that the increased solar luminosity and reduced CRF over the previous century should have contributed a warming of 0.47 ± 0.19°K, while the rest should be mainly attributed to anthropogenic causes. Without any effect of cosmic rays, the increase in solar luminosity would correspond to an increased temperature of 0.16 ± 0.04°K.

    Even if shaviv is correct it could easily take twenty years or more for his work to be fully vetted criticized and accepted or rejected. Under the current political climate it could take twice that long!.
    This guy is no quack, however, and neither is Salby, and you'd be well advised to sit up and take notice.

    Please note the links in red are active. You can read an earlier criticisms (2004) of Shaviv's earlier publication. And by clicking on "Check for Updates" you can read shaviv's response to the earlier criticisms 2005, the above abstract) . Pay careful attention to dates. To make sure you are reading the most recent work.
  253. The comparison is reasonable. Both AGW and Gravity are obviously supported by scientific evidence even though you might believe one of them isn't.

    Predicting to what extent AGW will damage the planet is not settled, just as it is not settled exactly how much gravity is certain to damage a falling object .

    It's all rather obvious and nothing but politics or absurdity to pretend otherwise.
  254. Stop being disingenuous. My patience is no more infinite than yours.

    Salby has not published for peer review in all the years he could have.

    As far as Shaviv is concerned, if you are a scientist then you will at least understand that it is the SCIENCE not the SCIENTIST that matters.
    What the hell are you trying to prove by listing Shaviv's achievements while ignoring the point!
    What he proposes is not supported by peer reviewed science itself. Peer review that has equal or more eminent science and scientists to apply to the issue. How many more times!?

    I have every respect for Shaviv's work and there is no doubt he is brilliant, which makes it all the more perplexing as to why he would do this kind of thing.

    The subject is not really directly in his field, but what he suggested is not supported by basic scientific fact which he has been made aware of. Even more weird is why he tried to dodge the problem when it was brought to his attention and gave no scientific valid response that beholds a scientist of his stature.

    It is also perplexing as to why you have been suckered into the you tube global warming denial jerking circle .
  255. I have not referred to solar luminosity. I said all solar activity and as for Cosmic Flux, there is nothing new! It goes back to Henrik Svensmark in 2003 and is mired in controversy.

    Shaviv's work from 2005 was left wanting to put it politely by other direct research and in 2012, when high quality satellite data showed cosmic rays erm excuse me, "cosmic ray flux (CRF)" , had no statistically significant influence. This also confirms Lockwood and Fröhlich findings in 2007 and others which negated solar activity and cosmic rays as mentioned earlier. They do not meet with the evidence.
    Also journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00306.1 finds galactic cosmic rays do not have any statistically significant influence on changes in cloud cover which is opposite to what Shaviv ( and earlier proposers of this effect) need.
  256. If memory serves me correctly, the flat earthers also refused to provide one peer-reviewed scientific study.
  257. What exactly is your point? I thought it was that observed temperature change can not be explained by direct solar radiative forcing. I don't disagree with this, and neither does Shaviv!. You have failed utterly to even try and understand Shaviv's contribution to the science. It is not cosmic rays directly, it is ionization related to Cosmic Ray Flux that is linked to cloud formation according to Shaviv. In fact new laboratory results are supportive of his hypothesis. (Cosmic rays are the same thing as gamma radiation) . You may not realize that when solar radiative flux is measured it is generally not the entire spectrum that is measured but typically uv through infrared. This is the radiation that is directly observable as heat or is convertible to heat (IR) upon absorption. And of course gamma has also been measured, but there is no observable direct link. Everyone was looking for a direct link between changes in solar radiation and temperature. But observable direct links are too weak to explain observation. Shaviv has proposed that there is an indirect mechanism that up until ~2005 had been entirely overlooked. There is a link between cloud formation solar driven ionization. What he is proposing is quite different than what has been well considered previously.
  258. There is no reason to debate this because it's all based on the huge assumption that Cons are literate. They will literally post fake papers calling it peer reviewed and then pretend huge evidence exists for their bullshit.
  259. we have posted 100s of peer reviewed articles showing its the sun and the moon and the tides at least in part... and you don't even have one peer reviewed article stating its man made co2.

    Beside you are the the the troll who argued Moscow is not in Europe. No one takes you seriously.
  260. Which if course it is already and will to a much greater extent going forward insofar as paid liars and ideological nutjobs like jem like you are listened to.


    Of course your employers don't want that knowledge out there. They want to keep the Koch bros et al happy don't they?

    And it's amazing how little relevant science is in your pile of bullshit. A lot of red herrings and fluff but nothing of substance.
  261. Just how many times are you going to repost this nonsense. Just how many times have the moderators warned you about continually reposting nonsense.

    After 300 or 400 times it is abusive to the forum.
  262. We don't even need an article. Two charts prove it. The one I posted above and this one which shows the reduction of outward radiation from the earth over the time due to the increase of greenhouse gasses.

    You and piezoe seem to have problems with basic logic. See the dips? That is how much less the satellites have measured of those wavelengths. Do you guys have adjoining cubicles?

    If you guys need more explanation let me know. As if logic and evidence would change the propaganda that you two liars spew. LOL

    How long has CO2 been contributing to increased warming? According to NASA, “Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975”. Is there a reliable way to identify CO2’s influence on temperatures over that period?

    There is: we can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.


    Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

    This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.
  263. Yes, we know that to you and your cronies that facts and actual science are nonsense, and that posting facts makes you angry. And I understand that you want to censure the best single evidence that you are full of shit. But fuck you, I will keep posting it when it is relevant. Which it is nearly all the time.

    Your stubborn ignorant bullshit is offensive to the forum. Put me on ignore if it bothers you fuckface.
  264. Futurecurrents is as charming as ever.
  265. [​IMG]
  266. 1. if you click on the al gore sponsored website at skeptical science and read the comments you learn your graphs don't tell the whole story. Your analysis is hardly peer reviewed and it debated.

    2. NASA also proves that co2 cools. So we don't know the impact of add more co2 at this stage.

    3. you have not shown that the earth does not off gas or observe man made co2

    4. the data shows co2 trails temperature.

    So once again all you have shown is that co2 has some warming properties. Something we do not deny

  267. You said

    "I have every respect for Shaviv's work and there is no doubt he is brilliant, which makes it all the more perplexing as to why he would do this kind of thing.

    The subject is not really directly in his field, but what he suggested is not supported by basic scientific fact which he has been made aware of. Even more weird is why he tried to dodge the problem when it was brought to his attention and gave no scientific valid response that beholds a scientist of his stature.

    It is also perplexing as to why you have been suckered into the you tube global warming denial jerking circle ."

    Just like piezoe! It's the same answer for both Shaviv and pie of course. Money. Fossil fuel money. Do you believe me yet? Pie is simply not credible. Every scientist referred to by him is an industry whore, a fraud, a fool and or an attention whore. A quick google search confirms this, yet they are held in high esteem by him.

    Piezoe is working for a think tank or something similar. He is exactly what they want out there.

  268. So you admit the charts are correct. Interesting that both and pie dodge their factualness.

    Your red herrings are exactly what a think tank operator would do.

    Talk about anything but the facts.
  269. what the fuck are you lying about now.
    I tell you on just about every thread... the same property of co2 that traps energy and shoots some of it to earth ... traps incoming energy coming in and shoots it back into space.

    I explain co2 acts like a blanket and a shield.
    I provided the NASA satellite experiment which proves it acts as shield.

    I have also explained there are studies which show that as you add more co2 its properties as a blanket decrease logarithmically.

    I also show you through peer reviewed paper by humlum and other peer reviewed papers that co2 levels trail changes in temperature.

    So why the hell would I deny co2 traps some upward IR from the earth and sends some of it back? you act like you are proving something.

    you just post the same shit with discussing any of the science which is not favorable to your superstition about co2. you are just a drone.

    If you wish to talk science... point out with science how what I said above is wrong.

    You will cease being a troll moron when you understand our atmosphere is a very complex system with negative feedbacks. If it did not have negative feedbacks we would probably have had a runaway heating situation and everything would have burned away.

  270. I just wanted to comment that I am somewhat familiar with the Laken, et al. paper you cited. In this paper Shaviv's 2005 paper is cited without much comment. I think the Laken paper contains at least one serious error, Fig. 5, in that it is using GCR uncorrected for energy. Only Cosmic rays with energy greater than ~10 GeV can penetrate the earths atmosphere. This is the varying sub-component of TSI that affects ionization and cloud seeding. The other problem is that the Laken paper, like the IPCC and so many others, have tried to correlate cloud cover with TSI (total solar irradience), but of course cloud cover does not correlate with TSI. It is the ionization from CRF above 10 GeV that is correlated, not TSI. I don't see, therefore, the Laken et al. paper as a refutation of the Shaviv findings. The IPCC models do not of course attempt to model cloud cover, which is critically importnat. Shaviv is somewhere in the middle ground between the IPCC and Salby. His work indicates that Anthropomorphic contributions are larger than Salby has maintained, but considerably smaller than the IPCC maintains.
  271. They'll make any, same and similar claims as GW deniers.

    I suggest for your own sake, you don't rely on your memory for anything important.
  272. What is my point? Really!?
    Your point appears confused piezoe but thanks for expanding.
    It's like you have been hypnotized by the likes of Shaviv and Salby but at the same time recognize the flaws in their ideas, though you seem to want to step around them for no good apparent reason.
    Even if Shaviv's proposals were by some inexplicable means to be found valid, when you read through what he is saying, it is that there might be a relationship between solar influences and cloud formation but only in certain situations, though even then it wouldn't /doesn't / couldn't account for the exceptional increase in global warming. So he invents (I use the word loosely) or should I say - suggests the idea of an 'indirect mechanism'.

    The problem with that is, it doesn't change anything as galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth has increased over a corresponding period(a cooling effect)... " which is exactly the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures" as cited previously.
    So according to that fact alone, his 'indirect mechanism' may as well be down to fairy farts as it won't meet with observed scientific data in any event. The only measurable observable scientific explanations that do meet and can account for increased temperatures are man made emissions.

    Which was my point all along. So if anything, Shaviv is anyway indirectly confirming the overwhelming role of anthropic GW, as once again, natural causes, particularly the one he proposes, could not account for the observed rise in temperatures, even if he or you believe his idea has some sort of merit.
  273. I wasn't aware I referred specifically to Laken. The observed data countering Shaviv is much more recent.
    I do however acknowledge your willingness to post the comment above, where we have Shaviv advising Salby that anthropic activity is greater than Salby is allowing for!!

    That really is the underlying point. It is specifically what the great preponderance of science finds. That the comparatively recent measured extreme increases in global warming can only be explained by the overwhelming Anthropomorphic contributions, not natural events.

    It is unconscionable why anyone in their right mind would even want to deny the fact.
  274. I remember that in addition to being an imbecile, you have no sense of humor. Please continue to wallow in your miserable life.
  275. This is appearing to be less and less likely as more studies appear. Go to 4:13 in the Nir Shaviv youtube video I posted a link to for a nice summary of IPCC problems. It isn't that anthropomorphic contributions aren't present. They are, and they are insignificant. Anything the IPCC doesn't know how to include in their models they find an excuse to ignore. This is a very convenient truth. :D
  276. jeezus man chill out. Talk about miserable AND overreaction.
  277. When the only studies that appear to you as believable are Shaviv and Salby against overwhelming scientific evidence, then of course man made emissions will seem less likely to be relevant.

    But for you to say man made emissions are insignificant is, to put it scientifically, bullshit.

    Basically Shaviv and Salby would have better hypothesis for showing anthropomorphic emissions were insignificant if they just kept dividing current levels by 2 until reaching a figure they liked better.:rolleyes:
  278. Where on Earth did you get that idea? You must have read related threads I've contributed to?

    Even Hansen unwittingly has shown this to be the case if the feedback is negative, not positive. Positive feedback is a requirement to show a significant effect of rising CO2. (At the projected levels. CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas.) The mechanism for positive feedback is unknown (some assumed it was increased water vapor and thus clouds, but as you yourself pointed out, current understanding is that clouds are net cooling. ) In other words, positive feedback is assumed despite the absence of a plausible mechanism! However NASA Scientist (at the time) Ferenc Miskolczi has published a theoretical paper showing that negative feedback is a requirement of the observed energy balance. You can, therefore, add Miskolczi to your list of brilliant physicists who are throwing cold water on Hansen's hypothesis.

    As someone interested in science you should also be reluctant to accept the assumption of positive feedback in the absence of a plausible mechanism. By contrast, plausible mechanisms for negative feedback do exist. Because positive feedback systems are unstable and are driven to there positive limit, any proposed positive feedback mechanism must include an explanation of why we Homo sapiens still exist on this planet.
  279. It does to a nutjob
  280. I just want to comment that in my post above, unless i mention a specific mechanism, when I refer to positive or negative feedback I am referring to the net of all individual feedback mechanisms. There are of course many individual phenomena, both positive and negative, that have been identified. What is important is the net of all those individual phenomena.

    I could mention a specific phenomena that is associated with positive feedback. It is thermally driven phase transition of water from the liquid state to the gaseous state (humidity increase) . Water vapor is a greenhouse gas more important than in CO2. However increased water vapor is not only associated with warming but also with cooling due to evaporation (Water has a large heat of vaporization) and cloud formation that is on balance cooling. Some one will correct me if I am wrong, but if memory serves me correctly, Hansen originally assumed that evaporation , increased humidity, and cloud formation was net positive in its feedback contribution. This could be right, I'm not sure, but my intuition tells me it is probably incorrect. In any case the net feedback of all contributing factors must be negative. That is to say the Earth resists changes in mean temperature. What is often argued among researchers is how sensitive the surface temperature is to changes in the CO2 concentration. These estimates vary substantially among researchers. I happen to believe Hansen's original numbers for climate sensitivity to CO2 concentration were wildly too high.
  281. any thinking person knew that is what you meant.
    but you had to post what you did because dnc trolls will frame it the wrong way on purpose.

  282. From piehole

    "Positive feedback is a requirement to show a significant effect of rising CO2"

    Complete and total bullshit. As we would expect from a think tank employee.

    Co2 is earth's most important greenhouse gas and does NOT require any additional postive feedback......although postive feedback is in fact happening through the action of increased water vapor, reduced albedo (ice and snow), and release of methane from permafrost as it melts.
  283. You are projecting again.
  284. And this continues to be ignored by jerm and piehole....

    Maybe it's because they have NO interest in the truth and the facts. Maybe they don't understand the chart.


    How long has CO2 been contributing to increased warming? According to NASA, “Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975”. Is there a reliable way to identify CO2’s influence on temperatures over that period?

    There is: we can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.


    Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

    This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.
  285. Right wing fossil fuel related think tanks have agents out on the internet trying to sway public opinion about global warming. True or false.

    Let's see just how naive and ignorant you are.
  286. this is what dingbat calls ignoring his chart.


  287. Well it's hard to tell, under all the ad homs, red herring and obfuscation, but you admit that the greenhouse gasses have been increasing their rate of retaining heat on earth. Good that's a start.

    That's what all the experts think also.
  288. I never really had much interest in Spongebob until I learned it was David Bowie's favorite cartoon. He voiced a special extended episode and has a song in Spongebob the musical. David also wished to live in a pineapple. @Tom B will appreciate that though saying someone else is "projecting" makes me feel left out.

    Now we know Bowie was a great mind so perhaps this episode is the right level for them to understand?

  289. Wow, it was way too easy to get in your head, fake Irishman. Jim Jones Kool-Aid easy. You are a danger to yourself and others around you. Happy Thanksgiving.

  290. If your visiting my head bring some sweet yams? my grandaunt made them when I visited as a kid at thanksgiving. I've not had them since.

    Enjoy the holiday.

    Oh and Canada Dry Tahitian soda if it is still around.
  291. the data shows that co2 levels follow change in ocean temps.
    ocean temps are rising so we expect co2 levels to follow and they have.

    so given that every scientist in the world knows that the data shows co2 trials change in ocean temps and air temps. How is that that co2 causes the thing it trails?

    Please show us the exact science and link to it.

  292. This is a basic explanation. Have you read this?

    "When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase."


    Over the last half million years, our climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10°C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags Antarctic temperature changes by around 1,000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many. Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is both.

    Figure 1: Vostok Antarctic ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration (Petit 2000) and temperature change (Barnola 2003).

    Interglacials come along approximately every 100,000 years. This is called the Milankovitch cycle, brought on by changes in the Earth's orbit. There are three main changes to the earth's orbit. The shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun (eccentricity) varies between an ellipse to a more circular shape. The earth's axis is tilted relative to the sun at around 23°. This tilt oscillates between 22.5° and 24.5° (obliquity). As the earth spins around it's axis, the axis wobbles from pointing towards the North Star to pointing at the star Vega (precession).

    Figure 2: The three main orbital variations. Eccentricity: changes in the shape of the Earth’s orbit.Obliquity: changes in the tilt of the Earth’s rotational axis. Precession: wobbles in the Earth’s rotational axis.

    The combined effect of these orbital cycles causes long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes. For example, the orbital cycles triggered warming at high latittudes approximately 19,000 years ago, causing large amounts of ice to melt, flooding the oceans with fresh water. This influx of fresh water then disrupted the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres (Shakun 2012). The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999).

    The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.

    CO2 from the Southern Ocean also mixes through the atmosphere, spreading the warming north (Cuffey 2001). Tropical marine sediments record warming in the tropics around 1000 years after Antarctic warming, around the same time as the CO2 rise (Stott 2007). Ice cores in Greenland find that warming in the Northern Hemisphere lags the Antarctic CO2 rise (Caillon 2003).

    To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:

    • Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
    • CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
    • CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet
    Overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occurs after the atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 3).


    Figure 3: The global proxy temperature stack (blue) as deviations from the early Holocene (11.5–6.5 kyr ago) mean, an Antarctic ice-core composite temperature record (red), and atmospheric CO2 concentration (yellow dots). The Holocene, Younger Dryas (YD), Bølling–Allerød (B–A), Oldest Dryas (OD) and Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) intervals are indicated. Error bars, 1-sigma; p.p.m.v. = parts per million by volume. Shakun et al. Figure 2a.
  293. That chart is using two different proxies. One to measure global change in temps and one to measure change in Antarctic temps. How the hell do they know for certain that they are measuring what they think they are measuring?

    There is a new paper (in press in the journal Geophysical Research Letters) that presents a lesson that we all should keep in mind—results based on reconstructions of climate phenomena that are based on once or twice removed “proxy” indicators, may not be as reliable as they appear (or as they are presented) to be. If this brings hockey sticks and salacious emails to mind, you are not alone.

    The Problem with Proxies


    Proxy inconsistency and other problems in millennial paleoclimate reconstructions

    Past reconstructions: problems, pitfalls and progress
  294. So you are saying that this brings Jem's assertion into doubt? bold added:

    "so given that every scientist in the world knows that the data shows co2 trials change in ocean temps and air temps. How is that that co2 causes the thing it trails?"
  295. The article you posted acknowledges Jem's point...CO2 lags temps, at least initially.
  296. The aricle provides some nuance to Jem's broad and sweeping statement. And it explains why there is an apparent cart before horse for a percentage of warming in a reasonable manner.

    I would like to hear Jem's response.

    However if the proxy data known unknowns/unknown unknowns etc. issues are used fallaciously then the discussion cannot progress. Butwhatabout proxies distracts from discussing the grand scheme energy sources and cycles.

    Just pointing out, not trying to make argument. The scientists who work on papers don't need to be told there are reasons to be wary of the proxies. They will have pondered this and one can be certain work is being done to improve the data. One of your links is from 2007, they know this (have known from the very first proxy measurements) and are proceeding on what they believe is probably the best data for now.

    So the scepticalscience response page has it's links to real science. That is something to go on and discuss in response to Gem's point:

    "so given that every scientist in the world knows that the data shows co2 trials change in ocean temps and air temps. How is that that co2 causes the thing it trails?"
  297. The study you brought up in this thread, the one we have been discussing, is Shaviv's and you happened to mention Salby, so my comment was relevant. Nothing to do with related threads.

    Miskolczi found little support from his peers many of whom seem to find his 'theory' is based on untenable physics to the point where even his Wiki page has been deleted!

    CO2 as a plausible mechanism for positive feedback has been known about since the 1800's . To deny that, you might as well deny Evolution.
    Why you are so keen to accept controversial speculation from the likes of Miskolczi , Shaviv, Salby in place of basic scientific facts is anyone's guess .

    You are conflating climate sensitivity, (a predicted amount global temperature will rise due to greenhouse effect), with the fact that man made CO2 will cause the Earth to warm.

    As someone interested in science, surely you should be more reluctant to be attracted to things that fly in the face of it.
  298. To say CO2 can't cause temperature to rise because it is seen to lag temperature, is to say chickens can't lay eggs because they are seen hatch from them. I think that explanation is given and expanded upon fully at skeptical science.
  299. al gores skeptical science says:

    "To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:"

    response... Milankovitch cycles probably are a significant part of warming and cooling cycles. If you read... you will see that the cycles impact warming and cooling because of the Sun.

    If the sun is the reason why we warm and cool in correlation to milankovitch cycles does it not seem obvious the sun could be impacting us in shorter cycles as well.

    How is it possible so many agw nutters were until recently saying it was only co2 causing warming and cooling?

    So in summary the sun and the tides and other natural non co2 factors cause at least some to all of our warming.

    b. Next we see the claim that 90 percent of the warming occurs after the co2 is released.
    To which I say... yes... of course. As the sun warms the earth and co2 follows... some co2 will be out before the next round of warming.

    c. Shakun discusses the long term cycle. The sun warms us up. Antartica heats up... the tides exchange the warmth north. Co2 gets released from the oceans. So the sun leads and Co2 follows. Shakun then speculates the co2 then causes warming using models and statistics.

    d... Humlum paper here... http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658

    informs us what has been happening in the short run.
    In the short run. change in ocean temps leads change in co2 levels by 11 months.

    for the sake of argument lets accept that speculation and carry it to its full understanding. Just as co2, water vapor, methane and other greenhouses gases could combine to help with warming on the way up. As they get too "thick" the probably trigger the end of the warming cycle and trigger the start of the cooling cycle.

    This warm air holds more water vapor and more co2.
    This increase in greenhouse gases begin blocking the suns warming rays the whole cycle swings back into to cooling.

    Finally, with respect to man made co2... there is no reason to assume that the earth does not off gas or digest the excess co2.

    Salby and others have put up great graphs showing the rise in co2 does not correspond to mans production of co2.
  300. why is you always have to misframe the other sides arguments.
    We are not saying co2 follows therefore it can not warm.
    We are saying it will be very hard for science to show man made co2 is doing the warming.

    in the last 10 years... you see the scientists trying their best to support the theory that co2 amplifies warming... although they are still searching for science to show it.

    As I have discussed here in the past... Shakun is the best peer reviewed agw nutter paper. That paper shows co2 levels followed the warming in antartica.

    That paper then using some statistics and models speculates that co2 amplifies the warming.

    Why don't they just show it? As we have said its going to be very hard to show the laggard is causing the leader. Not impossible... but very hard.

    Its gets even harder when in real life the systems are very complex and there are negative feedbacks.

    It gets even harder when NASA shows co2 is not just a warming agent but a cooling agent.

  301. I just reread to posts above... i need to summarize.

    in short the skeptical science site gives us no science supporting the agw nutters. It does give us some speculation that co2 amplifies the warming via shakuns model.

    The science it gives us is that even shakuns paper admits co2 trails warming.
  302. I don't know who you mean by "we" but certainly there are claims that say "co2 follows therefore it can not warm" and it was raised in a preceding post.

    And tell me, if "we are not saying co2 follows therefore it can not warm." why are "we" , that is you, saying it now, in your latest couple of posts! **

    Yes I know "we" are saying that too, but it is untrue. It is a false claim. Man made CO2 is doing the warming if only for one fact. There is nothing else that can account for the scale of the warming. Not in physics or scientific terms anyway.

    You have to deny actual physics not just scientists to believe that.

    **Look, you've just tried to make the argument you deny you are making !!.... Quote: "its going to be very hard to show the laggard is causing the leader."
    Climate change denial 101. Say it, deny you say it, then say it again.

    It works both ways like chickens and eggs do. Temperature determines CO2 (natural) as well as CO2 determines temperature (man made). It's basic physics.
    It is also basic physics that confirms how man made CO2 is a greenhouse gas and how the recent dramatic rise in temperature can only be explained by the strong increase in CO2 levels from man made emissions. No natural events can account for it.

    It really doesn't get hard or difficult until you misunderstand. Real life systems and NASA are only showing why Earth hasn't turned into Venus yet. Natural limiting factors can only work to a certain point. But then it seems there are some folk who like nothing better than to play chicken with the planet and its atmosphere.
  303. 1. once again stu bullshits instead of admitting he overstated the argument.

    "co2 follows therefore it can not warm" is not he same as saying "its going to be very hard to show the laggard is causing the leader." Conclusion... stu misrepersents my argument then starts misrepresenting the English language to cover it up.

    2.stu said

    "Yes I know "we" are saying that too, but it is untrue. It is a false claim. Man made CO2 is doing the warming if only for one fact. There is nothing else that can account for the scale of the warming. Not in physics or scientific terms anyway."

    That is the most ridiculous claim of "science" one could make. it could be myraid things from ocean warming due to underground volcanoes to the things science does not completely understand to things it does not even know about. There is no peer reviewed science stating man made co2 is causing warming not based on failed models.

    3. Co2 follows warming in the long term and short term cycles. That is what the science shows us. Every claim about co2 causing net warming in our system is based on failed models or speculation because there is no peer reviewed science showing it.

    We may be playing chicken but there is no science stating its co2. Remember correlation does not show causation. Particularly when its the laggard.

  304. What are you trying to say?
    co2 follows therefore it cannot warm
    co2 follows therefore it can warm
    Which is it You can't have it both ways

    "hard to show the laggard is causing the leader"... is false .
    There is nothing very hard in showing how the laggard affects the leader.

    What's ridiculous is your suggestion that things science doesn't know is reason for denying things it does know.
    There are a myriad of things science does know , like those "underground volcanoes" and every other natural event on Earth that taken in total do not account for the level of increase in global warming, while man made CO2 does.

    I know, and the Earth doesn't orbit the sun, there is no such thing as an ex-president's birth certificate and men did not walk on the moon

    "We may be playing chicken" is some admission from you. Temperature determines CO2 (natural) as well as CO2(man made) determines temperature. It's basic physics. Predicted in the 1800's. Understood in the 1900's. Predictions and understanding scientifically observed measured and confirmed to date.

    Remember correlation can show causation. Chickens are laggards to eggs, but they still cause eggs.
  305. Technically, it is the amount of global temperature rise as a function of atmospheric CO2 concentration; not the green house effect per se, which is a photophysical phenomenon with no specific number attached to it. . Remember water is the most important green house gas, but water, unlike CO2, affects temperature by other mechanisms besides the greenhouse effect. The "climate sensitivity" is an estimate, and it varies a great deal depending on who is doing the estimating.
  306. I just now realized I made a minor error in my post above. I implied that the the greenhouse mechanism was the only mechanism by which CO2 affected Earths surface temperature. Carbon dioxide, according to NASA, is net cooling in the outer atmosphere by a different mechanism.

    "Global Warming," is a more useful term than "climate change," because the climate is always cycling between warmer and cooler periods. With all the talk of global warming, the general public has got the idea that CO2 is the only important component of our planet's atmosphere that moderates surface temperature. Even more distorting is the idea that the greenhouse effect is the only important mechanism for moderating the temperature. In truth, the trace levels of CO2 in our atmosphere are critical to both plant life directly and animal life indirectly, but CO2 is a minor player when it comes to moderating the Earth's surface temperature. Just how minor, is an area of disagreement among atmospheric physicists. Prior to the period of intense research into the role of CO2, we did not have enough data and observations to understand surface temperature moderation very well. James Hansen is credited with getting the CO2 question into the national, and now, international spotlight. He deserves credit for rousing enough interest in atmospheric physics to facilitate an increase in funding for global warming studies. Those studies are why our knowledge of the mechanisms that moderate our planets surface temperature has been greatly advanced from what it was thirty years ago. Sadly, Hansen , and others too, became emotionally involved in their own work and the conclusions they drew -- quite prematurely as it turns out!

    Hansen, and others who have fallen into the same trap, are no longer capable of dispassionate science. This is not as bad as it sounds. Scientists are human, and it is impossible to divorce the human element from scientific pursuits. The debate however should not involve the lay public, nor politicians, nor the media. The debate should be strictly between the science protagonists. Hansen, Salby, Shaviv, Miskolczi and other qualified scientists. It should not include politicians and the media. I am sorry to have to say this, but the fault lies mainly with Hansen. He is like the a warring spouse who looks to the children for support.

    Degeneration of a scientific discussion into ad hominem attacks and attempts to discredit scientists whose opinions are out of favor with the public by questionable attacks on their professional competence is regrettable and does nothing to advance science. Strong disagreement, even to the point of adamantcy,
    when kept within the bounds of disagreeing scientists , with the public and the politicians being kept out, can be helpful in pushing the warring scientists to a correct conclusion. The Winstein-Brown argument* over the structure of non-classical carbocations is a fine example of how debate, no matter how heated, can lead to the correct answer. Winstein was finally shown to be correct, but who knows how much longer would it have taken to settle the argument if The United Nations, and the media, and the politicians had all been involved?

    There are numerous papers** in the peer reviewed literature which report both observations and theoretical studies that are inconsistent with Hansen's Hypothesis. As soon as these papers receive any attention beyond a small group of atmospheric science insiders, their authors are subjected to ad hominem attacks, and unbelievable vendettas such as demands that the protagonist's name be stricken from Wikipedia! This is less violent than what was done to those out of favor in the Spanish Inquisition, but otherwise it is little different than was the treatment afforded religious heretics of prior centuries: How dare you suggest the Earth orbits the Sun! Ninety-seven percent of everyone agrees the Sun orbits the Earth. And to prove it, I'll show you one more time my diagram of the Sun Orbiting the Earth.

    **I notice that most of the authors of these papers studiously avoid taking on Hansen's hypothesis directly whenever they can avoid it. The authors want to stick to the science and leave the politics to others. They certainly do not want to become targets of the "Inquisition." Yet some whose data and arguments are unavoidably damaging to climate change religion will have no choice other than to become a target of the Inquisition. Hundreds of Bloggers will pounce, inventing arguments on the fly as to how the published work can not possibly be correct, and is the work of someone already thoroughly discredited by 97% of climate scientists.
  307. I am saying the data and the science show that changes in atmospheric levels of co2 follow changes in ocean temperature and changes in air temperature.

    We see this lag in both in the proxy data and the instrument data. (this is peer reviewed)

    I have also stated it will be hard to prove man made co2 is causing warming
    in part because it is the laggard and in part because our system is complex and in part because co2 is also a cooling agent.

    And it is hard to show the laggard causes the leader.
    if you want to reduce the argument to childish bullshit the way you just did.
    go ahead show lung cancer causes smoking.
    (mind you I am not equating this to co2... just showing how stupidly childish your response was.)

    by the I am busy this week so I may choose not to respond unless you provide science showing man made co2 causes warming.

  308. jerm says

    "al gores skeptical science says:

    "To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:""

    Gee, that's just what a think worker would do. Ad hom the argument (it's not "Al Gore's website at all, it's science and facts).

    Jem.....are you working for this? If not, why are you so intellectually dishonest?
  309. Piehole the think tanker sez

    "Remember water is the most important green house gas"


    CO2 is. As it is persistant. That is, it lasts for hundreds of years in the atmosphere, so it controls levels of water VAPOR which indeed does have important SHORT TERM effects.

    And here I thought you knew this stuff.

    Do I need to post science showing this......again?

  310. [​IMG]
  311. And piehole sez

    , "but CO2 is a minor player when it comes to moderating the Earth's surface temperature."


    It's the most important regulator of the earth's temperature. Do I need to post the science again?

    Amazing how someone that can sound so smart can say such dumb things.

    It's almost like you are working for a fossil fuel propaganda think tank.
  312. for years you have always prefaced a solid amount of your responses with comments about it being koch money or oil company money.

    al gore... has sponsored that website.

    there are a few facts on that website but its main arguments are mostly conjecture by necessity because there are no facts showing that man made co2 is causing warming.

  313. There is no need to show the laggard causes the leader.
    Are you saying co2 follows therefore it cannot warm, or not.

    co2 follows therefore it cannot warm
    co2 follows therefore it can warm
    Which is it?
  314. Technically, in that regard as far as atmospheric concentration goes, let the force of the Keeling Curve be with you.
    But whether it is a technical game of chicken, or one played out while the blindingly obvious pollution of the atmosphere with quantities of CO2 decade after decade is at such an extent that observed overall global temperatures rose and still are, inexorably, as the pollution continues , is still a f'kn dumb game to play whomsoever is estimating whatsoever.

  315. A bit of pot & kettle :finger:

    Bottom line is piezoe, science is not on the side of your contrarian argument . Unless and until the likes of Salby, Shaviv, Miskolczi can come up with propositions that don't disregard the laws of physics, or contradict observed data and information, they will be debunked and even pre-debunked the way they have been and deservedly so.
    They demonstrate a clear lack of plausible physics and overlook methodological flaws in their propositions.
    Now if they did what you suggest, they would have kept their ideas within the bounds of disagreeing scientists and there they would languish , not parade them as they have in the full glare of self-publicity before convincing anyone but themselves, to satisfy a conspiracy chasing denier market.

    Global warming is grounded upon overwhelming, consistent long term scientific evidence, whether you accept it or not.
  316. a near perfect example. Thanks.
  317. there is no reason. I agree. Unless you are making claims that man man co2 is causing warming.

    if you are going to bring up the keeling curve with piezoe... as you just did...

    and you are going to argue or imply that the co2 being plotted on that curve is causing global warming.... you are going to have to show the laggard is causing the leader.

  318. So you are saying man made CO2 cannot have a warming effect because it lags temperature.
    If it didn't lag it can have an effect , if it does lag it can't.
    That's what you are saying, right?
  319. fuck man... where the hell did i say that?

    you are trying to stick me with your binary argumentation... I reject your bullshit strawman crap.

    I am saying if you are making the claim man made co2 causes warming... the burden is on your side to subject your theory to the scientific method and prove it.

    Then I am saying... it won't be easy to do that because co2 is the laggard, co2 also cools and our atmosphere is complex. But, I am not saying you can't do it... I am saying it is up to your side to prove if you wish to claim its scientifically true.

    Personally I believe co2 probably did help warm us coming out of ice ages... and it probably helps trigger the end of the cycles and return us back to ice ages after we reached the end of the warming cycle. I suspect it is a negative feedback. Warming on the way up... and slowing down the warming and staring the cooling back down. but note I said believe. its my theory... after putting together everything I have read.

  320. Calm down, I only asked you a question.

    See, thing is, that has already happened. Started in the 19th century and has survived the scientific method to date, due mainly to the laws of physics, and because everything else to the contrary hasn't.

    And this is why I asked you to explain plainly what you think rather than scurrying off to anti-global warming web sites to confuse what it is you are actually saying.

    Yes you are right it is complex, like all natural things are, but it should also be understandable in basic terms as most things are.

    Right, but why stop there with your theory of CO2 being an overall negative feedback, when obvious questions are begging it.
    I'll use your words and descriptions so you don't need to say... "fuck man... where the hell did i say that?"... again.

    Why only one belief in negative feedback?
    You say it is your theory that CO2 is "Warming on the way up..." .

    This suggests you believe there are cycles of warm and cool. Is that right?

    So fair to say you don't believe CO2 simultaneously warms and cools, maintaining a fixed temperature. Right?
    Otherwise there couldn't have been an ice age for one thing.

    So why when that CO2 is "Warming on the way up..." as you say , and with man made Warming CO2 added , would it not get Warmer on the way up.... than otherwise?

    And as those cycles take thousands of years for CO2 to play out the role of amplifying warm to move out of an ice age, or cool out of a warm age, why would you not also believe continuously adding more and more CO2 to amplify that "Warming on the way up..." could not become hazardous to humans?

    Why is your belief so attracted to negative feedback especially if by your argument CO2 lags temperature?
    How could CO2 respond fast enough to balance out positive or negative feedback, either up or down temperature, when you consider man made CO2 a laggard that cannot affect or account for warmer temperature change?

    Within the natural environment you are able to exist, where these complex balances are maintained naturally. Who in their right mind would even think it is going to be in any way sensible to repeatedly and continuously poke mother nature in the eye with the pointy stick of man made CO2 ?
  321. while science has shown co2 has warming properties.
    it has also cooling properties.

    Whether adding man made co2 to the environment warms or cools has not been shown.

    first of all atmospheric co2 levels may be tied to temperature change and excess co2 may be off gassed or sinked. therefore man adding co2 may have not impact on temperature at all. This would be similar to way warm air holds more moisture. warm air may hold more co2.
    Some bloggers and scientists assume we live in a closed system and co2 is not lost to space or sinked. I have read studies which say co2 is off gassed from the earth into space.

    We also know that as we add co2 some of it goes to the top of the atmospshere where it cools. so we don't know that adding man made co2 warms.
    co2 could be warming in the lower atmosphere and cooling in the upper.
    co2 becomes logarithmically less warming as you add more to the lower atmosphere ... so at some point adding co2 could be net cooling.

    in addition to its direct impacts are probably relatively minor compared to water vapor and clouds.

    if CO2 does impact cloud cover as many studies now suggest. co2 itself might be warming but it could be net cooling because of clouds.

    so in short... we do not have science showing man made co2 is causing warming regardless of what Arrehenuis discovered about co2 in the 19th century.