JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Experts “surprised” to discover what skeptics have known for years: world has been warming for 200 years

For years, skeptical scientists have been pointing at data that showed the the world started warming somewhere from 1700 – 1820. This has been known from glaciers, sea level studies, ice cores, boreholes, ocean heat content estimates, and more proxies than any climate-nerd cares to name.

Finally, expert climate modelers are “surprised” to discover this:

“…their study had detected warming in the Arctic and tropical oceans from around the 1830s, just 80 years after the Industrial Revolution started in England. “It was an extraordinary finding,” she said. “It was one of those moments where science really surprised us. But the results were clear. The climate warming we are witnessing today started about 180 years ago.”

How many grant dollars did it take to figure out what skeptical scientists have been saying for years?

The correlation with global temperatures and actual numerical human emissions is abysmal, so now Abrams et al ignore the numbers and appear to suggest that “The Industrial Revolution” itself started the warming — as if the mere invention of the steam engine heated the world.

[Dr Abram] said the study attributed the gradual warming to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions linked to the move from an agricultural to industrialised society.

“The climate system did respond quite quickly to industrialisation …. it was a small response, but it’s a measurable one.”

Global warming started 200 years ago, but human emissions of CO2 were bugger-all-of-nothing until after World War II. Humans have put out nearly 90% of all our CO2 molecules ever since the War started. We’ve put out 30% of all our emissions ever since the year 2000. The message hammered home over and over, is that temperatures don’t correlate at all well with our CO2 emissions and never have.

Planes, cars and coal power plants make no difference to global warming

Phil Jones told us that global temperatures kept heating at the same rate in the 1880s as they did in the 1920s as they did in the 1980s. (See that graph below).

The warming isn’t any different when human CO2 emissions are small or massive. The rate of warming was the same in the 1920s when nearly half of all horsepower still came from horses. Indeed without any electricity at all, and no cars, humans “caused” warming which was as fast as a decade when a billion people flew in the sky.

Then, when the Industrial Revolution hit China, the global temperatures “paused”.

Hadley, Global Temperatures, Trend, Phil Jones, Decadal warming.

Hadley Global Temperature Graph with Phil Jones trends annotated on top. (2010)

 

Here is a new pretty graph (click to enlarge) from Abrams et al showing what skeptics have said all along, that the world is warming out of a little ice age:

CO2 is supposed to warm the whole globe. It isn’t working out like that.

Global Temperatures, Industrial Revolution, warming, Climate Change, Nature. Abrams, 2016.

 The warming started long before our emissions became important

The correlation looks “good” from 1979- 1999, but there are contradictions in every other time period. . Everything about this graph tells us that CO2 is not a major controller. Other forces are more important and the mainstream climate modelers don’t know what those drivers are — they are not even looking for them. (On the other hand, people free of government funded groupthink are — see Seven possible ways the sun could change our cloud cover, and Is that one new Solar force, or two? The Force-ND Hypothesis.)

 

CO2 emissions, human, man-made, Little Ice Age, 2016.

Global warming delayed in the Southern Hemisphere:

Interestingly, the study found sustained warming was delayed in the southern hemisphere by about 50 years.

Dr Abram said this could be linked to the circulation patterns in the southern oceans that move warmer waters away from the Antarctic and into the sub-surface ocean.

Maybe it’s because there’s more ocean in the South? Dear Dr Abram, did any of the “global atmosphere and circulation” models model that circulation accurately before your discovery? Since you were so surprised, I guess not. (The abstract confirms that).

The immovable wall

Note the usual mindless caveat:

Dr Abram said the study did not alter “anything we know about how climate has changed during the 20th century”.

Nothing ever does. That’s exactly why government-strangled-climate-science is in an endless rut, predicts nothing, and is “surprised” by the inanely obvious.

Abstract

The evolution of industrial-era warming across the continents and oceans provides a context for future climate change and is important for determining climate sensitivity and the processes that control regional warming. Here we use post AD 1500 palaeoclimate records to show that sustained industrial-era warming of the tropical oceans first developed during the mid-nineteenth century and was nearly synchronous with Northern Hemisphere continental warming. The early onset of sustained, significant warming in palaeoclimate records and model simulations suggests that greenhouse forcing of industrial-era warming commenced as early as the mid-nineteenth century and included an enhanced equatorial ocean response mechanism. The development of Southern Hemisphere warming is delayed in reconstructions, but this apparent delay is not reproduced in climate simulations. Our findings imply that instrumental records are too short to comprehensively assess anthropogenic climate change and that, in some regions, about 180 years of industrial-era warming has already caused surface temperatures to emerge above pre-industrial values, even when taking natural variability into account.

How do you take “natural variability” into account when the models don’t understand and can’t predict natural variability? Not one major model can hindcast the last 10,000 years. None of the circulation models can model the circulation. All the bumps like the modern warming bump are a mystery.

REFERENCE

Abram, et al (2016) Early onset of industrial-era warming across the oceans and continents, Nature, VOL 536, p 415

H/t to Willie Soon.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (122 votes cast)
Experts "surprised" to discover what skeptics have known for years: world has been warming for 200 years, 9.2 out of 10 based on 122 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/hkcjqve

205 comments to Experts “surprised” to discover what skeptics have known for years: world has been warming for 200 years

  • #
    Dennis

    The Little Ice Age is a period between about 1300 and 1870 during which Europe and North America were subjected to much colder winters than during the 20th century. The period can be divided in two phases, the first beginning around 1300 and continuing until the late 1400s.

    151

    • #
      el gordo

      According to Lamb large icebergs began turning up in the North Atlantic around 1250 AD and in the run up to 1300 there were great sea floods and enormous winds throughout Europe.

      Admittedly things became really serious after that, and I draw your attention to the AD 1300 Event in the Pacific, which would have bleached a lot of coral.

      123

      • #
        Dennis

        There were reports of sea ice at the mouth of the Thames River in England just a few years ago.

        92

        • #
          el gordo

          Yeah but not as serious as 1962-63.

          72

        • #
          el gordo

          The sinking of the Titanic in 1912 came at the end of the Centennial Gleissberg cycle and there were almost three times as many icebergs in the North Atlantic than average.

          Industrial CO2 couldn’t prevent it.

          132

  • #

    Soon the ‘scientists’ will have to work out a way to use global cooling as their source of never ending funds. I’m certain that they have in fact found a way to work this into their future funding submissions, just waiting for the opportunity to arise. I’m awaiting the first paper on ‘Anthropogenic Climate Change – Coal Cause Global Cooling’.

    416

    • #
      Mark

      Yes, and the disaster warnings will be even more dramatic. Ice sheets covering Europe, ‘research’ into ice age scarcity, end of civilisation and return to Neanderthal status (thank goodness we have Neanderthal genes), and who knows what else? It is a far rosier disaster outlook from a grants perspective.

      The idea that CO2 causes cooling shouldn’t be that hard to pull off – a few models, 98% consensus (30% increase over the 97% consensus (down from 3 percent doubt to 2 percent doubt)), and a new Gore film. Hillary will stand behind it (with a few donations to the family charity), and Professor Obama, Nobel Prize winner, will be the climate science ambassador.

      345

      • #
        Ursus Augustus

        I think you are on song Mark and if the new Svensmark paper is also on the money (which it probably is) then these could be the headlines to come

        THE SUN CAUSING DEADLY COOLING.
        MODELS FORECAST NEW CATSTROPHIC ICE AGE.
        CO2 COULD HELP FREEZE THE PLANET.
        SCIENCE EXPERTS WORK ON SECRET “SUNBUSTER” SUPER WEAPON TO SAVE PLANET.

        etc

        43

      • #
        James Murphy

        the hockey stick graph could make a come-back, but this time, just turned upside-down…

        62

        • #
          James Brown

          No problem. This is how to convert down to up. Don’t use temperature, define an “anomaly” as the difference between temperature and some arbitrary baseline (handle part of hockey stick), apply some least squares filtering, all negative anomalies are squared into positives, take square roots again and aha! Global warming. To change a warming trend into a cooling one take the negative roots. I believe that in essence this has actually been done — by accident or design.

          Alternatively, turn your core upside down.

          41

    • #
      Blair

      No doubt it will be that our emissions have caused the climate to ‘flip’. Scientists aren’t sure exactly what will occur now and will require immeasurable funding in order to develop new models… $$$$$

      103

    • #
      Albert

      They will also use the mantra of ”this is the ‘coolest’ year ever”, LOL, LOL
      They will need to adjust all their models to 100% down from 100% up
      They work with alarm, so their models will show the return of the last ice age which also had higher co2

      52

      • #
        ROM

        Albert @ # 2.3

        They will need to adjust all their models to 100% down from 100% up

        Adjust??

        Nah! Just turn all the “plus” [ + ] signs into “negative” [ - ] signs in their climate models!

        Job done!
        .

        Up and coming; Climate modeling research papers in “Nature” outlining how to switch “plus” signs to “minus” signs in “Modified Global Climate Models” [ MGCM's. Mk. XXVXXII ] to achieve 97% prediction accuracy for the MGCM. Mk. XXVXXII class of “Modified Global Climate Models”

        41

    • #
      Rhoda R

      They went through that during the “Coming Ice Age” hysteria during the 70′s. It wasn’t CO2 then it was coal soot. Strangely, the solution was the same as the solution to the CO2 ‘problem – give over control of western economies to the political class.

      102

  • #
    David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

    G’day,
    This is the SMH article, by Peter Hannam:

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/-gqz260.html

    Hannam is the paper’s environment editor and is a full supporter of the warmist view. Note that there is no mention of LIA in the article.
    (The SMH does have a paywall, but lets non-subscribers access up to 20 articles (perhaps items is a better word?) per month.)
    Cheers,
    Dave B

    43

    • #
      Allen Ford

      It’s worse than they thought! The article says that the calamitous warming started in the 1830s, but as the last ice fair on the frozen Thames (a signature of the LIA) was in 1814, this must be the real start, or thereabouts, of our climatic problems.

      Coincidentally, James Watt really got going with his steam engine in 1781-4 which looks suspiciously like that was the real source of the problem.

      21

  • #
    Dennis

    Please note folks that when the British Met Office announced that a new Maunder Minimum was due and how cold conditions would be during that period they added a footnote that when it passes the warming will return.

    I can’t wait for the end of winter at the moment.

    172

    • #
      David Smith

      Here in the South of England we just had our Summer. It was really hot all day yesterday.

      371

    • #
      PeterS

      In that case we all should be doing all we can to make the climate warmer to help arrest the cooling. If that means more man-made CO2 will help no matter how insignificant then all anti-CO2 energy producing systems must be halted immediately as they are a waste of money for starters.

      52

  • #
    Manfred

    Abram et al (2016) – eco-drum bangers say nothing new – faux surprise.

    I’ve listened to the Clima-chaterati scientivists in New Zealand. They advise that cooling (you know, the unmodeled, inconvenient sag in upwardly adjusted temperature data sets) may well take place now, but due to warming, it will not be as cold as it might have been. How much less cold is studiously avoided as is this inconvenient question of the same from the NZ MSM, as inconvenient as the denial that the sun had anything to do with the weather let alone the climate.

    Meanwhile, others have highlighted business as usual in the Holocene, with considerably less hyperbole and press coverage, and far less pretension.

    AN ESTIMATE OF THE CENTENNIAL VARIABILITY OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURES
    Lloyd PJ. Energy & Environment · Vol. 26, No. 3, 2015

    The best estimate of the centennial standard deviation of temperature during the Holocene is 0.98C ± 0.27C. During the 20th century, thermometers recorded an increase of about 0.7C. It seems reasonably certain that there was some warming due to the increasing buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but it seems difficult to estimate the magnitude of this warming in the face of a likely natural variation of the order of 1C. The signal of anthropogenic global warming may not yet have emerged from the natural background.

    133

  • #
    MacManiac

    Oh, but maybe it was the other way around? Perhaps when it got a little warmer and they ceased shivering from the cold and noticed that the increasing carbon dioxide got the grass growing taller, they were inspired to invent the Industrial Revolution? Making rope from hemp? Given enough rope…?

    122

  • #
    tom0mason

    It is obvious from all the graphs that they go both up and down. If CO2 is causing everything to warm up what is causing the extended periods of cooling.
    What initializes the cooling?

    Maybe the majority of temperature variability is Sun cycles effects moderated through the ocean currents perhaps?

    83

    • #
      tom0mason

      And a similar effect happens with the rise of the Roman Empire. All those horse farts and all that CO2 from fiddling while burning obviously what warmed up the planet during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP).
      This Medieval Warm Period was a global climatic anomaly that encompassed a few centuries on either side of AD 1000, when temperatures in many parts of the world were even warmer than they are currently.

      The degree of warmth and associated changes in precipitation,
      however, sometimes varied from region to region, with the result that the MWP was expressed somewhat differently now and then in different parts of the world. But global it undoubtedly was.

      But as Jo says –

      The correlation with global temperatures and actual numerical human emissions is abysmal…

      62

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Having visited Pompei, and having been informed of what the primary industry of that particular town was, puts a whole new dimension on the phrase: “Fiddling while Rome burns”.

        That town would certainly have contributed more than its share, of sustained local warming.

        73

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      tomomason.

      “If CO2 is causing everything to warm up what is causing the extended periods of cooling.”

      Natural variations.

      28

      • #
        tom0mason

        Harry Twinotter

        You of course mean natural variation driven by the sun causes the cool periods just like all the warm periods.

        72

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          tomomason.

          Ummm no, I actually didn’t mention the sun.

          15

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Why not mention the sun, Harry? Do you think that the climate is somehow immune to variations in the sun? Have you not heard about the decadal and multi-decadal solar cycles, and the effect they have on the Earth’s atmosphere? That is first year Physics. Perhaps you were having a nap, when that was discussed?

            51

            • #
              Harry Twinotter

              Rereke Whakaaro.

              I usually do not bother responding to you because you make stuff up, and really have no idea what you are talking about. I also do not like your tone.

              But considering I brought up the subject of natural variations…

              The variations in the total solar irradiance are part of the natural variation. Refer to the IPCC AR5 report for the discussion. But I guess you will just apply circular reasoning and say the IPCC AR5 reports are part of some international Marxist conspiracy or something.

              Is changes in the TSI significant over the short term? Probably not. The current solar maximum is rather weak yet GMTs keep rising. But I do find the idea that changes in the TSI over long periods (hundreds of years) might have an effect interesting, and research is being done in this area.

              14

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Well, you think that I make stuff up? Why would I do that? And why not challenge me at the time? Interesting questions, are they not? Did you have to go and ask somebody else for advice in responding to me? What a hoot! And you don’t like my tone? How petulant you are, do I offend your sensitive sensibilities. Well, toughen up soldier, I respond to people with as much respect as I think they warrant.

                I am aware of what AR5 says, and what it says is fine, as far as it goes, which is sufficient to support your statement that, “The variations in the total solar irradiance are part of the natural variation.” Do you see what is wrong with that? The variation is part of the variation. Whoopsie-do. Your statement says nothing, it is a fact-free statement.

                Now, I know that AR5 goes into much more detail than that, and I also know that what they include is bona-fide physics, but they do get a little vague about the less convenent aspects of the solar influences on the Earth’s surface. Do you know what effects solar flares have on the climate? Do you know what the time lag is?

                You suggest that changes in the TSI is “probably” insignificant in the short term, i.e. you don’t know, but you say, “Probably not”. On what basis do you claim that probability?

                You say, “The current solar maximum is rather weak yet GMTs keep rising.” Yes, and what do you say about lag? And what do you say about the mechanism whereby solar irradiance is converted into heat on the surface, which then warms the atmosphere? Do you think all of this is instantaneous? Do you know what causality lag is? And if you do, would you know how to calculate it?

                31

              • #
                AndyG55

                “yet GMTs keep rising”

                WRONG

                Yes the much “adjusted” Urban powered and AGW homogenised GISS keeps going up, but it always will, by design.

                But there has actually been NO warming in the satellite era apart from El Nino (non CO2) and NATURAL ocean oscillations.

                NONE, NADA, ZIP

                Lets sum up the facts,

                1. No warming in the UAH satellite record from 1980 to 1998 El Nino

                2. No warming between the end of that El Nino in 2001 and the start of the current El Nino at the beginning of 2015.

                3. No warming in the southern polar region for the whole 38 years of the satellite record.

                4. No warming in the southern ex-tropicals for 20 years.

                5. No warming in Australia for 20 years, cooling since 2002

                6. No warming in Japan surface data for the last 20 years, No warming from 1950-1990.. zero trend for 40 years

                7. No warming in the USA since 2005 when a non-corrupted system was installed, until the beginning of the current El Nino.

                8. UAH Global Land shows no warming from 1979-1997, the no warming from 2001 – 2015

                9. Iceland essentially the same temperature as in the late 1930s as now, maybe slightly lower

                10. British Columbia (Canada) temperatures have been stable, with no warming trend, throughout 1900-2010

                11.Temperatures in northwest China have not shown a warming trend in the last 368 years.

                12. Chile has been cooling since the 1940s.

                13. Southern Sea temperatures not warming from 1982 2005, then cooling

                14. Even UAH NoPol shows no warming this century until the large spike in January 2016.

                That is DESPITE a large climb in CO2 levels over those periods.

                There IS NO CO2 WARMING effect.


                The ONLY real warming has come from regional ElNino and ocean circulation effects.

                32

              • #
                AndyG55

                “The current solar maximum is rather weak yet GMTs keep rising”

                Only a complete ignoramus would expect a planet with a 70% H2O surface to respond quickly to TSI changes.

                Huge buffer. which is why it warmed so slowly in response to the GRAND SOLAR MAXIMUM during the second half of last century.

                But apart from the El Nino starting the middle of last year, there HAS BEEN NO WARMING THIS CENTURY.

                Where do you chose to live, Harry, somewhere warm, or somewhere cold. ;-) ?

                I bet you are an inner city, air-conditioning set at 21ºC, kind of animal.

                32

          • #
            tom0mason

            Harry,
            Sorry, how foolish of me to assume someone like you could believe the hottest thing in our solar system could affect our weather or climate.

            I now stand corrected, and understand where you are coming from.

            31

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Maybe the majority of temperature variability is Sun cycles effects moderated through the ocean currents perhaps?

      I thought that we weren’t supposed to mention sun cycles or ocean currents, because the Global Climate Models (may Gaia smile upon them) cannot handle that much complexity?

      31

  • #
    Richard

    That first graph you show I still think is one of the most important Jo, as it shows unequivocally that there is no anthropogenic signature in the temperature data, and it comes from Phil Jones which is an added bonus, and so warmists will have a hard time disagreeing with it (though I’m sure they would find a way).

    Here is a quote with some figures as it pertains to that graph:

    The IPCC may want to explain why the global surface temperature increased at virtually the same rate from 1860-1880, as it did between 1910-1940, and from 1975-1998 and 1975-2009. Human CO2 emissions increased by almost 3500% from 1860-1880 to 1975-1998 and yet the rate of warming stayed essentially the same. The warming between 1860-1880 must have been natural because the IPCC’s logarithmic equation for calculating radiative forcing (RF) increases from CO2 increases only gives us 0.28 W/m2 of RF (or a total temperature increase of 0.02°C with the hypothesized positive feedbacks included). The data for human CO2 emissions are from CDIAC and can be seen here (note that units are million metric tonnes; to convert to CO2 multiply by 3.67 and then to convert to gigatonnes divide by 1,000). The time-periods and warming trends below are from the 2010 BBC interview with climatologist Phil Jones.

    Period———Length in Years———Trend/Decade———Total CO2 Emitted
    1860-1880—————21———————–0.163ºC—————12 gigatonnes
    1910-1940—————31———————–0.150ºC—————110 gigatonnes
    1975-1998—————24———————–0.166ºC—————480 gigatonnes
    1975-2009—————35———————–0.161ºC—————770 gigatonnes

    It seems that the temperature increases at the same rate regardless of how much CO2 we emit.

    Would be awesome to see another Skeptics Handbook from you Jo, perhaps with updated graphs, like the one above.

    275

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      As CO2 has nothing what so ever to do with temperature, no relationship is what you’d expect. Also with all that emitted CO2 it is never mentioned how much from that is absorbed at same time or near after, plants, oceans etc. Oh I forgot plants breath O2..

      176

      • #
        Albert

        I wonder if anyone knows the amount of forests destroyed during the co2 rise, surely forests are a co2 sink and they are being reduced as co2 goes up

        40

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      Richard

      Wouldn’t it be interesting to see the figures for the intervening periods, ie 1880-1910; 1940-1975. Temperature trend/decade and Total CO2 emitted.

      51

  • #
    Another Ian

    “Experts “surprised” to discover what skeptics have known for years: world has been warming for 200 years”

    Jo

    Simple explanation. It took so long to discover because it is obviously a different kind of warming.

    /s shouldn’t be needed but just in case

    31

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I have not seen anybody comment on the phasing of heat. Heat can be transferred through three dimensional space, so it stands to reason that “heat waves” could have different phase relationships, and therefore resonate with different materials.

      It might also explain why toast always falls butter-side-down.

      82

  • #
    Another Ian

    O/T

    We’ve had about 90 mm rain for August which normally has a low expectation.

    I’m having mental pictures of Tim Flannery sticking pins in a wax model of the rain gauge.

    203

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Poor Tim, goaded on by teamsters and kicking against the pricks.

      33

    • #
      Albert

      Tim never understood that weather is variable all over the Earth and ‘spot’ temperatures make no difference to global average. We would need to stop the Earth’s rotation to stop the rain
      I have a length of California Redwood, it grows in snow country so it has 1 growing period.
      There are clearly cycles of about 7 years of good growth followed by 7 years of poor growth, but there are also centuries of good and poor growth
      We have never met the extremes of weather from the last 2 centuries anywhere on Earth

      42

    • #
      Another Ian

      A reminder for the red thumbers of his prediction that

      “Endless drought is the new normal”

      41

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    I believe AGW, not the climate, is in a death spiral and will soon crash and burn. They keep coming out with fast and loose “studies” that say much but once again prove nothing – except that Warmists themselves have been tampering with everything including the data. They’re in big trouble and, thanks to their mindless blather, unintelligent certainty and hubris, they didn’t bring a parachute to their own airshow complete with risky stunts.

    Once the flames of their AGW Airbus have ravaged the wreckage (we’ll be pouring fuel on it), the investigation should go as deep as a marrow tick, with permanent lyme disease and quarantine as a result.

    165

  • #
    Turtle of WA

    They were pushing this nonsense on ABC radio this morning. Soft interview, “we’re really surprised” and so forth. I was shaking my head and muttering “It’s called the little ice age $%^&*!”.

    153

  • #
    RoHa

    ‘Dr Abram said the study did not alter “anything we know about how climate has changed during the 20th century”.’

    Not a lot of point to it, then.

    83

  • #
    RoHa

    “[Dr Abram] said the study attributed the gradual warming to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions linked to the move from an agricultural to industrialised society.”

    Well, we have been saying that it is the first few ppm of CO2 that trap most of the heat.

    123

  • #

    This has been really obvious to anyone willing to look at it, for years. I saw it immediately in a graph presented in an online USAToday article back in 2010:

    The Bottom Line About “Climate Science” and “Global Warming”.

    (And, I soon noticed, everybody and his brother seemed to present essentially that same up-and-down temperatures graph, pointing out its obvious meaning. Like my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison, however, it has seemed to be just another example of definitive evidence against “CO2 global warming” that is universally ignored by all those who believe the alarmists. And frankly, after all the evidence of continuing,fraudulent temperature adjustments, and the obvious consequence of the agreement between 1991 Venus and Standard Atmosphere Earth temperatures (going back a century, unchanged)–when account is taken for the different distance of Venus from the Sun–tells me everybody is wrong, and there has been no global warming at all, since the development of the Standard Atmosphere model over a century ago. Not even you “skeptics” will listen to that rather obvious conclusion, however. Everybody thinks they know what data they can trust. Big mistake.)

    64

  • #
    George Applegate

    “the mere invention of the steam engine heated the world.” Seems legit. After all, the invention of the satellite altimeter doubled the rate of sea level rise.

    222

  • #
    RoHa

    “The rate of warming was the same in the 1920s when nearly half of all horsepower still came from horses. ”

    Think of the methane!

    52

  • #
    TdeF

    This is just silly science

    73

    • #
      TdeF

      Sorry, just trying to post my own graph

      53

      • #
        • #
          TdeF

          Seriously, if you saw this pattern of waves at the beach, you would not conclude a tsunami was underway. The graph makes it clear this is a beat up. Gaia was not happy with the invention of the steam engine? Really?

          You would have to conclude that Gaia was quite pleased with WW2 though. Temperatures went down, if you ascribe to the theory that what goes up does so for a good reason and what goes down is equally meaningful. This is emotional science, not real science.

          62

  • #
    crakar24

    The models cant reproduce the delay in sh warming so the models are inaccurate. The models are a mathematical representation of the theory ergo the theory is inaccurate.

    Despite this the paper was submitted for peer review and somehow passed. How is this so.

    134

    • #
      Albert

      Models are like a Government Inquiry
      Governments have an Inquiry when they know the answer

      Models must meet the policy set by Government
      Adjustments must be made to the data to fit the policy
      ”This is the warmest year ever”

      42

  • #
    DonB

    Dr. Judith Curry:

    “There is a secular warming trend at least since 1800 (and possibly as long as 400 years), that cannot be explained by CO2, and is only partly explained by volcanic eruptions.”

    https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/16/400-years-of-warming/

    122

  • #
    ROM

    Now I might only be fairly dumb old retired farmer but these guys really threw me with the final few lines in their abstract in Nature

    quoted ; [ my bolding. etc ]

    Our findings imply that instrumental records are too short to comprehensively assess “anthropogenic” climate change and that, in some regions, about 180 years of industrial-era warming has already caused surface temperatures to emerge above pre-industrial values, even when taking natural variability into account.

    So they can’t comphrehensively assess Anthropgenic Climate change but the Industrial era which silly little old me always thought and believed was “anthropogenic” in origin has, according to this climate modelling mob, raised temperatures.
    So;

    1 / They can’t comprehensively assess anthropogenic / man made climate change because the instrument records are too short!
    .
    2 / But the Industrial Revolution which silly old me always thought was anthropogenic, ie man made in origin by its very definition has raised temperatures according to this same mob.
    I guess that is according to the records from [ a network ? ] thermometers, records that don’t and didn’t exist from the pre-Industrial Revolution era and a good deal of the following number of decades well into the Industrial Revolution .
    .
    3 / From that, the rise in temperatures they ascribe to the Industrial Revolution [ without any backing at all to substantiate that claim ] is no longer associated with anthropogenic / man made climate change as they can’t, by their own admission assess anthropogenic climate change as the record is too short.
    .
    Then what the hell are we and they all here for then ?
    .

    These guys are just having a couple of bob each way in this miserable excuse of a througher’s troughing paper.

    114

    • #
      AndyG55

      Peer reviewed by Tim Flim-Flam. ???

      95

      • #
        TdeF

        Pier reviewed from his house at the water’s edge at the mouth of the Hawkesbury? Height above sea level?

        43

    • #
      graphicconception

      … instrumental records are too short …

      You have the whole thing right there.

      I like to think of the history of the earth being shown on two landscape pages of graph paper. That will mean that the final millimetre of the graph will cover 10,000,000 years. The thickness of the paper will cover about 1 million years. 250 years will be about 250 atoms in width.

      Note how every time an alarmists shouts “correlation” at you they never go back before the Little Ice Age. The Greenland ice cores give us a clue as to what happened: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/ Note: There is dispute about exactly how high the final point is but even Skeptical Science cannot make it the highest point on the graph! At the same time as temperatures were falling CO2 was increasing.

      The excuse for not going back in time very far is “lack of reliable data”. It helps with the alarmist case that they do not have much data.

      102

  • #
    el gordo

    A recent paper finds a robust 208 year cycle related to TSI in South America.

    http://www.nature.com/articles/srep24762

    An ice core from the Himalayan plateau also points to a clear 208 year solar cycle, so its back to a Dalton Minimum for us. Buy wheat futures.

    72

    • #
      Ian Wilson

      El Gordo,

      You do know that the Lunar Tidal effects on the Earth’s rotation rate has a
      strong spectral signal at 9 years, 31 years, 88.5 years, 208.0 years. The authors in
      the South American Monsoon paper show strong decadal to centennial time scale spectral
      singles at 9 years, 11, years, 31 years, 83 years and 208 years.

      72

      • #
        el gordo

        Thanks for that Ian, it all seems to fit nicely into place.

        21

      • #
        el gordo

        Do you think the Subtropical Ridge (STR) has been strengthening or weakening over the Austral winter?

        31

      • #
        el gordo

        In case Ian doesn’t wander back I’ll reinforce the general argument, Bertram Timbal at BoM believes ’80 per cent of the rain loss in south-east Australia can be attributed to the intensification of the subtropical ridge. If the next phase of the study is approved, the scientists hope to work out exactly how rising temperatures result in a stronger subtropical ridge.’

        SMH 2009

        This is complete nonsense but in order to debunk AGW we need an alternative view of what is happening, such as the 18.6 year lunar cycle and solar activity. There are predictions of a mega drought in South-East Australia over the coming decade and I think the lunar and solar cyclists are on the money, but I have no idea how to convince the masses the drought has nothing to do with a little bit of extra CO2 in the system.

        A hindcast graph would be terrific, the 60 year cycle fits nicely, as does the bicentenary cycle.

        32

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    OK

    So the Earth has been warming the last 200 years.

    The Earths oceans have dropped approx 1.2 metres in the last 2000 years since the time of Jesus.

    The Earths oceans have dropped approx 6 to 7 metres in the last 8,000 years.

    Man oh man, I just love numbers.

    The above ought to be enough to drive any pro cagw advocates nuts.

    It goes against the current “science”.

    KK

    73

  • #
    ROM

    So it was all due to the Industrial Revolution with the unwritten, at least in the abstract, implication that the Industrial Revolution started using huge quantities of those nasty fossil fuels, ie coal; leading to lots of that dread “carbon” entering the pristine global atmosphere where Nature was all allolling around in the dazzling rays of sunshine and crystal pure air all so uncontaminated by the detritus of anthropogenic emissions and washed by the crystal pure waters of river and sea whilst gamboling and playing with her creations.

    And while Nature was allolling around there the temperatures began to rise and rise and rise.

    And it was all due to that great mistake that Nature had made a couple of million years ago when She or is that He, mustn’t get sexist you know with moments of such significance as this, invented some sort of a Homo species and then was silly enough to let them loose on her/his unsuspecting and pristine world where they promptly started to burn the stuff that Nature thought She / He had locked away for Eternity because when it burned it gave off lots of heat which the Homo species found very handy and useful and lots of CO2 which the plants hanging around found very tasty and consumed as much of as they could get their leaves around.

    And so the Homo species arrived at a point where his Industrial Revolution began to burn coal in immense quantities, creating lots of the dreaded carbon and therfore creating a great but “carbon” generated, non detectable atmospheric heating from all that “dreaded carbon” being emmitted into the atmosphere from all that coal mined in that Industrial Revolution’s first couple of centuries.

    1700 : 2.7 million tonnes

    1750 : 4.7 million tonnes

    1800 : 10 million tonnes

    1850 : 50 million tonnes

    1900 : 250 million tonnes.

    And then with all that dreaded “Carbon” going into the atmosphere, that “Carbon” that was going leading to a brain box melt down of the greens and climate modellers and alarmist climate science troughers with a catastrophic increase of one to one and half degrees in the next century which would fry the brains of the global warmers and burn their coffins out when it happened, the dreaded Carbon kept right on going up as the Industrial Revolution really got into the swing of things and started burning well over seven billion [ 7 billion ] tonnes of coal by 2015.

    And thats 700 times the amount of coal that the early Industrial Revolution folk and inventors and industrialists burnt as they invented machines and medicines and made a better life for tens of millions in burning all that ten or so millions of tonnes of coal each year.

    So Abrams and his Nature paper have hit the nail on the head.

    Those ten and then 50 and then 250 million tonnes of coal bck in the 1800′s really got that global temperature a good kick along and got those cold Maunder and Dalton Minimum global temperatures as measured on that non existent network of thermometers, a good kick upwards

    But Nature has sighed ever so gently and said, Fun’s over folks.

    Your plants will enjoy that CO2, that dreaded “carbon” of the fear mongers but you can relax for though I am not going to tell you how it is done, you can find that out for yourselves as it will keep you out of my hair for while while you do it, but I have decided to just cool things down a bit so that your kids will still see snow and it will still rain so you don’t need those huge and costly desalination plants and you will with the cooler climate I have in mind, you will need those coal mines rather badly in the times ahead.

    And I have decided, says Nature , that you and your plants can enjoy all that carbon, that CO2 that you are emmitting some of which I am finding a good use for and a good filler, where you can find out for yourselves, because as I said I have decided to call a halt to the temperature rise while I decide just how much cooler I should make the planet this time around.

    Oh, and by the way, don’t cremate those climate modellers and climate researchers when they eventually pass to the other side.
    Just bury them as they make damn good fertilizer which is about all they are good for.

    133

  • #

    “CO2 is supposed to warm the whole globe.”

    If rising CO2 had actually increased positive North Atlantic Oscillation conditions as the IPCC models project that it should, then that would cool the Arctic region. AMO and Arctic warming since 1995 is negative NAO driven.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html

    63

  • #
    Denis

    Talk about Laugh Out Loud.

    42

  • #
    Gary

    Chrono-teleconnections?

    22

  • #

    Dr Abrams tells us in the Abstract that “…sustained industrial-era warming of the tropical oceans first developed during the mid-nineteenth century….”

    What is well known is that by 1830 the UK was the world’s leading coal producer at about 30 million tons per year. This may be compared to less than one million per year for the USA. No petroleum or natural gas was extracted.

    There were steam engines, but no transatlantic steamship services and no commercial railways.

    The impact of fossil fuels could not have become climatically significant until at least 1990 and probably not until after 1920.

    However, global temperature rose sharply from 1890 to 1930, much more rapidly than did CO2 emissions. Belda et al. have shown that there was little change in climate worldwide between 1900-1930 to 1970-2000.

    Climate classification revisited from Köppen to Trewartha, Belda, M. et al, Climate Research, 2014

    Dr Abrams has mistaken recovery from the Little Ice Age for AGW. This results from his assumption that correlation indicates causation.

    83

  • #
    richard ilfeld

    The length of this cycle (~200 years), and the lack of scientific recognition of common sense got me thinking.
    Skeptics, doing yeoman’s and yeowoman’s and yo???s work in climate science may wish to consider another aspect of the “environmental movement. Climate change is a snails pace event compared to disease propagation.

    The “Silent Spring” was probably as marginally scientific as most of the co2 BS, as Ms. Carson triggered a major pullback in insect control and a major relapse from health in a world that had pretty much controlled malaria and other insect borne illnesses. We also see the presumptive vaccination causation of autism creating pockets of unprotected kids, especially among the cognoscenti.

    The interesting and seemingly indisputable fact here, is that disease moves at a pace an order of magnitude or two faster than the calamitous consequences of warming are expected to by the true believers. Ebola, Dengue, Zika, and other maladies can appear and spread with astonishing speed. No 3mm per year rise here. Mini-Epidemics among the non-vaccinated have become a clear and present danger, and long vanquished miseries have emerged from the dark corners of the world where they were hiding, to take advantage of our self-induced anti-scientific vulnerability.

    The mindset that wants to close down fossil fuel plants is the same one that wishes to stop aggressive mosquito control. But while the elites containing the loud can insulate themselves from the consequences of ill-conceived “responses” to the non-problem of CAGW, AKA Climate Change, mosquitoes are unlikely to respect their esteemed personages. For years the general public health has insulated the anti-vaccinators, and anti-insecticiders. Mosquitoes don’t much care.

    There will be consequences of untimely deaths, and, perhaps worse, children with hugely diminished prospects. There will be unwanted therapeutic abortions. There is no political glee in any irony here. Who would not suffer with a person who, having deferred having children for many years, as is common in the US, now faces Zika during the only pregnancy that may be biologically possible.

    Science has created massive good for huge populations. Talking backward steps for mythical reasons has consequences. The negative consequences of “fighting” climate change seem not to impact policy makers. The reverses in the science that has permitted healthy populations is having more impact.

    We need our political animals to understand that the neo-luddites are the same folks in both climate science and medicine/nutrition, and their fallacies are just as dangerous.

    113

  • #

    In fact, there has long been broad agreement about temp and sea level variations over the present geological epoch. Nobody doubted the warmer conditions which favoured Viking expansion, nor the cooling which affected etc the Ming until it became politically necessary to doubt such things. Even then, the doubt was more of a fudge than a challenge.

    If you can believe in the success of an Oceanlinx wave generator or a Windorah solar farm you can force yourself to believe anything.

    103

  • #
    Ruairi

    The M.W.P. just doesn’t pay,
    For alarmists, who wish it away,
    When the climate conditions,
    Didn’t need man’s emissions,
    To be much warmer then, than today.

    141

  • #
    ScotstsmaninUtah

    Experts surprised to discover…

    A story that often results in everyone suffering ….

    63

  • #
  • #
  • #
    Mike Bromley

    “The climate system did respond quite quickly to industrialisation …. it was a small response, but it’s a measurable one.”

    How to pick the fly poop out of black pepper. This is beyond grasping at straws….it’s just stupid.

    103

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Well put Mike but how do we return science to its origin.

      We presently have “the science” as part of pop culture where to gain a warm fuzzy and belong all you have to do is support scientists In their bid to save the planet from CO2 induced incineration.

      Politicians have given away all the grain in storage and have borrowed money to buy more. We need accountability in public office so that politicians who buy votes with our tax dollar are exposed and censured.

      Both sides of the political fence are involved, greed knows no politics.

      KK

      43

  • #
    ScotstsmaninUtah

    The Sun and Oceans control the Earth’s temperature

    Maybe it’s because there’s more ocean in the South? Dear Dr Abram, did any of the “global atmosphere and circulation” models model that circulation accurately before your discovery? Since you were so surprised,
    I guess not.

    The Sun and water vapour controls the Ocean’s temperature and the Oceans control the Earth’s temperature.

    73

  • #
    Radical Rodent

    Slightly O/T: I am having some fun with a rather rude person on Youtube, on a Malcolm Roberts
    clip: Would anyone help to wind the person up even more just by giving me loads of thumbs-ups?

    114

    • #

      Your replies to Brendon Pywell are much more accurate than his pleas for pal review.
      Scientific research today is nothing but continuing plagiarizing (with citation), which gives that cited some undeserved credibility. Even Max Planck cited Pierre Provost’s principle (1791) in one preface to a writing. That very same writing goes on to completely trash that whole ‘principle’. L Boltzmann and JC Maxwell also trashed that same idea. This does not stop your Climate Clowns from reviving ‘Provost’s principle as there claim the atmospheric radiation can somehow warm the Earth’s surface.
      All the best! -will-

      63

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Good clip.

      52

    • #
    • #
      PeterPetrum

      Just did, RR, and I thumbed up the clip. Good response from Malcolm to the dumb question from a reporter – “are you a scientist?” I loved his response that, even if you have a BSc, you are not a scientist if you do not follow the scientific method, aka our friends in the CSIRO.

      71

      • #
        Radical Rodent

        Thank you all – and thank you, Mr Janoschka, for your link revealing a bit more about the person and their interest in maintaining the charade.

        31

  • #
    Another Ian

    O/T

    More on green energy for Tony of Oz

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2016/08/we-dont-need-no-590.html

    and comments

    53

  • #
    Albert

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD0NcPU3jb4
    This video is a good response to Brian Cox on Q&A

    32

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      Thanks for that Albert,
      It was good to hear the words “fraud” and “lie” so freely used. And also cheering that Q&A was so comprehensively called out for its attack on Senator Roberts and his views.
      Cheers,
      Dave B

      41

  • #
  • #
    Gordon

    WRONG!!!!
    It is COOLING!!!
    Want proof?
    Dinosaurs!!!! They lived in a hot humid climate, we now have winter. So that means we are cooling not warming. So there.

    62

    • #
      Dennis

      Their descendants living fossils and can be found in universities and government departments and organisations looking to be very busy.

      31

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Birds are decended from dinosaurs but are much smaller, so obviously we need government funded program to breed 20 ton birds. Such a ridiculous idea is sure to attract lots of favourable publicity from about to be redundant climate researchers.
        It may seem a waste of money but who doesn’t think that they deserve to be give the bird? Image Tim Flam doing crow imitations on the ABC current affairs shows.

        31

  • #
    handjive

    BoM: About Air Temperature Data

    “Temperature data prior to 1910 should be used with extreme caution as many stations, prior to that date, were exposed in non-standard shelters, some of which give readings which are several degrees warmer or cooler than those measured according to post-1910 standards.”
    . . .
    Inconvenient petard.

    42

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      There are other proxies that provide data from that period anyway.

      52

    • #
      tom0mason

      But once the temperature data has been carefully picked over and cherry picked, adjusted, averaged, homogenized, statistically processed and generally beaten into line it does indicate something like a small, just perceptible rise from the noise on the graph that is massively significant, and obviously indicates when start of the industrial revolution began impacting the climate. Because CO2 levels rose so fast? Measured how?

      This result is even more surprising when you consider the technology employed to measure temperature before 1910. Standardized methodology there was not.
      Some examples of early thermometers are here http://www.theweatherstore.com/anth.html

      This paper does give us a marvelous insight into the human condition, and how close minded people will attempt to justify the unjustifiable even when faced with verified observations contrary to their pet theory.
      It’s not a pause, it’s a hiatus!
      And how does CO2 hold heat again?

      32

    • #
      tom0mason

      But once the temperature data has been carefully picked over and cherry picked, adjusted, averaged, homogenized, statistically processed and generally beaten into line it does indicate something like a small, just perceptible rise from the noise on the graph is massively significant. It is significant because it occurs just after humanity declared the start of the industrial revolution and obviously indicates when it began to impact the climate.
      Yes, during this period CO2 levels rose fast (or didn’t), for some unknown reason scientists didn’t measure the CO2 levels at these locations. How remiss of them.

      This result is even more surprising when you consider the technology employed to measure temperature before 1910. Standardized methodology there was not.
      Some examples of early thermometers are here http://www.theweatherstore.com/anth.html

      This paper does give us a marvelous insight into the human condition, and how close minded people will attempt to justify the unjustifiable even when faced with verified observations contrary to their pet theory.
      It’s not a pause, it’s a hiatus!

      Global ice area is about the same as for the last 100 years with no trend.

      The deserts are morphing into greener areas.

      Sea level rise is accelerating.
      Errr…
      And how does CO2 hold heat again?

      42

      • #
        tom0mason

        Even the spell checker is infected –

        “Sea level rise is accelerating.
        Errr…
        And how does CO2 hold heat again?”

        when I tried to type
        Sea level rise is de-accelerating.
        Errr…
        And how does CO2 hold heat again?

        42

  • #
  • #
    pat

    24 Aug: Brisbane Times: Tony Moore: The rise and fall and rise of solar in outback Queensland
    Only one of the five 14.5-metre high solar collection dishes at Windorah’s solar farm has been working and now it has broken down again…
    However, according to Ergon, it has generated just 942,000 kilowatts of power since 2009, a little over one-third its expectations…
    But it has broken down again…
    “They wouldn’t re-start, a computer glitch,” a Windorah person familiar with the solar plant’s operation said.
    Another local source said it once sat idle for 12 months between 2012 and 2014 without ever operating.
    “It was a monument to tourists really,” that source said, with a laugh…
    One local said the collection dishes have not worked effectively since it opened in 2009…
    “We don’t get any direct power off the solar at all. It’s been like that since it was built.”
    “All it does is ramp the (diesel) generators down. But we still don’t generate any power. We can’t feed back into the grid…
    Customers are still taking advantage of the old 44-cents per kilowatt, solar feed-in tariff introduced by Labor in 2008 to encourage solar energy…
    Solar eyes are now looking towards Barcaldine, where the private company, Elecnor, last month started construction of Queensland’s largest solar farm, a $70 million, 25-megawatt solar plant built on 90 hectares just outside Barcaldine…
    It is supported by a $22.8 million grant from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) and could provide electricity for 5300 homes around Central Queensland…
    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/the-rise-and-fall-and-rise-of-solar-in-outback-queensland-20160824-gr0cvs.html

    25 Aug:Townhall: Seton Motley: Democrats Now Want to Preemptively Punish Climate Change Pre-Crimes
    http://townhall.com/columnists/setonmotley/2016/08/25/democrats-now-want-to-preemptively-punish-climate-change-precrimes-n2209535

    42

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      Thanks Pat.
      From Seton Motley:

      “Democratic Attorneys General to Police Climate Change Dissent: “A coalition of Democratic attorneys general…announced Tuesday an unprecedented campaign to pursue companies that challenge the catastrophic climate change narrative, raising concerns over free speech and the use of state authority to punish political foes.”

      I wonder what would be a good collective noun for “a collection of Democratic attorneys general”? How abour a Demon of Democrats, as a starter. Sorry, no prizes…
      Cheers,
      Dave B

      31

      • #
        ROM

        David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz @ # 44.1

        I wonder what would be a good collective noun for “a collection of Democratic attorneys general”?

        My entry; “A daesh of Democratic attorney’s general

        “Daesh” translated into english by an Arabic / English translator becomes;

        That daesh is an Arabic word in its own right (rather than an acronym) meaning ‘a group of bigots who impose their will on others’

        Probably the most accurate definition of those Democratic attorney generals one could hope to find

        41

  • #
    ROM

    Jo’s mob here is certainly well on the way towards developing a very good line in collective Sarcasm and targeted Derision when it comes to the alarmist climate science troughers and Climate Clowns [ h/t Will ] of every stripe and colour if the posts of the last few weeks are any indication.

    Surely a Sign of the end of climate alarmism when derision and sarcasm become the norm for describing anything associated with climate alarmism!

    It is always a sure sign of the end in any other situation when Sarcasm and targeted Derision are used in the description of a situation and the people involved.

    83

    • #
      Dennis

      It has been observed that there is a need to take stock of a situation when people start laughing at it.

      61

  • #
    John Robertson

    This is how it ends.
    The parasites start repeating the obvious,that which every sceptic noted from the beginning, then they will claim that they said these things all along..
    This is what Government Grade consultants do.
    We are in a whole new(Very Old) era of human affairs,The Idiocine.
    Where the taxpayer is forced to pay for a weird quality of work, a new standard.:Good Enough for Government.
    Where you are faced with utter ignorance,arrogance and indifference..and taxed out of existence to fund it.
    And when you finally snap and seek to hold the most idiotic to account..they get a promotion and bonus.

    62

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      … they get a promotion and bonus.

      The word “Bonus” means different things in different sectors of the economy.

      In private enterprise, a bonus is seen as being a reward for achieving a difficult target.

      In Public Service, the word is a contraction of the word “bone” and a functional part of the mammalian anatomy. It is seen as a punishment for only achieving the bare minimum required to stay employed.

      30

  • #
  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Another site, article by Nils-Axel Mörner sea level expert. https://geoethic.com/2016/04/20/climate-changes-in-view-of-science-and-geoethics/

    42

    • #
      tom0mason

      A real academic and scientist, Nils-Axel Mörner, honestly giving an accurate view on a subject for which he is very qualified.
      He probably knows more about paleogeophysics and geodynamics than any UN agenda driven đenıers of solar and natural climate variations dominating our planet’s climate.
      ̛
      ̛
      ̛
      Red thumb please.

      40

  • #
    PeterPetrum

    I think the most obvious thing from their “pretty graphs” is the the temperatures dropped in the NH before they went up. What caused that – was farming causing a drop in CO2?

    52

  • #
    pat

    anonymous sources:

    25 Aug: South China Morning Post: Li Jing: China and US to ratify landmark Paris climate deal ahead of G20 summit, sources reveal
    Move may tip momentum and bring accord into force at global level
    Senior climate officials from both countries worked late into the night in Beijing on Tuesday to finalise details, and a bilateral announcement is likely to be made on September 2, according to sources familiar with the issue.
    “There are still some uncertainties from the US side due to the complicated US system in ratifying such a treaty, but the announcement is still quite likely to be ready by Sept 2,” said a source, who declined to be named…
    While China has “few uncertainties” at home for passing the deal, it could cause controversy within the US, according to Liu Shuang, an officer with Energy Foundation’s low-carbon development programme…
    But the Obama administration’s commitment to international frameworks suggests the accord would be passed in a way that would make it difficult for his successors to undo, civil society trackers said…
    http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/2008593/landmark-step-china-and-us-ratify-paris-climate-deal

    China hosts the G20 Summit in Hangzhou, Sept 4-5, & Obama climate advisor, Brian Deese, has just been in China for talks.

    Prensa Latina (Cuba) has either lost something in ***translation, or is exposing some truths!

    25 Aug: Prensa Latina, Cuba: Damy Vales: Summit G20 in China: For a Better Global Governance
    Beijing, Aug 25 (Prensa Latina) The G20 Summit to be held soon in the eastern Chinese city of Hangzhou, is seen today as an important platform that ***PRETENDS to boost economic growth and improve global economic and financial governance.
    The Group of Twenty (G20) will hold its summit on September 4 and 5 in Hangzhou, capital of the province of Zhejiang under the slogan: Build an innovative, dynamic, linked and inclusive world economy…

    As the government stressed, Beijing among its proposals will promote the creation of an innovative development model and the structural international financial reform, facilitating thus a strong, sustainable and balanced growth of the world economy.
    ***On the other hand, the Hangzhou summit will analyze climate change and accelerate the application of the Paris Agreement…

    China hopes also to propose new ideas for a balanced growth of the world economy, as is the case of its initiative of ‘One Belt and one Route’ and the creation of the Asian Bank for Investment in Infrastructure (ABII), strategies that show the determination of its government to participate in ***global governance…
    http://plenglish.com/index.php?o=rn&id=2942&SEO=summit-g20-in-china-for-a-better-global-governance

    “on the other hand” seems like a freudian slip, given the preceding sentence!

    22

  • #
    pat

    the ***funding source will no doubt be condemned by the CAGW mob, in spite of the claim this study is based on evidence, not models:

    25 Aug: Eureka Alert: University of Michigan Press Release: Study: Biofuels increase, rather than decrease, heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions
    A new study from University of Michigan researchers challenges the widely held assumption that biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel are inherently carbon neutral.
    Contrary to popular belief, the heat-trapping carbon dioxide gas emitted when biofuels are burned is not fully balanced by the CO2 uptake that occurs as the plants grow, according to a study by research professor John DeCicco and co-authors at the U-M Energy Institute…
    The researchers conclude that rising biofuel use has been associated with a net increase–rather than a net decrease, as many have claimed–in the carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming. The findings are scheduled to be published online Aug. 25 in the journal Climatic Change.
    “This is the first study to carefully examine the carbon on farmland when biofuels are grown, instead of just making assumptions about it,” DeCicco said…
    Instead of modeling the emissions, DeCicco and his colleagues analyzed real-world data on crop production, biofuel production, fossil fuel production and vehicle emissions–without presuming that that biofuels are carbon neutral. Their empirical work reached a striking conclusion…
    “Policymakers should reconsider their support for biofuels. This issue has been debated for many years. What’s new here is that hard data, straight from America’s croplands, now confirm the worst fears about the harm that biofuels do to the planet.”…
    The Climatic Change paper is titled “Carbon balance effects of U.S. biofuel production and use.”…
    ***Funding for the study was provided by the American Petroleum Institute and the U-M Energy Institute.
    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-08/uom-sbi082216.php

    25 Aug: Springer: Carbon balance effects of U.S. biofuel production and use
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-016-1764-4

    31

  • #
    pat

    read all:

    24 Aug: Science Mag: Paul Voosen: Atomic bombs and oil addiction herald Earth’s new epoch: The Anthropocene
    Just after World War II, when the atomic bombs fell and our thirst for coal and oil became a full-blown addiction, Earth entered the Anthropocene, a new geologic time when humanity’s environmental reach left a mark in sediments worldwide. That’s the majority conclusion of the Anthropocene Working Group, a collection of researchers that has spent the past 7 years quietly studying whether the term, already popular, should be submitted as a formal span of geologic time.

    After tallying votes this month, the group has decided to propose the postwar boom of the late 1940s and early 1950s as the Anthropocene’s start date. The group will ask the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS), the bureaucracy that governs geologic time, to recognize the Anthropocene as a series, the stratigraphic equivalent of an epoch, on par with the Holocene and Pleistocene that preceded it. Colin Waters, the group’s secretary and a geologist at the British Geological Survey in Keyworth, will reveal the group’s recommendations on 29 August at the International Geological Congress in Cape Town, South Africa.

    The group won’t submit a formal proposal yet. To do so, it must gather multiple cores of sediment from around the planet etc…
    Those sections will have to be rich with multiple signatures, as the Anthropocene proposal faces deep skepticism from stratigraphers. “The voting members of the International Commission on Stratigraphy look at these things critically,” says Stan Finney, chair of ICS and a geologist at California State University, Long Beach…

    ***Some also resent the role that scientists from other disciplines such as climate science have played in driving the proposal and see it as a political statement…
    Should ICS decide against the Anthropocene, some stratigraphers fear, they could be swamped with bad press. “I feel like a lighthouse with a huge tsunami wave coming at it,” Finney says. Phil Gibbard, a stratigrapher at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom and a working group member who voted against the proposal, also worries about a backlash. “We’re nervous,” he says…

    Bill Ruddiman, emeritus professor of environmental science, University of Virginia in Charlottesville: “It is a mistake to formalize the term by rigidly affixing it to a single time,” he says, “especially one that misses most of the history of the major transformation of Earth’s surface.” Many archaeologists also favor the 7000-year-old date, when early humans began to alter the planet’s surface. But the working group was looking for a signature of global, human-driven change that would wind up in the rock record, not the first traces of human influence on the local landscape…
    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/08/atomic-bombs-and-oil-addiction-herald-earth-s-new-epoch-anthropocene

    20

  • #
    AndrewWA

    I know that credibility and climate scientist (aka climate alarmist) aren’t a good fit, BUT, how can anybody suggest that the level of industrialisation prior to the end of WW1 have any significant impact on green house effects.

    EVERYTHING they have been telling us says that atmospheric CO2 is the bogeyman.
    A bit late now to change the story after the science has been settled for so long.

    43

  • #
    ROM

    The Skeptics ever increasing and ever more open and vocal derision of so many alarmist publications and papers which are purported to resemble identifiable science of some sort of supposedly something to do with the global climate appears to be really starting to hurt and to bite in climate science circles.

    I suspect the “hurt” and “bite” of the skeptics sarcasm and derision goes much, much deeper than these climate science guys are going to let on.

    But it has reached a crisis level situation when some, quite a number it seems of climate scientists openly tell another high visibility, very self promoting climate scientist in not very subtle language to shut up and pull his bloody head in and stop repeating his stupid and clearly failed claims that “the end is near” for the arctic ice.

    Via the GWPF’ site;

    CLIMATE EXPERTS AT WAR OVER PREDICTION OF ICE-FREE ARCTIC
    Date: 25/08/16 Ben Webster, The Times
    A Cambridge University professor has been accused of “crying wolf” by predicting the imminent disappearance of Arctic ice.

    In June this year, Professor Wadhams, head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at Cambridge, predicted that Arctic ice “may well disappear” this September. He added: “Even if the ice doesn’t completely disappear, it is very likely that this will be a record low year.”

    A recent press release promoting his new book, Farewell to Ice, claimed that there was a “greater than even chance” that the North Pole could be ice-free for the first time next month.

    The US National Snow and Ice Data Center, which monitors Arctic ice, said last week: “It is unlikely that Arctic sea ice extent this September will fall below the record minimum set in 2012.” Ed Hawkins, a climate scientist at the University of Reading, analysed Professor Wadhams’ forecasts on a climate science website and questioned whether they should be taken seriously.

    He wrote: “There are very serious risks from continued climatic changes and a melting Arctic but we do not serve the public and policymakers well by exaggerating those risks. We will soon see an ice-free summer in the Arctic but there is a real danger of ‘crying wolf’.”

    &

    Richard Betts, head of climate impacts at the Met Office Hadley Centre, also expressed concern. Writing on the same climate science website, he said: “When someone talks up imminent catastrophe, they might think they are getting a quick win by getting a scary story out there, but in the long term it will be an own goal.”

    53

  • #
    Harry Twinotter

    The greenhouse temperature response to CO2 is logarithmic, that is why climate sensitivity is an amount based on a doubling of CO2 concentration. It won’t produce a (more or less) linear increase unless the CO2 concentration has risen exponentially.

    And the Global Mean temperature still varies naturally, what CO2 does is produce an overall warming trend. An overall warming trend is indeed shown by the Phil Jones graph (which only goes to 2010 so it is not showing the last 6 years of warming).

    I could go into more detail about stochastic fluctuation and the limitation of surface temperature as a measurement of the Global Mean Temperature, but I think I have made my point already.

    [On no, please do go on. It was just starting to get interesting. I am sure that readers will benefit from your perceptive understanding of the mechanisms involved - Fly]

    (Please don’t encourage him,he is running in circles skilfully) CTS

    [Skilfully? Clumsily maybe.] AZ

    26

    • #

      Harry, the big effect was all over 4.5 billion years ago after we got to 50ppm… the rest is “icing”

      CO2 logarithmic

      61

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        Jo Nova.

        The graph is actually more or less correct (I do not know about the exact figures), the effect is what makes the earth livable. You agree with what I say, the greenhouse response to CO2 concentration is logarithmic.

        And as I said before this is what global emission reduction is all about; preventing an exponential increase in CO2 concentration which would result in a steady linear increase in the greenhouse effect. Even if global emissions increase is kept linear, it would be a good accomplishment, this would result in a rate of greenhouse increase that reduces over time. Zero emissions would be great, but that is likely to take on the order of 50 years.

        [Harry, Your misunderstanding is stunning. Jo explains it and you disregard her explanation and here you are in moderation again.] AZ

        13

        • #

          Everyone can see that Harry has nothing. He just repeats his point despite the evidence that tiny changes from 280ppm-288ppm won’t “show” up in our climate records.

          HArry (the troll?) pretends I agree with him while I disagree with the entire point of his comment. This is either dishonest or delusional. Conversation with Harry is inane.

          32

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            Jo,
            after that I am not sure that Harry would qualify as a troll. I mean, they must have some minimum standard, surely?

            12

          • #
            RB.

            The use of “stochastic” gives it away. There is nothing random about the way the climate changes. There are clearly oscillations. Something borrowed from reading about modelling I suspect.

            02

            • #
              Harry Twinotter

              RB.

              “The use of “stochastic” gives it away”

              No, the variability of the global mean temperature is more or less random.

              12

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Ah, thank you Harry, a penny has just dropped. You say, “… the global mean temperature is more or less random.”

                Of course! Why didn’t I see this before? If the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, at a reasonably steady rate, but the effects of that CO2 on the global mean temperature is more or less random, as you say, then there is, and cannot be, any cause and effect. They are parallel but unconnected phenomina. Bingo!

                Jo, Harry deserves a prize for this stunning breakthrough.

                42

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          I don’t know what Harry’s problem is exactly. But more than a few people seem unable to understand the mathematical concept of diminishing returns. So let’s try it this way…

          Suppose you’re outdoors looking at a distant object. The air is clear and you can see it very well. But then a wind comes up and starts blowing dust across your field of view. Suddenly the object is partly obscured. The more the wind increases the more dust you get and the harder it is to see that object. And at some point it becomes invisible. At that point, no matter how much stronger the wind becomes or how much more dust is added to the cloud obscuring your view, it has no more effect. You already can’t see what you were looking at so no matter how valiantly the wind may try to make it even harder to see, it has no more effect. The wind could increase to hundreds of miles per hour and it would make no more difference.

          That dust is absorbing the light coming to you from your distant object, just like the big fear of CO2 absorbing IR and then re radiating back to Earth. But at some point, no more light reaches the added dust so it does nothing more. The added dust is useless and so is any more added CO2. This may not be a perfect analogy. But it’s accurate about what happens in both cases even though the mechanism isn’t the same and the end result isn’t the same.

          No matter which way you draw that logarithmic curve it swiftly approaches a straight line horizontally. It can’t ever get to the horizontal but it soon becomes a matter of a difference without useful distinction just like the wind blowing dust. At some point if the graph is drawn accurately, the line looks horizontal even though it’s not.

          Harry, we are well past the point where the difference matters. Let CO2 increase exponentially if you want to. The temperature of this planet will never notice it.

          The ability of CO2 to absorb IR radiation, which is what we’re talking about here, has been measured long ago by the U.S Air Force so the data describing it’s effect is available and it’s been verified over and over so it’s reliable. The database is called HITRAN and it’s been around for years. It was discussed on this site as long ago as 2008 if I’m not mistaken.

          Now why do you suppose the Air Force wants to know how CO2 absorbs IR? It’s because they want to know how far away the heat of a jet engine can be detected by its IR signature (radiation). This is not a useless thing to investigate like psychoanalysis of “deniers” or any of that BS. It’s life or death in combat if it should ever come to that. So they are serious and there is no fact in this whole climate change debate that has been nailed down more firmly and reliably than that logarithmic curve. It’s established science — the only established science since the words global warming were first spoken. That graph is not just, “…more or less correct,” it’s right on the money. If it was a horse in a race you could bet on it and win. Check it out here.

          But I’m wasting my time, aren’t I? :-(

          22

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            Roy Hogue.

            “Harry, we are well past the point where the difference matters. Let CO2 increase exponentially if you want to. The temperature of this planet will never notice it.”

            Considering you wish to make a fool of yourself in public. You are disputing established science. I know some people have crank ideas (and good on them), but this is serious science-denial.

            “I don’t know what Harry’s problem is exactly. But more than a few people seem unable to understand the mathematical concept of diminishing returns. So let’s try it this way…”

            You are describing what I said and what is shown by the Lindzen and Choi 2009 chart – the greenhouse response to increasing CO2 concentration is logarithmic. Did you actually read my post?

            [After reading what Harry is responding to I'm approving this against my better judgment. Readers will judge for themselves what is established science as they always do.

            As I said about a previous statement from Harry, his misunderstanding is stunning.] AZ

            12

            • #
              tom0mason

              Harry,
              Please note correlation is no proof of causation.
              The bottom line is that Lindzen and Choi 2009 have not proved that CO2 levels can change global atmospheric temperatures.

              Abstract
              Climate feedbacks are estimated from fluctuations in the outgoing radiation budget from
              the latest version of Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) nonscanner data.
              Lindzen and Choi 2009

              [Nonscanner - A set of five detectors; one which measures the total energy from the Sun, two which measure the shortwave and total energy from the entire Earth disk, and two of which measure the shortwave and total energy from a medium resolution area beneath the satellite. from NASA.]

              What they have shown is statistically processed satellite data-sets, from an arbitrary time period, can be compared to give a temperature/CO2 levels correlation.
              This does not *prove* global temperatures change with CO2 level but merely shows a possible correlation over the indicated time period.

              It certainly does not prove CO2 influence, determining factor, or causation over global temperature, it only shows that a CO2 correlation can be made when these chunks of raw ERBE data-sets are processed by a specific method – mostly for noise reduction within the data – appears to show a correlation to CO2 levels.

              Maybe CO2 levels against the price of blue cheese would have been a better correlation.

              Who can say.

              In science — correlation is not causation!

              22

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                tomomason.

                “The bottom line is that Lindzen and Choi 2009 have not proved that CO2 levels can change global atmospheric temperatures.”

                Sigh. More science denial.

                Even Dr Roy Spencer says increasing CO2 increases Global Mean Temperature. I remember him telling someone off in a Heartland video, when the person claimed increasing CO2 did not increase the greenhouse effect.

                14

              • #
                tom0mason

                There is no ðenial just a point of logic — correlations only indicate possible causes, they can never prove causation.

                Just like the smoking analogy —
                Statistically the correlation between smoking and increasing any individuals chances of contracting cancer is true but it can not ‘prove’ any smoker or group of smokers will get cancer, anymore than it can ‘prove’ the cancer a smoker has is because of their smoking habit. It is very likely, I grant you, that smokers have a higher risk of cancer but the correlation is not proof only an indicator. There are a small number of other confounding factors to each individual case.

                Unlike smoking in the field of climate there are many variables, many of which also have some correlations with global temperatures. Also of note is CO2′s close correlation with temperatures only temporarily occurred over a tiny time span during the 1990. Since then no correlation, not even to that logarithmic slope, has been evident. Also historically, proxy records indicate, CO2′s correlation with global temperatures have a few hundred years lag in it.
                Finally Professor Wood’s greenhouse experiments also shows that CO2 is unable to warm air or maintain its warmth. He has experimentally falsified the supposition. The CO2 correlation to global temperatures therefore is wrong.

                I know what Dr. Spencer has written and said, and I do not agree with all he says. He can tell-off anyone he likes at his lecture, that does not make it true! A real scientific discourse allows these difference of opinion and interpretations (without resorting to personal insults). Real scientist understand that until the case is shown (by experiment, observation, etc.) to be true or false, then any and all theories (within the normal scientific constraints) are valid, and should be respected (QED no one is a ðenıer!).
                With climate science so few real facts and parameters on the matter are known that no one has the answer — yet.

                Also understood is what can be proved today as true may well be proved tomorrow as incomplete, or even false. That is the way of science, there are no ‘absolute facts’.
                Philosophically science is not an ordered set of ‘absolute facts’ but only our best efforts at understanding nature by our own faulty methods. As our (human’s) methods are by their nature limited, incomplete, and subject to interpretation.(There are also a few that are just wrong.) We have no proof for any ‘absolute facts’ as we only truly know this reality — our absolute reality.
                Thus the scientific method assumes an absolute reality against which theories can be verified or falsified. And there hangs the nature of science.

                For an interesting read on science and scientists http://www.icr.org/article/3749/218/ .

                12

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                tomomason.

                “A real scientific discourse allows these difference of opinion and interpretations…”

                Ummm no, not at all. If someone says something to a scientist, and the scientist knows it is factually incorrect, then the scientist will say it is factually incorrect.

                If the scientist is knowledgeable in their field, then it is likely they are correct.

                Look, I know I am probably wasting my time. But you should really go read up on scientists and the scientific method. Otherwise you might do something silly and get dental advice off your car mechanic.

                12

              • #
                Mark D.

                Otherwise you might do something silly and get dental advice off your car mechanic.

                Really? silly?

                A lightweight twist on appeal to authority and a very poor rebuttal. Even though the mechanic may be quite competent to give dental advice especially if the dentist is a bit of a quack.

                I have no problem using climate scientist and quack in the same sentence.

                21

              • #
                tom0mason

                Harry,
                “Ummm no, not at all. If someone says something to a scientist, and the scientist knows it is factually incorrect, then the scientist will say it is factually incorrect.”

                What did I say that is factually incorrect?

                As I so wordily put it, a scientist (a true scientist not just someone with a certificate) understands that facts are illusions, we can only quantify/qualify our proofs for our ‘facts’ by our poor human methods.
                Your mythical scientist should not dismiss any claim if all he has is a theory with nothing in the way of observation and measurements to prove the main tenet of the argument. This is especially true if another scientist (of great repute*) can, with verifiable evidence, show his theory claim is false.

                * Professor Wood was a specialist on the subject of the electromagnetic waves, in particular IR and photography. He also invented both IR and UV cameras good enough for lab work. His work on IR was verified mathematically by Niel Bohr 4 years after he (Professor Wood) performed the greenhouse experiment. (Oh look I can appeal to authority too!).

                10

              • #
                tom0mason

                My unforced errors…

                “* Professor Wood was a specialist on the subject of the electromagnetic waves, in particular IR and photography.”

                Would imply Professor Wood knew of something science had not yet discovered!
                Professor Woods Professor Wood was a specialist on the then known “invisible rays”. These “invisible rays” were later identified as infrared and ultraviolet rays, and later as part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
                He also noted that hot objects radiated these rays. He also came to correctly understand that these rays were not heat itself but the indicator of something being hot. A very important distinction, as IR radiation is not heat, it is merely a particular band of frequencies within the electromagnetic spectrum.

                Also Niels Bohr did not set out to prove Professor Wood correct, he was trying to understand the structure of the atom, in doing so he confirmed the results of the greenhouse experiment.

                00

    • #
      tom0mason

      Harry Twinotter

      “The greenhouse temperature response to CO2 is logarithmic, that is why climate sensitivity is an amount based on a doubling of CO2 concentration.”

      The illogically named ‘greenhouse’ temperature response to CO2 is an unverified but successfully falsified theory that Professor Woods (experimentally) and Niels Bohr dismissed 100 years ago. Hence the fiction of CO2′s climate sensitivity has been a UN-IPCC variable because the more observations are made the less effect CO2 is seen to have.
      By the way on climate sensitivity which figure is it? NASAs figure, Gavin Schmidt figure, the UN-IPCC figures (multiple values), or anyone else with an agenda to maintain?
      No real scientific definition/value = not science.

      And while we are at it these ‘greenhouse gases’ and ‘greenhouse effect’ have no scientific consensus definition so they are not scientific and are meaningless.

      32

      • #
        tom0mason

        Gavin Schmidt on climate sensitivity.
        The factor of two for the radiation emitted from the atmosphere comes in because the atmosphere radiates both up and down.
        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/learning-from-a-simple-model/

        An indication of just how “settled” the “science” is can be gleaned from these quotes:

        From a UK government site:
        http://www.bis.gov.uk/go-science/climatescience/greenhouse-effect
        After gas molecules absorb radiation, they re-emit it in all directions. Some of the infrared radiation absorbed by gases in the atmosphere is therefore re-radiated out towards space and eventually leaves the atmosphere, but some is re-radiated back towards the Earth, warming
        the surface and lower atmosphere (illustrated by the ‘back radiation’ term in Figure 2). This warming is known as the greenhouse effect and the gases that are responsible for it are known as greenhouse gases.

        Richard Lindzen
        ….the popular depiction of the [greenhouse] effect as resulting from an infrared ‘blanket’ can be seriously misleading, and, as a result, much of the opposition that focuses purely on the radiation is similarly incorrect.
        http://www.tech-know-group.com/archives/LMD-March31-2011.pdf

        Professor Archer
        Download the Chapter 3, lecture 5 video lecture: The Greenhouse Effect video and you will see professor Archer sketch out the same explanation as professor Lindzen’s.
        http://mindonline.uchicago.edu/media/psd/geophys/PHSC_13400_fall2009/lecture5.mp4

        Dr Roy Spencer
        When you pile all of the layers of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere on top of one another, they form a sort of radiative blanket, heating the lower layers and cooling the upper layers.
        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/what-if-there-was-no-greenhouse-effect/

        Harvard University’s version:
        To banal to comment.
        http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html

        Pennsylvania State University
        Similar to Harvard but with different added math symbols.
        https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/198

        Columbia University
        ALL of these depictions are based on what had been earlier believed about glass enclosures. These things don’t happen in a glass enclosure, though, so the experts forced themselves to insist that they DO happen between the atmosphere and the earth’s surface.
        http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/gh_kushnir.html

        Colorado University
        The the coup de grâce!
        Run the demo and see that this “effect” is EXACTLY the same in a glass greenhouse, they claim. The University of Colorado is a prime SOURCE of the IPCC’s material. So check out the University of Colorado’s demo:
        http://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulation/greenhouse

        NASA
        Why is this process called “The Greenhouse Effect?”
        Because the same process keeps glass-covered greenhouses warm. The Sun heats the ground and greenery inside the greenhouse, but the glass absorbs the re-radiated infra-red and returns some of it to the inside.
        http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Lsun1lit.htm

        Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences
        In a greenhouse, visible light (e.g., from the Sun) easily penetrates glass or plastic walls, but heat (in the form of infrared radiation) does not. The greenhouse effect refers to the physical process by which atmospheric gases allow sunlight to pass through but absorb infrared radiation thus acting like a blanket trapping heat.
        http://www.bigelow.org/virtual/handson/greenhouse_make.html

        The U.S. government’s Environmental Protection Agency
        The energy that is absorbed is converted in part to heat energy that is re-radiated back into the atmosphere. Heat energy waves are not visible, and are generally in the infrared (long-wavelength) portion of the spectrum compared to visible light. Physical laws show that atmospheric constituents—notably water vapor and carbon dioxide gas—that are transparent to visible light are not transparent to heat waves. Hence, re-radiated energy in the infrared portion of the spectrum is trapped within the atmosphere, keeping the surface temperature warm. This phenomenon is called the “greenhouse effect” because it is exactly the same principle that heats a greenhouse.
        http://www.epa.gov/ne/students/pdfs/activ13.pdf

        Enviropedia.org.uk
        Greenhouse gases like water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide trap the infrared radiation released by the Earth’s surface. The atmosphere acts like the glass in a greenhouse, allowing much of the shortwave solar radiation to travel through unimpeded, but trapping a lot of the longwave heat energy trying to escape back to space. This process makes the temperature rise in the atmosphere just as it does in the greenhouse.
        This is the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and keeps the Earth 33°C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere, at an average 15°C. In contrast, the moon, which has no atmosphere, has an average surface temperature of -18°C.
        http://www.enviropedia.org.uk/Climate_Change/Greenhouse_Effect.php

        University of Alaska-Fairbanks, Physics Department
        Greenhouse gases act as a blanket. Some of you may wonder how a green house takes solar energy and turns it into thermal energy. A good example of this is something you can observe every day in the summer in you own car. It happens when you leave you car in a sunny parking lot with the windows up. The solar energy is passing through the glass and is heating the cars interior. What’s really happening is the short wave infrared waves are going in and are turning into long wave infrared waves, which cannot escape.
        http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/102spring2002_Web_projects/C.Levit/web%20page.html

        Weather-Climate.org
        This warming effect is called the “greenhouse effect” because it is the same process as that which occurs in a greenhouse on a sunny day. The glass is transparent to short-wave radiation but absorbs the outgoing long-wave radiation, causing a rise in temperature inside the greenhouse.
        http://www.weather-climate.org.uk/04.php

        Hunan University, China
        • Light from the sun includes the entire visible region and smaller portions of the adjacent UV and infrared regions.
        • Sunlight penetrates the atmosphere and warms the earth’s surface.
        • Longer wavelength infrared radiation is radiated from the earth’s surface.
        • A considerable amount of the outgoing IR radiation is absorbed by gases in the atmosphere and reradiated back to earth.
        The gases in the atmosphere that act like glass in a greenhouse are called greenhouse gases.
        http://jpkc.lzjtu.edu.cn/hjhx/jpkc/7.ppt

        The Public Broadcasting Service (USA)
        In part, we owe our existence to a process called the greenhouse effect. Inside an artificial greenhouse filled with plants, the surrounding glass traps the sun’s energy, making it warm inside, even while outside the temperature may be much colder. This same effect happens every day on the Earth. Gases within the atmosphere act like glass, trapping the sun’s heat.
        http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/greenhouse.html

        BBC
        A greenhouse works because of the glass panels that line the roof and walls. The glass is transparent to the visible light from the sun, so sunlight can shine in and warm things inside the greenhouse. Now a body at about 35°C emits mostly infrared radiation. (On the other hand our sun, with a surface temperature of about 5500°C, emits mostly visible light.) The glass panels are opaque to infrared light. The result is that the glass lets the energy of the sun in, but won’t let it back out. This keeps the inside of a greenhouse warm.
        Replace the greenhouse with Earth and glass panels with atmosphere in the above example, and that is how the Earth’s greenhouse effect works.
        http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A283277

        University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR)
        Have you ever been inside a greenhouse on a cold winter day? It might be cold outside, but inside the greenhouse lush green plants flourish in the warmth and sunshine. Greenhouses are made of glass and are designed to hold heat inside. The atmospheres of some planets are able to trap energy just like a greenhouse. Energy from the Sun can enter the atmosphere, but not all of it can easily find its way out again.
        What blocks the Sun’s energy from escaping a planet’s atmosphere? Unlike a greenhouse, planets do not have a layer of glass over them! Instead, molecules in the atmosphere called greenhouse gases absorb the heat.
        http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/interior/greenhouse_effect.html

        Appalachian State University, North Carolina
        elective Absorbers and Greenhouse Effect.
        Our atmosphere is a selective filter since it is transparent to some wavelengths and absorbs others. The greenhouse effect occurs when the energy absorbed is not all be radiated because of the filtering of the atmosphere. Some of the earth’s radiated energy is reflected back to the surface. Consequently the earth’s atmosphere has an increased temperature. This process is much like the action of glass in a greenhouse.
        http://www.physics.appstate.edu/courses/FirstExamReview.rtf

        Nathan Phillips, Associate Professor, Geography and Environment
        Boston University
        A simple greenhouse effect model
        A. Glass represents the ‘normal’ greenhouse effect on earth and is at top of atmosphere
        B. Solar shortwave radiation S largely makes it to surface
        C. For energy balance, top of glass must send S back out
        D. Greenhouse gases don’t have a preferred direction; they send S units in both directions – up and down
        E. Thus, the surface of the earth recieves 2S due to the greenhouse effect – instead of 1S if there were no atmosphere!
        G. Thermal radiation emitted from earth = 2S
        http://people.bu.edu/nathan/ge510_06_6.pdf

        ThinkQuest Education Foundation
        In a greenhouse, heat from the sun enters the glass. The heat in the form of infra-red light bounces and heads back up towards the glass. The glass then allows only some of this heat to escape, but reflects back another portion. This heat remains bouncing within the greenhouse. In the case of planet Earth, there is no glass, but there is an atmosphere which retains heat or releases heat.
        http://library.thinkquest.org/11353/greenhouse.htm

        Moorland School, Earth Science (UK)
        Imagine that Earth has been encircled by a giant glass sphere. The heat of the sun penetrates through the glass. Some of the heat is absorbed by the Earth, and some of it is radiated back towards space. The radiated heat reaches the glass sphere and is prevented from dispersing any further.
        Similarly, the earth is surrounded by a blanket of gases. This blanket traps energy in the atmosphere, much the same way as glass traps heat inside a greenhouse. This results in an accumulation of energy, and the overall warming of the atmosphere. The ‘greenhouse effect’ is
        the popular expression for the above process.
        http://www.moorlandschool.co.uk/earth/greenhou.htm

        Eli Rabett
        What happens in a greenhouse is the same mechanism that heats a car up when you close the windows. The sun’s light (radiation) shines through the glass. The light energy checks in, but it can’t get out because both air flow (most important) and conduction are closed off. The fancy name for air flow is convection. We might fall into the habit of using that below.
        That leaves radiation. The wavelength of radiation emitted from a surface depends on the temperature of the surface according to a formula first derived by Max Planck. It turns out that the emission from the sun is peaked in the green which can pass through the glass windows, but the radiation from surfaces at 300 C is peaked at much longer wavelengths in
        the infrared (IR), which is absorbed by the glass.
        The IR radiation inside the car can heat the air inside the car, but, because it is adsorbed by the glass windows and the metal, it cannot get out.
        http://rabett.blogspot.com/2005/10/people-who-tell-you-that greenhouse.html

        California Environmental Protection Agency
        Simply put, the greenhouse effect compares the earth and the atmosphere surrounding it to a greenhouse with glass panes. Plants in a greenhouse thrive because the glass panes keep the air inside at a fairly even temperature day and night, and throughout the four seasons of the
        year. Just as the glass lets heat from sunlight in and reduces the heat escaping, greenhouse gases and some particles in the atmosphere keep the Earth at a relatively even temperature.
        http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/factsheets/ccbackground.pdf

        The University of Winnipeg
        As glass in a greenhouse traps heat inside, gases in the upper atmosphere trap some of the heat escaping the Earth, creating a greenhouse effect.
        http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node204.html

        The University of the Western Cape, South Africa
        A greenhouse is made entirely of glass. When sunlight (shortwave radiation) strikes the glass, most of it passes through and warms up the plants, soil and air inside the greenhouse. As these objects warm up they give off heat, but these heat waves have a much longer wavelength than the incoming rays from the sun. This longwave radiation cannot easily pass through glass, it is re-radiated into the greenhouse, causing everything in it to heat up. Carbon dioxide is the pollutant most responsible for increased global warming.
        http://www.botany.uwc.ac.za/envfacts/facts/gwarming.htm

        U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
        The gases that encircle the Earth allow some of this heat to escape into space, but absorb some and reflect another portion back to the Earth. The process is similar in Mountain View, only, the greenhouse there is made of glass instead of gas.
        http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/1998/98_10_22.html

        The Institute for Educational Technology, Italy
        Just as it happens in a greenhouse where the function carbon dioxide performs in the atmosphere is played by glass-rafters, the sun’s energy arrives down at the earth, where it is partially absorbed and partially reflected. Such reflected heat, however, is reflected again, by glass as for the greenhouse, by carbon dioxide as for the atmosphere, down on earth: it is as if a part of the heat were entrapped, thus determining a growth of temperature on the ground.
        http://www.itd.cnr.it/ge8/rivista/inglese/num_2/galil3.htm

        11

        • #

          tom0mason August 27, 2016 at 4:32 am

          “Gavin Schmidt on climate sensitivity.
          The factor of two for the radiation emitted from the atmosphere comes in because the atmosphere radiates both up and down.”

          This is perhaps the most damning of all the Arrogant Academic Climate Clown (AACC) rumors ever created! Nothing can be further from the truth! Yet today such is routinely professed in every college course on therodynamics and/or heat transfer. The exceptions are the EE and the QED (quantum electrodynamics) versions.
          The academics had to go all the way back to the Pierre Prevost principle 1791 (theory of exchanges) and his writing of EMR as some sort of caloric fluid! This theory was completely trashed by M. Planck, L Boltzmann, and JC Maxwell as having a need for mass to complete a power (flux transfer) while the relativistic EMR flux requires no such mass element. That falsified Prevost principle is the only historical document the Climate Clowns could find that would allow Gavin Schmidt to write such a historic gaff!
          If we allow sensible heat powered thermal EMR flux to always be created spontaneously, (as appears to be the case), then there is no physical reason for any such flux to be generated in a direction of higher radiance (normalized field strength) at any frequency whatsoever. To do such generation would be a clear example of a perpetuum mobile of some kind, with EMR flux going back and forth doing nothing whatsoever.
          In this atmosphere, especially in the 14-16 micron CO2 band the atmospheric radiance at a mere 200ppmv CO2 is as high or slightly higher than the radiance of the surface, especially over the oceans. Any surface exitance is 98% absorbed within the first 15 meters of atmosphere, except for the two partial WV transparency bands. The whole tropospheric temperature profile is completely maintained by conduction and convection, modifying the gravitationally induced lapse rate; not at all by surface radiative exitance. At the same time the amount of atmospheric column water is so variable the no surface flux need ever be produced at all. Airborne atmospheric water in all 5 phases is well equipped to dispatch any and all remaining atmospheric entropy from all insolation absorbed by the earth and its atmosphere. Not even one of the Climate Clowns has any idea of what may determine the amount and location of airborne column water. JPL folk likely already know!
          The whole concept of ‘greenhouse gas effect’ is a complete fabrication by the AlGore academic Climate Clowns (also AACC), for political and monetary gain!
          All the best -will-

          42

          • #
            tom0mason

            Will Janoschka,

            I agree completely however…

            Science demands definitions and the fact there is no coherent universally agreed definition for either ‘greenhouse gas’ or ‘greenhouse effect’ means that unless each research paper using these terms provides a definition, the paper is not science.

            41

            • #

              Tom,
              Please go read the writings about “motivational discourse”, The Donald’s thing! Forget science. Science may, or may not return, sometime later, but only from a polite agreement of any definition of anything. Currently we have a mammoth WAR ‘tween those that can do, and those that can only beg/profess! With BANKERS making huge PROFIT no-matter what the outcome!
              All the best! -will-

              41

          • #
            Uncle Gus

            Okay, that’s enough.

            If nobody else will say it I will. I don’t understand half of your post, Will, and I don’t believe Max Planck would, either.

            Do you really believe that infra-red radiation from the Earth’s surface refuses to go in the direction of the Sun, for fear of causing “a perpetuum mobile of some kind”? That would be bonkers, and you know it. So why should the atmosphere be any different?

            A hot body radiates in ALL directions. So, yes, there is “back radiation”. And yes, there is a Greenhouse Effect (which, for all you hard-of-thinking out there, has *nothing* to do with greenhouses, can we take that as settled? Thank you.) It was not invented by Al Gore (presumably at about the same time he was inventing the Internet). It keeps the Earth about 50 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be. And it works exactly the same whether it is expressed in classical or quantum-mechanical terms.

            Or indeed, in relativistic terms. I am frankly futzed if I know how James Clerk Maxwell could have known that only a relativistic analysis would work, considering he died in 1879.

            And, as an aside, how’s about you explain (in your own words, rather than by nicking scientific-sounding phrases out of textbooks and mashing them together) exactly *why* the Pierre Prevost principle needs a mass transfer in order to work. Really, we are all agog…

            10

            • #
              Uncle Gus

              I should have made that “about 30 degrees warmer”. Sorry…

              10

            • #
              tom0mason

              Uncle Gus,
              “And yes, there is a Greenhouse Effect (which, for all you hard-of-thinking out there, has *nothing* to do with greenhouses, can we take that as settled? Thank you.)”

              Do you have a definition for that ‘Greenhouse effect’? Preferably one that everyone agrees with.
              I’ve posted a few above, pick one or design one for yourself.

              11

              • #
                Uncle Gus

                There isn’t a hard-and-fast definition of “street crime” either, but there are certain areas of London where I wouldn’t venture after dark.

                In the same way, there is no doubt that this planet is about 30 degrees warmer than one would expect for a body of our albedo at this distance from the Sun. There are a number of reasons for that, but the chiefest of them is our old friend “back radiation” – a clumsy term, I know, but accurate.

                Incidentally, you haven’t answered any of the points I made in my previous comment. Why would that be, then?

                21

              • #

                Uncle Gus August 28, 2016 at 5:31 am

                “There isn’t a hard-and-fast definition of “street crime” either, but there are certain areas of London where I wouldn’t venture after dark.In the same way, there is no doubt that this planet is about 30 degrees warmer than one would expect for a body of our albedo at this distance from the Sun. There are a number of reasons for that, but the chiefest of them is our old friend “back radiation” – a clumsy term, I know, but accurate.”

                Complete absolute warmist drivel with no scientific basis whatsoever!!
                Tom0 wants a definition that stays that definition, so we can destroy that concept once and for all. So far it is just wack-a-mole! It pops up again still with no definition.

                “Incidentally, you haven’t answered any of the points I made in my previous comment. Why would that be, then?”

                Your points were addressed to me not Tom0. See below and weep!

                11

              • #
                tom0mason

                Uncle Gus,
                You are a persistent one.

                Street crime ain’t science just like quoting ‘greenhouse effect’ or ‘greenhouse gas’.

                Those that do statistics on ‘street crime’ always define precisely what it is before they process the data. If they didn’t then the statistics would be worthless.
                The media on the other hand will vary their meaning as misinforming the public appears to be their primary job.

                Without a definition all reports of them are in error and not science, just a fantasy but that was always understood.

                Now as you quoting other unscientific terms ‘back radiation’ I understand what you are and getting at. That is to say this discourse is at an end as you keep quoting pseudoscience.

                01

              • #
                tom0mason

                Uncle Gus,

                “Incidentally, you haven’t answered any of the points I made in my previous comment. Why would that be, then?”

                It is not possible while you prefer to use undefined antiscience terms. I have to presume you are pro antiscience, therefore to continue this discourse would waste time for both of us. I strongly advise you to read-up on some science instead of warmist science-fiction.

                10

              • #
                Uncle Gus

                Tomomason, Will is quite right. I did address those remarks to him originally, and it was wrong of me to expect you to answer them.

                I should of course have concentrated on your obfuscations about the “definition” of the Greenhouse Effect.

                Yes, it is a point of controversy, but not because anyone is in doubt about the mechanisms involved – simply about which ones should be included as part of the Greenhouse Effect proper. One thing they don’t include is “the Earth’s gravitationally induced compression of [the] atmosphere” (will’s words), because that particular idea is a crock. (I will not say a crock of what.) It depends on the adiabatic gas equation, and the conditions are anything but adiabatic. However it’s sure to convince a lot of people, because that equation is one that they have learned at school.

                And yes, I am a persistent one. But not to the point of insanity. You can consider this as Uncle Gus out, and give yourself the victory if you like. But… Eppur si muove – in both directions, cully.

                11

              • #

                Uncle Gus August 28, 2016 at 11:21 am

                “Don’t bother replying. I’m done. (Unless of course I’ve got you rattled enough that you *need* to reply, in which case be my guest. But I’m still done.)”

                Uncle Gus August 28, 2016 at 11:45 am

                “And yes, I am a persistent one. But not to the point of insanity. You can consider this as Uncle Gus out,”

                Again? You seem only to be as persistent (or deliberate lack thereof) as your Whack-A-Mole “greenhouse gas effect fantasy”, with absolutely no attempted definition!
                All the best, but only to our gracious hostess, joanne! -will-

                02

            • #

              Uncle Gus August 27, 2016 at 10:50 pm

              “Do you really believe that infra-red radiation from the Earth’s surface refuses to go in the direction of the Sun, for fear of causing “a perpetuum mobile of some kind”? That would be bonkers, and you know it. So why should the atmosphere be any different?”

              UB seems like some coached warmist troll!

              UB for example never ever says just what ‘infra-red radiation’ might possibly be, nor how the very different many concepts of EMR are properly stated. Everything must remain in the same pot of alphabet soup lest someone, anyone, see through all the smoke and mirrors.
              In 1978 the scientific term ‘brightness’ was depreciated as it was often misinterpretated in just such a manner! Such was replaced by two terms “luminance” for only the visible spectrum and ‘radiance’ for alternate use at all EMR frequencies. Both of these terms refer to only a normalized EM field strength (a potential for the generation of electromagnetic flux). Both ‘radiance’ and ‘flux’ have similar physical units but were easily distinguishable as completely different concepts. This was true up until some fool academic physicists decided to get rid of the hard to explain but easy to understand term “entropy” and replace such with the nonsense term ‘internal energy’ and also get rid of the noun form ‘sensible heat’ and insist that ‘heat’ had only a verb form the same as flux! If the engineering community been more aware of such goings-on at the time; those academic fools would likely have been staked out over some ant hill in the Arizona sun by persons unknown.

              Let me try to answer the UG question in proper scientific form:
              Infra-red thermal radiative flux from the Earth’s surface or atmosphere is never generated in the direction of the Sun, as the much higher Solar ‘radiance’ at every frequency completely inhibits such generation. Similarly in the direction of Jupiter the Earth’s surface or atmosphere releases little thermal radiative flux because the spectral ‘radiance of Jupiter is almost as high as that of Earth!

              “A hot body radiates in ALL directions. So, yes, there is “back radiation”.”

              A body can have, but not need have a ‘thermal spectral radiance’ up to the limit imposed by Planck’s equation. Such radiance is never an indication of ‘thermal radiative flux’, as such flux is always limited or even reversed by any opposing ‘radiance’ at every frequency and in each direction. One of Dr. Kirchhoff’s Laws!

              “And yes, there is a Greenhouse Effect (which, for all you hard-of-thinking out there, has *nothing* to do with greenhouses, can we take that as settled? Thank you.)”"rs.

              The fake rumor of “Greenhouse Effect” does not and can not physically exist in this Earth’s atmosphere!

              “It was not invented by Al Gore (presumably at about the same time he was inventing the Internet).”

              The scam of “greenhouse effect” is part of the business plan of a small group of natural gas investors in the late 1970s. That group included both AlGore and JimHanson. That plan was to convince the US public and the US government that the CO2 residue from burning coal is somehow harmful, and to restrict the coal fuel used for stationary electrical power generation in favor of the use of natural gas! All to increase profit of the few. In the long run that plan was not a particularly good one; and now we all suffer!

              “It keeps the Earth about 30 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be. And it works exactly the same whether it is expressed in classical or quantum-mechanical terms.”

              The “only” thing that keeps the Earth’s surface at a higher temperature that its aloft exit flux generating atmosphere is the Earth’s gravitationally induced compression of that same atmosphere with little or no conductive heat transfer outward. As atmospheric density increases so does its temperature. The temperature (and stored power) of any gas is a function of both its sensible heat and its pressure.

              “Or indeed, in relativistic terms. I am frankly futzed if I know how James Clerk Maxwell could have known that only a relativistic analysis would work, considering he died in 1879.”

              Jimmy did not dabble in relativistic analysis, but he did convince himself and others that EM radiative flux did not need any intervening mass for its electromagnetic power transfer! Perhaps you can get someone to interpret his works for you!

              “And, as an aside, how’s about you explain (in your own words, rather than by nicking scientific-sounding phrases out of textbooks and mashing them together) exactly *why* the Pierre Prevost principle needs a mass transfer in order to work.”

              My above post August 27, 2016 at 7:30 am was and is completely ‘my own words’! You seme to be the one that seems to prefer textbooks, mashing, pre-written warmist lying, and other pal reviewed research nonsense! Prevost himself referred to his 1791 (theory of exchanges) as some sort of caloric fluid! EMR flux is neither a fluid (some mass) nor is it caloric. EMR is not even a valid part of mechanical thermodynamics.

              “Really, we are all agog…”

              Seems more like you are atroll…..

              21

              • #
                Uncle Gus

                Will, I am amazed.

                This is gibberish.

                And you have a whole coterie of cronies willing to pretend it isn’t.

                It’s not even bad science. It’s not science at all. I think it may be glossolalia. None of the experts you quote mean even approximately what you pretend to think they do, and there are so many of them only a fanatic could take the time to untangle them.

                I give up. My old Dad said never argue with a crazy man, people may not be able to tell the difference, and boy, was he right!

                I have just one advantage. I don’t care. Convince as many people as you like. I really don’t need your permission to be a climate change sceptic, any more than I need Al Gore’s.

                Don’t bother replying. I’m done. (Unless of course I’ve got you rattled enough that you *need* to reply, in which case be my guest. But I’m still done.)

                11

              • #
                AndyG55

                “The “only” thing that keeps the Earth’s surface at a higher temperature that its aloft exit flux generating atmosphere is the Earth’s gravitationally induced compression of that same atmosphere with little or no conductive heat transfer outward. As atmospheric density increases so does its temperature. The temperature (and stored power) of any gas is a function of both its sensible heat and its pressure.”

                Correct !!

                But the lukewarmers cannot accept this.

                There is NO mechanism by which CO2 can cause warming in an open convective atmosphere.

                31

              • #

                AndyG55 August 28, 2016 at 11:37 am

                “There is NO mechanism by which CO2 can cause warming in an open convective atmosphere.”

                Perhaps a wee bit to definite for ‘this’ weird atmosphere! Try “There is NO ‘known’ mechanism…”. The incompetent Climate Clowns would be the very last to discover any possible connection.
                All the best! -will-

                21

              • #
                AndyG55

                Ok.. No KNOWN mechanism..

                I can live with that :-)

                11

    • #
      AndyG55

      “limitation of surface temperature as a measurement of the Global Mean Temperature”

      Yes we know the surface data is a JOKE.

      Anything else you want to tell us.

      32

  • #
  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    I have an idea of a new paper titled:

    Direct Correlation Found Between Bad Government Granted Climate Science Studies And Thumbs Down In Comments

    Abstract:

    Climate scientists and AGW supporters globally are angry and poutish not only that they got it all badly wrong for decades, but that the rest of the world is now aware of it. However, AGW supporters still strongly believe that thumbing down as many scientifically correct, insightful and unarguable comments in blogs will provide evidence that the AGW support position is the correct and only one and will change the minds of all involved to their way of thinking, regardless of any empirical evidence. In short, AGW supporters believe that the more thumbs down in blogs they award, the stronger their case. This is also backed up by the sheer lack of empirically evidenced postings by AGW supporters in those blogs as they prefer to remain anonymous in most cases as they have no empirically evidenced argument to make and will rapidly embarrass themselves.

    I don’t think there’ll be a need for anything much in the body of the paper as the abstract already makes this perfectly clear. The cost of the study will be minimal – a grant of somewhere between a hot cup of 1,3,7 Methyl-xanthine and $100 billion.

    92

  • #
    Roger Corlass

    To the sources in Jo’s first para add – read the papers
    The Times of the times – early 1700s (now accessable online) published number of deaths due to cold which was a far more seriuos issue than a few warm days now – but thats no more “news” than is this amazing new research

    11

  • #
    Uncle Gus

    Something very odd here.

    It used to be that most scientists who accepted AGW did so on the basis of something that looked vaguely like real science, even if it was outside of their field and they had neither the time nor the background that would enable them to properly scrutinise it.

    But this LOOKS like pseudo-science. A kid could debunk it. There is no imaginable new spin on it that could make it make sense. The only way it could be taken seriously is on the basis that all disastrous predictions about the climate MUST be believed, for political and tribal reasons.

    And yet here is the scientific community. Taking it seriously…

    32

    • #

      Uncle Gus August 27, 2016 at 5:51 am

      “Something very odd here. It used to be that most scientists who accepted AGW did so on the basis of something that looked vaguely like real science, even if it was outside of their field and they had neither the time nor the background that would enable them to properly scrutinise it.”

      Indeed!

      “But this LOOKS like pseudo-science. A kid could debunk it.”

      OK kid, just try to debunk. The rules and ethics on joanne’s site are way way above anything you have experienced.

      11

      • #
        Uncle Gus

        I think you’re confused, Will.

        I wasn’t talking about your cockamamie theory at all (check the date of the comment!)

        I was talking about the subject of Jo’s post – the idea that James Watt’s steam engine was causing global warming 200 years ago. Even all things considered, I don’t think you support that one.

        Have I got under your skin somehow? I wonder why…

        00

        • #
          Uncle Gus

          is that why that comment got two down-thumbs? I’d thought warmist trolls, but if I’ve attracted a hate campaign… Will, Tomo, I’m flattered! You shouldn’t have…

          00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I seem to remember this very point being explained in detail to a congressional committee quite a while back. Monkton might have been talking to the nearest rock for all the good it did. But I think there’s some law hidden in the books somewhere that says congress is entitled to its own set of facts. So it must be OK when they do it. Congress isn’t permitted to lie, is it? Right? Or are they?

    01

  • #
    Uncle Gus

    Jo, I still can’t up-thumb or down-thumb. I’ve asked about this before.

    Is it because I is English?…

    00

  • #
    Albert

    In the north we had a hurricane and in many places there was high rainfall. It was impossible to have record high temps for July, impossible

    01

  • #
    Linden

    About time someone brings forth solid, factual information. Repeat, Repeat. Thank You.

    Linden

    01

    • #

      Linden,
      We all here have only SWAGS! The acronym WAG means “Wild Assed Guess”!
      this comes in two flavors of S smart or stupid! Only the smart survive by having others go see if that works ‘close up’! Do you get the picture?
      All the best! -will-

      11

  • #
  • #
  • #