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

Modern Astrology in NY Times: Justin Gillis says Eclipses show all Scientists are always right about everything

Verily. Eclipses do weird things to people.

Justin Gillis, writer for The New York Times used the recent eclipse to sell something I’d call Sciencemagic. Essentially, if some Scientists™ can calculate orbital mechanics to a fine art, it follows, ipso nonfacto, that all people who use the same job title are also always right.

Should You Trust Climate Science? Maybe the Eclipse Is a Clue

Thanks to the work of scientists, people will know exactly what time to expect the eclipse. In less entertaining but more important ways, we respond to scientific predictions all the time, even though we have no independent capacity to verify the calculations. We tend to trust scientists.

If Scientists™ say that solar panels will stop malaria, then buy some! Save lives in Ghana. (What are you waiting for?)

The implications stretch far. Clearly, we can chuck out the whole research thing (labs, who needs em?) Why test predictions, if Scientists™ are 100% accurate? We’ve been wasting money. We don’t need more large hadron colliders, we just need to survey more particle physicists.

This idea that job titles have a kind of truth-telling power is not much different to astrology where truth comes from birthdates.

Preacher-Gillis struggles with cause and effect:

So what predictions has climate science made, and have they come true?

The earliest, made by a Swede named Svante Arrhenius in 1897, was simply that the Earth would heat up in response to emissions. That has been proved: The global average temperature has risen more than 1 degree Celsius, or almost 2 degrees Fahrenheit, a substantial change for a whole planet.

It’s the most tritely obvious thing that any cause of warming would cause… warming. Was it CO2, or solar spectral changes, solar magnetic effects, or solar particle flows? Gillis seems to think that warming itself is evidence that CO2 is the problem. It’s magical short-term thinking. But turning points, dammit, tell another story. If CO2 was the major driver there wouldn’t be major turning points that we can’t explain. For half the decades since Arrhenius made that prediction, global temperatures have been not-behaving as Arrhenius predicted – CO2 was on the rise, and global temperatures weren’t.

Hadley Meteorology Centre, UK, Global Temperatures, Graph, BBC, Phil Jones.

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

Gillis provides a cherry picked random-hits list (Not only are these signs of any warming but if you make forty predictions — some will work out, it’s quite difficult to fail on all forty):

The scientists told us that the Arctic would warm especially fast. They told us to expect heavier rainstorms. They told us heat waves would soar. They told us that the oceans would rise. All of those things have come to pass.

Considering this most basic test of a scientific theory, the test of prediction, climate science has established its validity.

The globe has two poles, and the Arctic warmed  but the Antarctic did the opposite.  On a yes-no question, a 50% success rate is not “success” but random luck.

As evidence, Gillis links to model predictions of “heatwaves” that haven’t even happened yet. For “heavier rain” he links to a story from 2014 that he wrote that is almost cut n paste identical to the current story — same cause and effect problem. Hello Justin — what kind of warming will not cause water to evaporate from the ocean leading to more rain? (What goes up must come down). If the solar dynamo was warming Earth, we’d see these exact same events. The only difference is that solar theories explain more of the turning points, and far more of the history.

Then there is the old warming-troposphere-cooling-stratosphere fingerprint which shows that CO2 is increasing (which we already knew from measurements) but not that CO2 causes global warming:

By the 1960s and ’70s, climate scientists were making more detailed predictions. They said that as the surface of the Earth warmed, the temperature in the highest reaches of the atmosphere would fall. That is exactly what happened.

Applying exact tests, inexactly:

If the science were brand new, that might make sense, but climate scientists have been making predictions since the end of the 19th century. This is the acid test of any scientific theory: Does it make predictions that ultimately come true?

 What kind of “acid test” is not an acid test? The Gillis kind:

Considering this most basic test of a scientific theory, the test of prediction, climate science has established its validity.

That does not mean it is perfect, nor that every single prediction is correct. While climate scientists have forecast the long-term rise of global temperatures pretty accurately, they have not been as good — yet — about predicting the short-term jitters.

In other fields, we do not demand absolute certainty from our scientists, because that is an impossible standard.

The acid test used to separate gold from base metals, it gave a definitive answer, but in Gillis-world copper is gold is nickel. Who cares? This is sloppy language — so sloppy it’s meaningless. If a salesman spoke like this we’d call it deceptive marketing.

There are no Gods of Science

Lots of eminent and otherwise sensible scientists still say things that are wrong:

In 1872, Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, wrote that “Louis Pasteur’s theory of germs is ridiculous fiction.

Gillis would protest that I miss the point. Individual scientists can be wrong, but this is a C.o.n.s.e.n.s.u.s. as if group thinking crosses some magical line into truth. Despite all the evidence that experts get things wrong and for decades, Gillis helps to propagate those mistakes by being an apologist for B-grade thinking, asking no hard questions, doing no investigation and pandering to unscientific excuses.

In any case, not only is consensus irrelevant, but peel off the PR and there isn’t one. Less than half of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty, and there are  thousands of skeptical scientists including half of all meteorologists (but what would they know?). The papers claiming there is a 97% consensus are so shot full of holes they should be retracted. Inasmuch as anyone has asked them, the world’s scientists largely don’t agree with the subcommittee of the IPCC. What kind of science uses the good name of all the other branches of science, but then can’t convince most of the world’s hard scientists? (I’m talking about geologists, engineers, physicists, coders, but not psychologists and experts in dead mammals, who like softy-”journalist-scientists” are gullible push-overs.)

Too much failure is never enough?

We can’t predict the climate on a local, regional, or continental scale, 98% of Climate Models cannot explain why global warming has slowed, models get the core assumptions wrong – the hot spot is missing, (that’s the only fingerprint they said mattered, right up until they couldn’t find it). They can’t explain the pause, the cause or the long term historic climate movements either. Measurements of satellites, cloud cover changes, 3,000 ocean bouys, 6,000 boreholes, a thousand tide gauges, and 28 million weather balloons looking at temperature or humidity can’t find the warming that the models predict. In the oceans, the warming isn’t statistically significant, sea-levels started rising too early, aren’t rising fast enough, aren’t accelerating, nor are warming anywhere near as much as they predicted.

Scientists are behaving badly: hiding data, declines, adjustments and methods. Gillis provides the smokescreen.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (86 votes cast)
Modern Astrology in NY Times: Justin Gillis says Eclipses show all Scientists are always right about everything, 9.5 out of 10 based on 86 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/y78bhshn

348 comments to Modern Astrology in NY Times: Justin Gillis says Eclipses show all Scientists are always right about everything

  • #
    Mark M

    If only they had thought of a carbon (sic) tax in the days of the Antikythera mechanism, the planet would be saved!

    142

  • #
    TdeF

    If you cannot explain the past, you cannot predict the future. That is the great failure of the vaunted models.

    As for the accuracy of the movements of planetary bodies, they are in a vacuum at vast distances with only once major force at work. No model needed. Until Einstein’s General Relativity, that was adequate and still all you need for very high accuracy. Climatologists are proud of the fact they they cannot get the weather right. After thirty years of lectures on the future, which is now the past, it is clear they cannot get the future right either.

    264

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      The global mean temperature has increased.

      734

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        By how much? Within the error range of +\_ 0.48 degrees C.

        232

      • #
        Robert Rosicka

        “The globull temperature has increased ”
        Sea levels are 100 foot higher
        The oceans are more acidic
        Food production is at an all time low
        Climate refugees flood the developed world
        Western Australia has been abandoned
        Sand dunes a hundred feet high just west of Albury
        No snow on the peaks
        Dams all empty
        Devastating droughts
        More floods
        More severe storms
        More wind
        Less wind
        Etc etc etc .

        224

        • #
          tom0mason

          etc, etc…
          More plagues of locusts,
          More raining frogs,
          Old men find striking the earth with a stick causes bugs to crawled forth from the dust to cover the land,
          Desert dusts kill millions of fish worldwide,
          The earth opens up and swallows whole communities,
          Increase in more devastating lightning strikes, causing fires, and power outages,
          Increase in malaria and other ‘tropical’ diseases worldwide,
          More incidence of raining fish,
          Unknown fatal pestilence kills most domesticated animals,
          Worldwide shortage of manner,
          Increasing number of wives turned to salt (oddly all were viewing the ‘wrong’ TV programs),
          New and more virulent infectious plagues,
          Sudden outbreak of ‘new’ modern sciency languages proved impossible to translate,(Bable, Phart, Carbonism, and the 10 variants of Lysenkonism are the most prominent)
          More rivers worldwide are running with blood,
          Boils burst forth upon humans and beasts throughout the world,
          ….
          etc, etc, …

          182

      • #
        TdeF

        So? And not in the last 20 years despite steadily rising CO2, <2% of it fossil fuel CO2.

        193

      • #
        Ceetee

        So what Harry. Whats your point? Explain..

        103

        • #
          Ceetee

          Liberal left has gone insane to the point where we can’t even have a rational argument with them anymore.

          161

      • #
        AndyG55

        Since the Little Ice Age.

        THANK GOODNESS !!!

        156

      • #
        Wayne Job

        Harry when I was doing science around 60 years ago the accepted average temperature of the world was 14.7C. Some twenty years later when I went of flying Boeings the base line for jet engines was 14.7C,hotter less power colder more power. Two day ago I saw the figure accepted by the global warming crowd as the average world temperature, what a surprise they accept 14.65C and this article mentions the odd degree rise.
        Not in my book.

        405

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          Wayne Job.

          That is why the climatetologists calculate anomalies, not absolute temperatures. Anomalies are more useful.

          515

          • #
            AndyG55

            easier to LIE about.

            Just keep changing the base-line and the method of calculation

            Anomalies are MEANINGLESS unless you know what the base-line represents

            In the case of global temperatures, FABRICATED or real….

            …they are based on some part of a period of rise out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.

            If you REALLY want to go back to those freezing and desperate times, Harry, then move to Siberia.

            Otherwise stay in your fossil fuel warmed inner city ghetto and remain a total brain-numbed hypocrite.

            123

          • #
            sunsettommy

            Another evidence that Harryfool, didn’t understand what Wayne Job’s point is at all.

            Wayne wrote this easy to understand statement,

            “Harry when I was doing science around 60 years ago the accepted average temperature of the world was 14.7C. Some twenty years later when I went of flying Boeings the base line for jet engines was 14.7C,hotter less power colder more power. Two day ago I saw the figure accepted by the global warming crowd as the average world temperature, what a surprise they accept 14.65C and this article mentions the odd degree rise.”

            Think very hard Harryfool,what you missed about what he said. HINT: “60 years ago”

            113

      • #
        rapscallion

        Considering that we are still coming out of the LIA, I should ruddy well hope so. Cold kills more than warmth.

        162

        • #
          AndyG55

          “Considering that we are still coming out of the LIA”

          Unfortunately, that highly desirable and highly beneficial warming seems to have come to a halt.

          Sullen sun, AMO turning.

          Not looking to warm over the next few decades, some cooling on its way, mores the pity.

          177

        • #
          AndyG55

          We have been fortunate to be in a period that could only be described as…

          “The modern SLIGHTLY warm period”

          157

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘The global mean temperature has increased.’

        Atmospheric global warming is a silly concept, but sea surface temperature is a better guide to what is happening.

        HadSST shows the NH is warming, while a ENSO neutral tropics and SH are cooling, all perfectly normal for this time of year. This is not in the AGW script, as industrial CO2 continues to rise there are no global warming signals.

        154

      • #
        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          sunsettommy.

          “Harry, you ignored her main point completely:”

          No I did not. That charts shows global warming. Or are you trying to say it doesn’t?

          716

          • #
            AndyG55

            Warming PURELY and ONLY from SOLAR force ocean event.

            Absolutely ZERO evidence of CO2 warming.

            Provide some if you have any.. or crawl back into your troll-hole. !!

            138

            • #

              For Pete’s sake, I can’t stand it when people bring their toddler and then let them run about screaming. Could whoever is responsible for Andy teach him to stop interrupting the adults with annoying and incoherent tantrums. Please.

              410

              • #
                AndyG55

                “I can’t stand it when people bring their toddler”

                Then why keep up the juvenile patter/tantrums ??

                Are you really that PLEADING for attention?

                73

              • #
                AndyG55

                So hilarious watching you flip and flop like a dement mullet trying to avoid actually present what DOESN”‘T EXIST.

                You KNOW that there is ZERO PROOF that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

                So its worm and squirm.. slither and slime.. all the way back to your fossil fuelled inner city ghetto.

                73

          • #
            sunsettommy

            See Harry, still doesn’t know what Jo’s point is. It is predictable when these warmist loons like him,can’t even try an honest comment.

            Hint:

            http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hadley/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg

            Never said there was no warming,neither did she,don’t you even try to lie on this.

            125

            • #

              The point is that Jo’s point is incoherent. She is trying to model an imaginary cycle onto the data, whilst ignoring the fact it shows a trend.

              49

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Correct. The name of the game is curve-fitting while ignoring the overall trend. I could also mention HadCRUT3 is obsolete, but is their really any point?

                39

              • #
                AndyG55

                Point is that CT and twotter don’t have the cranial capacity top comprehend.

                Yes, It shows a cyclic trend, with some HIGHLY BENEFICIAL warming out of the COLDEST period in the last 10,000 years.

                Absolutely ZERO indication of any human forcing, though.

                Unless of course you take a huge dose of Klimate-Kool-Aide.

                Willing to bet that both of you choose to live somewhere warm, and use fossil fuel heating in winter.

                Be VERY GLAD for the natural heating out of the LIA, and stop your silly chicken-little anti-CO2 nonsense.

                CO2 is what keeps you and every other creature on this carbon based planet alive.

                The atmosphere needs MORE , not less.

                73

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        “The global mean temperature has increased.”

        As has my waistline … OMG – Cause and effect! Who would have thought?

        We are no longer discussing Climate Change, folks. We are now engaged in the new science of Spurious Correlations.

        201

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        But at least we now have definitive proof that the person (or child) that sits behind the façade of Harry Twinotter, cannot do Math, and therefore knows little about physics, atmospheric or otherwise.

        163

      • #
        Manfred

        Natural variation. 0.98C±0.27C per century for the last six centuries of the Holocene. Business as usual.

        143

      • #
        James Bradley

        Harry Twatter,

        No it hasn’t.

        115

      • #
        John F. Hultquist

        The global mean waistline has increased.
        This is a bigger crisis than the non-crisis of global warming.

        122

        • #

          What is the mechanism for that?

          I ask, because I am sceptical. Also, I am aware we have a 200-year-old body of science that explains the atmospheric greenhouse effect and which predicted the current warming – a warming for which there is no alternative explanation.

          48

          • #
            AndyG55

            “because I am sceptical”

            ROFLMAO

            You are the most GULLIBLE, brain-wash AGW non-entity around.. apart from maybe… twotter. !

            You actually “BELIEVE”, despite being totally unable to present one iota of proof, that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            Just because some anti-CO2 scammer told you so..

            How GULLIBLE ids that !!

            83

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Now, does Harry actually mean that, “The mean global temperature has increased”?

        Or does Harry really mean that, “The global mean temperature has increased”?

        Does he realise that there is a difference?

        Based upon his past performance, I suspect not.

        124

      • #
        toorightmate

        Harry T,
        Please don’t be so mean about the temperature.

        84

      • #
        sophocles

        Harry Twinotter claimed:

        The global mean temperature has increased.

        If the global mean has increased then why has the New Zealand mean temperature remained constant for the stayed the same for the last 130 years?

        When I last looked, New Zealand was still on Planet Earth. Which planet are you on, Harry?

        144

        • #
          sophocles

          Hello: my old keyboard gremlin has found my new keyboard.
          Bother.

          Should be:
          If the global mean has increased then why has the New Zealand mean temperature remained constant or stayed the same for the last 130 years?

          113

        • #

          Sophocles has been re-watching a bit too much Monty Python:
          “If the global mean has increased then why has the New Zealand mean temperature remained constant”

          Hilarious.
          Or…maybe he wasn’t joking and he doesn’t understand the words “global” and “:mean”….now *that* is funny…

          39

          • #
            AndyG55

            Monty Python is WAY beyond you, CT

            Warming is certainly NOT global

            The ONLY places or periods with any warming in the satellite record are places directly affected by El Nino events.

            You actually pointed out this FACT in another post, but were too dumb to realise it.

            Look in the mirror, and say… DOH, CT !!

            93

  • #
    TdeF

    Also the point of the steamy equatorial ‘hot spot’ was that a 50% increase in CO2 by itself cannot explain any warming. It is just too small. The 1980s wild conjecture of water assisted warming has been proven wrong because we would see it. So the real scientific consensus even among promoters of man made global warming is that CO2 driven warming is impossible. What more is needed?

    236

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Mrs Whakaaro wants to know more about, “the steamy equatorial ‘hot spot’”.

      I can’t think why. She has shown little interest in atmospheric physics before.

      112

  • #
    TdeF

    However the fact that 98% of CO2 is in the world’s oceans is not disputed.
    The fact that warmer oceans release more CO2 is not disputed.
    So there is a simple and obvious explanation for higher CO2, warmer oceans. No computer model needed.

    265

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      “So there is a simple and obvious explanation for higher CO2, warmer oceans. No computer model needed.”

      No. The oceans are a CO2 sink, at least for now.

      730

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        The oceans are getting cooler? Thank you for rubbishing AGW rubbish.

        205

      • #
        el gordo

        The southern ocean is a very large sink, but elsewhere on the planet its a different story.

        91

      • #
        TdeF

        Really, why would the laws of Physical Chemistry change? Look up Henry’s Law. Solubility of gases goes down dramatically with temperature rise.

        162

        • #
          TdeF

          Perhaps Henry’s law is too hard. Look at the solubility of CO2 vs temperature. Now why would a warming ocean absorb CO2?

          143

          • #
            TdeF

            To be more accurate, in an equilibrium situation, the ocean both absorbs and outgasses, which is how fish breath oxygen because there are no plants in the ocean, just on the surface and only plants produce oxygen. Phytoplankton are on the surface of course as they need to get the sunlight. Henry’s Law is about the balance, about how the surface temperature sets the value. Given that the oceans have 50x as much CO2 as the air, water temperature is critical. CO2 goes into to the oceans in cold latitudes and out in warmer water. On balance though if the world’s ocean surface is warmer, CO2 is outgassed, not absorbed. This is all simple obvious stuff.

            There is another conundrum. While warmists say the oceans are ‘acidifying’, they are not acid, buffered by trillions of tons of limestone. However we are told CO2 concentrations are going up (‘acidifying’) in surface water which is also getting hotter. That is not possible. Water knows nothing of our logic and contradicts this.

            I suppose the argument works on the same silly logic as cars produce CO2, so world atmospheric CO2 must go up. Then if aerial CO2 goes up the oceans will get more CO2. None of this is true in an equilibrium, but it sounds plausible. Especially if said by a ‘scientist’ like Al Gore or Tim Flannery. Scientists always tell the truth and these two are obviously scientists. The real question is that if you are told something which is not true, why?

            221

            • #
              Bartender UK

              TdeF,

              Especially if said by a ‘scientist’ like Al Gore or Tim Flannery

              1) Al Gore is a failed American “Politician” not a Scientist

              2) Tim Flannery is an Australian mammalogist, palaeontologist, environmentalist and global warming activist not a climate Scientist.

              3) C02 follows temperature or temperature leads C02, whichever way you want to take it man made C02 Global Warming is IMPOSSIBLE, I will repeat IMPOSSIBLE!!!

              The real question is that if you are told something which is not true, why?

              Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. That is why scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science but they do have two things that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever hold true unless proven otherwise. Furthermore, there is nothing in between. A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven. These are the same as unproven. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist that is a matter for mathematics and logic to prove, not science.

              93

              • #
                TdeF

                The foundation of Rationalism was Frenchman and mathematician and soldier Rene Descartes. Without him modern mathematics might not have existed. So formulae, alegbra and the very idea of x,y,z, Cartesian coordinates. He could only trust to mathematics not religion and when Liebniz and Newton formulated their laws and their calculus and Boyle started to explain natural phenomena with invariable mathematics and ratios and temperature, the world changed and real science was invented. Chemistry became addition.

                Even in the 1880s Physics was called “Natural Philosophy” as is still proudly over the doorway to the old Physics department in Melbourne University. Science now has been perverted to ‘natural’ sciences like observational sciences with no mathematics, often suffering from instant conclusions from conjecture without proof like man made global warming. Useful as these observational sciences are, nothing changed our understanding of the natural world like physicists Crick and Watson and their theory and observation of the double helix. Pasteur invented innoculation, but could not explain it. Madame Curie observed radiation. Volta created electricity without a use. Even petrol was created in 1840 but there was no used for it.

                Now with mapping the genome we can start to explain and understand what we could only observe in genetics. Once mathematics can be used, Rene Descartes is proven right. Now everyone is a scientist. That is wrong.

                81

        • #
          toorightmate

          TdeF,
          Henry’s Law might just have to disappear – just like the statues of James Cook (and for the same reasons – the Left don’t like them).

          71

      • #
        AndyG55

        “No. The oceans are a CO2 sink, at least for now.”

        That is a darn pity. The planet desperately needs higher atmospheric CO2 levels.

        But with 1600 COAL fired power stations being built around the world , I reckon there will be just about enough for at least a few decades or hopefully, centuries..

        By then people will have woken up to the FACT that enhanced atmospheric CO2 is an ABSOLUTE ESSENTIAL to the sustainability of the human species and all life on this carbon based planet of ours.

        188

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Andy!

          Please don’t apply scientific reasoning, in responding to Twinotter’s religious belief system.

          We don’t want him trying to gnaw his fingers off, again!

          107

          • #
            AndyG55

            “We don’t want him trying to gnaw his fingers off, again”

            Who says? Anything that would stop his nonsense trolling would be a big plus.

            108

      • #
        AndyG55

        You are right, twot, the oceans are getting cooler.

        Not getting the solar input they got over the latter half of last century.

        119

      • #
        Mark M

        Global Warming’s ‘Missing’ Heat: It May Be in the Indian Ocean

        Then again, it may not.

        Harry & Sou know where it is.

        83

      • #
        bobl

        um, hmm, no

        There isn’t a clear definition of whether oceans will sink or source CO2, indeed it does both depending on the ratio of dissolved CO2 to atmospheric CO2 and the temperature at the time. Harry thinks it’s a sink, but at what rate?, if temp rises it sinks slower and all that natural CO2 from methane and volcanoes stays in the atmosphere. Just because oceans might be a nett sink, says nothing about the ability of ocean temp to affect atmospheric CO2. Math Harry – learn some.

        94

    • #

      Tdef gibbered, “… there is a simple and obvious explanation for higher CO2, warmer oceans…”

      Er, no. Isotopic analysis demonstrates that is not true.

      Additionally, the earth’s current CO2 budget wouldn’t make any kind of sense if you had the oceans releasing more than they were absorbing.

      Sometimes you have to wonder how these people continue to post unremitting wrongness, year after year, apparently learning nothing when their mistakes are pointed out.

      “An error doesn’t become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.”

      Is Tdef mistaken, or is he in error?

      59

      • #
        AndyG55

        CT …mindlessly yapping, yet again

        Any proof at all that cO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

        No CO2 warming signature in sea level.

        No CO2 warming in REAL temperature data.

        NOTHING..

        Just a great manic EMPTYMESS, and you are GULLIBLE to swallow all the anti-science in one big gulp.
        !!

        75

  • #
  • #
    Konrad

    The problem for those that continue to push the AGW hoax is that science is not on their side. The foundation claim of the climastrologists is that the surface of this ocean planet would be frozen solid averaging only -18C, were it not for the presence of radiative gases like CO2 and H2O in our atmosphere creating a “radiative greenhouse effect”. This foundation claim is patently absurd. The “Frost Line” in our solar system is in the further reaches of the asteroid belt. It is only beyond this point that worlds with frozen oceans can exist. Earth is only 150 million kilometres from the sun. The claims that the sun alone could only heat the oceans to an average of -18C without an atmospheric greenhouse effect are clearly wrong.

    Our planet is in effect a giant spacecraft. In designing for thermal control of satellites, surface properties are everything. The sun does not heat all materials in the same way and nor do they radiate LWIR in the same way. This is where the climastrologists got it so horribly wrong – they ignored the true surface properties of this planet. Sunlight (UV, SW & SWIR) isn’t absorbed at the surface of our planet, on average is is absorbed below the surface of our ocean planet. Because the oceans can only cool from their LWIR opaque surface, this leads to far greater energy accumulation than would occur if the oceans were completely opaque to sunlight.

    For “Surface Tav without radiative atmosphere” the climastrologists have got a massive 80C error for 71% of this planet’s surface. This error is the very foundation of the AGW conjecture. This error is why the climastrologist’s modelling doesn’t work and can never work.

    2310

    • #
      TdeF

      Tiny and invisible, CO2 hardly matters. Water controls our water planet, 75% covered to an average of 3.4Km. You can include frozen Antarctica where the ocean is on top of the land, as everywhere else. The implied idea that the 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen and 1% argon are almost irrelevant compared with CO2 is just nuts. So a 0.025% CO2 concentration has become 0.04%? Water in all its forms is the basis of all our weather. Without it on a desert planet, there would be no weather.

      The only point is the socialist one, the very long bow that machines produce CO2 (and everything else) and that CO2 has gone up, so we need to shut down Hazelwood and ride bicycles. However that is getting very expensive, the predictions are all wrong and the people against everything are moving in many contries simulteaneously on to rewriting history and blowing up statues instead of power stations.

      So not only science is under attack, Christianity, democracy and history and especially freedom of speech. Anyone who disagrees is shouted down, shut out, defunded or fired. Never in the two hundred years of the United States has a President been so under daily assault by the new dictators, the marxist media. One recent comment was Trump was not fit to be a human being? Where does this insanity stop? They have moved on from Climate. Only man bear pig is left.

      355

    • #
      Konrad

      Ah, the usual. Red thumbs and no counter argument.

      Are the red thumbs from true believers or lukewarmers too frightened to even contemplate that CO2 doesn’t cause warming?

      2611

      • #

        It can’t be easy for them. Imagine being a Greens or GetUp footsoldier and ending up on Jo Nova duties. You constantly have to think of novel ways and patterns of red-thumbing, not only for realism but also to relieve the monotony of working down the threads like an automaton.

        I seldom red thumb anyone, even though I come here mainly to kick warmies for fun. I reckon if someone attempts to make a point as an individual that’s good enough, regardless of motive. I save the red for pure agenda stuff where it’s clear someone is professionally pushing a corporate line rather than a personal opinion. Some topics, like dam releases and Tesla, really bring ‘em out for some reason.

        194

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Garlic repels vampires so would it work on AGW trolls? Or should we resort to the old stake in the heart at the crossroads trick?

        81

      • #
        Joe

        I always thought it was an unfortunate choice of colours in that thumb-up-down plugin and that the greenies might gravitate to the green button and the reds-under-ya-bed might similarly gravitate to the red button but alas no blue button for the blueys.

        52

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      Thanks Konrad,
      I don’t recall seeing anything before asserting “surface properties are everything”. Well put. Has the energy storage by photosynthesis been quantified? Again I’ve not seen a mention??
      Cheers,
      Dave B

      96

      • #
        Annie

        Hooray for photosynthesis! It helps grass to grow, feeds our sheep and cattle and chooks, they then feed us…yum.

        90

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      “The “Frost Line” in our solar system is in the further reaches of the asteroid belt. It is only beyond this point that worlds with frozen oceans can exist.”

      No, you are completely wrong. This is not what is mean by the “frost line”.

      829

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        When I use a word said Harry, it means whatever I want it to mean, at that time.

        174

      • #
        Annie

        OK then Harry TO,; what do YOU mean by the frost line?

        112

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          Wikipedia it. It’s not hard.

          [Harry, I am getting a little tired of your juvenile and supercilious attitude. If you know where some useful evidence in support of your opinion can be found, then it is beholding on you to share that information directly with other people who might be interested, and not just wave them in the general direction of Wikipedia. I have put you on notice before, to lift your game, and I am doing that again. Fly]

          1028

          • #
            AndyG55

            Your mind always was on another planet, twot.

            Childish distraction from the topic though.. try something else next time.

            1410

          • #
            tom0mason

            “Harry and the Frost Line of Misunderstanding” ……

            ………a new Harry Potter adventure?

            :)

            172

            • #
              tom0mason

              Ooops typo…

              ………a new Harry Potter Twinotter adventure?

              or more blather from a duplicated member the weasel/stoat family.

              :)

              184

          • #
            Annie

            I’m asking YOU Harry as you are the one who didn’t agree with Konrad at #6. Don’t tell me what I should do…you come up with something concrete.

            163

            • #

              Maybe because it is *really* silly having to try to explain to somebody that the greenhouse effect is a real thing.

              However, even better than Wikipedia, here is Roy Spencer explaining that “there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect” is a *really* dumb belief:

              http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/the-warm-earth-greenhouse-effect-or-atmospheric-pressure/

              So maybe Konrad can explain to us what special insight, or what genius, has has access to and that has eluded real climate scientists such as Roy Spencer?

              910

              • #
                AndyG55

                “that the greenhouse effect is a real thing”

                GHE.. Provide PROOF that CO2 causes any warming in a convective atmosphere., CT

                So far you have NOTHING.. a demented Chihuahua would do better.

                Empty as a box of chocolates in an Al Gore mansion !!

                119

          • #
            David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

            Don’t get too happy with the green thumb count. Mine was for Fly.
            Dave B

            85

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            Fly.

            I am so scared! You are a moron, grow a backbone and apply your dubious moderator skills consistently across all posters.

            But OK, if people are not capable of typing “frost line” into Wikipedia, here it is:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frost_line_(astrophysics)

            [See Harry, that wasn't so hard, was it?] AZ

            [And by the way, Calling moderators morons will not improve you chance of getting a deficient comment approved. It only demonstrates your contempt for those who disagree with you and does you no credit at all. Readers are not impressed, neither are Jo's moderators and you really should lift your game.] AZ

            [Thanks AZ. For Harry's benefit, I generally frown on people who answer a genuine question by replying "look it up", sometimes followed by an insult. It actually implies that you also do not know or understand the details, and are just quoting from a list of "prompts and put-downs" to avoid actually sharing some information, which you, yourself, may not fully understand. So, if you know an answer, then share it. If you don't know an answer, then look it up, and share it with a reference. That is what grown-up professionals tend to do.]

            717

            • #
              AndyG55

              Is there any way we can green thumb the mods :-)

              CHEERS !!

              [I think you just did.

              On behalf of all of us who toil tirelessly at all hours of the day and night, thank you. ;-) ] AZ

              115

              • #
                AndyG55

                Harry.. We are all still waiting for YOUR evidence.

                You have NONE.. just unsubstantiated scientific fallacy

                EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.!!

                Put up, twotter, and stop your childish evasions.

                64

            • #
              Mary E

              Researchers Rebecca Martin and Mario Livio have proposed that asteroid belts may tend to form in the vicinity of the frost line, due to nearby giant planets disrupting planet formation inside their orbit. By analysing the temperature of warm dust found around some 90 stars, they concluded that the dust (and therefore possible asteroid belts) was typically found close to the frost line.[13]

              So if the frost line form allows the creation of asteroid belts, then the frost line can usually be found where there are asteroid belts, yes?

              Earth is an oddity, then, as we have managed to retain enough water to support life as we know it despite being inside the “hot zone” – yes? Did we get a large amount of our water from comet impacts, or was it here to start with?

              Jus trying to wrap my thoughts around the ideas, seeing if I do understand what the wiki (and a few other articles) are saying about planetary formation and the location of system frost lines. Which may or may not have anything to do with our climate wibbles and wobbles, but seem to have a lot to do with our having an atmosphere that sustains life as we know it at all.

              41

              • #
                Konrad

                The point about the Frost Line (aka Snow Line) in the solar system is it represents the distance away from the sun that ice can exist without the sun causing it to melt or sublimate. Comets only begin to produce a tail inside this line.

                Worlds like Ceres and Europa are ice worlds that exist beyond the Frost Line. If they got closer to the sun, the sun would drive surface temperatures above -20C, the temperature at which ice begins to sublimate in vacuum.

                Closer in on Mars, the Phoenix lander scraped back soil to expose ice at Mars’ pole. Even though the ice experienced day and night not continuous sunlight, it disappeared faster than sublimation in vacuum. This was not due to any “greenhouse effect” as the measured atmospheric temperature only rose above -18C on one day of the mission. The reason the ice disappeared so fast was because of the way sunlight heats ice. Most of sunlight is reflected by ice, but what is absorbed is absorbed inside the ice not at its surface. This means sunlight heats ice in a very different manner than an opaque material of the same reflectivity.

                Now the foundation claim of the AGW conjecture is that the surface of our planet would be frozen at -18C were it not for gases like H2O and CO2 in our atmosphere. The empirical evidence from the solar system shows this foundation claim is not possible.

                65

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Konrad.

                “The empirical evidence from the solar system shows this foundation claim is not possible.”

                Huh? Reference please.

                48

              • #
                AndyG55

                wrong place first time

                —-

                Harry.. We are all still waiting for YOUR evidence.

                You have NONE.. just unsubstantiated scientific fallacy

                EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.!!

                Put up, twotter, and stop your childish evasions.

                84

    • #

      Thanks Konrad. It’s valuable at times to be reminded of the very great distinctions between a planet and a glass receptacle, though one may argue over details. (To be fair, Arrhenius himself had his troubles with the (ahem) consensus of his day. Sorry, clearing my throat there.)

      118

  • #
    sunsettommy

    Mr. Gillis, doesn’t even think on why CO2 at today’s level is not a big deal,since the die was cast in stone around 600-700 million years ago. The planet lived with levels up to 5,000 ppm,yet never got a run away warming trend,which is why warmists crying over a 400 ppm level are looking really foolish.

    That it was already at least the minimum of 160 ppm and higher ever since,which means that most of the postulated warm forcing was set in that long ago.Since the 160 ppm level is already around 95% of all possible CO2 forcing to 560 ppm, it is no concern to the rational person.

    Here are some charts that will help make clear that CO2 at 400 ppm is not a big deal:

    Heating effect of CO2 per 20 ppm increment,

    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png

    MODTRAN,

    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/co2_modtrans_img1.png

    People need to stop being so easily scared by typically dishonest manipulative journalists.

    177

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      That chart is wrong. You might want to check your sources on that one.
      [If you think the chart is wrong, then explain why. -Fly]

      Your “run away warming trend” sounds like a straw man argument to me. I am not aware of any peer-reviewed studies that predict a run away, at least not in the sense that you mean. If any climate scientist does say such a thing, it must be a pretty fringe view. I am a Warmist, and I don’t say it.

      929

      • #
        Robert Rosicka

        “If any climate scientist does say such a thing, it must be a pretty fringe view. I am a Warmist, and I don’t say it.”

        Can someone frame this for me please .

        123

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘I am not aware of any peer-reviewed studies that predict a run away, at least not in the sense that you mean.’

        Yeah it was a media beat-up, but somebody should take responsibility for all those useless desalination plants.

        152

      • #
        AndyG55

        “I am a Warmist, ”

        I am a warmist, too, Twot.

        I enjoy the warmth while it is here.

        Post us from Siberia, if you don’t.

        Be VERY glad we are not still back in the LIA,

        ….. when Arctic sea ice was at extreme high levels (like in 1979)

        147

      • #
        AndyG55

        “That chart is wrong.”

        Ok, post a correct one.

        127

      • #
        AndyG55

        “I am not aware of any peer-reviewed studies that predict a run away”

        Ahhh .. so no need for all the wasted money and the socialist totalitarian “climate controls.”

        But we all knew that, twot !

        128

      • #
        AndyG55

        ““That chart is wrong.””

        I do agree with you, btw.

        There is actually NO provable warming from atmospheric CO2.

        118

        • #
          Craigthomas

          Roy Spencer explains why you are completely wrong, Andy:
          http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/

          822

          • #
            Robert Rosicka

            And this Dr reckons your wrong CT .

            http://www.keepinspiring.me/dr-seuss-quotes/

            114

          • #
            tom0mason

            And Ella Fitzgerald explains the warming…

            https://youtu.be/FJdfSXlB_8I

            123

          • #
            AndyG55

            CT doesn’t understand the words “proof”..

            The closest Roy comes is .

            The greenhouse effect is supported in laboratory…… etc….

            “So, until someone comes along with another quantitative “model” that uses different physics”

            That is NOT proof of anything, CT.

            Certainly not of CO2 warming anything.

            Seems your grasp of actual science is tenuous to say the least.

            137

          • #
            el gordo

            Craig that may have been a April Fool’s joke by Spencer.

            102

          • #
            Konrad

            Much of what Dr. Spencer writes there is correct. However what he has written elsewhere shows he has made the same mistakes as the climastrologists and ignored the surface properties of this planet.

            In his calculations Dr. Spencer still uses 255K for “surface Tav without radiative atmosphere”. That would be a fair figure if the surface of this planet were a near blackbody, but 71% of the surface of this planet is ocean, an extreme short wave selective surface. The correct figure should be closer to 312K. Given our current average is only 288K, the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere on surface temperatures is cooling.

            1110

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            I am under the impression that Dr Roy Spencer has rethought his position on that, and has somewhat changed is stance, during the past eight years or so.

            137

            • #

              No, Roy Spencer *still* has enough intelligence and scientific education to know that the greenouse effect is a real thing,
              http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/the-warm-earth-greenhouse-effect-or-atmospheric-pressure/

              People who reject this plain bit of science are not doing so out of any kind of intellectual competence.

              614

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Correct. People reject scientific evidence because of their political ideology.

                614

              • #
                AndyG55

                Speaking of evidence.. does either of you two non-entities have anything that proves CO2 causes warming in a convectively controlled atmosphere?

                Watching while you slither and slime around trying to avoid. ;-)

                106

              • #
                AndyG55

                The EMPTY MESS that is CT and his boyfriend, twotter.. remains !!

                Unable to present a single piece of empirical evidence to back up the FAILED CONJECTURE that CO2 causes warming in a convectively controlled atmosphere.

                So sad.. So pathetic.

                105

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                I think Andy Pandy is off his meds again… :-)

                410

              • #
                AndyG55

                The manic AVOIDANCE of a simple task..

                Poor little twotter.

                PROOF! twot.

                Proof that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

                WHY are you RUNNING and HIDING??

                FAILED !!!

                UNPROVEN CONJECTURE..

                and you have NOTHING to counter that FACT. !!

                So hilarious :-)

                Keep dodging

                Keep weaving

                Produce enough slime, maybe you can slither away.

                105

          • #
            Mary E

            No, Craig, Roy explains that in his opinion the totality of the atmosphere is/has a greenhouse effect (GE), and is, in an open and turbulent way, a trap of the warmth and gases needed for life to thrive. So, yup, greenhouse – but with all the vents open so the air can flow freely, BUT he did not say, in that article, or much anywhere else, that CO2 has a major influence on temps. From what I’ve read on his site, he is pretty much in the maybe camp – warmist, but not nutcase about it – there seem to be other things going on, water vapor is way more important, we need to learn a lot more, things aren’t going downhill fast, or even soon, kinda guy. And by having an unstable atmosphere, we have weather. Weather is good, as it stirs things up, allows water to fall back onto the planet, and prevents us from living in a multi-tiered static and dead atmosphere (like a layer cake, ooh, frosting everywhere! Coconut, chocolate, or cream???) which would be a very hostile place with no weather, no rain, and probably no life (or cake frosting, sigh.)

            In all my travels about the internet and reading of big books and little ones, magazines, studies, I’ve come to the conclusion that Climate as discussed now is weather averaged over time. That’s one way of seeing it. Climate is the general weather patterns of an area, which tends to be cold, or warm, or hot, with more or less moisture, and some years are good and some years are bad – that’s another way to look at it – no averaging of temperature, per se, just generally this or that. Until more modern mankind came along, there was no climate as it gets bandied about today – no one there to measure it, see, make the average, determine where on the chart it fell, draw the boundaries, and fuss and scream when things don’t fit into the little neat boxes 100% of the time. You lived where it snowed some, or a lot, or not at all; where it rained a lot, or some, or none at all. Where it was cold, or warm, or hot, or really, really hot. If you didn’t travel, if you didn’t know travelers, all but your weather was a story. Ice and snow all the time?? HAHA for those in Greece. Never snows? Paradise, and a fairy tale, for those in the high northern countries – or a nightmare, as it disrupted hunting patterns and left you stranded on rocky barren shores. Weather changes? Rains too much, or not enough? Is cold too long? Hot too long? You just shook your fist at the gods and made more sacrifices, moved if you could, or died. Or, if the rain was just right, the cold minimal and short, you had happy festivals thanking the gods, ate well, and built the cities back up. And through all known history – and some extrapolated, archaeological findings – it’s a story of rinse, repeat, through the various cycles in this glaciation.

            Right now, we seem to be in the sacrificial stage of behavior, but our weather is warm and our crops are plentiful – so in some ways I think we’ve gotten things backwards.

            Glaciers eroding is supposed to be such a bad sign – but now the areas uncovered show the stumps of trees, meaning that once upon a time it was warm enough for those trees to grow – which means before mankind dumped CO2 into the air the planet got that warm all on its own. Odds are those trees grew in one of the times where food was plentiful and mankind enjoyed a bit of peace and prosperity. As much peace as we ever allowed each other, at least.

            Golly, we might be heading back to such a wonderful time, I think I will go do a happy dance for the god(s) who have allowed this.

            71

            • #
              Harry Twinotter

              Mary E.

              Terrible change of subject. AndyG55 claims there is no evidence for a CO2 greenhouse effect. Craig Thomas counterclaims, and cites Dr Roy Spencer as evidence. A discussion does not get much simpler than this.

              “BUT he did not say, in that article, or much anywhere else, that CO2 has a major influence on temps”

              You are attempting an Argument from Ignorance here. You can’t assume Dr Roy Spencer’s position on something he DIDN’T say.

              27

              • #
                AndyG55

                Twotter thinks that opinions count as evidence.

                Sorry twot, that is NOT how science works, even from Roy.

                EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE… Do you even know what that means ????

                Provide it… or… remain empty as always.

                53

      • #
        sunsettommy

        Harry,

        The Chart is a general picture of what most people agree is true and real,yes even most alarmist scientists agree.Interesting that you didn’t know that.

        Meanwhile you completely ignored the MODTRANS chart. Why did you do that?

        137

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          “The Chart is a general picture of what most people agree is true and real”

          No it isn’t – check your sources and get back to us. Give a reference to the study where the chart came from.

          822

          • #
            sunsettommy

            Wow Harry, your ignorance is deeper than I thought since this has been known and acknowledged by the IPCC for years:

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

            https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/clip_image002_thumb3.jpg?w=578&h=351

            another chart showing the IPCC authors expressing Log forecasts:

            https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/clip_image010_thumb1.jpg?w=633&h=384

            Read the rest here,

            LINK

            179

            • #
              Harry Twinotter

              sunsettommy.

              I am still waiting for you to tell me which study your chart comes from. When you have done that, I will be able to accurately explain why it is wrong.

              No attempted subject changes, there’s a good boy.

              919

              • #
                AndyG55

                Sorry that you are INCAPABLE of keeping up with science advancements.

                Maybe if your mind wasn’t stuck back with errors and misinterpretations from Arrhenius and others you would HAVE A CLUE.

                There is BUCKLEY’S chance you will ever be able to explain ANYTHING related to anything to do with actual science..!!!

                You DO NOT have the knowledge or intelligence to explain further than kindergarten level… if that.

                1410

              • #
                sunsettommy

                I gave you THREE different ones, but went to the IPCC,who also acknowledge the existence of CO2 to Log values. They even use the MODTRAN program to create curves. I gave you a start on this,but you want to avoid all that because you know you have been exposed once again to be a dishonest warmist loon.

                You have COMPLETELY avoided the MODTRAN results,which support all three charts I posted. That is why you ignore it.

                Here is a published science paper that supports the entire LOG function of additional CO2 in the air:

                “Conclusions
                In this paper, we show that the logarithmic dependence not only applies to broadband irradiance
                flux as in the well-known case of doubling CO2 but is also manifested by spectrally resolved radiance changes due to
                both CO2 and other gases such as H2O.The conventional ideas based on the spectroscopic features of the absorption lines thus would have difficulty in explaining the logarithmic relationship. In comparison, an Emission Layer Displacement Model best suitsthe facts concerning the logarithmic dependency of the radiance. This model means that the logarithmic relationship is generally valid for outgoing radiance that emerges from within the atmosphere. In addition,this model also predicts a few main situations when the relationship breaks down. Among them, most
                noteworthy is the case of unsaturated absorption (in the atmospheric window region).
                Understanding the logarithmic dependence of radiative forcing on atmospheric gas absorber concentration
                is not only academically interesting by itself but also shed light to understanding climate feedback and
                sensitivity. The logarithmic nature of the forcing dependence allows us to efficiently estimate the radiative forcing and feedback using analytical methods. The analysis here suggests that such analytic methods can be
                applied to not only broadband but also spectrally resolved radiation.”

                LINK

                I gave you the IPCC, now a science paper showing that there is indeed a CO2 log function existing. Gave you MODTRAN too.

                You are once again shown to be ignorant.

                127

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                sunsettommy.

                Sigh. This is like pulling teeth. I will repeat it: please give me the source for that chart. Do not give me other charts, just give me the source of that chart you posted.
                If you understand the chart, you must know where the data comes from. You MUST have read the study you are basing your claim on.

                This chart: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png

                It cuts to the heart of the matter. How much is the GMT expected to increase with increasing CO2?

                You claim that this chart is correct, but do not provide any evidence that it is correct. I made a counter claim that it is wrong, and you should check your sources. Either you do not actually understand the chart, or the author of the chart is attempting to mislead you.

                The ball is in your court.

                717

              • #
                AndyG55

                Poor Twotter,

                You have obviously NEVER done any research of your own, just the junk science fed to you by your minders.

                The “theoretical” CO2 warming graphs are all over the place, go find one.

                Now provide a paper that shows empirically that there is ANY ACTUAL WARMING AT ALL from ENHANCED atmospheric CO2.

                So far you are EMPTY.

                117

              • #
                sunsettommy

                Harryfool writes:

                “Sigh. This is like pulling teeth. I will repeat it: please give me the source for that chart. Do not give me other charts, just give me the source of that chart you posted.
                If you understand the chart, you must know where the data comes from. You MUST have read the study you are basing your claim on.”

                You are a truly stupid person because I gave you the link to the post,where David says,

                “I recast Willis’ first graph as a bar chart to make the concept easier to understand to the layman:”

                Then the chart you idiotically say is wrong was based on a MODTRAN output as shown in the link. I gave you this link TWICE now,still you didn’t read it.

                But the relationship isn’t linear, it is logarithmic. In 2006, Willis Eschenbach posted this graph on Climate Audit showing the logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide relative to atmospheric concentration:

                https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/co2_modtrans_img1.png

                Was then converted to this for science illiterate clods like you to have a clue,

                https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png

                Here it is again from the LINK YOU HAVEN’T READ YET

                Now to help you some more by adding this LINK to your long list of unread links,but this is for the rest of the readers pleasure:

                Ed Caryl: MODTRAN shows co2 doubling will have almost no effect on temperature

                “Why CO2 Does Nothing

                When I first began exploring MODTRAN, the numbers it produced for downward radiation at the surface, the “back radiation”, seemed to make no sense. It nearly always produced the same number, and I thought that part of the program was broken. On reflection, it became clear that the numbers were correct and that I had fallen into the warmist trap of believing that CO2 really does something to the Greenhouse effect. When the numbers in the very low humidities were charted, all became clear.

                Here is what Modtran says about downward or “back” radiation at the earth’s surface for values of humidity from 0 to 90% and CO2 from 0 to 1000 ppm. The IPCC agreed translation of a change in radiation to a change in temperature is a change of 1 W/m2 = a change of 1°C.”

                https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/fig6.png

                Virtually ALL MODTRAN results show most of the warm forcing effect are in the first 60 ppm.

                You have been exposed once again as being ignorant,

                127

      • #
        sunsettommy

        CT,

        I see that you misunderstood what Andy meant.

        158

      • #
      • #
        sunsettommy

        Harry and CT,

        maybe you understand this one? You can expand it.

        http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01b7c6cbaa40970b-pi

        148

  • #
    pat

    sunsettommy – manipulative journalists? like ex-NYT, Climategate-featured Revkin:

    ***btw Richard Revesz is much beloved by MSM – WaPo, NYT, WSJ, the lot:

    24 Aug: Science Mag: Trump’s attack on social cost of carbon could end up hurting his fossil fuel push
    By Andrew Revkin, ProPublica
    A protracted delay in the Trump administration coming up with its own carbon-cost estimate could empower environmentalists pursuing legal challenges to mining, drilling or pipeline projects, said ***Richard Revesz, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law…
    In an email on Tuesday, he pointed to two recent court decisions. On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, must consider the impact of greenhouse gas emissions that will result from construction of three new interstate pipelines in the Southeast. The Sierra Club, other environmental groups and some affected landowners had challenged the commission’s environmental review of the project.

    “In the ruling, the judges held that FERC ‘must either quantify and consider the project’s downstream carbon emissions or explain in more detail why it cannot do so,’” Revesz said, adding: “The court further explained that FERC should either use the social cost of carbon to monetize the climate effects associated with those emissions or explain why it chooses not to do so.”

    Just last week, another federal court decision blocked a proposed coal mine expansion in Montana in part over the government’s failure to assess the environmental impact of burning additional coal. (Nearly all of the coal from that mine has been exported to Asia or Europe of late, according to court documents).
    In that ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Donald W. Molloy of Montana pointed to the government’s failure to use the existing calculations for the social costs of carbon, arguing that government officials “could, and should, have tied its greenhouse gas emissions calculation to the effects of those emissions.’’ …

    “These rulings show how President Trump’s executive order withdrawing support for the social cost of carbon is misguided and shortsighted,” said Revesz. “As these recent rulings show, agencies will lose legal challenges when they don’t appropriately consider climate change impacts. Rather than speeding the process of infrastructure and energy development, the Trump administration has risked slowing it down.”

    There’s plenty of advice the Trump administration can draw on to make a new estimate, ranging from a January report on ways to improve carbon-cost calculations from the independent National Academy of Sciences to a call to scrap the social cost of carbon altogether, made by the Institute for Energy Research, an industry-backed Washington policy group that strongly influenced the Trump campaign and presidential transition process…

    There’s really no legally defensible stance for having no social cost of carbon, said Michael Greenstone, a University of Chicago economist who in 2009 co-led the Obama administration working group that updated federal carbon-cost calculations. That group was disbanded under Trump’s March order…
    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/trump-s-attack-social-cost-carbon-could-end-hurting-his-fossil-fuel-push

    81

    • #
      dennisambler

      India takes a different view of “social cost” of coal:

      http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/environment/developmental-issues/indias-dependence-on-coal-to-continue-despite-thrust-on-renewables/articleshow/60173347.cms

      NEW DELHI: Even as India has made a considerable push towards renewable sources of energy keeping in view its Paris Agreement goal, the country’s dependence on coal as primary source of energy will continue as its ‘social cost’ is quite less as compared to that of solar and wind.

      The government has brought in the ‘social cost’ element in its latest Economic Survey which noted the importance of renewables but suggested a cautious approach, saying investments in renewable energy be made at a “calibrated pace” looking into the total cost accrued to the society.

      The survey calculated the ‘social cost’ of renewables at Rs 11 per KWh which, it claimed, is three times that of the coal in 2017 and the gap would reduce only when the country progresses towards the year 2030.

      The government’s chief economic advisor Arvind Subramanian, while delivering Darbari Seth Memorial lecture on last Thursday, too spoke about this scenario when he noted that the coal continues to be “a very cheap way of providing energy to hundreds of millions who are still energy-deprived”.

      130

    • #
      C. Paul Barreira

      Perhaps Revesz could do a “social cost” of loss of carbon, that is, the costs lumped upon consumers following destruction of coal-fired power stations in South Australia and Victoria. The cost to this household in SA are becoming very difficult indeed and many others are struggling even more. For me, one result is a general contempt for the very word “science”. Like the humanities before them, scientists have managed to empty their disciplines of meaning. Learning is dead (apologies to Jennifer Marohasy). All that remains is university careerism in the deep state.

      90

  • #
    el gordo

    Solar spectral analysis gives us a clear view of the cycles.

    ‘Spectral analyses reveal decadal to millennial periodicities (i.e., 68-75, 133-136, 198-209, 291-358, 404- 602,912-1029 and 2365-2670 yr) in the speleothem record. Results were compared to reconstructed sunspot number data to determine whether solar signal is presents in PN speleothem. The occurrence of significant solar periodicities (i.e., cycles of Gleissberg, de Vries, unnamed 500 years, Eddy and Hallstat) supports for an impact of solar forcing of PN speleothem trace elements contents.’

    Mohammed Allan et al 2017

    72

  • #
    pat

    24 Aug: ClimateChangeNews: NGO demands Trump-Pruitt emails on Paris withdrawal
    The Center for Biological Diversity is seeking documents that influenced the US president’s decision to leave the Paris climate agreement
    By Karl Mathiesen
    The CBD has requested related emails, telephone logs and notes from meetings regarding the Paris accord between Trump, his secretary of state Rex Tillerson and head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Scott Pruitt…
    If the request is successful, it will reveal details of internal wrangling over whether to leave the deal or stay in…

    CBD staff attorney ***Clare Lakewood said the freedom of information act (FOIA) requests were an attempt to uncover which arguments the president considered while making his decision…
    “We need to know if Trump put any real thought at all into this profoundly dangerous decision,” she said. “Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement isolated America by highlighting this administration’s reckless contempt for our planet’s future. Americans have a right to learn how Trump officials were influenced by scientific ignorance and fossil fuel industry lobbyists.”…
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/08/24/ngo-demands-trump-pruitt-emails-paris-withdrawal/

    ***Center for Biological Diversity: Meet the (MASSIVE) Staff: includes Clare Lakewood
    Clare Lakewood, Staff Attorney, works with the Climate Law Institute. Before joining the Center, Clare worked for the Department of the Attorney General in Western Australia, where her role included environmental prosecutions and land-use disputes. She received her law degree from the University of Western Australia, where she also obtained a bachelor’s degree in English and fine arts; she holds a master of laws from the University of Melbourne.

    read all, incl progressive left Counterpunch criticism and donors’ lists at bottom:

    LeftExposed: Center for Biological Diversity
    Despite its hard-left anti-corporate stance, it has collected large donations from Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Microsoft and the ExxonMobil Foundation. It also enjoys support from some of the largest left-wing foundations in America, including the Tides Foundation, The New York Times Company Foundation, Rockefeller Family Fund, and Pew Charitable Trusts…
    http://leftexposed.org/2016/10/center-biological-diversity/

    back to Clare Lakewood and Richard Revesz, who featured in the ScienceMag/Revkin piece:

    Jun 2016: Uni of Melbourne: Q and A with Clare Lakewood
    Q: After graduating from Melbourne Law School you moved to California. What strategies did you use to help find employment there?
    A: …Ultimately, I asked an American professor whose unit I had taken while studying at Melbourne Law School, Professor Richard Revesz, if he could introduce me to anyone. Not only did he do that, he offered me a position as a research assistant!…

    Q: How did your LLM from Melbourne Law School impact your career?
    A: I wouldn’t have my current job without my LLM from Melbourne Law School! The last unit I took was on US environmental law that was taught by Professor Revesz, the Dean Emeritus at New York University School of Law. He offered me my first job in the United States, working as his research associate. I’m confident that this position, and his reference, was a significant factor in convincing my organisation that I could do the job…

    Q: What’s next for you?
    A: Ultimately my goal is to bring back to Australia what I’ve learned about public interest environmental work in the United States. Australia has one of the world’s major biodiversity hotspots, and incredibly unique and special ecosystems. But it is going to be one of the countries most impacted by climate change, and is far behind the United States in dealing with ***environmental justice issues…
    http://law.unimelb.edu.au/news/MLS/q-And-a-with-clare-lakewood

    92

  • #
  • #

    Can Justin smirk like Cox? Giggle like deGrasse Tyson? Tie a bow like Nye? Go moisty-eyed like Elon? Sneer like Suzuki?

    Look, Justin is well on his way to being a solid consensus enforcer/soldier. He’s got the conceit and the smugness, but he totally doesn’t know the tricks that cover tricks. I’m not saying he needs to be like those great entertainers and actors, but he’s still too slow on his feet. I mean, Arrhenius predicted CO2 would cause warming and the world has warmed since the prediction? This immediately opens him up to correlation/causation. No wonder Jo just carved him up like a Devon roll left in the sun.

    Justin! You need to start with “While correlation is not causation, it is nonetheless clear from multiple peer-reviewed studies etc etc.” Get it? You warn against the very trickery you are about to perform.

    If Hurricane Harvey is (yet another) Cat 2 or Cat 3 on the Texas coast you don’t just say the global warming-dun-it. You say: “While we cannot attribute individual climate events to human emissions, nonetheless models have indicated that there is increased likelihood of…[you're free to make the rest up, but make it bad]“. In other words, you admit you have no point to make but you make it anyway.

    Learn and prosper, Justin. Globalism is having its 1930s right now. It won’t last. Make hay while the CO2 shines.

    132

  • #
    Keith L

    Major difference between a cyclic model of a stable system and an iterative model trying to cope with a chaotic system.

    72

  • #
    Robert Rosicka

    Rockwell has got it all figured out .
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RXJKdh1KZ0w

    43

  • #
    TdeF

    Consensus? We are told every scientist is behind man made Global warming. We are told that ‘renewables’ are now cheaper than coal. We are told that most Australians will vote for gay marriage. Now we are told that the gay marriage lobby is going to make 500,000 phone calls. Why? Easy. None of it is true.

    154

    • #
      Robert Rosicka

      They best not ring my place .

      122

    • #

      Galileo Galilei,
      we write to inform you,
      the science is settled,
      your trial starts tomorrow.

      Signed: The Inquisition.

      152

      • #
        Ceetee

        On that note beth,has the world ever seen a greater snake oil peddler than Gore? I live to see this man humbled in the portable toilet of his own intellect.

        101

        • #

          Schadenfreude is a human emotion, Ceetee,
          made famous dramatically in Greek tragedy.
          I meself enjoy a bit of come-uppence when
          ‘the other’ acts reely, reely unfairly …
          and Naychur in its wisdom concurs, hence
          the human survival-mechanism of laughter
          in response ter the divine comedy.

          91

      • #
        C. Paul Barreira

        Seems a bit harsh on the inquisition. See Carlo Ginzburg, The Cheese and the Worms: The Cosmos of a Sixteenth-Century Miller (Penguin, 1992). One of Ginzburg’s arguments was that we know much of how the Inquisition operated because of the Church’s genuine interest in the spiritual condition of people hither and thither. There were bad moments, to be sure, but the institution overall is of great interest, unlike the totalitarian priorities (primarily reflected in the prohibition of questioning) of the present age.

        50

    • #
      Yonniestone

      If a tail is now called a leg how many legs does a dog have?

      Answer: Five?, no its Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a reality.

      70

  • #
    manalive

    It’s the most tritely obvious thing that any cause of warming would cause… warming. Was it CO2, or solar spectral changes, solar magnetic effects, or solar particle flows?

    And it could of course be a combination of factors, known and unknown.
    Concerning the atmosphere profile predicted by the models, climate4you has this useful graphic summary.
    Justin Gillis, while not a ‘den1er’, is more accommodating of skeptical points of view when writing about genetically modified crops.

    25

    • #
      Peter C

      With respect to the atmospheric temperature increases as predicted by models;
      http://www.climate4you.com/images/EquatorSurface300hPa200hPaDecadalTempChange%20BARCHART.gif

      it is debateable whether 0.1C/decade at the surface has actually been measured. I am frankly sceptical about the purported measured increase/decrease at 300Hpa and 200Hpa.

      79

      • #
        manalive

        If you visit the climate4you page: ‘Global Temperature, Temperature Change above Equator’ you will find Prof Humlum’s descriptions and comments.
        The atmosphere vertical profile diagram (re: model predictions for doubling CO2) is described:
        ‘Diagram showing observed linear decadal temperature change at surface, 300 hPa and 200 hPa, between 20oN and 20oS, since January 1979. Data source: HadAT and HadCRUT4. Click here to compare with modelled altitudinal temperature change pattern for doubling atmospheric CO2. Last month included in analysis: December 2012. Last diagram update: 4 May 2013′.

        61

  • #
    ROM

    The link to the “New York Times” article by Justin Gillis;

    Should You Trust Climate Science? Maybe the Eclipse Is a Clue
    .
    And then there is this, one of many similar articles on the exact same research subject to found on the net with a bit of a search. I just grabbed this one as it is quite readable.

    [ Abstract for the research paper commented on below ; Modeling the Framework for False Positive Findings]
    .
    Lay persons readable explanation;

    Many scientific “truths” are, in fact, false

    In 2005, John Ioannidis, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, published a paper, “Why most published research findings are false,” mathematically showing that a huge number of published papers must be incorrect. He also looked at a number of well-regarded medical research findings, and found that, of 34 that had been retested, 41% had been contradicted or found to be significantly exaggerated.

    Since then, researchers in several scientific areas have consistently struggled to reproduce major results of prominent studies. By some estimates, at least 51%—and as much as 89%—of published papers are based on studies and experiments showing results that cannot be reproduced.

    Researchers have recreated prominent studies from several scientific fields and come up with wildly different results.
    And psychology has become something of a poster child for the “reproducibility crisis” since Brian Nosek, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia, coordinated a Reproducibility Initiative project to repeat 100 psychological experiments, and could only successfully replicate 40%.

    Now, an attempt to replicate another key psychological concept (ego depletion: the idea that willpower is finite and can be worn down with overuse) has come up short. Martin Hagger, psychology professor at Curtin University in Australia, led researchers from 24 labs in trying to recreate a key effect, but found nothing.
    Their findings are due to be published in Perspectives on Psychological Science in the coming weeks.

    More>>

    And then there is the well known Retractiion Watch, a fascinating blog site that calls out false, deliberately false, deliberately and inadvertent and misleading science plus a lot of quite fr—dulent science

    Its volume and lists of researchers and research that are included in the short list of very bad to f—–science as above plus many, many similar cases of deliberately misleading [ I'm being polite to try and keep out of moderation ] science and grant F—d really gives the finger to the honesty and integrity of much of science and a lot of scientists, particularly where the research grants are big with no tracking system in place by the Grant issuing organisations to check on how that grant money was actually spent and where and to whom it ultimately finished up with .

    Retraction Watch is quite frank that it is only touching the tip of what is a Very Big problem in science at every level.
    .
    What Justin Gillis in his arrogance is really saying is that it is HIS opinion and HIS beliefs backed by HIS version of his brand of a personal ideology that is the arbiter and judge and jury on the validity of any science papers and the predictions that arise from those papers.
    IF a paper or, papers do not fit in with Justin Gillis’s particular brand of ideology and beliefs then he has taken to himself, as has a huge host of other similar hubris laden self promoters , the role of Judge and Jury on the validity or otherwise of a particular paper or papers that come to the similar conclusions.

    In short Justin Gillis in his arrogance is selling himself as the ultimate arnbiter on what science is acceptable supposedly to the public at large and what science is not acceptable or unacceptable.

    Of couse the alternative explanation might just be that Justin Gillis is so full of himself that he is completely unaware of just how utterly arrogant and ultimately how stupid he appears to anybody who takes the time to think his claim through.

    As Jo posts above in her headline post, why do we need scientists if the Justin Gillis’s of this world can opinion and appraise what is correct science and what is not and issue scientific “fatwa’s” on science papers to that effect?

    151

    • #
      ROM

      .

      Thanks to the work of scientists, people will know exactly what time to expect the eclipse.

      Justin Gillis; NYT

      I thought somebody else might have followed this up.
      Anyway I did a few seconds digging on google and came up with this item from NASA which makes a bit of a mess of Justin Gillis’s quite biased slant arising from an apparent failure of any sort to check any alternative sources for alternatives to his apparently rigidly grounded belief that Eclipse predictions today are accurate and predictable because [ modern ? ] scientists have mastered the complex calculations needed to predict Eclipses.
      .
      Did ancient peoples really predict solar eclipses?

      Various quotes from the NASA article;

      Ancient Chinese astrologers, by 2300 BC, already had sophisticated observatory buildings and as early as 2650 BC, Li Shu was writing about astronomy. Observing total solar eclipses was a major element of forecasting the future health and successes of the Emperor, and astrologers were left with the onerous task of trying to anticipate when these events might occur. Failure to get the prediction right, in at least one recorded instance in 2300 BC resulted in the beheading of two astrologers. Since the pattern of total solar eclipses is a very erratic one in time at a specific geographic location, many astrologers no doubt lost their heads. By about 20 BC, surviving documents show that Chinese astrologers understood what caused eclipses, and by 8 BC some predictions of total solar eclipse were made using the 135-month reoccurrence period. By 206 AD they could predict solar eclipses by analyzing the motion of the moon itself.

      In the western world, meanwhile, Babylonian clay tablets that have survived since the time of this civilization in the Mesopotamian region, record the first total solar eclipse seen by observers in Ugarit on May 3, 1375 BC. Like the Chinese observers, Babylonian astrologers kept careful records about celestial goings-on including the motions of Mercury, Venus the Sun and the Moon which survive from tablets dating from 1700 to 1681 BC. Later records identified a total solar eclipse on July 31, 1063 BC that ‘turned day into night’, and the famous eclipse of June 15, 763 BC recorded by Assyrian observers in Nineveh. Babylonian astronomers are credited with having discovered the 223-month period for lunar eclipses
      &
      Ptolemy ( ca 150 BC) represents the epitome of Greecian astronomy, and surviving records show that he had a sophisticated scheme for predicting both lunar and solar eclipses. Ptolemy knew, for example, the details of the orbit of the Moon including its nodal points, and that the Sun must be within 20d 41′ of the Node point, and that up to two solar eclipse could occur within seven months in the same part of the world. Lunar eclipse were especially easy to calculate because of the vast area covered by the Earth’s shadow on the Moon. Solar eclipses, however, required much greater finesse and knowledge. The shadow of the Moon on the Earth is less than 100 kilometers wide, and its track across the daytime hemisphere is the result of many complex factors that cannot be anticipated without a nearly-complete understanding of the lunar orbit and speed.

      More>>>

      100

  • #
    Roger

    If there had been 20 years of predicting an eclipse in the US every year, but it never happened – would people still believe the predictions or the ‘scientists’ making them?

    If there had been 20 years predicting large temperature increases and the temperature showed no statistically significant increase – would people still believe the predictions or the ‘scientists’ making them ?

    QED

    195

  • #
    Harry Twinotter

    “So what predictions has climate science made, and have they come true?”

    Climate science predicted the global mean temperature will increase as CO2 increased. The global mean temperature has increased.

    https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html

    930

    • #
      Forrest Gardener

      Harry, the manufactured single figure supposedly representing the temperature of the earth also increased as my children’s height increased.

      Next?

      188

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        A “manufactured figure” like the level of the stock market I guess? I take it you do not work stocks.

        I think you already know the GMT is a temperature index not a temperature. If you didn’t, you should. The word “mean” is a bit of a giveaway, unless you are denying women are shorter than men on average because average height is a “single figure”.

        So your point does not make any sense. And just because you do not understand the greenhouse effect does not make it untrue.

        1024

        • #
          AndyG55

          “And just because you do not understand the greenhouse effect does not make it untrue.”

          And just because YOU don’t understand that what purports to be the GHE is actually an load of unproven nonsense….. and doesn’t even apply in an actual greenhouse…..

          You are welcome to provide a paper that proves empirically that CO2 causes warming in a convectively controlled atmosphere. Or not. !

          1910

          • #
            Craigthomas

            Nobody in their right mind denies that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is a real thing.
            Roy Spencer explains it for the clueless here:
            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/

            1023

            • #
              tom0mason

              “Nobody in their right mind denies that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is a real thing.”

              Wrong!

              All Dr. Spencer offers is his interpretation of the evidence, it is nothing more than an opinion, there are other interpretations and other opinions. And that is what real science is about.

              Here’s just one alternative for you –
              https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/22/review-and-summary-of-three-important-atmospheric-physics-papers/

              217

              • #

                Unfortunately, I am sceptical of petroleum engineers who attend Heartland conferences dabbling outside their area of expertise to produce novel ideas clothed in a made-up vocabulary that appear to rely on observations that were only made under conditions of 100,000x over-pressure.

                I find Roy Spencer far more convincing, and he has an actual track record of working in climtae science and publishing many research papers on the topic, which lends ham rather more credibility that your other character.

                812

              • #
                AndyG55

                Poor Ct, you are not a person who should ever talk about credibility.

                You don’t have any, and you don’t know what it means.

                108

            • #
              Yonniestone

              From your link, abstract>
              IT�S NOT A REAL GREENHOUSE
              The processes involved in the atmospheric greenhouse effect are not the same as what happens in a real greenhouse. Yes, we all know that, but the misnomer has stuck, and it is not going away anytime soon. A real greenhouse physically traps warm air, preventing convective air currents from carrying warm air out of the greenhouse, which would then be replaced by cooler air coming into the greenhouse. In contrast, the infrared atmospheric greenhouse effect instead slows the rate at which the atmosphere cools radiatively, not convectively.

              The devils in the details, for the clueless.

              226

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Yonniestone.

                Semantic argument. Pretty pointless.

                919

              • #

                Where Roy SPencer is going with that, is that people who want to babble on about how the “atmospheric greenhouse effect” has nothing to do with greenhouses are just making themselves look spectacularly foolish.

                It would be a bit like going to the mechanic and telling him at length about how your tyres have *air* in them, but how it isn’t blowy air, but hard air that keeps the car off the ground.

                Spencer is doing you a favour: never mention greenhouses again, in the context of global warming. It’s really really dumb.

                812

              • #
                AndyG55

                Hilarious..

                CT actually thinks that the GHE applies to an actual greenhouse.

                I don’t know if ANYONE could be DUMBER !!

                Prove that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere, CT

                Or remain the Empty nothingness that you represent

                96

            • #
              sunsettommy

              CT, you make the same mistake that Dr. Spenser make,leaving out other factors that can warm the surface up too,OTHER than “greenhouse” gases.

              168

              • #

                Silliest objection, ever.
                Why would he do that, within what is meant to be an idiot’s guide to greenhouse gases?

                Do you expect that a book on cats should include every other animal that also has whiskers?

                812

              • #
                AndyG55

                If I want an IDIOT’s guide to greenhouse effect.

                I know to ask you, CT !!

                85

            • #
              sunsettommy

              CT, you didn’t answer Andy’s question at all:

              “You are welcome to provide a paper that proves empirically that CO2 causes warming in a convectively controlled atmosphere.”

              Waiting for you or Harry to bring one up.

              158

              • #

                CO2′s absorption spectrum is perfectly well-known, as are the respective distributions of energy among ranges of wavelengths for both incoming solar energy and outgoing radiation.

                This “convectively controlled atmosphere” is a way of torturing science to come up with vague support for a preconceived position. It’s never been successfully argued as a theory, let alone had any empirical evidence to back it up.

                810

              • #
                AndyG55

                You STILL havn’t produced empirical evidence that CO2 causes warming in our convectively controlled atmosphere.

                Produce it.. OR DON’T

                Ball is in your court, CT.

                Or just keep yapping aimlessly.

                118

              • #

                Andy, our ability to measureme of the absorption spectrum of various gases is the precise empirical evidence that you are asking for.

                811

              • #
                AndyG55

                No Craig.. Your ignorance of empirical science is sadly lacking.

                Yes, everyone knows that CO2 is a radiative gas in a narrow slice of the spectrum..

                What happens after that, CT?

                Empirical evidence that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

                Waiting!

                118

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                sunsettommy.

                “Waiting for you or Harry to bring one up.”

                Andy-pandy can cite a study with empirical evidence that CO2 does NOT cause warming in a convective atmosphere, and I promise to at least read the abstract.

                I will repeat the principle again for any lurkers who might be about: the burden of evidence lies with the person making the claim. Trying to shift the burden of evidence onto another is called the Argument from Ignorance fallacy. It is the same as demanding someone to show Thor the God of Thunder exists, then claiming victory when they can’t show Thor exists.

                711

              • #
                AndyG55

                Poor Harry, yet again shows he has ZERO grasp of science and how it operates..

                You need to prove that CO2 does cause warming.

                You are totally empty so far.

                You have a FAILED, unproven conjecture, as the basis of your hysterical anti-CO2 religion.

                You “believe” without one bit of proof. !!

                That is called BRAIN-WASHED and GULLIBLE, and certainly has no place in anything resembling science.

                106

              • #
                AndyG55

                The ONLY thing you have managed to prove so far is that you have ZERO idea what science or scientific proof entails.

                Doing well, little children. :-)

                96

            • #
              AndyG55

              CT.. that is not proof of anything

              You have presented ZERO PROOF.. we are waiting !!

              Or remain EMPTY. !

              1610

            • #
              AndyG55

              CO2 and H2O are actually part of the atmospheric COOLING mechanism.

              But don’t let you unproven brain-wash, non-thinking “beliefs” get in the way of the facts.

              1511

              • #
                Konrad

                “CO2 and H2O are actually part of the atmospheric COOLING mechanism.”
                This is absolutely correct. There are no planets or moons in our solar system that have managed to retain an atmosphere without gases with good ability to cool by emitting long wave infrared radiation.

                There are many ways the atmosphere can heat: direct absorption of solar radiation, interception of surface radiation, conduction from the surface and release of latent heat of evaporation.

                But there is only one effective cooling mechanism for the gases in our atmosphere to cool and that is emission of LWIR to space. Empirical experiment shows conduction back to the surface is ineffective for a gas atmosphere in a gravity field.

                We can see what happens when the atmosphere runs out of gases good at radiating LWIR. Above the tropopause the lapse rate reverses and molecular temperatures for the remaining nitrogen and oxygen start to rise reaching hundreds of degrees in the mesosphere.

                Radiative gases, particularly H2O, are critical to this planet retaining an atmosphere.

                1510

              • #

                So Venus must be positively icy – what with all that massive amount of CO2 it has, right?

                The high energy of the individual molecules above the troposphere should be considered in the context of how very, very few particles there are up there and so how little energy there really is up at that level.

                911

              • #
                AndyG55

                Poor CT, again embarrasses himself with his total lack of any basic comprehension of anything.

                You really need to do some basic learning on atmospheric mass and its effects, CT.

                [snip]

                119

              • #
                Konrad

                CT,
                CO2 is cooling the atmosphere of Venus. Without radiative gases like CO2, the atmosphere of Venus would superheat and boil into space. (note – there are no planets or moons in our solar system that have managed to retain an atmosphere without gases good at cooling by radiating LWIR to space).

                To understand the atmosphere of Venus, you need to understand how it heats. Due to higher albedo, Venus absorbs less sunlight than earth, even though it is closer to the sun. but unlike Earth, Venus absorbs most of that sunlight in mid atmosphere, not at the surface. CO2 causes radiative cooling and subsidence of gases just like below the tropopause in Earth’s atmosphere. Just like Earth, cooling at high altitude and warming at lower altitude dives vertical circulation in the atmosphere of Venus. In the case of Venus, gases are entrained from the level of solar absorption all the way down to the surface, undergoing compression up to 90 bar and adiabatic heating.
                There is no radiative GHE on Venus. Surface temperatures are caused by solar absorption at altitude, strong vertical circulation of the gases so heated and adiabatic compression to 90 bar pressure.

                55

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Konrad.

                “There is no radiative GHE on Venus.”

                You are completely wrong. But if you have a reference to a study that shows overwise, I will at least have a look at the study abstract.

                65

              • #
                AndyG55

                No twotter, he is completely CORRECT

                Just like there is no CO2 warming on Earth.

                If there was , you would be able to produce empirical proof.

                And you CAN’T, not even after 30+ years of this CO2-hatred charade. !!

                Konrad has presented enough evidence to show that the whole anti-CO2 scam is based on erroneous science from its very inception.

                Just because you don’t have the scientific wherewithal to comprehend ANY of it, isn’t our problem.. Its is yours.

                You need to get an education other than from GetUp!

                66

    • #
      Robert Rosicka

      Poor Harry the only prediction he came up with is within the margin for error and that’s adjusted .

      1910

      • #
        ROM

        Well Harry Twinotter does have a point. Global warming does have a significant effect.

        You can see from this graphing of Global Warming and Pirate attacks that as global temperatures have gone up, Pirate attacks have fallen right off in an almost direct inversion of the global warming temperature increase.

        Now I have no doubt whatsoever that a quite accurate prediction of this effect of global warming was made somewhere in published Global warming science papers but it might be hard for us to find the appropriate reference to such a paper.

        I’m sure that Harry Twinotter with his extensive background in trolling on skeptical blogs will have done some research on the pirate activity / global temperature relationship so as to have some ammunition ready for his global warming science lite one liners.

        So its over to you Harry Twinotter to enlighten us and show us the reference for this particular prediction of global warming science.

        186

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        Robert Rosicka.

        An empty claim.

        824

    • #
      el gordo

      Harry they predicted a decade ago that the subtropical ridge would intensify under a global warming scenario, and its been happening, but now the STR appears to have collapsed.

      Its the glorious uncertainty of climate change which makes it so interesting.

      162

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        Well I am not familiar with that one, and it is a subject change. I was talking about the GMT prediction which is true regardless of what you say. But I will say “so what”.

        1021

        • #
          Robert Rosicka

          Not familiar with this term so I googled it and Harry is right .

          https://greenwichmeantime.com/time-zone/australia/

          142

        • #
          el gordo

          I’m looking for global cooling signals and you won’t find them in slight temperature change. Did you know that since the start of the hiatus the Indian monsoon has intensified? Go figure.

          122

        • #
          AndyG55

          ” was talking about the GMT prediction which is true ”

          Only because of solar forced El Nino effects.

          There is absolutely NO CO2 warming signature in the whole satellite temperature record.

          And the so-called “predictions” are nowhere near reality, despite covering a range as wide as a barn.

          Guess they will just need to build a bigger barn to try to aim for. !!

          1510

          • #
            el gordo

            ‘Only because of solar forced El Nino effects.’

            I didn’t know the sun has a direct relationship with ENSO.

            Do you have a link?

            112

            • #
              AndyG55

              Only thing can warm the oceans is the sun.. CO2 doesn’t

              El Nino is a release of energy from the oceans.

              And no, not direct at all…

              Think of it as a storage/discharge system.

              159

              • #
                Craigthomas

                How does a blanket keep you warm, Andy?

                823

              • #
                Robert Rosicka

                So a blanket can warm the ocean can it ?

                157

              • #
                tom0mason

                “How does a blanket keep you warm, Andy?”

                Ask Harry TwinWeasel, he’s the one infected with scientism.

                1310

              • #
                sunsettommy

                ct, writes in reply to Andy,

                “How does a blanket keep you warm, Andy?”

                It is clear Craig, has no idea what Andy is talking about,who wrote this:

                “Think of it as a storage/discharge system.”

                I don’t think he will either……..

                1411

              • #
                AndyG55

                How does a blanket cool you when you get hot CT ?

                You have a child’s interpretation of what the atmosphere does and how it works.

                1611

              • #
                AndyG55

                And CT, because you seem to be very simple about these things….

                A blanket blocks/slows varying amounts convective, conductive and radiative energy transfer.

                The atmosphere blocks a small band of radiation, and promotes conduction and convection.

                1511

              • #
                tom0mason

                What was that again er,..

                “How does a wet blanket keep CraigT warm, Andy?”

                165

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘Think of it as a storage/discharge system.’

                Okay, that makes sense.

                151

              • #
                AndyG55

                I suspect that the 1998 and 2015/16 El Ninos discharged a lot of energy built up in the ocean, from the strong solar cycles of the latter half of last century.

                Sort of a balancing mechanism with the sleepy sun.

                Time will tell if its all gone, or if another discharge is needed.

                That’s what people tend to ignore.. El Ninos are actually an ocean COOLING event.

                1510

              • #
                AndyG55

                is this one of the mechanisms of David Evans’s “notch delay” ? maybe

                146

              • #
                el gordo

                Andy when the sun is quiet El Nino is weaker and less common.

                112

              • #
                AndyG55

                precisely. less energy storage build-up.

                146

              • #
                el gordo

                Gergis has been discredited, but I still give her credit for this.

                ‘Although extreme ENSO events are seen throughout the 478-year ENSO reconstruction, approximately 43% of extreme and 28% of all protracted ENSO events(i.e. both El Niño and La Niña phase) occur in the 20th century. The post-1940 period alone accounts for 30% of extreme ENSO years observed since A.D. 1525.’

                Gergis and Fowler 2008

                112

              • #
                el gordo

                Ian Wilson and Sidorenkov (2013) is worth following up if you’re interested in the ENSO enigma.

                Jo has done a post.

                121

              • #

                Robert Rosicka asks, “So a blanket can warm the ocean can it ?”

                Do you know anybody with an outdoor swimming pool?

                What do they spread over the surface of the water to keep their pool warm in winter?

                710

              • #

                El Gordo reports:
                ‘Although extreme ENSO events are seen throughout the 478-year ENSO reconstruction, approximately 43% of extreme and 28% of all protracted ENSO events(i.e. both El Niño and La Niña phase) occur in the 20th century. The post-1940 period alone accounts for 30% of extreme ENSO years observed since A.D. 1525.’”

                Ah, so Andy’s theory is correct, after all the Sun reached record levels of output during the 20th century…..uh-oh, hang on, no it didn’t. Damn, Andy is wrong again. Who would have predicted that?

                I’m going to design a new kind of climate model – it will input words and if those words come from Andy it will ring the !sceptical! red alert, and if the words come from somebody with any kind of track record of saying anything correct, it will ring the !maybe correct! bell.

                611

              • #
                AndyG55

                “What do they spread over the surface of the water to keep their pool warm in winter?”

                Something to stop convection and evaporation.

                CO2 does neither of these.

                The atmosphere, of which CO2 is a very tiny part, PROMOTES conduction, convection, and the wholesale transfer of energy from the surface to the mid atmosphere.

                Again, you have shown your kindergarten level non-understanding of how the atmosphere operates.

                Please keep going.. It’s HILARIOUS watching you flopping around like a stunned mullet ! :-)

                117

              • #
                AndyG55

                Oh dear, Craig is WRONG yet again. Nothing at all unusual, in that, is there CT.

                4 of the strongest cycles in the last few hundred years were during the latter half of last century.

                https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/clip_image018.gif

                97

              • #
                AndyG55

                “Although extreme ENSO events are seen throughout the 478-year ENSO reconstruction, approximately 43% of extreme and 28% of all protracted ENSO events(i.e. both El Niño and La Niña phase) occur in the 20th century. The post-1940 period alone accounts for 30% of extreme ENSO years observed since A.D. 1525.’””

                Well done CT,

                ….. and now you know where the warming since the LIA has come from. ENSO events.

                I’ve been trying to tell you that for ..like… AGES !!!

                Finally you seem to have caught up.

                97

        • #
          sunsettommy

          Harry, your GMT argument is stupid because the long held measure of AGW based temperature projections are based on the PER DECADE warming rate. EVERY published IPCC report talks about it as a signature of their projected modeling runs.

          Unfortunately, there is no joy the citadels of warmists camps,which is why they stopped talking about the failed PER DECADE warming rate prediction/projections,as published in the IPCC reports. Reality creeped in barely enough for warmist loons to stop treating the IPCC as holy manuscript. Now they just make things up out of the air to continue their insane AGW religion. Now it is the dumb GMT argument, which is even worse than the Per Decade warming rate argument the IPCC uses as part of supporting the AGW conjecture.

          Your silly argument that it is warming at all, is proof of CO2 warm forcing effect in play, when actually the dearth of that predicted/projected warming you so proudly drool over, is smashing the AGW conjecture to pieces.

          1612

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            sunsettommy.

            No idea what you are talking about. You are babbling like a brook.

            Either way you are a fool. The climate scientists are right, and you and your denier mates are wrong. It is that simple.

            1223

            • #
              sunsettommy

              Once again, Harry make a fool of himself,since what I wrote are based on the IPCC reports themselves,which I will post once again here.

              From 1990:

              “Based on current model results, we predict: under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade)”

              LINK

              Here is what UAH and HadCrut4 shows from 1990″

              http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1990/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1990/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1990/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1990/trend

              As you can see not even close. It was supposed to have warmed around .80C since 1990,but UAH show only, .25C and HadCrut4 .45C

              Harry seems to say any way warming is proof of CO2 warming effect,while the IPCC habitually make specific PER DECADE warming prediction/projections, that is expected to fall within a warming range to validate their AGW based models.

              1812

            • #
              Konrad

              “The climate scientists are right”
              Impossible.

              They used the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to determine solar heating of our oceans. The S-B equation cannot work for intermittent solar illumination of materials translucent to sunlight (UV, SW &SWIR) but opaque to LWIR.

              The climastrologists 255K figure for “surface Tav without radiative atmosphere” is out by 80K for 71% of this planet’s surface.

              1410

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Harry has, “No idea what you, (i.e. Sunsettommy) are talking about”.

              So Harry decides to call Sunsettommy a fool, because Harry is incapable of keeping up, and is suffering terminal cognitive dissonance in the presence of somebody who actually knows the subject being discussed.

              Poor Harry. The bluff and bluster that has become his signature technique, has failed to see him through.

              Having no real scientific knowledge or ability to fall back on, poor Harry can only resort to saying “you and your denier mates are wrong. It is that simple”, without having a clue as to how and why he has been flattened by somebody who actually understands the science, and knows what they are talking about.

              I hope that serves as a lesson for you Harry, although I doubt that you have the wit to learn from it.

              1612

              • #
                Peter C

                You are totally correct Rereke.

                I have followed comments by sunsettommy for years. I would say that he really does have a very good knowledge of the Global Warming issue, the Green House Gas Effect Theory and the IPCC predictions.

                1311

              • #
                sunsettommy

                This Sebastian dude is actually worse,here is his reply to my previous comments in the thread:

                “SebastianH 25. August 2017 at 12:15 PM | Permalink

                He already knows from reading his past replies,you have memory problems?

                If he does, why is he asking that question over and over again? Is he just trolling?

                A month ago,I showed you how little warm forcing there is left from from future CO2 increases in the atmosphere,you never admitted that when given the breakdown.

                I replied to you, but apparently, you ignored it or just didn’t understand. Of course the current increase won’t double the greenhouse effect or anything like that. But it is really beyond you to extrapolate what a 3 or 5 degrees Celsius change in temperature means. You skeptics frequently cite how bad the LIA was, then imagine that in the other direction. And if you think for yourself that a little higher temperatures couldn’t hurt in the northern hemisphere, then imagine how people living near the equator thought of Europeans feeling cold back then.”

                LINK

                1311

              • #
                sunsettommy

                Thank you guys for your kind words.

                Kenneth Richards is much better at this,by utterly destroying warmist idiot Sebastian in thread after thread,such as this one I just linked to:

                Sebastian writes,

                “Why would the CO2 concentration have influenced the climate in any major way in the last 6000 years?”

                Kenneth replies,

                “Considering the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere are spaced together just 1/10,000ths (one-ten-thousandths) more closely today than they were in 1900, or just 1/20,000ths more closely today than in 1990, why do you believe this rather imperceptible change in atmospheric CO2 molecule density is sufficient to radiatively be the cause of the world oceans heating up by a blistering 0.09 C since 1955 (0-2000 m), but yet variations in the Sun’s direct shortwave absorption during the 20th century’s Grand Solar Maximum of solar activity — the highest solar activity in millennia — as well as the reduction in cloud cover since the 1980s (resulting in 3-7 W m-2 of SW forcing) has had little to no bearing on the net heat content changes in the global oceans?

                http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Holocene-Cooling-Pacific-Heat-Content-Rosenthal13-copy.jpg

                Sebastian dead on arrival reply,

                “SebastianH 24. August 2017 at 7:23 PM | Permalink | Reply

                Learn what optical depth means and how the greenhouse effect works and you can answer that question for yourself, Kenneth.”

                He is one of my favorite whipping boy on the net…..

                He does the same thing Harryfool does,ignore the PER DECADE predicted/projected warming rate references I made there a number of times. He is a warmist troll even worse than Harryfool because he actually knows a few things,that Harry can only dream of in his never never land daze.

                1611

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘Well I am not familiar with that one …’

          About a decade ago the Klimatariat pushed the line that the belt of high pressure is intensifying because of AGW and that the winter rains in Oz would disappear. In reality the southern annular mode (SAM) is the lever which determines the position of the STR.

          Throughout the hiatus the STR been travelling too far south in winter, hence the drought. Here you can see the traditional latitude.

          http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0006/233475/subtropical-ridge.jpg

          94

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘All the climate models tested produce a positive SAM trend going into 21st century, suggesting that under global warming, the SWWA winter drought will become more persistent.’

          Cai et al 2011

          82

    • #
      el gordo

      Harry it was only a coincidence that human induced CO2 was rising at the same time as temperatures, the hiatus cannot be ignored.

      Three strong El Nino has kept temperatures high, nothing to do with carbon dioxide.

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2017_v6.jpg

      145

    • #
      Ceetee

      Harry, will you please answer my previous challenge to your post at #2.1. In your own words, no links, no buts, no ad homs.

      133

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        CeeTee.

        I will try again.

        “The global mean temperature has increased.”

        The theory of AGW predicted the GMT would increase, and it has. People were talking about whether AGW made any predictions that came true, so I gave them one.

        1220

        • #
          sunsettommy

          What a meaningless reply you made, Harry! It is also WRONG,since you didn’t show what was predicted/projected beforehand.

          You keep bringing up the GMT angle without any evidence or relevance to the AGW conjecture.

          Why be so shallow in your replies,Harry?

          1612

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            sunsettommy.

            Go see my reply to Ceetee. And also go look at my original comment about predictions – I was replying to TdeF’s comment.

            1117

            • #
              AndyG55

              “look at my original comment “

              Why look at yet another EMPTY comment ?

              1811

            • #
              sunsettommy

              Harry, you are so bad at this,

              I wrote this you didn’t address at all:

              “What a meaningless reply you made, Harry! It is also WRONG,since you didn’t show what was predicted/projected beforehand. You keep bringing up the GMT angle without any evidence or relevance to the AGW conjecture.”

              You NEVER made an explanation between the two at all. What you did was post a chart to say it is warming, that is it.

              That is why nobody here thinks you made any point at all.

              1410

        • #
          sunsettommy

          Harry did you answer this yet?

          “Graeme No.3
          August 25, 2017 at 7:53 pm · Reply

          By how much? Within the error range of +\_ 0.48 degrees C.”

          He was replying to your post 2.1

          159

          • #
            AndyG55

            Sunsettommy,

            I don’t think you be stating the error range even to 2 dp.

            Especially as the GMT is probably only ±1ºC (maybe even ±2ºC) at the most optimistic !

            Certainly the surface temperatures are a thing of pure fabrication and fantasy, meaningless.

            Sparse, irregular, inconsistent, fudge, mutilated, mal-manipulated.

            NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE is any way, shape or form.

            1412

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              I gather that you are not a fan of surface temperatures.

              There is a weather station at the side of the road near where I live. It is in a rural area, so we occasionally have wandering stock, and the normal horse riders, etc.

              Because the wandering stock tended to rub themselves on the Stevenson Screen, and because the horse riders found it suitable for climbing into a saddle, a few well-meaning locals decided to erect a block wall around the weather station to protect it. I am not sure if anybody bothered to tell the Met Office, or not.

              I am saying nothing, in case I get the blame.

              103

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                RW,

                Not even saying nothing will save you. You’ll be blamed automatically because you’re one of those horrible skeptics who denies climate change and probably a long list of other things about which we’re all in denial. So say your “nothing” if you must. But pray that your presence near that temperature recording station is never discovered. ;-)

                111

        • #
          AndyG55

          “The theory of AGW predicted the GMT would increase”

          Yes, they knew the Sun was in the middle of a Grand Solar Maximum series of solar cycles.

          You are such a GULLIBLE little twerp, Twot.

          1412

          • #
            sunsettommy

            Andy,

            the warmist fool Harry,keeps ignoring the PER DECADE warming rate position of the IPCC, who from 1990 onwards keep saying similar middle of the road per decade warming rate projections. They have been around the .30C per decade range in EVERY report!

            Meanwhile Harry, DELIBERATELY ignores the DR. Jones HadCrut Temperature data series he provided showing that ALL THREE WARMING RATES since 1880′s are similar at the .16C per decade rate. But the per decade rate since 1990 is actually LOWER than the other three warming rates,which are around 20-25 years long,which is similar to the 1990-2015 time frame of 25 years. It is around .10 – .15C per decade according to Hadcrut, the very same data source Dr. Jones used. UAH is less at .075 – .10C per decade.

            It is clear that the AGW conjecture is a failure in showing a specific CO2 signature,in the temperature data. Harryfool is defending an impossible situation, since it isn’t happening the way the AGW conjecture and IPCC reports said it would.

            He is a very bad warmist troll.

            1512

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              You just can’t get the quality trolls these days.

              Most of them have moved on to selling time-share beach-front property leases.

              127

        • #
          el gordo

          Harry I found a prediction that came true, Ian Wilson on ENSO and the moon at Tallbloke’s Talkshop in 2014. If he is also correct about a large El Nino in 2019-20, then there will be commercial ramifications.

          ‘The first prediction is that because we are currently in a 31 year Full Moon Epoch for El Nino events there should be heightened probability of experiencing a strong El Nino in the following years: 2015-2016, 2019-2020 and 2024.

          ‘These are the years where the lunar line-of-apse aligns with the Sun at the times of the Equinoxes.

          ‘The second prediction is that, starting sometime around the year 2021, we should begin to see El Ninos events that are more typical of the sequencing seen for the New Moon Epochs (i.e. they will be triggered when the line-of-apse aligns with the Sun at the times of the Solstices). These times could include: 2022-23 (?) and 2027.’

          112

        • #
          Konrad

          The theory of AGW predicted the GMT would increase, and it has.”
          First AGW is not a working theory, it remains conjecture.

          Secondly the conjecture is based on fantasy physics that defy known physics:
          - Most of the surface of this planet is an extreme SW selective surface not a near blackbody as the climastrologists claim. The sun alone would drive our oceans to an average of 335K were it not for cooling by our radiatively cooled atmosphere.
          - Surface incident LWIR cannot heat nor slow the cooling rate of water free to evaporatively cool. So the climatologist’s claimed the oceans would freeze without downwelling LWIR is garbage.
          - It only beyond the Snow Line in the solar system that worlds like Ceres and Europa can have frozen oceans. So again the climatologist’s claimed the oceans would freeze without downwelling LWIR is garbage.

          In making their absurd claims, the climastrologists completely ignored the surface properties of this planet and the empirical evidence from other worlds in our solar system. There is no atmospheric GHE for CO2 to add to.

          1311

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            Konrad.

            “First AGW is not a working theory, it remains conjecture.”

            Incorrect. AGW is a scientific theory.

            1219

            • #
              AndyG55

              No, AGW is an UNPROVEN conjecture.

              Provide empirical PROOF is you have any !!

              Or will you remain EMPTY as always.

              1612

              • #
                sunsettommy

                Notice that Harryfool is being highly selective in his replies?

                He avoids the IPCC,MODTRAN and other official places, to do his nitpicking silliness.

                This is a clear case of a warmist gasbag in action.

                158

              • #

                Ah, well, bold and BOLDED CAPS denials on a blog – that is certainly proof enough for me that a scientific theory must be wrong. No idea whay anybody bothers doing science when all they have to do is start yelling their unproven beliefs on a blog instead.

                712

              • #
                AndyG55

                ‘Ill repeat, because you seem to be unable to provide a scientific response with any proof that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

                AGW is an UNPROVEN conjecture.

                Remain empty of proof as long as you like, CT. Its funny watching you flopping around.

                117

            • #
              sunsettommy

              Notice that poor Harry ignored this part:

              “Secondly the conjecture is based on fantasy physics that defy known physics:
              - Most of the surface of this planet is an extreme SW selective surface not a near blackbody as the climastrologists claim. The sun alone would drive our oceans to an average of 335K were it not for cooling by our radiatively cooled atmosphere.
              - Surface incident LWIR cannot heat nor slow the cooling rate of water free to evaporatively cool. So the climatologist’s claimed the oceans would freeze without downwelling LWIR is garbage.
              - It only beyond the Snow Line in the solar system that worlds like Ceres and Europa can have frozen oceans. So again the climatologist’s claimed the oceans would freeze without downwelling LWIR is garbage.

              In making their absurd claims, the climastrologists completely ignored the surface properties of this planet and the empirical evidence from other worlds in our solar system. There is no atmospheric GHE for CO2 to add to.”

              I can see why as it is well beyond his comprehension.

              Konrad is correct, it is NOT a theory because it has not been validated to that status. It remains a conjecture.

              1510

      • #
        sunsettommy

        Harry,here is why you continue to fail in answering Ceetee’s question:

        “Ceetee
        August 25, 2017 at 8:25 pm · Reply

        So what Harry. Whats your point? Explain”

        Your latest reply,

        “The global mean temperature has increased.”

        The theory of AGW predicted the GMT would increase, and it has. People were talking about whether AGW made any predictions that came true, so I gave them one.”

        You have yet to make a point with your fact and evidence free GMT babble. You offer no data or relevance to the AGW conjecture.

        I gave you the 1990 IPCC statement with PER DECADE prediction written right in black and white,here it is again,with Per decade bolded for your weak eyes benefit,

        “Based on current model results, we predict: under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade)”

        Meanwhile Jo,posted this chart in her blog post showing the very similar THREE warming rates since the 1880′s, that you keep ignoring. Notice the feeble per decade trend rate is for the warming trends,that Dr. Jones wrote up? It is about the same or MORE than the observed warming trend rate from 1990 onwards.

        http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hadley/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg

        As usual you get steamrolled with relevant facts from the official sources from YOUR side of the camp.

        You are Pathetic!

        1612

    • #
      AndyG55

      “Climate science predicted the global mean temperature will increase as CO2 increased”

      But it hasn’t.

      The ONLY warming has come from El Nino effects, which are nothing to do with CO2.

      Between those El Ninos… NO WARMING.

      So the statement is manifestly WRONG

      1812

    • #
      sunsettommy

      Harry, your source are based on adjusted data.Notice that the cooling trend from the 1940′s to the 1970′s are nearly eliminated?

      What you and other dishonest warmists ignore,are the SPECIFIC IPCC projections,that are waaaay off. Per Decade Warming trends you people ignore over and over because it destroys your entire argument,that CO2 is the driver of warming trends.

      The IPCC states in 1990:

      “Based on current model results, we predict:
      under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025…”

      http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf

      .3C PER DECADE warming, PREDICTED

      Reality:

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1990/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1990/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1990/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1990/trend

      Not even close!!!

      They say it would warm a FULL 1 C by 2025, yet the chart shows a total of less than 50% of the PREDICTED rate published by the 1990 IPCC report.

      UAH, show a TOTAL of warming since 1990 of just, .3C

      HADcrut4, show a total of warming of .5C

      It gets worse when you go from 2001 instead,when the IPCC made a similar repeat per decade warming projection of again .3C

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:2001/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/trend

      Now the warming rate is even less,based on the chart.

      This is why skeptics are laughing at you.

      1711

    • #
      tom0mason

      Yes Harry lets trust science and the bureaucracy that pushes it ….

      https://youtu.be/5hQL0NWS1Rc

      114

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        It was the bureaucracy wot dun it. Engineers said “No”. Managers said “Do it”. Who do you think got the end of year bonuses that year?

        124

        • #
          tom0mason

          Rereke Whakaaro,

          Bureaucracy pushing science and engineering beyond its proper limits is always a failure.
          Engineers build according to scientific principles, and what is practical (and economical).
          Politicians and bureaucrats all too often seek to push these engineering principles beyond the known limits.

          Two example of engineering distortions come to mind –

          1. Elon Musk and his battery powered enterprise only being worthy as long as it is fed other peoples’ money (OPM)

          2. South Australia and the totally illogical move to attempt to push engineering into a hopelessly over-complex electricity grid system, fueled by OPM and debt, and relying on very intermittent sources of energy. Even with batteries it will be a failure.
          Politician neither know nor care about the engineering deficiencies in their future grid system, they are all about money, power, virtue signaling, and convincing the local population it’s a good idea. Theirs is the same mindset that resulted in the outcome in that video above.

          113

    • #
  • #
    pat

    Gillis has a worthy rival in CNN’s John D. Sutter.

    this is novel length and is the most shocking example of exploitation in the name of CAGW I have probably read so far. presumably meant for millennials, with Stacy’s family featured throughout the piece:

    ***CNN chases millennials with Snapchat news show
    Business Insider-23 Aug. 2017

    11 Aug: CNN: John Sutter: What killed Stacy Ruffin?
    Editor’s Note: John D. Sutter is a columnist for CNN who focuses on climate change and social justice. Follow him on ***Snapchat, Twitter and Facebook.
    Arcola, Louisiana (CNN) — Rain pounded on the roof of the mobile home as the phone rang…
    This was August 12, 2016. In the next week, about 7 trillion gallons of water would fall on Louisiana, more than during Hurricane Katrina, according to meteorologist Ryan Maue. The nameless storm would shatter records, flood homes and kill 13 people…

    ‘Natural’ disaster
    Hundreds of miles away, the email landed in the scientists’ inboxes.
    It was four days later, August 16. The request: Would Karin van der Wiel, Sarah Kapnick and Gabriel Vecchi — three researchers from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s lab in Princeton, New Jersey — help assess the extreme rainfall in Louisiana?
    The floods in Louisiana had caught the attention of the World Weather Attribution team coordinated by Climate Central, a nonprofit that focuses on climate change science and journalism. And they wanted help.
    The team would be assessing the Louisiana storm for any signs of climate change…
    Could this massively complicated work be done — and quickly enough to capture the public’s attention?…

    The researchers knew they’d have to drop everything else to focus on this project. But they had the expertise, and they had the climate models at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory.
    Plus, there was something about this flood…
    Climate detectives
    Was that climate change?
    Karin, Sarah and Gabriel, the researchers at NOAA, were used to being asked that question. Until recently, however, they were able to answer in only the most sweeping of generalities…

    Attributing one storm, in one place, on one day, to climate change?
    That’s difficult. And that’s new …
    Peter Stott, who now leads the climate monitoring and attribution team at the Met Office, the United Kingdom’s national weather service, was the first scientist to try it.
    The idea came to him on vacation in Tuscany in 2003, he told me…
    Stott and his collaborators used climate models — computer programs that approximate weather and temperatures over time — to compare observations from the 2003 heat wave with a computer-assisted approximation of the climate without human greenhouse gas pollution…
    The 2003 heat wave was more than twice as likely because of global warming.
    There was intense public interest in that finding, especially in Europe…

    Karin and Sarah — known in their Princeton lab for being problem-solvers who never give up — would apply their relentless drive to answer big questions about how the Earth works…
    Soon, the New York Times was quoting their work, and they were embarking on the biggest scientific quest of their young careers…
    ‘One-in-70-year storm’
    On September 6, after days of intense research on the nature of the deadly floods in Louisiana, Karin gave seven interviews. She’d never even talked to a journalist before.
    A press release about her study on the Louisiana rainfall and climate change was due to be published online the next day, a collaboration with eight other researchers around the world from New Jersey to Nairobi. The bulk of the work had been done in just two weeks, with Karin and Sarah taking the lead on the writing…

    The first interview of the day was with Amy Wold, a newspaper reporter in Baton Rouge, the epicenter of the storm. “What would have been a one-in-100(-year) storm (in 1900) would be a one-in-70-year storm (now),” Karin told the Advocate reporter. “That’s quite an increase.”
    Put another way: The storm was at least 40% more likely, and perhaps much more, because of climate change, the study found. And it could be expected to be 12% to 35% more intense because of human greenhouse gas pollution…
    The climate detectives found human fingerprints on the August 2016 floods…

    ***Near the end of my visit, I presented some of this information to Carolyn (Stacy’s mother) and Courtney (Stacy’s daughter)…
    I pulled up an article about Karin’s climate attribution study on my phone. And I told them the gist, which is that global warming made this storm more likely and may have strengthened it.
    They paused, taking it in.
    I wondered what conclusions Carolyn drew from that information. But I was afraid to ask.
    Does this information change the way she feels about her daughter’s death?
    Who — or what — killed Stacy Ruffin?

    If science can tell us that a certain storm was more likely, or more severe, because of climate change, couldn’t someone — somewhere — be held liable for the pollution that contributed to the deaths and property damage associated with that storm?
    I called five climate law experts to ask that question.
    All said no. At least, not yet…
    “Part of the problem, I think, with the whole climate change issue … is, it is really different from other kinds of issues that humanity has faced,” said Jamieson, from NYU. “And that creates two problems: Because it’s different, we really don’t know what the hell we’re doing in trying to think about it. And the other is, we always try to domesticate it and make it conform to some other model we do understand.”…
    The real point is to figure out how to avoid causing climate-related deaths. Perhaps the most effective and simplest way to start, he said (and many economists would agree), is to create a carbon tax…

    Carolyn told me she doesn’t have enough money for solar panels, for instance, even though she’d like to have them…
    It would be wrongheaded, however, to blame only individuals for this crisis — and for Stacy’s death. Governments and fossil fuel companies hold the power to change…
    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/11/health/sutter-louisiana-flood-stacy-ruffin/index.html?utm_source=Two+Degrees&utm_campaign=b5aeeff6f4-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_08_11&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b307d59b32-b5aeeff6f4-81796081

    Twitter: John Sutter, Reporter for CNN Investigates. Climate, social justice.
    What killed Stacy Ruffin LINK
    John D. Sutter retweeted:
    Carbon Tax Center: Just read @jdsutter’s story. It may have done more to recalibrate *my* moral compass on #climate than anything I’ve previously read or seen.
    reply from John D. Sutter: We need to recalibrate our moral compasses for climate change. Grateful to this family for sharing their story.
    reply: ***Brian Catt: That was weather. Short term atmospheric change. Climate change takes many lifetimes to change ocean temps significantly. Cynical propaganda
    reply: John D. Sutter: Read the piece? Climate attribution science now able to see human fingerprints on the weather. Important to make these connections. ETC
    https://twitter.com/jdsutter/status/895998703500107777

    ***Brian Catt, as self-described on his twitter page: Physicist, Engineer, Tech Businessman, retired & busy. STEM Ambassador. NHS Trust Gov. Help public understanding of green pseudo science threatening our future.

    101

  • #
    Sonny

    Hi Jo,
    Where is the link to the article? Ta

    Fixed. Sorry! – Jo

    80

  • #
    Shane

    I copied most of the failure bit to post on a news site comment section. Hope that’s OK, if not let me know and I’ll get it removed.

    60

  • #
    Ceetee

    Like I said, the liberal left has gone insane. Trump, Brexit and an unprecedented level of centre right governments in the democratic west has driven them barmy.

    93

    • #
      Yonniestone

      The emotionally immature will snarl at their keepers if they approach during feed time then howl like puppies when they leave the house without them, the insanity will escalate as balance is restored as they’ve been indulged by the graces of democracy since Rudi Dutschke’s “Long March through the Institutions”, when the makers rise again the takers will find their place in the upper echelons of mediocrity.

      83

  • #
    Ruairi

    The warmist predictions ring hollow,
    Which only a warmist would swallow,
    While some might come true,
    By chance, which they do,
    Theirs isn’t the ‘science’ to follow.

    221

  • #
    John Watt

    Look at it this way , if the forecast of the eclipse had been wrong we would have a catastrophe on our hands…our planet spinning out of control. Simply speaking the eclipse forecast is based on application of straightforward mathematics to well understood processes. As yet we don’t have this sort of certainty in the global warming space despite the efforts of Evans , Nicol and Svensmark. To make the Gillis comparison is fanciful in the extreme.

    80

    • #
      Robert Rosicka

      Science can predict an eclipse not that it’s much of a prediction though , what I want to know is can they predict the path of every rock that’s headed this way through space .

      50

  • #
    PeterS

    The fashions of mythology and science fiction have similar attributes, and they continue to grow in areas once thought of as bastions of the truth. Even such shows as the Discovery and National Geographic channels are showing more and more science fiction than fact. Perhaps they are running out of ideas, or more likley they are bored of the truth and are more interested in untruths and fiction. It’s yet another sign of a decaying society filled with warped and weird minded people.

    80

  • #
    Reasonable Skeptic

    I was outside at the time and I saw nothing different. Of course the cloud cover may have caused that. Clearly the scientists couldn’t tell me where there would be no clouds so I could see it.

    As well, a friend of mine travelled a long distance to see the eclipse, but they missed it as well because they got into a car accident. Did the scientists predict they would have an accident?

    When the variables are known the results are easy to predict, only a moron, or a person deliberately lying would have written that article. I wonder which it was.

    71

  • #
    Lionell Griffith

    Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall. He exclaimed that when he uses a word, it means exactly what he intends it to mean. Nothing more and nothing less. That is unless he changes what he means by it. Then it can mean exactly the opposite or most anything else.

    Harry sits on the wall beside himself and doesn’t know what he means until he says it. Even then, he means something other than what everyone else means by the same words. That way, he thinks, he can never be wrong and no one else can ever be right. Harry is confused.

    Humpty Dumpty and Harry had a conversation. Neither understood the other because each meant something other than what they said. In the struggle, they both rolled off the wall. Splat…. All the Kings men and their horses had to clean up the mess.

    Sadly, this is but a fable. Harry is still sitting on the wall spewing his nonsense and Humpty Dumpty never existed and can’t mean anything. The mess still exists. Now were oh where are all the Kings men and their horses?. Clean up on isle 12! It is something that shouldn’t be seen by children or snow flakes.

    103

  • #

    Still fighting the same vain fight (“The greenhouse effect is true”, “The greenhouse effect is modest and uncertain”, “The greenhouse effect is false”). No one is learning anything.

    This is no surprise. There is no valid global climate science (other than the–totally ignored by one and all–governing effect of the hydrostatic condition of the troposphere, as enshrined in the century-old–and unchanging–Standard Atmosphere model). There are no competent climate scientists. There are no competent blog comments that accept any part of the climate “consensus”, including the supposed measurements of the global mean surface temperature.

    1311

    • #
      AndyG55

      I do try to get the message across, Harry.

      The so-called “GHE” is really an atmospheric mass effect, unaffected by the amount of CO2,

      …. as proven on every planet with a tenable atmosphere.

      1411

      • #
        Peter C

        Do not stray AndyG55.

        There is no GHE! There is a Green House Gas Effect Theory (with no observable proof so far).

        1310

    • #
      sunsettommy

      Harry Dale and others, you can still beat them at their own game easily,by showing how minor FUTURE postulated CO2 effect really is. I have pointed it out a few times in the last year to people like Twinotter,who runs away when confronted on how little future additional CO2 could effect the heat budget into the future,using THEIR silly math.

      MODTRANS shows this very well,why their high into the future atmospheric CO2 level,is a shell game.

      https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/co2_modtrans_img1.png

      Here is another angle to show how little it is in another way:

      The Science of why the Theory of Global Warming is Incorrect!

      “A 0.5 °C temperature difference between these two years resulted in an additional 2.5 W/m2 increase in the measured amount of energy lost to space. That increase in energy loss is not theoretical, it is a measured difference. It is also what is predicted by the Stefan-Boltmann Law.

      If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984. If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.

      The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up. The reasons behind this are the wavelengths of energy that are transmitted by the Earth, but it can simply be shown by looking at the energy loss increase that has taken place over the past 25 years.”

      LINK

      There are charts that greatly explains his post.

      1310

  • #
    pat

    here’s a man who knows a thing or two about climate!

    25 Aug: Queensland Times: Geoff Egan: Climate change will hit our farmers harder and hotter
    A LEADING commodity trader has warned increasingly common extreme and volatile weather conditions will cause havoc for Queensland’s agricultural producers.
    Commodities trader Jonathan Barratt has warned record wet and dry periods will become more common as climate change intensifies and will dramatically impact primary producers.
    Mr Barratt, the CEO of CelsiusPro, said July 2017 was the driest July in 118 years – and as a result of climate change similar records were being set more often.

    “The volatility we have experienced in the climate in the last three years has been unprecedented. I have been predicting that climate change will shift regional weather patterns and that adverse events not only occur but be more frequent. Now it’s happening,” he said.
    “The combined deficits of rain and higher than normal temperatures in some areas this season have sapped what moisture profiles farmers had and, as some growers close the chequebook on crops, others are contemplating if it is worth adding another layer of costs to an already thirsty crop.”

    Mr Barratt’s warning comes just days after University of NSW research found farmland would get drier and cities flood more often under climate change…
    https://www.qt.com.au/news/climate-change-will-hit-our-farmers-harder-and-hot/3216205/

    only problem in Russia is finding enough storage facilities:

    22 Aug: World Grain: Susan Reidy: Russia’s harvest could surpass Soviet-era record
    The nation’s grain and legume crop for 2017 is estimated at 130.7 million tonnes, according to ProZerno’s August forecast. This would beat the previous record of 127.4 million tonnes set in 1978, Vladimir Petrichenko, ProZerno general director, told Agroinvestor.
    Wheat is predicted to reach a record 80.1 million tonnes, followed by barley at 19 million tonnes and corn at 16.3 million tonnes, also a record.
    A record could also be set for leguminous crops (peas, chickpeas, vetch, lupins, etc.), which together could reach 3.85 million tonnes. Buckwheat is projected at 1.7 million tonnes.
    Petrichenko told Agroinvestor that a record harvest could cause storage difficulties…

    no dry conditions in Germany!

    22 Aug: HellenicShippingNews: Reuters: German wheat harvest hit by rain, worry about quality loss
    Recent repeated rainfall has delayed Germany’s wheat harvest and created concern about late quality loss, possibly reducing export supplies and generating larger than expected volumes of feed wheat, traders and industry officials said on Monday.
    “We had hoped the wheat harvest would be finished by now but between 40 to 50 percent of the crop in the major north German wheat export regions is still in the fields waiting to be cut,” one German trader said…
    Germany, the European Union’s second-largest wheat producer and exporter after France, was hit by rain throughout August and the harvest is still unfinished in the northern export areas of Schleswig-Holstein, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Lower Saxony, traders said…
    “More rain fell again in north Germany on Monday, again delaying harvesting. Every day of delay increases the likelihood that the final areas to be harvested will only reach feed quality.”

    71

  • #
    tom0mason

    From http://www.caeno.org/pdf/Steele_Eclipse%20predictions.pdf

    Our earliest contemporary records of eclipse observations from Mesopotamia come from the first half of the seventh century BC, although records stretching back to the middle of the eighth century are preserved in later compilations. These accounts are given in the various Letters and Reports sent by Assyrian and Babylonian scholars to the Assyrian court.

    It is evident from these accounts that primitive attempts were being made to predict the eclipses before they were observed. In Babylon, by at least the middle of the seventh century BC,and we have good reason to believe stretching back to as early as the middle of the eighth century,[4] astronomical observations were being systematically conducted and recorded in a group of texts which we have come to call the Astronomical Diaries. These Diaries, and other texts which are related to them, contain many observations and predictions of eclipses. The predictions generally include the expected time of the eclipse, apparently calculated quite precisely. By the last three centuries BC, the Babylonian astronomers had developed highly advanced mathematical theories of the
    moon and planets.This lunar theory could be used to calculate the times and magnitudes of lunar and solar eclipses.

    In this paper I shall outline the various methods which appear to have been formulated by the Mesopotamian astronomers to predict eclipses of the sun and moon. This will lead into the question of which of these methods were actually used, and why. However, before proceeding along this path, it is necessary to first make some remarks concerning general methods of eclipse prediction.

    Probably they also understood weather and climate cycles better than today’s much overexposed ‘climate scientists™’.

    71

  • #

    Pinpointing the time of an eclipse does not qualify as a prediction. It is mechanics, akin to saying the minute hand of a clock will rotate 360 degrees in one hour (although a little more complicated.)
    Predicting a warming climate is hardly better. Since it is either going to warm, or it is going to cool, either prediction has a 50% chance of being right. Are you going to bet your house on a coin toss?

    60

    • #
      el gordo

      The hiatus in temperature for two decades proves beyond reasonable doubt that CO2 does not cause global warming, so the odds are better than even that global cooling is just around the corner.

      81

  • #
    ralfellis

    Talk about modern scientists making mistakes. When my paleoclimatology paper was being peer reviewed, one eminent physicist said my description of the precession of the equinox was wrong, and it should read like this:

    Quote:
    At any point in the 22 kyr precessional cycle, the
    Earth’s rotational axis is oriented at some angle to the line from
    the south pole to the north pole. At one extreme, the axis is
    tiltedfrom south toward north when the Earth is closest to the Sun
    and the axis is tilted from north to south when the Earth is farthest
    from the Sun. At this point, the summers and winters are least severe
    in the Northern Hemisphere(current state). At 11 kyr later, the axis
    is tilted from north toward south when the Earth is closest from the
    Sun and the Earth is tilted from south to north when the Earth is
    farthest from the Sun. At this point, the summers and winters are
    most severe in the Northern Hemisphere. Thus the precession cycle
    alternates between high and low summer solar input to high latitudes.

    So the Earths rotational a is does not councide with the north pole. Hmmmmm. And when discussing the reduction in CO2 partial pressure with altitude, another reviewer said:

    Quote:
    This hypothesis relies on a strong effect of reduced CO2 on
    vegetation at altitude. I strongly suspect that the calculations
    showing a 120 ppm drop in CO2 at 4,000m altitude in the tropics
    and 65 ppm drop at 2,000m in the extra-tropics are completely
    wrong. Observations of CO2 with altitude show tiny variations
    (less that 5 ppmv, e.g. Olsen & Randerson, 2004, figure 3). So
    this calculation in table 4 is very likely wrong. This undermines
    much of the rest of the manuscript.

    This was despite the data being marked with microbars, and also ppm equivalents, just to make sure. I did ask if he-she might get short of breath when climing Mt Everest. And if he-she did, then why would plants be any different.

    With professors like this stalking academia, what chance is there for any of our climate science being correct?

    Ralph

    80

    • #
      ralfellis

      The latter quote has important ramifications.

      Last Glacial Maximum LGM temperatures in the tropics were derived from treelines, upon the assumption that treeline altitudes were dictated by temperature. But this resulted in low temperatures at altitude, and huge lapse rates, and therefore drier climates. These temperatures and rainfalls were clearly wrong, but have been used in all climate models.

      However, if tropical treelines were set by low CO2 partial pressures with altitude, not temperature, then tropical temperatures at altitude could have been much warmer. (Surface CO2 dropped to 180ppm.). And had climate models used this alternate data, their results would be different.

      The peer reviewers of my paper refused to accept this (as mentioned above) and so all climate models are using the wrong data and the wrong assumptions.

      Ralph

      80

    • #
      Peter C

      Ralph,

      You bring up a very important point here. Reviewers where hopeless!
      Peer review is almost useless. The best way to reform it (in my view) is to make the identitiy of the reviewers public and publish the reviews with the paper.

      50

  • #
    Another Ian

    Another one

    “Friday Funny – Advice from another scientist to Neil DeGrasse Tyson @neiltyson – ‘stick with eclipses’”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/25/friday-funny-advice-from-another-scientist-to-neil-degrasse-tyson-neiltyson-stick-with-eclipses/

    51

  • #
    Manfred

    all Scientists are always right about everything

    He just failed science 101. The fallacy of generalisation and the implication engendered by the unscientific use of the word ‘right’.
    Nonetheless, his statement remains an illuminating betrayal of the journalists canons of ethics, and the more obvious, that the Alinsky rule book for radicals is the current required replacement.

    An NY Times Leftist agent provocateur indisputably declares the intentional, societal wrecking ideological manifest at the NY Times.
    So what’s new I ask?

    51

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Modern Astrology…

    That says it all right there. I have more understanding of science in the tip of my left little finger than does everyone working at the New York Times, including all their independent contributors. I can tell you that 1 – 1 is 0 as in, you have none of whatever you’re talking about, in this case, brains.

    I pass the test.

    What does it take to get them to understand that 1 – 1 is not 2? My head begins to spin when I read some of this stuff.

    The only things that are always right are the weather and the climate and the universe in which we are a very tiny drop in a very large ocean. And those things are right by default because they get to be their own boss.

    61

  • #
    ROM

    I’m quite sure that Harry Twinotter and Craigthomas along with Justin Gillis have the Climate change qualifications to be able to both select and dismiss, scathingly no doubt with their vastly superior “climate change” knowledge compared to the scientifically qualified “D—er” writers and publishers of these papers, this list of 75 papers, all published in 2017 and listed in Pierre Gosselin’s NoTricksZone blog.
    .
    Attribution Shift: Scientists Increasingly Link Climate Change To Solar Forcing In Scientific Journals

    Scientists: It’s The Sun

    103

    • #
      PeterS

      What’s the likelihood that such observational facts will be noticed let alone discussed by the MSM? Zero I suspect. It’s now come to the point that a person’s opinion matters more than another even though the latter is much better supported by observational evidence. If the scientific community as a whole did their job properly and announced which opinions are more aligned to the evidence, the man-made catastrophic global warming hoax would be thrown into the same basket as the magical flying pink elephant a long time ago. I don’t blame the politicians for the mess we are in – I blame the voters who keep voting for them and more so the scientific community for remaining silent at best and in many cases collaborating with the scammers. The politicians are only doing what’s natural to them – find more ways to collect more tax and gain more power. The job of the scientist is to increase our understanding of how things work in the physical world we live in, not how things might work in another non-visible and unknown “universe”.

      61

  • #
    eliza

    WHY YOU SHOULD NEVER EMIGRATE TO AUSTRALIA IF YOU ARE YOUNG AND INTELLIGENT, THE AMERICAS ARE A MUCH BETTER CHOICE FOR A BETTER LIFE STYLE AND FUTURE ADVANCEMENT. THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT WILL NOT LOOK AFTER YOU WHEN YOU ARE OLD.  
     
    I emigrated to Australia in 1981 as a scientist with a Masters degree, obtained a PHd in Australia became an Australian citizen and had 3 Australian children citizen lived there for 31 years paid taxes for 32 years and made major contributions to that country and decided to emigrate to South America as I lost my assets there to incompetent real estate agents when I was 60 years of age. They will not pay me any aged pension because I decided to live in South America so beware apart from that, its really a police state where you cannot even have a barbecue with smoke in your own home where everything is so politically correct. A very boring country with little to offer anything, but go and find out for yourselves, Its your choice.

    42

    • #
      ROM

      Yes Eliza, Australia is a boring country. Of that there is no doubt.

      Which makes it somewhat surprising that residents from those much more exciting counties like Iran and Pakistan and Sri Lanka and Somalia and Bangladesh and Vietnam and Burma and the Philipines go to great lengths to get to this very boring Australia.
      Some, in fact a lot of them even very deliberately make sure that they are able to pass right through the 4000 kms of the Indonesian archipeligo where their own religion is the dominating influence on Indonesian society, to get to a nation, Australia where the nominal christian religion is abhorred by those of their own religion and is in fact persucuted within their own nation.

      This boring nation, unfortunately and according to the CIA’s World Fact book on nations is only ranked at the 29th position in the list of nations with a per capita PPP [ Purchasing Power Parity ] the amount of goods and services that an Australian individual can purchase with a dollar compared to the same list of goods and services that those of other nations can purchase with their currency equivalent of an AUD dollar.

      In the PPP stakes we rank behind nations such as Quatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and even the USA in 20th position with their all powerful globally accepted currency .

      But we do rank ahead ahead of nations like the UK at 38 , Chile at 79, Panama at 80, Argentina at 86, the same Argentina that prior to WW2 was the richest nation on the planet in per capita wealth .

      We rank ahead of Venezuela at 107 position which has arguably the largest oil reserves on the planet in the Orinoco Valley oil fields and ahead of Ecuador at 136 and ahead of Bolivia at 155 and etc.

      Possibly we are very boring because we have all these oldies in our society.

      The CIA fact Book again says that we Australians are the fourth longest living people on the planet with a life expectency of an average of 82.8 years, just behind Japan at 83.7 years, Switzerland at 83.4 years and Singapore at 83.1 years.

      And in fact if you are an Australian male you will outlive a Japanese male 80.9 years to 80.5 years.

      In fact only Swiss Men and Icelandic men outlive Australian men.

      Maybe we live longer than most because we are less likely to try and kill our fellow man and woman than say those bastions of South American male bravado such as El Salvador with 93 killings per 100,000 per year and Guatemala at 70 killings per 100,000 per year and all the way down through Venezuela, Belize, Colombia, Hondouras to Panama which gets down to a good South American low of 34 killings per 100,000 per year.

      We Australians are down right boring when it comes to cleaning out the opposition with a goodly touch of violence with a killing rate of 1.15 deaths per 100,000 per annum.

      Of course Japan is even more boring when it comes to somebody trying to knock you off .
      Unusually for the very efficient Japanese, those Japanese crims can only manage to kill 0.28 victims per 100,000 per annum.
      .

      So sorry but yes, we are very boring as a nation and I do agree as do most Australians that we are forced to be put up with a very unsavoury politically correctness which most of us are absolutely sick to death of and which are we fed up to the back teeth with the bloody totally hypocritical do-gooders and politically correct nazis who try to control and dictate every aspect of our’s and every individual’s life.

      By the way , Welcome Home if you decide that life is too exciting in South America and you might like a quieter and more boring life style.
      And you might even get your pension back again.

      Although I would check very carefully to see if your Australian pension is disappearing into some South American bureaucrat’s back pocket before you ever see it.

      80

    • #
      Peter C

      Eliza,

      I hope that you stay where you are.

      I suppose that your 3 Australian children are now grown up and are likely still here.
      What were the major contributions that YOU made to our country?

      60

  • #
    clipe

    Someone, maybe here at Jo’s place, pointed out that eclipses are calculated not predicted.

    Stonehenge Eclipse Calculator

    61

  • #
    pat

    M4GW – do I hear a new song coming on? a nice counterpoint to the “CAGW” Harvey propaganda:

    24 Aug: Fox9: FREEZING IN AUGUST: Overnight lows hit 29 in northern Minnesota
    DULUTH, Minn. (KMSP) – Overnight temperatures in northern Minnesota plunged to as low as 29 degrees, according to data collected through Thursday, Aug. 24 by the National Weather Service in Duluth. Yep, that’s right – freezing temperatures in August. Only in Minnesota.

    These are record low temperatures for many areas that typically see average August lows around 50 degrees.
    Data valid as of 7:16 a.m. Thursday, Aug. 24 (Source: National Weather Service, Duluth)
    http://www.fox9.com/weather/275781204-story

    51

  • #
    pat

    no hint it’s been a while since a major hurricane made landfall in the US:

    25 Aug: NYT: John Schwartz: The Relationship Between Hurricanes and Climate Change
    How much does Hurricane Harvey, or any particular storm, have to do with climate change?
    The relationship between hurricanes and climate change is not simple. Some things are known with growing certainty. Others, not so much…

    Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University and an author of the report, said even if global warming does not change the number of storms — and, she noted, there could even be fewer hurricanes over all — tropical storms and hurricanes do gain energy from warm water, so the unusually warm water that has accompanied climate change “can have a role in intensifying a storm that already exists.”…

    Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, said that the most solid link between climate change and storms is that “storm surge is made worse by sea level rise, which we are certain humans have contributed to.”…

    Dr. Hayhoe noted that scientists are not saying that hurricanes are necessarily caused by climate change, but are being affected by them.
    “We care about a changing climate because it exacerbates the natural risks and hazards that we already face,” she said. “People always want to know is it climate change or is it not? The answer is it’s in between.”…
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/us/hurricane-harvey-climate-change-texas.html?mcubz=1

    25 Aug: SanAntonioPressNews: Harvey’s intensity and rainfall potential tied to global warming
    By Brendan Gibbons
    Global warming is making the oceans hotter, fueling the intensity and flooding potential of storms like Harvey, climate scientists said as the hurricane approached…
    The average temperature for most of the Gulf was 86 degrees, said Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.
    “That makes it almost the hottest spot on the planet” for sea surface temperatures, Trenberth said. “It’s an area that’s ripe for vigorous development to occur.” …
    Hurricanes, “which are really a collective of thunderstorms,” draw their moisture from a roughly 930-mile radius and can be affected by ocean temperatures up to 650 feet deep, Trenberth said.
    Tropical cyclones exchange heat between the oceans and the atmosphere. In general, more heat in the system, the more intense the storm.
    “In the process, they actually cool off the tropical oceans,” Trenberth said. “This is really one of the fundamental roles that hurricanes and typhoons play in the climate system. … They’re sort of a relief valve.”…
    http://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Harvey-s-intensity-and-rainfall-potential-tied-11957010.php

    71

  • #
    pat

    btw has anyone seen anything since 17 Aug on the Pen Hadow trip?

    after no posts by the crew since 17 Aug, a question:

    Facebook: Mission Arctic
    Jill Home Hey guys, you still out there? X
    20 August at 01:15
    https://www.facebook.com/missionarctic/

    70

  • #
    pat

    25 Aug: RealClimateScience: Tony Heller: Why President Trump Needs Communications People
    COMMENT: by Nomoregore: So, they’re now hyping Harvey as a CAT 4. They revealed on the weather channel this is because an aircraft measured some wind speed at 147…. and after much CALCULATION, they determined this WOULD BE 130 at ground level…..except that it isn’t. Notice, CAT3 ends at 129….. imagine that!

    SUSTAINED winds (reported on the weather channel so far) are NOT exceeding CAT1 yet. The highest GUST reported was 103, with 80 or so sustained.

    This is looking to be RABIDLY overhyped once again.
    https://realclimatescience.com/2017/08/why-president-trump-needs-communications-people/

    WeatherChannel homepage: Banner Headline: HARVEY EXPLODES, NOW A CAT 4 HURRICANE
    https://weather.com/

    26 Aug 8.41am: WaPo: Jason Samenow: Satellite images show Harvey still strengthening, could become Cat 4
    The eye of Harvey has become better and better defined as it approaches landfall along the Texas coast, signifying a storm that is intensifying…

    TWEET: Sam Lillo (Meteorology PhD student at OU): #Harvey’s satellite presentation just continues to improve. Speechless.
    This storm is intensifying every second until landfall

    At 6:00 p.m., its maximum sustained winds were 125 mph, just 5 mph away from Category 4 intensity…
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/2017/live-updates/weather/hurricane-harvey-updates-preparation-evacuations-forecast-storm-latest/satellite-images-show-harvey-still-strengthening-could-become-cat-4/?utm_term=.36336881f49f

    81

  • #
    pat

    comment with latest hurricane Harvey info in moderation.

    71

  • #
    pat

    24 Aug: UK Telegraph: Sir David Attenborough is more optimistic than ever about the future of the planet
    By Telegraph Reporters
    In a special event at the Edinburgh International Television Festival to mark 60 years of the Natural History Unit at BBC Studios, Sir David, 91, said: “I spend a lot of time wringing my hands and saying how dreadful it is, and how this forest has been obliterated, and that sea has been polluted and whatever.”…

    Asked by what had heartened him over the past five years in terms of our relationship with the natural world, Sir David used the Paris climate change agreement between nearly 200 countries as an example…
    He added that the Paris Agreement – a treaty within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – is “another big advance”.

    He said: “I would like to think that the reason the political figures have got that sort of policy that they will know will be ***at a cost to the national economies is that they are beginning to realise that people worldwide ***wish that to happen, because they wish to protect the natural world, and I think that view has been helped by what (the Natural History Unit) and other units around the world are doing.”…
    THIS HAS ATTRACTED 1 COMMENT AT TIME OF POSTING, EVEN THO THE ARTICLE WAS POSTED 1 DAY AGO
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/08/24/sir-david-attenborough-optimistic-ever-aboutthe-future-planet/

    92

    • #
      Robert Rosicka

      Stopped watching his shows when he did the whole “Oceans becoming more acidic thing” which then allowed me to say he doesn’t even know how to count to 7 ffs.

      83

  • #
    Vladimir

    Why would not somebody take a fishtank, irradiate it with normal sun light and record temperature depends on CO2 concentration in there ?
    Say – from a 100 ppm to .1% if you want to be that outrageous.

    Seriously, though the Billions were already spent on this “science” and no one built a hardware model ?

    123

    • #
      AndyG55

      You need to allow for the effects of convection, conduction etc etc

      Make sure no heat can get in or escape from the sides of the fish tank, though the glass.. whatever.

      Make sure the sunlight is consistent,, which is difficult unless you can control humidity etc

      There are probably many other things you would need to control as well, but its Saturday afternoon and.. its been a long day. ;-)

      In a way, this almost happens in nature in the form of an adiabatic inversion, where CO2 levels can be significantly higher than ambient. No sign of any extra heating under an adiabatic inversion.. almost the opposite actually.

      1310

      • #
        Vladimir

        Andy,

        It did not mean to model the Earth climate, only to (dis)prove the basic AGW tenet that adding some ppm of CO2 to atmosphere converts it into a “semiconductor” which lets the heat one way but not the other.

        Regards,
        Vladimir

        112

  • #
    Dennis

    The Guardian reports Russian tanker sails through ice without an ice breaker escort for the first time … the story claims it is taking advantage of global warming and shrinking ice fields.

    So I Googled the name of the ship …

    The de Margerie is, according to Sovcomflot’s press release, “the world’s first and currently the only icebreaking LNG carrier.” Built by South Korean shipbuilder Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering Co. Ltd., the ship is the first of its kind to be awarded an Arc7 ice class rating, meaning it can withstand up to -50 degrees C and can navigate though ice more than 2.1 meters thick (6.8 feet). An Arc7 rating allows a ship to legally operate at certain parts of the world at certain, colder parts of the year.

    110

    • #
      Ceetee

      Well exactly Dennis, but most unlike you and now us wouldn’t know that because most ride their personal prejudice like a donkey i.e. with difficulty but determination.

      80

      • #
        Dennis

        Thanks Ceetee, I also discovered that Russia now has several new ice breaker navy ships that will be armed with laser weapons in addition to the more conventional weaponry.

        So why in a warming would they build them.

        sarc.

        70

        • #
          tom0mason

          Indeed the Russian are build-up their fleet of icebreakers. And yes they are replacing a lot of old ones, but these new ones are made for thicker ice and colder climes.

          Makes me wonder, are they expecting …um…. warming?

          101

          • #
            AndyG55

            They say the main reason is to increase the amount of time during the year that they can actually use the Arctic waters for transport.

            As I’ve said many time, the benefits of LESS Arctic sea ice would be immense.

            A drop back down to MWP levels would open up the Arctic for travel, transport, commerce, fishing, and all without the massive cost of specialised ice-breaking oil tankers.

            Why are people constantly crying and carrying on about a natural, highly beneficial recovery from the extremes of the LIA? It really is non-thinking idiocy.

            149

  • #
    Robert Rosicka

    Seems the warming has been getting worse .

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-26/davis-research-station-disappearing-in-snow-drifts/8845608

    If this heat keeps up I’m going to freeze to death .

    104

    • #
      Dennis

      Don’t worry, here in OZ spring is close, and then a new warming called summer

      80

      • #
        Robert Rosicka

        Me thinks I’d better get a start on firewood collecting this Friday and maybe stock up 4 months worth or more , the winters are definitely getting colder here .

        113

        • #
          TdeF

          Man made Global Warming only happens in summer. In winter the only effect is data truncation and rounding up of 0.5C.

          95

          • #
            TdeF

            In fact ‘global warming’ is so small we cannot detect it without instruments accurate to 0.001C. Without homogenization it would not exist. The big question is how the planet can tell the difference let alone the many species alleged to have changed their lifestyles and habitat just to cope with something we can barely detect. Perhaps David Attenborough could explain it or Brian Cox?

            As for planetary motion, the same Isaac Newton who defined the three laws of motion which allow us such accuracy had a point of view about temperature. His suggested definition of 100 degrees was water which was too hot to keep your elbow in it.

            Clearly temperature was not a critical issue of the day, just a random natural phenomenon like wind and clouds, rain and snow. We know better, global temperature is man controlled and Australia is about to save the world by restricting CO2 output in South Australia. Pure genius. The only thing lacking is any logic.

            97

  • #
    notaluvvie

    Funny, the scientific “experts” at the BoM were predicting rain all week for a certain day. Nada. Oh, that’s right, that’s weather when it goes wrong and climate when they are right.

    95

  • #
    sunsettommy

    It is clear to me that Harry Twinotter is here with his trademark nibbling comments,since he never understood the main point of Jo’s post,which normal thinking people can easily grasp,but Harry manage not to figure it out. Which is why he AVOIDS real discussions of Jo’s post.

    The one he doesn’t understand,so he Nibbles around instead with half a loaf on everything. He shows ignorance of Logarithmic and Modtran,he avoids the IPCC on it completely since he can’t understand it. Therefore just repeatedly demand a source for a generalized Log chart I posted, over and over. Here is where it came from,now what are you going to say now Harryfool?

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

    I dragged you out for the singular purpose of making a fool of you,it was so easy.

    Harry also pushed this over and over,but doesn’t realize that he make a fool of himself in the process,since Jo in her post pointed out the real issue of the undenied warming since the 1800′s.

    The global mean temperature has increased.

    Wow!!! I am impressed! He says it has warmed……, well guess what Harryfool, Jo said that herself in the post,

    “So what predictions has climate science made, and have they come true?

    The earliest, made by a Swede named Svante Arrhenius in 1897, was simply that the Earth would heat up in response to emissions. That has been proved: The global average temperature has risen more than 1 degree Celsius, or almost 2 degrees Fahrenheit, a substantial change for a whole planet.”

    But Harry manage to miss this part,which I also brought up in the comment thread.

    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hadley/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg

    Pointed this out too based on the IPCC:

    “sunsettommy
    August 26, 2017 at 1:49 pm · Reply

    Once again, Harry make a fool of himself,since what I wrote are based on the IPCC reports themselves,which I will post once again here.

    From 1990:

    “Based on current model results, we predict: under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade)”

    LINK

    Here is what UAH and HadCrut4 shows from 1990″

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1990/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1990/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1990/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1990/trend

    As you can see not even close. It was supposed to have warmed around .80C since 1990,but UAH show only, .25C and HadCrut4 .45C

    Harry seems to say any way warming is proof of CO2 warming effect,while the IPCC habitually make specific PER DECADE warming prediction/projections, that is expected to fall within a warming range to validate their AGW based models.”

    Can Harryfool figure it out from this quote?

    “It’s the most tritely obvious thing that any cause of warming would cause… warming. Was it CO2, or solar spectral changes, solar magnetic effects, or solar particle flows? Gillis seems to think that warming itself is evidence that CO2 is the problem. It’s magical short-term thinking. But turning points, dammit, tell another story. If CO2 was the major driver there wouldn’t be major turning points that we can’t explain. For half the decades since Arrhenius made that prediction, global temperatures have been not-behaving as Arrhenius predicted – CO2 was on the rise, and global temperatures weren’t.”

    Again the chart she posted supports her position,when are you going to address it,Harryfool?

    139

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      So your “source” is a guest post in WUWT? No studies, no peer-review, no scientific journals.

      And you trust it?

      How do you know David Archibald got his figures correct? And what are David Archibald’s credentials, other than a guest poster for WUWT?

      It looks like I will have to run with a guest post, not science.
      Do something for me: reconcile this quote with the chart. I cannot. The chart, if correct, pretty much says you cannot get around 30C out of CO2.

      915

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        Oops. Missed the quote.

        “The greenhouse gasses keep the Earth 30° C warmer than it would otherwise be without them in the atmosphere, so instead of the average surface temperature being -15° C, it is 15° C.”

        1217

        • #
          AndyG55

          No CO2 warming signature in sea level rise, or in satellite data records.

          No CO2 warming signature ANYWHERE, just solar based El Nino events.

          Massive failure of all warming models. Hugh range, but they still miss the side of the barn.

          Provide a paper that proves empirically the assumption that CO2 causes any warming at all a convective atmosphere.

          Until then, you are living in a NON-science land of make believe.

          1610

      • #
        sunsettommy

        You are too stupid to realize how you show the world what a science illiterate you are. I long ago stated this:

        “The Chart is a general picture of what most people agree is true and real,yes even most alarmist scientists agree.Interesting that you didn’t know that.

        Meanwhile you completely ignored the MODTRANS chart. Why did you do that?”

        I showed you several other charts, then went to the IPCC published MODTRAN result. They ALL show a rapid drop in CO2 warm forcing effect. ALL OF THEM!

        Most of the effect are in the first 60 ppm,then rapidly far less after that, to a dribble by the time you get to the 400 ppm level. This is why that chart David posted is a good representative for the MODTRAN results.

        Ed Caryl, expanded on this to a greater detail two years later,to show a large range of possible factors, but there is a clear Log effect because of MODTRAN results.

        Ed Caryl: MODTRAN shows co2 doubling will have almost no effect on temperature

        LINK

        Your stupidity and ignorance is once again exposed.

        1510

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          “Do something for me: reconcile this quote with the chart. I cannot. The chart, if correct, pretty much says you cannot get around 30C out of CO2.”

          916

          • #
            AndyG55

            “Do something for me”

            Seems you are INCAPABLE of doing ANYTHING for yourself.

            Who feeds you?

            Who dresses you?

            158

      • #
        sunsettommy

        Harryfool, apparently can’t read the MODTRAN I gave him:

        He wrote,

        “So your “source” is a guest post in WUWT? No studies, no peer-review, no scientific journals.”

        Your ignorance in this area is why you are looking stupid:

        Now carefully read this chart, see if you can understand it:

        https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/co2_modtrans_img1.png

        I did give you the IPCC MODTRAN chart, you ignored it. Posted several other Log Charts, that has nothing to do with WUWT and David Archibald. They are similar because the CO2 Log effect are fairly well known to those who actually use the MODTRAN program.

        Now you should be banned since you are a total science illiterate.

        1410

  • #
    Harry Twinotter

    Do something for me: reconcile this quote with the chart. I cannot. The chart, if correct, pretty much says you cannot get around 30C out of CO2.

    816

    • #
      AndyG55

      Don’t need to, Its only theoretical, with no proof behind it.

      The 30C is a nonsense anyway. Earth’s surface is in no way a black-body.

      Read some of the other post and you may just start to learn that the temperature is controlled more by the atmospheric mass than its constituents.

      If you are prepared to let go of your manic brain=-washing, that is.

      149

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    So scisnce can predict eclipses…Yup 4500 years ago, thats 2500BC for you non science people (SARC), some clever sparcs figured out the procession of the lunar nodes, that when the plane of moons orbit crosses the sun, about 18 1/3 years..Result: building of Stone Henge 1 (NOT the big rocky bits), the circle bits around the perimeter. Yes folks they predicted the lunar eclipses and the few solar ones at that latitude. So they must have been scientists.

    40