Strange New Climate Change Spin: The Hottest Year Ever Inside a Global Warming ‘Pause’?

By William M Briggs Published on September 23, 2015

There are two stories floating around about the state of the earth’s atmosphere. Both are believed true by government-funded scientists and the environmentally minded. The situation is curious because the stories don’t mesh. Yet, as I said, both are believed. Worse, neither is true.

Story number one is that this year will be the hottest ever. And number two is that the reason it is not hot is because “natural variation” has masked or stalled man-caused global warming.

Which is it? Either it’s hotter than ever or it isn’t. If it is, then (it is implied) man-caused global warming has not “paused.” If it isn’t, if man-caused global warming has “paused,” then it is not growing hotter.

There are two things to keep straight: (1) why these divergent contentions are believed, and (2) why they are incompatible and individually false. The first point is easy. Climatology has become a branch of politics. And in politics, particularly in our rambunctious democracy, statements asserted in the name of some political goal are usually believed or at least supported by those who share the goal. It is necessary for global-warming-of-doom to be true in order to attain the government’s goal (of increasing in size and power), so any statement which supports global warming is likely to be touted by government supporters, even mutually incompatible statements.

Scientists — and some very big names indeed — who have made their living on government grants, and who provide arguments in line with the government’s desire that global-warming-of-doom be true, recently wrote a letter to the President and Attorney General asking these officials to criminally prosecute under the RICO Act scientists like myself and organizations that might fund me. Which scientists and organizations? Those, they say, who have “knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.

In other words, arguments put forth by independent scientists and organizations that do not support the government’s line cannot be considered science, but should instead be classified as criminal acts. Incidentally, it has come out that the scientist leading the effort to prosecute the innocent has “paid himself & his wife $1.5 million from gov’t climate grants for part-time work.” Climatology is thus a branch of politics. Quod erat demonstrandum.

I’m no politician and can’t predict what will come of this. But I am a scientist and know good physics from bad. To understand why the claims about the atmosphere mentioned above are false, it is necessary to grasp, at least in broad outline, some rather complicated statistics and physics. Let’s try.

Claim Number One: This Year Will Be The Hottest Ever

The first claim is not only false, it is ludicrously false. It’s not even close to being true. There have been times in the history of the earth when it was much hotter. Here is a link to one estimate of the earth’s mean temperature over time.

But haven’t atmospheric carbon dioxide levels risen over the past few decades? Yes, but here is another link with carbon dioxide levels plotted alongside temperature (see the second graph down at the link) showing how the two do not track each other and at times have even moved in opposite directions.

Jurassic Period Hot Steamy JungleWe are now geologically in what is called the Quaternary Period, which is characterized by periodic cold snaps, which is to say, glaciations. Glaciers have come and glaciers have gone for more than two million years, and we expect they’ll continue to come and go mainly because of the way the earth wobbles and wends it way around the sun. Before the Quaternary was the Pliocene, and well before this was the better known (thanks, Hollywood!) Jurassic, which ran 145 to 200 million years ago. And before the Jurassic was the Triassic, extending back another 25 millions years.

From the Triassic to the Quaternary, a time spanning more than 200 million years, the earth was hotter than it is now, and not just a little hotter, but downright steamy at times, with temperatures 10 or more degrees Celsius higher. It was so hot that the entire planet was green and fertile, and animals, you might recall, grew to tremendous size. Before the Triassic there were other periods, some of which more closely resembled ours in climate.

The lesson to be learned from this is that the climate is never constant; it always has changed and always will. Stopping climate change is a human impossibility. I mean this word in its strict sense. There is no power short of Omnipotence that can stop the climate from changing. Certainly no government can. To plead, therefore, that we should stop climate change is not to engage in science, but politics.

Above I said the linked picture represented an estimate of the temperature, and this is so. Thermometers didn’t exist in any reliable or widespread sense until the last 100 or so years of earth’s history, and even now these only cover a small fraction of the earth’s surface. And even in the modern era, the ways we have of measuring temperature have varied and still vary. Satellites, which provide some of the best, but still imperfect, global measurements have only existed about 50 years.

That means if we want to know the temperature before 50-100 years ago, we have to guess. It’s not a blind guess, though, since we can use so-called “proxies.” These are chemical and physical measurements known to be correlated with air temperature. We can tally these over geologic times and plug them into a statistical model that predicts what the temperatures were. There is nothing wrong with this except for two things. Here it gets a bit technical.

No statistical guess should be stripped of its uncertainty. We don’t want the temperature guess alone, we want it with a plus-or-minus the guess attached. The first problem is that these plus-and-minuses are almost always absent. The result is over-certainty in statements about what the past was compared with the present. Sometimes uncertainty in the temperature guesses is provided, but it’s the wrong kind of uncertainty, the wrong plus-or-minuses.

All these statistical models have innards called parameters, which are nothing more than mathematical “dials” necessary for the equations to work out. Unfortunately, a fallacy has become ingrained in science that these parameters directly represent or are reality. This fallacy is so ubiquitous that I call it the Cult of the Parameter. The fallacy is harmful because the plus-and-minus bounds to reality are necessarily larger than the plus-or-minus bounds to model parameters (usually 4 to 8 times larger). The result is always dramatic over-certainty.

And it’s still worse. The models take proxy measurements, but the uncertainty in the time those proxies were laid down in history is always discarded in the statistical models. How do you know the proxy you measured was 1.10 and not 1.11 million years ago? Answer: you don’t.

The end result is to make temperature guesses appear smooth and uncomplicated, which is an illusion. That illusion makes it easier for (actually measured) temperatures in modern times to appear more variable. And that makes it easier to appear that we are hotter now, even if we’re not. Add to that the observations that modern records are continually being tweaked by scientists (and strangely always in a direction that makes it appears colder then and warmer now), and it’s no surprise to hear talk of “record temperatures.”

Global Warming Polar Bear - 400Now if we only go by the satellite record, it’s quite easy to be in a “record-breaking” year, for the trivial reason that there only a few years on the books. Every year stands a good chance at breaking some kind of atmospheric record. But because of the entire geologic record, the chance of breaking real records is not even remote; it’s nearly impossible.

Scientists know all these facts, yet some still make the statement that this year will be (or could be) the hottest. They say it while knowing it isn’t true. Why?

(Those who want more technical detail can go here to learn about the BEST project’s statistical reconstruction of historical temperatures, which is touted to be the “best” but which commits the errors noted here.)

Claim Number Two: Natural Variation Caused A “Pause”

The American Meteorological Society is, or rather was, the preeminent organization for those who study weather and climate. Its official organ is known as BAMS, the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. BAMS is used to impart news items of interest and the like, but it also publishes review articles on the state of science.

Now the AMS has, like nearly all other government-money-dependent scientific organizations, given up all pretense of physics and has instead embraced politics as its raison d’etre. So far removed from its original mission is the AMS that they are publishing a BAMS review article by two non-scientist ideologues and one scientist who writes mostly about politics. The title is “The ‘Pause’ in Global Warming: Turning a Routine Fluctuation into a Problem for Science.

The authors are Stephan Lewandowsky, a psychologist who specializes in gimmicked surveys, Naomi Oreskes, a historian who believes in a vast right-wing conspiracy, and James Risbey, a real climatologist who spends much of his time wondering why everybody doesn’t agree with him (he has more than one paper with Lewandowsky and Oreskes on this theme).

The point of this new paper is the same as all of Lewandowsky’s works. He wants to paint detractors of The Consensus as crazy or oil-industry stooges. For these authors, and for many, the mere fact that government-funded scientists have said a problem with the atmosphere exists and that only government can solve it is more than sufficient proof of the contention. Any who disagree must be doing so out of ignorance, insanity or evil intent. That their position on the science might be wrong never occurs to them.

Satelite - 400And they are wrong. Their claim is that the (satellite) observed non-increase in global temperatures over the past two decades was caused by any or some combination of these: “natural variations,” El Niño, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, “random” or “routine fluctuations” and the like. They say that if these “causes” did not exist, the temperatures would have increased just as they were predicted to under the theory of enhanced-feedback carbon-oxide-driven (EFCOD) global warming.

Do you see the fallacy? They use the absence of predicted increases as proof the increases were really there, but in masked or modified form! To them, the repeated, consistent and egregiously mistaken predictions made by climate models are true no matter what because EFCOD global warming is true no matter what. It used to be in science that when a theory made predictions even as fractionally lousy as EFCOD global warming, it was quietly removed from service. But global warming can’t be dropped. There is too much riding on it remaining in force.

And this is not the only or even the worst fallacy. Having faith in lovingly created but failed theories is an error, but it is an understandable human foible. No one wants to disown his child, no matter how ugly. Our response to a scientist who doesn’t want to give up his life’s work should be pity, not condemnation.

But making statements physically impossible is not forgivable, not for those who call themselves physicists. The real blunder is this. Scientists claimed to understand how the atmosphere worked. Based on this understanding, they said that “disruptive,” “dangerous” global warming would soon be upon us. It didn’t happen. What went wrong? El Niño, they say.

Climate Change - 400But El Niño, “natural fluctuations” and the like are not things separate from the atmosphere. They are part of the atmosphere. These things are nothing more than human-labels given to particular measures of the atmosphere. El Niño is not a primary cause, it is an effect, an observation. “Natural fluctuations” means “what the atmosphere does.” Thus it is a tautology, an observation empty of scientific content, to say “what the atmosphere does” caused “what the atmosphere did.”

These “routine fluctuations” and the like are part of what the scientists said they already understood. They are not alien entities that arrive unexpectedly and upset theory; they are, or should have been, an integral part of EFCOD global-warming theory. These things are the atmosphere, they are the climate.

It is thus clear that scientists who blame these phenomena for their failings don’t know what they are talking about. They said they understood the atmosphere, and here is proof they did not. So why should we continue to believe them when they say, “The time to act is now”?

We now see that the word “pause” is a terrible misnomer, a circularity. It states what it seeks to prove. To say there is a “pause” is to claim that we know why the atmosphere is doing what it is doing. But if that were so, then the models over the past two decades would have made successful predictions. They made atrocious predictions, and they are growing worse. That means to say there is a “pause” is equivalent to we know global warming is there because we can’t see it.

It is well past the time to move on from EFCOD global warming and return to doing real science.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • doseofcommonsense

    “we know global warming is there because we can’t see it.” Brilliant! Right up there with Manbearpig is hiding in the deep oceans and will be emerging soon to destroy us. Trust us.

    • swishmeister

      doseofcommonsense — Sweeeeet!!! 🙂

    • Mollie Norris

      ….and always check under your bed for monsters, and continue ignoring those who control the media.

  • Mike435

    The claim being made is that 2015 will likely be the warming year in the instrumental record which goes back to about 1880. It is however also true that the last 20 years were probably the warmest in thousands of years. Of course it has been hotter is the distant past; the Earth started as a ball of molten rock! As for the pause, it was a slowdown in the surface warming trend between 1999 and 2013, not a reversal. It is not even clear that it is statistically significant. It in no way contracts the claim that this year will be the warmest on record.

    • conscious1

      The 18+ plateau in the satellite record of the Troposphere is statistically significant. It is proof natural variation dominates CO2’s weak signal and proof CO2 couldn’t be responsible for additional warming of the oceans or surface.

      • Mike435

        The article is about surface temperature. On the satellite record see: [they do not seem to allow links here so Google: “One satellite data set is underestimating global warming”.]

        • conscious1

          You seem to be suggesting the pause is not meaningful. It has invalidated climate model projections as being erroneous. Even if the long term trend resumes there is no way temperatures can get back to the mean. It would take decades of unprecedented warming to get back to the model mean. Climate alarmism has no empirical basis as a result of the pause. Most all climate scientists have acknowledged the pause. You seem to be having trouble with that. Why?

          • Mike435

            Your comment lacks any basis in reality. You know this.

          • conscious1

            Please look at the CMIP5 model spaghetti ensemble graph vs observations. Extend the long term warming trend forward and see what you get vs projections. The reality is we would have to warm at unprecedented rates to get to the future model mean. Climate models have overstated CO2’s effect and are not being corrected to reflect empirical reality.

            What I know is that you have not provided any substance to support your position.

          • Mike435

            The warming is well within the expected range. It the rate was slowed by natural variations, it will be increased as these reverse. If the rate was slowed by aerosols, since their residence time in the atmosphere is short, it only means we will pass 2C a few years later than expected.

            You can Google “Comparing CMIP5 & observations” if you want to learn about CIMP5. The dribble you found on denier blogs has no basis in reality. Why would it?

          • conscious1

            You didn’t actually do what I suggested did you? Extending the long term trend puts future observations at the bottom of projections, not well within the expected range.

            The current trend in climate sensitivity is for much lower values than the IPCC promotes. A recent paper showed aerosols where over estimated in effect. This also means CO2 was not being buffered as much.

            How is the rate of warming going to increase when solar scientists are predicting a grand solar minimum and the AMO has likely peaked and may be going into a cool phase?

          • Mike435

            It was already clear that you do not know what you are talking about. There was no need to provide more evidence. Repeating false claims you picked up in blogs does not help your cause.

          • conscious1

            What’s clear is that you are not current on the state of climate science.

          • Craig King

            Quite correct. He is stuck in the SkS zone of activist strangeness.

          • mikebartnz

            Quote *It was already clear that you do not know what you are talking about.
            There was no need to provide more evidence. Repeating false claims you
            picked up in blogs does not help your cause.*
            What are you? Just a horrible little narcissist.

          • Mike435

            Good of you not to defend c’s unsupported claims. That underscores my point.

          • mikebartnz

            You really are deluded as he gave you something to look at but you either refused to or were just too blind to see it but still prattled on from your story book.

          • Mike435

            He has not provided any references. He has not even challenged my original points. Briggs is engaging in a false and dishonest argument. No one is claiming ” that this year will be the hottest ever” in earth’s history. The claim is that it will be the hottest year in the instrumental record that goes back to about 1880. And there is no inconstancy between the rate of warming temporally slowing (but not reversing) and hitting a few record high this year.

          • mikebartnz

            Quote of yours from above *and it would have little effect on the rate of global warming.*
            After saying that you just aren’t even worth conversing with.

          • Mike435

            That’s because I follow the science and you do not. I gave reference to UCAR. You did not give any. What is more likely, the world’s scientists are engaging in the biggest hoax of all time, or your ideology has clouded your thinking?

          • mikebartnz

            Quote *That’s because I follow the science and you do not.*
            Said like a good little narcissist.

          • conscious1

            My reason for posting was to challenge your claim that the pause isn’t statistically significant. I think I’ve given plenty of reasons why that isn’t so.

            Mann’s Faux pause piece proves my point that natural variation dominates CO2’s weak signal. He is saying climate models would be correct if you ignore what is happening in the real world. Natural variation can stay in state long enough to produce ice ages. It can’t be dismissed as noise. It is what has controlled climate on all time scales.

          • Mike435

            You are not able to read the papers by Mann and Dolinar et al.

          • conscious1

            ?? I’ve studied climate science for 18 years by reading peer reviewed papers. If you are suggesting I can’t understand these you would be wrong.

          • Mike435

            You have no idea what you reading.

          • conscious1

            Baseless comments are all you have.

            You don’t understand the significance of the paper Voodude referenced or what Mann’s paper actually means. He is validating my point that natural variation dominates CO2’s small effect. The dominant drivers of climate can’t be dismissed as noise that will balance out with a zero net effect compared to CO2.

          • Mike435

            Cycles are cycles. They go up, they go down. Hence, they have no net effect on the long term warming trend.

          • conscious1

            As I’ve pointed out before, cycles can stay in state long enough to produce ice ages or rapidly pull us out of them. The geologic history of earth shows no evidence of the balance you are suggesting. There are long term warming and cooling cycles with short term ones embedded. We are in a long term cooling trend that could be reversed if we continue to warm.

          • Mike435

            Cycles that extend over many thousands of years are not relevant to the present discussion. You are deflecting.

          • conscious1

            So you think the cycles of nature will defer to the 0.04% of the atmosphere made up of CO2?

            The geologic record clearly shows that natural variation dominates CO2. Ice core records show that CO2 levels are always at peak values when global cooling begins. Ice ages have started with CO2 at 10x current levels.

            How is stating relevant facts deflecting?

          • BigWaveDave

            The “evidence” used to back up the ghg myth is the temperature record of part of a cycle.

          • Mike435

            Were you trying to make sense?

          • mikebartnz

            That little Mann is a complete fraud so no I wouldn’t waste my time reading anything of his.

          • Mike435

            You are showing your bias.

          • mikebartnz

            and you haven’t. :((

          • Mike435

            That is correct. Here is how you can tell that my political views, which are left of center, are not driving my assessment of climate science. On other issues where the left tends to be anti-science, like nuclear power, fracking, and GM food, I still support the science which says these are safe. I think the left wasted a lot of time and effort opposing the Keystone pipeline. That effort could have gone into something useful like supporting the Smart Grid Act: [S.1232 – Smart Grid Act of 2015].

          • mikebartnz

            No while commendable you have still shown a complete bias in regards to CAGW.
            In the 2030’s when you are freezing your butt off you will look back and wonder how you got suckered into it all.

          • Mike435

            When a reasonable person runs out of arguments, they pause and consider the possibility that they could be wrong. Good luck.

          • mikebartnz

            Mirror mirror

          • mikebartnz

            As for the temperature records I have very serious doubts about their quality.
            It is only since the fifties that thermometers of any accuracy have come into effect.
            You have the case of phantom weather stations in the USA.
            Paraguay’s and Australian temperature records definitely looks dodgy.

            A case in point locally is a few years ago they moved our station to the airport. Well I used to do gliding there and one time while in the landing circuit we struck an updraught that was so strong that even with full air brakes on we were rising at an impressive rate. That updraught was caused by heat.

            NOAA have created 114 pristine weather station sites with all the latest gear for complete accuracy and yet they are not quoting the data coming from them as they are recording two degrees less.

          • Mike435

            Your “serious doubts” are of no concern to me. Why would they be? The temp records are done by independent research groups and their methods are published in the scientific literature.

          • mikebartnz

            It is going to be interesting when the study into the temperature records has been completed. You may just have to be a little concerned then

          • conscious1

            Everything I stated is supported and you would know this if you had actually studied climate science.

          • Mike435

            But (1) you do not provide evidence and (2) your claims are mostly irrelevant. Is the AMO about to peak? Could be. But it is hardly the only ocean cycle. Will the sun go into a “grand minimum”? There’s been some solar scientists suggesting this – but there is no consensus – and it would have little effect on the rate of global warming.

            We cannot post links here, but it is still possible to give sources as I have done.

            “Isn’t the Sun going into a quiet period? Wouldn’t a “Grand Minimum” cool Earth down?” – UCAR

            “Climate Oscillations and the Global Warming Faux Pause” – MM at RC

          • Voodude

            ALL of “Global Warming” is about ½W (per square metre). Hansen 2011 said 0.58, Stephens 2012 said 0.6, Trenberth, Fasullo, Kiehl 2009 said 0.9W.

            Dolinar et al. 2014 took the latest climate CMIP5 models, “and compared [them] with multiple satellite observations”

            Models differed from observations by -0.9 W/m^2, at the top of the atmosphere, for outgoing long-wave radiation. The error is the same size as all of “Global Warming”

            The models differed from the satellite observations by 1.8 W/m^2 at the top of the atmosphere for reflected short-wave radiation. That difference is twice the size of “Global Warming”

            Dolinar, Erica K., et al. 2014 “Evaluation of CMIP5 simulated clouds and TOA radiation budgets using NASA satellite observations” Climate Dynamics

          • Mike435

            It is well known that clouds are the largest source of uncertainly in climate models. This paper is just looking for ways to reduce this.

            “Through a comprehensive error analysis, we found that CF is a primary modulator of warming (or cooling) in the atmosphere. The comparisons and statistical results from this study may provide helpful insight for improving GCM simulations of clouds and TOA radiation budgets in future versions of CMIP.”

          • conscious1

            The paper quantifies through empirical measurements some of the errors that led models to project more warming than has been observed . Will you concede my point that models have overstated CO2’s effect based on this real world evidence?

          • Mike435

            No one knows if the mean estimates of models over or under state the long term warming. But the observed warming is within the projected range. If it turns out that the warming is on the lower end of that range, we will still face major disruptions to the climate system and oceans. Thus, a policy response is warranted.

          • conscious1

            The observed warming is almost out of range for the lowest 3 models out of 114. You are wrong about being in range. The divergence is increasing with time.

            Nature adapts to 100F+ swings annually no problem. The worst case scenario based on current science would be about 3F by 2100. Significant disruptions are not possible from such a gradual change.

            The paper you refuse to accept is an important advancement in tuning the models and should lead to a large downgrade in projections.

          • Mike435

            Your fabrications are of no significance.

          • conscious1

            Your delusions are magnificent.

          • Craig King

            You keep on telling yourself that Mike. In the meantime the measurements, you know that stuff called data, don’t agree with you. If getting louder, more aggressive and abrasive would change reality then it would be much warmer today.

            The models, as I am sure Mosher would agree, contain all of the scientific understanding of the climate that there is today. The models are running way hot which is indicative of something fundamentally adrift in the understanding.

            I am sure that your claims of the data being wrong seem patently “off beam” even to you.

          • Mike435

            I have no idea what Steve Mosher’s opinion is, but I doubt very much that “Models … contain all of the scientific understanding of the climate that there is today.” You can Google, RealClimate “FAQ on models”, to learn how scientists use climate models. I have no idea what data you think I disagree with. Recent surface temperature trends have been on the low end of model projections. But climate models were not designed to be accurate on short time scales. Nor are they very good at regional levels. During some periods the global temperature will increase faster and other times slower than mean model projections. Models may get better at decade time scales in future – people are working hard on this. But multiple lines of evidence show that increasing CO2 will increase surface temps and bring major risks if allowed to continue unmitigated. Fortunately, most of the world understands this now, and governments and businesses are taking action to reduce ghg emissions.

          • Voodude

            “well known” that clouds are the largest uncertainty … but what quantifications? Clouds affect the earth’s albedo, and less than a 1% increase in albedo would offset all of “Global Warming” … yet

            ”Most models are a within a factor of 2 of the observed means.”

            “A diverse collection of models are … run in forecast mode … The models are compared to … when aircraft observations were being made … and with mean satellite observations from the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer-EOS (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite …[also, the models are compared to data]from the NASA CloudSat … [and also compared to data] … from the ship- based radiometer measurements of the R/V Ron Brown ”
            ”Most of the models simulate cloud and aerosol characteristics, and gradients across the region, that are recognizably similar to observations , ….”

            Hey, those look like clouds!

            ”Some models simulate the regional low cloud cover well, though many models underestimate MBL (marine boundary layer) depth near the coast.”
            ”Most models qualitatively simulate the observed offshore gradients of SO2, sulfate aerosol, CCN (cloud condensation nuclei) concentration in the MBL as well as differences in concentration between the MBL and the free troposphere. Most models also qualitatively capture the decrease in cloud droplet number away from the coast. However, there are large quantitative intermodel differences in both means and gradients of these quantities. ”

            Wyant, M. C., et al. 2015 “Global and regional modeling of clouds and aerosols in the marine boundary layer during VOCALS: the VOCA inter comparison.” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

          • Mike435

            (1) It could be that the cloud response will reduce the impact of the greenhouse effect, but it could be that the cloud response will make it even worse. The only way to know for sure is to jack up the greenhouse gases (or gasses) and see what happens. But, that would be dumbest experiment imaginable. The point is we should reduce emissions and not take such a crazy risk.

            (2) If cloud cover increases, the amount of light getting to the surface decreases. What would be the impact of decreased light on plant life? I do not know the answer, but it seems that would be worth looking into.

            (3) The clouds will not impact ocean acidification. However, decreased light could reduce plankton growth and hence decrease the rate carbon is removed from the oceans, exacerbating acidification.

            (4) Clouds block light during the day, but trap heat at night. This would tend to decrease the difference between daytime highs and night-time lows. What would the impact of that be? (CO2 also has this effect, but not to the same degree as clouds.)

          • Voodude

            “(1) It could be that the cloud response will reduce the impact of the greenhouse effect, but it could be that the cloud response will make it even worse.”

            Do you have any reference material to back up your musings?

            Not only do clouds affect the climate, but clouds effect the climate (pun intended). The earth has a system of dynamic control – Clouds act to thermostatically regulate the temperature. On cool days, less clouds form. On hot days, clouds form earlier, and more strongly. Observe Figure 2, Vertical distribution of cloud incidence, from Li, Ying, et al. 2014 “A global survey of the instantaneous linkages between cloud vertical structure and large‐scale climate.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

            IPCC AR5 WG1 Ch 7: ”7.2.1.2 Effects of Clouds on the Earth’s Radiation Budget ”
            ”The effect of clouds on the Earth’s present-day top of the atmosphere (TOA) radiation budget, or cloud radiative effect (CRE), … By enhancing the planetary albedo, cloudy conditions exert a global and annual short-wave cloud radiative effect (SWCRE) of approximately –50 W m–2 and, by contributing to the greenhouse effect, exert a mean longwave effect (LWCRE) of approximately +30 W m–2, … The net global mean CRE of approximately –20 W m–2 implies a net cooling effect of clouds on the current climate.”

            ”7.5.4 Cloud Brightening
            Boundary layer clouds act to cool the planet, and relatively small changes in cloud albedo, lifetime, or areal extent can have profound effects on the energy budget of the planet (e.g., Slingo, 1990). Latham (1990)”

            Schmidt of NASA: ”Clouds, of course, also interfere with incoming sunlight, reflecting it back out to space, making their net effect one of cooling, …”

            ”Overall, clouds appear to cool the Earth-atmosphere system. The global mean cooling varied from 14 to 21 W m−2 between April 1985 and January 1986. Hemispherically, the longwave and shortwave cloud forcing nearly cancel each other in the winter hemisphere, while in the summer the negative shortwave cloud forcing is significantly lower than the longwave cloud forcing, producing a strong cooling. Thus clouds significantly reduce the seasonal changes in the net radiative heating of the planet. This reduction is particularly strong over the mid- and high-latitude oceans, where they reduce the summer and spring solar heating by as much as 100–150 W m−2. In the low latitudes, the longwave and shortwave cloud forcing reach peak values over the convectively disturbed regions and tend to offset each other to a large extent. This feature, when combined with the large cooling effect over mid- and high-latitude oceans, leads to the conclusion that clouds significantly reduce the equator-to-pole radiative heating gradient of the planet during spring and summer. In the tropical convective regions the large magnitudes of the shortwave and longwave forcing and the near cancellation of the two suggest that clouds have a significant influence on the vertical distribution of heating between the atmosphere and the surface. Thus the ERBE data reveal that globally, hemispherically, and zonally, clouds have a significant effect on the radiative heating gradients.”

            ”Cloudiness is a pivotal variable for the balance of Earth’s radiant energy. Clouds reflect incoming solar (shortwave) radiation, increasing the planetary albedo significantly above the clear-sky value. This effect serves to cool the Earth- atmosphere system. On the other hand, clouds absorb long- wave radiation emitted at relatively high temperatures by the Earth’s surface. They then reradiate to space at lower temperatures, which depend on cloud height and optical thickness. The reduction of the longwave flux to space by clouds produces a net heating of the Earth-atmosphere system. This is commonly referred to as the greenhouse effect.”

            Harrison, E. F., et al. 1990 “Seasonal variation of cloud radiative forcing derived from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

          • Mike435

            Point (1) is self evident. We do not know if greenhouse warming will cause more cloud cover or less cloud cover. The altitude of clouds also affect whether they warm or cool. Here are two references pinting toward positive cloud feefbacks, but the issue is not settled.

            Axel Lauer, Kevin Hamilton, Yuqing Wang, Vaughan T. J. Phillips, and Ralf Bennartz, 2010: The Impact of Global Warming on Marine Boundary Layer Clouds over the Eastern Pacific—A Regional Model Study. J. Climate, 23, 5844–5863.

            “The present iRAM results for cloud feedbacks in the east Pacific provide some support for the high end of current estimates of global climate sensitivity.”

            Science. 24 July 2009: Vol. 325, no. 5939, pp. 460-464, Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback, Amy C. Clement, Robert Burgman, Joel R. Norris

            “This observational analysis further indicated that clouds act as a positive feedback in this region
            on decadal time scales. The observed relationships between cloud cover and regional meteorological conditions provide a more complete way of testing the realism of the cloud simulation in current-generation climate models.”

          • Voodude

            Your (2) and (3) are about clouds and plants. Plants, mostly, tend to absorb visible yellow light, some green light. The effect of clouds cooling the earth, however, is more significant in the blue to ultraviolet spectrum. “Clouds block light” is a bit of an overstatement.

          • Mike435

            Wrong. “Visible light ranges from low blue to far-red light and is described as the
            wavelengths between 380 nm and 750 nm, although this varies between individuals.
            The region between 400 nm and 700 nm is what plants use to drive photosynthesis
            and is typically referred to as Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR).”

            Clouds reduce PAR.

          • Voodude

            “Since clouds do not absorb significantly at PAR wavelengths, the radiative transfer modeling is generally simplified compared to that for total insolation.”

            Frouin, Robert, and Rachel T. Pinker 1995. “Estimating photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) at the earth’s surface from satellite observations.” Remote Sensing of Environment

            Try again?

          • Mike435

            Clouds reflect PAR light. They are white!

            “Noting that cloud reflectivity is fairly
            constant across ultraviolet and PAR wavelengths and
            that clouds do not absorb radiation significantly at ultraviolet
            and PAR wavelengths,…” Frouin & Pinker. Jeez!

          • Mike435

            Now, I think this point pretty well shows you are in denial. You skimmed through some paper you found, a pulled out something so absurd that a eight year ago can see it is wrong. Clouds do not absorb much visible light, but we know they reflect it because any fool can see they are white! But you latched on to your misreading of a technical paper even though it is obviously contradicted by everyday observations. The paper itself even explains that clouds reflect PAR. Why did your mind miss that? Why did you fall into such an absurd contradiction? It is not because you or stupid or ignorant, you are neither. The only explanation I can think of is psychological denial. Ponder that.

          • Voodude

            PAR is so far afield, I really don’t give a gnat’s mass.
            My original point is totally valid, plants use mostly the green and yellow, clouds reflect the shorter wavelengths. Sure, clouds do attenuate the flux necessary for plant growth. I pointed out that it was lopsided, not absent.

          • Mike435

            Proof you are in denial. Clouds are white. They reflect all part of the viable spectrum or they would not be white.

          • Voodude

            Your visual acuity is lacking- humans don’t see ultraviolet.

          • Mike435

            Non sequitur.

          • Voodude

            “It is known that, through absorption processes, water vapour and cloud cover markedly affect longer wavelengths, leaving the spectral PAR portion unaltered, … the small amount of cloud and water vapor during the winter months resulted in the lowest PAR fraction.”

            Wang, Lunche, et al. 2014 “Photosynthetically active radiation and its relationship with global solar radiation in Central China.” International journal of biometeorology

          • Mike435

            “…lowest PAR fraction.” Not the lowest absolute amount.

          • Mollie Norris

            Wood disproved the atmospheric analogy to the greenhouse effect in 1909, an this has been repeated several times since then; greenhouses warm by eliminating convection; they’re closed systems. Molecules we refer to as greenhouse gases absorb and emit radiation in the IR due to low-energy vibrational transitions. ‘m sure you know this, but references to the greenhouse effect are an example of the level of scientific ignorance that characterize the debate.

          • Chris Schoneveld

            You say:’ It the rate was slowed by natural variations” why couldn’t the higher rate before the slowing down be caused by natural variation as well? Indeed, the frequency and strength of El Ninos between 1975 and 1998 was higher then then in the last 17 years. It seems illogical to assume that natural variations only cause the slowing down of the global average temperatures but not the acceleration of temperatures.

          • Mike435

            Both happen. This has been known by climate scientists for decades. Since some of the cycles, like El Nino/La Nina, are stochastic models cannot say when they will happen. So, models won’t be that good over one or two decades, but are valid over longer periods. Global warming slowed for a while and now seems to be picking up. There will be other slow periods, maybe even even brief cooling spells. But the long term trend is for warming due to the greenhouse gasses we have put in the atmosphere.

          • Chris Schoneveld

            “But the long term trend is for warming due to the greenhouse gasses we have put in the atmosphere.” “Due to”? The correlation between CO2 rise and temperature trend is far from convincing. Sure, CO2 is a greenhouse gas (1 C/per doubling) but negative feedbacks may dampen its effect (positive feedbacks are intrinsically unnatural).

          • BigWaveDave

            What is the physical basis for 1C per doubling? All of the explanations I’ve seen presume “back radiation” maintains the temperature differential through the depth of the troposphere; which from a thermodynamics standpoint is pure nonsense.

          • Voodude

            The plural of gas is gases. One “s”, not two. “Gasses” is what you do when filling your mo-ped with petrol.

          • Mike435

            “plural gas·es also gas·ses”

            Merriam-Webester Dictionary

          • Voodude

            You suggested “Comparing CMIP5 & Observations”

            Remember, all of “Global Warming” is less than 1 watt; this shows errors of 15-20W

            ” (4) On average, current CMIP5 [Earth System Models] overestimated [observed surface incident solar radiation] over China by 15–20 W m-2. CMIP5 [Earth System Models] cannot accurately simulate monthly to annual [observed surface incident solar radiation] variability due to their poor performance in simulating seasonal cloud variability.”

            Wang, Kaicun, et al. 2015 “Decadal Variability of Surface Incident Solar Radiation over China: Observations, Satellite Retrievals, and Reanalyses.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

          • Voodude

            Further comparing “CMIP5 and observations”

            Nov 2014: “The global mean [Altocumulus] along-track horizontal scale is 40.2 km, with a standard deviation of 52.3 km. Approximately 93.6% of [Altocumulus] cannot be resolved by climate models with a grid resolution of 1°. The global mean mixed-phase [Altocumulus] vertical depth is 1.96 km, with a standard deviation of 1.10 km.”

            Zhang, Damao, et al. 2014 “Spatial scales of altocumulus clouds observed with collocated CALIPSO and CloudSat measurements” Atmospheric Research

            But, you must know…

            “Only two of 44 models produced since 2006 have a grid resolution better than 1°”

            Qian Ma et al. 2014 “Evaluations of atmospheric downward longwave radiation from 44 coupled general circulation models of CMIP5” Journal of Geophysical Research, Atmospheres

            Even using today’s fastest supercomputers, a single run of a high-resolution model takes three months.

            “Further down the line, Wehner says scientists will be running climate models with 1 km resolution. To do that, they will have to have a better understanding of how clouds behave.”

            But they don’t have that understanding, now.

          • Mike435

            I get it. You do not understand climate science. There is no need to keep piling up more and more evidence of this.

          • Voodude

            And another slam against CMIP5 models, vs observations:

            “CMIP5 [General Circulation Models] do not have the capability to accurately simulate monthly anomalies of [downward longwave radiation]”

            “In addition, the low capability [of the models] to simulate seasonal variation of clouds [Zhang et al., 2005], in particular, low clouds, also contributes the poor agreement of monthly anomalies of simulated and observed [downward longwave radiation].”

            “The correlation coefficients between monthly modelled, and observed [downward longwave radiation] anomalies are near zero for all [of the General Circulation Models]. This shows that all the [General Circulation Models] do not have the capability to accurately depict monthly anomalies of [downward longwave radiation], caused by changes in clouds, air temperature, and water vapor pressure in the lower atmosphere.”

            ”The quality of [downward longwave radiation] observations before the establishment of [Baseline Surface Radiation Network] standards was even worse, and its uncertainty may be larger than ±20 W m2 [Philipona et al., 1998]. After [Baseline Surface Radiation Network] standards has been set up in the early 1990s, the uncertainty of Ld observations is narrowed to ±10 W m2 or even smaller on monthly time scale. … The uncertainty includes random error, and systematic error.”

            The paper documents “ …the [General Circulation Models’] poor performance in simulating seasonal variation of clouds and monthly anomalies of air temperature and water vapor.”

            Ma, Qian, Kaicun Wang, and Martin Wild 2014. “Evaluations of atmospheric downward longwave radiation from 44 coupled general circulation models of CMIP5.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

          • Mike435

            Are you trying to make a point? The weakness of climate models in dealing with cloud is well known. They are not good are short term or regional forecasts. Coulds are the main source of uncertainty in estimating climate sensitivity. But global temps continue to rise in line, more or less, with model projections. The slowdown in surface warming was likely due to natural ocean cycles and seems to be accelerating again now (though it is too soon to be sure). From a policy point of view it is insane to ignore the risk and just hope all the models and paleoclimate work is wrong.

          • Voodude

            From NASA, regarding the “warm pool”: “… the more researchers study the Earth’s oceans and atmosphere, the more they are finding that such large-scale cyclical, and near-cyclical variations in ocean temperature and air pressure appear to occur all across the planet at many time scales. Some can stir up the weather across half the globe, while others may only affect the coasts of a single country. Some recur twice every decade on average, while others come around every year.”

            This is more documentation, from NASA, that the climate models aren’t programmed for simulation of globally-dominating, natural weather patterns, like the “warm pool” discussed here…

            ”Scientists found that, over a period of roughly two decades, the warm pool’s average annual temperatures and dimensions increase and then decrease like a slowly pulsating beacon.”

            The size of the warm pool waxes and wanes over a period of about a decade. During this time, the excess heat circles around the Pacific and Indian Oceans. The above maps show sea surface temperature anomaly (the difference between normal conditions and measured conditions) before, during, and after a peak in the size and strength of the warm pool. Excess heat circles from the eastern Pacific along the coast of North and South America, to the northern and southern Pacific Ocean, to the West Pacific and Indian Oceans, and back.”

          • Voodude

            “…Google “Comparing CMIP5 & observations” if you want to learn about CIMP5…”

            ENSO is the biggest known natural cyclic variable to the earth’s climate. Here, 27 CMIP5 models show that ENSO response to CO2 increases is …

            ”Changes to the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and its atmospheric teleconnections under climate change are investigated using simulations conducted for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). The overall response to CO2 increases is determined using 27 models, and the ENSO amplitude change based on the multi-model mean is indistinguishable from zero.”

            Stevenson, S. L. 2012 “Significant changes to ENSO strength and impacts in the twenty‐first century: Results from CMIP5.” Geophysical Research Letters

            ENSO admissions by the IPCC:

            ”The statistics of the global monsoon, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the Indian Ocean Dipole and the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation are simulated well by several models, although this assessment is tempered by the limited scope of analysis published so far, or by limited observations. There are also modes of variability that are not simulated well. These include modes of Atlantic Ocean variability of relevance to near term projections in Chapter 11 and ENSO teleconnections outside the tropical Pacific, of relevance to Chapter 14. There is high confidence that the multi-model statistics of monsoon and ENSO have improved since the AR4. However, this improvement does not occur in all models, and process-based analysis shows that biases remain in the background state and in the strength of associated feedbacks. {9.5.3, Figures 9.32, 9.35, 9.36}”

          • Mike435

            So the global warming trend cannot be explained by natural cycles. Good point. Something else must be causing it. Hmmm?

          • Voodude

            Models, including CMIP5, cannot simulate ENSO, the earth’s #1 climate cycle.

            Modelling CO2 increases has no effect on ENSO.

            Well, you are good at aviding the obvious.

          • Voodude

            I have to fit this in, somewhere:

            ”The El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is Earth’s dominant interannual climate fluctuation, affecting agriculture, ecosystems, and weather around the globe.”

            ”there is no guarantee that the 150 yr historical SST record is a fully representative target for model development. …”

            “In any case, it is sobering to think that, even absent any anthropogenic changes, the future of ENSO could look very different from what we have seen so far.”

            Wittenberg, Andrew T. 2009 “Are historical records sufficient to constrain ENSO simulations?.” Geophysical Research Letters

            So, not only do models do a poor job at modelling ENSO, it appears as if we don’t have enough ENSO records to determine a pattern – which means modelling will never work … at least not for ENSO.

          • Voodude

            This one, too:

            Georgia Institute of Technology 2014: ”Scientists see a large amount of variability in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) when looking back at climate records from thousands of years ago. Without a clear understanding of what caused past changes in ENSO variability, predicting the climate phenomenon’s future is a difficult task.”

          • Voodude

            “Note that Wittenberg (2009) and Stevenson et al. (2010) show that a minimum of 300 to 500 years is necessary to accurately evaluate the ENSO spectrum. As reliable observational records are still quite short, even the real ENSO spectrum remains uncertain.”

            Bellenger, Hugo, et al. 2014 “ENSO representation in climate models: from CMIP3 to CMIP5.” Climate Dynamics

            …and…

            ”… Values in the ENSO band [were] two times higher than observed.”

            Canevari, Suzanne Demars 2014. “Comparing Proxy Versus Simulated Data Records of Past Climate Using an Energy Balance Model.”

          • Voodude

            “…weakness of climate models in dealing with cloud is well known.…”

            BEYOND dealing with clouds, even though, Stephens 2012 shows that a 2.3% error in just the LW effect of clouds is more than enough to counter all of “Global Warming”…

            ”Overestimations of summer rainfall occur over Southern Africa in all CMIP5 models. Abnormal westward extensions of ENSO patterns are a common feature of all CMIP5 models, while the warming of the Indian Ocean that happens during El Niño is not correctly reproduced.”

            Dieppois, Bastien, Mathieu Rouault, and Mark New 2015. “The impact of ENSO on Southern African rainfall in CMIP5 ocean atmosphere coupled climate models.” Climate Dynamics (2015): 1-18.

          • Mike435

            I point out that climate model are not very good on regional levels and you respond with an article that says exactly that. Hmmm?

          • Voodude

            That isn’t an evaluation of a regional model; that documents CMIP5 coupled models, failing. Nice try at deflection.

          • Mike435

            “Southern Africa” is a region. Duh!

          • Voodude

            So, are you suggesting that models, that never perform well in any region, yet they will work on the globe?

            Further evidence gathered by your recommendation, “You can Google “Comparing CMIP5 & observations” if you want to learn about CIMP5.

            A ratio of 6/10 of the new models have calculated values for an ENSO parameter that stay within 25% of the actual, observed value. The old models, used for the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, were only within 50% of the observed value.

            “65% of CMIP5 Niño-3 and Niño-4 ENSO amplitudes fall within 25% of the observed value …[Compare that] against 50% for CMIP3.”

            “Most models tend to underestimate ENSO-related interannual anomalies of the convective activity in the central Pacific.There is no clear improvement of the average value of the metric in CMIP5 compared to CMIP3 (~40% of ENSO-related convective activity falls within 25% of the observed value for both CMIP3 and CMIP5)…

            This spectral metric (Fig. 1d) hardly shows any change from CMIP3 to CMIP5.

            Note that Wittenberg (2009) and Stevenson et al. (2010) show that a minimum of 300 to 500 years is necessary to accurately evaluate the ENSO spectrum. As reliable observational records are still quite short, even the real ENSO spectrum remains uncertain.

            Some models simulate only 10% of El Niño events … while others reach values close to 100%.

            There is a deterioration of the simulation of the east Pacific average net surface flux (Fig. 5e) with an average error exceeding 40 Wm^-2 for Niño-3 region.

            The SST mean state in the tropical Pacific ocean exhibits errors of about 1.5°C on the average

            most models [are] underestimating the amplitude of [Bjerknes]feedback by 20 to 50%.

            Only 20% of CMIP3 and CMIP5 models fall within 25% of the observed value [of Bjerknes feedback]

            only 10% of CMIP3 and CMIP5 models fall within 25% of the observed value [for heat flux feedback]

            only half of CMIP5 models fall within 25% of the observed value [for latent heat flux feedback]

            CMIP3 and CMIP5 ensembles both poorly reproduce the observed shortwave feedback value of -7 Wm-2K-1, with ensemble average values close to zero.

            Only 3 of CMIP5 models display a αSW value within 25% of the observed one

            CMIP5 models still struggle to represent convection and cloud processes (e.g. 332 Jiang et al 2012). Yet, these processes are critical for the simulation of the shortwave feedback as showed by Lloyd et al (2011, 2012).

            This indicates that fundamental air-sea interactions responsible for ENSO amplitude are still poorly represented in CMIP5.

            25% (8) of CMIP5 models, however, have a Feedback score inferior to 1

            65% of CMIP5 models ENSO amplitude falls within 25% of the 510 observed value against 50% for CMIP3.”

            That is an improvement of about 2X; a little more than half of the new models are within 25%. The old models were within 50%
            Unfortunately, being within 25%, of the world’s most dominate climate cycle, the ENSO, doesn’t earn a passing grade.

            Bellenger, Hugo, et al. 2014 “ENSO representation in climate models: from CMIP3 to CMIP5.” Climate Dynamics

          • Mike435

            V: “So, are you suggesting that models, that never perform well in any region, yet they will work on the globe?”

            Of course. Where have you been? Do you not understand the idea of an average? Here is simple example. The first climate models did clouds by just having a uniform amount of “cloudiness” spread out over the global. For just capturing global average temp, these worked OK. It is just a net energy budget. Needless to say they sucked on the regional level. It is far easier to predict the global average temp than to predict the temp in a specific region.

            Look, I know you can copy paste scientific articles, but you do not know how to read them. They are hard to read. But if these articles you are finding (from Co2Science?) undermined the validity of GCMs, don’t you think the authors would say that? They do not. They say they are trying to improve the models so they can do a better job on regional level and shorter time scale.

            If you want to start learning about climate science look up “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Weart.

          • Voodude

            Mike, your comment, “The first climate models did clouds by just having a uniform amount of “cloudiness” spread out over the global. For just capturing global average temp, these worked OK. It is just a net energy budget.”

            No, those didn’t “work OK”.

            Earth’s climate is a balance between the sun’s incident radiation heating, and the earth’s losses to space (long wave, or infrared). This is called the “energy budget”.

            The incident radiation from the sun, the “Total Solar Irradiance” (TSI) was thought to be known, rather precisely, which might have supported your assertion on crude averages. Fröhlich asserted that TSI was known to 85 ppm (1978 to 2003) … that’s 0.0085% … but Kopp later declared that his value for TSI was far superior, and the value shifted 4.6 Watts – a shift that was thirty-nine times as large as the possible error that Fröhlich claimed. All of “Global Warming” is less than one Watt, and the input value shifted 4.6 Watts … Note, the heat input from the sun didn’t change, but the measured value shifted, due to instrumentation errors.

            So, all climate models prior to Kopp’s publication used an input value from the sun that was wrong, way wrong. Any approximation that those models made, that looked like earth’s average temperature were a result of compensating errors. The errors are so large, it is as if these ‘scientists’ couldn’t find their own rear ends, even if they used both hands.

            Kopp 2007 admitted that the value used for TSI was “chosen” (not measured, not calculated, but anus-exctractus aligned to a chosen value).

            ”… Temporal overlap between instruments contributing to the TSI data record allows the creation of a composite TSI record by normalization to a chosen absolute value.”

            Kopp, Greg, et al. 2007 “The TSI radiometer facility: absolute calibrations for total solar irradiance instruments.” Optical Engineering+ Applications

            The chosen value – Comment on Figure 2: ”All the time series were normalized to TIM at the 2008 solar cycle minimum…”

            Yeo, K. L., N. A. Krivova, and S. K. Solanki 2014. “Solar cycle variation in solar irradiance.” Space Science Reviews

            So, the input energy from the sun is not sufficiently quantified to enable any “Global Warming” at all. Anybody who says ‘the science is settled’ is misguided.

          • Voodude

            The finest calibration facility in the world (for TSI) is in Colorado’s Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, or LASP, commissioned a Total Solar Irradiance Radiometer calibration facility.

            It became operational in 2008. The best calibration before 2008 had uncertainties of nearly 0.3%; that is 4W/m^2 when considering a 1,360W/m^2 input.

            When you need to measure the earth’s imbalance, at around ½W, a measurement uncertainty of 4W is grossly insufficient. All the “energy budget” figures before 2008 were fiction.

            Kopp & Lean 2011: ”The most accurate value of total solar irradiance during the 2008 solar minimum period is 1360.8 ± 0.5 W m−2 … This value is significantly lower than the canonical value of 1365.4 ± 1.3 W m−2 established in the 1990s, which energy balance calculations and climate models currently use [circa 2010 used].”

            Notice that the values cited for two different models, don’t overlap at all … they differ by 4½ Watts per square metre from ACRIM to PMOD:

            Herrera, VM Velasco, B. Mendoza, and G. Velasco Herrera 2015. “Reconstruction and prediction of the total solar irradiance: From the Medieval Warm Period to the 21st century.” New Astronomy

            ”The measurements of SOVAP in the summer of 2010, yielded a TSI value of 1362.1W/m^2 with an uncertainty of ±2.4W/m^2 (k=1 ).”

            When you need to measure the heat budget, at around ½W of imbalance, a measurement uncertainty of 2.4W is insufficient.

            ”The actual absolute value of TSI is still a matter of debate.”

            Meftah, Mustapha, et al. 2014 “Sovap/picard, a spaceborne radiometer to measure the total solar irradiance.” Solar Physics

            According to Kopp & Lean 2011, who said the value is ±0.5, the largest value would be 1360.8+0.5=1361.3, yet the recent value from Wang 2015 is outside this range, at 1365.

            The latest claim of highly calibrated TSI measurement from Wang 2015:

            ”The relative uncertainty in the TSI measurements is 910 parts per million [0.091%].

            TSI values measured with TSIM/FY-3B are around 1365 W m−2”

            0.091% of 1365 is ∓1.242 W/m^2 … when all of “Global Warming” is less than 1W, the stated uncertainty is about twice that, and, competing measurements range over a ten-Watt span.

            Wang, Hongrui, et al. 2015 “Total Solar Irradiance Monitor for the FY-3B Satellite–Space Experiments and Primary Data Corrections.” Solar Physics

            So, the input energy from the sun is not sufficiently quantified to enable any “Global Warming” at all. Anybody who says ‘the science is settled’ is misguided.

          • Mike435

            Better measurements of baseline TSI, while interesting, make little difference is getting estimates in the change in global temps in response to a change in ghg levels. We know models have gotten the change roughly right because the world has in fact warmed as models predict.

          • Voodude

            “…the change in global temps in response to a change in ghg levels…”

            Greenhouse gases trap heat, like a blanket. That trapped heat comes from the TSI, the total solar irradiance. The uncertainty of ±2.4W cannot support 0.90W, 0.58W, or 0.60W conclusions of Trenberth, Hansen, and Stephens. At the very top, the input to the earth’s energy budget, the measurement of sunshine is not known, accurately enough, to support the conclusion. And yet, the TSI is known to the highest accuracy of any factor in the “energy budget” calculation.

          • Mike435

            The surface temps have increased about 1 C. If tomorrow we found out that all the thermometers were off by 10 C, this would not impact the estimate of the warming.

          • Voodude

            ah, but if they were inaccurate to 10°C, it would.
            “off by” is a shift, a bias.
            Perhaps you could review the difference between accuracy and precision, and contrast that with error.

          • Mollie Norris

            NASA’s online figure is 0.8 C increase from 1880-2013. UAH shows OLR > predicted based on TSI, consistent with recent cooling.

          • Mike435

            Except that the climate is still warming.

          • Voodude

            So, models have no basis in fact, when the models say that there is “Global Warming” caused by Mannkind’s emissions… The models have gross errors (like half, to double, i.e. “by a factor of 2”) in clouds, which cool the earth, and are the biggest problem with models. Albedo is mostly by clouds, and as little as a 0.60% change in albedo is equal to all of “Global Warming”. When CMIP5 models represent clouds, accurate to a factor of two, yet the required accuracy of Albedo is 0.06% – then they are flat out lying.

            The net energy balance of the earth is entirely dependent upon the absolute accuracy of the radiance from the sun. The most recent values for TSI cannot support Hansen’s 0.58W/m^2 of warming, nor Stephens’ 0.60, when TSI is uncertain to 2.4W/m^2.

            The average of the TSI, given that the earth rotates into and out of the peak sunshine, is calculated to be about 340W/m^2. That incoming heat is categorized to be dissipated by “Clear Sky Reflection” 27.2W ±4.6W … need I say that ±4.6W is more than seven times the size of “Global Warming”? … and there is “Atmospheric Absorption” at 75W, ±10W … which dwarfs the magnitude of “Global Warming” 0.6W … and “Surface Shortwave Absorption” at 165W ±6W … ten times more than all of “Global Warming” … So, 165W heats the earth. Some of that heat is lost by evaporation of water, and is carried upwards by … you guessed it, CLOUDS. This is called “Latent Heat” – and Stephens 2012 says “Latent Heating” is 88W±10W … Given that models do really poorly at clouds, like half or double, the margin of ±10W given by Stephens 2012 seems unlikely to be valid. Some of the absorbed heat is radiated as, well … heat. This is called “Sensible heat” because you can sense it – it feels hot. Stephens 2012 says that is 24W/m^2±7W. An uncertainty of ±7W, when compared to 0.6W, shows the foolishness of making major, global economic decisions (like to burn coal, or not) based upon computer models of the net energy budget.

          • Voodude

            165W/m^2 of incoming, surface-incident short-wave solar radiation, heats the earth. The earth radiates in the infra-red spectrum, losing that heat to space.
            Scientists call that “outgoing, long-wave radiation” or OLR. Stanfield, Ryan E., et al. 2015 “Assessment of NASA GISS CMIP5 and Post-CMIP5 Simulated Clouds and TOA Radiation Budgets Using Satellite Observations. Part II: TOA Radiation Budget and CREs.” Journal of Climate

            produced a paper, quantifying the errors of the CMIP5 and the latest, called P5 (Post CMIP5) ESMs (Earth-System Models).

            OLR (CLR-SKY) (W/m^2) is listed as 261.7W for the post-CMIP (P5) value. Just one standard deviation of OLR CLR-SKY is 42W/m^2 … seventy times the magnitude of “Global Warming”. The error, classified as the Root-Mean-Square error, is 5.94W – ten times “Global Warming” … and the bias is -4.4W (per metre squared).

            So, no, even in global averages, not regions, the CMIP5 and P5 models are grossly inadequate to calculate the net energy budget.

          • Voodude

            Stephens U12: ”Climate change is governed by changes to the global energy balance. At the top of the atmosphere, this balance is monitored globally by satellite sensors that provide measurements of energy flowing to and from Earth. By contrast, observations at the surface are limited mostly to land areas. As a result, the global balance of energy fluxes within the atmosphere or at Earth’s surface cannot be derived directly from measured fluxes, and is therefore uncertain. This lack of precise knowledge of surface energy fluxes profoundly affects our ability to understand how Earth’s climate responds to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases.”

            The science is still not settled. Some of the “A-Train” satellites measure the sunlight and infrared light, trying to determine the balance. Hansen 2011 reported an imbalance of 0.58W (per square metre); Stephens U12 reported 0.60W … the average energy input from the sun is about 340W per square metre (Stephens U12) and the entirety of “Global Warming” is about ½W … 0.6W … 0.60/340 = 0.00176 or a tiny 0.18%.

            Stephens DLR12: ”The global, annual mean [surface downwelling longwave radiative flux] lies between approximately 344 and 350 W/m^2 with an error of approximately ±10 W/m^2” (later in the paper, 344 (GEWEX SRB) to 350 W m−2 (A-train).”)

            How can we believe that the earth is out-of-balance, to the tune of ½W (per square metre) when the surface-incident flux is guesstimated with a range of 6W (350-344=6) and a stated error of ”approximately ±10 W?

            DLR12: ”According to the A-Train [satellites’] estimates of these flux differences inferred from Table 1, the global mean [Bottom Of the Atmosphere, i.e. the surface of the earth] [cloud radiative effect] lies approximately in the range 24–34 W/m^2 (Table 1), which is also consistent with the 31 W/m^2 reported by Zhang et al. (2004).”

            How can we believe ½W (per square metre) when the cloud radiative effect is guesstimated with a range of 10W (34-24=10)?

            DLR12: ”The synthesis products also attach an independently deduced uncertainty to the fluxes that range between about 10 and 15 W/m^2. We consider that ±10 W/m^2 is a reasonable estimate of the one-sigma error on global [surface downwelling longwave radiative flux] .”

            Compare ½W with ±10 W for fluxes that range (15-5=10W, average 12.5W). Per square metre, of course.

            This paper compares two methods of measuring the incoming solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface. The new method, AVIRIS, (which is carried on an airplane) is compared to the old method, which uses land-based, fixed position, pyranometer measurements. The two measurements, compared against each other, have errors “of approximately 28–56 W/m^2.. Compare that error size to the ½W (per square metre) that typifies “Global Warming” excess energy.

            He, Tao, et al. 2015 “Estimation of high-resolution land surface net shortwave radiation from AVIRIS data: Algorithm development and preliminary results.” Remote Sensing of Environment

            Stephens U12 says the estimated amount of incoming solar radiation at the surface of the earth is about 190W (per metre squared). The measurement error, at this level of insolation, between four different pyranometers, is more than 7W (per square metre)… and we’re supposed to believe in ½W of “Global Warming”?

            Faiman, D., D. Feuermann, and A. Zemel 1992. “Accurate field calibration of pyrometers.” Solar Energy (Journal of Solar Energy Science and Engineering);(United States)

          • Voodude

            Lee 1995 tells us that all of “Global Warming” is the same size as TSI “irradiance variability trends which may be caused by drifts or shifts in the spacecraft sensor responses. Comparisons among the fits and measured irradiances indicate that the Nimbus 7 radiometer response shifted by a total of 0.8 Wm−2 between September 1989 and April 1990 and that the ERBS and UARS radiometers each drifted approximately 0.5 Wm−2 during the first 5 months in orbit.”

            Lee, Robert B., et al. 1995 “Long‐term total solar irradiance variability during sunspot cycle 22.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics

          • Voodude

            “But if these articles … undermined the validity of GCMs, don’t you think the authors would say that? They do not.”

            What is Mustapha Meftah telling you, when he says, ”The actual absolute value of TSI is still a matter of debate.”

            Meftah, Mustapha, et al. 2014 “Sovap/picard, a spaceborne radiometer to measure the total solar irradiance.” Solar Physics

            Stephens 2012 says all of “Global Warming” is 0.60W … Mustapha Meftah is telling you, clearly, ”The measurements of SOVAP in the summer of 2010, yielded a TSI value of 1362.1W/m^2 with an uncertainty of ±2.4W/m^2 …”

            What does “uncertainty” mean? Can you measure a difference of 0.60W when your uncertainty is ±2.4W?

            What is Wyant, a scientist, actually saying, when he says, ”Most models are a within a factor of 2 of the observed means”?

          • Mike435

            The error in the measurement of a baseline quantity is different than the error in the measurement of a change.

          • Voodude

            What?
            The inaccuracies of the measurement tool don’t improve, depending upon how you apply the tool.

            To make a “baseline” measurement, you must measure once.
            To make a measurement of a change, you must measure twice.
            That compounds the errors, it does not improve them.

          • Mollie Norris

            No, Spencer and Braswell’s paper shows a predictable negative feedback, which makes sense,since Roy Spencer first noticed the feedback pattern in data.

          • Mike435

            You know their paper does not say what you claim and was still widely rejected by others in the field. See:

            Cloudy Controversies: The Science Behind the Spencer-Braswell Paper

            By Zeke Hausfather on Sep 9, 2011

          • Mollie Norris

            0.8 C increase from 1880-2013 -NASA. It’s so idiotic to censor online references that it’s not worth commenting here.

            CIMP5 was defended as correctly predicting temperature prior to the discovery of the massive cooling provided by surface abiotic isoprene formation recently. A major change in the understanding of the science and the addition of a very significant negative feedback won’t affect the accuracy of CIMP5, I’m sure, since it was accurate when this significant variable was omitted. Go figure.The dissembling is too disgusting to read, but it’s a program run by Illuminati satanists, so it’s inherent in the game.

          • Mike435

            The isoprene paper may help to improve models further. The claim being made on denier blogs that this work invalids current climate models is baseless.

            Unravelling New Processes at Interfaces: Photochemical Isoprene Production at the Sea Surface
            Raluca Ciuraru et al.
            Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP
            DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b02388
            Publication Date (Web): September 10, 2015

          • Mollie Norris

            Maybe you consider the Liebnitz Institute a denier blog. I know it’s important to use intelligence terms designed to subconsciously ostracize those who disagree with government disinformation, which is baseless,
            disregards information provided by the earth, and is considered the ultimate authority by those who respect power and wealth above truth.
            The Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research issued an announcement:

            Atmospheric chemists from France and Germany, however, can now show that
            isoprene can also be formed without biological sources in the surface
            film of the oceans by sunlight and so explain the large discrepancy
            between field measurements and models. The new identified photochemical
            reaction is therefore important to improve the climate models.
            It has previously been suggested that
            production of VOCs by pine forests could be a negative feedback so
            powerful that it “limits climate change from reaching such levels that
            it could become really a problem in the world.”

          • Mike435

            You have spliced a quote from an unrelated BBC article. It is not from the Leibniz press release. Your dishonesty is astounding. Further, the “pine” feedback is only negative if climate change increases pine forest growth. But heatwaves, pests, droughts and wildfires will overwhelm the effects of CO2 fertilization and longer growth sessions. In the case of the oceans, plankton is in decline from the decreased overturning rate. Coral reefs are now seeing global bleaching. So, the feedback from isoprene could be positive.

          • Mollie Norris

            I responded to your comment: “The isoprene paper may help to improve models further. The claim being made on denier blogs that this work invalids current climate models is baseless.”with a quote from the research “isoprene —-so explain the large discrepancy between field measurements and models. The new identified photochemical reaction is therefore important to improve the climate models.”
            Showing that you posted a false statement. I also included an irrelevant sentence from other research – an error made after deleting links to post my comment here.
            So you used the standard AGW-alarmist tactics of posting false information, attempting to discredit an excellent source with a stereotypical disinformation term, inserted a strawman argument, ignored my evidence that your comment was a lie, and used an additional ad hom in accusing me of lying in adding a sentence that was irrelevant to my response to your indefensible statement.

            Your dishonesty isn’t astounding – it’s unethical and dishonest and evasive and an attempt at distraction from the topic in a stereotypical fashion that’s restricted to comments by AGW-alarmists attempting to rationalize fraud and pseudoscience and false statements, and way beyond the limits of any discussion other than AGW. It’s inappropriate to a factual discussion of physical science, and one more addition to 25 years of similar deceptive statements that clarify the fact that it’s impossible to defend AGW. Keep posting comments like this, and your comment above to conscious 1 “Your comment lacks any basis in reality. You know this” and your comment to voodude, ignoring his statement regarding the 97% consensus fraud “At some point even you must begin to realized how twisted and tortuous your arguments have become. It is a sign of denial”, and your comment about Spencer and Braswell’s research, “You know their paper does not say what you claim and was still widely rejected by others in the field. See:Cloudy Controversies: The Science Behind the Spencer-Braswell Paper By Zeke Hausfather on Sep 9, 2011”. Your idiocy in posting a political comment made by an economist to refute research by respected and award-winning atmospheric scientists, one of whom, John Christy, a former IPCC lead author, accentuates the fascist character of the AGW debate; it has nothing to do with science, and is solely Lysenkoism and McCarthyism; and only PC pseudoscience is acceptable in a fabricated environmental strawman argument created to disguise a destructive criminal anti-humanist agenda instigated by Illuminati satanists who have acquired wealth only through their lack of moral and ethical behavior.
            It’s important to reiterate the fact that there’s no way to support the AGW scam, and equally important to continue your use of psychological warfare disinformation tactics in attempts to do so. The distinction between honest comments and yours is blatant.

          • Mike435

            Ideology and hyperbole. You have nothing.

          • Mollie Norris

            I have facts. You have psychosis.

  • conscious1

    The number of mainstream climate scientists arguing against empirical validation of models is proof science has left the room. They want to treat the dominant drivers of climate as noise and model output as infallible truth.

    • Mollie Norris

      NOAA scientists aren’t allowed to mention the natural climate cycles that determine climate along with solar cycles. Even if one chooses to ignore all other information about the UN’s fascists global kleptocracy and the billions invested in carbon credits, this is a really obvious no-brainer that “climate science” has nothing to do with the environment.
      There’s an article on notrickszone by a 40-year NOAA senior scientist discussing this. My comment with links was censored; another essential in any discussion of UN/Obama climate psyence.

  • BenPal

    Excellent article, thank you.

  • Brian

    If nothing else, events over the past 18 years have definitively falsified the claim that “The Science is Settled.”

    Given that falsification, basing so much of our energy, economic and environmental policy on the proposition that “The Science is Settled” reveals the motives of those who push the narrative: political power and $$$.

    Thanks for a great and very readable post.

    • Mollie Norris

      $1 billion/day.

  • Mike Bromley

    Pretty succinctly-put. “believe, or be imprisoned”….uttered by those imprisoned by their beliefs.

  • stevenmosher

    Hi William.

    you wrote:

    Satellites, which provide some of the best, but still imperfect, global measurements have only existed about 50 years.

    That means if we want to know the temperature before 50-100 years ago, we have to guess. It’s not a blind guess, though, since we can use so-called “proxies.” These are chemical and physical measurements known to be correlated with air temperature.”

    You try to draw a distinction between Satellite “measurements” and other temperature measurements on the basis that one of them ( the older ones” ) are “proxies”

    Perhaps you dont know that satellites do not measure temperature.

    the sensor sits in space. It collects photons. It measures brightness. Actually, it records a voltage and that is interpreted as brightness. It is NOT measuring the temperature.

    That brightness measure at the sensor is then Interpreted as a temperature at
    the troposphere ( for example )

    To do that a physical MODEL is used. That physical model describes how microwave raidation is transmitted through “the atmoshere”. To do this calculation several
    simplifying assumptions are made ( assumptions about an idealize atmospheric profile)

    Bottom line: satellites measure proxies for temperature. the rely on physcial models of radiation processes. That is they rely on the VERY PHYSICS that say c02 will warm the planet.

    • Matthew Bergin (The Bergin’s G

      Steve
      If you want to look at it that way then the thermometer doesn’t measure temperature it measures the expansion of either alcohol or mercury in a tube as it warms. We just stick a graduated scale on the thermometer to approximate the change in temperature that caused the change in volume. With the satellites you are measuring the entire planet with the same instrument and the model that is used to calculate the temperature has been tested by comparing the readings to the radiosonde balloons so the model has been proved, unlike the unproven climate models.
      The planet has warmed, It has warmed about 0.79 degrees C since 1880 which is just about the amount that the radiation theory says the increase of the CO2 concentration should cause. What is missing is the catastrophic water vapour amplification which so far is missing in action, and without that amplification there is nothing to worry about.
      CAGW is not happening

    • stevenmosher

      Matthew.Yes a thermometer works like that.
      My point is that Dr. Briggs tried to distinguish between thermometers which are proxies from satellites, as IF satellites actually measured temperature.
      neither device measures temperature. He tried to use his distinction to give priority to satellite records. Since his distinction is flawed, his valorization of the satellite record is undermined.
      Most of us who use both records recognize that establishing a priority (which is best) is not a easy question. The satellite record for example is CORRECTED by applying a GCM. That right the satellite record for RSS is adjusted with help froma Global Climate model. dr. Briggs didn’t know that

      • Voodude

        mosher, what GCM is used? BTW, a GCM is a General Circulation Model.
        I readily admit that a computer model is used to interpret the satellites’ data … but a GCM? Don’t think so.

    • BalancedApproach

      Ice core samples provide the best evidence and they clearly indicate we have had many MUCH warmer periods of time. Many of which were so long ago, they cannot at all be blamed on man.

      • stevenmosher

        Yes there were warmer times. The article cited said 2015 would be the warmest ON RECORD, not the warmest EVER as Dr. Briggs claimed.
        Second, many things can cause a warmer planet. The current warming has a cause. The warming of millions of years ago had a cause. Nobody is arguing that these causes are the same or have to be the same.
        The warming of millions of years ago can and does have a different cause that the warming we see today.
        Your mistake is thinking that both warmings have to have the same cause. they dont.

    • Gene Walker

      stevemosher, your reply besides being particularly inane, implies what? please be specific. Are you suggesting the satellite record has failed to detect the “really there” but apparently missing increase in global temps the climate models predicted? Proxy measurements, thermometers, balloon radiosonde and satellite microwave sounding units have all failed to detect any increase in global atmospheric temps predicted by the comprehensive, “the science is settled” climate models which are all based on ” the VERY PHYSICS that say c02 will warm the planet”.

    • Voodude

      Mosher, you fail to mention, that the surface temperature records don’t measure the physical surface, but are calculated to show the AIR TEMPERATURE at two metres height. You know that.

      “Perhaps you dont know that satellites do not measure temperature.”

      Mosher, you know very well that Satellites’ measurement of temperature “indirectly” is a bogus distraction. Thermometers measure temperature indirectly, too. They measure expansion of mercury (or other fluid) with temperature changes.

      Bottom line: thermometers measure a proxy for temperature.

      RTDs measure indirectly, too. They measure changes in electrical resistance with temperature. Bottom line: RTDs measure proxies for temperature.

      Measuring Polar temperatures (extreme cold) with thermometers was a problem; the scientist approaching the weather station, even though he was insulated against the cold, did significantly influence the thermometer (to be warmer than it was). Satellites don’t perturb the oxygen being measured for brightness. RTDs have their own problems, too. Heat generated by electrical bias, used to measure the RTD’s resistance, influences the actual resistance. Heat generated by other electrical equipment also biases the temperature high. Satellites’ measurement of oxygen brightness does not heat up the oxygen.

      Mosher, you know, very well, that satellite’s data is influenced by, pretty much, every square inch of the earth’s surface, with about equal weight. You know that surface stations are biased, warmly, from the Urban Heat Island effect. You already know that the corrections for UHI have been removed, and replaced with the “homogenization” computer model.

      What you probably don’t know, Mosher, is that the VERY PHYSICS of temperature require TLT (temperature, lower troposphere) be closely coupled to the surface temperature (which, by the way, is AIR temperature 2m high):

      ”An important point to note is that the surface and troposphere are strongly coupled: if the troposphere warms, the surface must warm also and vice versa.”

      Mitchell, John FB 1989. “The “greenhouse” effect and climate change.” Reviews of Geophysics

      • Mollie Norris

        I think the best validation of UAH satellite temperature measurement is its correlation with RSS measurements; .963, over the entire 30-year period since John Christy and Roy Spencer initiated the satellite temperature measurement program. This correlation has been decreased by divergence over the last 10 years because “RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a
        decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift
        correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match
        reality.”, while UAH uses NASA Aqua AMSU. RSS measured temperatures have been higher than UAH over this period. quote: Roy Spencer

        • Voodude

          Yes, Mollie, but it is an ancient quote.
          Have you noticed that – although Spencer casts aspersions (lightly) upon his rival, RSS-Mears, UAH v5.6 has been abandoned, and V6.0b3 is very VERY much like RSS.

          Funny thing, Mears has a quote lying around on the internet, that Mears thinks the surface temperature record is better….

  • finnpii

    The Inconvenient Pause was declared never to have happened just last week (Rajaratnam et. al.).

  • stevenmosher

    Dr. Briggs writes “Story number one is that this year will be the hottest ever. ”

    except they didnt say that . They said “The world has experienced record-breaking warmth every month so far in 2015, making this year virtually guaranteed to be the hottest on record, according to a US science agency.”

    Hottest ON RECORD

  • wofford

    Not addressed are external disturbances, CO2 additions, variable volcanic eruptions and aerosols. Climatic effects of these externalities can be enhanced or dampened by natural variations in climate, e.g., the PDO or the AMO. IMHO the pause could very well be within a period of natural variation that has dampened atmospheric response to additional potential for a warmer troposphere. And within that circumstance the warmest (but not statistically significant) year or decade claim can still be made.

    • Till Eulenspiegel

      If the “pause” is “natural variation”, could not the warming also have been “natural variation”?

      • Voodude

        Exactly. IF natural variation temporarily overwhelmed “Global Warming” then CO2 must not be the world’s thermostat as claimed.

  • howard bell

    It’s amazing, people think that because they are self appointed scientists
    with kind of a neat sounding narrative about climate change that
    it magically becomes true.
    The only ones they have convinced is themselves.
    My advise to them is stick to fortune telling, you will have better luck.

  • Mike435

    As pointed out earlier by myself and others, Briggs has no idea what he is saying. (Obviously a temporary slowdown in the rate of warming does not conflict with new records being set this year.) If anyone reading this is interested in learning about climate science for real, good place to start is The Discovery of Global Warming by Weart. Google it.

    • Terry Oldberg

      Mike435:
      By what argument (if any) do you reach the conclusion that “Briggs has no idea what he is saying.”

      • Mike435

        “Obviously a temporary slowdown in the rate of warming does not conflict with new records being set this year.”

        • Voodude

          Again, “records” being “set” are with the fudged, faked, much-altered surface tamperature datasets. Satellites show no such records.

          • Mike435

            And now we get to the truth; you are engaging is wild conspiracy theories. Sorry, the rest of us think policy should be based on mainstream science not fringe political movements. What is more likely, the world’s scientists are engaging in the biggest
            hoax of all time, or your ideology has clouded your thinking?

          • Mollie Norris

            It’s a very simple procedure; all you need to do is compare NASA and NOAA and NCDC, etc, records published by these agencies on different dates to see that past temperatures have been decreased an recent temperatures increased to produce the illusion of recent warming. The real curiosity here is your wild conspiracy with the government scientists committing these frauds. Pierre Gosselin has great examples of these alterations on his German website, notrickzone.

          • Mike435

            Everyone is in on the conspiracy except you.

          • Mollie Norris

            You can’t deal with data at all, huh? If you close your eyes it’ll go away?

          • Mike435

            The warming continues. Now we are seeing massive coral bleaching on a global scale. That should motivate the negotiations in Paris.

        • Terry Oldberg

          Mike435:
          In logical terms, that’s not an example of an “argument”: a sequence of three propositions called the “major premise,” “minor premise” and “conclusion.”

          • Mike435

            I’ll connect the dots for you. Briggs maintains that two claims being made, that there was been a slowdown in the rate of surface warming, and 2015 is likely to be the hottest year, are in conflict. But, no such conflict exists. Consider the sequence {1.0 ,2.0 ,3.0 ,4.0 ,5.0 ,5.1, 5.3, 5.4, 6.0}. The rare of increase slows, but each entry is larger than all the preceding ones. Briggs is clueless. Further, Briggs claims the idea of 2015 having the highest temp is false because the earth has been warmer in the distant past, when clearly the claim being made is that 2015 is likely to be the warmest year on record, where records go back to about 1880. Briggs is misrepresenting the claim. Thus, Briggs is dishonest.

          • Mollie Norris

            Based on your logic, if you measured the height of one 40 year-old individual at constant temperature, at the same time of day, with a device that has a precision of a tenth of an inch, and your measurements were 72.02, 72.05, and 72.08 inches, you’d know that the person was growing – and you could issue a press release based on your research.

          • Mike435

            It is over your head.

  • Circaman

    Oh, right. Scientists are obviously all liars just trying to get grants while this guy throws a few terms which sound scientific and shakes it up and screams it’s true. I think I’ll go with the adults of the world. Like Scientific American, the Department of Defense, every gov’t of the globe even again including Australia, the Tories in England, China, Hank Paulson………97+% of climate scientists and on and on and on……..except of course Rupert Murdoch. When it becomes impossible for you to further deny this, I can see where your depression might spin out of control. It is 1941 all over again and the same people who refused to see a problem in Europe now have their heads in the same familiar sand. I pity you really because wake up you will.

    • Till Eulenspiegel

      Can you please provide specifics on this “97%+” thing? I’ve heard that bandied about, but have never been able to get any more detail than “everyone knows…” or a vague reference to some paper that seems to be difficult to cite with any precision. You seem to know what you’re talking about, maybe you can help me out here. Would you be able to provide a reference to the original research?

      Thanks.

      • Circaman

        Hi Till Eulenspiegel! i love your nom de online. As a child, my father used to read to me out of a Till Eulenspiegel book he had in fraktur. I wonder what ever happened to that book. I don’t think I’ve remembered that until this moment. As to research articles i would just say if you go to google and put in climate change research you will immediately find 2,360,000 articles. It could take you all afternoon. :-). Thanks for the memory!!

        • Till Eulenspiegel

          I did that and spent quite a bit of time but could not find the origin of the 97% figure. As you quoted it I assumed you had first-hand knowledge and had read the research yourself.

          I’m starting to get the idea that “97%” is a myth since nobody who quotes it can or will ever provide a reference to its origin. Since you seemed so adamant I thought you might be able to break this particular drought for me.

          Don’t you find it concerning that what seems to be held out by so many as the strongest evidence of man-made global warming is mere myth and urban legend?

          • Circaman

            Omigod! Myth and Urban Legend???!!!! You are joking, I hope and I really don’t have time to start quoting and posting. I’m beginning to think that you are just a denier who can’t get their brain around the magnitude of the problem. The info IS EVERYWHERE. I get it that grasping the nature of the problem is a huge threat to one’s happiness and calm and I also get it that the fossil fuel industry is pouring gushing amounts of money into the denial movement but the time of arguing whether it is a myth is long passed. It is accepted all over the world……..except where Rupert Murdoch has created his denier media but even that is a small percentage……even in Australia now that Tony Abbott has been replaced with non-denial. Good luck, Till. If you can’t bear it, don’t worry overly, folks are ALL OVER THIS…….and like we dealt with Hitler, we WILL deal with this.

          • Till Eulenspiegel

            Cool, thanks! You just won a bet for me. The Hitler reference was worth a bonus $500.
            Even the guy who bet against me had a good laugh at your response despite it costing him $1,500.

            Classic! Keep up the good work!

            I love global warming stories. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

          • Circaman

            Ah, I take it you don’t get the connection. Kinda like Lindbergh buying into Goering’s ploy and then coming back to the US and advocating very seriously for isolationism. Ah, well…..those who do not learn from history…..etc. Isolationism in 1940 is eerily similar to denial today but if you never spent any time in the 40s, it would have little resonance, but then I lost 25% of my family in that and Lindbergh is no hero to me. Just like Murdoch is no hero to me now. Hope you enjoy your bet winnings.

      • Mike435

        Google, scientific consensus climate change. The first three hits I get are to NASA, Skeptical Science and Wikipedia. Wiki has a summary with many links to papers affirming the consensus.

        • Voodude

          “consensus” is not formed by the number of Google “hits”. Media and blogger comments are not scientific opinions.

          Science is not determined by consensus.

          Wikipedia is heavily edited by William Connolly and similar enthusiasts that believe.

          • Mike435

            We cannot post links here, so I suggested that Till use Google and suggested some sites he could start with. The Wiki article contains many valid references anyone can check for themselves. But your comment is rather amusing, you seem to be insisting their is not a consensus, but also that it does not matter if there is. Thou dost protest too much.

          • Mollie Norris

            You seem to be insisting that 41 out of 11,9444 abstracts supporting AGW, 0.3%, is a 97% consensus, but the 99.97% of scientists who wrote the remaining 11,9403 abstracts disagree.

            The organizers of the Oregon Petition Project sent emails to 17,000 scientists and have 31,487 signatures. John Cook, non-scientist skepticalscience owner and author of the 0.3% consensus, has attempted to discredit the Oregon Petition by stating that it’s not close to the total number of scientists in the world, rather than stating the fact that it represents !85% of the scientists contacted. In addition, there was one signature posted fraudulently by a member of a Greenpeace campaign that was subtracted. This is the type of psychological manipulation behavioral scientists such as grad student Cook employ in psychological warfare applications like the marketing of the NWO through the AGW scam. In addition, Oregon Petition signatures are restricted to scientists with a BS or better, a physical science degree, while Cook’s 0.3% consensus includes abstracts of research conducted by scientists who lack the physical science education required of signers of the Oregon Petition, 9,029 of them PhDs.

          • Mike435

            You are lying. There is really nothing more to say.

          • Mollie Norris

            Ignore the facts and continue lying; it’s the only support for AGW-alarmism.
            Thanks for sharing the procedure.

          • Mollie Norris

            He was banned from Wikipedia editing due to his use of disinformation, but unfortunately only for 6 months.

      • Royalsfan67

        The 97% is actually from a grad student working on her thesis back in the late 90s. She sent out a questionaire to 37 scientists asking if man was contributing to the warming of the planet. Note she did not ask if we contributed significantly to the warming. 97% of 37 said they believed man had contributed in some way. This has been gospel to people worshipping ar the altar of climate change ever since

        • Voodude

          That grad student and her advisor were countered by another paper:

          “A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook׳s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.”

          Tol, Richard SJ. 2014 “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: a re-analysis.” Energy Policy

          • Voodude

            “A 15 May 2013 paper by John Cook, and his pals, claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that mankind had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950. Cook and his volunteers read abstracts of papers supposedly relating to global warming, and graded them into seven endorsement levels. Note that they didn’t read the actual papers, just the abstracts. 0.343% or 41 out of the 11,944 papers explicitly endorsed the “Global Warming” viewpoint. The Cook et al 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change.” – José Duarte.

            According to a paper by Dr David Legates, (a climatologist) and his colleagues, published in Science and Education, only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers that Cook et al. examined, explicitly stated that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook et al. tallied up 64 papers, supposedly supporting the “consensus” position, but 23 of the 64 tallied actually had not supported the “consensus”.

            Dr William Briggs: “[Cook] arbitrarily excluded about 8,000 of the 12,000 papers in his sample on the unacceptable ground that they had expressed no opinion on the climate consensus. These artifices let him reach the unjustifiable conclusion that there was a 97.1% consensus when there was not. In fact, Cook’s paper provides the clearest available statistical evidence that there is scarcely any explicit support among scientists for the consensus that the IPCC, politicians, bureaucrats, academics and the media have so long and so falsely proclaimed. That was not the outcome Cook had hoped for, and it was not the outcome he had stated in his paper, but it was the outcome he had really found.”

            Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, an expert reviewer for the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, who found the errors in Cook’s data, said: “It may be that more than 0.3% of climate scientists think Man caused at least half the warming since 1950. But only 0.3% of almost 12,000 published papers say so explicitly. Cook had not considered how many papers merely implied that. No doubt many scientists consider it possible, as we do, that Man caused some warming, but not most warming.“

            Dr Legates said: “It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%.”

            Dr Legates: “It is still more astonishing that the IPCC should claim 95% certainty about the climate consensus when so small a fraction of published papers explicitly endorse the consensus as the IPCC defines it.”

            28Aug2014, José Duarte: “The Cook et al. (2013) 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change.”

            “Let’s go ahead and walk through that sentence again. The Cook et al 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change. I [José Duarte]only spent ten minutes with their database — there will be more such papers for those who search. I’m not willing to spend a lot of time with their data, for reasons I detail further down.”

            “This paper is vacated, as a scientific product, given that it included psychology papers, and also given that it twice lied about its method (claiming not to count social science papers, and claiming to use independent raters), and the professed cheating by the raters. It was essentially voided by its invalid method of using partisan and unqualified political activists to subjectively rate climate science abstracts on the issue on which their activism centers — a stunning and unprecedented method. I’m awaiting word on retraction from the journal, but I think we already know that this paper is vacated. It doesn’t represent knowledge of the consensus.””

            A 2009 Eos: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, by Maggie (Margaret) Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser, Peter Doran. It reported the results of an online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen, and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

            Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (pages 22–23)

            Even most skeptical scientists would answer “yes” to the first two questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact – or the rise in temperature – is large enough to constitute a problem. It also failed to include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

            The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists out of the 3,146 who responded to the survey – or out of the 10,257 scientists who received it – does not a consensus make.

            In 2008, Margaret Zimmerman conducted a computerized survey that asked two questions of 10,257 Earth Scientists at academic and government institutions. 3,146 of them responded. That survey was the original basis for the famous “97% consensus” claim. Of 3,146 who responded, 75 answered in the affirmative, to both questions. Cherry picking reformatted those three thousand to just 79, and 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4%(75 of 77) answered “Yes” to question 2.

            This was the full set of questions that Zimmerman asked in their survey:

            Q1. When compared with pre-1800’s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

            1. Risen

            2. Fallen

            3. Remained relatively constant

            4. No opinion/Don’t know

            Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? [This question wasn’t asked if they answered “remained relatively constant” to Q1]

            1. Yes

            2. No

            3. I’m not sure

            Q3. What do you consider to be the most compelling argument that supports your previous answer (or, for those who were unsure, why were they unsure)? [This question wasn’t asked if they answered “remained relatively constant” to Q1]

            Q4. Please estimate the percentage of your fellow geoscientists who think human activity is a contributing factor to global climate change.

            Q5. Which percentage of your papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last 5 years have been on the subject of climate change?

            Q6. Age

            Q7. Gender

            Q8. What is the highest level of education you have attained?

            Q9. Which category best describes your area of expertise?

            If a respondent answered “remained relatively constant” to the first question, then he wasn’t asked the second question!

            That’s obviously why only 77 answers were reported to the second question. Two of their 79 top climate specialists had answered “remained relatively constant” to the first question, and those two were not asked the second question, and were not included in the calculation of the supposed 97.4% agreement.

            That means only 75 of 79 (94.9%) of their “most specialized and knowledgeable respondents” actually gave them the answers they wanted to both of their questions.

            So, despite asking “dumb questions” that even most skeptics would answer “correctly,” and despite excluding over 97% of the responses after they were received, they still did not find 97% agreement. They actually found only 94.9% agreement.

            In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming.” There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers, out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate, is not evidence of consensus.

          • Mike435

            You really do not get it. Of course there is doubt, or rather uncertainty. The point is there is a significant risk that the mainstream scientific estimates of ghg warming and its impacts will be very serious if we do not reduce emissions are correct. I do not like uncertainty or risk. But, I dislike the risk more. It is not that hard for developed countries to reduce emissions by 20-30% in 20-30 years with more efficient technology – including better coal plants. Further, there are many co-benefits to doing this. Reductions by 50-70% could be much harder – nuclear power and CO2 sequestering are likely to be costly. But by then we will have a better idea how bad the warming will be. If it turns out it is not going to be as serious as projected, we can back off. If it looks like the scientists were right, we will have to find a way to press ahead. Hopefully, better technologies we be able to play a bigger role by then – but there is no way to know that yet. We shall see. In the meantime we should reduce income taxes and sales taxes and tax ghg emissions instead. It is just a risk mitigation strategy. I can see no rational basis for ignoring this risk.

          • Voodude

            People used to throw babies and virgins into the volcano, too. The proof? The volcano is erupting, don’t you get it? Just like the high-priest said!

            Now, the statement is: The world has warmed, just like the models predicted.
            Therefore (insert any AlGore statement here).

            Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain …
            adjusting the temperature records
            manually adjusting the computer models
            manually “aligning” the instrument measurements to a chosen value
            studiously ignoring the satellite’s message of NO WARMING
            Ignoring the vast record of world oceanic pH measurements
            Threatning RICO sanctions to those who don’t believe the high-priest

          • Mike435

            Hyperbole + Gish gallop = you have nothing but denial.

            What is more likely, the world’s scientists are engaging in the biggest
            hoax of all time, or your ideology has clouded your thinking?

            If you are interested in starting to learn about climate science
            for real, look up The Discovery of Global Warming by
            Weart. Google it.

          • Mike435

            “There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.”

            Tol, Richard SJ. 2014 “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: a re-analysis.” Energy Policy

          • Voodude

            So, a “believer” published a paper, demolishing the “97% agree” claim. That should cause you to consider Richard Tol’s demolition as being more robust.

          • Mike435

            At some point even you must begin to realized how twisted and tortuous your arguments have become. It is a sign of denial.

          • Voodude

            I cannot convince you that this CAGW is a farce. If that were possible, someone would have done it already. The most I can do is present the material to support doubt.

            1,365 Watts fall on the planet, from the sun. 0.58 Watts is what Hansen says will overheat the planet. Do you really believe that “Climate Science” has it all figured out, with an accuracy better than 99.6%? 0.04% is really small. Per square metre, of course. What do you think Mustapha Meftah is saying, when he publishes ±2.4W? ”The measurements of SOVAP in the summer of 2010, yielded a TSI value of 1362.1W/m^2 with an uncertainty of ±2.4W/m^2 (k=1 ).”

            He tells you, flat-out, ”The actual absolute value of TSI is still a matter of debate.”

            Meftah, Mustapha, et al. 2014 “Sovap/picard, a spaceborne radiometer to measure the total solar irradiance.” Solar Physics Oh, BTW, it takes a measurement tolerance that is ten times better than the value measured, to be reasonably certain. A measurement absolute accuracy of TSI that is 0.1% cannot measure 0.04% … It takes an instrument that can produce an absolute accuracy of 0.004% to measure TSI with enough certainty to say that the world is warming at 0.60W per metre squared.

            None of the measurements are sufficiently accurate. None of the CMIP5, or even P5 models are sufficiently accurate to justify a certainty of 99.6%. Within the tolerance of the numbers quoted, the world might have an energy deficit (i.e., cooling) – that is equally supported, statistically, by the values, as is “warming”.

            The satellites measuring flux, looking down on the earth from space, have a more difficult time interpreting the results from their pyreheliometers and pyranometers, which require computer algorithms (mathematical models) to process the scanner footprint data from the Terra and Aqua spacecraft measurements.

            ”The Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) project uses two shortwave (SW) and two longwave (LW) algorithms to derive surface radiative fluxes … To facilitate the validation process, high-quality radiometric surface observations have been acquired that were coincident with the CERES-derived surface fluxes. For both SW models,

            systematic errors … −20 to −12 W m−2… for global clear-sky cases,
            while for the all-sky SW model, the

            systematic errors … 14 to 21 W m−2 …for global cloudy-sky cases.

            systematic errors … ±5.4 W m−2 … except for the polar case in which

            systematic errors … −15 to −11 W m−2 … occurred.
            For the all-sky LW model,

            systematic errors … ±9.2 W m−2 … both the clear-sky and cloudy-sky cases. The random errors were less than

            17 W m−2 … clear-sky cases and

            28 W m−2 … cloudy-sky cases, except for the desert cases, in which very high surface skin temperatures caused an overestimation in the model-calculated surface fluxes.”

            ”… (Gupta et al. 2004) found that during the time when the CERES instrument was operational, aboard the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM), the insolation data records produced by this instrument combination were plagued by large discrepancies and frequent data gaps, many of which could be traced back to malfunctions in the solar tracking components.

            Kratz, David P., et al. 2010 “Validation of the CERES Edition 2B surface-only flux algorithms.” Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology

            The entirety of “Global Warming” is about ½W, and the ”… systematic sensitivity drift of the pyranometers could have introduced important spurious trends into observed diffuse radiation and [observed surface incident solar radiation]” might be several times as large, and the “directional response error (tens of W m-2)” might be 20 to 60 times as large? … and we’re supposed to believe the calculations of ½W?

            The values provided by Stephens (0.6W) and Hansen (0.58W) weren’t calculations done on the back of a napkin at a restaurant. They are the output of serious General Circulation Models or Earth System Models. This paper compares actual observations (ground stations, and satellites) to simulations done in the best computer programs…

            ”In this study, [surface incident solar radiation] simulations of 48 models participating in the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) were first evaluated with ground-based observations from different networks (446 stations in total) from 2000 to 2005. The global mean biases of the CMIP5 [surface incident solar radiation] simulations were found to vary from 4.8 to 11.9 W m−2 when [surface incident solar radiation] observations from different networks were used as reference data. To reduce the location impact on the evaluation results, CMIP5 simulated [surface incident solar radiation] were then evaluated with the latest satellite [surface incident solar radiation] retrieval at 1°×1° spatial resolution by the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System, Energy Balanced And Filled (CERES EBAF). It was found that the CMIP5 simulated multi-model mean [surface incident solar radiation] has a small bias of 2.6 W m−2 compared with CERES EBAF over the globe, 4.7 W m−2 and 1.7 W m−2 over land and oceans, respectively.”

            The two measurement techniques, ground-based, and satellites, disagree with each other at twice the size of “Global Warming”…

            “CERES EBAF [surface incident solar radiation] was found to have a positive bias of 1.3 W m−2 compared with ground-based observations.”

            Ma, Qian, Kaicun Wang, and Martin Wild 2015.“Impact of Geolocations of Validation Data on the Evaluation of Surface Incident Shortwave Radiation from Earth System Models.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

          • Mollie Norris

            Tol is considered to be one of the world’s best economists; an extremely competent person. He’s not a scientist. His analysis of consensus surveys was a statistical analysis that focused on the significance of the results and the methods of data analysis used, not on science. There were many negative responses from scientists to the statement you quoted based on Tol’s background and on the fact that the AGW theory has never been demonstrated to be true; the null hypothesis that climate isn’t the result of natural processes hasn’t been disproven. CO2 is a GHG; it has vibrational bonds that absorb and emit in the IR, but that’s very different from saying that it causes warming in the earth’s climate, a very complex system with mostly negative and some positive feedbacks. Wood disproved the validity of the ‘greenhouse’ concept in 1909; the atmosphere doesn’t act as a greenhouse. A greenhouse retains heat by preventing convection – air flow.

          • Mike435

            Tol is an economist. I do not know that he is regarded as standing out in any way. He had statistical criticisms of Cook’s methods, to which Cook has responded, but does not fundamentally disagree with his conclusion. It is well known the CO2 is warming the climate and this is becoming increasingly dangerous as the current global coral bleaching event illustrates. There will always be fringe elements that reject science. Their ability to slow measures to reduce emissions is fading.

          • Mollie Norris

            Tol (abstract): A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses
            anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8,
            024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate
            policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend
            in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample
            is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall,
            data quality is low. Cook׳s validation test shows that the data are
            invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be
            reproduced or tested.

          • Mike435

            If you were honest you would acknowledge the Cook responded to Tol and that Tol agrees there is a strong consensus.

          • Mollie Norris

            I posted Tol’s statement, saying that there’s no consensus. Repeating your lies continues to destroy your credibility . Thanks.

          • Mike435

            Tol never says that there is no consensus. He says he disagrees with Cook et al’s methods to quantify it.

            This is from Tol’s conclusion: “There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct. Cook et al., however, failed to demonstrate this.”

          • Mollie Norris

            The authors write that “according to the IPCC (2007) models, atmospheric CO2 is predicted to rise to 540-970 ppm by the end of this century and reach a maximum of approximately 1,900 ppm when the world’s fossil fuel reserves are fully exploited,” while noting that “a substantial number of laboratory studies have suggested a decline in coral calcification with a rise in seawater pCO2.” However, they say that recent studies “have postulated that the sensitivity of corals to elevated levels of CO2 is potentially more diverse than previously considered,” citing the works of Fabricius et al. (2011), Pandolfi et al. (2011) and Rodolfo-Metalpa et al. (2011).

            Takahashi and Kurihara measured the rates of calcification, respiration and photosynthesis of the tropical coral Acropora digitifera – along with the coral’szooxanthellae density – under near-natural summertime temperature and sunlight conditions for a period of five weeks.
            “Key physiological parameters” were not affected by either predicted mid-range CO2 concentrations (pCO2 = 744 ppm, pH = 7.97, Ωarag = 2.6) or by high CO2concentrations (pCO2 = 2,142 ppm, pH = 7.56, Ωarag = 1.1) over the 35-day period of their experiment. In addition, they state that there was “no significant correlation between calcification rate and seawater aragonite saturation (Ωarag)” and “no evidence of CO2 impact on bleaching.”

          • Mike435

            Bleaching is caused by warming.

          • Mollie Norris

            I’m glad your psychosis isn’t contagious.

          • Mollie Norris

            “Their ability to slow measures to reduce emissions is fading”; not surprising, since Japan’s Ibuki (earth breathing) GOSAT (greenhouse gas observing satellite) showed in 2009 that CO2 and methane are emitted primarily from sparsely populated deforested regions in Africa and South America, the Middle East, Asia, and oceans. Maurice Strong’s statement at the 1992 UNCED meeting that CO2 was emitted primarly by the US was an anti-US, anti-science political/economic statement made to rationalize the destruction of the US economy and democratic government. When he made this statement, he had hurriedly moved Earth Council Headquarters from Costa Rica due to a scam he perpetrated against the CR government, and had been sued by the indigenous tribe that owned the land the Earth Council was built on. The CR government had donated additional land to the Earth Council with a title that banned the Earth Council’s sale of the land. Strong sold the land, and the Costa Rican government was unaware of this until the sale had been completed. Strong was banned from Canada following his involvement in the Oil for Food Scam. He was sued by his neighbors in Colorado to prevent him from draining the San Luis Aquifer, one of the largest in the US, under his Baca Ranch and destroying the ecosystem of the valley and adjacent Great Sand Dunes, in partnership with former EPA director William Ruckleshouse. Their. plan was to sell water to nearby Colorado cities. When Maurice Strong was CEO of Ontario Hydro, he decided it should purchase $100 million of rainforest land adjacent to his hotel complex in Costa Rica. Canadian Hydro disagreed, so he bought the land himself using Ontario Hydro funds. He sold the Baca Ranch, but retained mineral rights, and is attempting to drill for oil under the nature preserve under the new owner’s name. Strong is former WWF president, an organization formed by big game hunters to preserve the habitats of animals for the purpose of trophy hunting.
            Maurice Strong is the sole individual responsible for the formation of the UN environment program. appinsys has an excellent history of his involvement.

          • Mike435

            I am sorry to hear that you went off the deep end. I have no idea what you are babbling about here. There will always be people who deny evolution or who think crop circles are made by bored aliens and so too will there be people to deny climate science. I cannot help you.

          • Mollie Norris

            If there was any climate science to support AGW-alarmism, you would have posted it instead of evasions and ad homs. You’ve done an excellent job in destroying your argument in favor of AGW-alarmism.

          • Mike435

            If anyone reading this is interested in learning about climate science for
            real, good place to start is The Discovery of Global Warming by Weart.
            Google it.

      • Voodude

        Till, get to know “Google Scholar” (which is different from “Google”). Just type in ‘Google Scholar’ – select and click on Google Scholar. A single-line search query field appears, but, in the right of that field is a triangle icon … click the icon, and an advanced, multi-field query appears. In this, scroll down to “authored by” and fill in the author’s last name (“Cook”). Then, copy the bold-faced (below) title of the paper into the top field (if you include the quotes). Place the year (shown below) into both the “dated between” fields … and press Enter. This is your best friend in on-line research. Skip any of the above-mentioned fields and you’ll get more results to read.

        Cook, John, et al. 2013 “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.” Environmental Research Letters

        Legates, David R., Willie Soon, and William M. Briggs 2013. “Climate consensus and ‘misinformation’: A rejoinder to Agnotology, scientific consensus, and the teaching and learning of climate change.” Science & Education

        Tol, Richard SJ. 2014 “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: a re-analysis.” Energy Policy

        Anderegg, William RL, et al. 2010 “Expert credibility in climate change.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

        Reusswig, Fritz 2013. “History and future of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming.” Environmental Research Letters

    • Mollie Norris

      Keep repeating the 97% lie – it’s essential to the scam; it can’t be sold to anyone with the intellectual integrity to admit that 41/11944 is 0.3%, not 97%.

      • Circaman

        And your point in a clear sentence is?

    • libertarius

      Except once you look at the evidence, the projections upon which politicised claims are made were falsified nearly 20 years ago.

      That’s 20 years in which the people that rely upon the facts have had to endure stupid abuse from ideologues like you.

      It’s you that’s due a wake up call. Hope you enjoy it when it comes.

      • Circaman

        I hope those Koch brothers checks don’t bounce. Disinformation is pretty big business so enjoy your winnings.

  • Craig King

    Good article Dr. Briggs. Thanks for the insights.

    We have a saying in Yorkshire that is quite applicable, “If my uncle had t*ts he’d be my aunt”. These chaps should be ashamed of themselves.

  • Till Eulenspiegel

    “I never assaulted Mr. Jones. And besides, it was self-defense.”

  • Ray

    Sometimes I wonder if people find what they want to as long as the government will fund it.

    • Mollie Norris

      I don’t wonder; it’s responsible for a new branch of creative writing, similar to that used in police reports, in which research unrelated to anthropogenic effects on the environment are represented in terms chosen to secure future funding, as in pH decline due to oxygen depletion resulting from natural eutrophication in regions of low turnover which MAY be related to the increase in atmospheric CO2, but are consistently found to be independent of this.

  • Ray

    Col 1:17
    ….by him all things consist.
    I take this to mean that by Jesus Christ everything is kept in order working as he will have them to be according to the will of God, some of this being affected by our faith, lack thereof, sin, repentance, and the grace of God.

  • howard bell

    This year Alaska had the earliest and deepest snowfall amounts in decades.
    But yet they are becoming more hysterical by the minute.
    It’s pretty funny stuff.

  • howard bell

    I have spent days, day after day after day all day, doing nothing but watching the ocean tides, wind and surf conditions at the beach and I know for absolute certain that in the last 44 years that I have been paying attention to this, nothing has changed
    at all, there is no climate change, none, the ocean has not risen even the slightest.
    Climate Change is the delusional dream of atheists.

    “God would send them a powerful delusion so they would believe a lie”…..The Holy Bible.

    • Mollie Norris

      A reference notably absent on all catholic websites I’ve seen, in both articles and comments, relative to mainstream news sites as well as Christian sites or those with a spiritual orientation.

      • howard bell

        Interesting.

  • Wayne Cook

    Scientists who engage in politics might just be inventing their own religion.

Inspiration
The Sound of Freedom
Al Perrotta
More from The Stream
Connect with Us