Renowned Princeton Physicist Schools New York Times Science Journalist On CO2 Science!

Renowned Princeton physicist William Happer told New York Times science journalist Andrew Revkin in an online video conference that he believes the world has got it all wrong when it comes to the implications of CO2 emissions into our atmosphere.

 

Happer told Revkin that “any dispassionate weighing of the facts would give you a negative cost of carbon” and that “more CO2 is good for the world“.

Moreover Happer believes that the whole climate issue has “distracted people from real problems” like massive pollution in places like China and India.

Happer adds that he thinks “enormous damage has been done to the environment by diverting money from real problems to completely made up problems.”

He tells the New York Times journalist that he absolutely sees CO2 as a “non-problem” and that he even sees the trace gas “as good“. He reiterates: “Let me be clear: It think it’s not a problem. I think it’s a good thing.”

 

81 responses to “Renowned Princeton Physicist Schools New York Times Science Journalist On CO2 Science!”

  1. AndyG55

    William Happer knows all about thermalisation of energy absorbed by CO2 in the lower atmosphere…

    .. and how the gravito/pressure gradient copes naturally with that thermalised energy.

    Increased atmospheric CO2 is absolutely beneficial and TOTALLY ESSENTIAL to all life on Earth.

    Pity images don’t display here.. oh well, enjoy anyway

    https://s19.postimg.org/k3rksnur7/Towards1000.png

    1. AndyG55

      Please Pierre, can you grab that image and post it so people can see it.. pretty please. 🙂

  2. AndyG55

    ““enormous damage has been done to the environment by diverting money from real problems to completely made up problems.””

    Not only the environmental damage… the damage done to developing countries by the blockade on solid reliable coal or gas fired power, while at the same time decimating reliable systems in developed countries by the wanton stupidity and waste on replacing reliable supply systems with unreliable one.

    So much real progress halted by this brain-washed, anti-CO2 miasma.. its sad.

  3. AndyG55
  4. AndyG55

    Australia’s winter grain crop hit a new record in every state.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-14/nrn-record-winter-crop/8268564

    ALL PRAISE CO2 and modern technology. !

  5. Joe Public

    To quote Tom Nelson’s Valentine ditty from Twitter yesterday:

    Roses are red
    Violets are blue
    Both grow much better
    With more CO2

  6. Dan Pangburn

    Some of the mistakes made by the Consensus are discussed at http://consensusmistakes.blogspot.com

  7. tom0mason

    Hats off and applause for Professor William “Will” Happer (born July 27, 1939[1]) is an American physicist who has specialised in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy….

    …In July 2011, Happer published an article in First Things, “The Truth About Greenhouse Gasses: The Dubious Science of Climate Crusaders,” in which he discusses climate science’s concern with increasing CO2 as a “Moral Epidemic”.

    From Wikipedia.
    A strong voice of reason in an increasingly mad world.

  8. CO2isLife

    Bingo, my thoughts exactly. We have real problems facing this world that that money could go to solve. The cost of fighting climate change is measured in multiples of world GDP.

    Just How Much Does 1 Degree C Cost?
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/25/just-how-much-does-1-degree-c-cost/

  9. Just How Much Does 1 Degree C Cost? – CO2 is Life

    […] Post publishing Princeton Physicist Dr. Happer gave an interview to the NYTs that pretty much captures the spirit of this article. […]

  10. Rob

    Please, remind me how much research on climate change Happer has published in the scientific literature…

    1. tom0mason

      @Rob 16. February 2017 at 12:46 AM

      “Please, remind me how much research on climate change Happer has published in the scientific literature…”

      Hopefully none becvause it is NOT required!

      From his professional experience at the highest level he understands how atoms and molecules absorb and radiate energy. Optics and spectroscopy….
      He is quoted often in that field of expertize, therefore he understands that CO2 molecules CAN NOT overheat the atmosphere at ground level. He knows, because of his professional background, it is a falsehood to think so. He understands that more than any so called ‘climate scientist™’.
      Hopefully he will get the office and immediately begin ensuring meteorology is the main subject of investigation not the false notion of CO2 altering the rate at which climate’s change and all the fake alarmism that goes with it.

      Hopefully Trump move fast on this and restores scientific integrity to these studies. Return REAL SCIENCE back into the subject front and center.

    2. DirkH

      Rob 16. February 2017 at 12:46 AM | Permalink | Reply
      “Please, remind me how much research on climate change Happer has published in the scientific literature…”

      Warmunists constantly commit the fallacy of appeal to authority, showing that they don’t know logic.

    3. Pethefin

      Rob, how many scientific papers have you published? Do you even have a science degree? Where does your arrogance come from?

      1. SebastianH

        Where does the arrogance of skeptics comes from? Why do you believe CO2 has no effect despite it is being directly measurable? Why do some skeptics even conclude GHGs have a cooling effect on atmospheres? There is zero logic in that.

        And betting on Trump – the only source of real truth apparently – restoring scientific integrity? How would that work? Trump believes Breitbart and Fox-News?

        1. AndyG55

          Only arrogant, and VERY ignorant prat here, is YOU, seb..

          You deflect, you run, you hide, from supporting the very basis of your defunct religion..

          It is ultimately logical that H2O has a cooling effect in the lower atmosphere, and CO2 helps cool the from the upper atmosphere.

          This is what REAL science and REAL facts tell us.

          But you DENY science, and you DENY facts.

          And then you have the hide to call anyone else.????

          Brietbart and Fox are far less FAKE NEWS than any of the far-left MS crap you wallow in.

          Your continued IGNORANCE of even the most basic of atmospheric actions, like movement of energy via pressure gradients, is really showing you up as a monumental FOOL and a brain-wash anti-science TROLL

        2. AndyG55

          “CO2 has no effect despite it is being directly measurable”

          LIAR..

          You have been totally unable to find one single paper that shows CO2 has ANY effect in a convective atmosphere.

          No CO2 warming signal in either satellite record

          No CO2 warming signal in sea level

          No CO2 warming signal ANYWHERE

          …and yet STILL you keep on with your anti-science, anti-data FARCE of a RELIGIOUS ZEALOTRY.

          It really is getting SICKENING.

        3. Stephen Richards

          Mine come from 50yrs studying weather and climate, 2 physics degrees and engineering techs.

          How about you?

          1. SebastianH

            I haven’t seen many of your comments. What is your opinion on the greenhouse effect? What do you think about AndyG55’s statements? Is he right or wrong?

            Mr. Happer seems to be a reasonable skeptic. I can totally understand his view and we can debate all day long about the magnitude of the effect an increase of CO2 has, but the stuff skeptics like AndyG55 write about … it’s just stupidly wrong. Do you disagree? That is the arrogance I was refering too …

          2. AndyG55

            AGAIN, seb is totally unable to support the very basis of his religious zealotry.

            He DENIES facts, DENIES data. DENIES peer reviewed science…. DENIES, DENIES, DENIES.

            Poor seb

            When are you going to produce something, ANTYTHING, to back up your irrational cultist beliefs ???????

            Your childish IGNORANCE and unsupportable arrogance match your baseless AGW religion.

          3. AndyG55

            No CO2 warming signal in either satellite record

            No CO2 warming signal in sea level

            No CO2 warming signal ANYWHERE

            So, no response, no debate…

            …… having to rely on someone else’s opinion. lol !!!.

            That’s pretty PATHETIC of you.

            Maybe phone your granny ????

          4. AndyG55

            “and we can debate all day long about the magnitude of the effect an increase of CO2 has”

            No YOU can’t.

            You have proven that you cannot produce one single bit of proof that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            You are TOTALLY UNABLE to support your side of any debate.

        4. AndyG55

          “Where does the arrogance of skeptics comes from”

          Where does YOUR arrogance come from, seb..

          I’m guessing a deep-seating feeling of mental inferiority… bravado trying to cover it up.

          So far you have been nothing but an arrogant, science-denying junior high arts student..

          What’s your problem?

          Did your leftist parents leave you on your own because you were a petulant little attention-seeking prat… and your feelings of entitlement got the better of you ?

          Nothing seems to have changed… maybe its time for you to try to grow up, seb!

          1. AndyG55

            No response.. seems I hit on right target yet again 🙂

            The Mercedes, driven by an electric car ranter, is the dead give-away.

            Granny’s HYPOCRITICAL little boy.

        5. Pethefin

          Seb, or is it Sod since you replied to a question to Sod (and your work as a pair nowadays), you did not answer the actual question, which of course is the standard MO of a troll like you.
          Where did I say that CO2 has no effect? You have yet to prove that the CO2 is the planet-slayer you believe it to be.
          And what the hell has Trump to do with my question? Another pathetic “look over there” stunt by the troll.

        6. tom0mason

          SebastianH 16. February 2017 at 8:24 AM
          As I have explained before, published scientific papers have explored this. You appear to go against the science — maybe you should take it up with S. A. Clough and M. J. Iacono and their science on why CO2 and Ozone are the main stratospheric cooling gases, and are not major gases for warming the lower troposphere.

          Argument and differences of opinions are good in science, as observation and measurement rule — interpretation is the contentious area, and consensus is NOT science.
          I arrogantly know you are wrong (because of incorrect interpretations) as much as you just as arrogantly think the same of me — time will judge, not consensus.

          Oddly this is exactly the subject Will Happer is the expert in.

          1. SebastianH

            I just saw you reply on the other thread where I posted this link:
            https://geosciencebigpicture.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/downwelling-ground-up.jpg and you posted this link: https://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/stratosphere-radiation-by-species-1460.jpg

            I find it interesting that you come to a different conclusion despite the picture showing a near black body radiance in the CO2 wavelengths for both locations.

            The picture you used seems to be from a line-by-line model, so contains no actual measurements in different heights, but calculated ones. It is displaying cooling/warming of the surrounding atmosphere in K/day, correct? That doesn’t include radiative energy transfer to the surface and doesn’t contradict the actual measurements of the spectrum. AndyG55 often links to the same picture of stratospheric cooling and I gave up explaining to him why this doesn’t mean CO2 is only radiating in the stratosphere.

            Please point out where my interpretation is incorrect. Thank you.

          2. AndyG55

            No, what you gave up on LONG AGO was producing ONE SINGLE PAPER that shows CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            Heck, you never even tried, and you still DENIES all the science that shows quite categorically that it DOESN’T.

            You can’t even counter the FACT that there is

            No CO2 warming signal in either satellite record

            No CO2 warming signal in sea level

            No CO2 warming signal ANYWHERE

            You know you CANNOT support the very basis of the AGW lie.. ..

            …. so you just continue to waffle and flap and rant.

  11. Robert Brewer

    I preceded Happer’s Princeton colleague, Dr. Bob Key, in grad school at TAMU where we stripped gases from seawater for multiple Navy research projects. In that time Dr Wally Broecker allowed me to visit and work briefly in his Columbia lab at Lamont Doherty Geological Observatory. (This was before he coined the term global warming.) Dr. Broecker believes global warming is caused by changes in ocean circulation. I’m wondering what Key and other of Happer’s colleagues believe about anthropogenic global warming and it’s contribution to normal climate cycles. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0aTlyQuvDv3U1Brc0h1WFQxWm8/view?usp=drivesdk

  12. Robert Brewer

    So happy to see Happer has a bike (titanium?) (Litespeed?) in his office. Few people believe those other than Climate Crusaders ride bicycles.

    1. Mindert Eiting

      I ride my bicycle the whole year through, do not have a car, and the last time I took an airplane was ten years ago, unlike my green friends, who swallowed the climate swindle hook line and sinker, and travel in airplanes three times a year from here to the other end of the world. They also were in total panic about the election of Trump. Nice people anyhow, resembling a bit our sods and seds.

      1. Robert Brewer

        That’s my point. I have an office surrounded by environmentalist and not one of them has a hard science degree. I recycle most everything, ride my bike for transportation, drive the most fuel conserving vehicle when I have to and limit air travel, my house is a model of efficiency: yet I’m considered the bad guy because I don’t believe in AGW. If it can’t be quantitated it’s not worth controlling the lives of every upright bipedal on Earth. I crave efficiency; abhor excess; and just do what I can.

  13. Andrew Revkin

    Couple things. First, I moved to http://ProPublica.org – not at Times. More important, I’m hoping your enthusiasm for Happer’s views extends to his strong defense of climate observation and analysis budgets when the GOP budget cutters and Trump take out the cleavers. Or when he describes the Karl/Bates data dispute as a “FLAP” – not a scandal.

    If you didn’t bother reading the full transcript or watching the other video clips, here goes: https://twitter.com/Revkin/status/831957461506654213

    1. Pethefin

      Another “look over there”-move. How about commenting the topic of this post? Too much for your journalist ethics?

      1. AndyG55

        Revkin.. ethics..

        … two words you will rarely see in the same sentence.

        1. kim

          I’ve long defended Andy Revkin’s curiosity and intellectual integrity, at least partly because he gave me a forum @ DotEarth in 2008. The bitter ones were so incensed some called it DotKim.

          But he’s an advocate. Why should he understand that AnthroCO2 gives mild and beneficial warming, and miraculous, belly-filling greening? Insofar as he’s been an advocate for alarm, he’s been wrong.

          He’ll learn.
          ======

          1. kim

            And heh, Karl’s thumb was flapping, and flapping, and flapping. Andy’s been clapping, and clapping, and clapping.
            ==================

    2. Harry Dale Huffman

      The “Karl/Bates dispute” is just the latest “flap” in the continuing uncovering of the scandal that is “climate science”–a world scandal, in both science and politics. It is one piece of the puzzle for people who don’t know, but want to find out, which side to believe in the “global climate” debate.

      The “Karl/Bates dispute” piece shows two climate scientists, both insiders who intimately knew and dealt with the same data, who nevertheless clash over the fundamental worth of Karl’s “pause buster” paper. It behooves anyone looking at this clash from the outside to consider it, not just as an isolated incident upon which they must judge the greater debate, but in the context of the greater debate, the larger picture, many pieces of which have already been put before them, in their proper place in that larger picture. In that context, Karl’s paper was slapped together using questionable data (and many scientists have questioned it, not just Bates), yet it was allowed to pass unchallenged by anonymous peer reviewers and a professional editor of a prestigious scientific journal, and its “findings”, problematic as they are on a fundamental scientific level, were used to immediately adjust the official global temperature record, and this just the latest such “officially sanctioned” adjustment to the real, raw data, that has gone on over the course of the last 25 years, solely in order to make the data fit the theory and the political agenda of one side in the political arena–a political side, the Left, that becomes ever more hysterical to win power, rather than uncover the truth about our remarkably varied and ever-changing, yet ever only repeating, ever stable, world.

      The “Karl adjustment” was effected to “erase” the “global warming pause” that was a growing embarrassment to climate scientists, and was done just months before the world’s political leaders met in Paris to sign the “Paris agreement” to lock in commitments of vast and even ruinous scope, in accordance with that fundamentally-disputed science.

      Anyone who misdirects people from looking at the larger picture, by calling any one piece of it just a small “flap”–as William Happer apparently did–is missing the main point of the whole endeavor, to reveal the physical truth, and in so doing, reveal the intellectual truth about “climate science” and the political truth about our public discourse now.

      The truth is that the peoples of the world–in particular and especially, the peoples of the developed nations of the West–are being warred upon, literally, in the name of an utterly false and politically, and ethically, suborned “science”. This is not just a tendentious “debate”, any more than the “Karl/Bates dispute” is just a “flap”. This is an insane war, by a Left gone insane, upon reason itself.

    3. sod

      i took a look at the rest, most people here will not do that. Anything that contradicts their position does simply not exist for them.

      I have a pretty strong feeling about this: serious journalists should not do this kind of interviews with denialists. It is a promotion of fake news, and basically comments here directly demonstrate what comes out of it: Full focus on the sound bites “sceptics” like, total denial of all other parts.

      There is no good in these kind of interviews, and that is the sad real news in a fake news world.

      1. AndyG55

        “Anything that contradicts their position does simply not exist for them”

        You have described yourself to a tee.

        You DENY basically everything that impinges on your deep-seated AGW brain-washing.

        You live in a basement in an inner-city far-leftist ghetto, and accuse other of having fake view of the world…. truly HILARIOUS. !!!

        1. sod

          “You live in a basement in an inner-city far-leftist ghetto, and accuse other of having fake view of the world…. truly HILARIOUS. !!!2

          no. there are trees and a stream outside my window. You are wrong on everything

          1. AndyG55

            oh dear.. really hit a sore nerve there, haven’t I.

            Still inner city, isn’t it.

            still a far-left ghetto.. isn’t it.

  14. AndyG55

    Trump and his merry band will keep the data and junk the fabrications…
    … and those responsible for the fabrications.

    Muck out the stable, so to speak.

    I hope you don’t have too many fingers in the climate trough, because you are likely to lose them 🙂

  15. toorightmate

    CO2 is a good thing must be said and followed more and more.
    Generating more CO2 will benefit the developed world, but nowhere near as much as it will benefit the undeveloped world.
    The USA spent a shipload of money in the 1980s to minimise the SO2 effects from burning coal. Without a great deal of effort and capital, the particulate problems of Beijing and New Delhi coal burning can also be overcome.

  16. AndyG55

    from one of Will Happer’s videos..

    “I think a 1000ppm will be better for plants”

    “It gives drought resistance to plants”

    “We are in a bit of a CO2 famine”

    “It is a complete distortion of the truth to call it pollution”

    “All of the geological evidence indicates that CO2 is a minor player”

    EVERY statement is a manifest TRUTH !!

    https://s19.postimg.org/k3rksnur7/Towards1000.png

    1. sod

      It is total garbage. He needs to talk to people who understand this stuff.What he says is simply insane. Scientist talking outside his field. He will embarrass himself to the very core-.

      1. AndyG55

        Poor sob.. again DENYING the facts…. no wonder you are destined to remain one of the most ignorant person on the planet.

        There is only one totally insane person here.. and that is YOU, sob.

        Every statement made there is MANIFESTLY and ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

      2. AndyG55

        “He will embarrass himself to the very core-.”

        roflmao.. no sob, in a debate with any climate scientist, he would mop the floor with them.

        He knows way more about atmospheric gases than basically all of the pseudo-science “climate-scientists™” put together.

      3. Sunsettommy

        Sod, your feeble attempt at a counterpoint, was a marvelous side show!

        1. AndyG55

          Sob, your feeble attempt at a counterpoint, was….

          …. sort of like treading on a doggie-doo pyramid.

  17. tom0mason

    What’s not to like? —
    My transcript of the video (which may or maybe not accurate) …

    (Happer)
    If you look around the world there are people pedeling every risk you can imagine [you know], high altitude nuclear bursts, [you know, aagh], the instability of the grid, [you know], cyber meltdown – the year 2000, [you know…errrr…] People have made money on risks for as long as the world has existed. [You know] So it’s a common way to make a living. And [you know] if you subscribe to every one of these people you might as well shutdown. [You know] You can’t operate, er, GMOs, er. (commentator –Right)
    So, I, in the case of climate, [you know,] I think that any dispassonate wieghing of the facts would give you a negative cost of carbon. You know that more CO2 is good for the world. [You know] I’ve always mantained that and I can explain many reasons for it. No, this is not to say that, [you know,] that irrisponsible burning of fossil fuels is good for the world, there are all sorts of real problems there and one bad thing about the climate hysteria is that it’s distracted people from real problems. If you go to Bejing or New Deli, I’m sure you’ve been to both places, on certain days [you know] you can practically not go outside, the air is so bad — its not CO2, [you know] its people burning the fields, it’s fly ash from [you know] unregulated coal burning, it’s every possible thing, all of which have solutions [you know] you don’t have to live with this stuff, and yet instead of cleaning up the air and making [you know] people’s lives better [you know, er…] …they jet around the world talking about saving the planet from CO2 which it’s not endanger of.
    So, [so,] I think enormous damage has been done to the environment by diverting money from real problems into completely made-up problems.

    (commentator –)So you really see it as a none problem, not as something worth invest…
    (Happer)
    Absolutely! I, I… Not only as a none problem I see CO2 is good. Let me be clear, I don’t think it’s a problem at all, I think it’s a good thing.
    E&OE

  18. Joe

    It’s truly amazing. The entire CO2 scam was invented by the Club of Rome as a means for taxing the population. The number of “scientists” who have been taken in by this contrived B.S. is mind boggling.

    People, you don’t need a science degree to understand the whole CO2 and AGW argument. You just need street sense to know when you’re being lied to.

    If you think you have to crunch numbers to figure out the whole global warming thing, you may as well pull out a yard stick to measure your foot steps to figure out how your pocket was picked.

    Let me break this down in simple street terms. The entire global warming argument was manufactured as a means to dupe the population to accept a taxation scheme to fund a global government, while at the same time driving down our standard of living, eliminating the middle class, so there would only be remaining a handful of ultra-wealthy and powerful then the rest of us being dirt poor. It doesn’t get more complicated than that.

    If you can’t wrap your mind around that, you’ll never understand “global warming” and “climate change.” It’s a scam. Nothing more. Nothing less. There’s no science to argue or comprehend.

    1. SebastianH

      It’s relatively simple physics and the effects can be easily measured. Calling this a scam is like calling gravity or the progression of time a scam.

      Simple minded climate skeptics do not seem to understand radiative energy transfer and usually counter it with “cold stuff can not warm hot stuff” which clearly demonstrates that the basics were not understood.

      Another lovely skeptics-argument is “CO2 is cooling Earth and only radiating above X km and only towards space, having nothing to do with the surface temperature”. This goes against physics and all measurements.

      Or “IR radiation can not warm the oceans”. Another demonstration that radiative energy transfer wasn’t understood.

      It’s hard to read and hard to ignore (cause: https://xkcd.com/386/), but it seems to be impossible to argument and explain such basic concepts to someone like AndyG55 who then turns to insults, ignores everything that was written, declares every measurement false, etc …

      The solution to the problem should not be paid for by the poor with that I agree. But calling it a scam, because you don’t like math & physics enough to understand the equations and measurements … well, that leads to a world like portrait in the movie Idiocrazy.

      1. AndyG55

        RUBBISH,

        You earn every comment I make about you because of your base level INEPITUDE on supporting even the most BSAIC LIE of the AGW scam

        YOU CANNOT produce a paper that shows that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

        Heck, you never even tried, and you still DENIES all the science that shows quite categorically that it DOESN’T.

        You can’t even counter the FACT that there is…

        No CO2 warming signal in either satellite record

        No CO2 warming signal in sea level

        No CO2 warming signal ANYWHERE

        You know you CANNOT support the very basis of the AGW scam.. ..

        …. so all you do is just continue to waffle and flap and rant, continuing to show that you just DO NOT UNDERSTAND.

        ““CO2 is cooling Earth and only radiating above X km and only towards space, having nothing to do with the surface temperature”.

        This statement is fully back by science and measurements.

        I repeat, because you don’t seem to be able to grasp basic FACTS..

        No CO2 warming signal in either satellite record

        No CO2 warming signal in sea level

        No CO2 warming signal ANYWHERE

        There is NO mechanism whereby CO2 can cause warming in a convective atmosphere

        You KNOW you CANNOT support the very basis of the AGW lie, yet you just keep yapping and flapping.

        You have also proven you are a mathematical and scientific non-entity, totally unable to comprehend how the atmosphere actually works.

        Regurgitating AGW BS anti-science as your only come-back.. and you don’t even see that it total BS..

        Its PATHETIC and it TEDIOUS.

      2. AndyG55

        Convection and pressure differences CONTROL the flow of energy in the lower atmosphere.

        If you don’t know that, then you really have missed out on a massive slice of education.

        But that was obvious from your very first post where all you had available was brain-washed parroted propaganda pap. And you STILL haven’t got past that stage.

        1. SebastianH

          Convection and pressure differences CONTROL the flow of energy in the lower atmosphere.

          Please quantify … where does the energy come from that convection distributes through the lower atmosphere? How many W/m² are caused by latent heat transfer, transfer by contact and radiative transfer. I am sure you know the numbers, right?

          The rest? Forget it, I wont explain it to you again or try to present you meaningful links. You don’t accept reality and that’s ok. You insult people who do not agree with you and that’s ok too. I don’t care.

          1. AndyG55

            I’m not here to TEACH you basic physics, seb..

            You have proven you just DO NOT want to learn.

            You still haven’t come up with that paper that shows CO2 causes warming in a convectively controlled atmosphere, have you.

            Still basing your feeble AGW belief on non-science.

          2. AndyG55

            “or try to present you meaningful links.”

            Well duh.. we KNOW you can’t do that.

            And we have heard all the erroneous propaganda pap that you come out with….

            … nothing new there, just the abject inability to support the most basic LIE of the AGW scam.

            Your AGW religion is EMPTY and BASELESS.

          3. SebastianH

            You are here to troll … I know. So you don’t know those numbers, right?

          4. AndyG55

            Only troll here is you, seb

            You cannot support the very basis of the AGW scam .. and YOU KNOW IT.

            Your PATHETIC diversionary tactic won’t work here.

            You, and EVERYONE ELSE, KNOWs that your ONLY reason for being here is to keep regurgitating the same old anti-science AGW propaganda NONSENSE, because its all you have.

            Crawl back under your slimy bridge, worthless little trollette.

          5. SebastianH

            Please quantify … where does the energy come from that convection distributes through the lower atmosphere? How many W/m² are caused by latent heat transfer, transfer by contact and radiative transfer.

            If you can’t tell the numbers, then what are we talking about?

      3. Kenneth Richard

        SebastianH: “It’s relatively simple physics and the effects can be easily measured.”

        Great. So what are the physical measurements in net heat content change for lowering the airborne CO2 concentration by -10 ppm (-0.00001) over a body of water, SebastianH? I’ve asked you this question probably about a dozen times, and each time you are unable to answer it using “simple physics” and “easily measured” numbers. You’ve even acknowledged that it is only a “theory” that CO2 variations over a body of water cause a net change in heat content, as it’s never been observed. Never been subjected to a scientific experiment. And yet here you are again, claiming this is “simple physics” that are “easily measured” anyway. Produce the physical measurements, SebastianH.

        SebastianH: “Simple minded climate skeptics do not seem to understand radiative energy transfer”

        Here are some “simple minded” scientists who identify the radiative energy contributors to changes in ocean heat content. Notice that not one of them mention CO2 as a contributor. Why do you think that is, SebastianH, if, as you believe, CO2 became the dominant factor affecting net ocean heat content changes at some point in the last century or so (or whatever year you believe humans took over)?

        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477%281996%29077%3C0041%3AOOTIRP%3E2.0.CO%3B2
        Observations of the Infrared Radiative Properties of the Ocean
        “[I]t is necessary to understand the physical variables contributing to sea surface emitted and reflected radiation to space. The emissivity of the ocean surface varies with view angle and sea state, the reflection of sky radiation also depends on view angle and sea state, and the absorption of atmospheric constituents such as water vapor, aerosols, and subdivisible clouds affect transmittance.” [CO2 is not mentioned as a factor affecting net ocean heat content variations.]

        ftp://mana.soest.hawaii.edu/pub/rlukas/OCN-MET665/fluxes/radiative/Ohlmann%20etal%20Part%20II%202000%20JPO.pdf
        [I]n-water solar fluxes can vary by 40 W/m-2 within the upper few meters of the ocean (based on a climatological surface irradiance of 200 W/m-2) and that a significant portion of the variation can be explained by upper ocean chlorophyll concentration, solar zenith angle, and cloud amount. [CO2 not mentioned as a factor affecting the heat flux variation, or anywhere in the paper.]

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JC091iC09p10585/abstract
        The heat balance of the global ocean surface layer is calculated using bulk flux formulations. Maps of the long-term monthly and annual means of the net surface energy flux together with the four components of the total flux (latent heat flux, sensible heat flux, incoming radiation, and outgoing radiation) for the global oceans are presented. Incoming solar radiation and latent heat flux are the two dominant components that control net surface energy fluxes. Wind speed, cloud cover, and the gradient of specific humidity are the three most important meteorological parameters in determining surface flux. [CO2 not mentioned as a parameter in determining surface flux, or anywhere in the paper.]

        When did the natural variables that you acknowledge used to cause net decadal-scale changes in ocean heat content (e.g., clouds) stop varying, allowing 0.000001 variations in CO2 concentrations to take over and become the predominant cause of OHC changes, and thus climate changes? What was the year or span of years that humans took over, SebastianH? I’ve asked you this question many times too, and each time, you run away from it. Why not just answer it if you are so confident in your position?

        1. SebastianH

          Kenneth, I already did that calculation for you. If the (measurable) backradiation increases the ocean surface has to warm to be able to emit as much energy as before. It may take a while for the ocean to warm, but it will get here (all the while the heat content is increasing). Some goes in the other direction for cooling effects.

          And you always mention other events/effect that influence temperature, but do they completely cancel out the effect of GHGs? Is there negative feedback that just cancels changes in the GHE? Why does the same feedback mechanism not cancel out other changes that affect temperature?

          1. SebastianH

            *) it will get there and *) same goes for the other direction

          2. AndyG55

            The only change in the GHE comes from H2),

            and yes, the same mechanism of pressure temperature gradients DOES cancel out temperature changes..

            We know its nothing to do with CO2 because we know that there is

            No CO2 warming signal in either satellite record

            No CO2 warming signal in sea level

            No CO2 warming signal ANYWHERE

            There is NO mechanism whereby CO2 can cause warming in a convective atmosphere

          3. Kenneth Richard

            SebastianH: “Kenneth, I already did that calculation for you.”

            Yet another false statement from SebastianH. You have never provided the physical measurements from an actual (real world) scientific experiment that demonstrates that varying CO2 concentrations up or down by + or – 0.000001 cause heat changes in a body of water, and if so, how much Never. All you do instead is regurgitate modeled assumptions and analogies about what you believe to be true. No actual measurements. No actual observations. No scientifically controlled experimental evidence. Nothing. And then you turn around and falsely claim you have answered this question when you fully know you have not.

            You never answered the question about why it is that “simple-minded” scientists do not even list CO2 as a factor in radiatively affecting the surface flux. Clouds are mentioned. Humidity is mentioned. Wind is mentioned. CO2 is not. I gave you three examples from scientific papers (above). No response.

            You never answered the question about the year or span of years that humans took over from natural variants in forcing net changes in ocean heat content. You continue to dodge this question. It’s become pathetic.

            SebastianH: “And you always mention other events/effect that influence temperature, but do they completely cancel out the effect of GHGs?”

            SebastianH, the “effect of GHGs” is dominated by clouds, which overwhelmingly dwarf changes in CO2 in affecting temperature. I keep on pointing this out to you — a conceptualization that even your blogs acknowledge — and yet you nonetheless ignore this and just go ahead with claiming this is all “simple physics” that CO2 dominates the GHE anyway.

            The total net radiative forcing for CO2 since 1750, as alleged by the IPCC, is 1.8 W m-2. Doubled CO2 (to 560 ppm) from pre-industrial levels is alleged to cause 3.7 W m-2 of forcing (which is usually rounded up to 4 W m-2). Variations in clouds, on the other hand, completely overwhelm this alleged CO2 forcing…

            RealClimate (Dr. Peter Minnett)
            “Of course the range of net infrared forcing caused by changing cloud conditions (~100W/m2) is much greater than that caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases (e.g. doubling pre-industrial CO2 levels will increase the net forcing by ~4W/m2)”

            According to McLean, (2014) cloud cover reduction produced +5.4 W m-2 of radiative forcing between 1984-2009. According to Feldman et al. (2015) — a paper that you have cited — the radiative forcing for +22 ppm CO2 between 2000 and 2010 was +0.2 W m-2. Using basic calculations, the modeled CO2 forcing between 1984 and 1999 was also about 0.2 to 0.3 W m-2, as CO2 concentrations increased from 344 ppm to 368 ppm.

            Question: Which forcing was larger, the 5.4 W-2 between 1984-2009 for clouds, or the 0.5 or 0.6 W m-2 forcing between 1984-2009 for CO2 changes alleged by models?

            Since answering this question will undermine your beliefs, I fully expect that you will, once again, pretend that this (and all the other questions above) haven’t been asked, and instead you will go on your way, insisting that your beliefs are “basic physics” that we “simple-minded” non-believers are too stupid to comprehend the “truth”.

          4. SebastianH

            Kenneth, do you really believe water behaves differently than other matter and somehow can ignore thermodynamics? If more energy is incoming than is outgoing it’s going to get warmer to get rid of the difference.

            I could as well ask you to provide proof that gravity is universal and something that has weight here also has weight over a body of water. Would you think that this is a sane request? The radiation is measureable and if water is not pulling magic tricks then this radiation has an effect. I did the calculation in the comments and you ignored it.

            It’s simple enough to repeat: if you measure a backradiation of 300 W/m² and want to know by how much a 10 ppm increase of CO2 would change that value, you can simplify it since it’s a small change (2.5% CO2 increase). Instead of logarithmic correlation we can assume a linear correlation. Result: if CO2 is the only thing backradiating a 10 ppm increase results in 307.5 W/m² backradiation. If it is responsible for just 10% of the backradation a 10 ppm increase results in 300.75 W/m².

            We know from measurements that CO2 is radiating back to the surface. You can google the exact percentage. Fact is, even additional 0.75 W/m² result in 23652000 Joule additional energy radiated on that square meter per year. That’s enough energy to warm 5649 kg of water by 1 degree (the first 5.649 meters if the warming were equal in every depth).

          5. Kenneth Richard

            “Kenneth, do you really believe water behaves differently than other matter and somehow can ignore thermodynamics?”

            SebastianH, if you believe that the heat energy required to heat up 1 liter of air is just like heating 1 liter of water, it is you who is “ignoring” thermodynamics, as it takes 3,454 times more energy to heat up 1 liter of water than it does to heat up 1 liter of air. This is the magnitude problem that I keep on referencing that you keep on pretending doesn’t exist so that you can avoid answering questions about the actual physical measurements showing CO2 variations cause heat changes in water (which, as you know, don’t exist…which is why you refuse to answer). Yes, SebastianH, radiative heat energy changes in water “behave differently” than air. That’s why the IPCC even says that the air comprises only 1% of any net heat change from “global warming”.

            I’m going to ask you again. Maybe the 10th time I ask you’ll finally answer my questions rather than pretending like you don’t see them.

            The total net radiative forcing for CO2 since 1750, as alleged by the IPCC, is 1.8 W m-2. Doubled CO2 (to 560 ppm) from pre-industrial levels is alleged to cause 3.7 W m-2 of forcing (which is usually rounded up to 4 W m-2). Variations in clouds, on the other hand, completely overwhelm this alleged CO2 forcing…

            RealClimate (Dr. Peter Minnett)
            “Of course the range of net infrared forcing caused by changing cloud conditions (~100W/m2) is much greater than that caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases (e.g. doubling pre-industrial CO2 levels will increase the net forcing by ~4W/m2)”

            According to McLean (2014), cloud cover reduction produced +5.4 W m-2 of radiative forcing between 1984-2009. According to Feldman et al. (2015) — a paper that you have cited — the radiative forcing for +22 ppm CO2 between 2000 and 2010 was +0.2 W m-2. Using basic calculations, the modeled CO2 forcing between 1984 and 1999 was also about 0.2 to 0.3 W m-2, as CO2 concentrations increased from 344 ppm to 368 ppm.

            Question: Which forcing was larger, the 5.4 W-2 between 1984-2009 for clouds, or the 0.5 or 0.6 W m-2 forcing between 1984-2009 for CO2 changes alleged by models? Answer the question.

            You never answered the question about why it is that “simple-minded” scientists do not even list CO2 as a factor in radiatively affecting the surface flux. Clouds are mentioned. Humidity is mentioned. Wind is mentioned. Aerosols are mentioned. CO2 is not even mentioned. And yet you believe CO2 overwhelms all these other variabIes in causing heat changes in water. Why do scientists not mention CO2 as a radiative factor in the surface flux, SebastianH? Answer the question.

            You never answered the question about the year or span of years that humans took over from natural variants in forcing net changes in ocean heat content. You continue to dodge this question. It’s become pathetic. Answer the question.

          6. SebastianH

            Kenneth, your first paragraph demonstrates, that you still have not understood how radiative energy transfer works. If CO2 is radiating with an additional 0.5-0.6 W/m² towards the surface, the surface will have to increase its emissions in order to get rid of that additional energy. That corresponds to an increased temperatur of the surface.

            There are no masses involved in this mechanism. Mass and other properties only play a role in the speed of the transition towards the new steady state / equilibrium. During that process energy content increases (as has been measured in the case of oceans) until the surface temperature is high enough.

            Regarding alleged cloud forcing of +5.4 W/m² … that would indeed contribute to increased temperatures if it were true. Missing clouds also influence outgoing IR radiation. I bet you the net cloud forcing is near 0 W/m² for small changes like observed by McLean. Plus the cloud cover didn’t change dramatically in the last decade, did it? Why did the ocean heat content still increase?

            Cloud cover is responding to changes in temperature and those changes are – in part – caused by increase of CO2 concentration. Do you need proof for that too?

            CO2 is mentioned everywhere. More CO2 means shorter absorption paths, means higher temperature in near ground air and therefor a higher starting temperature for the lapse-rate/gradient which results in an increase of the mean height radiation is emitted to space. That’s the CO2 effect in a nutshell. More backradiation from this process causes the surface to heat up in order to be able to emit the absorpted energy (note: backradiation is NOT heating the surface, it is CAUSING the surface to heat up on its own).

          7. Kenneth Richard

            “Kenneth, your first paragraph demonstrates, that you still have not understood how radiative energy transfer works.”

            SebastianH, scientists don’t even mention CO2 as a physical mechanism affecting the surface flux when accounting the influential variables, not to mention they don’t identify CO2 concentrations as a key variable affecting ocean heat content variations. As you know and have acknowledged, it is only a “theory” (your word) that varying CO2 over a body of water causes a heat change in that body of water. I’ve asked for physical measurements using an actual experiment, and you can’t produce any because CO2 causing heat changes in water has never been observed in the real world. It’s an assumption. No matter how many ways you try to get around this with your off-putting and un-merited I-know-more-than-you condescension, you have no case in declaring your beliefs “simple physics” when you don’t even have the real-world physics to support them.

            “Regarding alleged cloud forcing of +5.4 W/m² … that would indeed contribute to increased temperatures if it were true.”

            So on what basis have you decided that 5.4 W m-2 of cloud radiative forcing between the mid-1980s and 2000s — which dwarfs the alleged 0.5 to 0.6 W m-2 forcing for CO2 — is not true? Do you determine “truth” by whether or not it contradicts your beliefs? Obviously, yes. If it contradicts your presuppositions, it’s false. If it affirms your presuppositions, it’s true. That’s why I appropriately refer to your presuppositions as beliefs.

            “I bet you the net cloud forcing is near 0 W/m² for small changes like observed by McLean.”

            Because the range of forcing is so much greater for clouds than CO2 (remember, 100 W m-2 clouds vs. 1.8 W m-2 CO2), even a tiny change in cloud cover will cause either warming or cooling — even with no change in TSI. So your “bet” would lose. On the other hand, since yours is not based on any scientific papers or evidence, all you have to do is say that you “bet” 5.4 W m-2 is really 0 W m-2, and then, with a little faith, it becomes your version of the “truth.” That’s why it’s akin to religious belief.

            From today’s article (20 Sun-Climate papers), number 21 says this regarding SSR (cloud forcing) since the mid-1980s:

            “Pinker et al. (2005) used a different product (2.5° resolution) and found that the derived global mean SSR series underwent a significant increase of 1.6 W m−2 per decade from 1983 to 2001 . … On the other hand, Hatzianastassiou et al. (2005) derived a SSR product from 1984 to 2000 (2.5° resolution) and reported a significant increase of +2.4 W m−2 per decade in the global mean series, which is considerably higher than the results from Pinker et al. (2005) and Hinkelman et al. (2009).”

            I literally have accumulated over 70 peer-reviewed scientific papers in my personal collection affirming the SSR cloud forcing W m-2 values are somewhere between 2 and 7 W m-2 total for the 1980s to 2000s, which, again, completely overwhelms the alleged 0.5 to 0.6 W m-2 for CO2 over the same period. But, since you don’t think it’s true (it’s not consistent with your beliefs), SSR cloud forcing conveniently becomes 0 W m-2 anyway. Just like you believe CO2 dominates as the variable modulating ocean heat changes since the year ____ (you’ve avoided answering this again) even though this process has never been observed in a physical experiment.

            In response to this, “I bet” you will (a) insist I don’t understand your version of CO2-ocean physics, (b) avoid answering direct questions fundamental to your position, (c) pretend that the magnitude problem I keep referencing isn’t there, and (d) restate your beliefs. Let’s see how well I do.

          8. SebastianH

            Kenneth, if you measure radiation and it is directed towards a body of water, do you expect this body of water to somehow not being affected by the radiation? Are the oceans 100% reflectors in the IR-spectrum?

            Increased surface solar radiation (SSR) is NOT cloud forcing. SSR includes forcing by aerosols and variations in the TSI of the sun itself (see first graph in the first paper you cite).

            A cloud has more effects than just blocking sunlight from reaching the surface. As long as you don’t acknowledge that you can’t really quantify cloud forcing. If higher temperatures cause less clouds and less clouds cause higher temperatures through the increased forcing … why do we still have clouds?`Where is the logic in that?

            Magnitudes are important, but a forcing not caused by increased greenhouse gases does not cancel out the forcing by increased greenhouse gases.

            P.S.: It’s not “my version” of CO2 physics. It is just physics. A body with a powersource will increase temperature if there is something (Atmosphere which is not transparent to certain radiation) insulating the body from radiating directly to space. It’s not magic.

          9. Kenneth Richard

            SebatianH: “Kenneth, if you measure radiation and it is directed towards a body of water, do you expect this body of water to somehow not being affected by the radiation? Are the oceans 100% reflectors in the IR-spectrum?”

            Once again, there is a massive (and not understood by you) difference between “not affected” at all (0%) by back radiation or “100% reflectors” of IR and having LW take over from SW, having CO2 dominate over incoming solar, clouds, aerosols, humidity, wind…in determining the heat content of the oceans. Your beliefs insist that the latter be true, and you continue to not understand or acknowledge the magnitude problem your belief system has here. You’re wanting to make this into a 0%-100% thing when we’re talking about a 95% to 5% thing. That way, when someone points out to you that CO2 may only influence temperature at, say, a less than 5% clip (hypothetically), you then immediately turn around and claim that he is actually saying 0%, which means he is denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Then, you can call him names like “simple-minded” for not believing as you do. This 0-100% theme permeates your every “rebuttal”, and it’s obviously why you refuse to answer questions pertaining to magnitudes. I have a feeling you completely understand what it is I’m saying here, but, because your beliefs get in the way, you will continue to pretend that this magnitude problem doesn’t exist.

          10. Kenneth Richard

            SebastianH” “Increased surface solar radiation (SSR) is NOT cloud forcing. SSR includes forcing by aerosols and variations in the TSI of the sun itself “

            Obviously this isn’t something you’re all that familiar with. To educate you, SSR is the incoming radiation from a net change in albedo, whether it’s from aerosols or clouds. Changes in the Sun’s output (TSI) is not in the same category. I”ll let the IPCC clarify this distinction for you since you’ve not learned this before:

            IPCC: “There are three fundamental ways the Earth’s radiation balance can change, thereby causing a climate change: (1) changing the incoming solar radiation [TSI] (e.g., by changes in the Earth’s orbit or in the Sun itself), (2) changing the fraction of solar radiation that is reflected (this fraction is called the albedo – it can be changed, for example, by changes in cloud cover, small particles called aerosols or land cover)”

            And, again to educate you, we don’t have cloud data from the periods prior to the 1980s, but since the 1980s it has been overwhelmingly determined that clouds dominate over aerosols in surface solar radiation studies. For example:

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JD021308/abstract
            “It is concluded that at the sites studied changes in cloud cover rather than anthropogenic aerosols emissions played the major role in determining solar dimming and brightening during the last half century

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JD022076/abstract
            Clouds and Earth’s Radiation Energy Budget System (CERES) and surface-based data exhibit an increase in SSR between 2003 and 2012, exceeding +10 W m−2 over this period for some areas of the peninsula. … Overall, three fourths of the SSR trend is explained by clouds, while the other one fourth is related to aerosol changes.”

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003442571530016X
            “Highlights: Four representative global satellite Rs [incident solar radiation] products were evaluated at 1151 sites …. [C]louds contribute more to the long-term variations of Rs [incident solar radiation] derived from satellite observations than aerosols.

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425713004161
            “Global [surface solar] radiation has an overall positive, and significant, trend [1983-2010] over the Meteosat disk which is mainly due to a negative trend in the effective cloud albedo, i.e., a decrease in cloudiness. … The trend for Europe of 4.35 W m− 2 dec− 1 is in the order of trends derived from surface measurements by Wild (2012) of 2 W m− 2 dec− 1 for the 1980s to 2000 and 3 W m− 2 dec− 1 after 2000.”

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JD021322/abstract
            Trends in downwelling global solar irradiance were evaluated at high elevation sites on the island of Maui, Hawai‘i. For the dry season (May-October), statistically significant (p ≤0.05) positive trends of 9–18 W m-2 (3–6%) per decade were found at all four high elevation stations tested. Wet season trends were not significant, except at the highest elevation station, which had a significant negative trend. No consistent trends in aerosol concentrations have been observed at high elevations in Hawai‘i, therefore, the observed dry-season brightening is most likely the result of decreasing cloud cover.
            ———————————————–
            And changes in aerosols are predominantly explained by natural emissions (e.g., volcanic activity), not anthropogenic emissions. This is likely new information to you as well.
            ———————————————–
            http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/13/12389/2013/acpd-13-12389-2013.html
            “Variation of the [SO2] concentration is mainly due to volcanoes. Lower stratospheric variability of SO2 could mainly be explained by volcanic activity and no hint for a strong anthropogenic influence has been found.”

            http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-3290-2_15
            [V]ariations of human-derived loading are an order of magnitude less than those of volcanic dust loading. … Although changes of total atmospheric dust loading may possibly be sufficient to account for the observed 0.3°C-cooling of the earth since 1940, the human-derived contribution to these loading changes is inferred to have played a very minor role in the temperature decline.

            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281973%29030%3C0101%3AOALDFM%3E2.0.CO%3B2
            “It has been estimated that the anthropogenic component of the global particulate burden of the atmosphere amounts to 5-12%; not, it would seem a very alarming figure.”

            http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740013864.pdf
            http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00022470.1975.10470118
            “The aerosols in the atmosphere consist of man-made and natural particles, and it is the man-made contribution due to combustion added to the natural (dust, sea spray, forest fires, and volcanic dust) background that is generally considered to be important in determining climatic changes. However, the man-made contribution on a global scale is quite small; estimates range from a negligible amount to about 6% of the natural background.”

            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0493%281980%29108%3C1430%3ATIATAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
            “The trends in [anthropogenic] atmospheric transmission at the three locations examined in this paper are very small, perhaps nonexistent, and generally not statistically significant. If the trends in atmospheric transmission and hence anthropogenic aerosols are small near their presumed sources, then the global increase in aerosols must be very small indeed. Consequently, the effects of anthropogenic aerosols on climate is probably negligible.”
            ———————————————————–

            SebastianH: “A cloud has more effects than just blocking sunlight from reaching the surface. As long as you don’t acknowledge that you can’t really quantify cloud”


            Once again, this is a subject you are obviously quite unfamiliar with. Cloud forcing encompasses both shortwave and longwave (i.e., clouds dominate the greenhouse effect relative to CO2), but the shortwave aspect of cloud forcing overwhelms the longwave.

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/met.285/abstract
            Satellite measurements and numerical forecast model reanalysis data are used to compute an updated estimate of the cloud radiative effect on the global multi-annual mean radiative energy budget of the atmosphere and surface. The cloud radiative cooling effect through reflection of short wave radiation dominates over the long wave heating effect, resulting in a net cooling of the climate system of − 21 Wm−2.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17780422
            “The size of the observed net cloud forcing is about four times as large as the expected value of radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2. The shortwave and longwave components of cloud forcing are about ten times as large as those for a CO2 doubling.”

          11. SebastianH

            Kenneth, so you want me to believe that the net cloud forcing is -21 W/m² and that number changed by 5.4 W/m² by what kind of reduction of the cloud cover? Did we really lose a quarter of the cloud cover? What causes a reduction of the cloud cover? Is the cloud cover an effect of something else?

            Regarding CO2 and water: the surface of the oceans will increase its temperature to be able to get rid of all incoming energy when the amount of incoming energy increases. The incoming energy is solar radiation and backradiation from the atmosphere. Change one and the surface temperature changes. Slowly because it is water and the volume is big, but eventually the radiation balance will be achieved. If there is a material that behaves in another way, I am sure scientists would like to get their hands on this discovery.

            P.S.: If cloud cover reduction really caused a +5.4 W/m² forcing, why is nobody freaking out about it? That’s a 1 K degree change of temperature, isn’t it?

          12. Kenneth Richard

            SebastianH: “Kenneth, so you want me to believe that the net cloud forcing is -21 W/m² and that number changed by 5.4 W/m² by what kind of reduction of the cloud cover?”

            SebastianH, your lack of knowledge on this topic is breathtaking. You will believe whatever you want to believe, of course, and you believe that net cloud forcing is 0 W m-2 as you’ve already stated.

            Obviously the -21 W m-2 is the calculated value (found in scientific papers) for the net shortwave vs. longwave difference in absolute radiative forcing from clouds. The absolute forcing from solar radiation on a cloudless day is 500 W m-2, heating the upper two meters by 2 K. 500 W m-2 is not the relative forcing value for the Sun, of course. You obviously don’t understand the difference between absolute forcing from clouds vs. relative forcing from clouds. The 5.4 W m-2 is a relative forcing value, determined by calculating the net decadal changes in cloud cover from satellite observations. This is obviously the first you’ve ever read about this topic, or the first time you’ve seen values like this.

            SebastianH: “Did we really lose a quarter of the cloud cover?”

            This is the kind of face-palm question that makes me wonder why I should even take the time to “debate” with you. You obviously are completely unfamiliar with surface solar radiation (you thought it didn’t include clouds), absolute vs. relative W m-2 forcing values, cloud forcing in general, aerosol forcing…

            SebastianH: “If cloud cover reduction really caused a +5.4 W/m² forcing, why is nobody freaking out about it?”

            Another face-palm. Um, SebastianH, no one is “freaking out” because people like you look at values like that and say, no, “I bet cloud forcing is 0 W m-2”, as your default position is that humans cause the oceans to warm, and so any contrary evidence must be dismissed/ignored. Skeptics, or those who are not blinded by their presuppositions and beliefs, actually consider evidence that does not align with their positions. That’s why you’re no skeptic.

          13. Kenneth Richard

            ftp://bbsoweb.bbso.njit.edu/pub/staff/pgoode/website/publications/Goode_Palle_2007_JASTP.pdf
            The decrease in the Earth’s reflectance from 1984 to 2000 suggested by Fig. 4, translates into a Bond albedo decrease of 0.02 (out of the nominal value of about 0.30) or an additional global shortwave forcing of 6.8 Wm2. To put that in perspective, the latest IPCC report (IPCC, 2001) argues for a 2.4 Wm2 increase in CO2 longwave forcing since 1850. The temporal variations in the albedo are closely associated with changes in the cloud cover. … We have also shown how concurrent changes in the Earth’s reflectance can produce a much larger climate impact over relatively short time scales. Thus, a possible Sun–albedo link, would have the potential to produce large climate effects without the need for significant excursions in solar irradiance.

            http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/8505/2013/acp-13-8505-2013.html
            [T]here has been a global net decrease in 340 nm cloud plus aerosol reflectivity [which has led to] an increase of 2.7 W m−2 of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 1.4% or 2.3 W m−2 absorbed by the surface [between 1979 and 2011].

            Sanchez-Lorenzo et al., 2016
            “The linear trend in the mean annual series of global solar radiation shows a significant increase since the 1980s of around 10 Wm-2 over the whole 32-year study period. Similar significant increases are observed in the mean seasonal series, with the highest rate of absolute (relative) change during summer (autumn). These results are in line with the widespread increase of global solar radiation, also known as the brightening period, reported at many worldwide observation sites.”

            http://nml.yonsei.ac.kr/front/bbs/paper/rad/RAD_2005-3_Wild_et_al.pdf
            “A similar reversal to brightening in the 1990s has been found on a global scale in a recent study that estimates surface solar radiation from satellite data. … A recent reconstruction of planetary albedo based on the earthshine method, which also depends on ISCCP cloud data, reports a similar decrease during the 1990s. Over the period covered so far by BSRN (1992 to 2001), the decrease in earth reflectance corresponds to an increase of 6 W m-2 in absorbed solar radiation by the globe. The overall change observed at the BSRN sites, estimated as an average of the slopes at the sites in Fig. 2A, is 0.66 W m-2 per year (6.6 W m-2 over the entire BSRN period).”

          14. SebastianH

            Kenneth, you like to give lengthy answers (and the word obviously).

            1) Why are you mixing absolute and relative values then? If you cite something that says clouds cause a net forcing of -21 W/m² and then cite something that says the decrease in cloud cover is responsible for a forcing of 5.4 W/m², then I assume that net cloud forcing was -26.4 W/m² in the past. If those 5.4 W/m² only refer to the increase in short wave radiation, by how much did the long wave radiation from the ground decrease in the same period?

            2) Do you think that cloud cover is a negative feedback? E.g. it gets warmer, so cloud cover increases to counteract the warming (because they have a net cooling effect)? If so, why did the cloud cover decrease despite warming? Or is the cloud feedback more likely to be positive? http://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6010/1523

            3) From your first link (Goode Palle 2007):

            One might think that the increase in cloud cover
            since 2000 might force a cooling, but the lower panel
            of Fig. 5 reveals that this is not necessarily true […] Since low clouds cool (reflection dominates)
            and mid+high clouds warm (heat trapping dominates),
            it could be that a cloudier Earth warms (or
            cools), but the sign of the change is not obvious.
            This presents a clear warning against predicting
            energy balance change by considering one climate
            parameter in isolation

            It’s not as simple as you want it to be.

          15. Kenneth Richard

            “Why are you mixing absolute and relative values then?”

            I didn’t think I would need to spell it out for you what the scientific papers actually said, just as I wouldn’t think I would need to explain that there is a difference between the 300-500 W m-2 of diurnal forcing from the Sun vs. the relative change in net forcing of 1 to 5 W m-2 since the Maunder Minimum, and that we don’t just subtract one value from the other and insist that we should be “freaking out” about 400 W m-2 of solar heating.

            http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/brt18.pdf
            Clouds reduce the absorbed solar radiation by -48 W m−2 (Cs = −48Wm−2) while enhancing the greenhouse effect by +30 W m−2 (Cl = 30Wm−2), and therefore clouds cool the global surface–atmosphere system by -18 W m−2 (C = −18 W m−2) on average. The mean value of C is several times the 4 W m−2 heating expected from doubling of CO2 and thus Earth would probably be substantially warmer without clouds.”

            “Do you think that cloud cover is a negative feedback?”

            It can be both a positive and negative feedback. It’s not the either/or 0%-100% conceptualization you prefer. In the Arctic, for example, cloud forcing increases temperature and melts glaciers:

            http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160112/ncomms10266/pdf/ncomms10266.pdf
            Clouds are known to play a pivotal role in regulating the local SEB [Surface Energy Balance], with competing warming and cooling effects on the surface. … The satellite-based cloud observations allow to estimate the cloud impact on the SEB [Surface Energy Balance]. … The annual mean CRE [Cloud Radiative Effect] of 29.5 (±5.2) W m 2 provides enough energy to melt 90 Gt of ice in the GrIS [Greenland Ice Sheet] ablation area during July and August. … The snow model simulations, which capture the evolution of the GrIS SMB [Surface Mass Balance] from 2007 to 2010, indicate that clouds warm the GrIS [Greenland Ice Sheet] surface by 1.2 (±0.1) C on average over the entire period [2007-2010]. … These results further indicate that not only liquid-bearing clouds but also clouds composed exclusively of ice significantly increase radiative fluxes into the surface and decrease GrIS SMB [Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Balance]

            “It’s not as simple as you want it to be.”

            Totally agree here. One thing is pretty simple, though: Since the range of potential forcing to act on the incoming solar radiation (~100 W m-2) is so much larger than the alleged forcing ranges for CO2, cloud cover changes dominate over CO2 in influencing climate changes. And since cloud cover hasn’t stopped changing, and we don’t have cloud cover information extending back further than the 1980s, the claim that CO2 has nonetheless caused most of the warming since 1750 or 1900 or 1950 (or which ever year you choose to start from) is presumptive at best. Assuming that the climate changes due to 0.000001 changes in one variable, CO2, and that all other variables have stayed the same so as to allow those 0.000001 changes in CO2 to regulate the Earth’s water temperature is what the believers are asking us to accept as “truth.” Sorry, I’m more skeptical than that.

  19. stan stendera

    Quit feeding the troll, Richard. I say this as someone who greatly admires your efforts to compile the real scientific papers on climate.