Dumping “Farce” Paris Accord Right Decision, Writes Basel Daily: “Donald Trump Is Right”

The Swiss online Basler Zeitung (BaZ) writes that critics of Donald Trump are wrong with their apocalyptic hype and exaggerations surrounding the President’s rejection of the Paris climate accord.

Worthless Accord

The BaZ writes that Trump is right because the Paris Accord is “a document that has gone off track in every way” and that it is an accord “soaking with hatred of the West” and makes “grotesque, empty promises” to developing countries.

The BaZ commentary calls the Paris Accord as a whole a “paper without value” because it contains no legally binding obligations and only includes toothless “intended nationally determined contributions” (INDCs), which means each country can determine on its own how much CO2 it intends to cut back on, without any enforcement mechanisms.

“A farce”

The BaZ commentary slams the Paris Accord for allowing China and India to continue emitting as usual until 2030, and then only gradually cutting back thereafter. It goes on to say that the commitments pledged by some of the industrial countries would be “fully unrealistic to achieve” and that it makes the accord “a farce”.

It won’t have in any way, as scientists at MIT […] have already calculated, any effects. Even if all 195 countries fulfilled what they said they would and achieved all their INDCs, the temperature would rise perhaps 1.9 to 2.6°C by 2050 and maybe 3.1 to 5.2°C by 2100. […] In fact the accord sought to limit the rise to ‘significantly’ less than 2°C. […] According to the MIT – and depending on the numbers used – the planet would warm up a whole 0.2°C less if the Paris Accord was adhered to.”

“Disrupts a circle of elitists”

The BaZ opinion then reminds readers how the science is filled with uncertainty and involves complex computer simulations, and what is really going on is that Donald Trump is massively disrupting a “circle of elitists”. The BaZ comments further:

Things were so wonderful at the conferences and global summits – until that elephant smashed everything that was in his way. China in the china cabinet? No, he simply stamped out all the hot air. (Basler Zeitung)”

=============================
P.S. by NTZ

The following chart shows why the Paris Accord would be the first step to the greatest investment failure in human history. Assuming the science was true, trillions of dollars for a few hundredths of a degree Celsius.

Source: Bjorn Lomborg – Impact of Current Climate Proposals DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.12295

96 responses to “Dumping “Farce” Paris Accord Right Decision, Writes Basel Daily: “Donald Trump Is Right””

  1. sod

    The first hit i got when i google the author is an article in Die Ziet about how right wing the paper is:

    http://www.zeit.de/2015/27/markus-somm-basler-zeitung-basel

    I know you folks hate it, when i look at the source, but you must realise that you are always picking the same sources.

    Everyone should read the comment section as well, Mr Somm is taken apart limb by limb.

    The Lomborg graph as the bottom is utterly false as well. Lomborg makes completely false assumptions, for example about China but also about the later effect of reductions.

    1. sunsettommy

      It appears that Sod, after all these years, still doesn’t know how to do a proper counterpoint response.

      Drop your fallacies kid,concentrate on a true debate.

      1. Kenneth Richard

        sod’s counterpoint response:

        The source is wrong…because it’s denier.

        Looking up the definition of the ad hominem logical fallacy…

        https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/1/Ad-Hominem-Abusive
        Description: Attacking the person [source] making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person [source] is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.

        Logical Form:

        Person 1 is claiming Y.
        Person 1 is a moron [denier].
        Therefore, Y is not true.

        1. sod

          “Person 1 is claiming Y.
          Person 1 is a moron [denier].
          Therefore, Y is not true.”

          this has nothing to do, with what i said.

          Person 1 is claiming that source A is also making point X.
          Person 2 (that is me) is pointing out that source A is not an unbiased source.

          Therefore, people should be a bit cautious about X

          1. Kenneth Richard

            Chemists find the GHE violates the laws of physics.
            sod claims the chemists published their findings in a non-peer-reviewed journal.

            Therefore, the chemists findings are not true.

          2. sod

            “Chemists find the GHE violates the laws of physics.
            sod claims the chemists published their findings in a non-peer-reviewed journal.

            Therefore, the chemists findings are not true.”

            1. Consensus science broken by scientist A
            2. Only paper that will publish it is a noname paper.

            Therefore, the really important science is published in the most unimportant papers..

          3. Kenneth Richard

            “Consensus science broken by scientist A”

            Huh? Consensus science? Derived from abstract counting to reach a pre-determined result?

            “Only paper that will publish it is a noname paper.”

            Once again, your comments are incoherent. I have no idea what you’re saying here.

            “Therefore, the really important science is published in the most unimportant papers.”

            This paper below, published in Science, has 1,450 citations. Is it an important paper? It says that variations in clouds dominate over CO2 in the construction of Earth’s radiative balance. Do you agree? Or do you have another logical fallacy that you can issue as a rebuttal?

            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 CO(2). The shortwave and longwave components of cloud forcing are about ten times as large as those for a CO2 doubling.”

          4. SebastianH

            Ha, Kenneth, I read that “3 Chemists …” blog post today. The arguments that are repeated in that post are all flawed.

            Point 1) Default BS about the atmosphere not being the same as a glass greenhouse. Really? Attacking the word “greenhouse” and then concluding that CO2 actually cools the surface? So without CO2 it would be cooler? Good one.

            Point 2) Attacking the blanket explanation … by confusing the lower troposphere with the whole atmosphere. There is no convection, etc towards space … that’s an internal thing.

            Point 3) They don’t understand how radiative energy transfers work. There is no violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, heat always flows in one direction, radiation doesn’t. It seems like those “chemists” think that somehow a radiating body “knows” that it is radiating towards a warmer object and consciously halts radiation in that direction? If that would work we could use it as faster than light communication. Perfect!

            Point 4) Just wow! Same mistake as in 3), apparently they think that “GHGs hinder radiative transport” means that it’s somehow held back and not able to leave the Earth system. Their critique is correct on this one, but their missunderstanding of the “definition” is telling.

            Point 5) The -18 °C figure is not correct, but it’s not wrong either. We know from the Moon what average temperature a body without an atmosphere has at our distance from the Sun. It is far lower than what can be calculated with the SB-law, because the Moon rotates slowly. So obviously the correct average temperature without and atmosphere (or without GHGs) depends on more factors, but the -18 °C is at least a temperature in the right direction, it would probably be colder.

            Point 5 II) About the clouds … just one critique earlier they write nothing would change regarding the radiation loss, it’s always the same. Why is that suddenly possible for clouds? Without an atmosphere there are no clouds, the albedo changes and that determines how much radiation has to be lost to space directly by the surface.

            Point 5 III) About Venus … compression does warm, but gravity does not compress the already compressed atmosphere on Venus. There is no work performed and therefor no temperature gain. Also the temperature gradient on Earth is not a cause, it is an effect and it starts at the surface. This argument could be coming right from AndyG55.

            Point 6) Radiative cooling towards space is always considered. Do they really think this is somehow “forgotten”?

            The only thing unreal is the paper of theirs. The sentence with the violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics should have been enough for any reviewer to reject that paper.

          5. Kenneth Richard

            “They don’t understand how radiative energy transfers work. There is no violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, heat always flows in one direction, radiation doesn’t.”

            Somehow I think that the lead author, a physical chemist (Ph.D., professor), an “internationally recognized expert on combustion, flames, explosions and fire research with over 100 publications in those areas“, has a better understanding of the physics of heat energy than you do, SebastianH.

            Since it’s a waste of time to spend any more time explaining this to you, I’ll only bother to respond to one of your 6 “rebuttals”.

            The atmosphere is heated by the ocean, which is heated by the Sun. I recall that you have yourself acknowledged this.

            The first 20 meters of the ocean are heated directly by shortwave radiation. In a matter of just 12 hours, 500 W m-2 of SW radiation can heat up the first 2 meters of the ocean by 2.0 K.

            ftp://ftp1.esrl.noaa.gov/users/cfairall/wcrp_wgsf/computer_programs/cor3_0/95JC03190.pdf
            On a clear day the Sun deposits an average of about 500 W/m-2 of heat into the ocean over the 12 daylight hours. Roughly half of this heat is absorbed in the upper 2 m. In the absence of mixing this is sufficient heat input to warm this 2-m-deep layer uniformly by 2.0 K. … Measurable warming occurs as deep as 20 m and may persist well past sundown.”

            Longwave radiation, or IR, does not heat the first 20 meters of the ocean. It doesn’t even heat the first 2 meters of the ocean. It can only “heat” the hair-thin ocean “skin” layer (0.1-1 mm “thick”) which has a temperature gradient of just 0.002 K (according to RealClimate.org).

            Because of its 20 meters of penetration in directly heating the ocean by several Kelvin in a matter of hours (SW) vs. microns of “penetration” and thousandths of a degree temperature gradient in the skin layer (LW), shortwave radiation completely dominates over longwave radiation in determining the temperature/heat content of the ocean. Therefore, any factor that affects the amount of shortwave radiation penetrating into the ocean (clouds, aerosol particulates, changes in the Sun’s radiance itself) will have orders of magnitude more of an influence in determining the temperature of the ocean, and thus the temperature of the atmosphere, and thus the climate…than will variations in longwave constituents.

            You have set up a false narrative. You have assumed that variations in the factors that affect the magnitude of shortwave and longwave radiation affect the temperature of the ocean similarly, even equally. They don’t. Shortwave radiation dominates. And it’s not even close.

          6. yonason (from my cell phone)

            sod-chatbot invokes “consensus.”

            “Consensus” has been thoroughly debunked.
            https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/?s=97%25+debunked&submit=Search

            sod-chatbot is an idiot.

          7. AndyG55

            Seb, that post would have to be the ignorant load of nonsense you have ever posted.

            1. The atmosphere is NOT a greenhouse. it does not prevent convection, convection actually dominates.

            2 There is NO BLANKET.

            The atmosphere acts during the day to COOL the surface. No blanket does that. It is a meaningless analogy.

            3. You have zero idea about radiative transfer.. you should avoid even mentioning it.

            4. you are talking nonsense yet again

            5. More incoherent garbage.. and a denial of gravity based temperature pressure gradient that is observed on all atmospheric planets.

            Denial of FACTS is all you have seb.

            Except a fossil fuelled Mercedes and an fossil fuelled inner city ghetto basement, of course.

          8. SebastianH

            Kenneth, interesting reply. So the author is important after all.

            Let me rephrase my “rebuttal” to point 3 since you are making the same mistake in the second part of your reply. Apparently it is about semantics and the intentional missunderstanding of facts.

            Or phrased differently one more time: do you think that our Sun is not emitting radiation towards other stars in the Universe that might be hotter than our Sun? How would the Sun know that the target is hotter?

            @AndyG55:
            1) So it is about the word? Calling it greenhouse effect might be wrong, but that doesn’t make the effect disappear.
            2) Of course blankets cool … insulation doesn’t work just one way.
            rest) yeah right, gravity thermal greenhouse effect … your thing, thought so 😉

          9. AndyG55

            1. ok let’s call it by its real mechanism shall we. Gravity thermal retention effect.

            2. seb puts thick blankets on when its 35C.. to help cool himself. DOH !!!

            A new physics, just for his imaginary world. !

            Seb even “believes” without one shred of evidence, that CO2 warms the ocean surface and that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            Not just a new physics, but a new basis for scientific endeavour.

            “seb believes” is all that matter now, forget any need for actual evidence. !!

          10. SebastianH

            1) whatever you want, call it AndyG55 effect!
            2) ehm, I guess you really don’t know how blankets work, do you? Do you think the blanket has a warming effect on you if it’s 300 degrees outside? How do you think a thermos works?

            What is, is what matters. You are trying to disprove 200 years of physics here or are still waiting for someone to do it for you. It’s very entertaining …

          11. AndyG55

            No seb, 200 years of physics is well and truly on my side.

            Its just you don’t KNOW anything about physics.

            Your continued ignorance is tedious to say the least.

            Its like try to explains reality to someone who is permanently in a drunken and hallucinogenic stupor.

          12. SebastianH

            Its like try to explains reality to someone who is permanently in a drunken and hallucinogenic stupor.

            That’s exactly how I feel about explaining anything to you.

        2. AndyG55

          Poor seb yet again proves his abject ignorance of ANYTHING to do with science or physics.

          He thinks there isn’t a gravity imposed thermal gradient. Really, !!!

          He then thinks blankets allow faster cooling of a heated surface.

          Not sure he even knows what a blanket actually is.

          He grasp of REALITY and any sort of physical comprehension of what’s going on around him is totally BIZARRE

          Bozo. A blanket slows conduction and convection away from a source of energy (human in this case)

          The atmosphere DOES NOT slow convection or conduction from a warm source.. it aids it.

          The very opposite of a blanket.

          Pretty sure you only did less than one year of junior high physics, seb.. your knowledge and understanding seems to be woefully lacking.

          “Do you think the blanket has a warming effect on you if it’s 300 degrees outside?”

          And where did this fantasy of 300 degrees come from !!!! crazy bizarre stuff. !!

          Maybe a typo. by I know I don’t use a blanket when its 30C, Bo you really keep your blankets on all through summer, seb??

          Tell us seb, does your nanny let you wear a thick jacket in the middle of a hot summer day?

          1. SebastianH

            Another case of missunderstanding something on purpose I guess.

            Ever seen those rescue blankets (you might have one in your first aid kit)? They can be used to either shield you from heat (cooling effect) or prevent heat loss (warming effect). You can use fire-resistent blankets to shield from flames, etc.

            It’s about the insulation effect and it does not matter that a blanket prevents convection. You still heat the blanket with your body and it will lose heat through convection and radiation, etc. This process doesn’t stop. What happens is that you now have a warmer heat sink to lose heat to, so your body can run its “heating element” at a lower power setting. The blanket as your conduit to the outside world will also have to get rid of less heat this way.

            If your body would have a constant energy source (“heating element”) you would get as hot as is necessary to sink enough heat to the blanket so the blanket can lose (via convection, radiation, etc) exactly the same amount of heat as you would have without the blanket. Except you are now considerably warmer than without the blanket.

            This is working the same for all forms of insulation and the atmosphere is a great insulator.

            Regarding gravity: you mean the lapse rate? What about it? Whenever you write “gravity” and “thermal” I think of your ridiculous “gravito thermal greenhouse effect” … that’s something entirely different. The lapse rate exists because of radiative flux, not because gravity. Otherwise: why is it colder in clear sky nights than in cloudy nights? Did the gravity change?

          2. AndyG55

            Oh dear , seb spends his life under an aluminium blanket. !!

            And doesn’t even understand how it works. DOH !!!

            Do you have tin hat as well , seb ???

            You are right about one thing, convection and conduction DO NOT get stopped by the atmosphere, because the atmosphere does not act like a blanket except in your fevered imagination.

            Do you agree that the atmosphere acts to COOL the surface when it gets warm? Weird sort of blanket hey.

            You have still seem to have a negative understanding of what the atmosphere actually does. Is it wilful ignorance, or just built-in???

            You still don’t seem to even the most basic comprehension of how H2O affects the atmosphere otherwise you wouldn’t make such moronically ignorant statements like your last one.

            And your continued IGNORANCE of the gravity pressure based temperature gradient can ONLY be totally DELIBERATE IGNORANCE on your behalf.

            Not even you can remain that ignorant for so long.

          3. AndyG55

            And of course the REAL bizarre idea if that even if you do believe in a mythical cooling blanket, then adding a tiny fraction of CO2 to that mythical blanket will have basically ZERO effect on the convective and conductive properties that rule the way the blanket operates.

            In fact, the tiny amount of extra CO2 actually causes the thermal gradient profile to shift very slightly, giving a tiny amount more cooling.

          4. SebastianH

            Do you agree that the atmosphere acts to COOL the surface when it gets warm? Weird sort of blanket hey.

            Ever slipped into your bed with cold bedsheets?

            Anyway, the internal mechanisms of the atmospheric “blanket” don’t matter for this analogy. Convection, etc is all happening inside the “blanket” and not between the “blanket” and the surface. And of course a normal blanket can cool your body when it is colder than you.

            Do you really think that the atmosphere is not working as insulation against space for planet Earth? Everything you put between an heat source and its heat sink will slow the heat flux, it doesn’t matter what you call it. The question is just how good it insulates.

          5. AndyG55

            Poor seb.. Ignorant analogy is your meme..

            your only form of any sort of arguement

            Do you really “believe” that the atmosphere doesn’t act to COOL the surface when it warm.

            Do you REALLY think this is what a blanket does.

            Your FANTASY world is complete !!!

            The atmosphere is in NO WAY analogous to a blanket.

            That is a moronically stupid analogy that can only exist in the mind of a complete idiot.

      2. SebastianH

        It appears that Sod, after all these years, still doesn’t know how to do a proper counterpoint response.

        Kind of pointless for me to reply to this, but on the pointlessness scale your reply outranks mine. Why do you always reply with something like “no counterpoint” and add nothing to the debate yourself? Sod wrote that the author has a certain set of mind and what he wrote is probably very biased. An opinion piece repeated here … a counterpoint can also only be an opinion then.

        1. yonason (from my cell phone)

          sod-chatbot “…wrote that the author … is probably very biased.” – Sebastian H Chatbot

          Pretty much the same as all other sod-chatbot’s comments, fact free highly biased opinion.

          Of course, if sod-c., could show how the author’s “opinions” were contrary to the facts, that would be a legitimate critique of him, and not at all pointless to request of sod-c. But we all know that’s never going to happen.

        2. AndyG55

          “Kind of pointless for me to reply to this,”

          Always is. !

          You have got the art of “POINTLESS” down pat !!

        3. sunsettommy

          I will just repeat what Richard said in reply to Sod,because it applies to you too apparently.

          “sod’s counterpoint response:

          The source is wrong…because it’s denier.

          Looking up the definition of the ad hominem logical fallacy…

          https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/1/Ad-Hominem-Abusive
          Description: Attacking the person [source] making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person [source] is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.

          Logical Form:

          Person 1 is claiming Y.
          Person 1 is a moron [denier].
          Therefore, Y is not true.”

          1. SebastianH

            Another pointless reply of yours and a repetition on top of that.

            sunsettommy, have you anything to say of your own? The BAZ-article is an opinion piece, the author has a biased opinion. There is nothing objective about this article. If you think that challenging an opinion is an adhominem attack then what is happening in the comment section of this blog all the time?

            If you want counterpoints to what was written in that BAZ-article, sod mentioned some below. No need to repeat that. One thing the author writes at the end is particularly interesting:

            Ebenso reduziert nichts den Energie- und CO2-Verbrauch pro Kopf zuverlässiger als Wohlstand und neue Technologien. Nur eine wachsende Wirtschaft hilft dem Weltklima […]

            GDP increased by ~65% since 1990, CO2 emissiong per $ of GDP decreased by ~25% in the same amount of time. CO2 emission per capita also increased. So this is a false statement. Counterpointy enough?

          2. sunsettommy

            Another silly comment from Sebastian, who AGAIN fails to see how he is knocking himself down with his stupid replies.

            now he whines about me,

            “sunsettommy, have you anything to say of your own? The BAZ-article is an opinion piece, the author has a biased opinion. There is nothing objective about this article. If you think that challenging an opinion is an adhominem attack then what is happening in the comment section of this blog all the time?”

            You are indeed looking stupid here since my ORIGINAL complaint continues to go unaddressed by you while Sod,wisely shuts up on it.

            Here is is what I originally stated:

            “It appears that Sod, after all these years, still doesn’t know how to do a proper counterpoint response.

            Drop your fallacies kid,concentrate on a true debate.”

            He never has addressed the article itself, since his goal was to attack the messenger,which by magic you failed to notice in substance. You like Sod run on a fallacy,not on what is stated. You whine that it is biased and opinionated,but say so little about what is stated.

            You need to stop here as you are making a true fool of yourself.

          3. SebastianH

            I’ll remember that last sentence, it fits a lot of your comments. Calling my reply “whining” is also very classy.

            What about addressing my complaint?

          4. sunsettommy

            Get over it Sebastian,since BOTH you and Sod, NEVER addressed my initial comment at all, here it is for the last time,to see if your miserable bleeding eyes finally see them:

            I wrote,

            “It appears that Sod, after all these years, still doesn’t know how to do a proper counterpoint response.

            Drop your fallacies kid,concentrate on a true debate.”

            which was MY response to what Sod wrote,

            “The first hit i got when i google the author is an article in Die Ziet about how right wing the paper is:

            http://www.zeit.de/2015/27/markus-somm-basler-zeitung-basel

            I know you folks hate it, when i look at the source, but you must realise that you are always picking the same sources.

            Everyone should read the comment section as well, Mr Somm is taken apart limb by limb.

            The Lomborg graph as the bottom is utterly false as well. Lomborg makes completely false assumptions, for example about China but also about the later effect of reductions.”

            Fallacy,Fallacy and two unsupported assertions.

            There was ZERO counterpoint to see in his first comment.

            I later posted on what Lomborg actually states about China,which Sod NEVER talks about, gee I wonder why…….

            You want to continue to be stupid to the world on this,Sebastian,go right ahead. I am done with it.

          5. SebastianH

            So you are complaining because you get ignored?

          6. sod

            “ater posted on what Lomborg actually states about China,which Sod NEVER talks about, gee I wonder why…….”

            what Lomborg says about China is total rubbish. He is repeating the major error that is the basis of his paper.

            He is ignoring China and his defence is, that he is ignoring China.

            Nobody apart from Lomborg seems to think that China will do nothing until 2030. even conservative sources contradict him, as do the facts (china might have peaked ALREADY!)

            http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448318/paris-agreement-china-india-set-easy-emissions-goals

            for some reason YOU are silent on the facts.

            you do not have a problem with his method? Which is: China will do nothing before 2030 (false) and i will assume they do nothing after 2030 (even though he assumes they peak at 2030!).

            The lomborg method is insane and is a trick to give a low result. Any real method would try to figure out the most important part: if countries do (about) what they promised, what will be the effect on other countries (for example price of renewables).

          7. AndyG55

            No… sun is just pointing out that you and sob seem to be DELIBERATELY IGNORANT.

            Ignoring the facts is the only way you two can get through the day without ending up in a straitjacket.

    2. cartman

      No lomborg doesnt make false assumptions…
      He doesn’t make fairy tail assumptions like MIT does.

      MIT assume more cuts are going to happen AFTER 2030..and they based this on what ? hopes and prayers.

      Lomborg’s paper uses what is actual written , not what is hoped for..

      “But this prediction is based very heavily on the assumption that even stronger climate policies will be adopted in the future. Actually, 98% of the assumed reductions will come only after 2030, which is what the current Paris agreement covers. And even such wishful thinking won’t achieve anything close to the 2 degrees Celsius reduction that has become the somewhat arbitrary, but widely adopted, benchmark to avoid the worst effects of global warming. The actual promised emission reductions under the Paris agreement literally get us just 1 percent of the way to the 2 degrees target. 99 percent of what would be required is put off until after 2030.”

      his actual rebutal here:
      http://www.lomborg.com/response-to-bob-ward

    3. David Johnson

      Sod, you really have no clue. Try arguing instead of setting up straw man arguments, appeals to authority and ad hominem attacks on those who don’t support your view.

      1. sod

        “Try arguing”

        why do you not try an argument?

        China does not do anything, according to Lomborg.

        The right wing National review argues that China will peak at least in 2025, if it has not peaked already in 2014.

        “Chinese CO2 emissions are likely to peak around 2025.” The New York Times reports that Chinese emissions may have peaked in 2014”

        http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448318/paris-agreement-china-india-set-easy-emissions-goals

        So Lomborg is starting with an extremely false assumption and coming to a totally false conclusion. That is the reason, why nobody has come to his defense here with any sort of argument!

        1. AndyG55

          :So Lomborg is starting with an extremely false assumption”

          Of course he is sob-sob… he is a AVID AGW BELIEVER..

          so of course all his assumptions are WRONG.

          But his graph is CORRECT for all those wrong assumptions.

          You still don’t comprehend, do you.

          Its like a space shuttle over your head. !!!

    4. Will Janoschka

      sod 6. June 2017 at 3:54 PM

      “The first hit i got when i google the author is an article in Die Ziet about how right wing the paper is: I know you folks hate it, when i look at the source, but you must realise that you are always picking the same sources.”

      Indeed SOD,
      Finally conservative folk, that wish to get along, but never in your face “you must do” folk, become quite popular! Try it, they will gladly show you how to plant ‘taters’, and how to reload your ammo, if you show any competence in how to shoot in desired direction! They refuse to watch TV or movies! They spank their kids when ‘naughty’.

      “Everyone should read the comment section as well, Mr Somm is taken apart limb by limb.”

      Only by idiots!

  2. sod

    again, the Lomborg graph is simply wrong.

    here is a detailed explanation (and i hope nobody dares to attack the source!):

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/edfenergyexchange/2016/07/19/bjorn-lomborgs-climate-analysis-is-a-hot-mess/2/#5b9f913632f7

    1. cartman

      http://www.lomborg.com/response-to-bob-ward

      Wrong

      MIT assumes lofty fantastic cuts AFTER 2030…

    2. clipe

      Hey there, I just googled the author of the Forbes piece.

      Quelle surprise!

      https://www.edf.org/people/nathaniel-keohane

    3. pmc47025

      From the Forbes article:
      “As discussed below, Lomborg’s figures are skewed by extremely pessimistic assumptions about the duration and impact of policy.
      But it’s true that even under more reasonable assumptions, those policies alone won’t have an enormous effect on temperatures at the end of the century.”

    4. AndyG55

      again, the Lomborg graph is CORRECT,

      it just makes sob-sob , sob.

      1. pmc47025

        Uh, a 4C/century rise due to industrial CO2 is correct?

        1. AndyG55

          Its correct for “climate science™ projections”

          ie totally meaningless

          Is that better 🙂

          1. pmc47025

            Just trying to help set the record straight:)

        2. sod

          “Uh, a 4C/century rise due to industrial CO2 is correct?”

          gotcha.

          1. AndyG55

            Yet again sob-sob is so moronically STUPID that he doesn’t even comprehend what is being said.

            I’ll repeat it very simply for you, child-mind.

            Lomborg’s graph is correct for the fake AGW scam data from the IPCC et al.

            But the data itself is meaningless and a fabricated, modelled nonsense.

            Do
            .
            .
            you
            .
            .
            com
            .
            .
            pre
            .
            .
            hend

            Or are you choosing to remain deliberately IGNORANT as you always have before ?????

          2. sod

            “Lomborg’s graph is correct for the fake AGW scam data from the IPCC et al.”

            no, it is not correct. nothing of it is correct.

            you can not simply accept only the stuff that fits your insane ideas.

            Lomborg is ignoring China. This alone explains his stupid result. His approach is total garbage.

          3. AndyG55

            It is correct for the AGW mis-information it is based on.

            End of story.

            He is being REALISTIC about China, someone you and your fool AGW scammer are too blind to see.

            What he has actually forgotten is that China is funding HUNDREDS of coal fired power stations around the world, so the Paris AGENDA would have made even LESS difference than he calculates.

            Your posts are invariably TOTAL GARBAGE, based on ignorance and manic gullibility.

          4. pmc47025

            Sob, I agree, ~4C/century is definitely wrong. Your favorite Forbes article says this about Lomborg:
            “But it’s true that even under more reasonable assumptions, those policies alone won’t have an enormous effect on temperatures at the end of the century.”

    5. sod

      AGAIN: That Lomborg graph is totally wrong.

      Just look at what he does with China:

      “China’s INDC has made two significant promises (China INDC, 2015). One is a promise to peak its emissions around 2030. That is a promise, which will only start having a policy impact around and after 2030, which falls outside the 2030 time limit for policy promises set in this article.”

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-5899.12295/full

      by chance, he basically ignores everything that China does and will do. In the real world, China might already be peaking CO2 output or is very close to doing so.

      If you look at his China graph, you will see the difference immediately:

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/1758-5899.12295/asset/image_n/gpol12295-fig-0009.png?v=1&t=j3mkswul&s=50034637927bb7f65bba2410ca0c810ea9fba2b5

      It is utterly clear that the “pessimistic” scenario is moronic and that the “optimistic” scenario is extremely pessimistic! This will not happen!

      His method is simple, let me see what would happen if i did the same:

      I will investigate the scientific quality of comments made on this blog. I will limit the investigation on posts written by Andi that contain at least one insult. Guess what., the result of my totally scientific analysis will be, that there is no science in the comment section, but lots of insults! This is the Lomborg approach!

      1. sunsettommy

        Oh please why you continue to lie about what Lomborg actually write?

        Here from his own website,

        “I reproduce that commentary here:

        First: It is difficult to defend the inclusion of targets with a very low likelihood of implementation.

        In my article, I only include policies that have practical political implications soon and have a verifiable outcome by 2030.

        It is undeniable that political targets further away are less likely to be implemented. Recent history clearly indicates that climate promises even 10-15 years ahead will be routinely flouted.

        When China commits to reduce its carbon intensity of GDP by 60% to 65% below 2005 levels by 2030, we can analyze the progression towards that goal very clearly over the next 15 years and clearly determine if it is met by 2030 – so this is included in my analysis.

        However, the promise to “achieve the peaking of carbon dioxide emissions around 2030 and making best efforts to peak early” (often curiously misquoted, as for instance in “peak CO₂ emissions by 2030 at the latest”) is something that will only have an effect after around 2030, and it is something that will first be verifiable around 2035 or later.

        This is especially true given that Chinese energy statistics are notoriously opaque. Just in the last few weeks it became clear that China burned perhaps 17% more coal per year in recent years than was previously understood.

        China’s ‘peaking’ promise is very unlikely to be achieved based on economic reality alone. The cost can be identified from the Asia Modeling Exercise which indicates that the lowest GDP loss would be about $400bn or about 1.7% of GDP, and likely twice that. It strains credibility to expect China to commit such economic self-harm.

        (It is worth noting in passing that China also promises in its INDC to be “democratic” in 2050. The one-party state’s vow should probably be treated rather similarly to the suggestion that it will rein in economic growth so dramatically).”

        http://www.lomborg.com/response-to-bob-ward

  3. sod

    Just to see an effect of Paris style changes: El Hierro is currently running on 100% renewables for the 5th full day.

    https://www.canarias7.es/siete-islas/el-hierro/el-hierro-cumple-cuatro-dias-al-100-con-renovables-CI1082510

    according to Lomborg, they will either stop working on this system in 2030 or even walk it back…

    That is simply insane!

    1. cartman

      In my analysis, I was consistent in ruling out longer-term promises that were further off and economically implausible.
      I also left out the US promise of “deep, economy-wide emission reductions of 80% or more by 2050.” Data from the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum for the US shows an average GDP loss at more than $1 trillion annually, if done efficiently. If not, which seems to be the only constant in climate policy, the cost will likely double to almost $2.5 trillion or 7.5% of US GDP in 2050.
      And I left out the EU promise “to reduce its emissions by 80-95% by 2050 compared to 1990.” Data from the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum shows the average GDP loss at almost €3 trillion annually, if done efficiently. If not, the cost will likely double to almost €6 trillion or 25% of EU GDP in 2050.
      If we were to include the Chinese ‘peaking’ promise, why not also include the US promise to cut 80% by 2050 and the EU promise to cut 80-95% by 2050, both of which are mentioned in their INDCs?
      Including these promises would make a mockery of any real analysis of what the Paris treaty can achieve.

      1. sod

        “Including these promises would make a mockery of any real analysis of what the Paris treaty can achieve.”

        No. that would be an optimistic and a pessimistic scenario. And you then would argue about some middle way, which would be a fact based opinion part of the paper. But that is just if you want to do science, instead of a political hit-piece.
        Assuming that China does nothing till 2100 is plain out stupid! Could someone here be honest enough to simply confirm that?!?

        1. sunsettommy

          Why do you keep at it? since you ignore what Lomborg actually say about China.

    2. AndyG55

      Thanks for showing that renewables can work for short periods of time, with enough funding, on a tiny island with absolutely zero productivity.

      Well done. ! 🙂

      The worth of renewables is thus proven.

      A highly expensive tiny niche market.

      1. sod

        “Thanks for showing that renewables can work for short periods of time”

        5+ full days is not a short period of time. El Hierro was running on 100% diesel until the project started.

        it is till on 100% renewables since the 01. of June (but wind is weakening, so we might see the end of te 100% testrun soon).

        https://demanda.ree.es/movil/canarias/el_hierro/total

        But yes, ignore the facts.

        “with enough funding,”

        a similar project would be much cheaper today, because wind got cheaper and so is storage. we would also benefit from what we learned from this project.

        “on a tiny island with absolutely zero productivity.”

        Islands are an obvious point to start on, as they rely on expensive diesel so far. what can be done there, can be scaled up in other places.

        1. AndyG55

          The island is just a little, out of the way, non-productive, holiday camp.

          No-one would even notice if the electricity didn’t work at night. !

          Do they even have one set of traffic lights, I wonder.

          It is a NON-entity when it comes to energy use.

          One tiny grain of sand in a 90 mile beach.

          THOSE ARE THE FACTS.

          “can be scaled up in other places.”

          There goes your IGNORANT, FANTASY, tripped-out mindless prattle, yet again !!

    3. AndyG55
    4. AndyG55

      Shopping centre really busy during the day too

      Tourist trap written all over it.

      http://www.hellocanaryislands.com/sites/default/files/resource/dsc_7754_0.jpg

      http://www.salutilescanaries.com/sites/default/files/resource/de_compras_en_valverde-el_hierro_4.jpg

      Can’t see many EV’s can you , sob-sob ???

      How is your EV going ?

    5. Alfred (Melbourne)

      Currently, in sunny Australia at midday, Wind plus Large Solar is supplying 3% of electric demand:

      http://reneweconomy.com.au/nem-watch/

      Meanwhile the same website – run by turboheads – has an article claiming that South Australia is at 57% solar and wind:

      http://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-already-57-wind-solar-201617/

      Right at this moment – midday our time – South Australia’s fake Renewable Energy is supplying only 5% of demand.

      The dishonesty and stupidity of these people is beyond belief.

  4. SebastianH

    While I don’t agree with that author at the BaZ, what is the argument that this blog post is trying to make?

    The Paris Accord wasn’t good enough and we need something that reduces temperature increase further? Because it sure reads like that.

    Also, it seems to be questionable to use predictions about climate change or investments in prevention as an argument that it would be pointless to do something if you don’t think that those predicitons are true. That’s the same as not believing in a deity and still blaming the/a deity for bad stuff happening to you.

    1. AndyG55

      Poor seb, the Paris Agenda has been foiled by a realistic President Trump, who knows how much damage the whole totalitarian AGW/anti-CO2/world governance agenda will do to the world.

      It seems MORONIC to use “climate science™” predictions/projections for anything except comedy value.

      They very much are part of your BASELESS RELIGION. !!

    2. AndyG55

      You want to reduce temperatures, move out of your fossil fuel heated inner city ghetto, and drive your Mercedes up to northern Russia to live.

      Dare you !!

      Or just keep yapping aimlessly as is your meme.

  5. clipe

    “SebastianH 6. June 2017 at 10:44 PM | Permalink | Reply

    While I don’t agree with that author at the BaZ, what is the argument that this blog post is trying to make?”

    No argument. Just reportage.

    The Swiss online Basler Zeitung (BaZ) writes that critics of Donald Trump are wrong with their apocalyptic hype and exaggerations surrounding the President’s rejection of the Paris climate accord. – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2017/06/06/dumping-farce-paris-accord-right-decision-writes-basel-daily-donald-trump-is-right/#comments

    1. clipe

      didn’t mean to include link

    2. sod

      “No argument. Just reportage.

      The Swiss online Basler Zeitung (BaZ) writes that critics of Donald Trump are wrong with their apocalyptic hype and exaggerations surrounding the President’s rejection of the Paris climate accord.”

      Then why does the paper not cite any new science to support its position? Like Trump it does not do this, because it can not. The few attempts to cite facts are false, like the false claims about a tiny impact.

      The text also has it backwards: It is accusing countries of only promising what it would achieve anyway. The real world is different: most of those targets did sound pretty optimistic some years ago. Now they can be achieved easily, and countries are overperforming. How did Lomborg et al factor that in?

      1. AndyG55

        Why don’t you ever cite any science that actually supports the FARCE that is AGW.

        You know, like CO2 actually causing warming in a convective atmosphere.

        as sob-seb’ total lack of one single bit of proof shows…..IT DOESN’T.

        The Paris AGENDA was never ANYTHING to do with climate.

        and would have had ZERO impact on any future climate.

        There is no science behind the Paris AGENDA, so no-one needs to cite anything except that it is a now-failed attempt at totalitarian control.

        Trump was awake to that, and very sensibly told those wishing tell the USA what it had to do, to go jump in the lake.

        1. sod

          “Why don’t you ever cite any science that actually supports the FARCE that is AGW. ”

          the physics are clear. there is a 97++++% consensus on it.

          you ignore the facts.

          you demand not only evidence, you demand a certain sort of evidence (experimental simulation of an area of multiple square km and a height of about 20 km) that actually can not be done.

          I can illustrate your position with a simple example: I claim, that whales can fly. You can not provide any science that shows the opposite,because is demand experiments.

          so the science is settled on this blog again: whales can fly, until anyone can show a scientific article that shows the experiment that shows that they can not fly.- good luck.

          1. AndyG55

            “you ignore the facts. ”

            YOU HAVEN’T PRODUCED ANY FACTS.

            NONE, NADA.. EMPTY !!!!!!!

            You cannot even support the very basis of your cock-eyed fantasy AGW religion.

            ZERO evidence that CO2 causes warming of water, or of a convective atmosphere.

            Heck seb even DENIES that there is a convective atmosphere !!!!

            “claim, that whales can fly.”

            Your FANTASY world.. yet again !!!

            What do you smoke for a living ?????????

          2. AndyG55

            “there is a 97++++% consensus on it.”

            TOTAL and UTTER propaganda BS.

            And you KNOW that, lying little trollette.

  6. AndyG55

    According to new data published by the European Environment Agency (EEA), the 0.5% increase in CO2 emissions happened largely due to increasing demand for transport – better fuel efficiency in the sector was not enough to offset this.

    The report suggests a slightly colder winter across Europe also contributed to increased emissions, due to higher demand for heating.

    Meanwhile USA continues to lower its CO2 emissions.

    The Paris Agenda isn’t helping the EU much , is it ! 🙂

    1. SebastianH

      AndyG55 please stop posting nonsense … The USA is still emitting more CO2 per capita and per GDP $. It won’t reach e.g. the levels Germany’s emissions are at by just transitioning to natural gas.

      1. AndyG55

        so REAL DATA from EEA is wrong now.

        Oh dear, poor seb.

        DATA and FACTS were always your enema.

        Isn’t it wonderful that USA are still doing their fair share to produce new plant life.

        The socialist totalitarians in Germany and the EU couldn’t give a stuff about enhancing the future of the planet, just so long as they can get their global EU Paris Agenda up and running.

        Trump has seen through this PURELY POLITICAL agenda, and has said STUFF YOU..

        He KNOWS it is absolutely nothing to do with climate.

        1. SebastianH

          Facts:
          https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=en_atm_co2e_pc&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA:FRA:DEU:ITA:ESP&ifdim=region&tdim=true&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false&icfg

          The United States emit almost double the CO2 per capita than European countries. Germany is above the European average, but still over 40% below the US in CO2 emissions.

          1. AndyG55

            FACT, wind and solar have made hardly a dent in Germany’s CO2 production in fact , it has risen.

            FACT USA has greatly reduced its CO2 production

            END OF STORY.

            Get over it, and accept the facts.

          2. SebastianH

            Analogytime then!

            One person is a big spender and buys stuff for $2000 every month, the other person buys stuff for $1000. The first person reduces the spending by $500, the second one increases the spending by $50. Which of the two persons is spending more at the end?

          3. sod

            “FACT, wind and solar have made hardly a dent in Germany’s CO2 production in fact , it has risen.”

            we are moving out of nuclear. FACT.

          4. AndyG55

            “we are moving out of nuclear”

            See, STUPIDITY.

            “Analogytime then!”

            And even more RAMPANT STUPIDITY. !!

            I’m sure you are both trying your very hardest to make MONUMENTAL FOOLS of yourselves.

            And its the ONLY success you are having.

            Maybe you should try rational thinking..

            Just once.. to prove that you can..

            NAH.. not going to happen any time soon, is it. !!

  7. sod

    The real farce are the Basel paper and the Lomborg graph.

    Check out this comparison by Zeke about different attempts to judge the Paris effect:

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-meeting-paris-pledges-would-prevent-at-least-one-celsius-global-warming

    Lomborg is an extreme outlier, lowest reduction with the highest effect. It does not make any sense!

    1. AndyG55

      lol… Zeke horsefather.. one of the Dodgy Bros from BEST.. at the very heart of the AGW scam…

      Did you know they get a million dollars from “anonymous” every year.. Soros money by all accounts.

      And ignorant little sob falls for the propaganda pap EVERY time.!!

      So sad, so pathetically GULLIBLE.

      Both are based totally on the garbage science and models of the AGW scam anyway.

      Totally meaningless and irrelevant to any sort of REALITY.

      The Paris Agenda would never have had any effect on climate anyway, it was only ever part of the socialist totalitarian global governance scam.

      That is why they are so, so upset about Trump saying ..

      sorry, but STUFF YOU !!

      1. sod

        “lol… Zeke horsefather.. one of the Dodgy Bros from BEST.. at the very heart of the AGW scam…”

        pretty funny argument, after i got attacked for pointing out that the paper from Basel is pretty much right wing.

        But there is a tiny little difference between what i wrote and what you wrote.

        My article does contain FACTS. while the Baseler Zeitung piece is nothing but opinion.

        so you can simply follow the link and look at the hard data in that graph (FACTS!).

        for a start you should notice, that Lomborg is using the highest temperature change of all: he expects a 4.7°C change till 2100.

        That would change the temperature in Berlin to something similar to Istanbul.

        https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-meeting-paris-pledges-would-prevent-at-least-one-celsius-global-warming

        even a self-labeled “sceptic” should be able to figure out that this is insane!

      2. AndyG55

        The graph contains ZERO FACTS.

        It is the product of monumentally FAILED models.

        It is totally DEVOID OF ANY FACTUAL INFORMATION.

        Lomberg DOES NO expect anything.

        He is using AGW farcical projections to show how moronically stupid they are.

        Its all just supposition and baseless NONSENSE.

        And YOU fall for it EVERY TIME.

        1. AndyG55

          I really don’t think I have EVER seen anyone as GULLIBLE and NON-THINKING as you are, sob-sob.

          Its like you have the brain of an squashed ant !!

        2. sod

          “The graph contains ZERO FACTS.”

          the graph contains 9 estimates of the Paris effect. But 8 of those 9 show about 1°C of an effect., while one (Lomborg) shows basically none.

          https://demanda.ree.es/movil/canarias/el_hierro/total/2017-06-09

          This is facts.

          1. sod

            sorry, false link (though el hierro is also interesting, they ended the 100% renewable attempt after 8 full days…

            here is the zeke link again:

            https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-meeting-paris-pledges-would-prevent-at-least-one-celsius-global-warming

  8. yonason (from my cell phone)

    The economic reality:
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/07/delingpole-paris-trump-just-dodged-a-2-5-trillion-bullet/

    No wonder they’re mad at us – all that free money snatched out from under their greedy snouts.

  9. Will Janoschka

    SebastianH 6. June 2017 at 10:39 PM

    “Point 1) Default BS about the atmosphere not being the same as a glass greenhouse. Really? Attacking the word “greenhouse” and then concluding that CO2 actually cools the surface? So without CO2 it would be cooler? Good one.”

    Read again ‘idiot’! Atmospheric CO2 above 180ppmv must help radiate more EMR to space as tropopause level CO2 and H20 is at a higher temperature due to continual convection of sensible heat from surface to higher altitudes!

    “Point 2) Attacking the blanket explanation … by confusing the lower troposphere with the whole atmosphere. There is no convection, etc towards space … that’s an internal thing.”

    Atmospheric convection only can transfer sensible heat and latent heat the from the higher temperature surface outward toward space where such is transfered in a manner more efficative, (having an intended or expected effect), via EMR exit flux, than can possibly be done from Earth’s surface!

    “Point 3) They don’t understand how radiative energy transfers work. There is no violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, heat always flows in one direction, radiation doesn’t. It seems like those “chemists” think that somehow a radiating body “knows” that it is radiating towards a warmer object and consciously halts radiation in that direction? If that would work we could use it as faster than light communication. Perfect!”

    This clearly demonstrates that you have “no concept” of how thermal electromagnetic radiative flux, at any frequency, may be generated, the limits of such generation, and how the extremely low level of surface EMR flux can possibly influence that exiting to space! Try Maxwell’s 22 equations, for understanding.
    This idiocy is tiring!

    “Point 5) The -18 °C figure is not correct, but it’s not wrong either. We know from the Moon what average temperature a body without an atmosphere has at our distance from the Sun. It is far lower than what can be calculated with the SB-law, because the Moon rotates slowly. So obviously the correct average temperature without and atmosphere (or without GHGs) depends on more factors, but the -18 °C is at least a temperature in the right direction, it would probably be colder.”

    If your fake black-body radiation is limited to (Ta^4-Tb^4), always proportional to the maximum difference in aggregate radiance of two surfaces (including zero difference); how do you propose that some average temperature of one of the surfaces have any possible meaning to the integral (energy), over time of such exit flux?

    “The only thing unreal is the paper of theirs. The sentence with the violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics should have been enough for any reviewer to reject that paper.”

    You are the fool that violates the Clausis 2LTD, ‘stuff don spontaneously go in a direction of higher potential’!!!

    SebastianH 7. June 2017 at 2:26 PM |

    “Or phrased differently one more time: do you think that our Sun is not emitting radiation towards other stars in the Universe that might be hotter than our Sun?”

    The primary of this Solar system emits no (zero) thermal EMR flux in any direction of higher opposing radiance at any frequency! Such would be a contradiction of Maxwell’s carefully constructed equations! You perhaps have not herd\heard of such! Climate Clown arrogant academic herd!

    1. SebastianH

      Atmospheric CO2 above 180ppmv must help radiate more EMR to space as tropopause level CO2 and H20 is at a higher temperature due to continual convection of sensible heat from surface to higher altitudes!

      This needs clarification. Do you really mean that GHGs are at higher temperature at great heights if CO2 concentration increases above 180 ppm? And this would cause more LW radiation emitted towards space thus cooling the surface? Weird.

      The primary of this Solar system emits no (zero) thermal EMR flux in any direction of higher opposing radiance at any frequency! Such would be a contradiction of Maxwell’s carefully constructed equations! You perhaps have not herd\heard of such! Climate Clown arrogant academic herd!

      I see, so it would be possibly to construct a device for faster than light communication since the emitter “knows” in what direction it can’t emit?

      I think you are intentionally or unintenionally missunderstanding this one. Do you know how insulation works? It doesn’t cause “stuff to spontaneously go in a direction of higher potential” and yet the temperature of the insulated energy source increases.

      1. Will Janoschka

        SebastianH 9. June 2017 at 3:51 PM | Permalink | Reply

        (“Atmospheric CO2 above 180ppmv must help radiate more EMR to space as tropopause level CO2 and H20 is at a higher temperature due to continual convection of sensible heat from surface to higher altitudes!”)

        “This needs clarification. Do you really mean that GHGs are at higher temperature at great heights if CO2 concentration increases above 180 ppm? And this would cause more LW radiation emitted towards space thus cooling the surface? Weird.”

        Indeed I do! All conductive convective heat transfer to higher altitude, above low level thermal radiative power transfer ‘must always’ increase thermal radiative flux outward toward space! There is no alternate!

        (“The primary of this Solar system emits no (zero) thermal EMR flux in any direction of higher opposing radiance at any frequency! Such would be a contradiction of Maxwell’s carefully constructed equations! You perhaps have not herd\heard of such! Climate Clown arrogant academic herd!”)

        “I see, so it would be possibly to construct a device for faster than light communication since the emitter “knows” in what direction it can’t emit?”

        You may try but must fail! Electromagnetic field strength is stationary in four-space! Both time and frequency must be imaginary with respect to three-space. Please try to get over your scientific incompetence.

        Kenneth Richard 7. June 2017 at 3:44 AM

        “Somehow I think that the lead author, a physical chemist (Ph.D., professor), an “internationally recognized expert on combustion, flames, explosions and fire research with over 100 publications in those areas“, has a better understanding of the physics of heat energy than you do, SebastianH. Since it’s a waste of time to spend any more time explaining this to you, I’ll only bother to respond to one of your 6 “rebuttals”.

        OK Kenneth but!

        “The atmosphere is heated by the ocean, which is heated by the Sun. I recall that you have yourself acknowledged this.
        The first 20 meters of the ocean are heated directly by shortwave radiation. In a matter of just 12 hours, 500 W m-2 of SW radiation can heat up the first 2 meters of the ocean by 2.0 K.”

        Indeed, Calculation only never measurement, Such can be only that part of the ocean surface near normal to the direction of the Sun! How does that work out over your 12 hours of insolation?

        “On a clear day the Sun deposits an average of about 500 W/m-2 of heat into the ocean over the 12 daylight hours. Roughly half of this heat is absorbed in the upper 2 m. In the absence of mixing this is sufficient heat input to warm this 2-m-deep layer uniformly by 2.0 K. … Measurable warming occurs as deep as 20 m and may persist well past sundown.”

        Thats close but only for one fourth the cross sectional area of the Earth at any instant, all the rest (3/4), surface has greater than a 45 degree incident angle to the Sun and quite reflective. Above 56 degrees out from normal from the Sun, almost all insolation at wavelengths less than 0.9 microns, including all high power UV, ‘must be’ completely reflected from ocean surface as the change in index of refraction between air and water is so high! Wave surface distortions, greatly modify this, making actual measurements of such ‘stuff’, drive all attempted measurer’s of such, to drink and eventual insanity! All of your measurable ocean temperature increase is because ocean IR EMR does not exist! All prevented by saturated water vapor (cloud) less than 3mm above that surface. WTF over?

      2. Will Janoschka

        SebastianH 9. June 2017 at 3:51 PM | Permalink | Reply

        Atmospheric CO2 above 180ppmv must help radiate more EMR to space as tropopause level CO2 and H20 is at a higher temperature due to continual convection of sensible heat from surface to higher altitudes!

        This needs clarification. Do you really mean that GHGs are at higher temperature at great heights if CO2 concentration increases above 180 ppm? And this would cause more LW radiation emitted towards space thus cooling the surface? Weird.

        The primary of this Solar system emits no (zero) thermal EMR flux in any direction of higher opposing radiance at any frequency! Such would be a contradiction of Maxwell’s carefully constructed equations! You perhaps have not herd\heard of such! Climate Clown arrogant academic herd!

        I see, so it would be possibly to construct a device for faster than light communication since the emitter “knows” in what direction it can’t emit?

        I think you are intentionally or unintenionally missunderstanding this one. Do you know how insulation works? It doesn’t cause “stuff to spontaneously go in a direction of higher potential” and yet the temperature of the insulated energy source increases.

        Will Janoschka, such may only occur if power applied to your ‘source’ may possibly exceed the ability of ‘source’ to dissipate such increased ‘power applied’. Can you please identify any known example??

  10. Will Janoschka

    lo’

    Kenneth Richard 7. June 2017 at 3:44 AM

    “Somehow I think that the lead author, a physical chemist (Ph.D., professor), an “internationally recognized expert on combustion, flames, explosions and fire research with over 100 publications in those areas“, has a better understanding of the physics of heat energy than you do, SebastianH. Since it’s a waste of time to spend any more time explaining this to you, I’ll only bother to respond to one of your 6 “rebuttals”.

    OK Kenneth but!

    “The atmosphere is heated by the ocean, which is heated by the Sun. I recall that you have yourself acknowledged this.
    The first 20 meters of the ocean are heated directly by shortwave radiation. In a matter of just 12 hours, 500 W m-2 of SW radiation can heat up the first 2 meters of the ocean by 2.0 K.”

    Indeed, Calculation only never measurement, Such can be only that part of the ocean surface near normal to the direction of the Sun! How does that work out over your 12 hours of insolation?

    “On a clear day the Sun deposits an average of about 500 W/m-2 of heat into the ocean over the 12 daylight hours. Roughly half of this heat is absorbed in the upper 2 m. In the absence of mixing this is sufficient heat input to warm this 2-m-deep layer uniformly by 2.0 K. … Measurable warming occurs as deep as 20 m and may persist well past sundown.”

    Thats close but only for one fourth the cross sectional area of the Earth at any instant, all the rest (3/4), surface has greater than a 45 degree incident angle to the Sun and quite reflective. Above 56 degrees out from normal from the Sun, almost all insolation at wavelengths less than 0.9 microns, including all high power UV, ‘must be’ completely reflected from ocean surface as the change in index of refraction between air and water is so high! Wave surface distortions, greatly modify this, making actual measurements of such ‘stuff’, drive all attempted measurer’s of such, to drink and eventual insanity! All of your measurable ocean temperature increase is because ocean IR EMR does not exist! All prevented by saturated water vapor (cloud) less than 3mm above that surface. WTF over?

  11. Will Janoschka

    Good God what a total mess! to try to clarify

    “I think you are intentionally or unintenionally missunderstanding this one. Do you know how insulation works? It doesn’t cause “stuff to spontaneously go in a direction of higher potential” and yet the temperature of the insulated energy source increases.”

    Will Janoschka, such may only occur if power applied to your ‘source’ may possibly exceed the ability of ‘source’ to dissipate such increased ‘power applied’. Can you please identify any known example??

    1. SebastianH

      Every oven? Earth as heated by the Sun? Lightbulbs? Increase the insulation and things inside get warmer with the same power input.

      Also: can you talk like a normal person?