20 More New Papers Link Solar Forcing To Climate Change – Now 80 Sun-Climate Papers For 2017

Since 2014, 400 Scientific Papers

Affirm A Strong Sun-Climate Link


201780 Scientific Papers Linking Solar Forcing To Climate

2016133 Scientific Papers Linking Solar Forcing To Climate

201595 Scientific Papers Linking Solar Forcing To Climate

201493 Scientific Papers Linking Solar Forcing To Climate


The 20 Latest Sun-Climate Papers

“We confirm the occurrence of upcoming Modern grand minimum in 2020-2053 … [and] extremely incorrect prediction of the terrestrial temperature growth in the next century.” – Zharkova et al., 2017


1.     Gray et al., 2017     There are several proposed mechanisms through which the 11-year solar cycle (SC) could influence the Earth’s climate, as summarised by Figure 1. These include: (a) the direct impact of solar irradiance variability on temperatures at the Earth’s surface, characterised by variation in the total incoming solar irradiance (TSI); (b) the indirect impact of variations through the absorption of Ultra-Violet (UV) radiation in the upper stratosphere associated with the presence of ozone, with accompanying dynamical responses that extend the impact to the Earth’s surface; (c) the indirect impact of variations in energetic particle fluxes into the thermosphere, mesosphere and upper stratosphere at high geomagnetic latitudes; and (d) the impact of variations in the generation of ions by galactic cosmic ray (GCR) penetration into the troposphere. Although different in their nature, these four pathways may not work in isolation but their influence could be synergetic.”


2.     Zharkova et al., 2017     “Using a summary curve of two eigen vectors of solar magnetic field oscillations derived with Principal Components Analysis (PCA) from synoptic maps for solar cycles 21-24 as a proxy of solar activity, we extrapolate this curve backwards three millennia revealing 9 grand cycles lasting 350-400 years each. The summary curve shows a remarkable resemblance to the past sunspot and terrestrial activity: grand minima – Maunder Minimum (1645-1715 AD), Wolf minimum (1280-1350 AD), Oort minimum (1010-1050 AD) and Homer minimum (800 900 BC); grand maxima – modern warm period (1990-2015), medieval warm period (900-1200 AD), Roman warm period (400-10 BC) and others. We verify the extrapolated activity curve by the pre-telescope observations of large sunspots with naked eye, by comparing the observed and simulated butterfly diagrams for Maunder Minimum (MM), by a maximum of the terrestrial temperature and extremely intense terrestrial auroras seen in the past grand cycle occurred in 14-16 centuries.”
We confirm the occurrence of upcoming Modern grand minimum in 2020-2053, which will have a shorter duration (3 cycles) and, thus, higher solar activity compared to MM [Maunder Minimum]. … One of the examples of fitting incorrectly the oscillating function with a linear regression approach is shown by Akasofu (2010) (see her Fig. 9), when explaining the modern era recovery of the Earth from the little ice period and the incorrect use of a linear part of the temperature variations for the extremely incorrect prediction of the terrestrial temperature growth in the next century.”

3.     Harde, 2017     [A] naturally generated [CO2 emission] contributes more than 95% to the overall emission, and its generation rate and the respective absorption rate sensitively respond on global temperature variations. … [The] well known delayed response of CO2 and methane (CH4) to sea and air temperature changes (see, e.g., Petit et al. [2]; Monnin et al. [3]; Caillon et al. [4]; Torn and Harte [5]; Humlum et al. [6]; Salby [7]) are not considered in AR5. … As long as any natural variations in the CO2 concentrations are not accurately known, the ECS [equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling] cannot be used as a reliable indicator only for an anthropogenic global warming.”
The IPCC denies any noticeable solar influence on the actual climate, although strong evidence of an increasing solar activity over the last century exists (see, e.g., Hoyt & Schatten [8]; Willson & Mordvinov [9]; Shapiro et al. [10]; Ziskin & Shaviv [11]; Scafetta & Willson [12]; Usoskin et al. [13]; Zhao & Feng [14]; Soon et al. [15]). … From these studies we conclude that the measured temperature increase of 0.74∘ C over the time 1880–2000 and the observed cloud changes of −4% over the period 1983– 2000 can best be explained by a cloud feedback mechanism, which is dominated by the solar influence. Therefore, it seems quite reasonable to use a model mean of [climate sensitivity to doubled CO2] = 0.7°C, yielding a CO2 initiated warming of 0.3°C [1880-2000] and a solar contribution of 0.44°C [1880-2000].”

4.    Pande et al., 2017     “Ozone is a highly reactive, naturally occurring ingredient of the stratosphere that is produced from oxygen by sunlight.  It is one of the most important chemicals in both the stratosphere and troposphere.  Apart from absorbing the harmful ultaviolet radiation from the sun, it [ozone] also plays an important role in determining earth’s climate.  Solar variability affects ozone through radiative heating in atmosphere.  Solar UV radiation is absorbed by atmospheric ozone.  It is responsible for both the creation and destruction of ozone.  … The total ozone was found to be enhanced during magnetically disturbed conditions which are associated with peak solar activity periods.  Angell and Korshover (1976) concluded that there is nearly in-phase relationship between sunspot number and total ozone.”

5.     Le Mouël et al., 2017     [S]olar activity contains an important component that has undergone clear oscillations of  ≈90  years over the past three centuries, with some small but systematic longer-term evolution of “instantaneous” period and amplitude. Half of the variance of solar activity on these time scales can be satisfactorily reproduced as the sum of a monotonous multi-secular increase, a  ≈90 -year Gleissberg cycle, and a double-peaked (≈10.0  and 11.0 years) Schwabe cycle (the sum amounts to 46% of the total variance of the signal). The Gleissberg-cycle component definitely needs to be addressed when attempting to build dynamo models of solar activity. The first SSA component offers evidence of an increasing long-term trend in sunspot numbers, which is compatible with the existence of the modern grand maximum.

6.     Wen et al., 2017     “A warmer and wetter climate prevailed since ∼4800 a BP and was interrupted by a sharp cold reversal at approximately 3300 a BP that was likely caused by solar irradiance forcing, which resulted in a global cold climatic change and glacier advance.”

7.      Munz et al., 2017     “Decadal resolution record of Oman upwelling indicates solar forcing of the Indian summer monsoon (9–6 ka) … We use geochemical parameters, transfer functions of planktic foraminiferal assemblages and Mg /  Ca palaeothermometry, and find evidence corroborating previous studies showing that upwelling intensity varies significantly in coherence with solar sunspot cycles. The dominant  ∼  80–90-year Gleissberg cycle apparently also affected bottom-water oxygen conditions.”

8.     Allan et al., 2017     “Speleothem is now regarded as valuable archive of climatic conditions on the continents, offering a number of advantages relative to other continental climate proxy recorders such as lake sediments and peat cores. … [T]race elements in speleothems have the potential to provide high resolution insights into palaeoclimatic variability during the Holocene. A deeper analysis reveals several periods of significant rapid climate change during the Holocene (at 10.7-9.2 ka, 8.2-7.9 ka, 7.2-6.2 ka, 4.8-4.5 ka, and 3-2.4 ka BP), which are similar to the cold events detected from different natural paleoclimate archivers. A comparison between the geochemical analysis of Père Noël speleothem and solar activity (sunspot number) reveals a significant correlation. Spectral analysis methods reveal common solar periodicities (Gleissberg cycle, de Vries cycle, unnamed 500 year, Eddy cycles, and Hallstatt cycle). The geochemical analyses have the potential to prove that PN speleothem is sensitive to changes in solar activity on centennial and millennial timescales during the Holocene.”

9.     Woodson et al., 2017     “The last ca. 1000 years recorded the warmest SST averaging 28.5°C. We record, for the first time in this region, a cool interval, ca. 1000 years in duration, centered on 5000 cal years BP concomitant with a wet period recorded in Borneo. The record also reflects a warm interval from ca. 1000 to 500 cal years BP that may represent the Medieval Climate Anomaly. Variations in the East Asian Monsoon (EAM) and solar activity are considered as potential drivers of SST trends. However, hydrology changes related to the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) variability, ~ shifts of the Western Pacific Warm Pool and migration of the Intertropical Convergence Zone are more likely to have impacted our SST temporal trend. …  The SA [solar activity] trends (Steinhilber et al., 2012) are in general agreement with the regional cooling of SST (Linsley et al., 2010) and the SA [solar activity] oscillations are roughly coincident with the major excursions in our SST data.”

10.     Li et al., 2017     “The main driving forces behind the Holocene climatic changes in the LYR [Lower Yangtze Region, East China] area are likely summer solar insolation associated with tropical or subtropical macro-scale climatic circulations such as the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), Western Pacific Subtropical High (WPSH), and El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO).”


11.    Chang et al., 2017     “The chironomid-based record from Heihai Lake shows a summer temperature fluctuation within 2.4°C in the last c. 5000 years from the south-east margin of the QTP [Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau]. … The summer temperature changes in this region respond primarily to the variation in the Asian Summer Monsoon. The variability of solar activity is likely an important driver of summer temperatures, either directly or by modifying the strength and intensity of the Indian Ocean Summer Monsoon. … We observed a relatively long-lasting summer cooling episode (c. 0.8°C lower than the 5000-year average) between c. 270 cal. BP and AD c. 1956. … The record shows cooling episodes occurred at c. 3100, 2600, 2100 and 1600 cal. BP.  This is likely related to the period defined as the Northern Hemisphere Little Ice Age (LIA; c. AD 1350–1850, equivalent to 600–100 cal. BP). These possibly relate to the 500-year quasi-periodic solar cycle. Cooling stages between c. 270 and 100 cal. BP were also recorded and these are possibly linked to the LIA suggesting a hemisphere-wide forcing mechanism for this event.”


12.     Lei et al., 2017     “The precipitation variability on decadal to multi-centurial generally always reflects changes in solar activity and large-scale circulation, e.g., the ENSO and the EASM [East Asian Summer Monsoon] (Chen et al., 2011; Vleeschouwer et al., 2012; Feng et al., 2014). [D]uring the MWP [Medieval Warm Period], the wetter climate in this region was consistent with more frequent ENSO events, stronger EASM and higher solar activity, whereas the opposite was found for the LIA. In particular, d13Cac fluctuations on multi-decadal to centennial scales is consistent with the changes in solar activity, with fewer dry intervals corresponding to periods of minimum solar activity within dating errors, which are referred to as the Oort Minimum (AD 1010-1050), Wolf Minimum (AD 1280-1340), Sporer Minimum (AD 1420-1530), Maunder Minimum (AD 1645-1715) and Dalton Minimum (AD 1795-1820). These results suggest that climate change in southeastern China is sensitive to ENSO and the EASM, which may be driven by solar activity.”


13.     Zhang et al., 2017     “The record suggests the summer temperature varies by ~2.5 °C across the entire period. A generally warmer period occurred between c.8500 and c.6000 cal yr BP and a cooling trend was initiated from c.5500 cal yr BP. The overall pattern broadly matches the summer insolation at 30N and the Asian Summer Monsoon records from the surrounding regions suggesting that summer temperatures from the southeast margin of the QTP respond to insolation forcing and monsoon driven variability on a multi-millennial time scale. Modifications of this overall trend are observed on the finer temporal resolution and we suggest that solar activity could be an important mechanism driving the centennial-scale variability. It may have a strengthened effect in the late Holocene when the monsoon influence weakened.”


14.     Luoto and Nevalainen, 2017     “Here,http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Holocene-Cooling-Greenland-Ice-Sheet-Zhang-2017.jpg we use completely synchronized paleolimnological proxy-based records of air temperature and effective precipitation from two Scandinavian lakes with ∼2000-year sediment profiles. We show that the relationship between air temperature and precipitation (T/P ratio) is synchronous in both study sites throughout the records suggesting warm and dry conditions at ∼300–1100 CE and cold and wet conditions at ∼1200–1900 CE. Owing to the significantly increased air temperatures, the most recent T/P ratio has again turned positive. During the first millennium of the Common Era, the T/P mimics patterns in Southern Oscillation index, whereas the second millennium shows response to the NAO index but is also concurrent with solar irradiance shifts[T]he causes for the LIA [Little Ice Age [1200-1900 CE], are not well defined owing to its highly variable nature (Wanner et al. 2011; Luoto and Nevalainen 2016; Zawiska et al. 2017). Yet, in addition to a persistent strongly negative NAO index phase during the LIA, it was most likely forced by decreased solar irradiance (including Spörer, Maunder and Dalton solar minima), increased volcanic activity (aerosols), and changes in Atlantic Ocean circulation patterns (Grove 2001; Goosse et al. 2005; Wanner et al. 2011).”


15.     Li et al., 2017     “Correlations between paleotemperature records from the North Atlantic and solar activity suggest that changes in solar output may cause significant shifts in the climate of the North Atlantic region. To test the role of solar activity on summer SST at our study site in West Greenland, we conducted a cross-correlation analysis between our reconstructed summer SST record and a total solar irradiance (TSI) series. The results indicate that the maximum correlation coefficient (0.284) of summer SST [sea surface temperatures] and TSI [total solar irradiance] records is obtained at nearly zero time-lag (-6 time-lag), which means that variations in solar activity affected the summer SST variability in the study area. … A significant positive relationship between summer SSTs on the North Icelandic shelf and solar irradiance reconstructed from 10Be and 14C records during the Holocene was also demonstrated by Jiang et al. This finding is also supported by recent climate model simulations using the Community Climate System Model version 4 (CCSM4). The model results show a strong positive correlation between SST and solar irradiance in the pathway of the IC, indicating that a reduced frequency of Atlantic blocking events during periods of high solar irradiance promotes warmer and saltier conditions in the pathway of the IC due to stronger circulation of the subpolar gyre. … Spectral analyses indicate that significant centennial-scale variations are superimposed on the long-term orbital trend. The dominant periodicities are 529, 410, and 191 years, which may be linked to the well-known 512- and 206-year solar cycles. Cross-correlation analyses between the summer SSTs and total solar irradiance through the last 5000 years indicate that the records are in phase, providing evidence that variations in solar activity impacted regional summer SST variability. Overall, the strong linkage between solar variability and summer SSTs is not only of regional significance, but is also consistent over the entire North Atlantic region.”


16.     Orme et al., 2017     “The north-south index shows that storm tracks moved from a southern position to higher latitudes over the past 4000 yr, likely driven by a change from meridional to zonal atmospheric circulation, associated with a negative to positive North Atlantic Oscillation shift. We suggest that gradual polar cooling (caused by decreasing solar insolation in summer and amplified by sea-ice feedbacks) and mid-latitude warming (caused by increasing winter insolation) drove a steepening of the winter latitudinal temperature gradient through the late Holocene, resulting in the observed change to a more northern winter storm track.”

17.     Serykh and Sonechkin, 2017     “The global climate is a quasi-periodically forced dynamic system [1, 2]. In addition to the annual cycle of the heat transport from the Sun and the diurnal cycle of the Earth’s rotation, other external periodical forces exist, which are potentially able to cause climate fluctuations. The lunar and solar tides are such causes on the time scales of the order of one day. On the decadal scale, these causes are 11-year variations in the Sun spots (the Wolf cycle) and its double period manifested in the changes in the heliospheric field polarity (the Hale cycle). The existence of secular solar cycles is also possible (Gleissberg and Suess cycles found in a number of Sun spots). Calculations indicate that an approximately 180-year cycle exists in the rotation of the Sun around the center of mass of the Solar system. The authors of [3] suggest that it is related to the sequence of significant decreases in the solar activity in the last millennium known as the Oort, Wolf, Spörer, Maunder, and Dalton periods. Paleoclimatic evidence of climate cooling during these periods exists. We can conclude on this basis that the ONI [ENSO index] dynamics [are] governed predominantly by two periodical external forces (the annual heat transport to the climatic system from the Sun and the Chandler wobble of the Earth’s poles) and that the system is not chaotic. This fact indicates that a principal possibility exists for long-term (many years in advance) ENSO forecasts.”

18.     Kitaba et al., 2017     “The weakening of the geomagnetic field causes an increase in galactic cosmic ray (GCR) flux. Some researchers argue that enhanced GCR flux might lead to a climatic cooling by increasing low cloud formation, which enhances albedo (umbrella effect). Recent studies have reported geological evidence for a link between weakened geomagnetic field and climatic cooling. … Greater terrestrial cooling indicates that a reduction of insolation [solar radiation reaching the surface] is playing a key role in the link between the weakening of the geomagnetic field and climatic cooling. The most likely candidate for the mechanism seems to be the increased albedo of the umbrella effect.”

19.     Perșoiu et al., 2017     “Throughout the Holocene, the subterranean ice block in Scărișoara Ice Cave responded sensitively to changes in both winter temperature and moisture source. During this time period, winter temperature in ECE [East Central Europe] was mainly controlled by insolation [solar radiation] changes. The interplay between insolation variability, SST changes in the North Atlantic, and the influence of the lingering Laurentide Ice Sheet modulated the dynamics of large-scale atmospheric circulation.”


20.     Luthardt and Rößler     “The 11 yr solar cycle, also known as Schwabe cycle, represents the smallest-scaled solar cyclicity and is traced back to sunspot activity (Douglass, 1928; Lean, 2000), which has a measurable effect on the Earth’s climate, as indicated by the Maunder minimum (Usoskin et al., 2015). Global climate feedback reactions to solar irradiance variations caused by sunspots are complex and hypothesized to be triggered by (1) variation in total energy input (Cubasch and Voss, 2000), (2) the influence of ultraviolet light intensity variation on composition of the stratosphere (Lean and Rind, 2001), (3) the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation (Marsh and Svensmark, 2000; Sun and Bradley, 2002), and/or (4) the effect of high-energy particles on the strato- and mesosphere (Jackman et al., 2005). …  [L]ike today, sunspot activity caused fluctuations of cosmic radiation input to the atmosphere, affecting cloud formation and annual rates of precipitation

131 responses to “20 More New Papers Link Solar Forcing To Climate Change – Now 80 Sun-Climate Papers For 2017”

  1. Agent76

    Ouch, this article will hurt the faux climate change folk’s.

    Nov 28, 2016 Weather is NOT Climate!

    No, weather is NOT climate…even when it’s warm outside. But in case there’s a climate cultist in your life that insists otherwise, here are some facts about global warming and vaguely-defined “extreme” weather that you can use to talk some sense into them.

    https://youtu.be/sT4133vfTmk

  2. SebastianH

    From the very first paper linked here:

    Clearly, the global mean surface warming in response to the SC is modest compared to effects of other external forcings. It is certainly much smaller than the radiative forcing associated with anthropogenic increases in GHG concentration. It is smaller even than the response to sporadic sulphate aerosol injection from major volcanic eruptions that efficiently reflect the incoming shortwave radiation back to space, resulting in negative temperature anomalies lasting for the 1-3 following years e.g. after the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1992.

    And thank you for linking to the Harde 2017 paper. Have you actually read it? If you still have doubts on the ocean heat content increasing because of a change in the GHE, the explaination including all equations is in there. You emphasized section of the quote is also interesting, since this all is from model calculations which you don’t believe to be true, because no experiment exists. How can you be ok with the result then? It’s all assumptions after all, right? Or do you actually think the author is “on to something” like those “it’s the density and not the GHE that determines surface temperatures” authors?

    I bet there are – as always – lots of gems in those papers listed here that you likely overread.

  3. El Niño 2017 fällt aus! Modelle schwenken um – ENSO-Update Juni 2017 – wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung

    […] 20 More New Papers Link Solar Forcing To Climate […]

  4. tom0mason

    All these scientific papers and still they religiously cling to their faith of AGW and humans’ (as separate from nature) causing the climate to change.

    1. SebastianH

      It’s not faith. Also: all the scientific papers and you still think humans have no influence?

      1. AndyG55

        “It’s not faith.”

        BULLS**T..

        You can’t even provide scientific proof of the very basis of the whole AGW religuion.

        OF COURSE its only unfounded BELIEF, and brain-washed CULT FAITH.

      2. David Johnson

        Why are people like you so afraid to consider any alternative hypothesis/theory? Blinkered, barely begins to describe your state of mind Seb. It’s as if you almost want the world to be rendered uninhabitable by some means or other.

        1. SebastianH

          Give me an alternative hypothesis/theory (for what exactly? The GHE? The increase in CO2 concentration?) that doesn’t collaps when examined and I might consider or even accept it. So far nothing!

          It’s as if you almost want the world to be rendered uninhabitable by some means or other.

          How do you get from not considering weird theories about how physics might work (recall that Ammendinger paper in one of the last posts?) to wanting Earth to be uninhabitable?

          1. AndyG55

            No weird theories needed, just a proper understanding of what is actually happening in physics.

            Seb , your understanding of physics is very much on the negative side of the ledger..

            ie basically everything you think you know is monumentally WRONG.

            So far , you cannot even support the very basis of your AGW cult religion.

            No science that proves that CO2 causes warming of oceans, or of a convective atmosphere.

            All you have is empty, blind, irrational, ignorant, brain-washed religious belief..

      3. tom0mason

        Science has rapidly become a faith for so many.

        Science is nothing but a human concoction, seeking as it does, to find our limited interpretation of the basic truths of this natural universe, and mankind’s place in it. Our understanding of this natural universe will always be inaccurate and incomplete, as science is only a continuous process of improving approximations.

        Some mistakenly believe that humans with their limited communication skills, and very limited technology have moved beyond nature’s grasp. This of course is wrong, man and his endeavors are part of this nature, and as far as can be assessed follows a natural path.

        The pursuit of science however, for too many individuals, has become some method by which these people BELIEVE it will prove that humans are in charge of nature and not the other ways about. Or at least it is able to explain most of our universe’s nature. This, of course, is another fallacy. We can not even coherently explain the basic fundamentals of our universe, or prove that our theories are correct. (E.g. scientifically explain time, why it passes as it does and what are its limitations).

        We are not and never have been in charge. Specifically humans in all their actions, are influenced by and because of nature, and it has always been such.

        So, do human’s influenced the climate? — Of course we do as we are part of the natural biology of the planet. From the earliest times we have. But climate has, over the centuries, massively affected mankind and his endeavors.

        Are we affecting the climate detrimentally, beyond what nature can tolerate? — No as we are too small and ineffectual to perform such a task! Just look at the massive forces nature can use to reset any perceived ‘unbalance’, an ‘unbalance’ that nature defines, not us.

        Has the recent rise in CO2 levels happened because of humans? — Very, very unlikely — other bigger natural forces control such things, and science has to yet prove otherwise. People who think otherwise appear to be suffering from a mad hubristic belief built upon human’s poor communications and even worse technology.

        Can CO2 warm our damp and dynamic atmosphere (below the tropopause)? — Very, very, very unlikely as our damp atmosphere is not a rigid structure, it is always on the move, and thus dissipates solar energy through that mechanism.

        The philosophy of science is a worthy endeavor for us as it holds the tools to improve our lives in many ways. However science is not a list of known facts, but an accumulation of approximations that seek to explain our universe. As such these approximations are always inaccurate and incomplete, thus they must always be questioned. As Jacob Bronowski said “Not here to worship what is known, but to question it”

        1. SebastianH

          Has the recent rise in CO2 levels happened because of humans? — Very, very unlikely — other bigger natural forces control such things, and science has to yet prove otherwise.

          Ehm, that’s already certain. If you claim that the increase in CO2 concentration happened naturally, you are the one who has to prove it.

          Can CO2 warm our damp and dynamic atmosphere (below the tropopause)? — Very, very, very unlikely as our damp atmosphere is not a rigid structure, it is always on the move, and thus dissipates solar energy through that mechanism.

          Insulation is insulation. It doesn’t matter what happens internally. They only working argument that it’s not insulating that much is that higher surface temperature cause more evaporation and transfer of heat towards the atmosphere, providing a negative feedback. And this feedback doesn’t compensate the complete effect a better insulation (more GHGs) has (give me numbers if you don’t agree).

          thus they must always be questioned.

          I agree and they are. But trying to explain stuff with magic or with explainations going against all know laws of physics, isn’t the way to go. You’ll get called “science denier”, “nutter”, etc … Galileo didn’t just invent something because he didn’t like the Sun going around Earth. If you want to challenge accepted science at least do it with some kind of proof …

          1. AndyG55

            “If you want to challenge accepted science at least do it with some kind of proof…”

            It is YOU that is totally EMPTY of any sort of proof.

            Still EMPTY.. no proof that CO2 causes warming over water, or of a convective atmosphere.

            EMPTY, BLIND and gullible brain-washing is all you have.

          2. AndyG55

            CO2 DOES NOT provide any “insulation” it has in fact been shown to transmit energy better than normal air.

            Your “insulation ” analogy is just as pointless and meaningless as any of your other pointless idiotic anti-science analogies, and shows that you have basically ZERO idea how the atmosphere acts to COOL the surface.

          3. tom0mason

            seb,
            “Ehm, that’s already certain. If you claim that the increase in CO2 concentration happened naturally, you are the one who has to prove it.”

            NO! Fool!
            YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT IT IS UNNATURAL AND HUMAN CAUSED! Beyond all doubt prove it — YOU PROVE IT!
            CO2 has risen many times before throughout this planet’s history and NEVER because of human activity, for some banal reason you believe (for that is all you have) human activity caused the rise in CO2 this time. It is NOT certain only misanthropes of the worst type would be so certain it is human caused!

            If you can not prove it then YOUR THINKING IS JUST HUBRISTIC NONSENSE, from the demented idea of believing mankind is in charge of the climate.

          4. tom0mason

            seb,

            “They only working argument that it’s not insulating that much is that higher surface temperature cause more evaporation and transfer of heat towards the atmosphere, providing a negative feedback.”

            BS, there are many arguments, most say you are wrong!

          5. tom0mason

            seb,

            “But trying to explain stuff with magic or with explainations going against all know laws of physics, isn’t the way to go.”

            Your pet theory is riddled with anti-science, and hidden magic, as fools such as Dr. Hansen reminds us that there’s a ‘runaway greeenhouse effect’. Complete BS, from the AGW book of magic.

            Or that there is still, despite over 30 years of effort, no demonstrable experiment or observation showing proof of CO2 trapping heat (as Hansen puts it) in our normal atmosphere. To think that it does happen (without proof) takes a special religious AGW belief, a belief YOU are guilty of having.

          6. SebastianH

            NO! Fool!
            YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT IT IS UNNATURAL AND HUMAN CAUSED! Beyond all doubt prove it — YOU PROVE IT!

            That’s already been done and it’s simple math: we output more CO2 per year than the yearly increase in atmospheric CO2. Please propose a mechanism how the increase of the CO2 concentration could be natural in such a szenario! Here is a graph of the current increase: http://imgur.com/a/yru36

            CO2 has risen many times before throughout this planet’s history and NEVER because of human activity

            As Kenneth writes, we aren’t entirely sure about that, but of course humans have never caused in increase before, how could they even? However, why are you looking in the (distant) past where humans obviously didn’t cause anything? What is relevant to the question whether we are causing the increase or not is happening today. We are emitting CO2 in large quantities.

            Or that there is still, despite over 30 years of effort, no demonstrable experiment or observation showing proof of CO2 trapping heat

            There have been multiple experiments and the effects of CO2 have been known for – literally – centuries by now. The only remaining question is about the climate sensitivity of a change in CO2 concentration, because that is a complex system with lots of feedbacks.

            @Kenneth:

            You’re believing in something (past CO2 concentration values) that are anything but “certain” to claim that current values are unusual

            They are unusual for the recent past (see graph linked above), wouldn’t you agree? And why does it matter if those values have been reached in the distant past without human activities? We are talking about present day, and to claim that these increases are natural is just crazy and the burden of proof is most certainly in the corner of those suggesting that this could be the case. All evidence points to humans. So the above question also goes to you: Please propose a mechanism how the increase of the CO2 concentration could be natural in such a szenario!

            Obviously, you are believing this because it fits in with your paradigm of a dominant human/CO2 influence on net ocean heat content changes

            There it is again, the word “believe” used to belittle statements. Why are you so convinced (a believe if you will) that human influence (on CO2 concentration) is little, despite the overhelming evidence against this?

            The burden of proof is on you to explain why CO2 concentrations varied so dramatically in the past without human interference.

            What? Why do I have to prove or explain anything about past CO2 levels? We are talking about current levels and there is a perfect explaination for it, that you don’t want to be true and yet you can’t propose a mechanism how all the CO2 that we emit could possible not (or very little, 15% you wrote?) contribute to CO2 concentration increase.

          7. SebastianH

            And here we go … another example of you missreading what I wrote (on purpose?).

            On the question who has to prove what, we are going in circles again. You are claiming something, so prove it. It showed you why we are causing 100% of the increase in CO2 concentration.

          8. SebastianH

            Sorry Kenneth, I can’t see how past CO2 concentration have anything to do with the current increase in concentrations? It could have been at 20000 ppm 10000 years ago, who cares?

            All that matters for answering the question whether or not human activity is the cause for the recent CO2 increase is comparing our output of CO2 with that increase.

            If there is some kind of natural process that can output orders of magnitudes more CO2, well … that’s good for explaining past CO2 hikes, but how does that explain the current increase? Where is human CO2 vanishing to?

            About the burden of proof: when you see someone throwing stones into a pool and deduce from that, that the stones in the pool come from that someone. How are you responsible for proving that this is the case when someone else claims that those stones appeared there naturally? You’ve literally seen who throws the stones into the pool, haven’t you?

          9. tom0mason

            seb,

            You say –
            “That’s already been done and it’s simple math: we output more CO2 per year than the yearly increase in atmospheric CO2. Please propose a mechanism how the increase of the CO2 concentration could be natural in such a szenario! Here is a graph of the current increase: http://imgur.com/a/yru36

            More sophistry of nonsense. That is not the proof for what I said. But then again how could you really answer the question when you know you have no proof.

            It has been shown (via many methods, but mostly ice-cores) that CO2 levels have varied regardless of human influence (that is to say humans did not exist). Thus it indicates that nature (not humans) have always been in charge of CO2 level and their rates of rise and fall. IT IS NOW UP TO THE AGW ZEALOT TO PROVE THAT MAN HAS ALTERED THIS NATURAL VARIATION.

            These (ice core measurements) indicated past CO2 level are orders of magnitude above now, or sometimes below today’s low levels. Indications thus far do not indicate a direct correlation of CO2 level with temperature. However there appears to be a strong correlation of CO2 levels and levels of biological life on the planet; low CO2 regardless of temperature = low amounts of life, high CO2 and warm climate = high levels of life. And yes history does matter.

            No research has PROVED that human derived CO2 upsets this natural balance, however most AGW advocates wish to change the current methods power generation and other societal changes based on this flakey theory. It is therefore incumbent on YOU AGW ADVOCATES TO PROVIDE THE PROOF. lest we waste more money on this nonsense.

            So far there was a very transitory correlation (IMO mere chance in the million) back in 1980-1990 when temperature changes and CO2 level change appeared to correlate but that faded away decades ago. Global warming as asserted to happen by the IPCC (both in level and rate) has not, and is not happening. Observation shows their theory MUST be wrong.

            IMO the crass mistake that AGW religious observers make is that in this multi-component, multi-feedback loosely coupled system of climate, CO2 stands alone as the one parameter that has a direct cause:effect affect on this planet. Looking at the history of this planet via ice-core data this has never been the case before, thus why is it the case now — Answer: It is not (SO IT IS INCUMBENT ON THE AGW ADVOCATES TO PROVE OTHERWISE.) To my mind this is a deranged idea, as the inter-couplings, feedbacks, and nonlinear associations of the myriad parameters that influence our climate preclude such a 1 to 1 relationship — ice core data also indicate this to be the case.

            So yes seb your sophistry and AGW religious dogma is all you have, you have no real proof .

            One paper that has started the push in a more rational direction is here https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n5/pdf/ngeo2414.pdf.

          10. tom0mason

            seb,

            You say –
            “That’s already been done and it’s simple math: we output more CO2 per year than the yearly increase in atmospheric CO2. Please propose a mechanism how the increase of the CO2 concentration could be natural in such a szenario! Here is a graph of the current increase: http://imgur.com/a/yru36

            More sophistry of nonsense. That is not the proof for what I said. But then again how could you really answer the question when you know you have no proof.

            It has been shown (via many methods, but mostly ice-cores) that CO2 levels have varied regardless of human influence (that is to say humans did not exist). Thus it indicates that nature (not humans) have always been in charge of CO2 level and their rates of rise and fall. IT IS NOW UP TO THE AGW ZEALOT TO PROVE THAT MAN HAS ALTERED THIS NATURAL VARIATION.

            These (ice core measurements) indicated past CO2 level are orders of magnitude above now, or sometimes below today’s low levels. Indications thus far do not indicate a direct correlation of CO2 level with temperature. However there appears to be a strong correlation of CO2 levels and levels of biological life on the planet; low CO2 regardless of temperature = low amounts of life, high CO2 and warm climate = high levels of life. And yes history does matter.

            No research has PROVED that human derived CO2 upsets this natural balance, however most AGW advocates wish to change the current methods power generation and other societal changes based on this flakey theory. It is therefore incumbent on YOU AGW ADVOCATES TO PROVIDE THE PROOF. lest we waste more money on this nonsense.

            So far there was a very transitory correlation (IMO mere chance in the million) back in 1980-1990 when temperature changes and CO2 level change appeared to correlate but that faded away decades ago. Global warming as asserted to happen by the IPCC (both in level and rate) has not, and is not happening. Observation shows their theory MUST be wrong.

            IMO the crass mistake that AGW religious observers make is that in this multi-component, multi-feedback loosely coupled system of climate, CO2 stands alone as the one parameter that has a direct cause:effect affect on this planet. Looking at the history of this planet via ice-core data this has never been the case before, thus why is it the case now — Answer: It is not (SO IT IS INCUMBENT ON THE AGW ADVOCATES TO PROVE OTHERWISE.) To my mind this is a deranged idea, as the inter-couplings, feedbacks, and nonlinear associations of the myriad parameters that influence our climate preclude such a 1 to 1 relationship — ice core data also indicate this to be the case.

            So yes seb your sophistry and AGW religious dogma is all you have, you have no real proof .

            One paper that has started the push in a more rational direction is here https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n5/pdf/ngeo2414.pdf.

          11. SebastianH

            Of course you can’t see why a natural variability context has anything to do with your correlation = causation beliefs. That’s why your viewpoints are properly categorized as beliefs, and why you are anything but a skeptic. You are incapable of critical examination of your own paradigm.

            No, I really can’t. Show me how it would be possible for nature to “just absorb” all the CO2 we produce and then not absorb some of the CO2 it produces itself. Does nature “know” which CO2 molecule is of human origin?

            Regarding your list of papers:
            1) Ahlbeck, 2009: so we forget that there was supposed to be a lag between temperature and CO2 increases? And suddenly temperature increase correlates with CO2 increase? How convenient that a skeptic can change positions so fast.

            2) Jones and Cox, 2005: how is that paper contradicting that we cause all the increase? It’s describing nature’s variability. A warmer ocean surface during El Nino events can’t absorb as much CO2. The increase in CO2 concentration in those years is still below human CO2 emissions.

            3) Quirk, 2009: a proponent of the idea that nature knows what CO2 is emitted from humans and quickly acts to just absorb those molecules.

            The next ones are basically a repetition of 2). The last one concludes that a short residence time means it’s not human CO2 that causes the increase (so basically what 3) says). Maybe the full text of that paper would clarify what the author actually wants to say?

          12. SebastianH

            Kenneth,

            You must compare the net change in CO2 concentration to the net change in annual anthropogenic CO2 emission from year to year

            Whaaaaaat? Are you serious with that one? That makes no sense at all.

            Do you really think that a constant CO2 output of mankind (0 GtC increase per year) would mean ZERO CO2 would enter the atmosphere and contribute to the increase? In what kind of twisted mathematical world do you live?

          13. AndyG55

            Surprise, surprise..

            … seb being DISHONEST, yet again.

            He KNOWS that CO2 doesn’t cause warming over oceans or in a convective atmosphere, ..

            He KNOWS that human contributions to atmospheric CO2 are MINOR and that they TOTALLY BENEFICIAL TO ALL LIFE ON EARTH…..

            …but he just keeps yapping like a demented Chihuahua anyway.

          14. AndyG55

            “In what kind of twisted mathematical world do you live?”

            You are the FANTASSY man.

            Kenneth would seem to have mathematical ability several steps above your “junior high, barely passed” level.

            Sorry that you are TOTALLY INCAPABLE of understanding the pretty straightforward maths that K is trying, in vain, to show you.

  5. tom0mason

    Pierre,

    As always my comment appears to have been safely hidden in the spam bin with no on-screen notification.
    Is there no method by which this site can keep the commentator informed of what happened to their comments when they fail to be published?

  6. Craig T

    “http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Gigatons-Carbon-2006-2014.jpg
    2014 – 9.795 GtC
    2013 – 9.735 GtC
    2012 – 9.575 GtC
    2011 – 9.449 GtC
    2010 – 9.140 GtC
    2009 – 8.700 GtC
    2008 – 8.740 GtC
    2007 – 8.532 GtC
    2006 – 8.363 GtC

    The average year-to-year increase from 2006 to 2014 was 0.16 GtC for human emissions (1.43 GtC total net change in 9 years) . Now see if you can follow along here, Sebastian…since you continue to miss this due to your presuppositions and confirmation bias.”

    Kenneth, the Global Carbon Budget data was in gigatons of carbon per year. The total anthrogenic carbon output from 2006-2014 was 83.3 GtC and the average was 9.25 GtC/yr. If atmospheric carbon increased by33.9 GtC during that time there are still 50 GtC unaccounted for. The ocean took in 23.5 GtC and land sinks 29.5 GtC. That makes anthropogenic carbon the source of 96% of the increase in CO2.

    Your Ahlbeck paper oddly enough made the opposite argument:
    “The anthropogenic CO2 emissions increased by 64% during the analysed period of 1980 to 2007. In fact the anthropogenic emissions have probably increased even more than 64% if deforestation is taken into account. But—despite this very large increase to the anthropogenic emissions throughout the period—a base trend of 1.5 ppmv/year to atmospheric CO2 concentration was maintained.”

    That paper never looked at data on the uptake of carbon dioxide on land or at sea. “The atmospheric CO2 increase rate was higher when the globe was warmer, and the increase rate was lower when the globe was cooler. This can be explained by wind patterns, biological processes, or most likely by the fact that a warmer ocean can hold less carbon dioxide.” Instead from 1980 to 2007 the ocean CO2 content increased by 60 Gt.

  7. Craig T

    Andy-
    “What proportion of radiation from the ceramic heater was visible light?”

    None whatsoever. Electric elements inside warm the ceramic heater, which then gives off infrared.

    “Water DOES NOT absorb long wave radiation, certainly not in the tiny thin band that CO2 could emit, that is a fantasy of the brain-washed anti-COP2 anti-science cult.”

    Water is opaque to longwave radiation, completely absorbing it in the top millimeter of the surface. C02 emits at 500-820cm-1 (12-20 microns.) In 1956 M. Ceccaldi published a paper finding “… a sharp DO-band at 16.8 microns and indications of an HDO-band near 15 microns. These bands only exist in the liquid state and must probably be attributed to intermolecular vibrations.” Gilbert Plass found the same thing that year. The fact that CO2 emitted in a range that water vapor did not led Plass to revive the idea that CO2 could influence climate.
    http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/38/054/38054598.pdf
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x/epdf

    “Why not use an infrared laser, so that realistic atmospheric temperatures are reached.”
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235974689_Explosive_boiling_of_water_after_pulsed_IR_laser_heating

    “Radiation is a bit player easily compensated for by the dominant convection and conduction.”

    I thought we all agreed that the radiative energy from the sun drove climate. Water gives off radiant energy and is cooled by the loss. Downward longwave radiation reduces the net loss and so the cooling. On the equator during a strong El Nino the net loss of LWR is reduced to almost zero.

    In the experiment using the heat lamp the water absorbed more LWR than it emitted. There was no shortwave radiation so it was far from a copy of the ocean during the day, but it’s another documentation of the fact that longwave radiation can warm water.

    1. AndyG55

      As I said… Build a big enough slingshot, I will send a cow over the moon.

      As you say, water is opaque to long wave radiation.

      This experiment has absolutely nothing to do with atmospheric anything… Its purely an indication that if you apply enough direct heating, not allowing proper convective processes, then you can overcome the natural evaporative cooling process.

      Long wave radiation in the lower atmosphere is a total non-entity when it comes to warming oceans or atmosphere. You know that, so why bother with this totally unrelated piece of childish misdirection?

      Are you REALLY that desperate ?????

      The comparison between atmospheric radiation and this experiment is that of a nerf ball versus a rail gun. (another analogy, since its all certain people seem to comprehend)

  8. Craig T

    Now that I’ve shown that longwave radiation can affect water temperature we can talk real world. As long as the ocean temperature is warmer than the air above it the net longwave radiation will be negative. The downward longwave radiation will be less than the upward LWR but as downward LWR increases the net LWR loss is reduced and cooling decreases.

    Let’s look at an extreme to make the point. During the 1997-98 El Nino the temperature of equatorial waters rose rapidly from January to June 1997. As the temperature and humidity rose cloud cover increased. With more clouds the shortwave radiation dropped. Starting at 290W/m2 SWR was down to 180 W/m2 by December 1997. This was when surface temperatures peaked at 30C.

    So how did the water warm while shortwave radiation fell? Cloud cover blocks SWR but returns more longwave radiation to the ocean. Net longwave heat loss was at -60W/m2 for the start of the year but increasing downward LWR reduced that to -40W/m2 by June 1997.
    http://i.imgur.com/XgT9p8E.jpg

    1. AndyG55

      “Now that I’ve shown that longwave radiation can affect water temperature”

      Once you apply enough power directly to the surface to overcome natural evaporative cooling.

      600K to 800K, applied centimetres from the surface….

      …. and you want to discuss REALITY???

      A truly DESPERATE and DECEITFUL ploy.

      1. SebastianH

        What is your reality AndyG55?

        A body of water with any temperature without an atmosphere between it and space (or lets say with the atmospheric window letting through all LW radiation) would obviously radiate towards space accourding to the SB-law. Do you agree or disagree?

        Now there is downwelling LW radiation that reduces this radiative output, but you are saying evaporation and convection are picking up the slack and just increase accordingly so the ocean/surface doesn’t have a chance for heat to build up. Do you agree or disagree?

        Unfortuneately those things can be measured. Do you have any numbers for us that would show that convection plus evaporation are causing the surface to get rid of the same amount of energy that is represented by the downwelling LW radiation? The amount must be even greater, because it has to get rid of most of the SW radiation from the Sun, too … right?

        So what are the magic numbers? How much W/m² convection and evaporation?

        1. AndyG55

          REALITY is that there is NOT a 600K to 800K heater just centimetres above the surface.

          Or are you TOO DUMB to figure that out ???

          Again with the NOT REAL yapping.

          There IS an atmosphere , seb.

          FACT

          The only downward LW radiation is from H2O. CO2 does not radiate below 11km.

          Evaporation and latent heat from any possible REAL LW atmospheric radiation will always counter that small amount of LW radiation.

          If you use back to back radiation flux meters, you will find there is pretty much always an outward flux over water.

          Its BASIC PHYSICS, as if you had any comprehension of any sort of physics.

          LW does NOT penetrate the surface, it causes evaporation , and thus a slight cooling due to losses via latent heat… observed, measured.

          SW penetrates the surface, and is the ONLY sort of radiation responsible for ocean heating… observed measured.

          It takes something like a blow-torch or 600-800K heater a very close to the surface to actually overcome evaporative cooling. NOT REALITY, is it seb.. if so.. tell me where this happens in real life ??

          Take that heater in the little experiment back a couple of metres from the surface.. do you really, in your wildest hallucinogenic imaginings, think that it would cause any warming except via the container and the surrounding air.. are you REALLY THAT DUMB ???

          1. SebastianH

            Are you reading a comment sentence by sentence and then hit reply whenever you read something you oppose before finish reading the whole comment? These reply “chains” sure look something like that.

            I didn’t write about 600-800 K heaters, I did clarify in parentheses what I meant with “no atmosphere” and you are again writing that downward LW radiation is only causing evaporation, yet refuse to give numbers how much W/m² of heat loss evaporation is causing.

            If you use back to back radiation flux meters, you will find there is pretty much always an outward flux over water.

            Probably over any surface that is warmer than the atmosphere. What are you trying to say with that sentence? That heat flow is always from warm to cold? Yeah, of course it is.

            Laws of thermodynamic: you can’t cool something by radiating towards it. Never! Even if it were true that any LW radiation that gets absorbed by a body of water is immediatly converted in evaporation heat loss, it is impossible for this effect to cool the body of water, because the used up energy is external. The only way for evaporation to cool something is if it uses up internal energy.

        2. AndyG55

          “A body of water with any temperature without an atmosphere between it and space”

          You really ARE a scientifically illiterate twerp, aren’t you, seb.

          Don’t you comprehend anything to do with partial pressures…

          Don’t you know what would happen to the water if there was no atmosphere….

          You seem to be basically IGNORANT about everything…

          .. which is almost certainly why you always want to invent mindless, hallucinogenic, FANTASIES..

          1. SebastianH

            As I’ve said … clarified that in parentheses. You apparently overread that in your rage.

          2. AndyG55

            You only seem to want to deal with FANTASY situations.

            Try an another analogy.

            …. maybe that will help you comprehend. !

        3. AndyG55

          “Do you have any numbers for us that would show that convection plus evaporation are causing the surface to get rid of the same amount of energy that is represented by the downwelling LW radiation?”

          The VERY FACT that the surface 1mm or so COOLS slightly (observed and measured), under evaporation should give even your nil-science, brain-washed, single-synapse-mind a clue. !!

          1. AndyG55

            poor seb ,, no matter how many clues you give him,

            he just loses them…

            so, after all this time…

            HE STILL DOESN’T HAVE A CLUE !!

          2. SebastianH

            The VERY FACT that the surface 1mm or so COOLS slightly (observed and measured), under evaporation should give even your nil-science, brain-washed, single-synapse-mind a clue. !!

            The surface layer doesn’t cool because of incoming LW radiation. That is physically impossible. It is definetly cooler than it would be without evaporation caused by the increase in heat content build up, but it can never be cooler than the temperature it would have without downwelling LW radiation and your claimed equal upward evaporation effect. Never!

            @Kenneth:

            Then, when considering that the deepest that LW radiation can penetrate is the surface skin, what would he say that the cooler skin is attributed to? Can you answer that, SebastianH? Why is the surface skin cooler than the layer beneath it? What’s the mechanism?

            The ocean gets warmed by the Sun. A warm ocean surface exchanges heat with its surroundings by evaporation, contact with the atmosphere, radiation, etc. That happens at a faster rate than energy from below is reaching the surface, thus the surface layer is cooler than the layers below.

            This gradient defines how much energy is transfered away from the ocean. Increasing LW radiation increases the temperature of the surface layer slightly, causing a shallower gradient which represents less heat loss and results in heat content build up.

            The downwelling LW radiation doesn’t cool the surface, because that would mean that more than the amount of energy it contains gets used up in the resulting evaporation change. That’s physically impossible.

            So, now you two have successfully evaded my question about numbers and made me answer your question … what about an answer to my questions?

          3. AndyG55

            Again, your TOTAL AND COMPLETE IGNORANCE of the mechanics of evaporation is quite amazing.

            It is pointless even trying to explain…

            … because you just DO NOT WANT TO LEARN or UNDERSTAND. !!

            You are beating us to boredom with your incessant zero comprehension yapping !!

          4. AndyG55

            Read it again. Its as though you are deliberately acting like a low IQ pre-teen

            It is a FACT that the surface 1mm or so COOLS slightly (observed and measured), under evaporation.

            If you can’t think it through from there..

            … then you have ZERO brain, or are CHOOSING to remain WILFULLY IGNORANT.

          5. SebastianH

            I’ll gladly repeat it for you: incoming LW radiation, even if 100% of it would go into an increase of evaporation can never cool the water surface.

            You can never cool stuff by bombarding it with energy. Impossible.

          6. SebastianH

            Before you reply something along “but refrigerators work” or “but they use lasers to cool atoms to near absolute zero”, think again what is really happening in these events. If you cool one place, there is always a place that gets even warmer. So if LW radiation could really cool the ocean surface, where is the place that gets warmer in return?

          7. AndyG55

            Again, YOUR ignorance of the mechanism of evaporation, leaves you at the same level of totally incompetence as you are destined to remain at.

            Do you really DENY that evaporation cools the surface.??? Seriously ??

            Are you REALLY that unobservant and incredibly DUMB !!

          8. AndyG55

            “where is the place that gets warmer in return?”

            Your question, yet again, shows you have absolutely ZERO comprehension of the what evaporation involves.

            It also shows you have absolutely ZERO intent of ever wanting to know.

            Your bLatent and wilful ignorance is on record.

          9. AndyG55

            Another “clue” for seb-the ignorant, if you use back to back spectrum analysers over ocean water , you generally get an OUTWARD flux in the shortwave spectrum.

            For the first time in your life, seb…

            … lower your religious AGW brain-block, and,

            … Try to THINK !

          10. SebastianH

            I’ll try to give you a hint: how does evaporation cool a surface? Where does the energy come from? What does evaporation cool if the energy comes from an external source? Nothing … there is no temperature change at all if what you say were true and all incoming LW radiation would only cause evaporation. Not from the evaporation that is fueled by this external source of energy.

            But we all know that your magic theory anyway. Evaporation doesn’t suddenly increase by 50 W/m² when a cloud forms and thereby increases downwelling LW radiation by 50 W/m².

            If only you would be able to tell us some numbers. How much W/m² of energy loss is caused by evaporation? How much by convection? How much by radiation?

            Don’t evade this time!

    2. AndyG55

      And why haven’t you answered any of my questions about the experiment?

      The foam insulation, inside or outside?

      And if they had that insulation, how did they take pictures

      I find it very odd that in time when basically everyone has a camera in their phone, they choose to use an badly labelled child-like diagram instead of pictures of their experiment.

  9. SebastianH

    I hope this doesn’t get deleted, because it is important that you guys understand why the CO2 calculation above is incorrect. Otherwise we don’t ever need to discuss this.

    Total emissions over 9 years (2006 – 2014):
    A is total emissions from nature
    B is total emissions from humans (= 82 GtC)
    C is total absorption from nature
    D is total increase of CO2 concentration (16 ppm = 33 GtC)

    A + B = C + D

    From this certain things follow:
    1) C is greater than A
    2) Since B is greater than D, we are able to say that B causes all of D. If B would be 0 would not be positive.

    Now Kenneth’s version:
    A1 is base emissions in the first year from nature
    A2 is increase in emissions from nature in that timespan
    B1 is base emissions from humans (8.363 GtC/year)
    B2 is increase in human emissions in that timespan (1.432 GtC/year)
    D1 is CO2 base concentration in first year
    D2 is increase of CO2 concentration (16 ppm = 33 GtC)

    (A1 + A2) + (B1 + B2) = (D1 + D2) which then becomes A2 + B2 = D2 when Kenneth wants to find out who is responsible for the increase.

    It should be immediately clear that his makes no sense at all and can only be called wrong. Hint: units!

    If you want to compare rates as Kenneth suggests, then you’d have to do the same for CO2 concentration. Take the yearly increases (unit: GtC/year) and get the difference from the first year. You get something like this: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:2006/to:2015/compress:12/derivative/mean:3

    D2 is now 0.45 ppm or 0.954 GtC and is lower than B2. Case closed and units are correct.

    Any objections?

  10. SebastianH

    I made a spreadsheet for you, Kenneth. Maybe you’ll now see which columns/figures are comparable? Same color = same unit = comparable.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kVDQO5xxGRC1J4TmJFJaHOfk-u6didRZaxwsxXahnk4/edit?usp=sharing

    If that doesn’t make your error obvious to you … aks friends you trust to explain it to you.

    1. SebastianH

      Or in picture form for easier consumption: http://imgur.com/a/1mwnl

  11. Altri 20 nuovi studi scientifici collegano l'attività solare al cambiamento climatico - Adesso sono 80 i documenti scientifici del 2017 che collegano sole e clima. : Attività Solare ( Solar Activity )

    […] fonte: notrickszone […]