Meteorologist Joe Bastardi: Claims CO2 “Control Knob” Seem “Beyond Folly”…”Almost A Religious Fanaticism”

Veteran meteorologist Joe Bastardi at Weatherbell gave permission to publish the following, which he writes had appeared behind a paywall at Weatherbell Analytics. Part of what Joe writes was brought up at his Saturday Summary video.

(Correction: Red curve in first figure is 2011/12 year, and not 2016 as Joe originally wrote).
=========================================

Greenland is a Canary in a Coal Mine

By Joe Bastardi, Weatherbell Analytics
(Editing by P. Gosselin)

Nowhere on the planet is there a better example than Greenland of how nature, and not man, is master of the planet’s fate. It demonstrates the process by which there is a natural cap to warming.

How so? Well, first of all let’s look at what’s an amazing 5-year recovery in Greenland snow and ice:

The pinkish line is how far above average we are, the extra yellow tacked on means pink and yellow is the increase since 2012.

I want you to look at that. Suppose it had gone the other way, and instead had DROPPED to 2012 levels from where it is now. Just what do you think would be reported today in the climate media?

Now this is all in the midst of what is the warmest 2-year stretch of temperatures in the satellite era. Let’s not kid around or make excuses; it is by UAH:

It is by the NCEP initialization criteria, which has been doing well in tracking the ups and downs:

This makes some sense because Greenland is a very cold place, even when it’s warmer, and so with more water vapor available from the warmed oceans, it snows more where it’s cold enough to snow. That is simple intuition and proven fact, and I didn’t need any big grant money to come up with that. So increases of water vapor in very cold places produce more snow, and CO2 is not causing more or less snow.

The idea that CO2 can suddenly warm the planet and create these situations is nonsense. At the very most, and this is a stretch, stored CO2 in the lower levels does have some warming effect by influencing the air around it, but quantifying it against the large scale drivers is by no means settled science.

Greenland colder this year

The oceans today are not a product of the increase of 1 molecule of CO2 out of every 10,000 of air over 100 years, but instead large scale events that can be centuries in the making. So someone can claim that warming leads to more snow (by the way that was taught in my climate classes in the 70s), which in turn leads to cooling since more snow makes winters last longer in areas where sun angles are low.  Nature’s version of Le Chateliers, or the old adage: for every action, there is a reaction!

Predictably, Greenland in 2017…

…is cooler than it was in 2016:

But the history of Greenland shows that the current warming does not match other warm periods shown by the ice core sampling:

Above is another proxy for global temps, and it is showing a current “hockey stick” look, which certainly backs that idea. The problem is that in the cherry-pick world of climate hysteria, scientists ignore the rest of the periods, thinking that somehow it’s valid global proxy when it agrees with them, and not when it doesn’t. But whether tree rings in Mongolia or wherever, or ice cores in Greenland, the earth shows a wide and varied, always acting and reacting climate system that is independent of whatever minute influences man might offer.

Harsh winter threatening Europe?

To say there is no influence at all to me is folly, anything and everything contributes to the system, but the question lies in its weight. To say CO2 is the climate control knob in the face of what we know and see, seems beyond folly, almost a religious fanaticism. Greenland is indeed a canary in the coal mine as I have heard it put when snow and ice was melting. Problem is that it’s like nature: it’s a canary that changes its tune. Anyone listening?

Tell you what. If there’s blocking over Greenland this winter and I am in Europe, I’d really look out.

 

86 responses to “Meteorologist Joe Bastardi: Claims CO2 “Control Knob” Seem “Beyond Folly”…”Almost A Religious Fanaticism””

  1. Green Sand

    More snow can also negate some of the warming effects of soot and dust. Nice bright white reflects a lot more than grimy.

  2. Salvatore Del Prete

    JOE thinks that the climate changes very slowly over time.

    Wrong. Diagram to follow.

    With low solar and the added possibility of an increase in major volcanic activity the global temperatures could plummet, that aside I expect global temperatures within a year to be at or below the 30 year means.

  3. Salvatore Del Prete
  4. Salvatore Del Prete

    https://www.iceagenow.info/sun-might-change-climate/

    This is my take we will soon know as solar should stay very low from this point on against a backdrop of sub-solar activity in general post 2005.

    A weakening geo magnetic field will enhance given solar activity

    Prior to 2005(1980-2005)
    although solar activity was weakening it was still strong enough to promote continued warming.

  5. Brian

    February 13, 2017 Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide Can’t Cause Global Warming

    Scarcely a day goes by without us being warned of coastal inundation by rising seas due to global warming.

    http://principia-scientific.org/chemistry-expert-carbon-dioxide-cant-cause-global-warming/

    1. SebastianH

      Posting a link like this one is the reason why sane people (and probably sane skeptics too) think to many skeptics are just not understanding basic physics … including that chemist over at principia scientific.

      The author uses many words to describe why the atmosphere can’t heat the ocean, but completely misses the point. That (by contact) is not how greenhouse gases warm the surface/atmosphere.

      1. tom0mason

        As usual just empty ranting from seb the scientific illiterate.

      2. Kenneth Richard

        “sane people (and probably sane skeptics too) think to many skeptics are just not understanding basic physics”

        Apparently you didn’t realize that essentially calling scientists “insane” who question the validity of a theoretical/modeled explanation for planetary heating does not persuade people that humans cause the weather and climate to change by emitting more or less CO2. The modeled conceptualization that says varying CO2 concentrations over a body of water in volumes of + or – 0.000001 is the dominant cause of heat changes in water bodies is not “basic physics”. This conceptualization has not been observed or measured or subjected to controlled scientific experiment. It’s just a theory/model/assumption/belief.

        “That (by contact) is not how greenhouse gases warm the surface/atmosphere.”

        Generally speaking, the atmosphere doesn’t warm (or cool) until the oceans do. (Heat capacity of the ocean vs. air is the main reason why.) Therefore, for greenhouse gases to be a determinant of atmospheric warming, as you allege above, they need to first and foremost be the determinant of (deep) ocean warming. As you know, and as Skeptical Science and RealClimate acknowledge, the heat “trapped” by greenhouse gases at the surface does not penetrate into the ocean itself. The heat “trapped” by greenhouse gases can’t penetrate past the micrometer-thin (thinner than a hair) skin layer, which, at the very most, has a heat gradient of 0.002 K (according to RealClimate).

        The method by which the oceans are heated is predominantly via variations in directly absorbed shortwave radiation — variations induced by changes in albedo (clouds, aerosols), irradiance, orbital tilt, etc. Unlike greenhouse gas radiation, SW radiation does penetrate past the skin layer to directly heat the first 20-30 meters of the ocean. UV penetrates even further. This penetrative discrepancy alone is enough to allow variations in direct SW radiation to be the dominant determinant of ocean heat changes…and, in turn, atmospheric heat changes.

        In the atmosphere, CO2 molecules are today spaced together 1/20,000ths more closely than they were in 1990 (353 ppm). This difference is not nearly enough to function as a “blanket” that “traps” heat at the surface of the ocean, as conceptualized by modelers. As mentioned above, the heat gradient for the skin layer (the only depth affected by LW) is only 0.002 K, which isn’t nearly strong enough to be a determinant either.

        In sum, you probably need to stop referring to or implying that scientists are not “sane” if they don’t agree with you that CO2 molecules that are spaced closer together 1/20,000ths more closely now than they were 27 years ago are what cause the ocean depths to warm and thus the weather and climate to change.

        1. Kenneth Richard

          Irvine, 2015
          Heat Transfer VIII – Simulations and Experiments in Heat and Mass Transfer
          http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on-engineering-sciences/83/27156 [click “Download” pdf]
          [I]t is established physics that Long wave Radiation from GHGs only penetrates the oceans to a depth of a fraction of a millimetre. 99% of the long wave radiation reemitted by GHGs is absorbed in pure water in the first 0.015mm of the surface. [N]early all the Long Wave GHG energy is returned almost immediately to the atmosphere and space as latent heat of evaporation. … LWIR from GHGs will have a different and smaller effect on OHC than a similar amount of solar radiation as the LWIR is nearly totally absorbed in the evaporation layer [the skin layer] while nearly all short wave solar radiation is not. … It is established physics that the oceans are opaque to the long wave radiation reemitted by GHGs while short wave solar radiation readily transports energy to a depth of many meters. Long wave GHG radiation is quickly returned to the atmosphere and, eventually, space as latent heat of evaporation.

          Minnett et al., 2011
          “The surface skin layer of the ocean, much less than 1 mm thick, is nearly always cooler than the underlying water because the heat flux is nearly always from the ocean to the atmosphere

          Murray et al., 2000
          [N]et surface heat flux is almost always from ocean to atmosphere, resulting in a cool ocean skin.”

          Ellsaesser, 1984
          “The current eager acceptance of oceanic thermal lag as the “explanation” as to why CO2 warming remains undetected, reemphasizes that the atmosphere cannot warm until the oceans do.”

          1. SebastianH

            [N]early all the Long Wave GHG energy is returned almost immediately to the atmosphere and space as latent heat of evaporation.

            A conclusion derived from an experiment that is not suited to get a result like that. We had that discussion.

            the heat flux is nearly always from the ocean to the atmosphere

            Why emphasize this? Do you really think that the warming caused by GHG concentration causes the heat flux to change direction? That’s not how this kind of warming works. It works – in simple words – by reducing the amount of Joules that a mass can get rid of. That increases heat content which directly increases temperature and last but not least the rate at which the Joules can leave that something until it matches the incoming Joules again.

          2. Kenneth Richard

            the heat flux is nearly always from the ocean to the atmosphere

            Why emphasize this?

            Because you wrote that GHGs heat the atmosphere. The atmosphere doesn’t warm until the oceans do (due to the heat capacity difference). So GHGs necessarily must heat the ocean before the atmosphere can be heated. And, as you know, there is no scientific experiment, physical measurement, or empirical observation that has shown that varying CO2 concentrations up or down by + or – 0.000001 cause heating or cooling in water. You just assume, or believe, that CO2 does this. Science isn’t built upon assumptions and beliefs. It’s built upon observations and physical measurements and replicatable controlled experiments. You have none of that. Every time you’re asked to provide scientific proof via controlled physical experiment that CO2 heats or cools water when varied above a water body…you have nothing. Nothing at all.

            “Do you really think that the warming caused by GHG concentration causes the heat flux to change direction?”

            The premise is that warming of water is caused by GHG concentration changes, which have never been shown to cause warming. So no, I don’t think what you wrote at all. I’d have to accept that your presupposition has been verified. It hasn’t.

          3. SebastianH

            Apparently my reply didn’t make it, second try.

            Because you wrote that GHGs heat the atmosphere. The atmosphere doesn’t warm until the oceans do (due to the heat capacity difference).

            Of course the atmosphere warms, what do you think is the main feature of the greenhouse effect? Absorbing and emitting LW radiation! Additionally the ocean is warming (or cooling) the atmosphere by contact, etc

            So GHGs necessarily must heat the ocean before the atmosphere can be heated.

            No, I suggest you to take a textbook on the greenhouse effect and learn how it works. Even if you don’t agree that it exists or has the effects it has, you should at least know what it is and how it is supposed to work.

            Every time you’re asked to provide scientific proof via controlled physical experiment that CO2 heats or cools water when varied above a water body…you have nothing. Nothing at all.

            Again, we know how increasing heat content on a mass with a constant energy source by increasing insulation works. Water is no different than any other mass. We know that CO2 increases cause higher backradiation (e.g. more insulation), so we can easily deduce that increasing CO2 causes energy buildup. What we don’t know with absolute certainty are the feedbacks of that process. You claim (by citing that Irvine experiment/paper) that almost all of that energy gets used for evaporation and the result is no increase of the heat content. I disagree for obvious reasons: we don’t see that level of evaporation and if that energy were being transported back to the atmosphere by this process then where is it going to from there? Not into space at least …

            So no, I don’t think what you wrote at all.

            Then why did you emphasize that the heat flux is from the oceans to the atmosphere? What do you think happens when the heat flux decreases? Heat stays in the ocean and doesn’t transfer to the atsmophere. That’s what backradiation increase is causing.

          4. Kenneth Richard

            “Water is no different than any other mass. We know that CO2 increases cause higher backradiation (e.g. more insulation)”

            Water is indeed different than air. The heat capacity of the ocean is 1,100 times greater than the air. It takes 1,100 more heat energy to heat up the ocean water than it takes to heat up the air above it They are not the same.

            Backradiation cannot penetrate into the ocean by more than the micrometer layer (hair-thin skin), where evaporation occurs. Shortwave radiation can penetrate into the ocean by 10s of meters to cause direct heating, with UV penetration even further than that. This makes variations in direct shortwave radiation absorption far, far more determinative of ocean temperatures than variations in the factors affecting backradiation.

            Try to visualize the “insulation” blanket you speak of and what it amounts to. Since 1990, CO2 concentrations have increased by 50 parts per million. That means that CO2 molecules in the atmosphere are today spaced together 1/20,000ths more closely than they were 27 years ago. That’s undetectable. That’s the extra “insulation” density that “traps” heat like a blanket now compared to then that you are imagining.

            “so we can easily deduce that increasing CO2 causes energy buildup.”

            We haven’t been asking you to “deduce” anything based on your understanding of non-penetrative backradiation and supposition that there is no difference between water and air. We asking you to produce a scientific experiment that shows that varying CO2 concentrations over a body of water causes heating or cooling in that body of water, complete with controls and physical measurements. In 6 months of asking, you have not produced anything. All you have are insults, such as claiming that scientists that don’t agree with you about backradiation blanket is “insane”.

        2. tom0mason

          seb, Not quite sane enough, not insane enough… not Rain Man but CO2 Man, sort of like special.
          Knows lots of what he assumes are ‘facts’ but can not quite get it all together to make sense with what is observed.

        3. SebastianH

          Kenneth, why did you use so many words to defend a “scientist” that clearly hasn’t understood how the greenhouse effect warms the planet? The chemist is trying to show that the oceans aren’t warm by greenhouse heating of the air. Completely ignoring how the greenhouse effect works or that it’s a radiative effect and not some form of warming by contact.

          Yes, I am calling that scientist insane, because of the language used while trying to “disprove” the greenhouse effect and not understanding what he is even argumenting against.

          A bit similar to your behaviour (sometimes). From your many words I gather that you still don’t understand how backradiation causes warming. Note: you can still disagree that this is not happening and say that it is all just a model, but please try to understand the mechanism first … thank you.

          1. Kenneth Richard

            “Kenneth, why did you use so many words to defend a “scientist” that clearly hasn’t understood how the greenhouse effect warms the planet?”

            SebastianH, your side necessarily believes that CO2 molecules that are spaced together 1/20,000ths more closely now than they were in 1990 function even more like a “blanket” than they did 27 years ago and thus they radiatively trap the heat attempting to escape to space at the ocean’s skin layer (hair thin). This 1/20,000th change in the CO2 heat-trapping “blanket” since 1990 is what you believe is the dominant cause of net heat changes in the deep ocean. Why do you believe that a change of 1/20,000ths is enough to make so much of a difference that it dominates over variations in shortwave radiation absorption in determining the temperature of the ocean 20 meters down?

            Why is “scientist” in parentheses? You believe that Dr. Imisides isn’t really a scientist if he doesn’t believe what you do about CO2?

            “Yes, I am calling that scientist insane”

            I am curious as to why you find it effective to respond with ad hominems…especially since you complain about them when you are on the receiving end. Is this persuasive?

          2. SebastianH

            Why do you believe that a change of 1/20,000ths is enough to make so much of a difference that it dominates over variations in shortwave radiation absorption in determining the temperature of the ocean 20 meters down?

            Making it sound small doesn’t make it small. An increase in CO2 concentration increases the direct forcing and those very likely positive feedbacks. Positive forcings result in energy accumulating and that causes warming (simple physics: heat content times specific heat capacity equals temperature).

            A scientist who doesn’t understand that the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with warming by contact? I think it is fair to “attack” his knowledge of the basics. Normally people who are against something do at least understand what they are against, don’t they?

          3. AndyG55

            “An increase in CO2 concentration increases the direct forcing and those very likely positive feedbacks. Positive forcings result in energy accumulating and that causes warming ”

            WRONG

            UNPROVEN BS.. as usual.

            You are no scientist, seb.

            Your understanding of real science is PROVEN to be pretty darn close to ZERO.

            You live in a fantasy world of NON-SCIENCE.

            You are NOT a normal person, and you would not have a clue how or what a normal person would think.

      3. AndyG55

        “why sane people ”

        You could NEVER be classed as sane, seb

        1. Colorado Wellington

          Joe Bastardi compares CO2 worshippers to religious fanatics and a cult member is aroused to defend its dogma.

      4. AndyG55

        “is not how greenhouse gases warm the surface/atmosphere.”

        Greenhouse gasses don’t warm the ocean AT ALL.

        You would know that by now if even the slightest bit of REAL science could get past you AGW brain-washing and manic scientific ignorance.

        Funny , isn’t it. The so-called greenhouse effect, doesn’t even hold true in an actual greenhouse.

        IT IS A LOAD OF ANTI-SCIENCE NONSENSE

      5. AndyG55

        “are just not understanding basic physics”

        People certainly aren’t going to understand your brand of fantasy physics, seb.

        Its as though you spent all your junior high years in a drunken or drug-induce hallucinogenic stupor.

        I have NEVER met anyone who’s understanding of physics is so basically FLAWED and CONTRARY TO REALITY as your fantasy version of physics is.

      6. tom0mason

        seb,
        Your greenhouse has no solid walls or a roof!

      7. AndyG55

        “just not understanding basic physics ”

        The Scientists over at PS have WAY more knowledge and education of physics than you will ever attain.

        seb you need to firstly realise that the stuff you think you know is basically JUNK-SCIENCE. Its what you thrive on. ANTI-KNOWLEDGE is probably the most apt word.

        You then need to UNLEARN all that junk-science, and get a proper education.

        See you when you catch up in about 20 years. !!

      8. yonason (from my cell phone)

        Activist chatbot-SebH writes: “That (by contact) is not how greenhouse gases warm the surface/atmosphere.”

        We just went over this a few days ago. I even gave you “.edu” refs clearly stating that conduction and convection (I.e., CONTACT) were the primary mechanisms of cooking in an oven, not radiation. If the oceans aren’t heated by warm air, they D@$#% sure aren’t being heated by radiation!

        Are you so brain dead that you have forgotten? Or are you such a brazen liar that you don’t care what the facts are?

        You are nothing but an activist troll. Nothing you say can be trusted!

        1. yonason (from my cell phone)

          That’s “back-radiation” from the minuscule CO2 in the atmosphere, of course.

      9. Robert Folkerts

        SebH,

        You appear to have significant concern regarding increasing co2 as to how you believe that can cause temperatures to increase.
        I suspect this means your concern is for temperature, not co2 levels per se?
        I am interested to know your thoughts on the UHI effect on temperature.
        UHI clearly has a significant effect on local Temps and weather patterns.
        The point I want to make here is this,

        In my lifetime the population of the earth has doubled. From 3.5 billion to 7 billion. As the majority of this population is urban you can figure there has been a massive increase in the urban land area and consequent UHI.

        Do you plan to try to combat this (proven) anthropogenic climate effect, or only co2?

        1. AndyG55

          “Do you plan to try to combat this (proven) anthropogenic climate effect, or only co2?”

          His only recourse seems to be mindless yapping.

          Huddled up in his fossil fuel regulated inner-city basement, driving around in his fossil fuel car, eating carbon based food.

          He has ZERO intention of actually doing anything at all except mindlessly trolling this site..

          That is his life’s work, his crowning achievement.!

          Pretty sad, hey 😉

          seb, you do know that the infrastructure that allows your mindless AGW trolling, uses a very significant amount of fossil fuel power, don’t you, little trollette ??

  6. tom0mason

    Further to what Salvatore Del Prete says it is obvious to many that there’s no independent internal source of radiation in or from the atmosphere, therefore any such radiation from the atmosphere is a consequence, not a cause. There is just solar effects as the major influence on our climate and weather, and not the ridiculous notion of the minute increase CO2 production (that is all natural).

    1. SebastianH

      Repeat the mantra, maybe it becomes true by doing that …

      There is just solar effects as the major influence on our climate and weather

      Everything is a solar effect since that is the energy source for everything. But the Sun alone doesn’t set the temperature. Whether or not you think the greenhouse effect is real, you most likely agree that the surface is warmer than it would have been without an atmosphere (e.g. look at the Moon). Do you think the Sun is the only changing variable and the composition of an atmosphere plays no role?

      1. tom0mason

        More distractions from what was written.

        Nobody has said “..Sun alone doesn’t set the temperature.”
        Only you and you demented mind has read this.
        However, as far as that without the sun then the earth (the solar system) and its atmosphere could not exist then it does set the temperature, as the sun’s existence ensure this planet’s.
        The Robinson and Catling model shows there is (in all probability) NATURAL methods at work here. But of course I’ll assume you can not understand this as the elementary math involve would be too much for your CO2 addle mind to cope with.
        The Sun is the primary modulator of this planet’s temperature and thus the major control of our weather and climate.
        As of note, Robinson and Catling do not stupidly exchange ‘heat’ for IR (infra red radiation) and vice versa as many scientifically illiterate AGW religious believers freely do.

        1. SebastianH

          What was written:

          There is just solar effects as the major influence on our climate and weather, and not the ridiculous notion of the minute increase CO2 production

          Do you really think someone asking if you really think that the Sun is the only changing variable and everything else is an effect of that change, is a distraction? So the Sun makes us burn fossil fuel?

          1. Kenneth Richard

            “Do you really think someone asking if you really think that the Sun is the only changing variable”

            The Sun’s direct radiance isn’t the only variable that changes. Cloud cover changes on decadal timescales, modified by cosmic rays, that affect how much solar radiation is absorbed by the oceans. Volcanic aerosol load changes (and can affect temperatures for decades to centuries). Changes in geothermal heat flux in the active zones affect how much heat is absorbed by the Earth system and in those regions. 60-80 year oscillations in ocean heat affect surface temperatures. We’ve had something like 20 El Nino events and only 13 La Nina events in the last several decades, which means we’ve had more warming ENSO events than cooling ENSO events, and this raises temperatures. In sum, we have plenty of variables that are far more influential than a 1/20,000ths change in atmospheric CO2 density since 1990.

            “So the Sun makes us burn fossil fuel?”

            Did tom0mason write this? Or are you just making up thoughts and attributing them to him?

          2. tom0mason

            Depend on how your dementia imagination allows you to interpret “Sun is the primary modulator” and all the ramifications from that…

            “Do you really think someone asking if you really think …blah, blah…)
            No. It’s not for me to try and understand how you attempt to reason (that is your problem, please see a specialist).

          3. tom0mason

            seb,

            “Do you really think someone asking if you really think …”

            No.
            Your demented interpretation are not my problem.

        2. yonason (from my cell phone)

          More “straw man” arguments – something SebH uses a lot of, as pointed out by several others on multiple occasions.

      2. AndyG55

        “the surface is warmer than it would have been without an atmosphere ”

        WOW,, seb is finally starting to recognize the gravity/thermal effect..

        Well Done, seb

        tiny beginner’s steps…

        but now watch him fall back and land on his **** filled nappy.

      3. Kenneth Richard

        “Whether or not you think the greenhouse effect is real, you most likely agree that the surface is warmer than it would have been without an atmosphere (e.g. look at the Moon).”

        A better example than the Moon would be Mars, which does have an atmosphere. Mars has an atmosphere with 960,000 ppm CO2, and yet its about -75.0 C colder than the Earth, which has a CO2 concentration of 400 ppm. Why so much colder? Because of the atmospheric pressure difference: Mars’ atmosphere is much thinner than Earth’s. The distance from the Sun also has an impact. The 960,000 ppm vs. 400 ppm CO2 greenhouse effect is not the determining factor for planetary temperatures.

        By the way, what if someone actually agrees the greenhouse effect is real, but that CO2 only plays a negligible role relative to clouds and water vapor? After all…

        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2008JCLI1876.1?queryID=21%2F632615
        It has been shown that the downward longwave irradiance (DLR) is significantly correlated with three variables: air temperature, specific humidity, and cloudiness. Based on the relationship of the three variables with DLR, a multiple linear regression model has been developed in order to evaluate the relative contribution of each of the variables to the variation of DLR. The three variables together explained 75% of all the variance in daily mean DLR. The respective contribution from specific humidity and cloudiness to the variation of DLR was 46% and 23%; thus most of the DLR variability can be explained by the variations in the two variables.

        http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/cloud%20radiative%20forcing.pdf
        Water vapour and cloud are the dominant regulators of the radiative heating of the planet. ..The greenhouse effect of clouds may be larger than that resulting from a hundredfold increase in the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere.

        “Do you think the Sun is the only changing variable and the composition of an atmosphere plays no role?”

        Why do you insist on making up ridiculous straw men, SebastianH? Why do you just make up statements and pretend like someone actually wrote/thought that?

        1. SebastianH

          Don’t distract Kenneth (Mars).

          By the way, what if someone actually agrees the greenhouse effect is real, but that CO2 only plays a negligible role relative to clouds and water vapor? After all…

          If that someone where you I would check first if you really understand how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work. Otherwise you are probably agreeing to something you have no idea of how it works.

          Please demonstrate exactly how cloud cover change results in a higher average forcing than CO2 forcing. Same for water vapor. We had these discussions many times and your math skills comparing those values have alsways been lacking.

          The first paper you cite here is about the DLR variability. CO2 forcing is not a variability, it is pretty constant . The second paper is pretty old and compares 4 W/m² of global CO2 forcing to -21.3 W/m² global cloud forcing. The second value is the difference between the cloud cover at the time and no cloud cover at all. There doesn’t seem to be a mention of the resulting forcing when cloud cover changes from 69% to 70% … math says this equals 0.3 W/m². You can decide from history cloud cover data by how much percent cloud cover actually changes of the years.

          Why do you insist on making up ridiculous straw men,

          Why do you call everything a straw man argument? That’s a valid question to confirm if his wording indeed means what is says: “There is just solar effects as the major influence on our climate and weather,”

          1. Kenneth Richard

            Don’t distract Kenneth (Mars).

            So the very person who initiated a commentary about the planetary greenhouse effect with a comparison between a planet with an atmosphere to a Moon with no atmosphere at all thinks it is a distraction when it is pointed out that instead of comparing a planet with an atmosphere to the Moon with no atmosphere he could have compared a planet with an atmosphere to a planet with an atmosphere as it relates to the subject at hand (the planetary greenhouse effect). So the Moon is not a distraction, but Mars is. Somehow I think the reason why you want to talk about the Moon, but not Mars, is because you know that Mars is 75 degrees colder than Earth despite having an atmosphere with 960,000 ppm CO2. You do believe that Mars has a very,very enhanced greenhouse effect relative to Earth with its 960,000 ppm CO2 compared to Earth’s 400 ppm, right? That CO2 is what’s keeping Mars as warm as it is. Right?

          2. Kenneth Richard

            “Please demonstrate exactly how cloud cover change results in a higher average forcing than CO2 forcing.”

            Gladly. Despite CO2 emissions from humans and atmospheric CO2 concentrations rising explosively (355 ppm to 397 ppm) between 1992-2014, there was no positive increase in the greenhouse effect forcing during those 22 years, as shown here:

            http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/NTZ-Greenhouse-Effect-Hiatus-1024×396.jpg
            Song, Wang & Tang, 2016
            [A]remarkably decreasing Gaa trend (−0.27 W m−2 yr−1) exists over the central tropical Pacific, indicating a weakened atmospheric greenhouse effect in this area, which largely offsets the warming effect in the aforementioned surrounding regions. As a result, a trendless global averaged Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] is displayed between 1991 and 2002 (Fig. 2). … Again, no significant trend of the global averaged Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] is found from 2003 to 2014The oceanic Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] rate of change (−0.04 W m−2 yr−1) during 1992–2014 is not statistically significant.
            ——
            Why didn’t greenhouse effect forcing exert a positive influence on temperatures during 1992-2014 despite all that CO2 forcing? Because CO2 forcing was easily overshadowed by SW/LW cloud forcing, of which SW cloud forcing is more influential. You haven’t previously shown that you understand what net SW cloud forcing is vs. net LW (GHE) cloud forcing is (and judging by your comments above, you still don’t understand it), so instead of trying to explain cloud radiative forcing to you yet again, I’ll just let the scientists summarize:
            ——
            [T]he influences of water vapor and clouds … contribute approximately 75% of the total [greenhouse] effect. … What causes this decreasing Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect]? The variation of the greenhouse effect is substantially influenced by its contributors, including water vapor, clouds, and GHGs. GHG concentrations have risen steadily during recent decades. The variations of metrics related to the other two contributors are given in Fig. 4a and are based on the CERES-EBAF products between 2003 and 2014. The total column precipitable water (TCPW) anomaly significantly increases at a rate of 0.44 cm yr−1. However, the cloud area fraction (CAF) anomaly is reduced by −0.60% yr−1, which is consistent with the decreasing cloud activity described in previous publications. Therefore, although the greenhouse effect can be enhanced by increasing GHGs and water vapor in the atmosphere, it can be weakened by decreasing clouds. If these two actions offset each other, a hiatus of the global greenhouse effect will result. … [T]he atmospheric and surface greenhouse effect parameters both become trendless when clouds are considered. … Overall, the downward tendency of clouds is the dominant contributor to the greenhouse effect hiatus.
            ——
            Shortwave cloud forcing dominates over LW cloud forcing in W m-2. (You probably still have no idea what that means, but I won’t bother.) So again, if there is even a small change in cloud cover, the radiative forcing from clouds easily overshadows the LW effects (GHE) of clouds, water vapor, and CO2…even if CO2 increases by 50 ppm (like it did between 1992-2014)! This is what I have been telling you over and over again…to no avail. Even if we accept the IPCC greenhouse effect hypothesis as the means by which the planet is heated, the effects of alleged CO2 forcing is overshadowed by the other GHE agents!

            “The first paper you cite here is about the DLR variability. CO2 forcing is not a variability, it is pretty constant.”

            Correct. It’s pretty constantly insignificant relative to clouds and water vapor…even if it increases by 50 ppm over 22 years. That’s why CO2 isn’t even mentioned in that paper as a factor affecting LW. Methane (a very strong GHG) forcing isn’t mentioned either. Why? Because methane forcing is pretty constantly insignificant relative to clouds and water vapor. Are you seeing a pattern?

          3. Kenneth Richard

            Hamdan, 2016
            Global solar radiation data is very important for wide variety of applications and scientific studies. However, this data is not readily available because of the cost of measuring equipment and the tedious maintenance and calibration requirements. … The analysis showed that the main atmospheric parameters that affect the amount of global radiation received on earth’s surface are cloud cover and relative humidity. Global radiation correlates negatively with both variables. Linear models are excellent approximations for the relationship between atmospheric parameters and global radiation. A linear model with the predictors total cloud cover, relative humidity, and extraterrestrial radiation is able to explain around 98% of the variability in global radiation.

          4. AndyG55

            “really understand how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work. ”

            But you DON’T understand, seb, otherwise you would know it was a load of nonsense.

            You have made that PATENTLY CLEAR on many occasions

            You only have your baseless zero-science opinion .

            You do know that the so-called greenhouse effect, as per the climate change scam, doesn’t even exist in a greenhouse, don’t you. !!!

            ———————

            And your maths skills, seb,

            … are those of a failed arts student.

            Puerile and juvenile at best.

  7. Brian

    Jul 2, 2017 Antarctica Is the Key to Controlling the Weather

    https://youtu.be/olJv2syNw9A

  8. Salvatore Del Prete

    More details on my thoughts of solar/climate impacts

    Solar criteria is now moving to the values I had said would be significant enough to cause global cooling, following 10+ years of sub – solar activity(2005-present) in general. Duration is now needed for my low average value solar parameters. I am of the opinion that if solar conditions are extreme enough it could move the terrestrial items which govern the climate to threshold values to one degree or another.

    This is perhaps part of the reason why abrupt climate change has occurred in the past.

    TERRESTRIAL ITEMS

    global cloud cover

    global snow cover/sea ice cover

    volcanic activity major

    sea surface temperatures

    atmospheric circulation

    LOW AVERAGE VALUE SOLAR PARAMETERS NEEDED TO CAUSE GLOBAL COOLING

    SOLAR FLUX – SUB 90 – IS IN PLACE

    SOLAR WIND SUB 350 KM/SEC – GETTING TOWARD THIS

    COSMIC RAY COUNTS – 6500 UNITS + – IS IN PLACE

    AP INDEX 5 OR LOWER – COMING DOWN OF LATE

    EUV/UV LIGHT- EUV 100 UNITS OR LOWER – IS IN PLACE- UV LIGHT DOWN

    IMF 4.2 NT – NOT REACHED YET ON A REGULAR BASIS.

    SOLAR IRRADAINCE OFF .15% not reached yet.

    All given solar effects enhanced by a weakening geo magnetic field.

    1. SebastianH

      When will this cooling happen? And isn’t that alarmist behaviour? “The end is near, beware the next ice age”?

      1. Kenneth Richard

        We hope it never happens. We hope all the scientists are wrong about an impending cooling. Cooling kills. Cooling is terrible for the biosphere.

      2. tom0mason

        seb,
        I know you can not believe it but some cooling is already happening!
        The sun did it!

        1. SebastianH

          Is it? Last thing I read was the 2017 is currently the 2nd warmest year on record: http://www.noaa.gov/news/earth-has-2nd-warmest-year-to-date-and-3rd-warmest-may-on-record

          1. AndyG55

            Seb, have you ever heard of the LIA, which was the coldest period in 10,000 years, and which we are just a small bump out of.

            And have you ever heard of the MWP, RWP, Holocene optimum etc

            which were much warmer than current.

            You are, as always.. pretending to be IGNORANT.

            I say pretending, because I don’t believe that even YOU are as ignorant as you make out to be.

            But maybe you are

            Still that question, seb… still empty ???

            Name any PROVABLE drawbacks to any level of atmospheric CO2 that we are ever likely to reach….

          2. SebastianH

            I replied to your question in another thread and also asked you to do something in return: prove that a higher CO2 concentration has mostly beneficial effects …

            And yes, I heard of those. Haven’t you read what tom0mason wrote? He wrote that cooling caused by the Sun is already happening. How does mentioning the past make his claim true when actual temperature measurements (2017 (to date) being the 2nd warmest year on record, in modern times) show something different?

          3. tom0mason

            As I said
            “seb,
            I know you can not believe it but some cooling is already happening!”

            And you had to confirm it.
            What is it, eh? An itch you must scratch?
            A mind set so locked in that to allow others to see things differently causes you to immediately rant to the counter.
            I’ve known children with more self control. 😉
            Guess what? In real science there is only investigation and not fixed ideas of the veracity of non-validated and non-verified models attempting blindly prove an outlandish theory.

            Tell me have you ever hear of “noctilucent clouds”? If so do have you read of them increasing or decreasing in the last 9 or so years? And if for what ever reason they’ve changed would this indicate that the planet is likely warming or cooling, regardless of your fixation on CO2 magically making heat.

            Also is it logical that your reference to “Last thing I read was the 2017 is currently the 2nd warmest year on record…” when local and regional climates and their changes is what matters, not some statistically manipulated figures.

            Finally there is the sun, which, as we know, is heading towards it’s minimum. Do you really think this will warm or cool the planet? Or will your infamous CO2 warming keep generating heat for ever, even if such effects have never been seen in this planet’s history before.

            So all in all I said you would not believe it, and like some ‘special’ child you proved me correct. Well done dear, and thank-you for not letting me down.

            Now get on and scratch, scratch, scratch, this reply must surely itch that spot of yours.

          4. AndyG55

            What an INCREDIBLY PATHETIC response from seb.

            Cowardly evasion, because he knows that is all he has.

            Proof of the benefits of CO2 are everywhere.

            Increased food crops, increased biosphere

            HUGE numbers of experiments showing it is vital for plant growth that the planet relies upon for its very existence and has been way too low for a long long time.

            You are a LOSER, seb… nothing but a cowardly LOSER.

          5. AndyG55

            And you know that your reply in the other thread was a load of unproven AGW mantra.

            PATHETIC. !

  9. clipe

    Has sod been fired? Is SebastianH next?

    1. Kenneth Richard

      He was banned by Pierre for 24 hours due to racially insensitive language/insinuation. That was several days ago now.

  10. AndyG55

    Oh dear, what a pity..

    http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/melbournes-frosty-winter-blast-sees-solar-hot-water-panels-burst-around-the-city-20170703-gx3dfd.html

    YET ANOTHER downside to solar.. even hot water systems are a risk.

    Now imagine the fun if you also has solar panels 😉

    1. AndyG55
  11. AndyG55

    Report from Australia.

    https://australianclimatemadness.com/2017/07/03/high-efficiency-coal-still-cheaper-than-renewables/

    “The construction of a new high-efficiency, low emissions coal-fired power station, being considered by the Turnbull government, would cost $2.2 billion — considerably less than the $3bn of subsidies handed out to renewable projects EACH YEAR, a new technical study shows.”

    1. SebastianH

      The HELE coal plant, which the Turnbull government has not ruled out funding, would produce electricity at $40-$78 per megawatt hour, compared with gas at $69-$115/MWh and solar at $90-$171.

      They forgot to mention wind at $64-$115/MWh and coal with CCS at $69-$165/MWh.

      It’s interesting that the website then goes on (your emphasize) to compare costs of a coal power plant to yearly subsidies to all renewables. Comparing the LCOE (in Australia) results in wind costing 0.82 to 2.88 times of what coal costs (solar 1.15 to 4.28 times) and costing 0.39 to 1.67 times of coal with CCS (solar 0.54 to 2.48 times).

      Looks a little bit different. As long as you don’t need storage and can rely on grid power as backup renewables can be the cheaper option, even in Australia.

      For the US wind and solar are projected to be cheaper than coal für plants entering service in 2022. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

      1. AndyG55

        “As long as you don’t need storage and can rely on grid power as backup renewables can be the cheaper option, even in Australia.”

        People WAY more competent that you say otherwise.

        We have seen what wind and solar have done to SA electricity prices and their economy..

        The rest of Australia is saying NO THANKS.

        So STOP yapping about stuff you know nothing about.

      2. AndyG55

        And why would ANYONE with a sane mind go with the totally unnecessary expense of CCS.

        The atmosphere needs MORE cO2 , why waste money on restricting it.

        You brain-washed mind live in an INSANE religion, seb

  12. Joe Bastardi

    Here is the fact I am trying to point out
    1) If Greenland is the canary in the coal mine, its is certainly singing a different tune. There is no symphony singing about ice melt now with it this far above normal
    2) Greenland has been far warmer in other times and if used as a proxy for global temps, we can see it is indeed nailing the current warming, but was far far warmer before.

    my stance on this whole thing has been said many many times and I dont see why this contradicts any physics.
    https://patriotpost.us/opinion/42741

    Co2 is not the climate control knob. It is a part of the grand scheme that blend into the climate but compared to the sun the oceans, stochastic events and the very DESIGN of the planet in which conflict is inherent, it has to be very small. and that is what in the planets geological record vs co2 there is no apparent linkage, In another post, here
    https://patriotpost.us/opinion/49728 there are 5 charts that seem to debunk the whole climate control argument. Remember we are not talking about some effect, which could be next to nothing, we are talking about people claiming it is exclusively responsible for everything we see going wrong with climate today ( but of course no one brings up past events worse or how much of the world is having perfectly normal weather for where they are)
    As far as my handle on physics, I have watched PHD’s far smarter than me argue over this with some opining that it has no effect, and making logical arguments as to why and others varied all the way to small effects which I believe to those that are driving the hysteria the other way. What is amazing to me is if it is truly settled science, why are such learned men arguing over it? Do we argue about gravity like this? or the freezing temperature of water? Obviously not settled science. So the missive here is that looking at Greenland, this has been an amazing turn around, one that for the moment has quieted the entire greenlands melting crowd. And given Greenlands history, the current warming is a so what event. If trees in the middle of nowhere are temperature proxies, then certainly Greenland Ice core ideas are also. So take it as I wrote it. an observation and a hypothesis based on it Peace

    1. tom0mason

      Thanks Joe for a bit of sanity in a human world lost in unreal human defined crises.

      And in as far as “stochastic events and the very DESIGN of the planet in which conflict is inherent, it has to be very small. and that is what in the planets geological record vs co2 there is no apparent linkage,…” I would agree and extend it to say that human generated CO2 has just as much linkage, i.e. none what so ever.

    2. AndyG55

      Speaking of Greenland history…

      the current ice area is well above that of most of the last 8000 years.

      https://s19.postimg.org/ceo16fi7n/Greenland-Ice-Sheet-Briner.jpg (added notations for those who need it)

      1. tom0mason

        Thanks Andy 🙂
        That image hits the spot in reinserting some perspective back into the discussion. I might be borrowing it.

        1. AndyG55

          I can only give you permission to use that notations. 😉

        2. AndyG55

          This one however…is all mine

          Greenland total Ice mass since 1900.

          https://s19.postimg.org/9iwxep7jn/Greenland_Ice_Mass.png

    3. SebastianH

      I find it interesting that you try to redefine the mathematical term “optimum” as meaning a desirable state in your linked statement. An optimum is just an extreme in a function, it can be both positive and negative (local maximum or minimum).

      Regarding Greenland’s “amazing turnaround”:
      1) https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/880087546386030592 (an animation of Antarctica and Greenland land ice mass) … how did the right graph change in 2017?
      2) below the first graph in this blog post (http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Bas_1.png “Acc. SMB”) you write “The pinkish line is how far above average we are, the extra yellow tacked on means pink and yellow is the increase since 2012.” I hope you know that this graph doesn’t display the increase of surface mass balance since 2012 (vertical pink/yellow line). If 400 Gt is the average and 2012 was at 300 Gt and 2017 is at 500 Gt this means that 200 Gt more snow/ice accumulated than in 2012 at this point in time, not that there is now 200 Gt more snow/ice.

      Obviously not settled science.

      Not for those with strong opinions apparently. I don’t know when debating over climate issues became a thing fanatics like to do, nobody is arguing about special relativity or the age of the universe like that. My theory: climate science isn’t complicated enough to keep confused people from having an opinion and the internet enabled everyone to voice their opinions … this was considered a good thing a decade ago, but now turned to a very strange monster. We now live in a world where NASA has to officially deny that they put children on Mars as their sex slaves.

    4. SebastianH

      Comment won’t get through … hmm. Shortform:
      1) optimum is a mathematical term, not something describing the desired state
      2) Accumulated SMB is not describing the total mass of Greenland ice. It’s the accumulation of ice/snow and it has always been lower than what is lost due to calving. Has that changed in the 2016/17 season? Has this turned around now? https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/880087546386030592
      3) “Settled science”. I wish I knew why people have such strong opinions on this topic. What is the motivation behind claiming our influence is small when all evidence points in the other direction … by dismissing the evidence or calling it fake? That is very Trump-esk and maybe just the times we live in (NASA had to deny a story about child slaves because of some high profile conspiracy theorist claiming so and people believed him).

    5. SebastianH

      Comment won’t get through … hmm. Shortform:
      1) optimum is a mathematical term, not something describing the desired state
      2) Accumulated SMB is not describing the total mass of Greenland ice. It’s the accumulation of ice/snow and it has always been lower than what is lost due to calving. Has that changed in the 2016/17 season?
      3) “Settled science”. I wish I knew why people have such strong opinions on this topic. What is the motivation behind claiming our influence is small when all evidence points in the other direction … by dismissing the evidence or calling it fake? That is very Trump-esk and maybe just the times we live in (NASA had to deny a story about child slaves because of some high profile conspiracy theorist claiming so and people believed him).

      1. AndyG55

        1) can be either..go get a basic education

        2) oh dear.. seems seb is IGNORANT that glaciers are rivers of ice. OF COURSE they calve, bozo.
        Many of those glaciers didn’t exist during most of the last 10,000 years, only being created during the .. wait for it…. neoglaciation. Do some research, brain-washed twerp.

        #) very little science is “settled” climate science, only in it infancy.. like you mind is, but that will never change.

        Real evidence points that our influence on global climate very small indeed. What is the motivation in your baseless belief that it is otherwise. Gullibility ?

        Name any PROVABLE drawbacks to any level of atmospheric CO2 that we are ever likely to reach….

        You are STILL firing blanks from a nerf gun, seb.

  13. Salvatore Del Prete

    Which I agree with.

    But I truly think the globe is heading toward cooling due to prolonged minimum solar conditions and the associated secondary effects.

    MY SOLAR/CLIMATIC PLAY IS PRESISTENT VERY LOW SOLAR TRANSLATES TO AN INCREASE IN ALBEDO /LOWER SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES HENCE GLOBAL COOLING.R

  14. Arktis unterkühlt – Schneebombe auf Grönland – Meereisflächen größer als 2016! – wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung

    […] Meteorologist Joe Bastardi: Claims CO2 “Control Knob” Seem“Beyond Folly“…&#822… […]