2 New Papers: Models ‘Severely Flawed’, Temp Changes Largely Natural, CO2 Influence ‘Half’ Of IPCC Claims

Atmospheric Scientists Slam Fundamentals

of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory

Scafetta et al., 2017    Natural climate variability, part 1: Observations versus the modeled predictions

[T]he AGWT [Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory] was globally advocated by the IPCC in 2001 because it appeared to be supported by the ‘infamous’ Hockey Stick temperature reconstructions by Mann et al. [10]* and by specific computer climate models mainly based on radiative forcings [4,11]. Those temperature reconstructions claimed that only a very modest change in the Northern Hemispheric climate had occurred during the pre-industrial times from A.D. 1000 to 1900, while an abrupt warming did occur just in the last century. Energy balance and general circulation climate models (GCM) were used to interpret the Hockey Stick climatic pattern as due mostly to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions such as CO2 because of coal and oil fuel consumption, which has been accelerating since the beginning of the 20th century [11].

However, since 2005 novel Northern Hemisphere proxy temperature reconstructions were published revealing the existence of a large millennial oscillation that contradicts the Hockey Stick temperature pattern

* see reference list


Wilson et al., 2016

Wilson et al., 2016

Abrantes et al., 2017

The new findings were consistent with alternative climatic and solar activity records showing that a quasi-millennial oscillation occurred throughout the entire Holocene for the last 10,000 years [16, 17].

The severe discrepancy between observations and modeled predictions found during the 1922-1941 and 2000-2016 periods further confirms, according to the criteria proposed by the AGWT advocates themselves, that the current climate models have significantly exaggerated the anthropogenic greenhouse warming effect.

In 2009 AGWT advocates acknowledged that: “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 year or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate” [24]. Thus, according to the AGWT advocates’ own criteria, a divergence between observations and climate models occurring at the bi-decadal scale would provide strong convincing evidences that the GCMs used to support the AGWT are severely flawed.

In conclusion, the temperature records clearly manifest several fluctuations from the inter-annual scale to the multidecadal one. Detailed spectral analyses have determined the likely existence of harmonics at about 9.1, 10.5, 20 and 60- year periods [7, 8, 9]. By contrast, the CMIP5 GCMs simulations used by the IPCC (2013) to advocate the AGWT show a quite monotonic accelerating warming since 1860, which is at most temporarily interrupted by volcano eruptions and only slightly modulated by aerosol emissions. Thus, the models are not able to reproduce the natural variability observed in the climate system and should not be trusted for future energy planning [33].

It has been suggested that non-radiative physical processes connected with solar activity and the “resonant” orbital motions of the moon and the planets can cast light on the otherwise incomprehensible temperature fluctuations [34, 35]. In fact, the magnetic activity of the sun and, probably, also the planetary motions modulate both the solar wind and the flux of the cosmic rays and interstellar dust on the earth with the result of a modulation of the clouds coverage.


Scafetta et al., 2017  Natural climate variability, part 2: Observations versus the modeled predictions

Several studies based on general circulation model (GCM) simulations of the Earth’s climate concluded that the 20th century climate warming and its future development depend almost completely on anthropogenic activities. Humans have been responsible of emitting in the atmosphere large amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) such as CO2 throughout the combustion of fossil fuels. This paradigm is known as the Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory (AGWT).

[S]ince 2001 AGWT was actually supported by the belief that the “hockey stick” proxy temperature reconstructions, which claim that an unprecedented warming occurred since 1900 in the Northern Hemisphere, were reliable [2,5] and could be considered an indirect validation of the available climate models supporting the AGWT [6]. However, since 2005 novel proxy temperature reconstructions questioned the reliability of such hockey stick trends by demonstrating the existence of a large millennial climatic oscillation [7-10]. This natural climatic variability is confirmed by historical inferences [11] and by climate proxy reconstructions spanning the entire Holocene [12, 13]. A millennial climatic oscillation would suggest that a significant percentage of the warming observed since 1850 could simply be a recovery from the Little Ice Age of the 14th – 18th centuries and that throughout the 20th century the climate naturally returned to a warm phase as it happened during the Roman and the Medieval warm periods [9, 11, 14-16].

We … critically analyze the year 2015-2016, which has been famed as the hottest year on record. We show that this anomaly is simply due to a strong El-Niño event that has induced a sudden increase of the global surface temperature by 0.6 °C. This event is unrelated to anthropogenic emissions. In fact, an even stronger El-Niño event occurred in 1878 when the sudden increase of the global surface temperature was 0.8 °C.

Herein, the authors have studied the post 2000 standstill global temperature records. It has been shown that once the ENSO signature is removed from the data, the serious divergence between the observations and the CMIP5 GCM projections becomes evident. Note that Medhaug et al. [28] claim that the models agree with the post 2000 temperature trend. However, these authors did not remove the ENSO signal and used annual mean temperature records up to 2015 that camouflage the real nature of the 2015-2016 ENSO peak.

Moreover, a semi-empirical model first proposed in 2011 based on a specific set of natural oscillations suggested by astronomical considerations plus a 50% reduced climatic effect of the radiative forcing, which includes the anthropogenic forcing, performs quite better in forecasting subsequent climate changes. Thus, the GCMs used to promote the AGWT have been also outperformed [by a natural oscillation/astronomical/anthropogenic “semi-empirical” model][15]. This result is indeed consistent with recent findings. In fact, although the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) to CO2 doubling of the GCMs vary widely around a 3.0°C mean [3,4], recent studies have pointed out that those values are too high.

Since 2000 there has been a systematic tendency to find lower climate sensitivity values. The most recent studies suggest a transient climate response (TCR) of about 1.0 °C, an ECS less than 2.0 °C [20] and an effective climate sensitivity (EfCS) in the neighborhood of 1.0 °C [29].

Thus, all evidences suggest that the IPCC GCMs at least increase twofold or even triple the real anthropogenic warming. The GHG theory might even require a deep re-examination [30].

78 responses to “2 New Papers: Models ‘Severely Flawed’, Temp Changes Largely Natural, CO2 Influence ‘Half’ Of IPCC Claims”

  1. Two New Papers: Models 'Severely Flawed', Climate Change Largely Natural | Principia Scientific International

    […] Read more at notrickszone.com […]

  2. Dr Norman Page

    These papers confirm the methods and are compatible with the predictions of my paper

    The coming cooling: usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers.
    Norman J. Page
    Houston, Texas
    Dr. Norman J. Page
    Email: norpag@att.net
    DOI: 10.1177/0958305X16686488
    Energy & Environment
    0(0) 1–18
    (C )The Author(s) 2017
    Reprints and permissions:
    sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
    DOI: 10.1177/0958305X16686488
    journals.sagepub.com/home/eae

    ABSTRACT
    This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the UAH temperature trend in about 2003. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”

    For an accessible blog version see
    https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html

    See fig 12
    https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iSxtj9C8W_A/WKNAMFatLGI/AAAAAAAAAkM/QZezbHydyqoZjQjeSoR-NG3EN2iY93qKgCLcB/s1600/cyclesFinal-1OK122916-1Fig12.jpg

    Fig. 12. Comparative Temperature Forecasts to 2100.

    Fig. 12 compares the IPCC forecast with the Akasofu (31) forecast (red harmonic) and with the simple and most reasonable working hypothesis of this paper (green line) that the “Golden Spike” temperature peak at about 2003 is the most recent peak in the millennial cycle. Akasofu forecasts a further temperature increase to 2100 to be 0.5°C ± 0.2C, rather than 4.0 C +/- 2.0C predicted by the IPCC. but this interpretation ignores the Millennial inflexion point at 2004. Fig. 12 shows that the well documented 60-year temperature cycle coincidentally also peaks at about 2003.Looking at the shorter 60+/- year wavelength modulation of the millennial trend, the most straightforward hypothesis is that the cooling trends from 2003 forward will simply be a mirror image of the recent rising trends. This is illustrated by the green curve in Fig. 12, which shows cooling until 2038, slight warming to 2073 and then cooling to the end of the century, by which time almost all of the 20th century warming will have been reversed. Easterbrook 2015 (32) based his 2100 forecasts on the warming/cooling, mainly PDO, cycles of the last century. These are similar to Akasofu’s because Easterbrook’s Fig 5 also fails to recognize the 2004 Millennial peak and inversion. Scaffetta’s 2000-2100 projected warming forecast (18) ranged between 0.3 C and 1.6 C which is significantly lower than the IPCC GCM ensemble mean projected warming of 1.1C to 4.1 C. The difference between Scaffetta’s paper and the current paper is that his Fig.30 B also ignores the Millennial temperature trend inversion here picked at 2003 and he allows for the possibility of a more significant anthropogenic CO2 warming contribution
    Fig 4 shows the current situation

    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ouMJV24kyY8/WcRJ4ACUIdI/AAAAAAAAAlk/WqmzMcU6BygYkYhyjNXCZBa19JFnfxrGgCLcBGAs/s1600/trend201708.png

    The RSS cooling trend in Fig. 4 and the Hadcrut4gl cooling in Fig. 5 were truncated at 2015.3 and 2014.2, respectively, because it makes no sense to start or end the analysis of a time series in the middle of major ENSO events which create ephemeral deviations from the longer term trends. By the end of August 2016, the strong El Nino temperature anomaly had declined rapidly. The cooling trend is likely to be fully restored by the end of 2019.

  3. Kurt in Switzerland

    Gotta love the chart from Fig. 7 of Scafetta et al. (2017), showing the evolution of best estimates for TCR and ECS from 2000 through 2017.

    Reminds me of the efforts to replicate Millikan’s Oil Drop Experiment a century ago. Matt Ridley summarized it in an article 5 y ago.
    http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-perils-of-confirmation-bias-part-2/

    Or read Feynman’s observations on confirmation bias in his lecture at Cal Tech 43 y ago. http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm

    Will they eventually settle on numbers < 2.0 for both, perhaps < 1.5?

    1. Kurt in Switzerland

      … actually, a better question would be, “What if TCR or ECS aren’t actually constants, after all?”

      Cue head explosion by Joe Romm & co.

      1. tom0mason

        Indeed, and maybe find they are very dependent on other atmospheric parameters like humidity, air pressure (and thus lunar cycles), and solar fluxes (both electromagnetic and particulate).
        Now that would put a cat among the pigeons.

      2. david russell

        If they are not constants, then they …. .well, just don’t exist. They just don’t exist

      3. ScottM

        “What if TCR or ECS aren’t actually constants, after all?”

        Why do you think there’s an expectation that they would be constant?

        1. Kenneth Richard

          The “convective” value for CO2 doubling on its own from 280 ppm to 560 ppm, or 560 ppm to 1,120 ppm, and so on, is indeed expected/considered to be constant: 1.16 K due to the modeled forcing assumption of 3.7 W m-2. So if the direct doubling of CO2 concentrations would yield a constant result both in forcing and temperature change, why would no such expectation exist for the TCR (which is only the “average” temperature during the ~20 years before/after the year of the doubled concentration)?

          Is it really news to you, Scott, that the direct forcing/temperature result for doubled CO2 is assumed (modeling) to be constant?

          http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~davidc/ATMS211/articles_optional/Hansen81_CO2_Impact.pdf
          The increase of equilibrium surface temperature for doubled atmospheric CO2 is ∼1.2°C. This case is of special interest because it is the purely radiative-convective result, with no feedback effects.

          http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/Readings/Lorius1990_ice-core.pdf
          “The radiative forcing resulting from doubled atmospheric CO2 would increase the surface and tropospheric temperature by 1.2°C if there were no feedbacks in the climate system.”

          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL025540/pdf
          “An increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 275 to 550 ppm is expected to increase radiative forcing by about 4 W m2, which would lead to a direct warming of 1.2°C in the absence of feedbacks or other responses of the climate system”

  4. gallopingcamel

    Great work Nicola.

    That Figure 7 shows that the concept of a sensitivity constant is false. The Arrhenius hypothesis (1896) is nonsense.

    The near perfect correlation of CO2 and temperature over the last 850,000 years results from Henry’s law (solubility of gases in liquids falls as temperature rises):
    https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/the-dog-that-did-not-bark/

    1. sunsettommy

      Arrhenius 1906 paper, did improve it a lot,still warm but no longer nonsense of the time.

    2. yonason

      Every time I visit “diggingintheclay” I am annoyed to distraction.

      This is NOT “clay” that’s being dug in! It is course sand.
      https://diggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/cropped-header3.jpg

      Otherwise, it’s a great website. |;-[)

    3. Consensus Science
      1. sunsettommy

        Shakun’s paper was exposed for it statistical omissions. It is GARBAGE!

        In a FOUR post series,Willis Eschenbauch showed that the temperature proxies are all over the map,that Shakun stopped the CO2 data dateline,when the temperature was going down slowly while CO2 went UP for a while.

        A reply to Shakun et al – Dr. Munchausen Explains Science By Proxy

        “Discussion

        The variety in the shapes of these graphs is quite surprising. Yes, they’re all vaguely alike … but that’s about all.

        The main curiosity about these, other than the wide variety of amounts of warming, is the different timing of the warming. In some proxies it starts in 25,000 BC, in others it starts in 15,000 BC. Sometimes the warming peaks as early as 14,000 BC, and sometimes around 5,000 BC or later. Sometimes the warming continues right up to the present.

        The problem becomes evident when we plot all of these 80 standardized proxies together. Figure 9 shows all of the standardized temperature traces.

        (Charts)

        Now, there’s plenty of things of interest in there. It’s clear that there is warming since the last ice age. The median value for the warming is 4.3°C, although the range is quite wide.

        But if you want to make the claim that CO2 precedes the warming?

        I fear that this set of proxies is perfectly useless for that. How on earth could you claim anything about the timing of the warming from this group of proxies? It’s all over the map.”

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/06/a-reply-shakun-et-al-dr-munchausen-explains-science-by-proxy/

        That was only one of the fatal problems of the paper. It isn’t surprising that ignorant warmists like you didn’t know it. In

        1. Consensus Science

          Oh please, nothing but junk science from two bloggers. Not a single peer-reviewed paper disputes Shakun.

          1. Consensus Science

            Then you would have quoted the part where they mention Shakun. You did not. You quote cherrypicked alternative facts.

          2. sunsettommy

            CS, doesn’t have a counterpoint. Just a smarmy attack with ZERO value. It is clear you have nothing to counter with.

            The paper is so bad that even most warmist scientists don’t bother with it,Real Science blog, supports the CO2 chart Willis created:

            Here is the chart straight from RealClimate blog,

            http://www.realclimate.org/images/shakun_fig3.jpg

            As you can see that CO2 is indeed going up,right where Shakun stopped the data at about 6,000 bpe. Colose goes all the way to the recent times,which shows it going UP,the very thing Shakun wanted to omit.

            CO2 was rising while temperature was going DOWN slightly at the time.

            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/unlocking-the-secrets-to-ending-an-ice-age/

            Willis made the point that Shakun deliberately hid the CO2 increase while the temperature was going down.

            Willis also showed that Shakuns temperature proxies are all over the map time wise and trend wise.

            You didn’t tell us why you think he is wrong,which means you have nothing.

          3. sunsettommy

            CS writes,

            “Then you would have quoted the part where they mention Shakun. You did not. You quote cherrypicked alternative facts.”

            You are too dumb to notice that 8 of the 10 paper Kenneth listed was published BEFORE Shakun published his paper. The remaining to was withing a year after Shakun published.

            Your claim they are cherrypicked are straight from their ABSTRACTS or the body of the paper.Two examples:

            Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III

            Caillon et al.

            Abstract

            The analysis of air bubbles from ice cores has yielded a precise record of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, but the timing of changes in these gases with respect to temperature is not accurately known because of uncertainty in the gas age–ice age difference. We have measured the isotopic composition of argon in air bubbles in the Vostok core during Termination III (∼240,000 years before the present). This record most likely reflects the temperature and accumulation change, although the mechanism remains unclear. The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.

            http://science.sciencemag.org/content/299/5613/1728.full

            ====

            Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations

            Fisher et al.

            Abstract

            Air trapped in bubbles in polar ice cores constitutes an archive for the reconstruction of the global carbon cycle and the relation between greenhouse gases and climate in the past. High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 +/- 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10073931

            You are really stupid.

          4. Consensus Science

            Wow, still not a single peer-review paper talking about Shakun being wrong. Not a single one. No surprise there.

          5. sunsettommy

            “Consensus Science 18. October 2017 at 3:34 AM | Permalink

            Wow, still not a single peer-review paper talking about Shakun being wrong. Not a single one. No surprise there.”

            Wow, not a single debate point comes from you,not only that you have yet to defend Shakun’s two big errors of his paper which was fully addressed using data of his own paper on temperature proxies.

            Shakun failed to show the rest of the CO2 data because it destroyed his claim,that his own Temperature proxies are all over the map as shown in full detail using Shakun’s own data which he properly made available.

            Still waiting for your counterpoint,otherwise you have nothing to show.

          6. Consensus Science

            “You are too dumb to notice that 8 of the 10 paper Kenneth listed was published BEFORE Shakun published his paper.”

            So you finally admited he relies on old outdated papers that have been debunked by Shakun.

            “you have yet to defend Shakun’s two big errors of his paper which was fully addressed using data of his own paper on temperature proxies.”

            “Errors” according to discredited BLOGGERS. They are the ones that made the errors. Their fake analysis could not pass peer-review.

            Stop hoaxing people with junk science.

      2. sunsettommy

        Here is the coup DE grace of the terribly dishonest Shakun paper:

        Shakun Redux: Master tricksed us! I told you he was tricksy!

        “Today I was thinking about that single record that they used for the CO2 changes. I got to wondering what other ice core CO2 records might show about the change in CO2. So I went and downloaded every ice core CO2 record that I could find that covered the time period 26,000 BC to modern times. I found a number of ice core records that cover the period.

        Then I collated all of them in Excel, saved them as a CSV file, opened the file in R, and plotted every ice core CO2 record that covered the record from 26,000 BC up to the present. I standardized them over the same period covered by the Shakun2012 CO2 data. There was excellent agreement between the Shakun2012 data and the ice core records I had downloaded … but there was also a surprise.

        Figure 2 shows the surprise …

        https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/nature_shakun_proxies_plus_co2_all.jpg

        Dang, I didn’t expect that rise in CO2 that started about 6,000 BC. I do love climate science, it always surprises me … but the big surprise was not what the ice core records showed. It was what the Shakun2012 authors didn’t show.

        I’m sure you can see just what those bad-boy scientists have done. Look how they have cut the modern end of the ice core CO2 record short, right at the time when CO2 started to rise again …

        I leave the readers to consider the fact that for most of the Holocene, eight centuries millennia or so, half a dozen different ice core records say that CO2 levels were rising pretty fast by geological standards … and despite that, the temperatures have been dropping over the last eight millennia …”

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/07/shakun-redux-master-tricksed-us-i-told-you-he-was-tricksy/

        Shakun’s paper has been invalidated for FIVE years now.

        1. Consensus Science

          Not peer-reviewed science, only junk science and smear attempts by bloggers.

          1. sunsettommy

            Your reply shows you have no argument to make,just another baseless attack is all you can bring up.

          2. Consensus Science

            Nothing but projection from you. Try real peer-reviewed science.

        2. sunsettommy

          Your reply shows you have no argument to make,just another baseless attack is all you can bring up.

  5. AlecM

    The problem is that the climate models use to explain ‘back radiation’ (which claims a radiative exitance is an energy flow when every professional would say is not the case) the bidirectional photon diffusion theory of Goody and Yung. This is based on Planck’s 1913 treatise which assumes a vacuum, with Maxwell’s waves propagating in both directions, hence stored energy. The photons are simply a subset of Maxwell wave propagation.

    Consider the CO2 15 micron GHG band; fully self-absorbed. It emits to the adjacent, equal temperature surface at the black body level – no gap. The surface emits at the black body level to the gas – no gap.

    No gap means there can be no energy dissipation, no radiation entropy production. The CO2 emits as part of OLR at say 20 km. That means to Space, the surface of the Earth in the IR spectrum is at ~20 km. There can only be zero heating of the surface if CO2 rises AND no positive feedback. No need for any hypothesis about how the energy in that band at the surface is transferred; it just does over no gap so no energy dissipation. QED

    1. SebastianH

      So how does measuring the back radiation work then?

      which claims a radiative exitance is an energy flow when every professional would say is not the case

      Why would there be an energy flow (towards the surface)? It almost never happens that net radiation from the surface becomes negative (back radiation of larger value then the surface radiation).

    2. david russell

      It seems back-radiation is a non-existent non-phenomenon. First of all, the concept requires its opposite (the radiation that doesn’t go back but rather goes ….well, up or out). The back radiation meme either requires that photons emitted by GHG molecules ALL DECIDE TO EMIT DOWNWARD (maybe they want to return home to Mother Earth), or alternatively they disappear into a different dimension.

      Second, as the atmosphere gets colder with altitude how does radiation from a increasingly colder parcel of air, heat a relatively warmer surface? Analogy: How would standing in front of a block of ice warm you up?

      Third, a recent paper — F.K.Reinhart (2017) — claims only 6% of CO2’s 15 micron energy is emitted as another 15 micron photon at each “free path to extinction level” in the troposphere. The 94% is “decanted” to kinetic energy via collisions with the surrounding [99.9% non-GHG] molecules via thousands of collisions during th ~6micro-seconds an excited CO2 molecule holds its bending pattern. Therefore after a say 3 or 4 layers of “absorption/emission” there’s no upwelling 15 micron IR for CO2 to work its back-radiation magic.

      Finally, what we see from the Earth’s IR spectrum taken from satellites is that CO2 emits IR at temperatures around 220K, which would put it just below the troposphere. This is IMO possible because upper troposphere water precipitation refreshes the supply of 15 micron IR and any CO2 active that high up just serve to facilitate the shedding of IR to outer space. In brief, what the satellites show us is that CO2 activity serves to cool (NOT WARM) the atmosphere.

      1. Brett Keane

        Please, some more detail on the Reinhart paper, so I can google it. Thanks

      2. ScottM

        “The back radiation meme either requires that photons emitted by GHG molecules ALL DECIDE TO EMIT DOWNWARD (maybe they want to return home to Mother Earth), or alternatively they disappear into a different dimension.”

        You are making a baseless assertion on both counts.

        Back-radiation describes a process in which half the photons emitted by GHG molecules travel downward, and half travel upward.

        1. yonason

          “Back-radiation describes a process in which half the photons emitted by GHG molecules travel downward, and half travel upward.” – ScottM 17. October 2017 at 7:44 PM

          Nope. That’s correct (should flow mostly to colder space, not to warmer earth), even though it would be a lot better than what they try to sneak past us. See my post below for a reference that explains it in detail.
          http://notrickszone.com/2017/10/12/2-new-papers-models-severely-flawed-temp-changes-largely-natural-co2-influence-half-of-ipcc-claims/comment-page-1/#comment-1231901

          1. yonason

            “That’s correct ” should read :That’s NOT correct.”

        2. Kenneth Richard

          “Back-radiation describes a process in which half the photons emitted by GHG molecules travel downward, and half travel upward.” – ScottM 17. October 2017 at 7:44 PM

          There’s also sideways, or east and west, which means that at least 3/4ths of the photons end up being re-emitted to space. Or is there a mechanism that prevents GHG molecules from re-emitting sideways?

      3. ScottM

        “Analogy: How would standing in front of a block of ice warm you up?”

        False analogy, hence wrong question. Let’s try a better one.

        How would the temperature of an object radiating into empty space (receiving say a few hundred W/m^2 from a source with an apparent diameter of around 30 arc minutes, and only the CMB with a source temperature of 2.7 K in all other directions) compare with the temperature of the same object receiving the same amount of radiation from the first source but surrounded in every other direction by a giant block of ice at 0 degrees Celsius (object not touching the ice so only radiation is exchanged between the two)? Would the ice cool the object as much as the CMB?

    3. yonason

      RE – “BACK RADIATION”

      You’re correct. It’s nonsense, as this professional writes in agreement…
      https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/search/label/back%20radiation

      By some means of magic, whatever bodies absorb this radiation fail to re-radiate it to colder parts of the atmosphere preferentially or even to radiate half of that absorbed energy to colder regions or to space. No, the re-radiated heat is radiated most strongly to the higher temperature Earth’s surface with a strong prejudice against radiation to colder bodies or to space. This is already insane physics if the absorbing bodies are in the troposphere, but it is even more insane when a very substantial portion of the infrared spectrum absorbs very little radiation anywhere in the Earth’s atmosphere and what it does absorb is absorbed mostly above the troposphere.

      NASA’s numerous conflicting and anti-science assertions about “back radiation,” are a stain on one of America’s previously finest institutions.

      FOR SHAME, NASA! FOR SHAME!

      1. yonason

        P.S. – That’s to david russell 13. October 2017 at 4:13 PM

  6. SebastianH

    You still trust Scafetta?
    https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00704-015-1597-5/MediaObjects/704_2015_1597_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (search for “Scafetta”)

    And why would someone not include the ENSO signal? Of course humans aren’t directly causing El Ninos, but the energy for those events is coming from somewhere. You can’t just not include those because they don’t fit with your (Scafetta’s) “ocillation predicition method” that has been shown numerous times has no basis in the physical world. You can split any graph into multiple sinus waves … there is no meaning behind those individual splits.

    I guess the only way to make you guys see the problem is to wait 50 years and compare the real temperature graph with what these “predicitions” said would happen. Will it be significantly cooler in 2067 or will we see the the temperature to rise 2+°C above pre-industrial times?

    1. Pethefin

      The fact that Seb thinks that humans are indirectly responsible for the ENSO says all we need to know. There is no point in engaging fools like these.

      1. SebastianH

        Where does an El Nino draw its energy from? What reservoir? And what fills up that reservoir?

        1. Pethefin

          Seb, you should read up on ENSO before making bigger fool of yourself.

        2. sunsettommy

          Sebastian,surely you knew that the Sun warms up the ocean waters to a few hundred feet?

          1. Consensus Science

            The sun is only capable of warming the top micrometer of ocean, while co2 can reach 300 meters below the ocean surface.

          2. sunsettommy

            Kenneth, he is here to spread baloney. He is a shallow minded troll who gets a kick in irritating others with stupid comments.

            It is very easy to find the evidence of 300 feet penetration of solar heating of the waters,this is but one example of many:

            Light Transmission in the Ocean

            “Reflection, Refraction, and Color

            The uppermost, sunlit layer of the ocean where 70 percent of the entire amount of photosynthesis in the world takes place is called the euphotic zone. It generally extends to a depth of 100 meters (330 feet). Below this is the disphotic zone, between 100 and 1,000 meters (330 and 3,300 feet) deep, which is dimly lit. Some animals are able to survive here, but no plants. Although the amount of light is measurable at this range of depths, there is not enough available for photosynthesis to take place. The layer of the ocean where no light at all penetrates—over 90 percent of the entire ocean area on Earth—is called the aphotic zone, where depths are more than 1,000 meters (3,300 feet).

            Light Penetration.

            A certain amount of incoming light is reflected away when it reaches the ocean surface, depending upon the state of the water itself. If it is calm and smooth, less light will be reflected.

            If it is turbulent, with many waves, more light will be reflected. The light that penetrates the surface is refracted due to the fact that light travels faster in air than in water. Once it is within the water, light may be scattered or absorbed by solid particles. Most of the visible light spectrum is absorbed within 10 meters (33 feet) of the water’s surface, and almost none penetrates below 150 meters (490 feet) of water depth, even when the water is very clear.”

            Read more: http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/La-Mi/Light-Transmission-in-the-Ocean.html#ixzz4vmWgRT52

            Meanwhile CO2 is all over the place in the ocean from the surface to the very bottom.

          3. Pethefin

            In order to understand trolls like CS, a reminder of their logic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn_PSJsl0LQ

          4. Consensus Science

            “It is very easy to find the evidence of 300 feet penetration of solar heating of the waters,”

            Yeah, when co2 is around. Sheesh, why is science so difficult for you to understand?

          5. Consensus Science

            Kenneth, your nasa link shows they forgot to mention how co2 helps the sun reach that far. Without the co2, the sun reaches 1mm, as you said.

          6. yonason

            @sunsettommy 16. October 2017 at 6:22 PM

            Basically, what you wrote. (nice job)

            Here’s a good audio, with easy illustration, for the simple minded trolls.
            http://oceansjsu.com/105d/exped_briny/13.html

            How long do you think it will take them before they admit they are wrong?

          7. Consensus Science

            skeptical science said no such thing in my link.

            they explain more here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-Heats-The-Ocean.html

            You have been exposed as a liar on this. Please don’t make it a habit. Thanks.

          8. Consensus Science

            The sun can not penetrate the oceans alone, only with the aid of co2.

            Basic physics.

          9. Consensus Science

            Kenneth, again you cherrypicked quotes and evaded the central arguments.

  7. Ilmastomallien virheiden pienentäminen ei ole onnistunut vuosikymmenissä! | Roskasaitti

    […] linkittää NTZ-blogin yhteen tuoreeseen artikkeliin (Linkki). Taustalla on meteorologi Scafettan marginaalisessa lehdessä julkaisema tutkielma. Siinä […]

  8. Recent CO2 Climate Sensitivity Estimates Continue Trending Towards Zero | Un hobby...

    […] highlighted paper published by atmospheric scientists Scafetta et al., (2017) featured a graph (above) documenting post-2000 trends in the published estimates of the Earth’s […]

  9. sunsettommy

    Kenneth and Pierre,

    CS is a bullshitting Troll. He is here to pull your chain, with absurd statements that are in my opinion deliberate.

    Come on you think these troll statements are intelligent?

    “Kenneth, your nasa link shows they forgot to mention how co2 helps the sun reach that far. Without the co2, the sun reaches 1mm, as you said.”

    or this,

    “The sun is only capable of warming the top micrometer of ocean, while co2 can reach 300 meters below the ocean surface.”

    You think he is here to debate with anyone?

    Do waste your time with this one,suggest you ban him.

    1. yonason

      Yup!

    2. Consensus Science

      Yes please ban science from this forum, it’s what you guys do all the time.

      Make me a martyr. Go on right ahead!

      1. Pethefin

        CS just admitted being a religious fool by asking to be a martyr. Do not give him/her the pleasure of being banned, that is what alarmists sites do. You should instead stop feeding this mindless troll.

    3. sunsettommy

      CS, is not here to debate, he is here to play games.

  10. yonason

    “Make me a martyr. Go on right ahead!” – Sciencless Clown

    As to “Consensus Science,” anyone who chooses a “handle” like that is NOT concerned about science, as the following links clearly show.

    For one thing, it’s been thoroughly debunked.
    http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/10/28/debunking-the-97-consensus-claims-part-i/
    http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97

    And even if we didn’t have that, we could just consider the source.
    http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html
    https://orach24463.wordpress.com/2015/07/24/john-cook-proprietor-of-sks-repeat-coauthor-of-dr-stephan-lewandowsky-caught-red-handed-impersonating-lubos-motl-for-purposes-of-a-university-of-australia-research-project/

    So, thank you, Shahid. Now go find an empty field where you won’t hurt any innocent bystanders, and practice pushing the little red button until you get it right.

  11. Recent CO2 'Climate Sensitivity' Estimates Headed Towards Zero | Principia Scientific International

    […] highlighted paper published by atmospheric scientists Scafetta et al., (2017) featured a graph (above) documenting post-2000 trends in the published estimates of the Earth’s […]

  12. Consensus Science

    This site is unfortunately a denier echo-chamber.

    Kenneth created SebastianH sock puppet to have controlled opposition.

    What a pathetic misinformation site this is.

Leave a Reply