6 New Papers: Climate Models Are Literally Worth ZERO – Even Water Vapor + Feedback ‘Does Not Exist’

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

The abysmal track record of computer models in simulating climate trends has increasingly been highlighted in the scientific literature.  Recently published papers indicate that in some cases climate models actually get it right zero percent of the time (Luo et al., 2018; Hanna et al., 2018), or that hydrological models are off by a factor of 8 and 4 of 5 simulate trends opposite to real-world observations (Scanlon et al., 2018). 

Even the model-based assumption that positive water vapor feedback accompanies and amplifies CO2-forced temperature change is not supported by observations, with CO2 climate sensitivity overestimated by 200% (Ollila, 2018).  Simply put, climate modeling is increasingly being recognized in the scientific literature as lacking scientific merit.


ZERO Of The 126 Models Reproduce Recent Pacific Ocean Cooling

Luo et al., 2018

Over the recent three decades sea surface temperate (SST) in the eastern equatorial Pacific has decreased, which helps reduce the rate of global warming. However, most CMIP5 model simulations with historical radiative forcing do not reproduce this Pacific La Niña-like cooling. Based on the assumption of “perfect” models, previous studies have suggested that errors in simulated internal climate variations and/or external radiative forcing may cause the discrepancy between the multi-model simulations and the observation…. Based on the total 126 realizations of the 38 CMIP5 model Historical simulations, the results show that none of the 126 model historical realizations reproduce the intensity of the observed eastern Pacific [1981-2010] cooling  and only one simulation produces a weak cooling (−0.007 °C per decade).”


ZERO Of 36 Models Capture Greenland’s Recent Blocking/Climatological Changes

Hanna et al., 2018

Recent changes in summer Greenland blocking captured by none of the CMIP5 models

“Recent studies note a significant increase in high-pressure blocking over the Greenland region (Greenland Blocking Index, GBI) in summer since the 1990s. … We find that the recent summer GBI increase lies well outside the range of modelled past reconstructions (Historical scenario) and future GBI projections (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The models consistently project a future decrease in GBI (linked to an increase in NAO), which highlights a likely key deficiency of current climate models if the recently-observed circulation changes continue to persist. Given well-established connections between atmospheric pressure over the Greenland region and air temperature and precipitation extremes downstream, e.g. over Northwest Europe, this brings into question the accuracy of simulated North Atlantic jet stream changes and resulting climatological anomalies […] as well as of future projections of GrIS mass balance produced using global and regional climate models.”

IPCC’s CO2 Climate Forcing Values 200% ‘Too Sensitive’, Water Vapor Feedback ‘Does Not Exist’

Ollila, 2018

“The temperature effects of the water and CO2 are based on spectral analysis calculations, which show that water is 11.8 times stronger a GH gas than CO2 in the present climate. … There are essential features in the long-term trends of temperature and TPW [total precipitable water], which are calculated and depicted as mean values 11 years running. The temperature has increased about 0.4°C since 1979 and has now paused at this level. The long-term trend of TPW [total precipitable water] effects shows that it has slightly decreased during the temperature-increasing period from 1979 to 2000. This means that the absolute water amount in the atmosphere does not follow the temperature increase, but is practically constant, reacting only very slightly to the long-term trends of temperature changes. The assumption that relative humidity is constant and that it amplifies the GH gas changes over the longer periods by doubling the warming effects finds no grounds based on the behavior of the TWP [total precipitable water] trend. The positive water feedback exists only during the short-term ENSO events (≤4 years).”
“The validity of the IPCC model can be tested against the observed temperature. It turns out that the IPCC-calculated temperature increase for 2016 is 1.27°C, which is 49 per cent higher than the observed 0.85°C. This validity test means that the IPCC climate forcing model using the radiative forcing value of CO2 is too sensitive for CO2 increase, and the CS [climate sensitivity] parameter, including the positive water feedback doubling the GH gas effects, does not exist.”
The CO2 emissions from 2000 onward represent about one-third of the total emissions since 1750, but the temperature has not increased, and it has paused at the present level. This is worthy proof that the IPCC’s climate model has overestimated human-induced causes and has probably underestimated natural causes like the sun’s activity changes, considering the historical temperatures during the past 2000 years.”
“The RF [radiative forcing] value for the CO2 concentration of 560 ppm is 2.16 Wm−2 according to equation (3), which is 42 per cent smaller than 3.7 Wm−2 used by the IPCC. The same study of Ollila (2014) shows that the CS [climate sensitivity] parameter λ is 0.27 K/(Wm−2), which means that there is no water feedback. Using this λ value, equation (3) gives a TCS [transient climate sensitivity] value of 0.6°C only. This same result is also reported by Harde (2014) using the spectral analysis method. …There are both theoretical- and measurement-based studies showing results that can be explained only by the fact that there is no positive water feedback. This result reduces the CS [climate sensitivity] by 50 per cent. Some research studies show that the RF [radiative forcing] value of carbon dioxide is considerably smaller than the commonly used RF value, according to the equation of Myhre et al. (1998). Because of these two causes, the critical studies show a TCS [transient climate sensitivity] of about 0.6°C instead of 1.9°C by the IPCC, a 200 per cent difference.”

Observations Have ‘Factor Of Two’ Less Warming Than Modeled Projections

Christy et al., 2018

“All datasets produce high correlations of anomalies versus independent observations from radiosondes (balloons), but differ somewhat in the metric of most interest, the linear trend beginning in 1979. The trend is an indicator of the response of the climate system to rising greenhouse gas concentrations and other forcings, and so is critical to understanding the climate. The satellite results indicate a range of near-global (+0.07 to +0.13°C decade−1) […] trends (1979–2016), and suggestions are presented to account for these differences. We show evidence that MSUs on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s satellites (NOAA-12 and −14, 1990–2001+) contain spurious warming, especially noticeable in three of the four satellite datasets.”
“Comparisons with radiosonde datasets independently adjusted for inhomogeneities and Reanalyses suggest the actual tropical (20°S-20°N) trend is +0.10 ± 0.03°C decade−1. This tropical result is over a factor of two less than the trend projected from the average of the IPCC climate model simulations for this same period (+0.27°C decade−1). … Because the model trends are on average highly significantly more positive and with a pattern in which their warmest feature appears in the latent-heat release region of the atmosphere, we would hypothesize that a misrepresentation of the basic model physics of the tropical hydrologic cycle (i.e. water vapour, precipitation physics and cloud feedbacks) is a likely candidate.”

Climate Models Are Conceptual And We Don’t Understand The Mechanisms 

Collins et al., 2018

“Here there is a dynamical gap in our understanding. While we have conceptual models of how weather systems form and can predict their evolution over days to weeks, we do not have theories that can adequately explain the reasons for an extreme cold or warm, or wet or dry, winter at continental scales. More importantly, we do not have the ability to credibly predict such states. Likewise, we can build and run complex models of the Earth system, but we do not have adequate enough understanding of the processes and mechanisms to be able to quantitatively evaluate the predictions and projections they produce, or to understand why different models give different answers. … The global warming ‘hiatus’ provides an example of a climate event potentially related to inter-basin teleconnections. While decadal climate variations are expected, the magnitude of the recent event was unforeseen. A decadal period of intensified trade winds in the Pacific and cooler sea surface temperatures (SSTs) has been identified as a leading candidate mechanism for the global slowdown in warming.”


Hydrological Modeling Off By A Factor Of 8, With 4 Of 5 M0dels Yielding Opposite Trends Vs. Observations

Scanlon et al., 2018

The models underestimate the large decadal (2002–2014) trends in water storage relative to GRACE satellites, both decreasing trends related to human intervention and climate and increasing trends related primarily to climate variations. The poor agreement between models and GRACE underscores the challenges remaining for global models to capture human or climate impacts on global water storage trends. … Increasing TWSA [total water storage anomalies] trends are found primarily in nonirrigated basins, mostly in humid regions, and may be related to climate variations. Models also underestimate median GRACE increasing trends (1.6–2.1 km3/y) by up to a factor of 8 in GHWRMs [global hydrological and water resource models] (0.3–0.6 km3/y). Underestimation of GRACE-derived TWSA increasing trends is much greater for LSMs [global land surface models], with four of the five LSMs [global land surface models] yielding opposite trends (i.e., median negative rather than positive trends).”
Increasing GRACE trends are also found in surrounding basins, with most models yielding negative trends. Models greatly underestimate the increasing trends in Africa, particularly in southern Africa. .. TWSA trends from GRACE in northeast Asia are generally increasing, but many models show decreasing trends, particularly in the Yenisei.  … Subtracting the modeled human intervention contribution from the total land water storage contribution from GRACE results in an estimated climate-driven contribution of −0.44 to −0.38 mm/y. Therefore, the magnitude of the estimated climate contribution to GMSL [global mean sea level] is twice that of the human contribution and opposite in sign. While many previous studies emphasize the large contribution of human intervention to GMSL [global mean sea level], it has been more than counteracted by climate-driven storage increase on land over the past decade.”
“GRACE-positive TWSA trends (71 km3/y) contribute negatively (−0.2 mm/y) to GMSL, slowing the rate of rise of GMSL, whereas models contribute positively to GMSL, increasing the rate of rise of GMSL

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

99 responses to “6 New Papers: Climate Models Are Literally Worth ZERO – Even Water Vapor + Feedback ‘Does Not Exist’”

  1. tom0mason

    Yep!
    Nice to see published science is coming to grips with the CO2 warming effect is only a model artifact and not real. CO2 has never regulated, and will never regulate the climate, it’s not physically possible.
    AGW dreamers here’s your nightmare — enjoy.

    1. MrZ

      Be careful tom0mason back radiation can easily be proven. Here is how:
      Next time it is sunny and hot where you are let the sun rays warm your forehead. Be careful not to look into the sun!
      Lit a match and hold it at arms length between your head and the sun. The heating sensation you now feel is caused by an effect very similar to back radiation. Sort of a sun ray turbo booster.
      This is why TMAX readings everywhere are constantly going up.

      1. tom0mason

        The ‘back radiation’ is only normal solar energy redirected via humidity and clouds’ water molecules back to earth. It is not nor ever have been ‘new’ energy, just redirected and delayed energy that will eventually leave the planet via radiation to the vacuum of space.
        The main confusion with it is from peoples muddled thinking about IR, energy, heat, temperature and the movements of these. All too often so called experts mix heat with IR, or energy flux, temperature, and generalized ideas of heating and cooling. Keep it all as energy and movement and the picture is clear.

        Trying to ascertain and quantify CO2’s ‘back radiation’ is far more problematical as CO2 warming of any kind, on this planet’s lower atmosphere has only been guessed at, and never observed.

        IMO this planet’s ~33°C above it’s assumed blackbody temperature is only an effect of gravity/pressure on the lower dynamic atmosphere.

        1. MrZ

          Agree 100%.
          I was pulling your leg 8-). TMAX is NOT increasing anywhere.
          If TMAX was increasing because of BR we would have a perpetual machine.

          1. tom0mason

            MrZ
            I suspected so (a leg-pull), I’ve wanted to put that in though to show some AGW types how far from reality is their dream, their nightmare scenario. 🙂

            Naturally coming out of LIA requires that the planet will warm, and that if the climate continues to warm the weather and climate will become more benign (based on historical record).
            If it cools again (which IMO seems likely) then the weather will gradually become more erratic and less predictable with more extremes (with both localized hot and cold events), as the climate system chaotically attempts (and always will fail) to find a new stasis point.

          2. SebastianH

            If TMAX was increasing because of BR we would have a perpetual machine.

            You guys don’t seem to understand how backradiation works as a response to temperature and as a setter of temperature.

            What happens when you increase the insulation around a heat source? The heat content increases and therefore temperature increases until the flux through the insulation layer increases to match the output of the heat source.

            Now, our planet is no significant heat source, but the properties of the atmosphere allow shortwave radiation to pass through relatively free, but the re-emitted (from the surface) longwave radiation has it’s problems. It gets absorbed and re-emitted back towards the surface, and back and forth. It’s not that complicated and it too increases the heat content beyond what it would be without an atmosphere like this. At the top of the atmosphere, this planet still radiates to space with its blackbody temperature.

            If anything changes with the composition of the atmosphere this effect obviously changes too.

            And yes, that has been observed and yes you can easily observe (and feel) back radiation yourself.

            It’s quite bizarre what tomomason seem to claim here 😉

            IMO this planet’s ~33°C above it’s assumed blackbody temperature is only an effect of gravity/pressure on the lower dynamic atmosphere.

            I applaud you that you marked it as your opinion. It’s ok to have an opinion detached from reality. Maybe skeptics should do this more often instead of marking the claims as facts or actual facts as propaganda/fake because they don’t match their opinion?

          3. tom0mason

            More fabrication from seb, ignored!

          4. MrZ

            Seb, the average temp increase we have seen since 1980 is because of milder nights and winters. Summer highs are not increasing (Yes I know media is saying differently).
            If backradiation really boosted the sun rays as I joked above there should be a dramatic increase in summer mid day temps.

            To me it looks as something insulate from cooling and not boosting heat.

          5. AndyG55

            “You guys don’t seem to understand how backradiation works as a response to temperature and as a setter of temperature.”

            ROFLMAO.. total and utter BS.

            …. its a MYTH , a fantasy, a fairy-tale

            CO2 does NOT increase the “insulation”. CO2 conducts energy better than normal air (proven by measurement) because of it radiative properties.

            It is noted that you still haven’t got passed the very basic but totally WRONG explanation of the AGW farce, totally ignoring remittance relaxation times vs collisional times for atmospheric molecules..

            but hey, ignoring physics was always your only method of maintaining your borg-like brain-hosing.

            Your opinions are nothing but an anti-science fantasy, seb.. which is what makes them so LAUGHABLE when you just keep mindlessly regurgitating those scientifically unsupportable fallacies.

          6. AndyG55

            “this planet’s ~33°C above it’s assumed blackbody temperature is only an effect of gravity/pressure on the lower dynamic atmosphere.”

            Ah the seb DENIAL of the gravity-thermal gradient effect that measurably occurs on every known planet with a viable atmosphere.

            This against the un-measured purely baseless anti-science conjecture of warming by atmospheric CO2.

            Just “BELIEVE” seb.. just “BELIEVE”

            AGW is NOTHING but a mindless, baseless cult-like religion.

            and leave real science to others. !

          7. AndyG55

            “easily observe (and feel) back radiation yourself.”

            From H2O, which is up there because its done, or in many cases over-done, its cooling job….. not from CO2.. and the fact that it greatly changes the lapse rate of cooling.

            H2O actually slow convection right down if clouds occurs as the surface is cooling in the evening. Everyone has sensed this. (CO2 has ZERO effect on the cooling lapse rate)

            Convection and conduction RULE the lower atmosphere.

            The release of latent energy also has a huge effect in the evening as clouds form.

            The only places where any pitiful back-radiation from CO2 could possible be sensed, if it actually existed, is in the desert or at the poles.

            And we already know the poles have a negative GHE if any (again the misnomer, because its nothing to do with how a greenhouse works)

            And the deserts cool rapidly at night ,show just how INEFFECTIVE any mythical CO2 back-radiation is.

            Point is that CO2 doesn’t get the chance to re-emit anyway. Thermalisation takes care of that.

            Your understanding of atmospheric physics is extremely BASIC, and LIMITED to the nonsense taught to you in junior high or by AGW cultist, isn’t it, seb.

          8. tom0mason

            Of course the AGW advocate has a hard time explaining simple observations, like hot air rising…
            If you go into a large commercial glasshouse on a bright sunny day the hottest place is near the roof, the taller the glasshouse building the more hot air accumulates near the roof (the hotter the higher).

            In the unconstrained troposphere the warmest air is near the ground (the colder the higher).

            If the ‘back-radiation’ theory were to work then it would perform in a large glasshouse, forcing the near ground level to be warmer than the near roof. It does not happen because it is not real physical science — it is a hypothesis (aka a guess) at what really happens.

          9. SebastianH

            @MrZ:

            Seb, the average temp increase we have seen since 1980 is because of milder nights and winters. Summer highs are not increasing (Yes I know media is saying differently).

            Is that so? http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1980.5/every:12/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1980/every:12

            If backradiation really boosted the sun rays as I joked above there should be a dramatic increase in summer mid day temps.

            Not really.

            To me it looks as something insulate from cooling and not boosting heat.

            There are no two different types of insulation. The effect is always the same one.

            @AndyG55:
            Your replies are really hard to read. So much disinformation that you either believed or are now spreading on purpose :/

            @tomomason:
            Oh please stop it. Yes, we know the GHE is not working the same way as warming in a real greenhouse does.

            If the ‘back-radiation’ theory were to work then it would perform in a large glasshouse, forcing the near ground level to be warmer than the near roof.

            1) Backradiation is no theory. You can measure it, you can feel it, it’s there. No amount of quotation marks and putting the word “theory” next to it will change that.
            2) Backradation is performing in a large glasshouse as well.
            3) And no, backradiation doesn’t work like that.

            It does not happen because it is not real physical science — it is a hypothesis (aka a guess) at what really happens.

            Indeed, it is not “real physical science” what you are claiming/explaining here.

            If you want to know how backradiation can be measured, read this paper from the 1950s:
            https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281954%29011%3C0121%3AAIDFMO%3E2.0.CO%3B2

            Yeah, we knew how to do this back then and it hasn’t become harder today. In fact there are many weather stations that measure the backradiation as additional variable. Like this one:
            https://wettermast.uni-hamburg.de/frame.php?doc=Zeitreihen8d.htm#STRAHLUNG (graph with the title “Langwellige Einstrahlung”)

          10. AndyG55

            “Your replies are really hard to read. “

            Poor seb.

            Yes we know that FACTS and REALITY are incomprehensible to you.

            Just a simple, “I don’t understand” is all you needed to say.. but that is totally obvious.

            So much NON-information in your every post seb.. EMPTY !!

            Your base-level ignorance to do with all things latent heat and evaporation is very well established.

            Do you have ANY REAL SCIENCE to show that enhanced atmospheric CO2 does ANYTHING except enhance plant growth.

            Where’s that empirical evidence for CO2 warming, seb?

            ABSENT as always.

            Just remain the EMPTY-OF-SCIENCE little sad-seb that you have always been.

            Its pathetic, really. SIGH !!!

          11. AndyG55

            “you can feel it”

            Let us know next time you can feel the mythical back-radiation from CO2. seb.

            In your little FANTASY world….

            Only time you can feel any radiation from H2O is when its already done its cooling job.

            You do know that is how it gets up into the sky, don’t you seb?

            A little process called evaporation, that COOLS the Earth’s surface. (look it up some time, and try to learn something about it)

            Even a mindless little Chihuahua knows that evaporation of H2O cools him down.

            Yet you seem to be blithely UNAWARE….

            Quite BIZARRE !!

          12. SebastianH

            Great. You can feel it.

            Since you are a fan of experiments: go outside in a cold (winter) clear sky night. Look at the stars and then put a sheet of paper between you and the night sky. You will feel the difference on your face.

            Since you can measure how much CO2 backradiation warms water bodies when increased by parts per million, how much warming is caused in water bodies by raising CO2 concentrations by 10 ppm? What are the physical, real-world measurements? Do you have them?

            Great job Kenneth, proposing a near impossible experiment (how would you change the CO2 concentration in the entire column over an area of the ocean and make sure no horizontal mixing with the surrounding area occurs in the water and in the air?) to convince yourself that the effect isn’t real 😉 Of course you aren’t accepting faster proxies (clouds) for CO2 backradiation changes (that can be measured) in this case … otherwise you’d have to accept that the oceans warm and cool with backradiation changes too.

            What we can do is measuring backradiation. We can also measure how water (oceans) react to a change in backradiation from a different source. And surprise, there are even papers about this subject. Who would have thought?

            Uh, that doesn’t tell us anything about what the net real-world results of the changing backradiation values alleged for CO2. If we don’t have real-world measurements for what these backradiation values do in the real world, what are these alleged values worth?

            We have measurements for changes of backradiation from changing cloud cover. The CO2 effect is of course smaller, but it is essentially the same thing. Besides, tomOmason seems to believe that there is no backradiation. So replying with a “manual” of how to measure it seems valid.

            Besides, the uncertainty associated with the heat flux values are far larger (5 to 10 times greater) than the alleged forcing values for anthropogenic CO2, meaning we effectively cannot detect a signal in all the noise.

            If you need to believe that this rules out any effect … good for you that you can find a quote that enables you to justify your denial in all situations.

            @AndyG55: just stop it, you are making a fool out of yourself. If your level of physics understanding is representative of the skeptics community then nobody needs to wonder why you guys are like you guys are …

            P.S.: @moderators, did something change? I need to fill out the name/email fields every time now and not a single comment post return with it being in moderation (I guess because no comment cookie gets set and so the blog can’t show it to me).

          13. AndyG55

            Seb.. just stop it, you are making total and utter goose out of yourself.

            If your junior high level of lack of education in physic and science is representative of the below average alarmist, no wonder you can’t provide any actual proof of anything you say.

            STOP DENYING the existence of evaporative cooling by H2O.

            STOP DENYING the existence of the PROVEN gravity thermal gradient control.

            STOP DENYING the HUGE energy transfer UPWARDS by different phases of H2O

            STOP DENYING that the only reason H2O is up there is because it has COOLED the surface.

            The more DENY basic physics, the more brain-hosed and anti-science you look.

            And STOP making up stupid little fantasies, like CO2 warming anything, where you have absolutely ZERO proof to back up your arrant nonsense.

            It seems you have finally realised that H2O is the major player in atmospheric heat transfer, via CONVECTION and CONDUCTION…

            ..and that CO2 is a NON-ENTITY.

            Its one tiny step towards a basic understanding for you, but you still have a LONG LONG way to go !!

          14. AndyG55

            “go outside in a cold (winter) clear sky night. Look at the stars and then put a sheet of paper between you and the night sky. You will feel the difference on your face.”

            Just did it.

            NOPE. NOTHING.

            Must be your imaginitis playing is usual tricks again, hey seb.

            If I got the paper close enough, I could feel my breath heating the paper and the paper stopping convective cooling.

            But CO2 is not going to do either of those things, is it seb.

            FANTASY is the only case you have managed to put forward in the whole time you have graced us with your clown act.

          15. AndyG55

            “CO2 backradiation changes (that can be measured)”

            Oh no, not that Marty Feldman farce again !

            roflmao.. Remain empty.

            Just chant the mantra, seb. !!

            “We have measurements for changes of backradiation from changing cloud cover.”

            ROFLMAO.. changing cloud cover means release of latent energy of condensation.

            Also means the slowing down of convection, so there is more H2O, which is a naturally radiative gas. The more of it is blocked from full convection, the more there is to radiate.

            It is the only gas that can actively provide CONVECTIVE BLOCKING, ie a real greenhouse effect, but it is only local and only ever transient and certainly NEVER a cause of so-called “global warming”

            You really don’t know much of anything about cloud physics, do you, seb !!

            Always.. seb, the unaware !!

          16. SebastianH

            And that difference you feel on your face is due to the CO2 concentration?

            Sometimes I wonder if I am writing in Chinese or something. No, it’s the backradation from the paper of course.

            OK, so you admit that we DON’T have measurements that show results for the CO2 backradiation…even though we can feel it on our faces. So we can feel it, but we can’t measure it

            Ehm … are you trying to troll me? No, that is not what I am saying. Don’t make stuff up that I didn’t write.

            and yet even though we can’t measure it, and even though the uncertainty in the heat flux is 5-10 times greater than the assumed CO2 forcing itself — the results of backradiation forcing from CO2 are NOT theoretical? Can this be any more contradictory/circular?

            That contradiction only exists in your mind. The backradiation from CO2 can be measured and has been measured. It’s not rocket science.

            And we also know what a change in backradiation does to water because we actually measured it. What we didn’t measure is if a change of the CO2 part of the backradiation results in the same thing. Why? Because it is damn near impossible to perform this experiment without a second Earth. And that is why you are so eager to emphasize this supposedly missing evidence and construct the nonsense claim from it, that CO2 concentration changes have no effect on ocean heat content. In reality that doesn’t follow. Analogies could help to visualize the problem for you, but since you immediately shut down then, you’ll have to live with not understanding the basics of what you are arguing against.

            It doesn’t even have to be an ocean. Any body of water can be used in a real-world experiment. How much does backradiation from CO2 forcing warm a body of water (a tub in a greenhouse, for example) in the real world? What are those measured results, SebastianH?

            A tub in a greenhouse … seriously? Do you really think that is an accurate setup to measure the GHE of CO2?

            All you have are forcing values. Show us the measurements for what those forcing values really do to water temperatures.

            As you probably know, measurements for larger forcings (clouds) exist, but it is damn near impossible to measure the difference between different CO2 concentrations because we can’t manipulate the CO2 concentration on a short enough timeframe. That’s why you are asking for these specific measurements … as if you are expecting that something completely unexpected would happen in such a scenario.

            How much smaller is the CO2 effect relative to cloud cover changes, SebastianH? According to RealClimate, the difference is overwhelming, suggesting it could be difficult to detect the anthropogenic signal relative to cloud cover changes: […] How can the 4 W m-2 for doubled CO2 be “essentially the same thing” as the range for clouds (100 W m-2)?

            You do know that the author doesn’t mean the global cloud cover, right? Just making sure.

            It is essentially the same thing only on a different scale. And since the effect of an increased CO2 backradiation is a continuous one, it adds up.

            You’ve been caught fabricating again, SebastianH.

            I’d be rich if I got money for every time you made up something I didn’t write. Should I keep a count? And no, I didn’t.

            Notice that what I did write about

            Yep, you wrote “we effectively cannot detect a signal” in the “alleged” forcing values.

            This perpetual dishonesty

            Then stop being dishonest and accuse me of being just that. If you aren’t making up the stuff you think I wrote, then you haven’t understood what I wrote and just replied in the usual skeptics reflex way. Either way, that’s a sad way to communicate.

            Are you in denial that the uncertainty here is problematic? Apparently so.

            See? Turning the accusation around at your opponent is also no way to communicate as an adult.

            Maybe next time when you post a proxy temperature dataset, remember that uncertainty problem and how it doesn’t allow us to see a general trend of longer time periods. Or does it? You decide …

            I am no dismissing uncertainty. I am dismissing re-interpretations of “blog scientists” like you.

          17. AndyG55

            Well, that would be pretty much the most scientifically EMPTY and totally mindlessly brain-0hosed rant I have ever seen.. even from seb.

            At not one point did you deliver a coherent scientific argument about anything. Just mindless evasions and AGW farce.

            And STILL desperately trying to get around producing any evidence what-so-ever of warming by atmospheric CO2.

            HILARIOUS. 🙂

          18. AndyG55

            “No, it’s the backradation from the paper of course.”

            So NOT from CO2, but from a solid object that actually block convection.

            You are NOT helping your cause seb, stop the clown act….. if you can.

          19. AndyG55

            K: “OK, so you admit that we DON’T have measurements that show results for the CO2 backradiation… even though we can feel it on our faces. So we can feel it, but we can’t measure it

            S: No, that is not what I am saying.

            Well do you have measurements … OR NOT !!!

            Poor seb.. EVIDENCE LACKING .. ALWAYS

          20. AndyG55

            “And since the effect of an increased CO2 backradiation is a continuous one, it adds up. “

            You have just been caught using zero-science fabrication, yet again, seb

            Fabrication and fantasy are the ONLY things you have left to you.

            STOP IT. !!

            … or produce empirical evidence.

          21. AndyG55

            “that CO2 concentration changes have no effect on ocean heat content.”

            We know that, seb

            No measurements

            No mechanism.

          22. AndyG55

            “And we also know what a change in backradiation does to water because we actually measured it. “

            yep LWDWR causes evaporation.. which MEASURABLY cools the top 1mm of the surface

            You did know that DWLWR is actually DECREASING, didn’t you, seb

            https://s19.postimg.cc/aam12xls3/ceres_dwlwir_decreasing.png

            Or were you UNAWARE of that MEASURED fact.

            So much for increased DWLWR from increasing atmospheric CO2.

          23. AndyG55

            “Analogies could help to visualize the problem for you,”

            We know the problem, seb. Find a mirror, an you will see it giggling inanely back at you.

            But you are desperate to never allow yourself to enter the world of REALITY.

            Your analogies are generally mindless, fatuous, juvenile, trite and totally irrelevant to any part of world reality. Just like the rest of your comments.

            That’s what makes them all so funny.

          24. AndyG55

            What seb is also UNAWARE of is that the whole back-radiation from H2O thing is a furphy.

            If there is more H2O in the atmosphere, then the evaporation is slowed down, as is the rate of convective COOLING.

            So measurements based on radiation are meaningless.

            Remain UNAWARE, seb.

            Its your only redeeming feature

          25. SebastianH

            Thank you for admitting that we have no measurements that show what CO2 concentrations do (i.e., results) to water bodies when raised or lowered. The uncertainty is too great to clearly detect an anthropogenic signal amid the noise and amid all the other factors that contribute to backradiation.

            You can continue to believe that, Kenneth. Doesn’t make it correct though. I choose to accept that a small amount of LW radiation does exactly the same as a large amount of LW radiation except on a different scale … why? Because we haven’t discovered a law of physics yet, that says it should act different.

            As soon as you can present that, you’ve got me on your side regarding this argument of ours.

            @AndyG55:

            “No, it’s the backradation from the paper of course.”

            So NOT from CO2, but from a solid object that actually block convection.

            It’s certainly not blocking convection in this setup. You will feel the difference between the radiation emitted by your skin towards cold space and towards a paper that has a warmer temperature than space. Waiting for the day realize what kind of nonsense you are spreading …

            Well do you have measurements … OR NOT !!!

            We do have measurements for the CO2 backradiation, but we obviously can’t “feel” changes in CO2 concentration related radiation changes in ocean heat content. And that’s what Kenneth wrote about when he mentioned “we can feel it, but can’t measure it?”. Obviously a misunderstanding.

            The rest of your ramblings … not worth replying to.

          26. AndyG55

            Yet another load of FANTASY and attention seeking BS from seb.

            You ADMIT you have absolutely NO MEASUREMENTS of CO2 warming anything.. WELL DONE.

            You ADMIT you have NOTHING but EMPTY zero-science platitudes, and mindless assumptions.

            You have also admitted you have ZERO comprehension of how convection and conduction CONTROL the lower atmosphere.

            YOU have never understood the principle of thermalisation ..

            … or of evaporative COOLING

            All you continue with is you mindless regurgitation of your anti-science AGW propaganda pap..

            ZERO SCIENCE.. just fantasy seb.

            “You will feel the difference between the radiation emitted by your skin towards cold space and towards a paper that has a warmer temperature than space.”

            ROFLMAO.. what a load of monuMENTAL carp !!

            And totally IRRELEVENT to atmospheric CO2.. Yet another attempted and FAILED thought-bubble analogy.

            You are so used to having your head in a paper bag that you think putting a piece of paper between you and the stars actually means anything..

            Just IMAGINE that you “FEEL” something.

            Just IMAGINE you had an intellectual thought !!

            But it didn’t happen, seb. and it never will.

            Typical low-level SJW !!!

            HILARIOUS !! 🙂

        2. tom0mason

          AndyG55,

          I admire your persistence but IMO it is lost. The AGW advocate it utterly indoctrinated and no amount of reason or science can change that. Their large store of personal capital and ego in the AGW project means that these people can not let go of their delusions no matter what. It matters not for them that their current comfortable existence relies so much on nature and the man-made. They are ignorant and misguided, fooled into thinking that change (based on this empty sustainability sophistry and ineffective CO2 worrying) will power them to a comfortable future. They do not see that in their modern life these changes will cause a decay into disasters. This cult-religion has them believe it’ll protect them by restraining their ability to think logically, or act with reason, they are adrift in a fantasy. No matter that these disasters will first affect millions of poorer people for that’s not them, so why should they be worried. It will get them eventually though, and by then the same charlatans and elites that preach the AGW sermon today will again be seeking profit from the disasters.

          So persist AndyG55. I prefer to just state reality of the situation as I see it (which is not set in stone), fire off a few deliberately provocative remarks, then sit back and laugh at the AGW advocate’s mostly pre-scripted cascade of unreasoned, often irrelevant, and anti-science comments.

          In the advocate’s delusion of a flat, modeled, timeless world of averaged and homogenized everything I’m sure they think it makes sense. However on this three dimensional water planet, where everything is not known; on a world of dynamic, chaotic, localized action and reaction to solar and cosmic events, things are radically different from those modeled outcomes and imaginative suppositions.

  2. Georg Thomas

    Thanks for yet another excellent compilation.

    No progress since at least 2007 for cocksure cassandra who seems to be increasingly plagued by her own forgotten misgivings:

    “The IPCC AR4 SPM report section 8.6 deals with forcing, feedbacks and climate sensitivity. It recognizes the shortcomings of the models. Section 8.6.4 concludes in paragraph 4 (4): “Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections, consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed”

    [But the “science” is good enough to predict perdition with urgent certainity and the large-scale measures recommended to avoid it are indubitable.]

    What could be clearer? The IPCC itself said in 2007 that it doesn’t even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability. That is, it doesn’t know what future temperatures will be and therefore can’t calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2. This also begs a further question of what erroneous assumptions (e.g., that CO2 is the main climate driver) went into the “plausible” models to be tested any way.

    The IPCC itself has now recognized this uncertainty in estimating CS – the AR5 SPM says in Footnote 16 page 16 (5): “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”

    [But the science is settled, with 97% of all scientists in agreement.]

    Paradoxically the claim is still made that the UNFCCC Agenda 21 actions can dial up a desired temperature by controlling CO2 levels. This is cognitive dissonance so extreme as to be irrational. There is no empirical evidence which requires that anthropogenic CO2 has any significant effect on global temperatures.”

    Source: http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.de/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html

  3. MrZ

    Another excellent post Kenneth!
    I am new here but still, please give those AGW killer posts in small portions. I want to be able to enjoy every moment of this AGW house of cards falling apart.

    Thanks!

    1. SebastianH

      Except the above collection is not capable of doing that. I wish I had more time to elaborate why, but let’s just say finding something that a model doesn’t cover correctly is an opportunity to improve the model. And if that something is only a small part and they generally get it right (and they do, don’t believe a guy like Christy with his own temperature graphs that are not like any other).

      Also, this Ollila, 2018 paper (the only one I clicked through for now) reads like an opinion piece and not a scientific paper. Are you sure you want to include something like that in a collection that people hope will bring down AGW? 😉

      1. AndyG55

        “reads like an opinion piece and not a scientific paper”

        Yet you don’t recognise the “opinion piece” status of 97%+ of anti-science AGW papers.

        But then, your opinion is worthless anyway.

        You really do only have one eye, don’t you seb, and it has tunnel vision.

        We are all glad you don’t have more time to rant….

        …. it would be a load of mindless drivel anyway.

        always is.

      2. AndyG55

        “and they generally get it right “

        Oh man.. how GULLIBLE are you !!! LOL !!!

        CO2 is still on a trajectory somewhere between RCP6.5 and 8.5, and the models can’t even match RCP 4.5 except at the very tip of an El Nino in the most AGW fabricated junk temperature series that exist

        Against REALITY, the models are a TOTAL FARCE, and as the slow cooling trend continues will become the LAUGHING STOCK of the science community.

        Remember , this graph uses RCP4.5 which is nowhere near what is really happening with the CONTINUED RISE of atmospheric CO2, to the BENEFIT of all life on Earth.

        https://s19.postimg.cc/hz5lgm6hv/biggestfail2.png

  4. Kurt in Switzerland

    Move along folks, nothing to see here.
    Besides, the authors of these questionable studies are either:
    – crackpots
    – deniers
    – fossil fuel shills
    – part of the remaining 3%
    – heretics
    – (or all of the above)

    1. Bitter&twisted

      Sarcasm, I hope.

  5. Bitter&twisted

    This is happening because President Trump had the balls to call B.S. on climate change.
    Real scientists are now speaking out after years of repression.

    1. SebastianH

      You mean the person who doesn’t know the difference between HIV and HPV calls BS on something and you applaud him for that? Next, he’ll call BS on vaccines or ask his staff if the moon landing really happened. Wasn’t he claiming that climate change was a hoax planted by China? #facepalm

      Real scientists are now speaking out after years of repression.

      Way to much weight is given to fringe opinions nowadays. And be it only for displaying what hilarious things these “real scientists” claim … it seem to stick with people who want to believe that everything is ok 😉

      1. AndyG55

        Poor seb, attempted distraction yet again. PATHETIC.

        “Way to much weight is given to fringe opinions nowadays”

        Nobody gives any weight to fringe extremist views like yours seb. You are nuisance value only, and proven WRONG at every step. You are LAUGHED at .

        1. SebastianH

          proven WRONG at every step. You are LAUGHED at .

          Your perception of reality must be wonderful …

          1. AndyG55

            And your warped perception of reality is based on nothing but fairy-tale novels and anti-science gibberish.

            The really funny thing is your wilful and deliberate desperation to remain in that fantasy la-la-land that you mind inhabits.

            You have absolutely zero intent on ever getting back to REALITY.
            !!

  6. C Earl Jantzi

    You mean the 30,000 plus scientists at Petitionproject.org mean more than the 77 “climate scientists” of Zimmermen/Doran fame? Those 77 were the remains of the 10,250 where were sent the survey, and 7,000 didn’t even reply,so those 77 have been driving this whole scam.
    IPCC official, Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010: “But one must say clearly that we redistribute, de facto, the world’s wealth by climate policy. … one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute, de facto, the world’s wealth…” “This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, anymore.” http://www.nzzDOTch/aktuell/startseite/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227

    1. SebastianH

      https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Ottmar-Edenhofer-the-UN-IPCC-official-say-We-redistribute-de-facto-the-worlds-wealth-by-climate-policy-%E2%80%9D-when-discussing-climate-change

      A policy to limit carbon emissions (via tax, via cap and trade, or even via shaming in the media) will reduce the value of owning a coal deposit or an oil well. And in the presence of a continued demand for energy, will increase the value of other assets, like a high plateau suitable for wind farms, or a great river suitable for hydropower, or a deposit of pitchblende from which one can refine fuel for a reactor.

      Most people don’t think as deeply on these matters as Edenhoffer. (It is, after all, his job to think deeply on these matters.) And Americans in particular have for many years associated the phrase “redistribution of wealth” with active schemes to tax the wealthy in order to provide economic support to the poor. In the context of the quote, though, it’s clear that Edenhoffer is not discussing transfer payments at all, but rather the fact that climate policy alters the value of national assets world wide.

      It’s all about the context and skeptics are masters of highlighting something out of context 😉

      1. AndyG55

        poor seb, squirming like crazy to avoid what has been said by his masters.

        He said what he said. GET OVER IT !!

        https://s19.postimg.cc/s5eqnxsfn/endenhofer.png

    2. Penelope

      Earl– “one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute, de facto, the world’s wealth…”

      Thank you for realizing that. And the purpose of redistributing the wealth is . . . ?

      I think it’s to reduce the standard of living of those of us who still have the possibility of fighting against the planned global oligarchy. Among other things.

  7. tom0mason

    So these papers show that the settled science of CO2 warming is wrong.

    The implication is that EVERYTHING done to mitigate CO2 levels is not required — diluting petrol with ethanol, burning wood instead of coal, installing massively subsidized wind and solar junk, the big push to unsustainable electric vehicles, etc.

    ALL THIS CO2 MITIGATION IS WRONG — IT IS FUTILE!

    The only reason it will stay is for political reasons – to control the populous, allowing the political elites and their economic cronies to accrue more power and wealth at the expense of the poorest in society.

    1. Penelope

      Tomomason, if we’re actually looking for the motives of the AGW hoax, shouldn’t w be looking at ALL the results? Certainly you’re right that oligarchs are making huge profits in manufacturing the paraphernalia required to replace “fossil” fuels, but I wonder if the other results aren’t also intentional.

      Results of the AGW hoax (other than greed):

      — nearly-global slowing in growth, due to misapplication of investment, AND paying 3d world not to develop energy resources. If this wasn’t on purpose, it was certainly predictable.

      — Supplies the propaganda to establish the necessity for global transformation, much of which is spelled out in obscure bureaucratese in Agenda 21’s Handbook. Its application includes draconian land-use laws which concentrate worldwide populations into cities so that everything else is re-wilded. Think Controlling people through land-use.

      In California 80% of housing construction was single-family 2000-2010. New laws provide that 68% of CA housing must by 2035 be condos or apt complexes.

      Two US national laws are the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act, and the 2008 Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act.

      The AGW hoax is not being driven by science, so what IS driving it?

      1. SebastianH

        Science. You obviously got it wrong.

        1. AndyG55

          Just another mindless attention-seeking comment from seb, the zero-science AGW-cultist.

      2. tom0mason

        Indeed, Penelope 19. May 2018 at 12:27 AM,

        We should be examining and fighting these things more. Every dumb advocate, and their stupid unscientific assertions should be challenged, their ridiculous impractical mediation measures fought, so that the all people (worldwide) can have the opportunity to progress, and not regress into some Green Blob inspired medieval hell-hole.

  8. Thom Dillon
    1. AndyG55

      Only the most gullible still fall for that sort of junk science/propaganda.

      But there are a lot of very gullible people out there. !

      1. tom0mason

        +10

  9. Wiliam Haas

    The AGW conjecture is based the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases with LWIR absorption bands. Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s climate system, or anywhere else in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well. If CO2 really caused global warming then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measurable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened.

    If they really knew what they were doing they would have only one model with no fudge factors. The fact that they have been using a plethora of models leads one to believe that a lot of guess work has been involved. They have hard coded that more CO2 causes warming so that is what the simulations show. Doing this begs the questions and renders their climate simulations as useless. These climate simulations are nothing more than fantasy and have nothing to do with the real world.

    The positive feedback idea is that CO2 caused warming caused more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes more warming because H2O is also a greenhouse gas and in fact H2O, molecule per molecule, is a stronger absorber of IR radiation than is CO2. The AGW conjecture completely ignores the fact that besides being the primary greenhouse gas, H2O is a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere moving heat energy from the Earth’s surface. which is mostly some form of H2O, to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. As evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate, H2O is a net coolant so that if H2O provides any feedback, that feedback is negative.

    There is plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero.

    1. SebastianH

      The AGW conjecture is based the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases with LWIR absorption bands. Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s climate system, or anywhere else in the solar system.

      Only the parts with the “real greenhouse” is somewhat true. Other than that, of course, we have observed it. It’s not hard to do so. That’s not even up to debate, Wiliam. A good skeptic knows that the thing he/she needs to be attacking it whether or not an increase in greenhouse gases has a measurable effect or is so small that it doesn’t really matter. Weren’t you in the briefings where they told you about this most promising strategy?

      If CO2 really caused global warming then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measurable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened.

      Are you suggesting that the lapse rate could change when the surface temperature changes?

      If they really knew what they were doing they would have only one model with no fudge factors. The fact that they have been using a plethora of models leads one to believe that a lot of guess work has been involved.

      “They” are many thousands of scientists and everyone comes up with their own models and findings. About the guess work: if we wouldn’t have to guess, then we could predict the future perfectly. Do you think that is possible? To know the complete state you begin with and to know how everything exactly interacts which each other to predict a future state from it? So no, we have to guess and estimate some things. Those models aren’t about predicting something exactly, but to estimate the general direction of where climate is headed. They are also quite good to determine what the change of a variable like the amount of CO2 emitted does to those predictions.

      They have hard coded that more CO2 causes warming so that is what the simulations show. Doing this begs the questions and renders their climate simulations as useless. These climate simulations are nothing more than fantasy and have nothing to do with the real world.

      Umm, yes of course they did! As well as they probably modeled gravity according to the laws of physics and everything else that is involved. CO2 does cause warming, that has been known for over a century now.

      H2O is a net coolant so that if H2O provides any feedback, that feedback is negative.

      No, it’s not. Why would you claim something like this? Where are you getting your information from?

      There is plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero.

      There is zero rational here. You are acting like the tobacco industry did when finally someone “found out” that smoking tobacco kills and isn’t healthy at all. The amount of BS they dug out to convince the public that this is not the case is kind of unbelievable in hindsight. And now so called skeptics are doing the same regarding climate science and in support of fossil fuels. Why the hell are you afraid of change towards a generally better direction?

      1. AndyG55

        Will is CORRECT in everything he has stated

        There is NO WARMING from enhanced atmospheric CO2

        I DARE you to provide empirical proof otherwise.

        Or you could just remain the brain-hosed anti-science LOSER that you have always been.

        “Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s climate system, or anywhere else in the solar system.”

        This is just how it is..
        Warming for atmospheric CO2.. Not observed.

        Your lapse rate comment shows you have zero comprehension about anything.

        H2O is most certainly the main COOLANT on the planet.. why are you DENYING basic physic again seb??

        H2O is a net coolant so that if H2O provides any feedback, that feedback is negative.

        It certainly isn’t a positive feedback, and it certainly provides net cooling

        Your brain-hosed response contain zero science knowledge, just AGW mantra

        There is plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero.

        Again, seb. You are asked to provide empirical proof that enhanced CO2 does ANYTHING apart from enhancing plant growth.

        And you will again FALL FLAT ON YOUR FACE

        Your indignant mindless yapping of the AGW mantra when faced with actual FACTS is really very amusing.

        ——–

        “CO2 does cause warming,”

        YIPPEE.. finally an admission of fact from seb.

        Nor does it slow cooling.

      2. AndyG55

        oops I misread that (early morning)

        I though seb said ” CO2 does NOT cause warming

        I thought a miracle had happened and seb had finally discovered the truth.

        So ignore those last 3 lines.

        There is ZERO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes any warming , ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, or ANYHOW.

        seb has continually backed up that FACT with his ABJECT FAILURE to produce any.

        1. AndyG55

          There is a missing post not above this last one.

      3. AndyG55

        “H2O is a net coolant so that if H2O provides any feedback, that feedback is negative.”

        sorry seb, but Will is CORRECT.. you are WRONG

        H2O most certainly acts as an global surface and atmospheric cooling

        “There is plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero.”

        Again. Will is CORRECT and you are WRONG.
        There is no evidence of warming by CO2, and any conclusion based on rational physics would show that warming from atmospheric CO2 is nothing but a myth.

      4. AndyG55

        “Other than that, of course, we have observed it.”

        From H2O, which is up there because its done, or in many cases over-done, its cooling job….. not from CO2..

        H2O actually slow convection right down if clouds occurs as the surface is cooling in the evening. Everyone has felt this. (CO2 has ZERO effect on the cooling lapse rate)

        Convection and conduction RULE the lower atmosphere.

        The release of latent energy also has a huge effect in the evening as clouds form.

        The only places where any pitiful back-radiation from CO2 could possible be sensed, if it actually existed, is in the desert or at the poles.

        And we already know the poles have a negative GHE if any (again the misnomer, because its nothing to do with how a greenhouse works)

        And the deserts cool rapidly at night ,show just how INEFFECTIVE any mythical CO2 back-radiation is.

        Point is that CO2 doesn’t get the chance to re-emit anyway. Thermalisation takes care of that.

        “Are you suggesting that the lapse rate could change when the surface temperature changes?”

        What nonsense are you coming up with this time ????

        “CO2 does cause warming, “

        roflmao.. Zero-science-seb, strikes again.

        Chant the mantra seb.. because it ALL that you have.

    2. AndyG55

      “Why the hell are you afraid of change towards a generally better direction?”

      Because its NOT a better direction. Its a direction towards environmental and economic degradation. Starvation of plant-life, hence human populations.

      And your PATHETIC attempt to link to the tobacco lobby is really digging to the bottom of the AGW-cult sewer.

      “The amount of BS they dug out to convince the public “

      The tobacco lobby pales into insignificance against the propaganda and lies of the AGW-cultist religion.

      It is YOU and your fellow AGW suckophants that are more like the tobacco lobbyists.

      Lies, propaganda, anti-science fantasies…

      … all part of the AGW scam.

      1. SebastianH

        Don’t try to mirror everything skeptics are to your perceived “AGW enemies”.

        1. AndyG55

          Feeble response, seb, even from you.

          You KNOW its the AGW cultist doing all the lobbying, and all the propaganda, bending data, and pushing every little bit of lie they can get away with.

        2. AndyG55

          The AGW industry is the one who stand to lose billions once the truth comes out. And they are adopting tactics similar to the tobacco industry in their desperation.

        3. AndyG55

          “Don’t try to mirror everything”

          You have always been the one looking in the mirror as you rant, seb.

          Attention-seeking trolling is the only purpose of your posts.

          Your reason for being here.

  10. John

    I have been saying for 2 decades that the modelers have the sign of CO2’s action backwards. Take an earth with no gh gases, and one with all gh gases. Both will still be heated by the sun, but the one with no gh gases will not cool as fast, since ALL cooling would be via conduction with the surface and that only when the surface has cooled below the atmosphere temperature. An atmosphere with all gh gases will ALL radiate, half to space, half toward earth. And the gh gas atmosphere would STILL cool via conduction, as the non-gh gas atmosphere. The point is that it WILL cool by other than conduction. So adding gh gases adds to cooling.

    1. AndyG55

      Are you saying that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere is like making an electrical wire thicker. 😉

    2. Wiliam Haas

      That is right. It is the non-greenhouse gases that are more likely to trap heat energy because they are such poor LWIR radiators to space compared to the so called greenhouse gases. Heat transport by conduction and convection dominates over heat transport by LWIR absorption band radiation in the troposphere. Good absorbers are also good radiators. In the upper troposphere and the stratosphere it is the so called greenhouse gases that absorb heat energy transported by conduction and convection and then radiate that energy out to space. More so called greenhouse gases improve the Earth’s radiation to space and hence have a cooling effect, not a warming effect.

      1. AndyG55

        “Heat transport by conduction and convection dominates over heat transport by LWIR absorption band radiation in the troposphere.”

        And these are controlled vertically by the gravity induced temperature /pressure gradient.

        And horizontally by pressure differentials.

        1. tom0mason

          Indeed if radiant energy from the sun is exchanged for kinetic energy moving molecules it CAN NOT ever be re-radiated as IR energy leaving the CO2 molecule. Once the CO2 molecule exchanges any amount of it’s IR energy to kinetic energy then no energy that it still has, can be re-radiated as IR energy. That is because transference of IR energy through the CO2 molecule happens only at a specific level and no other.
          Of course there will be some huffing and puffing about this from our AGW advocates. However unless anyone can show how many (of those 0.04ppm) CO2 molecules in the atmosphere acquire the correct solar IR energy (no they all don’t, they have to be in the correct orientation and energy level to do it), then measure (or calculate) the number of IR excited CO2 molecules that do not collide with other particles in the atmosphere, and thus are free to re-radiate, then there is nothing but ignorance.

          To date the indirect evidence is that CO2 does not warm the atmosphere, or if it does it’s so small as to be lost in all the other processes. The warming that is happening looks perfectly natural for a planet coming out of the last LIA.

      2. Georg Thomas

        William Haas, Thank you for your most interesting contributions above. I wonder, where can a layman acquaint himself with your findings? Why is there so little material available that explains these ideas to a broad non-expert audience? Why do sceptics not seem to attach enough emphasis to the physics of CO2, greenhouse gases and non-greenhouse gases? From the video below it would appear that the physics of CO2 hardly supports the pivotal role ascribed to this gas by adepts of AGW. Why is this knowledge not exploited with more vigour and confidence by sceptics?

        https://youtu.be/57pU2F-bIQs

        1. SebastianH

          I don’t get it, you applaud William for his contributions which are plain wrong and then link to a video that explains the greenhouse effect pretty well … the exact opposite of what William wrote. Are you trolling him?

          1. AndyG55

            Will’s contribution is not wrong.

            You just don’t like the facts because they destroy your baseless AGW “belief” system.

      3. SebastianH

        It is the non-greenhouse gases that are more likely to trap heat energy because they are such poor LWIR radiators to space compared to the so called greenhouse gases.

        No, you haven’t understood how radiative heat transfer works. Something which doesn’t radiate LWIR also doesn’t absorb it and thus doesn’t block any radiation from getting to space.

        Heat transport by conduction and convection dominates over heat transport by LWIR absorption band radiation in the troposphere. Good absorbers are also good radiators. In the upper troposphere and the stratosphere it is the so called greenhouse gases that absorb heat energy transported by conduction and convection and then radiate that energy out to space.

        Conduction and convection are not dominating. Radiation dominates, but the insulating effect of greenhouse gases causes the net radiation flux from the surface to space to be smaller than it otherwise would be. That’s the main reason why it is warm at the surface (on average).

        More so called greenhouse gases improve the Earth’s radiation to space and hence have a cooling effect, not a warming effect.

        That is not true.

        1. AndyG55

          Yes it is true, seb

          Conduction and convection DO dominate the control of the lower atmosphere.

          There is zero evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes warming.. or you would produce it.

          Greenhouse gases do not alter the overall transport of energy from the surface, they aid it.. especially H2O, no insulation effect from CO2, its just another conduit for energy transfer. Absorbs in a tiny thin weak band, and thermalise immediately for convection and other air mass transfers to take over.

          You really do have to get away from your junior high lack of understanding of atmospheric physics, seb, it is holding you back from making a rational worthwhile contribution to basically anything..

  11. Penelope

    Kenneth, in the Ollila summary am I being dense, or is there an error?

    “The temperature has increased about 0.4°C since 1979 and has now paused at this level. The long-term trend of TPW [total precipitable water] effects shows that it has slightly decreased during the temperature-increasing period from 1979 to 2000.”

    “IPCC-calculated temperature increase for 2016 is 1.27°C, which is 49 per cent higher than the observed 0.85°C.”

    So I understand that the overall temperature increase since ’79 is .4C, but that 2016 had a spike of .85C. So the average yearly increase would be about .01C, but 2016’s increase was 85 times this!?

    Thanks for all these summaries– enormously helpful.

  12. Climate Observer

    Glad to see that the media is beginning to pick up on the climate models. There has been a warm bias for well over a decade now. The further along we go, the greater the anomaly

  13. Six New Peer-reviewed Studies Show Climate Models Are Useless | Principia Scientific International

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

  14. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #316
  15. Energy & Environmental Newsletter: June 4, 2018 - Master Resource

    […] Six new studies conclude that climate models are worthless […]

  16. Energy & Environmental Newsletter: June 4, 2018

    […] Climatologists Giving Science a Bad Name Woods Hole Climatologist Gives False Evidence To Congress Six new studies conclude that climate models are worthless 40 New Scientific Papers Say Global Warming Does Not […]

  17. Energy And Environmental Newsletter – June 4th 2018 | PA Pundits - International

    […] Six new studies conclude that climate models are worthless […]

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close