Paris Accord Humiliation: 23 Of 28 EU States Graded “Poor” Or “Very Poor” On Achieving Climate Targets!

It’s schadenfreude time for the skeptics of so-called “green energies”, and humiliation time for green energy cheerleaders. 

Not a single EU state is meeting its climate targets, a new analysis by CAN Europe finds.

It’s been close to three years since countries worldwide signed the Paris Agreement, which obligates nations pledge to commit themselves to intending (or something like that) to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in order to “safeguard the planet’s future”.

The language of the Agreement is in fact non-binding, and so one wouldn’t be surprised to learn that some signatories might not be living up to the agreement’s spirit.

“Relevant hoax”… all EU states “off-target”

Well, here’s the real shocker: According to a new analysis by nongovernmental organization CAN Europe, all EU countries are missing the Paris Agreement targets, as assessed by CAN Europe.

So now it’s crystal clear: Europe was never really serious about implementing the Paris Agreement from the very start. It was nothing more than a New Year’s resolution which no one ever intended to stick to.

Little wonder ex-NASA GISS director James Hansen just told the Guardian: “…the relevant hoax today is perpetrated by those leaders claiming to be addressing the problem.”

Hansen is right.

CAN Europe: dismal results

The aim of the CAN Europe report was to examine “which EU Member States are willing to increase their climate action and tackle the gap between the goals of the Paris Agreement and current greenhouse gas emission reduction efforts in the EU.”

The final results? According to the CAN Europe:

The ranking shows that all EU countries are off target: they are failing to increase their climate action in line with the Paris Agreement goal. No single EU country is performing sufficiently in both ambition and progress in reducing carbon emissions.”

23 of 28 countries rated “poor” or “very poor”

The chart on page 5 of the CAN Europe report shows us that a whopping 23 of 28 European countries are in fact performing poorly or even very poorly.

Source: CAN Europe.

The nongovernmental organization assessed the European countries according to a variety of factors, especially pro capita emissions and progress on expanding renewable energies. For example leader Sweden met 77% of the CAN measures, while Poland met only 16%.

Overall, poor countries performed far worse. This could in part indicate that green energies are more a trend for the rich and snobby countries.

Germany embarrassed

Moreover, just days ago, Germany was forced to admit that it would fail to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets by a broader margin than first believed — “an embarrassing admission for a government that wants to lead the charge on limiting climate change.”

9 years without reduction

Even more embarrassing: Germany in reality has not reduced its emissions in 9 years and there are no signs this trend will change any time soon!

In fact since 2007 the USA alone has reduced its CO2 emissions by approximately 700 million metric tons annually, which is in the neighborhood of Germany’s total annual output!

94 responses to “Paris Accord Humiliation: 23 Of 28 EU States Graded “Poor” Or “Very Poor” On Achieving Climate Targets!”

  1. CO2isLife

    The entire justification for these programs is a complete hoax.

    Lastly, and possibly most damning, is that the “Hockey Stick” suffers from extreme heteroscedasticity. The distal variation is much higher than the proximal variation. In the year 1,000 temperature variation ranges from -0.8 to +0.4, in the year 1902 temperature variation ranges from -0.8 to -0.2, and then post 1902 the behavior totally changes with the introduction of instrumental data. Remember, there is nothing about the underlying physics of the CO2 molecule or GHG effect that would explain a temperature dog-leg of accelerating temperatures. (Click Here) Why this is so damning is that the extreme variation identified in the “Hockey Stick” occurred with extremely stable CO2 levels. CO2 levels between the year 1,000 and 1902 ranged between 275 and 285 ppm. CO2 simply can’t explain the extreme variation of the past 1,000 years. CO2 was essentially a constant, yet temperatures variations were much higher than today. Temperature variation around the year 1350 had a range between +0.5 to -1.0. If you substitute data that has been controlled for the Urban Heat Island Effect and H2O, temperatures post-1920 are stable, even though CO2 has increased over 30%. If Michael Mann understood his own chart he would understand that it does far more to rule out CO2 as the cause of warming, than it implicates CO2.
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/17/the-winning-strategy-to-defeating-climate-sophist-michael-mann/

    1. Yonason

      Yet one more nail in the warministas’ coffin. How many more will it take to keep that zombie corpse down?

      1. Penelope

        Yonason,
        If you would vanquish the little ear that is AGW, you must join me in slaying the whole Sustainability monster. Educate yourself as to its means and all your countermeasures just waiting for you to pick them up: Behind the Green Mask is only 168 pp, and can be bought thru Amazon.

        1. Yonason

          Interesting stuff, Penelope.
          http://www.rosakoire-bgm.com/

          Yes, the U.N. is not to be trusted at all – just a tool for globalist destruction of what’s good in the world and expansion of control over it for the benefit of a few wealthy screwballs.

          I have long been well aware that those nitwits really are criminally insane.

          http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/mods/theme_a/img/02_earthcharter.pdf

          http://www.arkofhope.org/

    2. SebastianH

      CO2 levels between the year 1,000 and 1902 ranged between 275 and 285 ppm. CO2 simply can’t explain the extreme variation of the past 1,000 years.

      Exactly.

      CO2 was essentially a constant, yet temperatures variations were much higher than today. Temperature variation around the year 1350 had a range between +0.5 to -1.0.

      You mean the proxy data shows this kind of variations with a high error rate for this time in the more distant past.

      If you substitute data that has been controlled for the Urban Heat Island Effect and H2O, temperatures post-1920 are stable

      What are you talking about?

      1. Kenneth Richard

        CO2 levels between the year 1,000 and 1902 ranged between 275 and 285 ppm. CO2 simply can’t explain the extreme variation of the past 1,000 years.

        Exactly.

        Which is why it is highly likely that the “accepted” CO2 values for the ancient past – even the recent pre-1958 past — are likely erroneous. We have 90,000 measurements from all over the Earth that show, for example, that CO2 levels reached 450 ppm during the 19th century.

        Foscolos, 2010
        https://ejournals.epublishing.ekt.gr/index.php/geosociety/article/view/11157/11208
        http://blogs.sch.gr/sachinidi/files/2010/08/Climatic-Changes-Patra_2_v2.pdf
        “By the end of the 18th century eminent scientists explained the climatic changes on the basis of temperature and the ensuing glacial retreat. This disturbing observation led many prominent scientists to send air balloons equipped with special devices to trap air from the lower atmosphere in order to measure CO2 concentrations. Ninety thousand (90,000) measurements were carried out at 138 locations in 4 continents between 1810 and 1961. The data indicated that atmospheric CO2 concentrations, during the 19th century varied between 290 and 430 ppm (with an average of 322 ppm for the pre-industrial period). For the 20th century, the average concentration is 338 ppm when combined with comparable CO2 measurements carried out by Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, USA (1958- 2000). Measurement precision is ±3%.”

        Kauffman, 2007
        https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d9d9/eb6e213a1fa8fec2c877685baa81817b15a5.pdf
        “In few fields considered to be science-based has there been such a high degree of polarization and refusal to consider alternate explanations of natural phenomena as in climate change at present. The scenario seems to be that between 1985 and 1988, a decision was made to present pre-1958 CO2 concentrations with no humps or dips and to proclaim a pre-industrial level of 280 ppm. Compared with the so-called pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm, a level of 410 ppm was found in 1812, rising to 450 ppm in 1825. There were levels of 370 ppm in 1857, and 4 sets of measurements gave 350–415 ppm around 1940 (Figure 10). From 1870–1920 values remained within 295–310 ppm. From 1955–1965 the values were 325 ppm. Beck chose the most carefully done assays for this graph. One was from Poona, India. An effort not described by Beck was one of 350 determinations near Point Barrow, Alaska, from 1947–1949, with a mean result of 420 ppm (Hock et al., 1952). The CO2 levels found at Mauna Loa range from 315 ppm in 1957 to 385 ppm in 2007, a period of 50 years. They are similar on Antarctica, showing good mixing of the atmosphere. Since there was a bigger rise from 312 to 415 ppm from 1927–1944 (27 years), shown by chemical assays as described above (Figure 10), there should be no reason for alarm at present. The start of the infrared data in 1958 showed a CO2 concentration that was 12 ppm lower by NDIR assay than the best chemical data of the period. The chemical data are very consistent with each other. This discrepancy has never been resolved.”

        Jaworowski, 1997
        https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1c77/5f268fc03fa707dc95904cdc8e8394af9029.pdf
        “The ice core data from various polar sites are not consistent with each another, and there is a discrepancy between these data and geological climatic evidence. One such example is the discrepancy between the classic Antarctic Byrd and Vostok ice cores, where an important decrease in the CO2 content in the air bubbles occurred at the same depth of about 500 meters, but at which the ice age differed by about 16,000 years. In an approximately 14,000-year-old part of the Byrd core, a drop in the CO2 concentration of 50 ppmv was observed, but in similarly old ice from the Vostok core, an increase of 60 ppmv was found. In about ~6,000-year-old ice from Camp Century, Greenland, the CO2 concentration in air bubbles was 420 ppmv, but it was 270 ppmv in similarly old ice from Byrd, Antarctica. … In the air from firn and ice at Summit, Greenland, deposited during the past ~200 years, the CO2 concentration ranged from 243.3 ppmv to 641.4 ppmv. Such a wide range reflects artifacts caused by sampling, or natural processes in the ice sheet, rather than the variations of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Similar or greater range was observed in other studies of greenhouse gases in polar ice.”

        1. SebastianH

          We have 90,000 measurements from all over the Earth that show, for example, that CO2 levels reached 450 ppm during the 19th century.

          You seem to trust the way old CO2 measurement equipment worked 😉

          Which is why it is highly likely that the “accepted” CO2 values for the ancient past – even the recent pre-1958 past — are likely erroneous.

          Ok, I’ll bite. Let’s assume CO2 levels were far higher in the past than what we can reconstruct from ice cores and other proxies. Also possibly varying wildly in short timeframes as your sources suggest.

          Do you think that this “proves” that the CO2 concentration seen today is caused mostly from increased temperatures?

          I hope you do know that there is a mechanism involved here, right? Do you think it allows for such high variations?

          Well, I guess we will see if your conviction holds true. It will be cooling soon according to you pseudoskeptics, right? So CO2 concentration should begin decreasing despite human emissions remaining quite high, right? What will you do when it doesn’t happen the way you imagine it to be?

          1. Kenneth Richard

            You seem to trust the way old CO2 measurement equipment worked

            I see, so it’s faulty equipment that caused the measurements that showed the high CO2 levels (350 to 700 ppm) in the pre-industrial ice cores to be discarded, and only the low values selectively retained. Apparently you didn’t realize that the very same data from the very same ice cores were used to construct two vastly different results (after the mid-1980s). In other words, this had nothing to do with equipment, as you claim. It had to do with selection bias.

            Jaworowski, 1997
            https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1c77/5f268fc03fa707dc95904cdc8e8394af9029.pdf
            Until 1985, the published CO2 readings from air bubbles in pre-industrial ice ranged from 160 to about 700 ppmv, and occasionally even up to 2,450 ppmv. After 1985, high readings disappeared from the publications. To fit such a wide range of results to the anthropogenic climatic warming theory, which was based on low pre-industrial CO2 levels, three methods were used: (1) rejection of high readings from sets of preindustrial samples, based on the credo: “The lowest CO2 values best represent the CO2 concentrations in the originally trapped ice”; (2) rejection of low readings from sets of 20th century samples; and (3) interpretation of the high readings from pre-industrial samples as representing the contemporary atmosphere rather than the pre-industrial one.

            Neftel, et al. reported in 1982 rather high median CO2 concentrations in the preindustrial ice core from Byrd, Antarctica, of about 330 and 415 ppmv, with maximum value reaching 500 ppmv. However, in 1988, in the second publication on the same core, Neftel et al. did not show these high readings; the highest concentration reported was 290 ppmv, in agreement with the global warming theory.

            Pearman, et al. [1986] “on examination of the data,” rejected 43 percent of the CO2 readings from Law Dome, Antarctica core … because they were higher or lower than the assumed “correct” values. Thus, they concluded a value of 281 ppmv CO2 for the pre-industrial atmosphere.

            Do you think that this “proves” that the CO2 concentration seen today is caused mostly from increased temperatures?

            No, I don’t use the word “proves” for one. Two, the CO2 concentration today is a consequence of imbalances between sources and sinks of CO2, and we have very limited and highly uncertain information about the extent to which natural emissions are net sources vs. sinks. So we don’t have enough information. “Knowing” the CO2 emission values from human activity is indeed not enough to draw certain conclusions, as you un-skeptically believe.

            It will be cooling soon according to you pseudoskeptics, right?

            How about refraining from name-calling, SebastianH? We are skeptics, not “pseudoskeptics” of the catastrophic CO2-induced climate consequences you believe in. There is nothing fake about our lack of certainty and our tendencies to question your catastrophic views.

            So CO2 concentration should begin decreasing despite human emissions remaining quite high, right?

            There is no established year-to-year correlation between human emissions changes and CO2 concentration changes. You have yourself admitted that, remember? So why will it be different in the future?

            http://www.researchgate.net/publication/281111296_RESPONSIVENESS_OF_ATMOSPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE
            “A statistically significant correlation between annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the annual rate of accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere over a 53-year sample period from 1959-2011 is likely to be spurious because it vanishes when the two series are detrended. The results do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

          2. SebastianH

            I see, so it’s faulty equipment that caused the measurements that showed the high CO2 levels (350 to 700 ppm) in the pre-industrial ice cores to be discarded

            Next time take notice to what I am replying to and don’t invent something like this.

            Jaworowski, 1997

            Instead of believing some angry guy like this one, it should be fairly simple to get a short ice core for the last few hundreds of years to reconstruct the CO2 concentration. Right? So do you think “they” really “fudged the data” if it would be so easy to confirm that “they” did it? Don’t be the guy that falls for conspiracy theories like this one.

            So we don’t have enough information. “Knowing” the CO2 emission values from human activity is indeed not enough to draw certain conclusions, as you un-skeptically believe.

            Sorry, but that is demonstrably false. We do have enough information. There is no hidden magic mechanism involved that absorbs most of our emissions and at the same time releases an equal amount from natural sources (or decreases the sinks accordingly).

            How about refraining from name-calling, SebastianH? We are skeptics, not “pseudoskeptics” of the catastrophic CO2-induced climate consequences you believe in.

            As long as you continue to ignore basic physics, maths, the overwhelming scientific literature in favor of pushing your own theories about how the world works, you have rightfully earned the prefix “pseudo”. I change my mind as soon as you come up with one single point of criticism that is based on actual, valid science or a plausible mechanism. Until now, no skeptic blog has come up with anything convincing and yet they all claim the other side is fraudulent, fake and what not.

            There is no established year-to-year correlation between human emissions changes and CO2 concentration changes. You have yourself admitted that, remember?

            Your claim is that CO2 is lagging temperature by a few months to thousands of years. I am just extending that claim to what should happen when the proposed cooling caused by the solar output decrease ever happens. We should see a decreasing CO2 concentration within a year or a few years. Right or wrong? Same as the interannual (also called seasons) change in CO2 concentration, right?

          3. Kenneth Richard

            We do have enough information.

            You have 100% certainty that we know all there is to know about what is responsible for CO2 changes. We are uncertain and actually admit we don’t have enough data to draw definitive conclusions. That’s what makes us skeptics — and you un-skeptical.

            Since you are 100% certain that we know all that we need to know about CO2 changes, we can aptly call you a believer, right? I don’t name-call, but if you’re going to continue referring to us as “pseudoskeptics”, I think I may change my own personal policy and refer to you as our resident believer. Fair?

          4. Graeme No.3

            Sebastian:

            Some of the proxies e.g. stomata measurements are far higher at times than the ice core measurements.

          5. Yonason

            CO2 is the lowest it’s ever been.
            https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-0e8e4fa320950cf32c66298110f4acc2

            If it doubled, it would STILL be lower than in almost all of the last 600,000,000 years. If it were as dangerous as the unhinged activists claim, we wouldn’t be here now.

            But there is a very great danger, not from CO2, but from the lunatics who want to impoverish the world and dominate it with an iron fist.

          6. SebastianH

            So my reply got deleted? Again … great.

            I think I may change my own personal policy and refer to you as our resident believer. Fair?

            You may do whatever you want, but I’d work on getting rid of that “pseudo” classification if I were you. Learn how the mechanisms you are arguing against are working and then get your arguments right (or discover that you have none). See what is left of all your skepticism after you’ve done that. If any of your arguments still hold, post them and nobody will ever call you a pseudoskeptic.

            Yonason:

            If it doubled, it would STILL be lower than in almost all of the last 600,000,000 years. If it were as dangerous as the unhinged activists claim, we wouldn’t be here now.

            Tell me about the complex land organisms (or oceanic organisms) that existed 600 million years ago.

            But there is a very great danger, not from CO2, but from the lunatics who want to impoverish the world and dominate it with an iron fist.

            Why do you think that? Do you feel yourself to be a victim here? Or do you really think countries that try to make their energy consumption sustainable “want to impoverish the world”?

            Is that the only problem you have despite the current shift to right wing politics because of a littlebit of immigration as the perceived largest threat? This behaviour in the face of poeple not having enough money in their retirement, lacking education, high rent and housing prices and somewhere in between climate change … this behaviour is just despicable.

          7. Kenneth Richard

            I’d work on getting rid of that “pseudo” classification if I were you.

            I’m not changing a thing about what I do here to try to get you to refrain from name-calling when you’re backed into a corner because you cannot answer simple questions about why you believe what you believe about human CO2 emissions controlling the mass balance of the ice sheets and catastrophic sea level rise and fall. We don’t think your beliefs are supported by the real-world evidence, much less much of the scientific literature.

          8. AndyG55

            Poor little seb

            A Clayton’s intellect,

            Yapping bogus physics and phoney science.

            Insincere and ersatz in every sentence he writes.

            —-

            There is ZERO empirical evidence of CO2 causing any warming anywhere on the planet.

            The CO2 GHE has never been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.

            Stop your mindless sham pretence and…

            GET OVER IT !

          9. AndyG55

            “… this behaviour is just despicable.”

            You poor despicable little troll.

            You really are shameless in your ranting nowadays aren’t you, seb

            Always pushing the loathsome far-left agenda,

            Not caring about the detestable damage done by wind turbines and solar farms and the disgraceful increase of electricity prices because of the erratic secondary supply system.

            Sorry you feel you are lacking education…

            … but it has been very obvious to us for a long time.

            Granny will cover your rent, or do you work for some climate trough arm of government as a paid troll?

          10. AndyG55

            “Or do you really think countries that try to make their energy consumption sustainable “want to impoverish the world”

            1.. NOT sustainable without subsidies and manic feed-in rules. If ever a government gets rid of these, and renewable targets etc , to make it a level playing field, wind and solar will just collapse.
            Even all the WASTED MONEY , they still only provide 3% of the world energy needs.

            2.. They wouldn’t have a clue what they are doing, its all just a feel-good political ploy.

            Surly you aren’t claiming politicians know what they are doing, particularly far-leftists.

            3.. They will end up impoverishing themselves.

          11. Yonason

            @Andy

            The noitall pest writes…

            “Tell me about the complex land organisms (or oceanic organisms) that existed 600 million years ago.”

            I’ve posted roughly 1/2 a dozen times on the Cambrian Explosion, which occurred about 550,000,000 years ago. Highest CO2 ever and temps highest they ever get, and suddenly all (or nearly all) phyla appear out of nowhere. He knows that, yet he acts as if he doesn’t. Pinocchio on steroids.

            You are right to mock him, as well as his profound willful ignorance and dishonesty. IMO he deserves much worse.

    3. Penelope

      CO2isLife, you are right when you say, “The entire justification for these programs is a complete hoax.”

      But the real purpose is making great strides. ICLEI is the global NGO tasked w implementing Agendas 21 & 30. Read about its activities and try to tell yourself this is not global dictatorship being implemented right under your nose.
      http://www.iclei.org/pathways.html

      It’s not talk; it’s action. UN employees have actually come to show us locals how to enact the model legislation that incrementally does away w wasteful private property.

      Just one example: In California farmers are bankrupted by water deprivation for the flimsiest excuses. Got to get them off the land and into the settlements.

      1. AndyG55

        “Got to get them off the land and into the settlements.”

        And when there are no farmers left..

        What could possibly go wrong !!

        1. Penelope

          Ah, no, Andy G55– we have the circular development pathway to reduce our need for farmers.

          “Through this pathway, local and regional governments decouple urban and economic development from resource consumption and factor environmental and social costs into the price of goods and services. [Obviously we don’t need to consume resources in order to produce development.] They encourage equitable access to resources and create closed-loop urban and peri-urban systems. They support new local economies that are productive and not extractive, where resources are exchanged and not wasted.”

          It’s written as gobbledy-gook so that we won’t understand it.

          Instead of just zoning some areas as farmland, the planners want to increase population density to 10 dwellings/acre. That’s officially so they can “rewild” most of the state, but actually so they can crowd the people into manageable settlements, where privacy and property ownership, etc are obsolete.

          1. AndyG55

            “so they can “rewild” most of the state”

            I guess if you get rid of all the farms, you don’t need farmers, problem solved.

            Seems like a great plan. 🙂

  2. Forget Paris: Not A Single EU State Is Meeting Paris Climate Targets

    […] Full post […]

  3. tom0mason

    Of course the great unsaid in the Paris Agreement is that we know at what level atmospheric CO2 levels should be.
    WE DO NOT!
    The CO2 level rises and falls in accordance with natural variations, (proxy data of historic CO2 levels shows this to be evident) that includes the vanishingly small amount human contribute. Nature regulates CO2 levels not humans.

    Compare human CO2 output to others in nature —
    The Earth’s soil alone emits 9 times more CO2 than all human activities combined.
    Termites emit twice as much CO2 as all human activities combined.
    The oceans emit 9 times more CO2 than all human activities combined.

    Restricting human CO2 output is very unlikely to change the atmospheric proportion of CO2 as we are not in control of it. We are not even a major contributor, not even a significant one.

    Restricting human CO2 output as per the Paris Agreement will only ensure that richer Western nations are dragged down to developing nation status. It will never ‘stabilize’ the climate, or what ever the UN and its IPCC appear to wish.

    1. SebastianH

      The CO2 level rises and falls in accordance with natural variations, (proxy data of historic CO2 levels shows this to be evident) that includes the vanishingly small amount human contribute. Nature regulates CO2 levels not humans.

      That is simply not true. Humans contributed the complete increase from pre-industrial levels until now. Read the scientific literature and don’t fall for this pseudoskeptic “we need to discuss this first as there are large uncertainties” nonsense. There aren’t any uncertainties with this fact.

      Restricting human CO2 output is very unlikely to change the atmospheric proportion of CO2 as we are not in control of it. We are not even a major contributor, not even a significant one.

      That doesn’t matter at all. When you have a reservoir with equal in- and outputs and you increase the input just a little bit, then the level of the reservoir will increase, even if the previous in- and outputs are gigantic in comparison to the tiny input increase.

      Stop spreading this kind of disinformation, tomOmason.

      1. Kenneth Richard

        Humans contributed the complete increase from pre-industrial levels until now. There aren’t any uncertainties with this fact.

        It’s so refreshing to see that you have no qualms about revealing your total lack of skepticism, and instead a total allegiance to your beliefs.

        For the rest of us (who question rather than just believe), we will embrace the uncertainties, which are legion. We don’t even know what CO2 values were in the past with any degree of certainty. 90,000 measurements reveal that CO2 levels reached 430 ppm during the 19th century, for example.

        When you have a reservoir with equal in- and outputs and you increase the input just a little bit, then the level of the reservoir will increase, even if the previous in- and outputs are gigantic in comparison to the tiny input increase.

        Textbook science says the opposite of what you just wrote.

        http://www.langtoninfo.com/web_content/9780521767187_frontmatter.pdf
        “Together, emission from ocean and land sources (∼150 GtC/yr) is two orders of magnitude greater than CO2 emission from combustion of fossil fuel. These natural sources are offset by natural sinks, of comparable strength. However, because they are so much stronger, even a minor imbalance between natural sources and sinks can overshadow the anthropogenic component of CO2 emission.” pg. 546

        Stop spreading this kind of disinformation, tomOmason.

        Why do you care, SebastianH? After all, it’s fact, and there are no uncertainties in 100% human attribution since 1750.

        1. SebastianH

          It’s so refreshing […]

          There is no belief involved in this. I also do not believe that an object is going to fall to the ground when released in 1m height above the surface of the Earth. Those are facts. Your strategy is calling everything that doesn’t conform to your convictions a belief. Do you think that is a good strategy?

          Textbook science says the opposite of what you just wrote.

          Not really, but you just demonstrated how your mind works though. I could try to visualize the math for you once again, but it’s probably pointless.

          In short: no amount of variation in natural sources and sinks makes the anthropogenic contribution vanish. It is still there and you still have a different outcome than if it would not be there.

          Why do you care, SebastianH? After all, it’s fact, and there are no uncertainties in 100% human attribution since 1750.

          Because simple minds believe what you guys are spreading is the truth. Deep down they feel like a world spanning conspiracy is going on or something similar and they want what you have to offer to be true. Confirmation of what they’ve always suspected to be the case. You can see it in comments that defend whatever you guys write.

          It’s not dangerous as long as it remains contained, but recently stupid is on the rise. Don’t put more fuel into this unless you really want stupid to succeed.

          Or put another way: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” … so why should we not care that people are spreading misinformation? Especially when the wording sounds so “sciency” (in your case).

          1. Kenneth Richard

            I also do not believe that an object is going to fall to the ground when released in 1m height above the surface of the Earth. Those are facts.

            Sorry, but we have observable, physical, real-world measurements of what happens when a solid object is dropped from 1 m height above the surface. It’s repeatable. It’s quantifiable. It’s empirical. On the other hand, we don’t have observable, physical, real-world measurements about what happens thermally to water bodies when the air above those water bodies has its CO2 concentration changed by parts per million (0.000001). How much warming/cooling is caused by CO2 ppm variations? We don’t know. We don’t have repeatable, quantifiable, empirical data to answer this question. Skeptics have a problem with that. Believers don’t…they claim 100% certainty anyway. That’s why we’re the skeptics.

            “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” … so why should we not care that people are spreading misinformation?

            Wow. So you view this exercise of yours, coming onto our turf and telling us that the 1,250 peer-reviewed scientific papers published since 2016 that support a skeptical position on the climate alarm you peddle…is an act of valor, the triumph of your good versus our scientifically-backed “evil”? Sheesh, if there ever was a definition of Social Justice Warrior, this has got to be it.

            What you’re doing here isn’t working, SebastianH. Have you noticed that nearly all the commentators here are drawn to comment just to make fun of your views (i.e., humans can control how much ice sheets advance or retreat by burning more or less fossil fuels, humans are causing the oceans to turn to acid, wind and solar are economic boons and will overtake fossil fuels in about 30 years due to exponential growth, etc.) You’re not winning anyone over. Instead, you’re making it worse for the social justice Cause you came here to defend. (I don’t mind, obviously.)

          2. SebastianH

            On the other hand, we don’t have observable, physical, real-world measurements about what happens thermally to water bodies […]

            I really missed this argument of yours lately.

            We do have measurements of all the components involved. And you seem to imply that there is some missing thing hidden away from us that lets physics work in a different way in the real system. That’s the “pseudo” part at work.

            Or said in a different way: do we have measurements of a 10 million ton block of tungsten dropped from a height of 100 km? How do we know that it will fall down to the surface? Because we expect it to follow the laws of physics. Same goes for an increased GHE and what happens to surfaces in response to that. Just because we can not perform a specific experiment that doesn’t mean the outcome would completely deviate from similar experiments.

            Wow. So you view this exercise of yours […]

            Your interpretations skills have gone wild again …

            You’re not winning anyone over.

            That is not the expected outcome of this anymore. I realized a long time ago that trying to convince pseudoskeptics is a futile task. Instead I am trying to be the opposition here, someone you can reply to and demonstrate by writing more nonsense and insults that you really have no clue.

            A true skeptic who identifies with the content of blogs like this one does probably not exist. It’s just too hilarious.

          3. Kenneth Richard

            Just because we can not perform a specific experiment that doesn’t mean the outcome would completely deviate from similar experiments.

            Interesting. So you agree that the “similar experiment” with clouds detailed in a blog created by Mann/Schmidt/Gore/Connolley (your people) revealed that CO2 can heat the oceans by 0.002 K at most. So the outcome for CO2 would not “completely deviate” from this, right?

            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
            “There is an associated reduction in the difference between the 5 cm and the skin temperatures. The slope of the relationship is 0.002 K (W/m2)-1.”

            Here’s the summary from the physicist who runs/ran the HockeySchtick blog:

            http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/09/realclimate-admits-doubling-co2-could.html
            RealClimate admits doubling CO2 could only heat the oceans 0.002ºC at most
            “According to the IPCC, a doubling of CO2 levels allegedly increases forcing by 3.7 Wm-2 at the top of the atmosphere and by only about 1 Wm-2 at the surface. The paper cited by RealClimate is measuring the effect of longwave forcing at the surface, therefore we assume 1 Wm-2 from doubled CO2 at the surface. Using the slope of the relationship, 0.002ºK (W/m2)-1, we find that doubling of CO2 concentrations could only reduce the temperature gradient 0.002*1 = 0.002ºC.”

            “Furthermore, a reduced temperature gradient of 0.002ºC could at the very, very most result in an increase in bulk ocean temperature of 0.002ºC. In reality, this will never happen since the heat capacity of the ocean is more than 1000 times greater than the atmosphere, and therefore the ability for a doubling of CO2 to warm the oceans is essentially zero.”

            I am trying to be the opposition here, someone you can reply to and demonstrate by writing more nonsense and insults that you really have no clue.

            How’s that working out for you, SebastianH? Are you successfully showing us why the peer-reviewed scientific papers that we highlight here — the 1,250 papers that support a skeptical position on your climate alarmism published since 2016 — are all “nonsense”?

          4. AndyG55

            “Instead I am trying to be the opposition here”

            ROFLMAO.. LOSING 1000+ to nil.

            You are no opposition, just an attention seeking troll.

            An opposition would put forward evidence and arguments based rational, provable science.

            This is something you are an ABJECT FAILURE at.

            The CO2 GHE effect has NEVER been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.

            If you think it has…

            then produce the evidence

            But you know THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.

            So you are forced to keep proving me correct..

            Your childish attempts at avoidance of the fact that you have a TOTAL LACK OF ANY EVIDENCE is like watching a 5 year tantrum in a supermarket.

            Hilarious, and you try not to laugh too much, because you know the parent must be totally embarrassed at the rabid display of juvenile attention seeking.

          5. Yonason

            “Have you noticed that nearly all the commentators here are drawn to comment just to make fun of your views (i.e., humans can control how much ice sheets advance or retreat by burning more or less fossil fuels, humans are causing the oceans to turn to acid, wind and solar are economic boons and will overtake fossil fuels in about 30 years due to exponential growth, ..,” – Kenneth Richard (to SebH)

            Here’s a wonderfully witty and biting article on the wind and solar fallacy that the activist troll keeps pushing.
            https://www.americanthinker.com/

            NOTE – he keeps calling some of us trolls, despite the fact that to be a troll one must post UNWANTED material, and the only one of us that applies to is himself, not those of us he falsely accuses of that.

            He is so typical of the irrational feelings-based radical activists so common in the sixties, a CARBON copy, if you will. Now THAT’S the kind of “carbon” we can do without.

          6. John Brown

            Just a question SebH.

            when you say “we” who do you mean? Is this more than just yourself?

            In whose name or names are you writing here? Can you please elaborate?

            It looks very odd if someone uses “we” for personal opinions.

            Just saying!

          7. Yonason

            @Kenneth, and tomO

            The troll’s sully comment about gravity illustrates perfectly how little understanding he has of science. He makes two errors. First, he conflates “belief” in the repeatable natural phenomena we can see and measure with “belief” in our explanations for why they behave as they do. Second, he regurgitates the warmist meme that climate is as certain (predictable) as gravity. Sure climate changes and weather happens, but there is too little known about the roles played by the many components of earth’s climate systems to forecast almost anything – other than “The tropics are hot. They will likely remain hot for the foreseeable future.”

            And, yes, it is “belief” because, as my professors used to say, anything is possible, but some things are just much much much much…much much much more likely than others.

            One e.g., they would use … If you can fit data to a straight line, does that mean the behavior is always linear at all resolutions? Maybe. But maybe you haven’t made enough measurements, or with the correct measuring devices. You always have to be careful not to be so arrogant as to believe you know (100% certain) what is going on. You don’t. And that’s especially true of a case where you have few measurements and no ability to predict future behavior based on one tiny component of a many component system, as is the case with climate.

          8. Yonason

            The link I gave to wind and solar commentary didn’t work. I’ll try it again. It’s a hoot!
            https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/06/dumb_energy.html

            And if that doesn’t work, you can find it by searching on this text.

            “Wind and solar electricity are renewable energy. How nice to pluck energy out of the air and the sky.

            It’s a scam.”

            Or the title “Dumb Energy”

          9. SebastianH

            Interesting. So you agree that […]

            Stop. Making. Stuff. Up!

            How’s that working out for you, SebastianH?

            It seems to work. You guys should really go out and try to find someone not in your bubble and read them your comments to. See if they can be convinced by them that everything is a hoax 😉

            John,

            Just a question SebH.

            when you say “we” who do you mean? Is this more than just yourself?

            Sorry that I have to ask, but are you really this slow? You have problems understanding analogies (here) and now this?

            Isn’t it obvious who is referred to by “we”? The same “we” that Kenneth used and I replied to. “We” = mankind.

            Yonason,
            just let it be. Or continue. I don’t care.

            as my professors used to say

            You had a professor? I wonder what he would say about your conspiracy theories and links to nutjob websites …

            Just one question for you: do you “believe” in the laws of physics?

            It’s a scam

            Indeed it is, and I have no idea why you guys are so adamantly sticking to it. Why do you try to convince yourselves and others that it is all a lie, a hoax?

          10. Kenneth Richard

            Interesting. So you agree that […]

            Stop. Making. Stuff. Up!

            No, I’m not going to let you squirm your way out of this one too. Do you agree that the one experiment (using cloud cover changes as a proxy for CO2) revealed that the most ocean-heating capability for CO2 would be 0.002 K? Because that’s what YOUR blog says.

            SebastianH: “Just because we can not perform a specific experiment that doesn’t mean the outcome would completely deviate from similar experiments.”

            We have a “similar experiment” with clouds detailed in a blog created by Mann/Schmidt/Gore/Connolley (your people). It revealed that cloud proxies can heat the oceans (skin) by 0.002 K at most. So the outcome for CO2 (if it was used instead of clouds) would not “completely deviate” from this, right?

            Do you ever answer questions like this? (Answer: No, you always run away from them.)

            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
            “There is an associated reduction in the difference between the 5 cm and the skin temperatures. The slope of the relationship is 0.002 K (W/m2)-1.”

            Here’s the summary from the physicist who runs/ran the HockeySchtick blog:

            http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/09/realclimate-admits-doubling-co2-could.html
            RealClimate admits doubling CO2 could only heat the oceans 0.002ºC at most
            “According to the IPCC, a doubling of CO2 levels allegedly increases forcing by 3.7 Wm-2 at the top of the atmosphere and by only about 1 Wm-2 at the surface. The paper cited by RealClimate is measuring the effect of longwave forcing at the surface, therefore we assume 1 Wm-2 from doubled CO2 at the surface. Using the slope of the relationship, 0.002ºK (W/m2)-1, we find that doubling of CO2 concentrations could only reduce the temperature gradient 0.002*1 = 0.002ºC.”

            “Furthermore, a reduced temperature gradient of 0.002ºC could at the very, very most result in an increase in bulk ocean temperature of 0.002ºC. In reality, this will never happen since the heat capacity of the ocean is more than 1000 times greater than the atmosphere, and therefore the ability for a doubling of CO2 to warm the oceans is essentially zero.”

          11. AndyG55

            do you “believe” in the laws of physics?”

            Certainly no one could “believe in seb’s “laws of fizzics”, except seb.

            They basically end at the most basic junior high school level, and in truth, bare very little resemblance to the REAL natural world.

            Most of what seb thinks of as “physics” is just wild-ass guessed based on zero empirical evidence.

            Sorry seb, but REAL physics does not work that way.

            REAL physics required VALIDATION and continual repeatable testing

            AGW has NEVER been validated.

            The CO2 GHE has NEVER been observed or measured ANYWHERE on the planet.

            CO2 warming of anything, anywhere, has NEVER been observed or measured on the planet.

            What you think is based on physics, is actually based on MEANINGLESS, UNSUPPORTABLE conjecture.

          12. SebastianH

            No, I’m not going to let you squirm your way out of this one too

            Excuse me? You made up something I didn’t write and didn’t mean (again). I am most certainly not falling for this.

            And no, it’s not “MY” blog.

            If you must know what I meant:
            We do know the properties of CO2. We have measured its effect many times. We have measured the imbalance. Those are similar experiments that show us how parts of the whole mechanism work. We have energy conservation, the laws of physics, etc.

            Just as we know that stuff falls to ground when released at a certain height in a gravity field. We expect a 100 million tonne Tungsten object released at an altitude of 100 km to do a certain thing … namely fall down and cause huge destruction. We also expect an imbalance to cause a heat buildup. Just because we can not perform the experiment easily, this doesn’t mean that there is possibly magic involved that makes the expected result completely different from what would happen if we could perform such an experiment.

            Here’s the summary from the physicist who runs/ran the HockeySchtick blog:

            Do you consider this HockeySchtick blog to be a good source of valid information? And you are wondering why i switched from putting “skeptics” in marks to the term pseudoskeptics?

            Anyway, “Furthermore, a reduced temperature gradient of 0.002ºC could at the very, very most result in an increase in bulk ocean temperature of 0.002ºC.” is an incorrect statement. A reduction of the gradient in the surface layer is not the same as a temperature reduction that eventually spreads to the entire ocean. And “In reality, this will never happen since the heat capacity of the ocean is more than 1000 times greater than the atmosphere, and therefore the ability for a doubling of CO2 to warm the oceans is essentially zero.” is showing us that the author over there has no understanding of radiative energy/heat transfers and what imbalances do to heat content. I have a feeling that he thinks this is about “warm CO2” somehow warming the top layer of the ocean or something. Do you believe a similar thing?

          13. Kenneth Richard

            You made up something I didn’t write

            You’ve never before written that we can use clouds as a proxy for CO2 in an experiment that determines how greenhouse gases heat the ocean (since you think we can’t use CO2 in a real-world experiment)? I could have sworn you’ve written that — and more than once. (I’d take the time to look it up if I had more time at the moment.)

            And we have such an experiment (completed in 2004 and detailed at RealClimate.org of all places) that demonstrates how much CO2 could possibly heat the ocean: 0.002 K. And, of course, because that conclusion doesn’t jibe with your beliefs in CO2-induced catastrophism, you refuse to address it.

            And no, it’s not “MY” blog.

            Oh yeah. You prefer John Cook’s blog. It has that neat-o Hiroshima. Bombs. Per. Second. meter that aligns with your belief in CO2-induced catastrophism.

            the author over there has no understanding of radiative energy/heat transfers and what imbalances do to heat content.

            Please provide us with a real-world scientific experiment that affirms exactly how much (quantified physical measurements) water heating or cooling is caused by CO2 molecules when varied up or down over a body of water. This way you can demonstrate your understanding of the radiative energy/heat transfer process and how it relates to CO2 molecules.

          14. AndyG55

            “We have measured the imbalance.”

            Only in your mind, seb

            There is no measurable warming from enhanced atmospheric CO2, seb

            NONE, anywhere.

            There is no “IMBALANCE” brought about by increased atmospheric CO2.

            Just the normal radiative absorption that has existed for billions of years, was it “IMBALANCED” when the levels were 2000ppm plus millions of years ago

            Was it “imbalanced” when the were 450ppm or there-abouts earlier last century.

            Only the most anti-science ignorant twerp would think that the world has gone into some state of “imbalance” from a small increase in atmospheric CO2. The planet always balances these tiny changes. NATURALLY.

            Its all in your brain-hosed little mind, stuck in its rut of failed junior high level physics.

            NOT COMPREHENDING thermalisation in the atmosphere.

            NOT COMPREHENDING that the relax time of CO2 absorption is magnitudes longer than its collisional time

            NOT COMPREHENDING that the mean free path of energy in the CO2 range is very short and changes are therefore meaningless in a convective atmosphere.

            NOT COMPREHENDING that the lower atmosphere is controlled by the gravity/pressure/temperature gradient.

            NOT COMPREHENDING that there is ZERO EVIDENCE of any warming by enhanced atmospheric CO ANYWHERE on the planet… You certainly can’t produce any.

            Your general LACK of even basic physics comprehension, and cognitive dissonance of what you think you do know, is absolutely ASTOUNDING. !!

            You have never been able to produce one tiny bit of real scientific evidence to back up your claims of CO2 warming. NOT ONCE.

            I suspect that you KNOW you don’t have any evidence…

            … and are just here for some sick feeling of self-aggrandisement and pitiful troll-like attention-seeking.

            You certainly don’t behave like a rational sane human, but as someone with deep-seated personality issues brought about by a baseless, shameless ego that your actions can never ever hope to live up to.

          15. SebastianH

            You’ve never before written that […]

            This is the conversation that took place above:

            Or said in a different way: do we have measurements of a 10 million ton block of tungsten dropped from a height of 100 km? How do we know that it will fall down to the surface? Because we expect it to follow the laws of physics. Same goes for an increased GHE and what happens to surfaces in response to that. Just because we can not perform a specific experiment that doesn’t mean the outcome would completely deviate from similar experiments.

            Interesting. So you agree that the “similar experiment” with clouds detailed in a blog created by Mann/Schmidt/Gore/Connolley (your people) revealed that CO2 can heat the oceans by 0.002 K at most. So the outcome for CO2 would not “completely deviate” from this, right?

            Nothing about a cloud based background radiation change experiment. Maybe the word similar was not the best word that I could have used, but anyway … I explained to you what I meant (and you ignored it in this reply of yours).

            And, of course, because that conclusion doesn’t jibe with your beliefs in CO2-induced catastrophism, you refuse to address it.

            *sigh* … just stop it.

            Oh yeah. You prefer John Cook’s blog. It has that neat-o Hiroshima. Bombs. Per. Second. meter that aligns with your belief in CO2-induced catastrophism.

            Seriously, what is wrong with you?

            Please provide us with a real-world scientific experiment […]

            Please provide us with a real-world scientific experiment that affirms exactly how fast a 100 million tonne Tungsten block would hit the surface when released in an altitude of 100 km. This way you can demonstrate your understanding of gravity and how it relates to large Tungsten blocks.

            You see how this works? Proposing a difficult enough experiment and expecting that this makes the underlying laws of physics invalid, because it can’t be tested in this case, does not work.

            How about being skeptical about the radiative effects of CO2? Do you believe they are different than what we measured? The mechanism that causes CO2 to warm the planet involves many components. Which component are you skeptical about? Are the other parts of that mechanism plausible to you?

          16. Kenneth Richard

            I see you’ve continued to avoid responding to the 0.002 K experiment for clouds as a proxy for CO2 in RealClimate’s explanation for how CO2 heats the ocean. I understand why.

            How about being skeptical about the radiative effects of CO2? Do you believe they are different than what we measured?

            Uh, who’s we who did the measuring?

            And which measurement did you do that you believe is the right one anyway — you know, the measured value that supports your CO2-induced catastrophist beliefs?

            I ask because “we” have a problem with the accuracy of your measurements.

            According to Kiehl and Trenbreth (1997), the downwelling LW value is 75 W m-2 for water vapor, 30 W m-2 for clouds, and “the second most important greenhouse gas is CO2, which contributes 32 W m−2in agreement with Charnock and Shine (1993) but differing from Kandel’s (1993) estimate of 50 W m−2.” According to Smithusen et al. (2015), the measured LW value for CO2 can be no more than about 15-20 W m-2 for the globe.

            So we have a 50 W m-2 modeled estimate for CO2, a 32 W m-2 modeled estimate for CO2, and a 15-20 W m-2 estimate for CO2 from different “measurements”. Which value do you believe in, SebastianH? And why do you believe that your preferred value is the correct one, while the other values are wrong?

            The error bars and uncertainty in the heat flux values are 10 times greater than the radiative values attributed to all the alleged CO2 forcing since 1750. Obviously you don’t have a problem with such large error bars and uncertainty. After all, you’re a believer. So you’re 100% certain that you’re right. Just like a real skeptic!

            http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-3-2-1.html
            “Unfortunately, the total surface heat and water fluxes (see Supplementary Material, Figure S8.14) are not well observed. Normally, they are inferred from observations of other fields, such as surface temperature and winds. Consequently, the uncertainty in the observational estimate is large – of the order of tens of watts per square metre for the heat flux, even in the zonal mean.”

            https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf
            “The overall uncertainty of the annually averaged global ocean mean for each term is expected to be in the range 10 to 20%. In the case of the latent heat flux term, this corresponds to an uncertainty of up to 20 W m–2. In comparison, changes in global mean values of individual heat flux components expected as a result of anthropogenic climate change since 1900 are at the level of <2 W m–2 (Pierce et al., 2006)”

          17. SebastianH

            The planet always balances these tiny changes. NATURALLY.

            By warming or cooling … exactly.

            Does this ALL CAPS insult talk really work for you? Do you think unsuspecting readers will get the impression that pseudoskeptics are probably right from the way you comment? 😉

            You have never been able to produce one tiny bit of real scientific evidence to back up your claims of CO2 warming. NOT ONCE.

            Oh dear, it is not my claim. And it is also not my job to take your hand and lead you to the relevant research. You are ignorant and it would be a waste of time to even try to convince you. I suspect only a close friend could make you understand, it’s way too late for random internet people trying to achieve that …

          18. SebastianH

            I understand why.

            I doubt that.

            Which value do you believe in, SebastianH? And why do you believe that your preferred value is the correct one, while the other values are wrong?

            That “belief” theme doesn’t work Kenneth.

            After all, you’re a believer. So you’re 100% certain that you’re right. Just like a real skeptic!

            *sigh* I am 100% certain that you guys are wrong. Someone has to be skeptic of the so called skeptics and their claims if they can’t do that themselves.

          19. Kenneth Richard

            That “belief” theme doesn’t work Kenneth.

            I asked you a direct question, and yet you avoided responding to any of it. I’ll ask again below, as it goes to the heart of your status as a non-skeptic (100% certainty that what you believe to be true is a fact) while we skeptics embrace the uncertainty and error bars and question your CO2-induced catastrophist beliefs.

            ———————-
            You wrote that I should be skeptical of the measurements of CO2 radiative values that “we” performed. So, in response, I asked…

            Which measurement do you believe is the right one anyway?

            I ask because “we” have a problem with the accuracy of your measurements.

            According to Kiehl and Trenbreth (1997), the downwelling LW value is 75 W m-2 for water vapor, 30 W m-2 for clouds, and “the second most important greenhouse gas is CO2, which contributes 32 W m−2in agreement with Charnock and Shine (1993) but differing from Kandel’s (1993) estimate of 50 W m−2.” According to Smithusen et al. (2015), the measured LW value for CO2 can be no more than about 15-20 W m-2 for the globe.

            So we have a 50 W m-2 modeled estimate for CO2, a 32 W m-2 modeled estimate for CO2, and a 15-20 W m-2 estimate for CO2 from different “measurements”. Which value do you believe in, SebastianH? And why do you believe that your preferred value is the correct one, while the other values are wrong?

            The error bars and uncertainty in the heat flux values are 10 times greater than the radiative values attributed to all the alleged CO2 forcing since 1750. Obviously you don’t have a problem with such large error bars and uncertainty. After all, you’re a believer. So you’re 100% certain that your measurements are right. Facts. We just need to know which ones the right ones are.

            http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-3-2-1.html
            “Unfortunately, the total surface heat and water fluxes (see Supplementary Material, Figure S8.14) are not well observed. Normally, they are inferred from observations of other fields, such as surface temperature and winds. Consequently, the uncertainty in the observational estimate is large – of the order of tens of watts per square metre for the heat flux, even in the zonal mean.”

            https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf
            “The overall uncertainty of the annually averaged global ocean mean for each term is expected to be in the range 10 to 20%. In the case of the latent heat flux term, this corresponds to an uncertainty of up to 20 W m–2. In comparison, changes in global mean values of individual heat flux components expected as a result of anthropogenic climate change since 1900 are at the level of <2 W m–2 (Pierce et al., 2006)”

          20. Yonason

            “You had a professor?“ – Sebastian

            Yes, lots of good ones. My undergrad advisor was a chemist who did his post doc at Cambridge.

          21. AndyG55

            “That “belief” theme doesn’t work “

            But unsupportable “belief” is ALL YOU HAVE, seb

            No wonder its not working for you. 🙂

            Even YOU know it doesn’t work..

            You just don’t seem to have figured out that it requires actual REAL EVIDENCE to back it up.

            You know, that stuff you have ABSOLUTELY NONE of.

            My claim is that there is ZERO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of enhanced atmospheric CO2 doing anything except enhance plant growth

            You have FAILED MASSIVELY to counter that very simple statement.

            You should be HIGHLY SKEPTICAL of your own mantra ,….

          22. SebastianH

            You have FAILED MASSIVELY

            Since you emphasize failing, do you think you succeeded at something in our almost daily conversations in the past? I mean something other than making clear that you are a clown?

          23. AndyG55

            FAILED MASSIVELY, yet again, seb

            Nothing your ranting and evasion can do about it, in fact it EMPHASISES you clown-like inability and incapability.

            Poor seb.

            “There is ZERO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of enhanced atmospheric CO2 doing anything except enhance plant growth.”

            GET OVER IT .

            Your slap-stick headless chook routine is getting old.

          24. AndyG55

            “do you think you succeeded at something in our almost daily conversations in the past?”

            You mean something like your continued propensity for faceplanting in your own cognitive dissonance and non-functionality ?

            All I have to do is keep you ranting, easiest of things to do, and you can be guaranteed to make a total goose of yourself… EVERY time.

            Its just the way you are.

            Just a Clayton’s intellect.

          25. SebastianH

            Kenneth,

            I asked you a direct question, and yet you avoided responding to any of it.

            I can not even count how often you avoided my questions. I don’t care about answering questions from you that are designed as either homework or follow from something your imagination made up.

            your status as a non-skeptic (100% certainty that what you believe to be true is a fact) while we skeptics embrace the uncertainty and error bars and question your CO2-induced catastrophist beliefs.

            This is really fun. You see yourself like this? Questioning everything, the “beliefs” of your opponents? Well, I am questioning your beliefs and your ability to recognize when something is complete nonsense. The latter seems absent in many posts and comments. I am also questioning what your motives are when you grossly misinterpret papers or what opponents wrote. I am very skeptical about anything that comes out of the pseudoskeptic corner of the internet.

            Which measurement do you believe is the right one anyway?

            I ask because “we” have a problem with the accuracy of your measurements.

            Well of course you have a problem with this.

            Which value do you believe in, SebastianH? And why do you believe that your preferred value is the correct one, while the other values are wrong?

            I see where this is going. It’s the same problem that you see with unknown amounts of CO2 sources and sinks. Imagining that this makes it impossible to know that we caused 100% of the CO2 concentration increase.

            Do you think it is necessary to know the average global effect CO2 is having right now to come up with the forcing values? Do you think they are derived from “measuring” the global average at one point and then again at a later point and taking the difference of both measurements?

            Obviously you don’t have a problem with such large error bars and uncertainty. After all, you’re a believer.

            I’ll point this out to you next time you post something with huge error bars or grossly deviating from all other measurements. You seem to have no problem with posting graphs with lower and lower climate sensitivity figures and posting just them. Remember? When in reality it looks more like this:
            https://imgur.com/a/oclTktx

            Notice the difference? You post your graph, because you believe that is reality. It is not. So someone needs to be skeptical about the pseudoskeptics and if you really want to be skeptic, then you should question your own motives for posting what you do and if your understanding of the math/physics involved make any sense at all.

          26. Kenneth Richard

            Do you think it is necessary to know the average global effect CO2 is having right now to come up with the forcing values?

            What forcing values? You keep on insisting that you’ve got the measurements. So what are they?

            I’ve asked you which measurements are the “right” ones since some measurements say 15-20 W m-2, others say 32 W m-2, and another says 50 W m-2. That’s quite a range. Which one do you believe in? Why should we assume that one of these is correct if the “measurements” reveal such vastly different results?

            Even the IPCC has the error ranges as ~20 W m-2 (!) for LW forcing; this is more than 10 times greater than all the radiative forcing associated with CO2 increases since 1750 (1.8 W m-2).

            Are the “measurements” you claim to have for CO2 anything like the radiative balance estimations, where the uncertainty range is 17 W m-2 (!) and the imbalance is estimated at 0.6 W m-2 (i.e., the radiative imbalance could be anywhere from -16.4 W m-2 to +17.6 W m-2, a spread 550% larger than the estimated imbalance itself)?

            You claim there is 100% certainty that CO2 is what has caused the ocean temperature changes since 1950 — just as true believers claim there is 100% in whatever belief they espouse. We’re skeptics. We don’t ascribe to your position that there is 100% certainty that humans are the 100% cause of ocean warming, not to mention ocean acidification, catastrophic glacier melt and sea level rise, etc. We don’t just take your word for it because we’re concerned about avoiding your name-calling and insults.

            http://planck.aos.wisc.edu/publications/2012_EBupdate_stephens_ngeo1580.pdf
            This small imbalance [0.6 W m-2] is over two orders of magnitude [100 times] smaller than the individual components that define it and smaller than the error of each individual flux.”

            “The net energy balance is the sum of individual fluxes. The current uncertainty in this net surface energy balance is large, and amounts to approximately 17 Wm–2. This uncertainty is an order of magnitude [10 times] larger than the changes to the net surface fluxes associated with increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”

            Why do you believe anyway when there is so much uncertainty and so much unknown? Why aren’t you the least bit skeptical that the error bars and uncertainty might be problematic for your claims of 100% certainty?

          27. AndyG55

            Yet another EMPTY seb post

            Great to see that his AGW agenda graph still hasn’t narrowed down the supposed sensitivity one little bit in all that time. 🙂

            Seb faceplants yet again.. hilarious comedy. 🙂

            It really is a NON-SCIENCE, isn’t it seb.

            IGNORES all the actual REAL science showing that REAL studies have been getting progressively closer to the real value of ZERO.

            You STILL have ZERO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that CO2 causes any warming whatsoever, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, ANYHOW.

            You still run around like a headless chook every time you are asked to provide any evidence to back up what you say.

            Its really quite hilarious to watch your manic efforts at EVASION. 🙂

          28. SebastianH

            What forcing values?

            CO2 forcing

            That’s quite a range.

            Climate science is full of ranges. You keep insisting that it needs to be one definitive number to be real otherwise it could as well be zero (even if that is out of the range).

            Even the IPCC has the error ranges as ~20 W m-2 (!) for LW forcing; this is more than 10 times greater than all the radiative forcing associated with CO2 increases since 1750 (1.8 W m-2).

            And i am sure you have no idea how this works, right?

            Are the “measurements” you claim to have for CO2 anything like the radiative balance estimations, where the uncertainty range is 17 W m-2 (!) and the imbalance is estimated at 0.6 W m-2 (i.e., the radiative imbalance could be anywhere from -16.4 W m-2 to +17.6 W m-2, a spread 550% larger than the estimated imbalance itself)?

            I repeat my question: do you think the forcing is the difference between a measurement of the W/m² now and the W/m² back then?

            You claim there is 100% certainty that CO2 is what has caused the ocean temperature changes since 1950

            The heat content change is from an imbalance with matching magnitude. The change matches the accumulated energy from the CO2 forcing. So it was caused by CO2. What I don’t “believe”, but you seem to imagine I “believe”, is that CO2 is the only thing contributing to (ocean) heat content. Same with human emissions causing the CO2 concentration increase. This attribution thing seems to be a mystery to you …

            We’re skeptics. We don’t ascribe to your position that there is 100% certainty that humans are the 100% cause of ocean warming, not to mention ocean acidification, catastrophic glacier melt and sea level rise, etc. We don’t just take your word for it because we’re concerned about avoiding your name-calling and insults.

            You are pseudoskeptics, because you don’t understand what you are arguing against and fantasize about possible other mechanisms that can never be real.

            You don’t need to take my word for it. The scientific literature is extensive enough. Just don’t only read what sounds like it supports your opinion/belief and please finally learn something about how the mechanisms work that you are arguing against instead of just claiming that nothing is certain. I guess it is also not certain how much damage that 100 million tonne Tungsten block dropped from an altitude of 100 km would cause, but I guess even you are fairly certain that is would reach the surface with a lot of kinetic energy. Ignoring the wind resistence, can you give us that amount? Possibly in Hiroshima Bombs?

            Why aren’t you the least bit skeptical that the error bars and uncertainty might be problematic for your claims of 100% certainty?

            Why aren’t you the least bit skeptical when it comes to whatever you post? You take everything that you like and post it without questioning its validity or if you interpreted the result correctly. That is pretty weird :/

            You seem to be 100% certain that what the rest of climate science says isn’t true. That you are being scammed.

            You haven’t replied to that ECS graph that looks completely different to yours. I wonder why. Maybe you tried to distort reality by compiling questionable low figures only? Did you?

          29. Kenneth Richard

            The heat content change is from an imbalance with matching magnitude. The change matches the accumulated energy from the CO2 forcing. So it was caused by CO2.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
            Logical fallacy: “The form of the post hoc fallacy is expressed as follows: A occurred, then B occurred. Therefore, A caused B.”

            The change matches the accumulated energy from the CO2 forcing.

            The change (during the 1980s to present) also “matches” the accumulated energy from cloud radiative forcing (see below). Therefore, it can be concluded that cloud cover changes caused the ocean heat content changes (especially since albedo changes DO allow more or less solar radiation to penetrate/be absorbed by the oceans, whereas IR cannot penetrate past the skin layer). Of course, you deny this could be true, as you must ignore cloud cover changes so as to maintain your beliefs that CO2 is the 100% cause of ocean heat changes (and therefore glacier melt, catastrophic sea level rise, etc.).

            http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/8505/2013/acp-13-8505-2013.html
            “[T]here has been a global net decrease in 340 nm cloud plus aerosol reflectivity [1979-2011]. … Applying a 3.6% cloud reflectivity perturbation to the shortwave energy balance partitioning given by Trenberth et al. (2009) corresponds to an increase of 2.7 W m−2 of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 1.4% or 2.3 W m−2 absorbed by the surface.”

            You seem to be 100% certain that what the rest of climate science says isn’t true.

            I’m not a believer. Therefore, I NEVER claim 100% certainty — especially about matters as controversial as cause-effect mechanisms as they relate to climate. You are a believer. Therefore, you do claim there is 100% certainty that ocean heat content changes are caused by human CO2 emissions. Your lack of any fundamental skepticism is a testament to your allegiance to a cause.

            You haven’t replied to that ECS graph that looks completely different to yours. I wonder why.

            Don’t know what graph you’re referring to, but the ECS graph that shows decreasing climate sensitivity estimates comes from a peer-reviewed scientific paper (Scafetta et al., 2017).

            http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Climate-Sensitivity-Value-Estimates-Declining-Scafetta-2017.jpg

            Maybe you [Scafetta et al. ?] tried to distort reality by compiling questionable low figures only? Did you?

            What, exactly, is the “reality” when it comes to ECS estimates that are so uncertain and error-ridden that they range between 0.02 C and 10.0 C? The fact that we have such wildly divergent conclusions about the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 changes just goes to confirm how unsettled and uncertain CO2’s effect on climate is. That would support my viewpoint, and it completely undermines your unskeptical/believer claims of 100% certainty in CO2’s effect on climate. That’s why we’re the skeptics and you’re the believer.

            [Stop] claiming that nothing is certain. I guess it is also not certain how much damage that 100 million tonne Tungsten block dropped from an altitude of 100 km would cause

            When it comes to climate sensitivity to CO2, the uncertainty is gigantic. Measuring how much damage a Tungsten block would cause is not even close to being relevant when compared to ECS estimates. But that’s exactly why you concoct these ridiculous comparisons: to distract from uncertainty. Because you’re not the least bit skeptical.

            You don’t need to take my word for it. The scientific literature is extensive enough.

            Yes, 1,250 papers have been published since 2016 that support the skeptical position on climate alarm. That’s quite extensive indeed.

          30. SebastianH

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
            Logical fallacy: “The form of the post hoc fallacy is expressed as follows: A occurred, then B occurred. Therefore, A caused B.”

            Wow, so you even get logic wrong. What I wrote is more like you observe the water in a kettle boiling, you measured the amount of energy your stove consumed and the amount is sufficient to get the water boiling, so it caused it.

            Your logic fallacy would be something like observing that planets with denser atmospheres are hotter and then assuming it is the density that makes them hotter without a plausible mechanism.

            The change (during the 1980s to present) also “matches” the accumulated energy from cloud radiative forcing (see below). Therefore, it can be concluded that cloud cover changes caused the ocean heat content changes

            Sure, you can do that. But I’d argue that the cloud cover would have changed anyway, if humans would not have emitted CO2, the heat content would not have increased though.

          31. AndyG55

            “if humans would not have emitted CO2, the heat content would not have increased though.”

            ROFLMAO.. you just keep getting funnier, seb.

            What a load of scientifically unsupportable make-believe GARBAGE.

            seb is saying the planet wouldn’t have warmed from the LIA without human CO2

            what an incredibly BIZARRE piece of manic AGW twaddle

            As he well knows, there is zero-evidence that CO2 causes any warming of the atmosphere, anywhere, anyplace, anytime.

            He is just chanting his mindless brain-hosed AGW cult mantra.

            “denser atmospheres are hotter and then assuming it is the density that makes them hotter without a plausible mechanism”

            You really are off on another planet at the moment, aren’t you seb

            Just not one that has ever existed in any real time or space.

            There is a plausible and VERY REAL mechanism seb. Just because YOU don’t understand the basic physics of it, doesn’t make it implausible

            If fact, you not comprehending, makes it almost certainly close to reality.

            The increase in temperature as you go lower in an atmosphere comes from static gravitational compression of that atmosphere, as predicted by the ideal gas law itself. The low altitude molecules have decreased mean free path, higher collision rate, thus increased temperature.

            Basic physics ,seb

            NO WONDER you can’t understand.

        2. AndyG55

          “so why should we not care that people are spreading misinformation”

          SO STOP DOING IT. !!

          Whatever your purpose here, (apart from child-minded attention-seeking trolling)…

          YOU HAVE FAILED ABSOLUTELY

          You have never said what you think your purpose here is, have you seb.

          One of those many answers you AVOID. !!

          Your likening of gravity to CO2 warming is like comparing a science text book to a Bros Grimm novel.

          There is MASSIVE amounts of empirical evidence for gravity, measured, documented, validated.

          You have yet to produce ONE SINGLE PIECE of empirical evidence for CO2 warming.

          The FACT is that the CO2 GHE has NEVER been measured or observed anywhere on this planet or any other planet.

          If you have such observational evidence of the CO2 GHE…

          THEN PRODUCE IT.

          .. or continue to prove me totally correct in stating THAT THERE IS NONE.

      2. wlhyde

        Your colossal ignorance on this topic is astounding, yet your arrogance combined with your gullibility make your earnest ejaculations hilarious to read. Very entertaining indeed!

        1. AndyG55

          “Your colossal ignorance on this topic is astounding”

          Easy to trigger more of his wanton, deliberate, balderdash, too. 🙂

          Just tell the truth about CO2 being highly beneficial to life on Earth..

          And that he can produce ZERO empirical evidence of warming by enhanced atmospheric CO2 ..

          .. and he gets all huffy and goes into a deep tantrum of denial and evasion.

          As you say..

          Entertainment plus. 🙂

          Slap-stick comedy for sure.

      3. AndyG55

        “When you have a reservoir with equal in- and outputs”

        Oh so now we have equal inputs and outputs of CO2, Nothing else change when supplied with extra solar energy and extra CO2… really ???

        Read some PROPER books, seb, and try to learn.

        Isn’t it GREAT NEWS that human CO2 emissions will continue to increase for many decades, thus so will atmospheric CO2 levels.

        Nothing the AGW cultists can do about it, for all their mindless anti-science yapping

        Ya gotta smile 🙂

      4. AndyG55

        “Humans contributed the complete increase from pre-industrial levels until now.”

        You are now telling us that warming doesn’t release any CO2 at all. No increase from nature at all.

        And as well all know, CO2 does not cause warming.

        So where is the problem. CO2 is purely beneficial to all life on Earth. at any atmospheric level it can possibly reach.

        Great that humans are causing 100% of the increase, because if that is the case, aCO2 will just keep on climbing, and the world will LUV it. 🙂

        What sort of mindless twerp wants to even attempt to curtail an increase in such a valuable atmospheric resource, which has ZERO EFFECT except enhancing plant growth. (even if their attempts are an utter failure)

      5. AndyG55

        “Stop spreading this kind of disinformation, tomOmason.”

        ROFLMAO.

        From the master disinformation spreader himself.

        Satire, Irony.. HILARIOUS.

        TomO’s statement

        “Restricting human CO2 output is very unlikely to change the atmospheric proportion of CO2 as we are not in control of it. We are not even a major contributor, not even a significant one.”

        … Is TOTALLY CORRECT.

        Even termites contribute more to atmospheric CO2 than humans do, and termites LUV the warmer temperatures, as does all CO2 producing life.

        The NATURAL warming from the Sun would have helped release a HUGE amount of carbon back into the carbon cycle after it was locked up during the freezing cold of the LIA.

        The AGW apologist even complain about thawing release CH4, which rapidly converts to CO2

        But no, humans 100%.. nothing else possible.. ROFLMAO !!

        For seb, the cognitive disarray and non-functionality is complete.

        so sad

        so seb

        1. tom0mason

          Indeed AngyG55

          “Stop spreading this kind of disinformation, tomOmason.”

          There is only one answer, this is information —

          Restricting human CO2 output is very unlikely to change the atmospheric proportion of CO2 as we are not in control of it. We are not even a major contributor, not even a significant one.

          It is not disinformation, unless your hubristic ‘belief’ allows you to to think humans control nature, then you are lost in fantasy. 😉

  4. Lasse

    Always good to be high in the ranking-Sweden no 1.
    But good is not enough.
    We will starve out our industry by making steel from H2 gas.
    5 tonnes per person is our footprint but we have to import a lot which makes the print more than twice as big-11 tonnes.
    Still we try to reduce the 5 and not the 6, just get good on lists like this!

  5. Yonason

    “Overall, poor countries performed far worse. This could in part indicate that green energies are more a trend for the rich and snobby countries.” – Pierre

    Or, more to the point, they just have less money for the con artists to pilfer. Why dine on vegan hamburger and water, when you can have fillet minion and champagne, especially when someone else is paying the tab?

  6. SebastianH

    Just picking out the gems …

    Overall, poor countries performed far worse. This could in part indicate that green energies are more a trend for the rich and snobby countries.

    Or it could mean that improving on green energies doesn’t make your country poor. And shouldn’t more coal mean that a country gets rich fast according to pseudoskeptic logic? What’s up with Poland on the far right then?

    In fact since 2007 the USA alone has reduced its CO2 emissions by approximately 700 million metric tons annually, which is in the neighborhood of Germany’s total annual output!

    So a very large person has managed to reduce his/her caloric input by what a slim/small person eat in total? That large person can be really proud of himself/herself. But to get to the levels of the slim person it isn’t enough to replace the hourly Snickers consumption with a Mars bar every two hours.

    There you have it, another analogy that you’ll undoubtedly find irrelevant to the topic 😉

    1. Kenneth Richard

      improving on green energies doesn’t make your country poor.

      Lee and Jung, 2018
      http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X18776546
      The results of the autoregressive distributed lag bounds test show that renewable energy consumption has a negative effect on economic growth, and the results of a vector error correction mechanism causality tests indicate a unidirectional relationship from economic growth to renewable energy consumption. The empirical results imply that economic growth is a direct driver expanding renewable energy use. [Interpretation: Wealthy countries can more easily afford to waste their money on “green” energy.]

      In terms of policy implications, it is best for policy makers to focus on overall economic growth rather than expanding renewable energy to drive economic growth.

      [O]ur result suggests that renewable energy policy should be implemented when the real GDP is enough large to overcome the negative impact from renewable energy, because the causality from economic growth to renewable energy consumption in the long run as one of our result is caused by both low productivity of renewable energy production and expansion of government-led renewable energy.

      1. SebastianH

        The results of the autoregressive distributed lag bounds test show that renewable energy consumption has a negative effect on economic growth

        So you think less economic growth (in South Korea) means the country got less wealthy (= renewables making countries poor). I see.

        The empirical results imply that economic growth is a direct driver expanding renewable energy use. [Interpretation: Wealthy countries can more easily afford to waste their money on “green” energy.]

        No, that just means that renewable energy capacity gets built when the economy grows and not the other way around, that the economy grows when renewables get built. See also the sentence right before this one: “causality tests indicate a unidirectional relationship from economic growth to renewable energy consumption.

        In terms of policy implications, it is best for policy makers to focus on overall economic growth rather than expanding renewable energy to drive economic growth.

        And thus this makes perfect sense in the light of their results. More economic growth in South Korea means more renewables get installed.

        The last part also makes perfect sense. Unfortunately I can’t read the full paper. What do they suggest as an “enough large” GDP?

        No sign that renewables are ruining any country. We have far bigger problems that can ruin countries … the rise of fascism and nationalism all around the world, simple-minded people falling for their propaganda and other parties trying to get those voters back by behaving in a similar anti-social way.

    2. AndyG55

      “There you have it, another analogy that you’ll undoubtedly find irrelevant to the topic “

      Yes, you use them whenever you have nothing else to yap about.

      At least you have woken up enough to realise they are irrelevant.

      1. John Brown

        Its sad.

        Here is a SebH analogy that seeks out the fridge door of the Westantarctic ice shield.

        http://notrickszone.com/2018/06/17/claimed-antarctic-ice-loss-an-artefact-of-statistical-torture-fraught-with-huge-uncertainty/comment-page-1/#comment-1266448

        I am unable to comprehend that analogy, which suggests that there is actual insulated walls around that ice shield with the CO2 heat engine providing energy to melt the ice.

        With some luck the analogy is wrong, since the scientific method has found that geothermal heat influx is indeed the reason for the ice shield to melt from underneath!

        Oh, SebH has provided the link to such a scientific study himself. http://www.pnas.org/content/111/25/9070.short

        Has he read it I wonder!

        Here is one I found over the google search he suggested:

        https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1026021217991

        Very strong scientific language in the field to support the claim of climate change being the reason for a certain RRR -recent rapid regional warming.
        As strong as:

        “Here warming was much more rapid than in the rest of Antarctica where it was not significantly different to the global mean.”

        or

        “This, however, remains unproven since we cannot yet be sure what mechanism leads to such an amplification.”

        or

        “we can show that atmospheric warming and reduction in sea-ice duration coincide in a small area on the west of the Antarctic Peninsula, but here we cannot yet distinguish cause and effect.”

        The following conclusion is telling the climate story very well:

        “Thus for the present we cannot determine which process is the probable cause of RRR warming on the Antarctic Peninsula and until the mechanism initiating and sustaining the RRR warming is understood, and is convincingly reproduced in climate models, we lack a sound basis for predicting climate change in this region over the coming century.”

        In my unprecedented lack of analogism I will have to be quiet now, not even saying anything about the climate targets.

        Only so much, and not an analogy, if humans could change the climate, they should change he weather first. Lets target to have sun shine in the day and rain in the night.

        1. Kenneth Richard

          So SebastianH linked to a paper that says “we cannot determine which process is the probable cause of RRR warming on the Antarctic Peninsula” and “we cannot yet distinguish cause and effect” and “we cannot yet be sure what mechanism leads to such an amplification”…but yet he insists that the science is settled on this and that it’s humans melting the ice with CO2. And then he calls us “pseudoskeptics”.

          Thanks John!

        2. SebastianH

          I am unable to comprehend that analogy, which suggests that there is actual insulated walls around that ice shield with the CO2 heat engine providing energy to melt the ice.

          This is amazing … I really need to give you more analogies to see what you make out of them. Thank you for the laugh 😉

          the scientific method has found that geothermal heat influx is indeed the reason for the ice shield to melt from underneath!

          Oh, SebH has provided the link to such a scientific study himself.

          So did this melting increase in the recent past? What do you think? Is the melting even capable of causing the massive ice mass loss observed in West Antarctica? What do you think?

          Only so much, and not an analogy, if humans could change the climate, they should change he weather first. Lets target to have sun shine in the day and rain in the night.

          *sigh*

          So SebastianH linked to a paper

          Did I, Kenneth?

          1. Kenneth Richard

            Is the melting [geothermal heat flux?] even capable of causing the massive ice mass loss observed in West Antarctica?

            Well, according to scientists, it’s capable of posing a “great threat to WAIS stability.” What’s CO2 capable of doing to the ice sheets given the CO2 greenhouse effect is, as you admit, negligible (~0.5 to 1 W m-2) for Antarctica as a whole?

            van Wyk de Vries et al., 2017
            http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/specpubgsl/early/2017/05/26/SP461.7.full.pdf
            …in light of concerns over whether enhanced geothermal heat fluxes and subglacial melting may contribute to instability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. … The overall result presented here constitutes a first inventory of West Antarctica’s subglacial volcanism. We identified 138 volcanoes, 91 of which have not previously been identified, and which are widely distributed throughout the deep basins of West Antarctica, but are especially concentrated and orientated along the >3000 km central axis of the West Antarctic Rift System. … [V]olcanism affects geothermal heat flow and, hence, basal melting, potentially also impacting upon ice dynamics.

            (press release) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170814092735.htm
            West Antarctica’s vast ice sheet conceals what may be the largest volcanic region on earth, research has revealed. … Previous studies and the concentration of volcanoes found in the region together suggest that activity may have occurred in previous warmer periods.
            —–
            Iverson et al., 2017
            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-11515-3
            The first physical evidence of subglacial volcanism under the West Antarctic Ice Sheet … New evidence from ice core tephra shows that subglacial volcanism can breach the surface of the ice sheet and may pose a great threat to WAIS stability. … The sources of these tephra layers were likely to be nearby subglacial volcanoes, Mt. Resnik, Mt. Thiel, and/or Mt. Casertz. A widespread increase in ice loss from WAIS could trigger positive feedback by decreasing ice mass and increasing decompression melting under the WAIS, increasing volcanism.

            http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5733/464.short
            The geothermal heat flux is an important factor in the dynamics of ice sheets; it affects the occurrence of subglacial lakes, the onset of ice streams, and mass losses from the ice sheet base.

            http://www.pnas.org/content/111/25/9070.full.pdf+html
            Heterogeneous geothermal flux and subglacial volcanism have the potential to modulate ice sheet behavior and stability by providing a large, variable supply of meltwater to the subglacial water system, lubricating and accelerating the overlying ice. … Thwaites Glacier is one of the largest, most rapidly changing glaciers on Earth, and its landward sloping bed reaches into the deep interior of the WAIS [West Antarctic Ice Sheet], making it a leading component in scenarios for rapid deglaciation. … [H]eterogeneous geothermal flux beneath Thwaites Glacier is likely a significant factor in local, regional, and continental-scale ice sheet stability.

            So SebastianH linked to a paper

            Did I, Kenneth?

            So you didn’t provide a link to a Google Scholar search that had scientific papers in it that contradict your beliefs that CO2 controls West Antarctic ice melt? Who did that, then?

          2. John Brown

            Is the melting even capable of causing the massive ice mass loss observed in West Antarctica? What do you think?

            John thinks that melting of ice will indeed decrease the ice mass!

        3. Yonason

          @John Brown

          There is nothing to understand. As usual with Seb’s “analogies,” there is no “there” there. It’s just his typical insertion of nonsense into the discussion to distract or derail.

          As metaphor challenged impaired as he is, I would hate to have to grade his IQ test. I wouldn’t know weather to laugh or to cry.

          Don’t sweat the malicious trolls. They aren’t worth the waste of your time.

    3. AndyG55

      “What’s up with Poland on the far right then?”

      Nothing, they are just trying to lift themselves to a better standard of living, and are intelligent enough to realise that wind and solar are NOT going to help accomplish that. They have been through similar CONS before, and recognise it for what it is.

      They need solid RELIABLE energy, and DO NOT NEED an erratic second string of unreliables getting in the way.

      1. SebastianH

        Doesn’t seem to be working, AndyG55:
        https://www.google.de/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_kd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:DEU:SWE:POL&ifdim=region&tdim=true&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false

        GDP per capita in Germany increased by the same amount per capita as Poland has in total (also per capita).

        So no, economic growth depends on far more than the used source of electricity.

        1. AndyG55

          World bank says

          Germany GDP growth rate 1.9%

          Poland GDP growth rate 2.9%

          https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG

          Poland to reach 4.2% GDP growth in 2018

          http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/04/27/polands-gdp-growth-to-reach-42-percent-in-2018-world-bank

          German government says 2.3% growth in 2018

          https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-germany-economy-gdp/german-government-lowers-gdp-growth-forecast-to-2-3-percent-in-2018-idUKKBN1HV2CF

          But very slow Q1

          http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-05/24/c_137203662.htm

          “According to the figures, German gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 0.3 percent in the first quarter….”

          OUCH !

          and Poland looking at 4.2% in 2018

          WOW !!

          1. Yonason

            Just came across this gem, Andy.

            “The EU is the most protectionist trade bloc in the world. The German auto-sector is the most protected trade sector inside the EU.
            ….
            The EU, Germany specifically, needs access to the U.S. market to survive.
            ….
            …without access to the U.S. market, the German economy begins the contraction cycle currently being experienced by Canada.”

            https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/06/25/sacrebleu-france-will-retaliate-on-auto-tariffs-if-u-s-levies-import-car-tariff/

            No wonder they are fearful that the USA, the main host of the Euro-parasites, is tired of supporting them. Or, as is said about all socialists, there’s only so long you can live off of other people’s money before you either spend it all or they say “ENOUGH!”

      2. Yonason

        @Andy

        You are SO unfair to malicious trolls. The nerve you have, using actual facts to prove them wrong. For shame! //🤣//

  7. Oswald Thake

    European countries fail to live up to their Paris promises? I’m shocked, Pierre, SHOCKED!

    1. Stephen Way

      Hi what you really mean is that Euro Governments failed to live up to their promises.
      Now who would be surprised by that outcome?

      1. AndyG55

        The promises were meaningless anyway.

        Pie in the sky, feel-good nonsense, that was NEVER going to eventuate.

  8. Peter

    This CAN ranking does not only include progress made in GHG reductions, but it also includes three “soft” issues:
    – domestic target additional to the target of the EU;
    – support to increase ambition during negotiations;
    – promotion of more ambitious EU target.

    So if your PR-machine is working well and if you open your mouth during meetings, you get higher in this ranking.
    If you would only look at the progress of 2020 targets, the results would be even “worse”. Only one country would get the label “moderate”, the other 28 would be “poor” or “very poor”.

    1. AndyG55

      Many would be in the “GOING BACKWARDS” category…

      .. in terms of the accord, that is.

      In other words, making actual PROGRESS towards a higher standard of living, by NOT wasting their funds on feel-good play-things and niche toys.

  9. AndyG55

    OT, Greenland hit RECORD COLD May temperatures this year

    https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/2018_06_19_09_05_14.png

    There MUST be global warming somewhere !

    That’s what they tell us.

    Must be “hide and seek” time ! 🙂

  10. Glyn Palmer

    Meanwhile, in the British national press…”Britain is running out of fizz!” “Europe-wide CO2 shortage threatens supplies Gof beer and soft drinks as demand surges for summer.” One really does need a heart of stone etc.

  11. Oswald Thake

    It’s a travesty that we can’t find it!

  12. Die Stunde der Wahrheit: 23 von 28 EU Staaten sind als (sehr) schlecht bewertet, bei der Erreichung der Klimaziele von Paris – EIKE – Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie
  13. tom0mason

    @Yonason 20. June 2018 at 5:22 PM

    So true.

  14. Energy & Environmental Newsletter: July 9, 2018 - Master Resource

    […] Not a single EU state is meeting its climate targets […]

  15. Energy And Environmental Newsletter – July 9th 2018 | PA Pundits - International

    […] Not a single EU state is meeting its climate targets […]

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