“Climate Denial” Funded By Big Oil, Heartland Institute, CFACT German ARD Public Television Wants To Believe

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

German ARD public television wishes to believe climate skepticism in the country is fueled by American Big Oil dollars. The reality is that German skepticism is a far broader phenomenon.

I didn’t become aware of this recent German ARD Monitor investigative report until yesterday.

The ARD Monitor public television report, aired earlier this month in the wake of Europe’s hot and dry summer, looks into the German climate denial movement, and pretends to have uncovered that it is shadowy and all clandestinely fueled by the American gas and oil industry.

One hot German summer is climate change!

First the report begins by focusing on the “amazingly crazy” hot and dry summer Germany just experienced, as if to say how could anyone possibly deny this is not climate change.

And to drive the point home to viewers that climate change is real and extreme, ARD Monitor interviews “one of the most renowned climate scientists of our time, Professor Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research”, who comments that the planet is on the way to becoming uninhabitable unless we stop using fossil fuels immediately.

Bjorn Stevens: Having to debate the facts “is enraging”

To add more gravitas to the claim that man-made climate change is real and the debate is over, Monitor also interviews “renowned climate researcher” Prof. Bjorn Stevens of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, who tells Monitor:

That we have to debate the facts to me is enraging, or disappointing in any case because there’s no question about it. There are many questions, but that CO2 is heating the climate is not one of them.”

ARD Monitor set up: Anyone disagreeing simply has to be some sort of a misfit. So where’s could all the climate skepticism be coming from?

Monitor uncovers nothing new, only rehashes old stories

So with the two distinguished scientists saying the science is settled, the ARD Monitor report next moves on to finding out where all the “denial” in Germany is coming from. The answer: from the Jena, Germany-based European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), funded by the freedom-obsessed Heartland Institute and CFACT. These two organization are supposedly funneling money from Big Oil and a hedge fund millionaire named Robert Mercer.

Big Oil money

According to Monitor, the Mercer Foundation has funded the Heartland Institute to the tune of “millions of dollars” over the years.

Another big provider of funding is the ExxonMobil Foundation, which according to the German documentary supplied funding to the Heartland Institute and other organizations, among them CFACT, as shown by filed Form 990-PF documents (5:50 mark):

 

Documents presented by ARD Monitor, however, show donations were made more than 10 years ago, in 2005.

Oreskes produces no evidence of funding

2005? That’s pretty long ago.

Surely there has to be more funding after that, ARD Monitor tells the audience, and so brings in climate activist Naomi Oreskes (6:05), “an expert on the climate skepticism scene” to provide the proof”.

Climate activist Prof. Naomi Oreskes on German ARD Monitor. Image cropped from ARD Monitor.

Oreskes tells ARD Monitor (translated from the German):

In terms of funding, it’s really hard to make statements on this because many of the organizations have taken steps to hide the channels. But we have clear evidence that organizations like CFACT and The Heartland Institute are being massively funded by the oil, gas and coal industry, and from other industries, especially chemicals and pesticides.”

However, none of that “clear evidence” gets shown by Oreskes, yet with her seal of approval, it’s good enough for ARD Monitor to present it as established fact.

Big Oil’s trail to Germany?

ARD Monitor next reports how the Big Oil money trail leads to Germany to fund skepticism: through The Heartland Institute and CFACT and ending up at the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), which this blog here occasionally links to.

Shown by ARD Monitor are images of an EIKE climate conference with the Heartland Institute and CFACT logos in the background. The conferences take place annually and anyone can visit them and so it has never been a secret that the organizations are linked, yet ARD Monitor tries to appear as if they’ve succeeded in exposing something big and shadowy, when in fact it has always been out in the open for years.

EIKE is in fact glad for every media outlet that shows up to the conferences it sponsors.

EIKE spokesman’s strange denial

So it’s all the more mysterious that EIKE spokesman physicist Prof. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke denied knowing CFACT and The Heartland Institute before an ARD Monitor camera. For whatever misguided reason, Lüdecke tried to deny the very obvious EIKE link to CFACT and Heartland, although it’s no secret  at all. That was a huge gaffe by EIKE  and so the organization ended up looking suspicious to German viewers.

I contacted EIKE to inquire why spokesman Lüdecke would say such a thing. EIKE blamed it on “confusion.”

German skepticism movement far more than EIKE

Monitor’s one-sided hit piece was designed to make German climate skepticism appear as if it were something entirely funded by American Big Oil and gas, when in reality this is not the case at all. Rather, German climate skepticism is much more a growing grass roots movement and ARD Monitor totally overstates EIKE’s role in German climate skepticism and totally ignores the array of other powerful forces casting doubt on the science in Germany.

Critical scientists, journalists

The reality is that a large part of climate skepticism spreading in Germany arises from a number of other sources, like books and blog posts by luke-warmists Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning, from publicists such as Dirk Maxieiner, and Michael Miersch, achgut.com, critical journalists like Daniel Wetzel of Die Welt or warmist journalist Axel Bojanowski of Spiegel. There are others in Switzerland and across Europe.

Spiegel’s Bojanowski has repeatedly criticized the highly exaggerated and often hysterical climate claims often heard from Germany’s institutes and media.

These cooler heads have warned that all the hysterical claims are hurting efforts to deal with climate much more than they are helping.

Media have lost credibility

More skepticism in Germany also arises from meteorology experts who on social media platforms often feel compelled to publicly point out and correct the often outlandish climate and weather claims that get communicated to the public. All the horribly exaggerated communication by the scientists, politicians and media have led to a significant credibility loss.

And when the media deceive and tell half truths on other issues, people tend not to believe anything they are told. Media have gotten so poor in Germany that the joke today is that the only news one can trust from the major networks are the weather forecast and the lottery numbers.

At ARD television, the news are said not to begin at 8:00 pm, rather at 8:13 pm (lottery numbers and weather report).

Hundreds of citizens’ groups against wind power

Moreover, there’s growing resistance from the more than 1000 citizens’ initiatives opposing the wind energy industrialization of Germany’s landscape and forests. These concerned citizens have banded together and increasingly view climate protection as forest and natural habitat destruction.

So it’s only natural for these concerned people to become more open to climate science criticism.

Broken promises

Also a number of leading engineers and industrial experts and trade associations have been warning for years that a power grid relying heavily on volatile wind and sun would never be able to meet Germany’s energy needs.

The Energiewende (transition to renewable energies) was sold to the public some 20 years ago as something that would make energy cleaner, cheaper and better. The reality, however, has turned out to be very different.

Little wonder so many are growing skeptical.

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

80 responses to ““Climate Denial” Funded By Big Oil, Heartland Institute, CFACT German ARD Public Television Wants To Believe”

  1. SebastianH

    German skepticism movement far more than EIKE

    One would hope so, the authors and commenters over there have really lost it. One could only hope that some reasonable skeptics exist who understand the actual mechanisms and physics they are arguing against. EIKE is several levels below even NTZ in this regard 😉

    Other than that, a quick back of the napkin census of the German “skeptic” community would maybe amount to a hundred people with around 20 being more visible. That’s not a lot of people, but then again it were just a few hundred people that spread fake news during the Brexit campaign and/or US election. Numbers aren’t everything in these times.

    Media have gotten so poor in Germany that the joke today is that the only news one can trust from the major networks are the weather forecast and the lottery numbers. At ARD television, the news are said not to begin at 8:00 pm, rather at 8:13 pm (lottery numbers and weather report).

    Excuse me? That’s something people who regularly watch “RTL2 News” and would vote for a party like the AfD might say. That part of society gets over-represented lately … I’d say we should go back to ignoring the opinion of stupid people and accept that it leads to nowhere to make efforts to appeal to them. Let them watch Promi Big Brother and do something about the real problems we are facing instead of imaging global warming to be fake and/or a conspiracy …

    Also a number of leading engineers and industrial experts and trade associations have been warning for years that a power grid relying heavily on volatile wind and sun would never be able to meet Germany’s energy needs.

    And to your surprise, it still works flawlessly at 40% renewables. No rolling blackouts that were promised by likely fossil fuel inspired doomsday promoters.

    The Energiewende (transition to renewable energies) was sold to the public some 20 years ago as something that would make energy cleaner, cheaper and better. The reality, however, has turned out to be very different.

    It has become cleaner, it will become cheaper* and causing less polution is always better. You’ll see …

    *) including unpaid externalities of fossil fuel usage

    1. spike55

      “You’ll see …”

      ROFLMAO. Is that a 5 year old type of comment… or what !! 🙂

      Sounds like seb is about to embark on a new series of Mills and Boon type novels, but in a science-fantasy genre. !!

    2. spike55

      “No rolling blackouts “

      Thanks to coal, gas and French nuclear.

      Does Poland sell you back the power you had to pay them to take ???

      1. SebastianH

        We aren’t paying anyone to take our power. The average price for a kWh that got exported is about the same as the market price in Germany.

        It’s not too hard to lookup that data and not make up stuff trying to be funny / the clown again.

        1. spike55

          Thanks to coal, gas and French nuclear.

          That is what allows the grid to be stabilised DESPITE the UNRELIABILITY of wind and solar.

        2. spike55

          “We aren’t paying anyone to take our power.”

          Poor seb. immediately faceplants in his own BS.

          http://fortune.com/2016/05/11/germany-excess-power/

          A real problem..

          Erratic, unreliable electricity when you don’t need it.. then having to use expensive sources for the large amount of the time wind and solar do supply

          Did you know that for 50% of the time, Germany’s wind turbine operate at less than just 16% of nameplate ???

          Crass STUPIDITY.

    3. Kenneth Richard

      And to your surprise, it still works flawlessly at 40% renewables.

      Only 4.1% of the energy consumed by German citizens comes from wind and solar. 80% of Germany’s energy consumption is from fossil fuels. Perhaps this is why there is stability.

      https://energytransition.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/cm1-1.png

      1. SebastianH

        What is so hard to understand about the words „power grid“. Is it the language barrier again?

        And how does filling up the car with gasoline or heating with gas stabilize the power grid again?

        1. Kenneth Richard

          how does filling up the car with gasoline or heating with gas stabilize the power grid

          Petroleum products provide reliable, ready-to-use energy. Wind and solar do not.

          Schäfer et al., 2018
          https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0058-z
          “Multiple types of fluctuations impact the collective dynamics of power grids and thus challenge their robust operation.”

          http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2018/01/more-renewables-mean-less-stable-grids-researchers-find.html
          More renewables mean less stable grids, researchers find[I]ntegrating growing numbers of renewable power installations and microgrids onto the grid can result in larger-than-expected fluctuations in grid frequency.”

          1. SebastianH

            Again, how does this stabilize the power grid?

          2. Kenneth Richard

            Hmmm. I thought my comment and the scientific paper analysis would be self-explanatory, but apparently not. See if you can understand this:

            Petroleum and fossil fuel products provide reliable, ready-to-use energy. Wind and solar do not provide reliable, ready-to-use energy, but intermittent energy with many interruptions in availability and abundance. Consequently, wind and solar promote less stable grids the more they are employed (as well as necessitating more backup energy use, which means more fossil fuels). Continuing to rely on fossil fuel energies, or the expansion of their use, promotes grid stability, as there are no problems with abundance/dearth of availability due to intermittency and a need for the Sun to shine or the wind to blow or the blades to not be covered in ice for the energy to be available and ready-to-use. Is this still confusing?

          3. SebastianH

            You wrote:

            Only 4.1% of the energy consumed by German citizens comes from wind and solar. 80% of Germany’s energy consumption is from fossil fuels. Perhaps this is why there is stability.

            On me asking how heating and driving with fossil fuels stabilize the grid (that’s what I and the article were talking about) you reply:

            Petroleum products provide reliable, ready-to-use energy. Wind and solar do not.

            So again, I say Germany has 40% of renewable share in the power grid and it’s stable (no rolling blackouts, no major frequency drifts apart from the big one recently that was explicitly not caused by renewables). How do your replies make any sense in this context?

            Yeah, fossil fuel power plants are still used to provide the majority of power and to stabilize the grid if you will. But how does “80% of Germany’s energy consumption is from fossil fuels” cause stability for the power grid exactly? Maybe you need as much sleep as I do right now.

        2. John Brown

          The answer to SebH question is given by some another questions, how will he propose to fuel cars if they are not using gas?
          When he is and how will he proposing to charge electric cars and when will he be able to drive?
          Will there be renewables generating energie, for example in the night, when he is sleeping? Or will there be a high demand of electricity on a days end?
          No the grid is not destabilized yet, but once you take fuel away and implement e vehicles, you will need a lot of base load else your grid might not provide for your need.

    4. Dave Ward

      “And to your surprise, it still works flawlessly at 40% renewables. No rolling blackouts that were promised by likely fossil fuel inspired doomsday promoters”

      You’d better hope it continues, or this will be your future:

      http://joannenova.com.au/2018/08/another-day-another-blackout-lightning-is-too-much-for-australian-grid-now

      “Give it another 10 to 20 years and the percentage will be even higher and all the old expensive subsidies from the beginning will be paid off”

      By which time most of those subsidised wind turbines and solar panels will need to be replaced…

    5. Bitter&twisted

      DNCWTRT

  2. MGJ

    From the article:”That we have to debate the facts to me is enraging”.( “renowned climate researcher” Prof. Bjorn Stevens)

    You do indeed. Let us know when you start.

    Threats, abuse, manipulated statistics and ridiculous analogies do not constitute arguments nor explanations.

    If you are right then slaying the ‘denier’ dragon is easy:

    1. Provide a single, consistent, credible, falsifiable hypothesis of how CO2 warms the earth. And no, you are not allowed to continually patch it up with sticking plasters every time it conflicts with reality. Show any (reasonable) objections to the hypothesis can be refuted.
    2. If and only if 1. has been achieved then test the hypothesis against physical reality.
    3. Show that your hypothesis provides a better explanation of reality than any competing explanations, such as – climate variation is within normal historical bounds.

    If all three have been successfully achieved, then we can move on to address whether climate change is good, bad or neutral. If the answer is bad then we can proceed to ask what – if anything – should be done about it.

    So much more convincing than ‘Global communism now – because…climate!’.

    1. SebastianH

      1) if anything the mechanisms found and described by climate science are consistent. It is up to you to find instances where it doesn’t work this way order to either improve the models or derive completely new ones.
      2) it’s constantly tested and works. Again, it is always up to the challenger of a hypothesis (or theory) to find instances where it doesn’t work. So far every trial by members of this blog has only shown that the topic is not clearly understood.
      3) they do. Natural variations have been quantified and aren’t enough to explain any temperature increase. According to science the temperature should have decreased if everything were to be caused naturally. Guess why?

      You are basically searching for excuses to continue as if everything were alright and as if we didn’t know about what our emissions are causing. That’s fine, but commonly called being in denial. So, are you in denial?

      1. spike55

        No seb, you have proven you are TOTALLY UNABLE to provide one tiy bit of evidence to scientifically support even the most basic of AGW myths.. that of CO2 warming.

        1. The models don’t work

        2. The “hypothesis” is so broad and undefined that the AGW scammers think they can twist it to meet any eventuality

        You have been totally unable to describe the mechanism with any sort of REAL mechanism.. You can’t back one fantasy with another fantasy.. not in real science, anyway.

        3. No they have NOT been quantified. The AGW stall-warts are CLUELESS about natural drivers of the climate.

        You are just making CRAP up as usual, seb.

        And you are very bad at it.

        YOu can’t even come up with some fantasy to answer these two questions.

        You just run away like a headless chook.

        Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

        Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

        STOP BEING A COWARD, and at least make an effort, so we can all enjoy the slap-stick comedy.

      2. Kenneth Richard

        Again, it is always up to the challenger of a hypothesis (or theory) to find instances where it doesn’t work.

        Actually, it’s actually up to the owns who believe in the hypothesis to go about finding ways to disprove it, or reasons why it’s not true. You obviously have little to no interest in doing that, as you think human control of the Earth’s water temperatures, glacier melt, sea level rise, hurricane intensities, seawater pH values…has already been proven. You’re so certain that you call people “deniers” of truth if they dare disagree with you. Succinctly, you operate as if the onus is on us to disprove that humans control climate rather than the other way around.

        “By definition, science equates to varying degrees of uncertainty, with hypotheses and theories bookending the uncertainty spectrum. Hypotheses – suggested explanations for how things work, and based upon observed evidence, offering potential prediction of phenomena whose correlative relationships may be causal – must be both testable and falsifiable. A hypothesis cannot be proven to be true; it can only be proved false. For a hypothesis to be elevated to theory – a rare and significant promotion – the hypothesis must survive multiple replications of results with a wide set of data, and it must be tested under a variety of circumstances. Even then, while uncertainty of a theory is minimized; it is never zero. Hence, science is the constant process of trying to figure out how things might work.” — Dr. Marcia Wyatt, Earth Scientist

        1. SebastianH

          as you think human control of the Earth’s water temperatures, glacier melt, sea level rise, hurricane intensities, seawater pH values…has already been proven

          Nope, I don’t … but apparently you believe the opposite has been proven?

          You’re so certain that you call people “deniers” of truth if they dare disagree with you.

          Nope, disagreeing with me is not a qualifying trait of someone who is a denier. That’s entirely your imagination at work, Kenneth. And no, someone who disagrees with you is not automatically dishonest either in case you are thinking of calling me that again.

          as if the onus is on us to disprove that humans control climate rather than the other way around.

          You know, there is one discipline where actual proofs exist. It’s called math. In physics (and thus climate science) people go out and try to describe the world with equations and models. It only takes one instance to prove them wrong … yes, to actually “prove” them wrong. You can’t prove that your theory, model, equation is right ever. You can go out and show that is describes what we observe, not much more.

          So yes, the onus is indeed on you. You claim those theories and models are BS. So find a conclusive proof they are. So far nobody did, all you guys have, are conspiracy theories and supporting “scientists” which are so obviously wrong that a “skeptic” can’t resist supporting their claims. So man up, and finally and definetively prove that CO2 doesn’t cause warming by the amount that actual scientists deem most likely to be the case. Rally all your blog scientist friends and get to work. No amount of quote avalanche will solve this puzzle for you. Because if it has already been published, it would have changed history already. Those findings would not need discovery by you in a blog like this one. Don’t you think?

          P.S.: Why are you quoting someone who said “A hypothesis cannot be proven to be true; it can only be proved false.” while simultanously saying it is the job of those promoting the hypothesis to prove it false? You are against it being true, so is it your job to show that it is? That’s weird …

          1. Kenneth Richard

            as you think human control of the Earth’s water temperatures, glacier melt, sea level rise, hurricane intensities, seawater pH values…has already been proven

            Nope, I don’t … but apparently you believe the opposite has been proven?

            Um, you think that it needs to be proved that climate change/glacier melt/sea level rise is driven by factors other than anthropogenic CO2 emissions? Do you know what the null hypothesis is?

            “We have to conclude that there is no reliable scientific evidence to support the conclusions that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are even partly responsible for the recent warming. To do so, a null hypothesis ‘that there is nothing unusual or unnatural in the recent temperature rise of the last fifty years’ would have to be falsified at a greater than 95% level of confidence by real-world data. It has not been. Indeed, there is no evidence from the IPCC’s work that a null hypothesis was actually constructed in the first place. And this would explain the lack of effort at gathering data that would test such a model.”

            The actual path chosen has been via theoretical models based upon prior assumptions and which are not testable by traditional scientific methods. Moreover, as we have seen, the real-world data points to a greater role for natural causes than is attributed in the IPCC models.”

            Peter Taylor (2009), Chill, pg. 207

            And no, someone who disagrees with you is not automatically dishonest either in case you are thinking of calling me that again.

            I call what you write dishonest when you make up stuff and claim I’ve written it. The above comment is yet another example of this very duplicity. I have never called you dishonest for the act of disagreeing with me. That you just claimed that I have done/do that is itself dishonest.

            So yes, the onus is indeed on you.

            The onus is on me to do what?

            You claim those theories and models are BS.

            No, I have never characterized them that way. Instead, I write things like “the models are not supported by observations”, and then I support that statement with evidence from the scientific literature. Please stop making up stuff (“You claim those theories and models are BS”) and saying that I wrote it. That’s what’s dishonest.

            all you guys have, are conspiracy theories and supporting “scientists”

            We have 1,300 scientific papers published since 2016 that support a skeptical position on climate alarm. By putting scientists in quotes, can we assume that you believe scientists who publish papers that support skeptical positions are fake?

            So man up, and finally and definetively prove that CO2 doesn’t cause warming by the amount that actual scientists deem most likely to be the case.

            So funny. So I have to prove that CO2 doesn’t warm the Earth’s oceans by “the amount that actual scientists deem most likely to be the case”. And what, exactly, would that amount be, SebastianH? What’s the amount of warming of the Earth’s oceans that actual scientists “deem” will result from a CO2 increase of 50 ppm? Please be specific as to what this amount is.

      3. Kenneth Richard

        Natural variations have been quantified and aren’t enough to explain any temperature increase.

        Cloud cover variations alone and the concomitant positive radiative forcing values associated with these changes can explain the temperature increase since the 1980s. Of course, every time this is pointed out to you you decide to deny it.

        ftp://bbso.njit.edu/pub/staff/pgoode/website/publications/Palle_etal_2005a_GRL.pdf
        “Traditionally the Earth’s reflectance has been assumed to be roughly constant, but large decadal variability, not reproduced by current climate models, has been reported lately from a variety of sources. There is a consistent picture among all data sets by which the Earth’s albedo has decreased over the 1985-2000 interval. The amplitude of this decrease ranges from +2-3 W/m2 to +6-7 W/m2 but any value inside these ranges is highly climatologically significant and implies major changes in the Earth’s radiation budget.”

        https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-016-1829-3
        “The present paper describes how the entire series of global solar radiation (1987–2014) and diffuse radiation (1994–2014) were built, including the quality control process. Appropriate corrections to the diffuse component were made when a shadowband was employed to make measurements. Analysis of the series reveals that annual mean global irradiance presents a statistically significant increase of 2.5 W m−2 (1.4 %) decade−1 (1988–2014 period), mainly due to what occurs in summer (5.6 W m−2 decade−1). … Diffuse radiation has decreased at −1.3 W m−2 (−2 %) decade−1 (1994–2014 period), which is a further indication of the reduced cloudiness and/or aerosol load causing the changes.”

        1. SebastianH

          Cloud cover variations alone and the concomitant positive radiative forcing values associated with these changes can explain the temperature increase since the 1980s. Of course, every time this is pointed out to you you decide to deny it.

          See what you did here? You state this as a fact even though both paper you quoted thereafter contain only half the equation. We’ve been over this lots of times and I am still fascinated by how this got stuck in your mind somehow.

          The cloud cover variations aren’t good enough as an explanation. Especially not when the other skeptic cloud cover claim comes into play, that galactic cosmic rays are causing the cloud cover to change this way.

          Have you managed to explain to yourself how cloud cover decrease could have caused warming lately when the Sun got weaker over the past decade and cosmic rays thus should have caused more clouds to appear? Or is it the lag from the ocean again that is delaying this somehow? *sigh*

          Gettings off track. Since you believe the the believer of such a claim should also seek to disprove it, feel free to do that. Maybe start by looking at clouds as a feedback of temperature. More current cloud cover change data than the one available on climate4you (does it even exist?). Looking not only at the increased solar radiation reaching the surface, but also at the decrease in LW radiation towards the surface from less clouds. And so on … be skeptical! Do your “job”!

      4. spike55

        “Provide a single, consistent, credible, falsifiable hypothesis of how CO2 warms the earth.”

        WE are WAITING, seb. !!!

        Your petty evasions and distractions will not work.

      5. Kenneth Richard

        According to science the temperature should have decreased if everything were to be caused naturally.

        What “science” are you referring to that has positive radiative forcing values from natural cloud cover changes causing cooling?

        http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5556/841
        “It is widely assumed that variations in Earth’s radiative energy budget at large time and space scales are small. We present new evidence from a compilation of over two decades of accurate satellite data that the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) tropical radiative energy budget is much more dynamic and variable than previously thought. Results indicate that the radiation budget changes are caused by changes in tropical mean cloudiness.”

        http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/8505/2013/acp-13-8505-2013.html
        “[T]here has been a global net decrease [of 3.6%] in 340 nm cloud plus aerosol reflectivity [which has led 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 [between 1979 and 2011].”

        https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alejandro_Sanchez-Romero/publication/281448448_Trends_in_global_and_diffuse_solar_radiation_in_Spain_based_on_surface_observations_1981-2012/links/55e8155d08ae65b638996cf3.pdf
        “The linear trend in the mean annual series of global solar radiation shows a significant increase since the 1980s of around 10 Wm-2 over the whole 32-year study period. Similar significant increases are observed in the mean seasonal series, with the highest rate of absolute (relative) change during summer (autumn). These results are in line with the widespread increase of global solar radiation, also known as the brightening period, reported at many worldwide observation sites (e.g. Wild, 2009; Sanchez-Lorenzo et al., 2013b).”

        1. SebastianH

          What “science” are you referring to that has positive radiative forcing values from natural cloud cover changes causing cooling?

          You, the cloud cover and a collection of quotes. That saves the day, right?

          You just want me to post that pretty model based graph of the forcings so you can write something about models being awful again, not realizing that you just posted quotes from 3 papers that are based on models.

          Here you go:
          https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

          1. Kenneth Richard

            You just want me to post that pretty model based graph of the forcings so you can write something about models being awful again, not realizing that you just posted quotes from 3 papers that are based on models.

            Here you go:
            https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

            So after I provide links to a tiny fraction of the papers available that have satellite observations showing the cloud cover changes can explain the positive forcing/warming, you provide a link to a NASA page of modeling that has…no cloud radiative forcing changes included. How convenient. Did you know that they don’t include cloud cover changes and thought you could just post it anyway and hope we wouldn’t notice?

            you just posted quotes from 3 papers that are based on models.

            Cloud cover changes are based on satellite observations, which have only been available since the 1980s. And they not only explain the radiation budget changes since then…

            http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5556/841
            “It is widely assumed that variations in Earth’s radiative energy budget at large time and space scales are small. We present new evidence from a compilation of over two decades of accurate satellite data that the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) tropical radiative energy budget is much more dynamic and variable than previously thought. Results indicate that the radiation budget changes are caused by changes in tropical mean cloudiness.”

            …they explain the Greenland ice sheet melt…

            Hofer et al., 2017
            http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/6/e1700584
            Decreasing cloud cover drives the recent mass loss on the Greenland Ice Sheet
            We show, using satellite data and climate model output, that the abrupt reduction in surface mass balance since about 1995 can be attributed largely to a coincident trend of decreasing summer cloud cover enhancing the melt-albedo feedback.”

          2. SebastianH

            Did you know that they don’t include cloud cover changes and thought you could just post it anyway and hope we wouldn’t notice?

            Why would you think they are not included?

            Have you at anytime thought about what causes cloud cover changes? Are you still in the GCR believer camp?

          3. Kenneth Richard

            Why would you think they [cloud radiative forcing] are not included?

            The link you provided –> https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ –> does not include clouds as a natural factor in climate change. The list of forcings includes:

            WM GHGs
            ozone
            solar irradiance
            land use
            snow albedo
            orbital
            aerosols

            Clouds are conveniently not included on this page. That’s why I wrote “you provide a link to a NASA page of modeling that has…no cloud radiative forcing changes included.”

            Have you at anytime thought about what causes cloud cover changes?

            Cloud cover changes are naturally varying in our solar system. Cloud cover changes are not caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which is what I assume you believe.

          4. Yonason

            @Kenneth Richard 29. August 2018 at 12:56 AM

            Interesting that the link provided by the activist troll cites 7 papers. The first author on the first four papers is James Hansen, and the second author on the last 3 papers is Gavin Schmidt.

            Note also that “This page was written by Dr. Makiko Sato and Dr. Gavin Schmidt. (Last modified: 2018-06-26)” I.e., all material at that link was full of Schmidt.

            Hansen thoroughly perverted the temperature data base to show warming that wasn’t there, and Schmidt is known to be wrong (and worse) on lots of important points.

            http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/04/nasas-gavin-schmidts-lies-damned-lies.html

            https://realclimatescience.com/2017/01/smoking-gun-of-fraud-by-nasa-and-gavin-schmidt/

            http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06/10/meet-nasas-new-james-hansen-gavin-schmidt-the-man-who-hates-debate-loses-when-he-does-debate-has-been-criticized-by-prominent-scientists-for/

            Ask for facts we can all agree at least have some semblance of effort to be honest, and the troll gives us a helping of garbage. (nothing new there)

            Want more on why Schmidt can’t be trusted? Try this from Lubos Motl.
            https://motls.blogspot.com/2009/02/gavin-schmidt-is-his-own-mystery-woman.html

            “…when a paper claimed that phytoplankton destroys a lot of ozone, Gavin Schmidt argued that it didn’t matter. He proudly revealed that his favorite climate models neglected all of ozone (a top-five greenhouse gas) and probably most of the dynamics of the oceans (with their huge heat capacity).

            I said simply Wow. Get back to the graduate school, Gavin.”

            OUCH!

            And that was just the first hit. Read the rest for a spine tingling adventure into the dark recesses of climate lavatory science, especially the punch line at the end. Don’t forget to pull the Crapper cord on your way out.

            Can’t help but feel like you’re being abused? Well, maybe that’s because as long as our future is in the hands of creeps like him, we are.

            And that’s one of SebH’s top go-to guys for his info. No wonder he’s always wrong.

            And no, this is not “ad hom,” because before calling him a creep, I have brought proof that he is, unlike the troll who just gratuitously accuses people of things he or his creepy sources make up, with no proof at all.

          5. SebastianH

            Clouds are conveniently not included on this page.

            Well, use your imagination then. Where could the influence of clouds “hide” in those forcings?

            Cloud cover changes are naturally varying in our solar system. Cloud cover changes are not caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which is what I assume you believe.

            Try again … “naturally varying” is not a mechanism. What causes clouds to appear and disappear? Come on! I know you want to say it’s GCRs, so just do it 😉 Or can you imagine that cloud cover is also reacting to temperature?

            Why would cloud cover be caused by CO2 directly? Why would you assume anyone to believe that? It’s you who believes that GHGs should directly influence temperature, etc in a region and because they don’t the GHE would be nonsense. Learn how this stuff works, seriously!

          6. Yonason

            @Pierre

            My son told me the secret to stir frying kale. Use a generous helping of coconut oil. It makes it slide out of the wok and into the trash with ease.

          7. SebastianH

            Seb, off topic: Do you refrain from eating meat to help save the planet? It’s something you can do to help, you know. Or is that for everyone else to do, and not yourself?

            I do as much as I can to limit my footprint. I occasionally eat meat. Do you want to make me feel bad about it now? Or call me a hypocrite?

            Since we are off topic and Kenneth is constantly crying about high German electricity prices I’d like to know how many kWhs at what monthly price he consumes. Let’s compare that to the average German household costs for electricity 😉

          8. spike55

            Seb, there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE that CO2 influences ANYTHING about the climate.

            Natural variability RULES, there is ZERO reason to make any other outlandish, fabricated, “mechanism” that you are TOTALLY UNABLE to describe in any way resemble real science.

            And you have shown time and time again, that YOU haven’t got a clue how REALITY works.

            You live in mind-free FANTASY world, devoid of scientific relevance.

            Prove me wrong, by answering two simple questions… or just keep up your headless chook cackling !!

            Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

            Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

          9. SebastianH

            I have to say that I hold climate alarmists partly responsible for the wave of people who are getting sick from this way of nutrition. Being climate friendly is one of the main reasons people adopt this way of nourishment.

            I doubt that. I have a few vegan and vegitarian friends and though they care about transitioning to a more sustainable economy, they mainly are disgusted by meat and anything that comes out of an animal.

          10. spike55

            As I said, many vegan cultists are also AGW cultists.

            A vegan economy is NOT sustainable, any more than one powered by wind and solar is sustainable.

            The human body needs meat (or protein supplements), just like economies need reliable electricity.

          11. SebastianH

            As I said, many vegan cultists are also AGW cultists.

            1) calling anyone “cultists” who you dislike while yourself actually being in a cult is a bit strange, don’t you think?
            2) I live in a bubble with zero people doubting that climate change exists and that transitioning to a more sustainable economy is a good thing. I actually know not one person in real life that acts like you guys do. That’s why I’m here. And I suspect you live in similar bubbles where everyone is just like you. That’s why you are like you are … full of hatred towards the sensible position on this topic.

            A vegan economy is NOT sustainable, any more than one powered by wind and solar is sustainable.

            The human body needs meat (or protein supplements), just like economies need reliable electricity.

            They all take supplements especially for B12. What is the problem with that? As with economies using large amounts of renewables you don’t seem to like people eating no meat for whatever reason. That is just weird.

      6. Kenneth Richard

        as if we didn’t know about what our emissions are causing. That’s fine, but commonly called being in denial.

        Considering we have natural mechanisms to explain the warming, and that the warming doesn’t fall outside the range of natural variability (i.e., it has been much warmer than now without CO2 increases), what, exactly, are you accusing others of being “in denial” about? It’s not as if natural variability has been “ruled out”.

        1. SebastianH

          Considering we have natural mechanisms to explain the warming

          No, we don’t. That’s what you believe you have.

          and that the warming doesn’t fall outside the range of natural variability (i.e., it has been much warmer than now without CO2 increases),

          Wow, many more people have died of preventable diseases in the past, does that mean the people dying in mass shootings today are also likely dying from those diseases because their number doesn’t fall outside the past ranges? What a strange logic.

          what, exactly, are you accusing others of being “in denial” about?

          “basically searching for excuses to continue as if everything were alright and as if we didn’t know about what our emissions are causing” … apparently I need to selfquote as you missed the first part of that sentence.

          It’s not as if natural variability has been “ruled out”.

          Yes it has, I’ll post that link again for your amusement:
          https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

          1. Kenneth Richard

            Considering we have natural mechanisms to explain the warming

            No, we don’t. That’s what you believe you have.

            In what way is it a belief that observations from satellites indicate radiation budget changes are explained by tropical mean cloudiness changes? Are cloud cover changes unnatural, or caused by humans?

            http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5556/841
            “It is widely assumed that variations in Earth’s radiative energy budget at large time and space scales are small. We present new evidence from a compilation of over two decades of accurate satellite data that the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) tropical radiative energy budget is much more dynamic and variable than previously thought. Results indicate that the radiation budget changes are caused by changes in tropical mean cloudiness.”

            http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/8505/2013/acp-13-8505-2013.html
            “[T]here has been a global net decrease [of 3.6%] in 340 nm cloud plus aerosol reflectivity [which has led 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 [between 1979 and 2011].”

            https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alejandro_Sanchez-Romero/publication/281448448_Trends_in_global_and_diffuse_solar_radiation_in_Spain_based_on_surface_observations_1981-2012/links/55e8155d08ae65b638996cf3.pdf
            “The linear trend in the mean annual series of global solar radiation shows a significant increase since the 1980s of around 10 Wm-2 over the whole 32-year study period. Similar significant increases are observed in the mean seasonal series, with the highest rate of absolute (relative) change during summer (autumn). These results are in line with the widespread increase of global solar radiation, also known as the brightening period, reported at many worldwide observation sites (e.g. Wild, 2009; Sanchez-Lorenzo et al., 2013b).”

            Wow, many more people have died of preventable diseases in the past, does that mean the people dying in mass shootings today are also likely dying from those diseases because their number doesn’t fall outside the past ranges?

            No.

            Now what do mass shootings and preventable diseases have to do with the natural variability of the Earth’s climate system?

            “basically searching for excuses to continue as if everything were alright and as if we didn’t know about what our emissions are causing”

            If we know what are emissions are causing, why is it that, for example, a human influence on glacier melt in the Arctic has not even become detectable above natural variability?

            http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v9/n7/full/ngeo2748.html
            “Notably, the three studies [Jackson et al., 2016; Böning et al., 2016; Robson et al., 2016] report an absence of anthropogenic effects on the AMOC, at least so far: the directly observed AMOC weakening since 2004 is not consistent with the hypothesis that anthropogenic aerosols have affected North Atlantic ocean temperatures. The midlatitude North Atlantic temperature changes since 2005 have greater magnitude and opposite sign (cooling) than those attributed to ocean uptake of anthropogenic heat. The anthropogenic melt from the Greenland ice sheet is still too small to be detected. And despite large changes in the freshwater budget of the Arctic, some of which are anthropogenic, there is no clear change in the delivery of Arctic freshwater to the North Atlantic due to human climate forcing.”

            https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/6A/SpecialEdition/6A_SpecialEdition_1/_pdf
            “Since the decadal variation of the AO is recognized as the natural variability of the global atmosphere, it is shown that both of decadal variabilities before and after 1989 in the Arctic can be mostly explained by the natural variability of the AO not by the external response due to the human activity.”

          2. Kenneth Richard

            ———————————–

            It’s not as if natural variability has been “ruled out”.

            Yes it has, I’ll post that link again for your amusement:
            https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

            Interestingly, cloud cover changes per satellite observation are excluded from those models of radiative forcing. How convenient for NASA GISS to “forget” to count the primary cause of radiation budget changes.

            Do you understand what it means to scientifically rule something out? It probably means that we need to have uncertainty in radiatiative forcing values and error bars that are not 10 to 100 times greater than the radiative forcing values attributed to anthropogenic CO2. But who cares about uncertainty and error bars, right? Dismiss them. Belief is enough.

            Uncertainties, Errors In Radiative Forcing Estimates 10 – 100 Times Larger Than Entire Radiative Effect Of Increasing CO2

          3. SebastianH

            In what way is it a belief that observations from satellites indicate radiation budget changes are explained by tropical mean cloudiness changes?

            You believe that this explains that this is a natural mechanism explaining the warming. What causes the cloud cover to change, Kenneth? Galactic cosmic rays? 😉

            What is the natural mechanism exactly that explains the cloud cover change that you believe is enough to explain all warming (and cooling) because you still ignore that there is more to a changing cloud cover than just a varying amount of solar radiation reaching the surface.

            Now what do mass shootings and preventable diseases have to do with the natural variability of the Earth’s climate system?

            The typical Kenneth reply to analogies like this. Do you remember Ed Berry and his claims about CO2? Have you at least understood what he tried to explain with his analogies?

            If we know what are emissions are causing, why is it that, for example, a human influence on glacier melt in the Arctic has not even become detectable above natural variability?

            Because a regional warming (anywhere) could as well be natural. Let’s try another analogy. We have a fixed amount of mobile heaters in our home. When I take one to warm up the bathroom, the room where I took the heater from cools. So far so good? Now I buy another heater to prevent that from happening and put in that cooling room. Problem solved! But how can I attribute the warming in the bathroom to that newly bought heater? I could have put the new heater into the bathroom instead of using the old one. The outcome would have been the same. No way for an outsider who has not observed me while setting up the heaters to identify what room the new heater caused to be warmer, but we know that the new heater increased the number of warm rooms.

            Understood? Or are you going to reply with what heater have to do with global warming and anthropogenic attribution? 😉

          4. Kenneth Richard

            What causes the cloud cover to change, Kenneth? Galactic cosmic rays?

            Though inconclusive, that’s what more and more climate/solar scientists are suggesting, yes. Do you think that humans cause cloud cover changes?

            Govil et al., 2018
            https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1873965217301457
            “The spectral analysis of the sedimentological parameters reveals the significant periodicities (>95% significance) centering at ∼1067, ∼907, and ∼824 years. The long-term trends in the data suggest the possible fluctuation of Antarctic ice-sheet superimposed on global climatic fluctuations due to solar activity. … The curiosity of climate scientists arises on the mechanism of reaction of the climate system in response to the changes in solar forcing. There are two possible mechanisms proposed which work through the atmospheric processes. The first mechanism includes the action of the ozone layer by increasing more UV radiations with increased solar activity. It must have raised the temperature in the stratosphere which produces stronger winds in lower stratosphere and troposphere. These strong winds in the troposphere result in the relocation of pressure cells and storm tracks which ultimately disturbs the climate system (Schindell et al., 1999; Crosta et al., 2007). The second proposed mechanism considers the cosmic rays and cloud cover responsible for amplifying the climate forcing (Svensmark, 2000). High solar activity is believed to be responsible for less cooling of the lower atmosphere due to reduced cloud cover (Marsh and Svensmar,, 2000). Conversely, low solar activity is believed to provide additional cooling of the lower atmosphere. These two feedback mechanisms responsible for the climatic forcing due to solar activity may work alone or in conjugation and are also superposed to other climate forcing as well as variability of internal cycling (Rind, 2002). Further, the periodic increase in solar activity results in increased temperature in the lower atmosphere which causes melting of ice-sheets in the Antarctic region. It may further provide the periodicity in freshwater discharge in the Schirmacher lakes and hence regulates the depositional environment of the studies lake.”

            Tomicic et al., 2018
            https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/5921/2018/acp-18-5921-2018.pdf
            Secondary aerosol particles, which are formed by nucleation processes in the atmosphere, play an important role in atmospheric chemistry and in the Earth’s climate system. They affect the Earth’s radiation balance by scattering solar radiation back to space and can also act as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) and thereby affect the amount of cloud and its radiative properties. Clouds have a net cooling effect on the Earth’s radiation budget of about −27.7 W m−2 (Hartmann, 1993). Thus, a small change in cloud properties can have significant effect on the climate system. Results by Merikanto et al. (2009) and Yu and Luo (2009) have shown that a significant fraction (ranging between 31 and 70 %) of cloud-forming aerosol particles in the atmosphere are secondary particles that originate from nucleation. Therefore, understanding nucleation is crucial in order to fully understand the atmospheric and climatic effects of aerosols.”

            Frigo et al., 2018
            https://www.ann-geophys.net/36/555/2018/angeo-36-555-2018.pdf
            “In this work, we investigate the relationship between the ∼ 11-year and ∼ 22-year cycles that are related to solar activity and GCRs [galactic cosmic rays] and the annual average temperature recorded between 1936 and 2014 at two weather stations, both located near a latitude of 26◦ S but at different longitudes. … Sunspot data and the solar modulation potential for cosmic rays were used as proxies for the solar activity and the GCRs, respectively. Our investigation of the influence of decadal and bidecadal cycles in temperature data was carried out using the wavelet transform coherence (WTC) spectrum. The results indicate that periodicities of 11 years may have continuously modulated the climate at TOR [Torres, Brazil] via a nonlinear mechanism … . The obtained results offer indirect mathematical evidence that solar activity and GCR variations contributed to climatic changes in southern Brazil during the last century. The contribution of other mechanisms also related to solar activity cannot be excluded.”

            Utomo, 2017
            http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/817/1/012045/pdf
            “A similar result was also found for the relationship between solar activity and cosmic ray flux with a negative correlation, i.e. 0.69/year. When solar activities decrease, the clouds cover rate increase due-0.61/month and – to secondary ions produced by cosmic rays. The increase in the cloud cover rate causes the decrease in solar constant value and solar radiation on the earth’s surface. … The increase in the formation rate of cloud would affect the decrease in the intensity of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface. The relationship between cosmic rays and solar constant is an “opposite” relationship because of the negative correlation type (r < 0). The phenomenon of “opposite” is in a good agreement with the result by Svensmark (1997) who found a correlation between temperature and global cloud coverage with the cosmic rays. … [T]he climate also depends on variations in the flux of solar energy received by the earth’s surface. Variation in the solar energy flux is caused by variations in solar activity cycle. Thus the climate is a manifestation of how solar radiation is absorbed, redistributed by the atmosphere, land and oceans, and ultimately radiated back into space. Every variation of solar energy received at the earth’s surface and reradiated by the earth into space will have a direct impact on climate change on Earth."

            Biktash, 2017
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090123217300334
            The effects of total solar irradiance (TSI) and volcanic activity on long-term global temperature variations during solar cycles 19–23 [1954-2008] were studied. It was shown that a large proportion of climate variations can be explained by the mechanism of action of TSI [total solar irradiance] and cosmic rays (CRs) on the state of the lower atmosphere and other meteorological parameters. … Recent studies by Pudovkin and Raspopov, Tinsley, and Swensmark have shown that the Earth’s cloud coverage is strongly influenced by cosmic ray intensity. Conditions in interplanetary space, which can influence GCRs and climate change, have been studied in numerous works. As has been demonstrated by Biktash, the long-term CR count rate and global temperature variations in 20–23 solar cycles are modulated by solar activity and by the IMF (interplanetary magnetic field). A possible geophysical factor which is able to affect the influence of solar activity on the Earth’s climate is volcanism. The effects of volcanism can lead to serious consequences in the atmosphere and the climate.”

            Wilson and Sidorenkov, 2018
            https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/a-lunisolar-connection-to-weather-and-climate-i-centennial-times-scales-2157-7617-1000446.pdf
            “The fact that the periods of eight out of nine of the most prominent peaks in the lunar alignment spectrum (highlighted column 3 of Table 2) closely match those in the spectra of ϕm [solar modulation potentional] and Tm [maximum daily temperature], strongly supports the contention that all three of these phenomena are closely related to one another. … principal component analyses of the 10Be and 14C records show that, on multi-decadal to centennial time scales, the radionuclide production signal accounts for 76% of the total variance in the data [18,19]. This would imply that there is a causal link between Tm [maximum daily temperature] and near-Earth GCR flux, with a factor related to the latter driving the former.”

            SebastianH: “Because a regional warming (anywhere) could as well be natural.”

            Correct. And that is why it is inconsistent for you to “reject GCR-cloud models is that the GCR flux hitting the Earth needs to produce changes in the total amount of cloud cover over the majority of the globe in order to significantly affect the world mean temperature”, as cloud cover changes are regional, and thus they affect different regions of the globe differently.

            Wilson and Sidorenkov, 2018 continued…
            An implicit assumption that is used by those who reject GCR [galactic cosmic rays]-cloud models is that the GCR flux hitting the Earth needs to produce changes in the total amount of cloud cover over the majority of the globe in order to significantly affect the world mean temperature. However, this assumption ignores the possibility that regional changes in the amount of cloud cover could influence the rate at which the Earth’s climate system warms or cools. Of course, for this to be true there would have to be observational evidence that shows that the GCR flux can affect the level of cloud cover on a regional scale. Support for this hypothesis is provided [23] who claim that existing multi-decadal ground-based datasets for clouds show that there is a weak but significant correlation between the amounts of regional cloud cover and the overall level of GCR fluxes. In addition, Larken et al. [2010] find that there is a strong and robust positive correlation between statistically significant variations in the short-term (daily) GCR ray flux and the most rapid decreases in cloud cover over the mid-latitudes (30° – 60° N/S). Moreover, Larken et al. [2010] find that there is a direct causal link between the observed cloud changes and changes in the sea level atmospheric temperature, over similar time periods.”

            Let’s try another analogy.

            Let’s not. Your analogies are consistently so irrelevant that I don’t even both to read them.

          5. spike55

            “Do you think that humans cause cloud cover changes?”

            Of course they do, K.

            Haven’t you seen all though pictures of cooling towers pumping H2O into the atmosphere, thus reducing cloud cover 😉

            (trying to use AGW logic, sorry)

            seb, Eb Berry used RELEVANT, rational, coherent analogies.

            You.. well, let’s just say that rational thought and relevance is not part of being you.

          6. SebastianH

            Though inconclusive, that’s what more and more climate/solar scientists are suggesting, yes.

            That’s not what climate science as a field suggest though. It’s more or like the few scientists that confirm your bias that suggest this. If you dig deeper you’ll find, GCR an not controlling cloud cover to any significant amount. No amount of citing Svensmark will change this.

            Do you think that humans cause cloud cover changes?

            Nope, why would I? Temperature and humidity does. Now who affects temperature the most these days?

            SebastianH: “Because a regional warming (anywhere) could as well be natural.”

            Correct. And that is why it is inconsistent for you to “reject GCR-cloud models is that the GCR flux hitting the Earth needs to produce changes in the total amount of cloud cover over the majority of the globe in order to significantly affect the world mean temperature”, as cloud cover changes are regional, and thus they affect different regions of the globe differently.

            Wait what? I am rejecting GCRs as the all controling cloud force. Are you suggesting GCRs only cause regional cloud cover change? How would that work? And on the topic of that working, did the cloud cover recently decrease even more despite the Sun weakening and thus GCRs becoming “stronger”? Is that what caused the 21st century warming? That’s an inconsistency you can wonder about.

            Be a skeptic for once. Examine what Svensmark & Co are claiming.

            Let’s not. Your analogies are consistently so irrelevant that I don’t even both to read them.

            So you don’t understand it or don’t want to understand it. Got it. You don’t want to be convinced, your mind is already set. No amount of examples, evidence and real observations will change what you belief.

          7. Kenneth Richard

            That’s not what climate science as a field suggest though.

            What’s “as a field” mean? There are hundreds of scientific papers attributing cloud cover modulation to the the Earth’s magnetic field/GCRs. The best that can be said for your “case” is that this “field” is still under construction.

            Do you think that humans cause cloud cover changes?

            Nope, why would I? Temperature and humidity does. Now who affects temperature the most these days?

            Wow. You are so ensconced in your beliefs that you can’t even detect the circularity here. So (1) humans don’t cause cloud cover changes. (2) Rising temperatures cause cloud cover changes. (3) Humans “affect temperature the most these days” (your belief). So rising temperatures, caused by humans, causes cloud cover changes. But, simultaneously, cloud cover changes are not caused by humans (“Nope, why would I [believe that]?”). Oh, the illogical lengths you go to.

            I am rejecting GCRs as the all controling cloud force.

            No one has suggested that GCRs are the “all controlling cloud force”. You’ve just made up another straw man, of course.

            Your analogies are consistently so irrelevant that I don’t even both to read them.

            So you don’t understand it or don’t want to understand it. Got it.

            The hubris you have in suggesting that your irrelevant analogies about bathrooms and bank accounts and whatever else are even remotely “instructional” is loathsome. SebastianH, I do not view you as the least bit knowledgeable on matters of cloud radiative forcing. That you think I view you as superior in knowledge and understanding on these matters is patently ridiculous.

            No amount of examples, evidence and real observations will change what you belief.

            Your analogies offer “evidence and real observations”?! Unbelievable!

          8. spike55

            “No amount of examples, evidence and real observations.”

            And that is exactly what you produce… ZERO amount of evidence and real observations.

            Where are “the examples” for CO2 warming, seb?

            Where is “the evidence” for CO2 warming, seb?

            Where are “the observations” of CO2 warming, seb.

            Your statement is, as always, a meaningless fantasy.

        2. SebastianH

          Interestingly, cloud cover changes per satellite observation are excluded from those models of radiative forcing. How convenient for NASA GISS to “forget” to count the primary cause of radiation budget changes.

          The models are simulating clouds. Why do you think they don’t?

          1. Kenneth Richard

            The models are simulating clouds.

            The link you provided –> https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ –> does not include clouds as a natural factor in climate change. The list of forcings includes:

            WM GHGs
            ozone
            solar irradiance
            land use
            snow albedo
            orbital
            aerosols

            Clouds are conveniently not included on this page. That’s why I wrote “you provide a link to a NASA page of modeling that has…no cloud radiative forcing changes included.”

          2. spike55

            and anyone that thinks solar irradiance is the only solar effect, really shows just how IGNORANT they are.

            But that’s GISS for you.

      7. Kenneth Richard

        if anything the mechanisms found and described by climate science are consistent. It is up to you to find instances where it doesn’t work this way

        Let’s count the ways…

        Uncertainties, Errors In Radiative Forcing Estimates 10 – 100 Times Larger Than Entire Radiative Effect Of Increasing CO2

        1. The IPCC acknowledged that 111 of 114 climate models failed to simulate temperatures in AR5. The IPCC originally (1990) claimed temperatures would warm by 0.2 to 0.5 C per decade, with a central estimate of 0.3 C per decade. It’s warmed by less than half that rate.

        2. Nearly all climate models had Antarctic sea ice declining. It has been growing since 1979, defying the modeling.

        3. They used to call the conceptualization of the poles warming faster than the rest of the Earth (due to the greenhouse effect) “polar amplification”. Since Antarctica and the Southern Ocean haven’t warmed since the 1970s, now they call it “Arctic amplification”.

        4. The models said that hurricane frequencies and intensities would increase with warming. Hurricanes have become less frequent and there have been no intensification trends — as admitted by the IPCC.

        5. The IPCC acknowledged in AR5 that despite models that say otherwise, there have been no trends in increased storm intensities, droughts, or floods.

        6. Despite decades of attempting to locate it, no tropospheric “hot spot” has been observed.

        7. The models predicted that the atmosphere would warm faster than the surface (since that’s where the GHGs are). The surface has warmed faster than the atmosphere (mostly because it’s easier to tamper with surface data, and due to UHI effects).

        8. During the first 8 years of using ARGO, the ocean was cooling. Since this didn’t fit the models, they “corrected” ocean cooling. In other words, since the observations didn’t fit the models, they changed the observations. Same way with sea level rise. In the early 2000s, it was noticed that sea level rise was not accelerating when considering tide gauge data (and it had decelerated relative to the first half of the 20th century). So they devised a new way to “measure” sea level rise (altimetry), and suddenly 1.5 mm/yr was transformed into 3.4 mm/yr. Again, when the observations don’t fit the models, they change the observations.

        9. The models can’t explain why the Arctic was just as warm during the 1920s to 1940s as it is today. Or why the Arctic cooled for 50 years afterwards.

        10. The models can’t explain why NH temperatures plunged by -0.5 or -0.6 C during 1940-1970. Since they couldn’t, the cooling was made to disappear…and changed into a pause.

        11. The models (as per Thomas et al., 2004) say global warming will cause more than a million animals to go extinct by 2050. Since 2000, only one animal has gone extinct.

        http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17826898
        “It is possible to count the number of species known to be extinct. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) does just that. It has listed 801 animal and plant species (mostly animal) known to have gone extinct since 1500. … According to IUCN data, only one animal has been definitely identified as having gone extinct since 2000. It was a mollusc.”


        12. The IPCC claimed that the Himalayan glaciers would “disappear” by 2035. A recent study indicated they are predominantly stable with very little melting.

        13. Large regions of the Earth, including much of the Southern Hemisphere, and several regions in the Northern Hemisphere, have not warmed in decades. This shouldn’t happen with well-mixed greenhouse gases.

        14. With Mann’s hockey stick shown to be fraudulent, and 100s of reconstructions showing modern temperatures are only slightly warmer than the coldest centuries of the Holocene (the Little Ice Age) and still cooler than most of the Holocene, climate models cannot explain how or why an anthropogenic signal can be distinguished from natural variability.

        1. SebastianH

          That’s an impressive list, I’ll save the permalink and hope to find the time to come back to this one. That could be a good basis for a Kenneth FAQ some day.

          Let’s see how far I get:

          1. The IPCC acknowledged that 111 of 114 climate models failed to simulate temperatures in AR5. The IPCC originally (1990) claimed […]

          So the claim is what? That you can’t improve predictions ever? You need to stick to them forever? Tell that to Pierre who thinks we will see a temperature anomaly of -2.x °C by 2020.

          2. Nearly all climate models had Antarctic sea ice declining. It has been growing since 1979, defying the modeling.

          Antarctica is losing ice mass pretty fast. But you are writing about the sea ice extent, I think. I don’t know where you see growth in this:
          http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/mean:12 … maybe stuck in 2015? Oh you mean the period before 2014?

          3. They used to call the conceptualization of the poles warming faster than the rest of the Earth (due to the greenhouse effect) “polar amplification”. Since Antarctica and the Southern Ocean haven’t warmed since the 1970s, now they call it “Arctic amplification”.

          The poles are warming, unevenly, but they are warming. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07669
          “West Antarctic warming exceeds 0.1 °C per decade over the past 50 years, and is strongest in winter and spring. Although this is partly offset by autumn cooling in East Antarctica, the continent-wide average near-surface temperature trend is positive.”

          4. The models said that hurricane frequencies and intensities would increase with warming.

          They are increasing during the satellite area.
          https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/files/user_files/gav/publications/vss_08_diverge.pdf
          https://www.nature.com/articles/nature03906
          https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/changes-hurricanes
          And so on … but I’m sure you’ll reply something along the lines of models being bad, right?

          5. The IPCC acknowledged in AR5 that despite models that say otherwise, there have been no trends in increased storm intensities, droughts, or floods.

          Really? All I can find on a short search is that it’s not possible to attribute the trends to human causes, while it seems to be pretty straight forward that humans causing warming and thus increased SSTs indirectly cause the storm trend.

          6. Despite decades of attempting to locate it, no tropospheric “hot spot” has been observed.

          Oh dear …

          7. The models predicted that the atmosphere would warm faster than the surface (since that’s where the GHGs are). The surface has warmed faster than the atmosphere (mostly because it’s easier to tamper with surface data, and due to UHI effects).

          Which models? Who predicted this? Has it been corrected since back then? And are you sure that what you say is the case? I think I have never read anywhere that the atmosphere is supposed to warm faster than the surface. GHGs cause the surface to warm which in turn causes atmospheric warming since the lapse rate changes. “since that’s where the GHGs are” is a rather interesting way of saying “I don’t have a clue”.

          8. During the first 8 years of using ARGO, the ocean was cooling. Since this didn’t fit the models, they “corrected” ocean cooling. In other words, since the observations didn’t fit the models, they changed the observations. […] So they devised a new way to “measure” sea level rise (altimetry), and suddenly 1.5 mm/yr was transformed into 3.4 mm/yr.

          Oh double dear … “everything is fake anyway” (trademark) at work again. I know you are not a fan of adjustments, but do you at least understand why some adjustments might be needed for the raw data that gets collected? Same way as you think scientists are changing measurements to fit their models as a last resort, it seems like this claim being the last resort of “skeptics” like you. If nothing helps, the adjustments must be wrong … right?

          9. The models can’t explain why the Arctic was just as warm during the 1920s to 1940s as it is today. Or why the Arctic cooled for 50 years afterwards.

          I guess nobody can explain this, because that is not the case. But your link tells the “everything is fake anyway” story again, so … whatever you believe to be true then.

          11. The models (as per Thomas et al., 2004) say global warming will cause more than a million animals to go extinct by 2050. Since 2000, only one animal has gone extinct.

          Link doesn’t work. And I do think there is a difference between “species committed to extinction” and “animals to go extinct”. A rather large difference.

          12. The IPCC claimed that the Himalayan glaciers would “disappear” by 2035. A recent study indicated they are predominantly stable with very little melting.

          Oh the 2035 thing again. Hasn’t been corrected, right? A quick Google search find the Karakorum to be pretty stable and all other Himalayan glaciers to be melting at about the global average (of glaciers melting).

          13. Large regions of the Earth, including much of the Southern Hemisphere, and several regions in the Northern Hemisphere, have not warmed in decades. This shouldn’t happen with well-mixed greenhouse gases.

          No, what should not happen is that someone misunderstands the mechanisms of the GHE and the warming this causes like this. Learn how this stuff works and don’t imagine that the atmosphere should warm because that’s where the GHGs are or that every place on Earth should become warmer when the CO2 concentration in the atmospheric column above it increases. That’s not how it works, not at all.

          14. With Mann’s hockey stick shown to be fraudulent,

          Oh triple dear …

          and 100s of reconstructions showing modern temperatures are only slightly warmer than the coldest centuries of the Holocene (the Little Ice Age) and still cooler than most of the Holocene,

          One of your core beliefs, right?

          climate models cannot explain how or why an anthropogenic signal can be distinguished from natural variability.

          Oh yes they can. I’ll post that link again so you can reply something about models being bad:
          https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

          Made it. Hope this doesn’t land in the spam folder. Good night.

          1. spike55

            1.Even IPCC admits their climate models are USELESS

            2. Antarctic is NOT losing ice fast. The only place there is any loss in over the VOLCANIC regions, NOTHING to do with human anything

            3. Only warming in Arctic this century has been from the El Nino.. Gone now. Antarctic is COOLING except over volcanic region.

            4.NO trend in storms, droughts, floods.. as stated by IPCC, and the real data.

            5.NO trend in storms, droughts, floods.. as stated by IPCC, and the REAL DATA.

            6.NO hot spot found… end of story

            7. seb doesn’t even know which models. Seems he is IGNORANT of climate models. ZERO EVIDENCE of CO2 warming anything anywhere, anytime.

            8.Raw ARGO showed cooling, Temperature rise of ONLY 0.08C in top 2000m world-wide, compared the drop of 3-4 degrees leading up to the LIA. INSIGNIFICANT.

            9.Yes it is the case in real data seb, stop LYING. 1940s was about the same as now, 1970s was the coolest period since the climb out of the LIA.

            10. —

            11.Only one known species extinction since 2000, maybe. Stop your moronic fantasies.

            12.Himalayan glaciers still FAR above their pre LIA levels.

            13.Facts HURT you don’t they seb, Large areas are NOT WARMING.. GET OVER IT.

            14. Mann’s HS is BS, Proven fraudulent.. stop DENYING FACTS, seb.

            Your comment definitely belongs in the SPAM/TROLL folder, because that is all it is.

            DENIAL of facts and real data from start to finish.. But that is all you have to stop your mind going further into a complete mental breakdown by forced to face REALITY.

          2. SebastianH

            This peak into your version of reality is fascinating and frightening, spikey …

            I wonder what is needed to become like this and just be against everything and twist around reality like this to make it fit to your belief. Just wow.

            Then again, I’ve just read your discussion with Ferdinand about the CO2 increase. That made understanding your mindset a bit easier.

          3. spike55

            FACTS are my mindset seb, NOT FANTASY.

            Your juvenile attempts to avoid FACTS shows you have no mind to set.

            It is noted that, as usual, you cannot counter one single one of the FACTS above.

          4. spike55

            “I wonder what is needed to become like this and just be against everything and twist around reality like this to make it fit to your belief.”

            Your house is full of mirrors, seb.

            Your ego and arrogance are so blinding that you only see yourself.

            Your “REALITY” is that of a manic hallucinogenic Grimm Bros or Lewis Carroll rewrite.

        2. Yonason

          Species Extinction

          Thanks, Kenneth, for the BBC link.

          For others who may not have seen them when I posted them before, here are a couple of my links on the topic.

          http://www.john-daly.com/press/#species

          https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2017/09/10/thought-to-be-extinct-when-science-is-wrong/

          Scare stories get so much more attention than those telling people it’s not as bad as the harbingers of doom want them to believe.

      8. spike55

        “as if we didn’t know about what our emissions are causing.”

        Stop with the unsupportable anti-science CLAP-TRAP, seb.

        You have ZERO EVIDENCE of anything except CO2 causing enhanced plant growth

        YOU DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING.

        You say you know, then FFS grow some b***s and answer these questions !!

        Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

        Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

        Your headless chook EVASIONS have gone on long enough.

        Time for you to PUT UP.. or LEAVE.

  3. Bitter&twisted

    Don’t You love the way the media keep rolling out that discredited fossil, Shellhumper?

  4. Penelope

    All intelligence operations like the global warming hoax have
    — a purpose (contributing to the developing global oligarchy thru appeal to a catastophre to great for individual govts.)
    — counter operations to discredit those who unveil the op or the facts underlying its plausibility.
    — counter ops to control this opposition

    In this case, the small aid given to those who oppose the op discredits AND controls: Heartland is deafeningly silent on who is behind the AGW hoax and its purpose.

    If Big Oil did NOT support the hoax, if Big Oil wished to support expansion of the use of fossil fuels, can you imagine the resources that wd be brought to bear to defeat the AGW op?

    “While this report sheds significant light on the who and the how, the truly outrageous nature of these complex arrangements are only understood by exploring the why. This report articulates several possible reasons for the convoluted and secretive structure of the far-left
    environmental movement; yet, at the end of the day, we are still asking – why? Why are members of the Billionaire’s Club going to such extreme lengths to hide their generous support
    of supposed charitable causes?”
    — From The Environmental Chain of Command, a Senate report.

  5. spike55
  6. Yonason

    TRICKS OF THE TRADE

    EIKE spokesman’s strange denial
    . . . .
    . . . .
    I contacted EIKE to inquire why spokesman Lüdecke would say such a thing. EIKE blamed it on ‘confusion’.”

    One trick American media use is to ask someone a lot of question, then edit out what they don’t want the audience to hear. They are able to make people appear to be answering one question when they are really answering another. They are very dishonest. I’ve read where there are some poeple who have refused to be interviewed unless they could tape it themselves, just in case.

    Not saying that’s what they did, but given how often it’s done by unscrupulous “journalists,” it may be worth considering as a possibility.

    1. SebastianH

      Oh like what you guys do when you quote out of context and get angry when I demonstrate to you how that feels? 😉

      Good night, enjoy your conspiracy theories while they last.

      1. spike55

        Not theories, seb, FACTS.

        Out there front and centre, as spoken by YOUR AGW priests.

  7. Yonason

    WARMISTS EXPOSED

    They are about as corrupt as they could be.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYAy871w9t8

    It’s not a conspiracy. They really are that bad.

  8. Yonason

    Oh, yes, mustn’t forget to post on this.

    Oreskes has her own 97% nonsense, which like that of John Cook, has also been debunked.
    https://www.masterresource.org/heartland-institute-joe-bast/false-consensus-97-percent/

    https://motls.blogspot.com/2005/05/oreskes-study-errata.html

    And, just for fun.
    http://leftexposed.org/2016/07/naomi-oreskes/

  9. Penelope

    MGJ, Thank you for such concise good sense. The only problem is that science does NOT rule in the face of determined political intention. Can you imagine any group of dictatorial mind being stopped by scientific knowledge? Or, indeed, by any class of truth?

    And this time the bad guys have control of most media, and truly incredible funds with which to purchase politicians. CIA was actually created by them, and are an important arm in carrying out their program.

    I depend on you brainy guys to realize that science alone– without even an open media– cannot win. I understand that science is clean, and that we all long to remain within her arms. But we have another responsibility too. It’s called self-govt & no one else can do it for us.

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