NOAA Data Shows Arctic Ice At Its Lowest In 1500 Years


We have been following the overwhelming evidence of drastic climate change, but few studies are as striking as the most report from NOAA’s Arctic research program.  The annual Arctic Report Card  that we have reached the highest loss of Arctic ice in 1500 years. Recently discussed the controversial statements of Administration officials like Energy Secretary Rick Perry on the U.S. offering a better future through fossil fuels.  These studies show a potentially catastrophic future as our climate continues to change exponentially.

Among the findings is that the average surface air temperature for the year ending September 2016 is by far the highest since 1900.  Look at this data:


Sea ice during this period is the second lowest in the satellite record, which started in 1979.


NOAA is respected worldwide for its analysis and it has concluded that the changes being observed in the Arctic are unprecedented in human history.

The Arctic is now warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world.


This, according to scientist Emily Osborne, is “the largest magnitude decline in sea ice, and the greatest sustained rate in sea ice decline in that 1,500-year record.”

508 thoughts on “NOAA Data Shows Arctic Ice At Its Lowest In 1500 Years

  1. David writes: “Eminent climatologist James Hansen is a Republican.”

    David, what does being a Republican have to do with being a scientist and producing real science as opposed to pseudo-science and lies? Are you saying Democratic scientists are liars?

    Science is not politics until a group of scientists prevents alternative ideas from joining the crowd such as what happens at some universities.

    • I would be completely shocked if Hansen was registered republican or ever voted for a republican. But I have no evidence he is a democrat (or republican) There is evidence however that he politically admires socialist systems, making the odds of his being a republican slim.

    • I just pointed out that Jim Hansen stated that he was a Republican. I mentioned that to counter falsities given below.

      Please do not assume implications which are not present.

      • David, it was just a little strange for you to make such an announcement that someone was a Republican. A number of Republicans have socialist inclinations as well. What did I assume?

        I think too many people get a little to bent out of shape when there is too much talk about CO2. Maybe the CO2 displaces all the O2 and some people’s brains become oxygen starved. 🙂

        It has been an interesting discussion though I wish we followed the type of scientific dialog I was trained with. An open mind can always learn.

      • What falsities did it counter ? It is a meaningless observation even if true – which given his writing and home page I doubt.

        Regardless it is just a twisted appeal to authority – as is claims of consensus or most of the rest of the warmist argument.

        True is true – even if expressed by Hitler and false is false even when coming from Ghandi.

        Make your arguments – facts, logic reason.

        Don’t play this game that if you would just read some book you would know.

        I have pointed out repeatedly too you that the probability of the GCM’s being valid is low.
        It is low because they have failed to accurately reflect reality.
        They have failed because they do not conform to some basic physics.

        That argument FALSIFIES CAGW as it is currently expressed.
        In validate the argument or shift to a new model. Those are the choices.

        Not read somebody who will tell me that what I see is not really true.

  2. David writes: “You would have a far better grasp of the scope of the research and climatological understanding by reading Weart to whatever depth matches your current state of knowledge.”

    I thank you for this excellent referral. I assume you are talking about his book which is also on the net where one can easily hypertext to different areas of thought. I actually have viewed the book casually only reading small portions in various areas due to time availability. I book-marked it for future reference. He doesn’t appear to be a climatologist either, but definitely a man of worth. (He is a physicist like some of the others discussed earlier.)

    Climate change is not a major interest of mine, but experience has taught me that science builds itself on a step by step basis and those promoting a scientific view have a tendency to base some portions of their pyramid on studies that were wrong or incompletely understood making their conclusions faulty. I am not saying that is true with Weart or not, but he relies on so much data that some of his building blocks might be faulty. I don’t know and I doubt I will ever know.

    What I am looking at mostly is not the very specific science, though it is incredibly interesting, rather the potential results along with the results that are in the shadows (unmentioned), what those results mean and most importantly what we can do with the results. I assume your earlier comments of cause and effect, etc. were limited and dogmatic due to time restraints and frustration. Weart actually opens up these areas somewhat adding a more complete picture which by itself is incomplete. As an example, he presents ideas such as ” effect of humans on climate change is due to emissions of CO2 (mainly from fossil fuels but also from deforestation and cement manufacture) which provides broader solutions that appeal to those that do not believe in CO2 claims avidly promoted by Weart. (Someone actually brought up deforestation in the discussion that was not addressed.)

    I believe the picture and the uncertainty are far greater than you permit in the discussion. I don’t want to go into all those elements because of the time it takes and the lack of discussion that generally follows so I’ll skip to the end product. Assuming everything you believe to be true about “man-made global warming” the solutions of today are meaningless, inadequate and likely counterproductive.

    • Far too much of climate science though not physically impossible falls into the physically improbable.

      I have noted that Arrenhius/SB/Plank provide a model that will tell us the shape if not the actual value of the temperature time curve – if CO2 is the dominant driver. That curve does not match models.
      That does not falsify the climate models, but it dramatically decreases their probability.

      • dhlii, I agree. Nothing is settled, but as I said to David what does it matter? Assume the theory is totally correct. How does that help us? What we are doing today is peeing in the wind and by doing so might cause more harm than good. Climate Science might as well be known as Climate Scientology since there seems to be so much religious orthodoxy behind it.

        When I read a bit of Weart as suggested by David, Weart expanded the things that “influenced” CO2 production. Cement (? third largest producer of CO2). That immediately made me think how cement contributes to the CO2 formation. CaCO3 —> CaCO + CO2, but that is only the beginning because we need energy that also releases CO2 to produce the cement. Here, we are only adding to atmospheric CO2. But what happens when we lay down cement to build a home. We are actually altering the earth’s thermostat, not just for CO2, but for other things as well. The house that is built along with the road destroys the trees and bushes that engage in photosynthesis that removes CO2 and produces O2. The low lying lawn and shrubs reduce the volume of vegetation and thus the vegetations quantity and its subsequent ability to convert CO2 to O2 through photosynthesis.

        The key is to protect the environment from pollution and maintain its ability to regulate itself. Unfortunately ‘Climate Scientologists’ created carbon credits to be gamed and to become a worse losing proposition with time. We need to stop the politicalization of every facet of our lives. That will do more good than what we are doing today.

        But does that cement a negative picture regarding the product cement and other things such as gasoline? I don’t think so. When we produce electricity we produce voluminous amounts of CO2. We can reverse such a reaction and actually store the CO2 into cement removing CO2 from the atmosphere and not producing it in cement’s production. One just wants to scream when they see someone cooking using a petroleum product in a third world nation, but isn’t that better than having those people chop down trees and eventually denude the land and create desert where photosynthesis previously occurred?

        I am not really proposing solutions rather a different way of looking at things and by looking at things differently solving a lot of problems. I wish to end the politicalization and polarization created those that think they have all the answers and that the science is settled.

        • Allen,

          I work as an engineer at a cement plant. Your equation is correct. If you do the atomic weights on that equation you will find that CO2 makes up about 33% of the weight. That means when you look at a quarry, picture 1/3 third of that being thrown into the atmosphere.

          I am confused how you think we can store CO2 in cement though.

          • Jim22, this is an out of the box idea that occurred around the time of the financial crisis I only partially recall the situation and remember that the exact process was kept secret. Because of the financial crisis, the company, I believe, couldn’t obtain adequate capital and I think was purchased by another.

            At the time they were combining waste CO2 with saltwater that contained calcium, magnesium, and oxygen to form calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate. This was an extension of the idea of capture and store CO2 except in this case it was capture, store and produce a useful product.

            I mentioned this in particular because cement is such a CO2 polluter and this idea is a reversal of the process. I believe scientific advancements might help prevent a future problem that might exist if we don’t foolishly impoverish ourselves with crackpot science and schemes.

            • Nature does this all the time.

              I noted before that it is bad science to presume that Human CO2 is inherently additive.
              Natural processes are equilibrium processes. Nature goes to extraordinary efforts to seek equalibrium. NEGATIVE not positive feedbacks predominate, without that the planet could not sustain life.

              • Of course, nature does it all the time. That is how coral rock is created.

                “I noted before that it is bad science to presume that Human CO2 is inherently additive.”

                That depends on your parameters.

                “Nature goes to extraordinary efforts to seek equalibrium.”

                That may be true, but it doesn’t mean that nature always succeeds. By the way, CO2 doesn’t simply disappear from the atmosphere creating particles of Carbon and Oxygen. CO2 is reabsorbed in the oceans, turned into O2 through photosynthesis, etc.

                • Making a presumption that you have not proven is ALWAYS bad science.
                  Regardless of your parameters.

                  Presuming that you know all that there is to know about a complex system because you know something about the changes in one of the inputs is bad science.

                  Nature always ultimately succeeds in reaching some form of dynamic equilibrium.
                  The laws of physics require that.

                  That actually raises a different issue which is central to CAGW is the false presumption that one state of equilibrium is inherently superior to another.
                  CAGW presumes that nature ought to be static and that there is some optimum environment.
                  Both are false. Also pretty much any science that asserts “ought” runs affoul of Hume’s Guillotine.
                  You can not reason from what is to what ought to be.

                  • dhlii, I can’t figure out what your first two sentences are directed at. They seem to just float in didactic heaven.

                    “Nature always ultimately succeeds in reaching some form of dynamic equilibrium.
                    The laws of physics require that.”

                    That is true, but far from the topic of the discussion which involves a parameter (human life as we know it) that need not exist in nature’s dynamic equilibrium.

                    • “Humans are a part of nature.”

                      dhlii, It sounds like you are starting to spew rhetorical garbage. The discussion involves human life. Nature goes on with or without human life.

                    • “And human climate change is natural.”

                      dhlii, …and arsenic is natural as well, but you don’t want to eat it, breathe it, or bathe in it.

                    • Arsenic is still used to treat many things.

                      You are looping back to “pollution”
                      Benefit and harm in everything are a question of dosage.
                      No substance is inherently good or bad.

                    • “You are looping back to “pollution”
                      Benefit and harm in everything are a question of dosage.”

                      That is why I commented utilizing a definition of pollution. Restrain yourself.

                    • Your fixation on a narrow definition of pollution is to AVOID the fact that benefit and harm in EVERYTHING are a question of dosage.

                    • “Your fixation on a narrow definition of pollution is to AVOID the fact that benefit and harm in EVERYTHING are a question of dosage.”

                      You just proved another of my points.

                • What happens to atmospheric CO2 is of great interest in myriads of other facets of science.

                  From the perspective of CAGW it is irrelevant. If it is not in the atmosphere it is not increasing energy capture.

                  One of the problems with warmists, is they are not just fixated on global warming,
                  They are really selling a theory of a specific model for an optimal earth.

                  Accept that humans control the environment, and that there is an optimal environment, and you can assert control over everything humans do.

                  This is why climate scientists are universally socialists. It is an ideology masking as science.
                  The objective is broad control over the means of production.

                  That has NEVER worked. It will not work any better with “climate” as an added factor.

                  • “What happens to atmospheric CO2 is of great interest”

                    dhlii, you are making statements about the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere, but what you haven’t answered is where does that CO2 go? It’s time for you to be specific. Though I don’t agree (or am agnostic) with many of the claims about climate change I find some of your statements to be incomplete and not directed to the concerns involved in the discussion.You seem to make proclamations in a similar fashion to the proclamations of Al Gore who represents your complete opposite.

                    “From the perspective of CAGW it is irrelevant. If it is not in the atmosphere it is not increasing energy capture.”

                    Time to get specific. Are you saying CO2 has not increased in the atmosphere? That is a yes or no question.

                    “This is why climate scientists are universally socialists. It is an ideology masking as science.”

                    This has a level of truth, but there are some troubling things we see and need to take note of even if the climate change gurus are totally wrong. For example, pollution is a problem and there is a correlation between CO2 and pollution.

                    • Sorry Allan but specificity is NOT required. We know how long CO2 stays in the atmosphere.
                      That is all that matters with respect to the effect of atmospheric CO2 on temperatures.
                      It does not matter whether it is absorbed by the ocean – the major CO2 source and sink, bleeds into space – unlikely, is absorbed by plants, or rocks, or is broken apart by cosmic rays.

                      All that matters (with respect to CAGW) is that it is not in the atmosphere.

                      Absolutely what happens to it may matter for entirely different questions.
                      But an important part of logic and reasoning is determining what things are relevant to the specific question. Mr. Bensons Climate historian is completely irrelevant to the scientific accuracy of CAGW,
                      Just as the history of the atom is irrelevant to the scientific accuracy of quantum physics.

                    • dhlii answers the question about what happens to CO2 again using a specious argument: “Sorry Allan but specificity is NOT required. We know how long CO2 stays in the atmosphere.”

                      What you are really saying is you have little of what happens to CO2, but read somewhere that on average a CO2 molecule lasts a specific amount of time in the atmosphere. That and ten pennies will get you a dime.

                      “That is all that matters with respect to the effect of atmospheric CO2 on temperatures.”

                      Not true.

                      “All that matters (with respect to CAGW) is that it is not in the atmosphere.”

                      Superficial argument representing ignorance of science and I am not talking about the global warming type of science.

                      “But an important part of logic and reasoning is determining what things are relevant to the specific question. ”

                      In order to be logical and engage in reasoning, one must limit the discussion to things they know about and are true. The problem is, based on your comments of late, you seem to have little scientific knowledge and you shoot before you think.

                    • No.

                      I have not answered some of the questions you have asked.
                      The answers do not matter.

                      If you want to know how someone died – the fact that they bled 4qts’ matters, not what their blood type is.

                      What happens is relevant in other contexts, but not this one.

                    • CO2 is at the center of the question at least in regards to the entire debate on this thread. When asked about CO2 your response is:

                      “I have not answered some of the questions you have asked.
                      The answers do not matter.”

                      To prove yourself correct you wildly shift the subject to the following example:

                      “If you want to know how someone died – the fact that they bled 4qts’ matters, not what their blood type is. ”

                      Their blood type might have been a crucial factor in the death. Just because you don’t recognize the importance of something doesn’t mean that something is not important. It just means you need more knowledge.

                      What happens to the CO2 that leaves the atmosphere is an important part of the discussion.

                    • You are playing word games.
                      CO2 is NOT central. Atmospheric CO2 is
                      There is massive amounts of CO2 on earth.
                      What is not in the atmosphere does nto matter – with respect to climate.
                      It could be vastly important for something else.

                      For the purpose of the debate about climate – your questions about where CO2 goes when it lease the atmosphere is irrelavant. Maybe that interests you. Fine. But it has no bearing on CAGW.

                    • “CO2 is NOT central. Atmospheric CO2 is”

                      Read the written word. “CO2 is at the center of the question” Unless we know what happens to CO2 we don’t know if it is reentering the atmosphere. We don’t know how much the CO2 sinks can handle nor the changes that occur within them.

                    • Provide an instance in which given only that a person is dead and has lost 4qts of blood.
                      The type of blood is a cause of death ?

                      I am sure if you work hard some instance must exist. But it is so far out of the norm to be meaningless.

                      And that is my point. Where CO2 goes when it is not in the atmosphere might be interesting.
                      But it is irrelevant to warming.

                    • “Provide an instance in which given only that a person is dead and has lost 4qts of blood. The type of blood is a cause of death ?”

                      I will offer you satisfaction this one time. The answer is simple. People can survive the loss of blood if that blood is replaced. If one provides the wrong blood, whether it be due to antigens or the wrong blood type, the person might die. In that case, the cause of death is not blood loss but the administration of the wrong type of blood.

                      Let me dissect your rhetoric a bit further. You are not careful with regard to what you write and say.

                      “Their blood type might have been a crucial factor in the death.”

                      That is what I actually said “crucial factor in the death” not “cause of death ” which is how you interpreted it. The two statements are vastly different.

                      Just because you don’t recognize the importance of something doesn’t mean that something is not important. It just means you need more knowledge.

                    • If someone loses 4qt’s of blood and dies – they died from the loss of their blood – even if you replace the blood with heating oil.

                      The administration of the wrong blood did not cause their death. It failed to prevent their death.

                    • “If someone loses 4qt’s of blood and dies – they died from the loss of their blood – even if you replace the blood with heating oil.”

                      A person enters the ER in shock due to blood loss. He is immediately given blood and starts to improve appearing that he will survive but the last pint of blood causes a fatal reaction. What is the cause of death?

                    • If a person enters the ER having lost 4qts of blood, and you replace the 4qts of blood and then inject them with cyanide – they will have died of poisoning.

                      If you actually correct the blood loss and THEN poison the person, they die from the poisoning.

                      It is also true that if someone loses 4qt’s of blood – and will surely die, and meanwhile you shoot them in the head, they have died of a fatal gunshot wound. But that does not alter the fact that absent rapid replacement of the lost blood, they are going to die from blood loss.

                    • “If a person enters the ER having lost 4qts of blood, and you replace the 4qts of blood and then inject them with cyanide – they will have died of poisoning.”

                      You just proved my point.

                    • Hillarious, your blaming me for your lack of care ?

                      When you distinguish “crucial factor” from “cause of death” you cede the argument.

                      I used “cause of death”. You say “crucial factor” is different, fine. That just means your response was unresponsive and tangential.

                      You are actually making the error you are accusing me of with respect to “pollution”.

                      Many of what you think are valid attacks on my arguments, are interesting points in and of themselves. They are often worth exploration and consideration. And often, maybe even always you are right about them. But they are still tangential to the specific argument I was making.

                      There are many valid disproofs of CAGW. I have offered some, you have offered some.

                      Mostly, I have focused on a few based on fundimental physics that are relatively easy to understand and not that complicated. Those arguments do not preclude yours. Nor are they dependent on yours.

                      To the extent there is a weakness in my argument, it is one no one has raised.
                      That is that it is probablistic. It presumes as warmists do, that CO2 is the fundimental factor driving temperature.

                      There exists many possible climate models that have a LOW ECS, and other more significant factors, that are not in conflict with anything I have asserted.
                      These are cases I do not care about – because CO2 is not the driver of climate in those.

                      But no matter what you can not reconcile reality, the fundimental laws of thermodynamics and the GCM’s Only two can be correct. I am betting on reality and the laws of thermodynamics.

                    • The statement you made is as follows: “If you want to know how someone died – the fact that they bled 4qts’ matters, not what their blood type is. ”

                      You compound that with” “When you distinguish “crucial factor” from “cause of death” you cede the argument.”

                      You don’t know what you are talking about. In fact, the death certificate might read transfusion reaction or blood loss. Whichever was not on top will be included in the lines below. In fact, the death certificate will likely go to the actual cause as well such as gunshot or trauma and where the bleeding occurred. What line each of these things appears on is based on the interpretation of the events.

                    • “Allan – death by blood loss is exsanguination.”

                      Paul, death certificates are written and signed by physicians and they will denote similar deaths in a multiplicity of ways. I think we are all aware of the word “exsanguination”.

                    • Now you are running off into death certificate ?

                      Have you no shame ? IS your only skill rhetorical ?

                      A death certificate might read “zombie attack”

                      We are debating a hypothetical – by definition the only facts that matter in a hypothetical are those expressed.

                    • dhlii – the Zombie Apocolypse is going to happen and you should be prepared. I am. 😉

                    • “Now you are running off into death certificate ?”

                      I am just showing you the real world, you know, what occurs outside your head.

                      You had said: ““If you want to know how someone died …”

                      A death certificate tells us how someone died. Unfortunately what you thought was true wasn’t. Planks theory is accepted as true but how you use it may not be true enough for proof.

                    • You keep complaining because I engage in discussions that are essentially philosophy of science,
                      But that occurs because you make errors that can not be addressed without going there.

                      Plank’s equation is true or false, regardless of whether it is “accepted”.
                      Neither science nor reality are determined by concensus.

                      Ultimately everything is subjective, but the absence of absolute true does not preclude relative truth (or absolute falsity). We resolve competing subjective perspectives by evaluating their probability of truth.
                      That is important because you can construct castles in the sky and live in them if you wish. But it is only the extent to which they conform to the real world that they are useful.
                      Logic and science allows for multiple hypothetical worlds, but only those possibilities consistent with this reality are useful.

                      Plank’s equation relates the temperature of an object to its energy,
                      Certainly you have heard of warmists like Dr. Trenberth chasing their tails trying to find the “missing heat” aka ENERGY, that is specifically because the Plank derived equations for the earth do not balance consistent with CAGW. That is not MY conclusion. That is not skeptics conclusion, that is the results of measurements from space, and the reason for Trenberth’s quest for missing heat.

                      Is the SLR argument I have made absolutely determinative ? NO. But it does prove that the “missing heat” can not be in the ocean, and there really is no place else for it.

                      The argument that linear increases in CO2 will produce rapidly diminishing increases in temperature is absolutely determinative – ateast absent positive feedbacks.
                      Climate is incredibly complex, but the direct effects of CO2 are NOT.
                      Is it possible that the indirect effects of CO2 – positive feedbacks, exist sufficient to “save” CAGW ?
                      Possible – yes, Probable, no. And the burden of proof is on warmists, not skeptics, and that burden has never been met.

                      What should further disturb you greatly is that each of the arguments I have made all essentially tie back to equations that are all permutations of each other and all of the same form
                      Energy = some coeficient time a squared variable.

                      At every stage – observer temperatures, the absence of evidence of strong positive feedbacks, the linearity of CO2 increases and SLR increases, the absence of evidence of exponential increases in energy, all of these not only tie to the same fundimental properties, but they are all consistent with each other.

                      Further the arguments I am making are both relatively easy to understand, and do not require particularly complex math. That is because the arguments are essentially sanity checks.

                      I keep noting that the coefficients do not matter – as an example. I think that the IPCC has vastly overstated the magnitude of ECS. But changing ECS does not change the fact that CAGW fails the “sanity” check. Because we are dealing with the difference between linear and exponential.
                      In very short periods these are hard to distinguish but over longer periods, even large changes in coefficients can not fix discrepancies.

                    • “CO2 is NOT central. Atmospheric CO2 is”

                      Read the written word. “CO2 is at the center of the question” Unless we know what happens to CO2 we don’t know if it is reentering the atmosphere. We don’t know how much the CO2 sinks can handle nor the changes that occur within them.

                    • “Read the written word. “CO2 is at the center of the question” Unless we know what happens to CO2 we don’t know if it is reentering the atmosphere. ”

                      Multiply FALSE.

                      It is irrelevant what happens to it. It is irrelevant whether it reenters the atmosphere.
                      Specific to the discussion of CO2’s effect on Global temperatures, only the absolute level of atmostpheric CO2 matters – regardless of its source.

                      WE know the absolute level of C02 very accurately back to the 50’s.

                      Linear increases in temperature require exponential increases in CO2 – that is not happening.

                      If you want to make a claim that something different will happen in the future that there will be some massive release of CO2 from some source – you do not just get to assume that. You do not get to speculate that, you actually have to prove it. Otherwise you are just playing chicken little.
                      It is possible the sky will fall tomorow. It is highly unlikely.

                    • “It is irrelevant what happens to it. It is irrelevant whether it reenters the atmosphere.”

                      You are ridiculous.

                    • “”It is irrelevant what happens to it. It is irrelevant whether it reenters the atmosphere.”

                      You are ridiculous.”

                      No, just not distracted by what is irrelevant to the specific debate.

                      Only atmospheric CO2 causes warming.
                      If you disagree with that – produce evidence.

                      CO2 that is elsewhere might be relevant to other arguments or other processes, but it is not relevant to global warming.

                      If you wish to claim that other CO2 will get into the atmosphere – proof is required.

                      Thus far the evidence is that despite Human CO2 production which since the start of the 20th century until late in the 20th was growing exponentially – atmospheric CO2 has only increased linearly,
                      starting long before humans could have any effect and long after.
                      The evidence is that some equilibria process is in effect that is enormous in comparison to human CO2.

                      Regardless our understanding of the CO2 cycle is very thin, all we know for certain is the warming effects of atmospheric CO2 and that atmospheric CO2 increases linearly and therefore can not capture the exponential increases in energy required to sustain linear temperature increases.

                      Again this is very basic science.
                      The increases in atmospheric CO2 – regardless of cause are inside of a narrow range beyond debate.
                      The laws of thermodynamics are hopefully beyond debate. There application to CO2 energy capture is hopefully beyond debate. Whatever disagreements exist between warmists and skeptics over current data such as temperature or SLR, none of these are off sufficient scale to impact my argument.

                      Warmists and skeptics need not be in perfect agreement on much for the primary argument I make to remain valid and determinative. I think the warmists value for ECS is off by atleast an order of magnitude.
                      But that does not change the fact that absent an exponential increase in energy capture you MUST get diminishing returns from linear increases in energy capture – that is basic physics.

                      If you wish to confront the probabalistic aspect – CAGW absolutely requires a postive feedback atleast 4 times as large as CO2. For much of the 20th century and the early 21st that was purported to be water vapor – clouds. Today we can have all kinds of debates over clouds. But no one is still arguing a factor of 4 unregulated positve feedback. Without that CAGW is dead.

                    • “No, just not distracted”

                      You are distracted by what you wish to say even if it isn’t responsive.

                      I should be charging you for these lessons.

                    • You can not charge for what the other party does not value.

                      If you do not want tangents – do not introduce them.

                      Your presumption that something is unresponsive is because you have a narrow concept of the goals and objectives.

                      I do not personally care much about warming or cooling. I am interested in the net best interests of humans. What you consider a tangent is merely focusing on what is important – rather that what you want to argue about

                    • Mr. Gore’s assertions run afoul of reality.
                      Mine do not.
                      Most of the arguments I have made are macro arguments – there are excellent refutations of lesser details also. But I am addressing the fact that CAGW is scientifically improbable and therefore requires a high standard of proof.

                      I have repeatedly noted that the physics/mathematics of Arrhenius dictates a logarithmic curve for linear inputs.
                      That does not absolutely guarantee that the global climate models are wrong, but it makes the odds against them very high. It requires a very large positive feedback that is NOT CO2.
                      There is no evidence of any significant positive feedback. Positive feedbacks are very rare in nature.

                      I would note that there is a great deal of debate over the correct value of ECS – something that can only be determined empiracally – and the likely value for ECS is lower than warmists claim.
                      But for the physics/math argument the value of ECS does nto matter.

                      The shape of the temperature curve is going to be the same for all values of ECS.
                      In fact you should be able to derive the actual value of ECS backwards from the curve.

                    • “Mr. Gore’s assertions run afoul of reality. Mine do not.”

                      You sound like the other side of Al Gore.

                      “But I am addressing the fact that CAGW is scientifically improbable”

                      I have no disagreement with you stating this, but that is not actually what you are doing. You are sewing pieces of science together in an awkward fashion without specificity. It is similar to David Benson’s referral of people to the library.

                      ” have repeatedly noted that the physics/mathematics of Arrhenius ”

                      You have repeatedly thrown out names leaving your statements conveniently nonspecific so they could mean whatever you wanted in a rebuttal argument as you demonstrated earlier when you discussed nature’s equilibrium. I won’t proceed any further on this posting of yours.

                    • Allan.

                      There is new sewing here.
                      Most everything I have said is testable.
                      Much of it by an 11th grader.

                      Arrenhius is generally considered the first climate scientist.
                      He is revered by warmists.

                      I am not throwing out Names, I am throwing out 3 specific equations that relate energy to temperature.
                      In the case of Arrenhius through CO2.

                      The commonality is that the equations are logrithmic.
                      It takes exponentially increasing amounts of energy to drive linear increases in temperature.

                      This is a very basic concept in science. It is not climate science it is fundimental thermodynamics.

                    • “Most everything I have said is testable.
                      Much of it by an 11th grader.”

                      dhlii, you are beginning to sound like an 11th grader.

                      You are arguing with yourself for no apparent reason. You make things more difficult than they are. Try quoting (IN CONTEXT) what the other says that you feel is wrong. Then make your argument with normal words and no names. You can throw in the big words and names later. In that way, you will be forced to make a more cogent argument.

                    • I am not looking for advice on how to post.

                      I have provided more science than any other poster here.
                      No one seems to actually want to discuss science.

                    • “I have provided more science than any other poster here.”

                      dhlii, You mix conjecture, theory, and fact. That is like mixing good milk with sour milk. The end product is sour milk.

                    • If you are going to claim catagorical errors in the argument of another, absent identifying the specific catagory errors, your argument fails.

                      What have I argued that is conjecture ?

                      With respect to Theory – AGAIN are you saying that the Plank equation is wrong ?

                    • “With respect to Theory – AGAIN are you saying that the Plank equation is wrong ?”

                      I didn’t comment on the negative about theories. I commented on the negative about conclusions.

                    • “I didn’t comment on the negative about theories. I commented on the negative about conclusions.”

                      Given a set of facts that are agreed on, and planks law, the results(conclusion) is given by the law.

                      You can not accept Planks law, but reject its consequences.

                    • “You can not accept Planks law, but reject its consequences.”

                      I accept Planks law but reject your conclusions.

                    • Not my conclusions, its.

                      I have repeatedly noted that it is possible to reconcile the apparent conflicts – but not while sustaining “catastrophe”.
                      Most “skeptics” fall into some form of “luke warmer” – CO2 is a GHG, ECS is significantly below 4, human contribution to warming is real but small, the probability of dramatic warming is low, and the likely effects of warming are positive.

                      Disagreements are not mostly about basic science, but about scale.
                      The basic physics argument that I have made frequently demonstrates that the probability of large scale on any of these conflicts is very low.

                      You bemoan my purported certainty – which is more hubris ?
                      Pretending that something 2.5 std dev’s away from reality is certain ?
                      Rejecting as highly unlikely something 2.5 std dev’s away from reality as unlikely ?

                      I am no more certain than warmists. But I am on the far more probably correct side of statistics and science.

                    • “Time to get specific. Are you saying CO2 has not increased in the atmosphere? That is a yes or no question.”

                      Please read what I wrote. ALL I am saying is that with respect to CO2 – ONLY CO2 in the atmosphere matters. CO2 in oceans, plants, rocks does not effect temperature.

                    • The relationship between CO2 and pollution is ambiguous. Real pollution can be reduced by increasing CO2 emissions.

                      Further pollution is a misnomer. Everything is toxic at some dose.
                      CO2 the levels that are possible in the atmosphere are on net beneficial excluding the warming claim.
                      Warming is also arguably net beneficial rather than harmful,. but that is a separate discussion.

                    • “Further pollution is a misnomer. Everything is toxic at some dose.”

                      dhlii, Many things exist in our air and water. It is only when a new or old substance is added causing toxicity that one refers to it as pollution. Look up the definition of the word.

                    • For most of human existance water has been dangerous to us.
                      In less developed places it still is.
                      Myriads of “natural” diseases are water born.

                      Today’s water in developed nations is the healthiest water humans have ever had.

                    • What I said in response to your statement “Further pollution is a misnomer. Everything is toxic at some dose.”


                      “Many things exist in our air and water. It is only when a new or old substance is added causing toxicity that one refers to it as pollution. Look up the definition of the word.”

                      I wasn’t interested in discussing water born diseases (another new topic straying from the original) rather getting the definition of pollution right. You are having a hard time.

                    • Water born diseases are not a new topic. Nor are all past toxins disease spreading organisms.

                      Regardless, the point is that your thesis is wrong.
                      The quality of our water over long periods of time trends toward better, not worse.
                      This is a significant factor in why we live longer.

                      Absolutely the specific toxins change over time – as we remove extremely dangerous “pollutants” we replace them with less dangerous ones. That process will continue forever.
                      Further government has played little or no role in that.

                    • dhlii, Here you go again. I am talking about the definition of pollution and suddenly you are lecturing us:

                      “water over long periods of time trends toward better, not worse.”

                      I didn’t say a word about whether or not water was better or worse over long periods of time. Do you bother to read the written word? Alternatively, are you too impressed with what you wish to say that you say it whether or not it is pertinent to the response?

                      I happen to agree with your sentence with regard to the US water system. Is that true everywhere? No. What you did was to make a correct statement (regarding the US water supply as a whole) solely to push a political point of view. Could someone opine that your underlying non-specific statement was wrong? Absolutely, there are many areas of the world where water pollution is worse. Look at many rivers in Asian nations where industrial development has occurred. They are “worse”, not “better”.

                    • Disgreeing with your definition is lecturing ?

                      Whatever words you wish to use, throughout the world on average our water is safer than it was a 100 or 200 years ago.

                      I am much more interested in whether things are improving than the words you use to try to say otherwise.

                    • You are absolutely correct – and you brought us there.

                      Do you wish to go back to CAGW ?
                      Can you discredit any of my arguments regarding CAGW ?

                    • “you brought us there.”

                      Not really, but if you wish to believe that, it becomes your problem. Your statements leave your arguments wide open and very imprecise so even if one agreed with your conclusions they couldn’t agree with you. To prove your simple statement on pollution you provided a long diatribe on water quality. To prove your analogy about blood loss you forgot about transfusion reactions, etc.

                      Even now all you are trying to do is prove you were correct and show how much knowledge you have trying to equate that knowledge with proof to prove that an earlier statement is correct. You would be better off trying to prove your statement wrong. Then you would find out where you went wrong and correct the problem.

                    • Again not interested in the actual argument.

                      No My statements are not “imprecise”. Some of them are quite precise and others are related to fundimental principles. The coefficients of terms of an equation have some effect on the behavior of an equation, but the exponents are an order of magnitude more important.
                      More simply failing to take into account an exponent, can not be fixed by adjusting a coeficient.

                      y= Ax^2 + Bx + C is a radically different curve from y = mx + b unless A is 0.

                      You can put ANY ECS value you want in, you are still going to get a parabola on its side for linear increases in CO2.
                      CAGW depends on large positive feedback from clouds – which elsewhere David has admitted does not exist.

                    • I do not need to “prove” anything. Physics just is. Math just is. No amount of warmist bunkum is going to alter the basic principles of theromdynamics.

                      One of those – which Arrenhius, Plank and SB reflect, is that it takes exponential increases in energy to get linear increases in temperature.
                      That is fundimental physics, and it is why processes seek equilibrium.

                    • Proving my arguments wrong would require rejecting fundimental principles of physics that would make climate the least of our problems.

                    • “Proving my arguments wrong would require rejecting fundimental principles of physics”

                      No one tried to prove any of the great theories wrong. It was your conclusions that were under scrutiny not because the conclusion was bad only that you equated theory with fact and you were acting in a Goreish manner.

                    • “No one tried to prove any of the great theories wrong. It was your conclusions that were under scrutiny not because the conclusion was bad only that you equated theory with fact and you were acting in a Goreish manner.”

                      Do you read what you write ?

                      The laws of physics are not hypotheticals for an imaginary world.
                      They bid the real world. They are intrinsic to the world of FACTS.
                      No theory that does not conform to fact is valid.
                      Absolutely the laws of thermodynamics equate to FACTS, they are pointless if they do not.
                      Gore is entirely disconected from actual science. The fundimental problem with warmists – including warmist scientists is that they make it up as they go along,
                      that the make no effort to resolve discord between their theories and fact, or their theories and the laws of science.

                      It is not merely not wrong, it is an absolute requirement that the theories of climate science must be consistent with both the facts and that the laws of physics.

                      “Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.”

                      IF the facts, the laws of physics and the purported science of CAGW contradict, one must be wrong.
                      The most probable error is with CAGW theory. But if you wish to argue that the facts or the laws of thermodynamics are wrong – you are free to do so.

                      You are also free to assert that I have applied those laws wrong, or that I have the facts wrong.
                      But as a naked assertion without compelling evidence you would lack credibility.

                      I have made my arguments – facts, logic reason, the laws of science.
                      You can test what I have claimed, I have given you everything necescary to confirm or reject my arguments.

                      I do not control your response, but anything less than the same rigor and standards lacks credibility on your part.
                      Thus far your counter arguments have either been specious or naked assertions, and therefore credulous.

                    • “Do you read what you write ?”

                      No longer since they are non-responsive to what I have said and they are very long talking about things I don’t have an issue with.

                    • The developed and less developed world are not at the exact same point in the overall improvement of our air and water.

                      Both in the US and the world there are specific instances where quality is declining.
                      But both in the US and the world the overall trend is improvement.

                      While there is lots of data to support that.
                      It should be trivial to grasp from something else most of us know – life expectance almost everywhere in the world has doubled over the past century. That can not happen without the quality of our environment improving.

                      In the 16th century it was possible to get londoners to sell themselves into indentured servitude to go to Jamestown – where they would likely die before completing their indenture – because as bad as Jamestown was the air in london was so bad few lived to 30.

                    • “The developed and less developed world are not at the exact same point in the overall improvement of our air and water.”

                      The discussion had nothing to do with water quality. It had to do with a definition of the word “pollution” and the fact that when a scientific statement is made there generally are parameters attached. You frequently make statements without parameters and frequently aren’t responsive to what is being discussed. It sounds like you are trying to show how much you (think you) know.

                    • Bzzt, wrong.

                      What matters with regard to humans, is the improvement in the quality of human life.

                      I would further note that even the semantic argument you are selling fails.
                      Is there some fundamental difference between the harm done by some chemical in the water, and that done when biologicals ingested from the water introduce toxic chemicals into your body ?

                      You are dead or harmed either way.

                      Pollution is defined as environmental contamination.
                      As the left defines it that is broad – it includes not merely chemicals, but energy.
                      Pollutants can be foreign or natural.

                      Now you are arguing semantics. You are both wrong, and irrelevant. Dead is dead. Sick is sick.
                      You are less likely to suffer significant harm from foriegn chemical pollution, than from biologicals in the water.

                    • “Bzzt, wrong.”

                      What is wrong? You forgot to mention that. Was the definition of the word “pollution” wrong?

                      Your response doesn’t seem to relate to my response the email suggests.

                      This is more of the same. You draw conclusions without even stating what comment you were referring to. This is a chronic problem with you.

                    • Read the rest of the comment, I identified exactly what was wrong.

                      No, I do not respond to your remarks in exactly the way you predict.

                      If the object is to fasten to boards together, I am capable of using glue or screws or bolts, or clamps, if I can not find both a hammer and a nail.

                      If the objective is human health, cholera is more consequential than SO2 regardless of whether you include Cholera in your definition of polution.

                    • “No, I do not respond to your remarks in exactly the way you predict”

                      I don’t expect you to. I expect you to be responsive to what was actually said.

                    • “I don’t expect you to. I expect you to be responsive to what was actually said.”

                      Still not a requirement. You can frame your argument however you please. I am not obligated to conform my rebutle to your expectations or your framing.

                      Using your pollution example – you wished to debate a narrow definition of pollution, confining it purely to man-made chemicals – presumably effluent running into a stream would not be pollution in your scheme, nor would disposing of corpses in rivers.
                      I deliberately chose to ignore debate over the meaning of pollution – something you are wrong about, but instead to address the higher construct of why we care about pollution – because of harm to humans.
                      In arguably over the past several centuries, human efforts outside of government have dramatically decreased the harm humans are subject to from our air, and water. Regardless of debates about defintions, the efforts to improve the quality of air and water and the environment are not catagorically distinct. Eliminating mercury from water is no different in any significant way from eliminating cholera.
                      Further historically we have moved from eliminating the most consequential harms to the least consequential, focussing on ever smaller harms as our standard of living rises and we can afford to do so.
                      Again a process that happens entirely without regard for government.

                      Ultimately if CAGW is a real problem of consequence, humans will on their own address it, as they have others in the past. If as is more likely it is just more malthusian garbage, it will disappear from our interest over time.

                    • I stated: “I don’t expect you to. I expect you to be responsive to what was actually said.” and you responded, “Still not a requirement.”.

                      Unfortunately, that is how people communicate.

                    • A man said to the universe:
                      “Sir, I exist!”
                      “However,” replied the universe,
                      “The fact has not created in me
                      A sense of obligation.”

                      We communicate through a shared understanding of the meaning of words.
                      The objective of exchange is to find the truth, not constrain the conflict to turf you are comfortable with, or to use semantics or rhetoric to bring about a triumph of style over substance.

                    • I do not frame arguments on your terms. So what?

                      Why do you get the idea that you control the argument ?

                      Whether pollution or CAGW the fundimental question is the benefits/harms to humans.

                      While I have made the argument that predicted warming has not happened and is unlikely to happen.
                      The more fundimental question is why do we presume that some specific environmental state is utopia ?

                      There is a great deal of data that we should hope for several C of warming. Because humans and most other life do better when it is warmer.

                      Regardless, I am not going to make my arguments on your terms.

                      What matters is not whether I attack the specific part of the CAGW thesis that you wish to discuss or defend, But whether my argument is valid – which it is.

                      The title of Gores movie “an inconvenient truth” is genius. But he is on the wrong side of it.
                      Reality has not conformed to his hopes or fears.

                    • dhlii – didn’t Gore get a D in science in college and doesn’t his movie come with a warning label in the UK with a list of fallacies?

                    • “I do not frame arguments on your terms. So what?”

                      Nor would I want you to. However, there is a normal way to discuss science and that involves things like parameters and a bit of exactitude that you are lacking. You don’t see it and that is OK from my end, but don’t expect me to agree with you when the things you mention fly outside of the scientific way of dealing with such discussions.

                    • “Any argument that falsifies another is valid ”

                      That may be true but that is not what this petty dispute is all about.

                    • ““Any argument that falsifies another is valid ”

                      That may be true but that is not what this petty dispute is all about.”

                      The “petty dispute” is yours.
                      I have offered an argument that falsifies CAGW.

                      You have responded with semantic and rhetorical garbage. You are correct that is petty.

                    • “The “petty dispute” is yours. I have offered an argument that falsifies CAGW.”

                      I don’t have a problem with your scientific arguments only your Goreish attitude.

                    • The water in those asian countries you are ranting about – might have more industiral pollution today – and that is not good, but in the majority of cases it is LESS likely to kill you.
                      Water born diseases were a major problem throughout most of the world until recently, particularly asia.

                      Read “the painted veil” by W. Sommerset Maugham. It is fiction – but about real conditions in asia.
                      It was remade for the 3rd time as a film in 2006

                    • “The water in those asian countries you are ranting about – might have more industiral pollution today ” blah, blah, blah…..

                      This is the thread that started your non stop rant on water pollution around the world.

                      dhlii wrote: “Further pollution is a misnomer. Everything is toxic at some dose.”

                      Allan responded: “dhlii, Many things exist in our air and water. It is only when a new or old substance is added causing toxicity that one refers to it as pollution. Look up the definition of the word.”

                    • Yes, look at the thread. You introduced pollution, which did not help your argument.
                      In the broadest sense even my argument about the toxic nature of water in the past is directly on point with my attack on CAGW on MULTIPLE fronts.

                      1). Since Malthus, not a single Malthusian claim – including CAGW has ever come to fruition.
                      CAGW is just one more of the attempts to badly mangle science in service of left wing politics, to posit a legitimate basis for government to protect us from a mythical threat. Population Bomb, Peak Oil, Acid Rain, Silent Spring, CAGW – all the same, bad science in service to leftist ideology.

                      Even removing the “ideological” component. There are fundimental reasons that chicken little prognostications are certain to prove false. Malthus started to grasp that. Julian Simon’s “the ultimate resource II” does a very good job of both refuting modern malthusian thesis – most of which have failed and therefore do not need refuting, but also providing the data to demonstrate why they were never credible, as well as the arguments why all malthusian thesis are inherently false.

                      2). Ultimately it is humans that matter. You can win the argument on AGW – without the “C” you have nothing. If global temps rise 4C and humans are on net better off, the rest is irrelevant.

                      The left is oddly arguing conservatism – that change is bad, that things should stay exactly as they are.

                      The pollution argument directly confronts this debate.
                      The real underlying topic is human thriving – not global warming.

                      It does not matter whether cow farts or diesel exhausts warm the planet – if that does nto alter the human effects.

                      So figure out what is important.

                    • “pollution, which did not help your argument.”

                      No, it didn’t help anyone’s argument. By providing a definition I was trying to stop your progression of the argument. All it did was provide a focus for you to start another subject on the world’s water supply. I can only assume that if I didn’t stop that progression you would now be discussing teen pregnancy.

                      Your argument involving Malthus involves where people went wrong or were proven wrong. It didn’t move the discussion forward with regard to the scientific claims that were being made. Too much data, not enough specificity.

                    • “No, it didn’t help anyone’s argument. By providing a definition I was trying to stop your progression of the argument. All it did was provide a focus for you to start another subject on the world’s water supply. I can only assume that if I didn’t stop that progression you would now be discussing teen pregnancy.”

                      Still seeking to control the world.

                      As noted before, if the objective is the improvement of the human condition, the “pollution” of the past was more harmful than that of the present – redefining pollution does not change the fact that the water and air of the past were more harmful than that of the present.

        • I have not read Weart – but any digression into the weeds of human CO2 production is inherently meaningless.
          Human CO2 is an order of magnitude less than that of oceans. Natural variation alone dwarfs human production. The half life of atmospheric CO2 is about 15 years. The entirety of CAGW rests on the assumption that human CO2 adds to that of nature and the addition is cumulative.
          That looks nice as pure math. But there are no natural processes that work that way.
          If you can not know the long term behavior of the entirery of Human CO2 – 10,000 pages on subcomponents is without value no matter how well written it is.

          I would also note that less the chapter for policy makers which is NOT written by scientists, the IPCC AR5 is NOT a catastrophic document. It is in conflict with alarmism, and much of what you hear in the media.
          I think it overstates things, and the record seems to sustain that. but it is not a document about catastrophe. Predictions for SLR as an example are only slightly greater than the 19th and 20th centuries.
          The consequences will be the same.

            • David Benson – you are assuming that Weart is right on climatology, but what if he is wrong? What if science has moved past him? Think of all the advances in science in our lifetime. Why is it that climatology remains static? Aristotle wrote on science, but we don’t use him as a reference anymore. Science is constantly testing itself and moving on, except for climatology, which seems to be a religion.

              • Climatology has been created in my lifetime; Weart keeps his online book up to date. I suggest you start reading it.

                • David Benson – right now I consider climatology to be a scam to get research grants for universities. If the grant money dried up, maybe the science would correct itself. We know that Mann, Jones, NOAA, and IPCC have fudged data to get their way. NOAA fudged data just last week, they have no shame.

                  Besides, I have other interests. Just finished a course on the Vikings. Before that was a course on Great Authors of Western Civilization (Weart was not included). Before that was a course on Understanding Art. Next is a course on Beethoven. Plus, I have books to read and movies to watch. There is only so much time in the day.

                • “Climatology has been created in my lifetime”

                  David, change occurs very quickly. We read great scientific texts that might even be updated on a yearly basis, but doing so takes time so the texts are frequently outdated before they go to print. That is why one must rely in part on the latest research and that reliance is based on the integrity of the researcher which is why the researcher must be scrupulously intellectually honest. We have seen a lot of dishonesty in the field of climate change so one can’t blame anyone for calling the field of climate change a sham even though it has validity.

                  Climate change exists. It always has changed and always will. The term global warming was formerly used quite frequently. Think why that term disappeared. Think how fast research can move and think of the specifics of who updates Weart’s book.

                • I read scientific papers and their critiques.
                  I am far more interested in primary sources.
                  Your favorite author is not even a secondary source.
                  There is no better reason to read him. that any other malthusian – such as carson or ehrlich.

                  I have no problem with reading things. But the time does not exist to read everything.
                  If I am going to waste my time on warmists – I am going to do so reading actual warmist scientists, or things like the IPCC AR5 – which outside of the non-scientific section for policy makers is at most very luke warm, to practically skeptical.

                  While I think it overstates, it still does not forecast catastrophe.
                  Anyone selling catastrophe – and that is most of what we here is in contradiction to even warmist climate science.

            • Mr. Benson,
              As I have noted the principles of physics dictate the probability of CAGW as incredibly low.
              The past 20 and 50 years respectively conform to the predictions of a simple physics model based on Arrrenhius – a declining rate of temperature increase.
              The Global Climate models are now approx. 2.5 std dev’s from reality.

              Absent a strong offer of proof that something significant and proveable is missing, there is no more reason to read warmist propoganda than “the elders of zion”.
              I am sure that the works you offer have lots of useful even correct information in them.
              There can be an incredible amount of accurate facts and data that can be combined to support an erroneous thesis.
              There have been lots of malthusian prognostications since … Malthus. Some are well researched chock full of facts, and data, without any demonstrable error in any of the underlying data, or even some of the basic science. But not one has ever proven true.

              Reading “Silent Spring” or “the population bomb” are excercises in forensic understanding of malthusian error. History has clearly demonstrated whatever facts they contain, their forecasts, and therefore their analysis are wrong.

              The same can be said with near absolute certainty today of nearly all of warmist climate science.

              As in the 16th century Galleleo – not armies of papal scientists, elites and authorities won.

              Even given the efforts of NOAA and others to skew the data by adjusting reality, the models have still failed.

              Even in the unlikely event that rapid warming returned tomorow – the past 2 decades falsify the global climate models. As it currently exists the anthropogenic CO2 thesis of global warming is FALSE.
              It is long past time for climate scientists to return to the drawing board and come up with new hypothesis that better reflect reality.

                • So the Arrenhuis equation that is central to CAGW theory is wrong – because you say so ?
                  So Stephan-Boltzman is Wrong because you say so ?
                  So Plank’s equation is wrong because you say so ?
                  So the so well documented and large discrepancy between the actual temperatures and the global climate models that several papers by leading warmists have acknowledged it is wrong because you say so ?

                  And I am support to read some historian as more relevant that actual physics and fact ?

        • It does not matter whether you burn trees or oil the CO2 produced is the same and the capacity of the environment to re-absorb that CO2 is the same. The Newness of the tree does nto change the math.

          • dhlii, I think you ought to restate what you said to make it a bit more accurate. A tree with one leaf will remove a lot less CO2 than a tree with thousands of leaves.

              • “It does not matter whether you burn trees or oil ”

                This makes your argument totally incorrect in the context of the discussion.

                Your statement was correct, but we were discussing the ability to reabsorb CO2 from the atmosphere. That brand new tree replacing the burnt wood of a mature tree does very little reabsorption in comparison.

                You are throwing out too much crap without thought of what it actually means.

                • You have bought into a fallacy.

                  It does not matter whether you burn oil or wood.
                  On fact burning oil produces less CO2 and less pollution for the same amount of energy.

                  The fact that you subsequently might plant a new tree – has no effect on the past.
                  You can burn a tree and plant a new one,
                  You can burn oil and plant a tree.

                  The argument makes a false assumption that there is a zero sum of modern biomass,
                  but can not be a zero sum if you burn oil.
                  Both assumptions are false.

                  • “You have bought into a fallacy.”

                    Let’s get real dhlii, when an African in certain portions of Africa burns the shrubbery and trees eating everything available it destroys the local environment and in some cases has created a desert. Deserts do not provide photosynthesis.

                    Thus, there is a very big difference internationally and locally over what is burned. You are getting lost in your own specious logic.

                    Fallacy is thy name, dhlii.

                    • I would suggest looking into what is actually known about desertification.
                      You do not understand it.

                      The modern desertification we have seen is primarily caused by man disrupting the natural cycle of destruction. Burning grasslands and forrests periodically is good for them, it actually disrupts desertification. As do many other activities that environmentalists of the past thought were good.

                      Nature needs constant change. the less dynamic it is the more it tends to fail.

                    • dhlii – China is having its army plant trees to help stop the desertification of the Gobi. Egyptian mythology speaks of the waning and waxing of the Sahara over time.

                    • “I would suggest looking into what is actually known about desertification. You do not understand it.”

                      dhlii, I stand by what I said. A one track mind doesn’t hear what the other has to say.

                    • There is a significant point we agree on – very little of substance is being said here.

                      My mind is not one track, but it is going to place little weight in appeals to authority – particularly weak authority. What you call library references.

                    • “There is a significant point we agree on – very little of substance is being said here.”

                      That is what happens when you choose the Al Gore method of debate.

                      “My mind is not one track, but it is going to place little weight in appeals to authority – particularly weak authority. What you call library references.”

                      You have been doing the same in the opposite fashion. In addition, you substituted quality for quantity.

                    • You are confused.

                      I am not appealing to Plank, Arrenhius, or Stephan Boltzman.

                      I am applying their equations which are actually accepted fundimental science, derived from the laws of thermodynamics.

                      It would be the same if the equations were the work of Curie, Bohr and Einstien.

                      These are not accepted by consensus. They are accpeted because in experiment after experiment they have been confirmed. If only once they are absolutely refuted by experiment, then they are wrong, but that has never happened.

                      I am shocked to find that you question those ?

                    • “I am shocked to find that you question those ?”

                      I am not shocked by anything you say because it doesn’t appear you always bother to read what another said.

                    • Why should I take seriously your complaint that I do not read what you wrote, when your entire line of argument has been to avoid confronting the argument I made that started this.

                      I would have no opportunity to misread your tangents, had you read the original argument for comprehension rather than semantic attack.

                    • “Why should I take seriously your complaint that I do not read what you wrote, ”

                      Because you don’t.

                • I have spent a great deal of time developing my arguments.

                  Global biomass is BTW increasing – that is automatic with increases in atmospheric CO2.

                  • “I have spent a great deal of time developing my arguments.”

                    You pay too much time developing arguments from too little material.

                    • I am familiar with a significant amount of the material.

                      The fact that the arguments I have presented are simple (they are actually not narrow), is merely because it is easier to persuade when some assertion does NOT conform to simple requirements.

                      A simple argument that falsifies a thesis – still falsifies it.

                    • “I am familiar with a significant amount of the material.”

                      Good, then improve your rhetoric. One way is by quoting in context those things you believe to be false and stay on topic.

                    • I neither need nor want lessons in how to argue.

                      Are you interested in discussing climate ?

                      You seem to wish to personalize this, and keep driving off into the weeds.

                    • “You seem to wish to personalize this, and keep ”

                      dhlii, It’s funny you should say this since I presented this problem of yours to you awhile back and you were more interested in continuing your pattern of rhetoric without concern that there were others in the room. That by itself created confusion, but that didn’t concern you either. It sounds like you want to debate with yourself and deny the existence of questions central to the debate.

                      As I said before you appear to be the opposite of Al Gore. One can’t debate with Al Gore. He knows everything. He thinks the science is settled and he never answers the questions that are central to the debate.

                    • Gore has two fundimental issues:

                      The first is he is wrong, about myriads of things. There are actually upside down graphs in “an inconvenient truth”.

                      The next is that he does not respond to any arguments of any kind at all.

                      I go to a great deal of trouble to be right about what I say.
                      I also usually distinguish between what is a law of science, what is a fact, what is probable, and what is speculation. The Arrenhius, SB and Plank equations are laws of science.
                      Falsify them and massive amounts of science collapse with them – atleast one of the laws of thermodynamics. There is no fudging them. Either the global climate models conform or they are false.
                      This is back and white.
                      Modern global temperatures are a fact. While there is debate over HadCRUT and NOAA fudging, and that is important – it is not large enough to be relevant to my arguments.
                      CO2 levels and Sea Levels are also facts. Again there can be small arguments about the data, but they are small – irrelevant to my arguments.
                      There are myriads of other factors that effect climate besides CO2. That means two things: the scale of the impact of CO2 is small in comparison to the sum of those other factors
                      temperatures do not follow some perfect mathematical projection.

                      Given all of that
                      Global temperatures reasonably well match a simple Arrenhius/SB/Plank mathematical model with no other factors besides CO2
                      Global Temperatures do NOT match the warmist Global Climate Models – they are about 2.5 std dev’s off.

                      This does not prove anything with absolute certainty – but the probability of natural variation of 2.5 std dev’s is about 2%.

                    • “Gore has two fundimental issues:”

                      I won’t disagree that Gore has two fundamental issues or more. It seems you are trying to compete with him to prove you are better which IMO would be foolish since he starts at such a low position.

                    • I am not competing with Gore. I am using him, since he keeps coming up.
                      Just like David’s climate historian.

                      Frankly he is a poor source. I would rather argue with or about an actual climate scientist.

                    • “I am not competing with Gore.”

                      Though I prefer your science to Gore’s your rhetoric from the other side mirrors his.

                    • You remain fixated on semantics – or rhetoric.

                      You want to debate how and argument is made or the word choices, rather than the actual argument.
                      Your rhetorical claims are both nonsense and irrelvant even if they were true.

                    • “You remain fixated on semantics – or rhetoric.”

                      I can’t stand your certainty any more than I can stand Gore’s.

                    • It is possible that the science I am “certain” of is wrong. If so CAGW is the least of our concerns.

                      I am not going to appologize for expressing more certainty in the laws of thermo dynamics than CAGW.

    • Allan — Spencer Weart did his PhD in solar physics but later switched to the history of science. He has other research but his major contribution is his “The Discovery of Global Warming”. I am pleased that you have started reading it.

      • David, just skipping around it a bit. The more important issue for those not involved in studying such theories is what we do and how to do it without causing unintended consequences and much greater risks.

        • If you do not want massive unintended consequences you do NOT apply top down solutions.

          So long as your solution is top down enormous unintended consequences are a near certainty.
          Look at the housing bubble and financial crisis – the unintended counsequences of small sustained errors by the Fed.

            • I make arguments – I try not to personalize them.
              I do not know what you think. Only what you write.

              Further I will often expand on the good points of others,
              or correct minor mistakes of those I otherwise agree with.

              • dhlii writes: “I make arguments – I try not to personalize them.”

                When you make arguments the placement of such an argument ends up personalizing what you say whether you like it or not. You are attempting to import a political position into a scientific discussion. That is fine with me, but you should recognize the difference between politics and science.

                ” Only what you write.”

                That sort of sounds like a doubling down on the prior comment. Since you know what I write quote the point (in context) that you think makes it appear “I utilize the top down approach.” It sounds like you like to play with words and concepts, but to do so properly one has to do so in the context of the discussion.

                “Further I will often expand on the good points of others,”

                That is fine as long as you make it clear what you are doing and what you are saying. If you are dealing with science try and keep the hyperbole to a minimum.

                • “When you make arguments the placement of such an argument ends up personalizing what you say whether you like it or not. You are attempting to import a political position into a scientific discussion. That is fine with me, but you should recognize the difference between politics and science.”

                  Absolutely wrong. Facts are facts. If they offend you – that is your problem, not the facts,
                  if they favor one political perspective over the other – that does nto make the facts political.
                  It makes one political perspective more likely true.

                  The left like to claim they are scientific and the right is not.
                  If that were true it would be important. If it were true, the agreement between science and left politics would bolster left politics, not discredit science.
                  However that is NOT true. The fact is that most on the left are what Taleeb calls “Intellectual Yet Idiot”

                  • “Absolutely wrong. Facts are facts. If they offend you – that is your problem, not the facts,”

                    I have no problem with facts until they are misused. What is unrecognized by you is that the way you use your facts sometimes seems to be political or self-serving towards your ego.

                    “The left like to claim they are scientific and the right is not.”

                    Science is not by itself political, but it is used for political ends. Science and politics frequently intersect when funding is involved.

                    • If you think facts are misused – focus on that.

                      A fact is not misused because its use is in conformance with an ideology.

                      inverted ideological conformity does not invalidate a fact.

                      Any useful ideology is useful because of its conformance to reality.

                      If it were true that government spending is on net economically stimulative – that would butress one ideology. If it is not another.
                      The actual truth is not a misuse of facts, because it supports an ideology you do not like.

                      Again, are you interested in returning to the actual argument about climate ?
                      Or do you want ot argue about arguing.

                    • “If you think facts are misused – focus on that.”

                      I did dhlii. You are becoming confused by your own rhetoric. Pay attention. If you do you will see where you veered off the topic long ago.

                    • “You have not challenged my facts, or the methodology.”

                      I challenged your rhetoric for sometimes your argument used facts that were inappropriate to the narrative.

                      I didn’t challenge your methodology. I didn’t know you had one.

                    • Again you are arguing about how to argue.

                      “challenged your rhetoric for sometimes your argument used facts that were inappropriate to the narrative.”

                      There are no “naratives”, this is not about “rhetoric”
                      We are having a discussion of science. That would be data, logic reason.
                      Methodologies are the process by which we propose to turn data into information.

                      Rhetoric and naratives are irrelevant.
                      This is not literary criticism.

                    • “Rhetoric and naratives are irrelevant.”

                      dhlii, It is through the use of rhetoric that one explains their beliefs and methodology.

                    • Still arguing over arguing.
                      Look up rhetoric. It does not mean what you think it means.
                      Rhetoric does not mean the use of words.
                      It is the study of the persuasive use of words.

                      Reality is uneffected by the extent of your persuasion.

                    • You have a severe problem dhlii. I will repeat what I said. ” It is through the use of rhetoric that one explains their beliefs and methodology.” You do a lousy job.

                    • E = mC^2

                      Are you saying that is rhetorical ? That semantics matter ?

                      The arguments I have made can all be reduced to math and symbolic logic.
                      While I have expressed them in words because most humans are better able to process that form,
                      I have very little interest is your debate over the words I used to express and arument that is independent of the choice of words.

                      My arguments are only expressions of “beleif” in the sense that I “beleive” in the laws of physics.

                      I have zero interest in your tangential attack on rhetoric, or “beleif”.

                      I am pretty sure that you actually understand the substance of my argument.
                      If not – tell me what is unclear about the argument – not my “rhetoric” and I will clarify.
                      Otherwise, your semantica arguments are just a fallacious effort to duck the real argument.

                    • “E = mC^2 Are you saying that is rhetorical ? That semantics matter ?”

                      Your rhetoric. You are no Einstein.

                    • I am not einstein. But every one of the equations I am refering to has the same form – for good reason, they are all related. You can not reject one without falsifying them all.

                      You bemoan my certainty. The probability of reconciling CAGW with basic physics is low.
                      In that conflict the probability that basic physics is wrong is near zero.

                      It is not hubris to prefer things that have an infinitesimal chance of being false to those that are 2.5 std dev’s away from certainty.

                      Everything is uncertain. But there are exponentially large differences in degree.

                • ““Further I will often expand on the good points of others,”

                  That is fine as long as you make it clear what you are doing and what you are saying. If you are dealing with science try and keep the hyperbole to a minimum.”

                  Blog posts are not scientific papers, there is no obligation to attribute.

                  I have used very little hyperbole, that is an attribute of warmists, and the left.
                  I am not saying “the sky is falling” – the left is, warmists are.

                  • You should attribute the quotes. The first paragraph is yours. The second is mine.

                    “Blog posts are not scientific papers, there is no obligation to attribute.”

                    I don’t care about attribution. I care about the accuracy of what another is portraying. I believe you haven’t been doing a good job on this particular subject and though I have likely read the op-eds you appear to be repeating, they have been written a lot better without so much dogmatism.

                    “I have used very little hyperbole”

                    That is what you think,

                    • I am glad you know so much better than I what and how I am thinking.

                      My arguments are my own. They do not come from some “op-ed”s.
                      They do come from knowledge attained by studying others.
                      It is possible someone else has made the same argument with or without my knowledge.
                      That just means great minds think alike.

                      Regardless, you have transformed this into an argument over arguing.

                      I am interested in the argument over climate.

                    • “I am glad you know so much better than I what and how I am thinking.”

                      If I knew what you were thinking I wouldn’t have stated: “You should attribute the quotes. The first paragraph is yours. The second is mine.”

                      All you did was confuse things.

                      I also wouldn’t have said”

                      “I care about the accuracy of what another is portraying. ”

                      You seem to have 3 mouths and no ears.

                    • “Stell trying to debate how to debate.”

                      Absolutely not, for it is impossible for a person with three mouths and no ears to debate anything.

                    • I am having no problem listening to you.
                      In fact it is because I am directly confronting what you are saying that you are infuriated.

                      You keep making this about semantics, style, rhetoric, and I keep calling you on it.
                      You do not seem to have any interest in any discussion of substance.

                    • “In fact it is because I am directly confronting what you are saying that you are infuriated.”

                      Now I am infuriated? One can only laugh at the comment. At least you didn’t start a discussion on teen pregnancy.

      • Marx was an absolutely brilliant economist. He was also pretty much wrong about everything.

        There is a reason appeals to authority are fallacies.

        If you want to read something – try Talib Nassem. Or Julian Simon, or …
        There are fundimental reasons that very smart people are far more likely to get things wrong than right.

        Think about it, scientific advance occurs at the margins (much like economics) it is unusual, not the norm.
        At any time in history the vast majority of our smartest minds were wrong about the major issues of their day. There are fundimental issues of nature and human nature that assure that will always be true.

        It is near certain that whatever the most if the brilliant minds of an era are saying about the central new issues in that era is wrong.

        There was no silent spring, no population bomb no peak oil, ……
        It is predictable that smart people will make malthusian forecasts and predictable that they will be wrong.
        This is not at all unique to climate science.

  3. Go read the writing by Prof. Muller in The New York Times which I linked further down. It is a good counter to the babblings of the 1000 fools.

    • What we have is an article written by a very indecisive man who seems to change his opinion from one pole to the other even after being burned. Basically, it is a ‘he said she said’ argument but his words don’t carry any more importance than the words of many others he might disagree with. He does add a greater dimension to what causes global warming than just the two you mention.

      Let me end with his statement: “The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried.” That the CO2 curve is the best match tried doesn’t add to my confidence, but thank you for what I consider to be another opinion worth reading.

      • Better than the babblings of the 1000 fools, who didn’t look at the data.

        As for the effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere you are welcome to repeat the experiments conducted by John Tyndall in 1859 and then the work of Svante Arrhenius in the 1880s. Or just read their results in “The Global Warming Papers”.

        That global warming is due to carbon dioxide is hardly to be doubted.

        • I missed this earlier David.

          “global warming is due to carbon dioxide is hardly to be doubted.”

          At the very least be specific. Are you limiting that to man-made global warming if significant global warming by man exists?

          “hardly to be doubted”

          Doubts abound. Don’t forget the adage correlation does not mean causation. That adage is basic to scientific studies. In the climate change debate correlation sometimes appears to be utilized as causation.

          • I do not think there is gredible doubt that CO2 is a GHG.

            There is a great deal of debate over the ECS – with values ranging from .25C/doubling to 6C/doubling.
            There is pretty compelling science today suggesting that 2C/doubling is actually the upper limit and that the likely value is 1.2C/doubling.

            I am personally more inclined to .25C/doubling.

            All that said the IPCC AR5 is based on 3.4C/doubling.

            I would note these are exponentials – the difference between 3.4C/doubling and 2C/doubling is not 1.4C,

            • The real question is what part of climate warming is man-made, how significant it is compared to all other causes and what to do about it.

            • I think that is the one thing that everyone at the table agrees on. We go through this type of disagreement over and over again, but it passes. For some, the passing is like a kidney stone so I expect a lot of screaming and yelling.

        • Are you the slightest familiar with Arrenhius and his equation ?

          You have been exposed to history without understanding it.

          Arrenhius requires a doubling of CO2 for each incremental (ECS) increase in temperature.

          There are a whole raft of implications that follow, as well as inconsistencies with CAGW pseudo science.
          Plank followed Arrenhius and worked in physics rather than climate, but essentially came to the same results – the laws of thermodynamics require exponential increases in energy for linear increases in temperature.

          More simply the warmer anything gets the exponentially greater energy it requires to warm it further.

  4. David seemed to become a bit upset that I linked the CLOUD experiment to CERN so I went to CERN to see what it had on the CLOUD experiment.

    I recognize that CERN isn’t a climatology laboratory but it has laboratories and equipment that aren’t available elsewhere. Despite what you say, David, this sounds like appropriate research and should be part of the discussion. I am not saying it invalidates your claims or anything like that. It is just another area of experimentation that should be warmly accepted. It also makes for some interesting reading on the subject and proposes ideas that could lead to solutions should global warming become a problem.

      • David, you made it sound as if it were a terrible thing to link CLOUD to CERN, but CLOUD is on CERN’s website providing general information that seems to be somewhat at odds over what you said. It is more than a refinement. It demonstrates that CERN is not embarrassed by that research you belittled.

        Dismissing it as if it were junk, without proof, does little to elevate your position on climate change.

        That is what the IPCC did with their attempt to control the scientific news which led to comments such as this: “In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn’t happen…Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data”

        I don’t think that is your intention and my intention is to be more informed on a broad scale that includes ideas you might not accept even though some might find your ideas unacceptable as well.

        • I forgot to state a thank you for the links. However, the results simply confirm in a laboratory setting some of what NOAA sponsored research had already determined by flying instruments in airplanes through clouds.

          You would have a far better grasp of the scope of the research and climatological understanding by reading Weart to whatever depth matches your current state of knowledge.

          • I really hate appeals to authority, but as you keep offering them.

            My “depth” is sufficient to have won the country science fair with a project specifically related to physics, thermodynamics and plank temperatures. It was sufficient to skip freshman chemistry and physics in college. I do not have a degree in physics because I went into engineering instead – where when you are wrong about basic science, things break and people die.

            I am not particularly impressed by historians, politicians or lawyers spouting science.
            Nor am I impressed by a bevy of climate scientists who are indistinguishable from the “Scientists” who could not pass the physics courses I took in college, much less the enginering ones.

            One of the most damning aspects of climate science, is that nearly to a man, climate scientists are clueless about math and statistics, and are constantly trying to game statistics to get the results they want.

            Economist Paul Romer had an excellent paper a few years ago about mathematical modeling involving multiple complex simultaneous equations – something central to economics as well as climate,
            Where he trivially demonstrated that it is always possible to hind cast most any theory you can come up with – given a sifficiently complex model with enough coeficcients.

            Global climate models are an order of magnitiude more complex than economic models,
            Yet no one sane would claim that we can do anything but the most generalized forecasting.

            Current climate modeling, requires vast oversimplification of the math and exponential increases in the cell size just to be able to run at faster than real time on the most powerful supercomputers in the world.

            We do not and never will have the computational power to run climate models – without over simplification at faster than real time. Warmists are trying to model a chaos system that is orders of magnitude more complex than the economy – something we are also no where near being able to successfully model.

            No I do not trust climate scientists who never should have graduated for lack of understanding of basic math and physics, and who have no grasp of the real limits to our ability to model complex systems.

  5. David, I know you have some misgivings about the IPCC. Going over my email before I had to leave I noted this article. I don’t know if you may have sent it to me or I linked to it for further reading, but with little time I glanced it over and found considerable agreement with what is being said. I don’t even have enough time to fully read it, but I figured I would post a part of it and anyone interested could go to the site. I particularly noted “UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones “should be barred from the IPCC process…They are not credible anymore.” followed by “Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. “By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication,” Credibility which is all important is easily lost. If you have any comments let me know.

    More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

    Challenge UN IPCC :Panel

    Note: This report was originally published in 2010. It is of utmost relevance to the ongoing debate on climate change. .

    Link to Complete 321-Page PDF Special Report

    More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report — updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report’s release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.

    The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly. The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

    The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2010 as the Climategate scandal — which involved the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists — detonated upon on the international climate movement. “I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple,” said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke. Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other. UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones “should be barred from the IPCC process…They are not credible anymore.”

    Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. “By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication,” Zorita wrote. A UN lead author Richard Tol grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been “captured” and demanded that “the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed.” Tol also publicly called for the “suspension” of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate as lead author again in the next IPCC Report. [Note: Zorita and Tol are not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.]

    Other UN scientists were more blunt. A South African UN scientist declared the UN IPCC a “worthless carcass” and noted IPCC chair Pachauri is in “disgrace”. He also explained that the “fraudulent science continues to be exposed.” Alexander, a former member of the UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters harshly critiqued the UN. “‘I was subjected to vilification tactics at the time. I persisted. Now, at long last, my persistence has been rewarded…There is no believable evidence to support [the IPCC] claims. I rest my case!” See: S. African UN Scientist Calls it! ‘Climate change – RIP: Cause of Death: No scientifically believable evidence…Deliberate manipulation to suit political objectives’ [Also see: New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming — As Skeptics!] Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, a professor of geology at Western Washington University, summed up the scandal on December 3, 2010: “The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency.”

    Selected Highlights of the Updated 2010 Report featuring over 1,000 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:

    “We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.”

    — UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.

    “Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” — NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

    “Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.”

    — Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

    “In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn’t happen…Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data”

    — Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems.

    “The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate…The planet’s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.”

    — Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

    “Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences…AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.”

    — Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.”

    “I am an environmentalist,” but “I must disagree with Mr. Gore” — Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland, during her presentation titled “Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming, the Skeptic’s View.”

    “I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.”

    — Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled “The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere” and he published a paper in August 2009 titled “Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.” [Update December 9, 2010]

    “The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.”

    — Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. [Updated December 9, 2010. Corrects Jelbring’s quote.]

    “Those who call themselves ‘Green planet advocates’ should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere…Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content…Al Gore’s personal behavior supports a green planet – his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.”

    — Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named “100 most influential people in the world, 2004″ by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him “the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer.”

    “Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.”

    — Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia’s CSIRO’s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.

    “We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” — Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens’ Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.

    “There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These cycles are related to solar activity…In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.”

    — Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

    “Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.” — Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock an honorary fellow with Institute for Economic Affairs who published a study challenging man-made global warming claims titled “Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming.”

    “The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud.” — South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.

    End of Selected Excerpts


    The rapidity of the global warming establishment’s collapse would have been unheard of just two years ago. Prominent physicist Hal Lewis resigned from American Physical Society, calling “Global warming the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life.” UK astrophysicist Piers Corbyn was blunt about what Climategate revealed: “The case for climate fears is blown to smithereens…the whole theory should be destroyed and discarded and UN conference should be closed.”

    Continued at article

    • A whole pack of now 1000 fools. I doubt a single one has read even one of the papers collected in “The Global Warming Papers” edited by Archer and Pierrehumbert.

      I will only comment about Easterbrook as he is in the same state. He is a geologist whose specialty is far removed from the atmospheric sciences and from oceanography, both necessary to understand the basics. Which are: the Keeling curve shows that the carbon dioxide concentration is increasing and various studies show the obvious fact that this is due to burning fossil fuels. The result is clear from the global warming papers.

      Quit avoiding the necessary task of reading Weart. You are wasting your time and mine as well.

      • David writes: “A whole pack of now 1000 fools. ”

        Victor Hugo makes the observation: “Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the grander view?”

        Innocently, several decades ago a machine made by Kodak was demonstrated to me for about ten minutes. I knew very little about its internal engineering and nothing about the statistical problems they were having at the time. That was all unknown to me but I quickly saw a problem and recognized the way the results would be intermittently and falsely skewed. I immediately told the individual that the equipment had a major design problem and then explained the results they were having and why the problems were not happening all the time. I then told him exactly how the problem could be easily and inexpensively be fixed.

        He was amazed because Kodak had spent a couple of million dollars and almost two years trying to fix the problem. They were looking at it from the wide statistical view of the results from all over the country and the very narrow focused views of the engineers some of whom likely created the machine. He then told me they finally found the problem I described and were already producing the machine with the fix in the manner I suggested.

        No one had looked at the problem as a whole without any preconceptions which was the only thing I had time to do. I think this is one of the problems we are facing in this dispute over climate change when on such a complex subject one or the other focuses too intently on a singular issue.

        • You are correct, but there are so many problems with Climate science. I would further note that many of those pollute science as a whole today.

          We get confused about the fact that there is no such thing as settled science. There are however things that are proven – for the moment, and have as of yet not been disproven.
          Those are the actual standards of science.
          Newtonian physics has been proven – for condition far from the speed of light.

          Politics is a major issue in all science.
          Anthropology was rigidly locked into a specific “out of africa” model for decades do to the influence of a small number of powerful anthrolopologists. As their influence waned pre-existing challenges were taken seriously and the smithsonian seems to be updating their “origens of man” exhibt monthly.

          Another is modeling. Any model with sufficient coefficients can be made to match any reality without meaning or predictive ability. Climate models are much more complex that the economic models which are the foundation of this observation, Economic modeling is far more developed than climate models.
          Would you trust an economic model running to 2100 ?

          Lots of statistical ignorance amoung climate scientists.
          Very few in the climate science community are top tier minds.
          If you are truly brilliant, you are going to make a mark in another field.
          Mediocre talent gravitates to climate science as an opertunity to make a mark.

          • Thanks dhlii. One of the biggest contributions made by some climatologists is to convince a large part of the population not to believe a word they say. However, I don’t want to throw away the minds of some really brilliant scientists that have contributed greatly to the field whether or not their field is climatology.

            I learned to be cautious when a specific title is carved out of a broader group. I had this happen when arguing with two professors of health care economics.They felt their title provided them with greater standing. The argument was extremely heated between the three of us while existed among a well-educated group. Two of the brilliant classical economists in the group later explained that they did not agree with the healthcare economists and that the health care economists strayed from some of the accepted science of economics. They continued to explain that they felt that most health care economists of the time were cloned from the same source and therefore provided a groupthink mentality. How much of this type of thinking happened with those that refer to themselves as climatologists? I don’t know.

            • There are brilliant scientists. At the same time we should take care not to assign to science authority it does not have. Scientists are people. They are as corrupt, biased, political as the rest of us. They are a slice of humanity with the same general characteristics as the rest of us.

              We should also be careful about sub sub specialties. Contra much that is sold to the public neither healthcare nor really anything else operates in an economic context that is unique.
              There is no “healthcare economics” there is economics applied to healthcare or to construction or to …
              As a consequence of being highly and badly regulated, economics in healthcare behaves as it would in any market segment that was highly and badly regulated in the same way.

              It is quite common for those in power to create problems and then use those problems as the justification for more power so that they can fix them.

              As an example – the VA is broken, so the answer is billions more for the VA. In most of the world we do not reward failure.

              • I am afraid there are Ph.D’s in economics that refer to themselves as healthcare economists based on training and their particular interests. I don’t find them very impressive.

    • Allan – I thought Michael Mann should be stripped of his Ph.D, but I was lukewarm on Phil Jones. He seemed more like a fellow traveler.

  6. “The climatology research of the past 15 years or so shows that the other factors are bit players. Very interesting details to be sure, but nothing major is missing.”

    David, that always leaves us wondering how many bit players there are and how much they contribute. That remains unmentioned and if unmentioned means uncertainty. But again, letting us assume only two players are causing the problem and one is based on orbit and tilt then wouldn’t that mean the models should have worked?

    Then again all sorts of things happen on the sun that can increase the temperature. On earth, we have seen volcano’s that decrease the temperature of the earth significantly. These factors are telling us that the other factors are more than just bit players and might have more influence on climate change than you are giving credit for.

  7. Allan, *any* beginning book on elementary climatology will include the Arrhenius approximation for the forcing due to a change in carbon dioxide concentration. Fix a base concentration, usually about 275 ppm. Divide the current concentration, say 410 pmm, by the base concentration.

    Take the logarithm of that ratio. That is, approximately to a very good approximation, the forcing once multiplied by an empirically determined factor, usually expressed in terms of a doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration. For a doubling, close to 3 °C warmer is about right over the short term, i.e., a few hundred years. Eventually equilibrium is reached and the factor is more like 6 °C warmer but that is quite uncertain.

    How fast? Carbon dioxide is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere with a mixing time of 2–3 years. Then the Arrhenius approximation applies within about 7–8 years according to some attempts to measure this.

    More to your needs, there are those attempting to work out how much to reduce carbon dioxide emissions so as to keep the global temperature increase to just 2 °C by 2100, as if the world will end then. Well, it might as I opine that there is no way that such drastic reductions will occur. Sorry that I cannot readily find suitable citations for you. Try following
    And Then There Is Physics

    • David, you provide some interesting information. I am sure much of what you say has validity, but how does one determine that one idea is correct over another? What we note is a consensus view of people that already agree with one another. From what I have read the attitude among the consensus is that the outlier is a jerk if he disputes climate change to be less than what the consensus believes. Yet, I don’t see a rebuke of Al Gore who went crazy in the other direction where politics entered the picture. I also note that some well-credentialed members of the scientific community are excluded from the consensus-makers. Just look at how you reacted when I first questioned the consensus. Finally, there is so much politicalization of climate change that it is difficult to believe anyone.

      I think more transparency is required. That means the consensus-makers don’t simply act as a group rather they become inclusive and more willing to accept criticism. The consensus-makers also need to firmly criticize the likes of Al Gore and themselves. The community should be more transparent when members of that community cheat either through fudging their work or lying. When models are made the public expects them to work and when they don’t the public needs honest explanations of why the new model works and where the failures were with the old models.

      I don’t know that earthly weather patterns such as cloud formation, CO2 penetration of the oceans, etc. don’t have more effect than you give credit for. I don’t even know for sure that CO2 reacts exactly as portrayed by one side of the climate consensus. How would I know even if I read every book you mentioned?

      To be as open as I can be I remain totally agnostic convinced that politics has a tremendous effect on what we are being led to believe. Just look at the people on the blog and take note how much their political views coincide with their belief on climate change.

      • Science is self correcting and based upon experimentation and observation. We have learned how to do it quite well since the days of Issac Newton and the Baconists.

        In particular, we have learned to ignore those who speak outside their specialty. That is most on your list of 1000. Shame on them!

        As for politics, the well known climatologist Dr. James Hansen is/was a Republican. Try reading his “Days of My Grandchildren”.

        The main point is that his entire career was in climatology; no dabbler, he.

  8. (This was third level down so you should be able to read it, but just in case…)

    “David, you said, “concensus climatology has it about right”. That should mean that you are able to provide the basics of the consensus along with a few of the major disputes so that we all have an idea of exactly what the “consensus” thinks the problem is. I don’t believe for a second that you think what Al Gore has said is true.”

    • I answered about the scientific concensus further down.

      The problem? With regard to climatology there is still plenty to learn. If you mean rapid climate change then this is attributed to too much carbon dioxide being emitted too fast.

      • The trend at the moment is towards diminished warming if there is any at all – not rapid warming.

        CO2 levels are increasing linearly as they have been for 200 years. there is no sudden rapid increase.
        If anything there are signs that the rate of increase is declining.
        Regardless, there is no rapid increase.

      • The way you write makes your own ignorance of science (or your politicization of it) self evident.

        Reality is. Science and reality have no moral judgement, There is no such things in sciences as “too fast”

        In real science, rate X has effect Y, and rate Q has effect R. there is no “too fast”, those are human political judgements not science.

  9. Allan — I have never seen anything regarding articles about solar effects from CERN. The only thing that I know that CERN did was provide a meson source for the CLOUD experiment, as I indicated in a comment now below. Do you have a link?

    • My understanding, at least in part mentioned elsewhere, was not that CERN et al. was the research provider rather they permitted the use of part of their facilities by a research team, so I don’t question what you say about CERN providing a meson source, but that lends some credibility to the researcher and the questions he raised.

      I don’t know that he was discredited by the research community or not, but we do know that when politics enters the picture those people we consider to be experts have a tendency to limit those with alternative ideas from joining the community.

        • What I think you are trying to say is that the creation of clouds has a different mechanism. The question of clouds reflecting a portion of heat seems to remain unchallenged.

          • There is the science. That is apolitical. Peer review does a good job of keeping it so.

            Nothing is perfect, but in the case of climatology there certainly are those who attempt to cause FUD, fead, uncertainty and doubt. Reading Weart is an excellent counter.

            • I am certain there are those that push excessive doubt, but nothing can be more destructive to the ideas you promote than people like Al Gore that make ludicrous statements or climate models that don’t work.

              Let me provide the end product as I see it.

              Manmade climate change doesn’t exist: Nothing need be done.

              Manmade climate change is going to kill us all Al Gore style very quickly: Nothing we are doing will save us. We have to think out of the box. How about injecting SO2 into the stratosphere where it has the most effect along with a host of other seemingly crazy ideas.

              Manmade climate change is a long way off: We have time to develop new technologies. What type of lifestyle will do less damage to the earth? A common concern is pollution and reducing pollution goes a long way to reducing greenhouse gases.Do carbon credits work? I don’t think so, but I think Al Gore and a lot of people will get rich off of them. Al Gore still lives in that huge house with a large carbon footprint. Should we stop certain industrial work in this country so China does it with 3+ times the pollution?

              The only reason to develop a consensus is to permit other scientist something to prove or not prove wrong and the only reason for that is to learn what we need to do about the problem if it is dangerous to mankind. In the end, it is all about policy, politics and, money. That requires proving it exists to society and so far the proof doesn’t get great ratings and it isn’t great enough to even get most supporters to radically change their lifestyles.

              • Climate change is already upon us. Compare the extreme weather events of this century with the one degree predictions of Mark Lynas. How well is he doing?

                • “Climate change is already upon us. Compare the extreme weather events…”

                  David, I apparently missed this email as well or my response disappeared into cyber-space. Climate Change has always been with us. How can a scientist state otherwise as it appears you have?

                  ” the one degree predictions of Mark Lynas. ”

                  If you print enough Sh-t some of it is bound to come true.

                • Total garbage. There is ZERO evidence of increases in extreme weather events.
                  In fact the opposite is true – particularly in the last 50 years.
                  And in fact the Global climate models actually predict that.

                  This fall we had several large huricanes strike the US – the first time we had had any in more than a decade. That was unusual.

                  We are seeing larger dollar claims for damage – but that is a the consequence of two things.
                  Inflation and the fact that we are wealthier.

                  If you wish to be taken credibly – do not sell garbage.

                  Mark Lynas is an activist. That is not a reliable source for anything.
                  I would suggest the papers by Pielke Jr. as a far better source.

              • I would posit a different alternative.

                Nature is as it is. Man is a part of it.
                To the extent man has control over nature it is as individuals, not government.
                Scientists might do a far better job of persuading if their audience was individuals rather than government elites.

                Like myriads of problems – the worst possible resolution is top down.
                Where it has benefited us we have changed our use of energy many times in human history.
                Until the 18th century nearly all energy was biological. We shifted from dung, to peat to coal to oil over time – always at higher cost, in return for a cleaner environment.

                If CO2 is actually a problem – there is no reason humans can not shift again – rapidly if necescary.
                During WWII Germans produced a substantial portion of their oil synthetically and cost effectively.
                Something we have never managed since.
                The point is when we actually need to we can adapt.

                The warmist position has myriads of assumptions that must ALL be true to reach catastrophe.
                Warming must be driven by humans, and specifically by CO2, emissions must increase exponentially, or there must be large unregulated positive feedbacks which never exist in nature, there must be a tipping point from which recovery is impossible, and we must be near it and finally warming must on net be bad. Past history strongly suggests warming would be largely net positive.

                If ONE of these things are wrong this is not an issue.
                If any of these are something people will address on their own without government – it is not an issue.

                • “Nature is as it is. Man is a part of it.”…

                  The particular portion of the thread I was mostly engaging in was science, not political and I only engaged in a political discussion when dealing with solutions to the problems at hand because solutions are generally managed in a political fashion.

                  Presently you are more engaged in a political discussion which is opinion based. I have no problem with a variety of opinion including much of your own but I do have a problem when one tries to blenderize science into politics with the ‘certainty’ of science. That is what Al Gore does and that is what you did all too frequently in this discussion.

                    • dhlii, You need to learn how a bridge is built to span from one state into another and you also need to learn how to build a bridge rhetorically and politically.

                    • No Allan, I do not need to do something, just because you want me to.

                      I am free to decide what I need and what I do not need.

                    • “No Allan, I do not need to do something”

                      Wrong. You need to if you want to sound intelligent, but you don’t have to …

                    • Not only are you dictating my needs – but now you wish to tell me my wants ?

                      You really are a control freak.

                    • “You really are a control freak.”

                      It is not a matter of control rather a matter that you wish to prove yourself right and I am not agreeing for the reasons mentioned over and over again. You can say whatever you want in whatever fashion you want. You can even speak a language no one understands. You have chosen your language mixing fact, theory, and misstatements together. That type of language is nearly as unintelligible as one that I don’t understand very well.

                    • Stall arguing badly over how to argue – and yes, that is being a control freak.
                      And you continue to presume to know my thoughts, intentions, and motives.

                      If some fact, theory, or statement I have made is false – you should be able to specifically identify that.

                      You do not falsify an argument by saying “you are wrong”.
                      You do so by identifying a false premise or fact.
                      You have not done so.

                      You are fixated on the beleif that I must be wrong, because my style or arguments are different than your expectations.

                    • “If some… statement I have made is false – you should be able to specifically identify that.”

                      That has been done more than once.

                    • “That has been done more than once.”
                      Then you should have no problem doing so again – or citing where you did so before.

                      Allan – you have not even tried.
                      You remain admittedly fixated on “rhetoric” which is irrelevant.

                    • “Then you should have no problem doing so again ”

                      You can do the wading into the past. I’m not going to waste my time.

                    • My self image does not rest on your perception of me.

                      Further I do not want to “sound intelligent”.
                      I am self confidant, I do not need the acolades of others.

                      I am interested in the argument.
                      I would be very interested in a strong counter from someone capable of putting up a good challenge.
                      So far you have offered only lame debate about style, rhetoric and semantics. I am not interested.

                    • “My self image does not rest on your perception of me.”

                      That is obvious and OK, but I don’t think I am alone. I followed some discussions you had with DSS way back and sided with your interpretation because we were talking about philosophy rather than science where verbiage is frequently overused. Once again you shot your arrows all over the place and provided information not applicable to the discussion. You did the same thing there as you did here, but this was an issue of science.

                      “Further I do not want to “sound intelligent”.”

                      Based on what I have seen, I flatly disagree.

                      “I would be very interested in a strong counter ”

                      The ones who disagreed refused to use scientific evidence appropriately and quoted names like Wearte. Those that had a significant agreement with you couldn’t agree because you were too imprecise and mixing theory, fact, and philosophy together. You want to carry on in that fashion so one cannot ever agree with you unless one wants to be proven wrong on the specifics.

                    • Disproving something – such as CAGW, inherently involves “shooting arrows all over the place”

                      Real science is falsified by a single “Inconvenient Truth” it is so amazing how Gore misused the phrase.
                      If a single argument I make regarding CAGW is correct, that CAGW is falsified. It is also likely that if one of my arguments is correct – they all are, but I only need you to accept one – if you are really thinking scientifically.

                      Making several arguments is not mixing facts, science and philosophy imprecisely.

                      Regardless, you are back engaged (badly) in arguing about how to argue.

                      My profession requires rigid logic. If you can identify a real flaw in my logic, I am interested.
                      I am not interested, in the meaningless distraction you want to get into.

                      p implies q
                      therefore q

                      is logic, it is extremely precise, despite the complete absence of any number.
                      You do not understand logic, argument or precision.

                      There are others here who have made different arguments – ones that get more into the weeds of very narrow aspects of CAGW, that might have some of what you think is precision.

                      I do not disagree with those arguments
                      but I usually avoid them, as they are highly technical and confusing to most people. Warmists depend on that confusion.

                      I am attacking fundimentals. Linear increases in energy must result in a temperature curve that rapidly flattens. That is basic physics and math. As I have said repeatedly – that statement is true – regardless of the coefficients.

                      To be clear I am not seeking to produce the absolute correct model for warming.

                      All I have done is proven that warmist global climate modals fall outside the set of possibly correct answers.

                      Warmists are requiring linear temperature increases with linear energy increases and that is mathematically and physically impossible.

                    • “My profession requires rigid logic.”

                      dhlii, you have not demonstrated that here. Logic involves following a point not adding points all over the place.

                    • “dhlii, you have not demonstrated that here. Logic involves following a point not adding points all over the place.”

                      No! Logic is a sequence of premises and implications, that can be reduced by a formal set of rules to a conclusion that has the same truth value as the premises.

                      There are infinite means of making the same argument, so long as they conform to the formal rules they will all produce the same results.

                      While you claim that I am off point is false, I merely refuse to make my arguments constrained by your framing. Our pollution exchange being the perfect example. Most people care about net harm or net life extension, not SO2. If I have $100 and live in a world where there is cholera in the water and SO2 in the air, I am going to spend my money cleaning the water. As that will have the greatest benefit.
                      Not arguing over whether Cholera is a pollutant.

                      You are only interested in semantics. That is a game I try to avoid.

                      I do not know your politics, but the use of semantics is typical of post-moderns and the left.
                      The meaning of words is very important – it is how humans communicate. It is also how most of them think. But I have found that when someone mangles the meaning of words as a way of forcing a specific outcome to a debate, the best counter is to shift to words that are more clear.
                      The purpose of nearly all debate is the ultimate benefit to humans.
                      The entire debate over CAGW is stupid – if humans are on net better (as is likely) in a warmer world.
                      Spending a fortune to remove SO2 is ludicrously stupid if we are dying of cholera.
                      Transistors had no use to Henry VIII

                      What you keep seeing as going off point, is merely focusing on what actually matters – the benefits and harms to humans, not word games.

                      If you reduce an argument to the meaning of a word, I might demonstrate your meaning is wrong,
                      but if it is easier, I will just shift to using another word. The purpose of words is to communicate ideas.
                      It is not to constrain comunication.

                    • “No! Logic is a sequence of premises and implications”

                      Yes, but it starts at one point and one doesn’t present a sequence of premises for different points. That creates too much confusion.

                    • Please reread what you wrote – it is both wrong and incongruent with what I said.

                      Our conflicts primarily derive from the fact that I do not stop and argument half way – having reached some semantic result that you are happy with but no conclusion of substance.

                      I could argue the error of your definition of “pollution” and we could get into a debate with dueling dictionaries. But ultimately debate over the definition of pollution is inconsequential as the objective is the improvement in the quality of human life.

                      Whether you wish to call cholera pollution of not – a semantic debate, it is inarguable that its near eradication has benefited humans far more than resuditons in those things you are prepared to accept as pollution.

                      Separately, though not common, and possibly confusing, and not what I am doing, there is nothing improper about proving multiple tangentially related points in the same argument.

                      In fact nearly every argument starts with premises and using the rules of logic proves many intermediates on the way to a final result.

                  • Unless CAGW is real – the politics are irrelevant.

                    To get where the left wants to go you must demonstrate.
                    Warming is significant, harmful, and caused by humans.
                    You must further demonstrate that this problem which has yet to be established requires a government solution. That you have such a solution, and that it will work. That is the only political part.

                    • “Unless CAGW is real”… “you must demonstrate. Warming is significant, harmful…”

                      Neither side of the debate has been sufficiently proven. That means AGW is neither real nor unreal. The real demonstration is NOT to prove warming is significant. It is to prove that the solution works without too many unintended consequences.

                    • Science is about things proven to a high degree of probabilty.
                      Therefore according to you CAGW is not science.

                      I would note that ass offered by warmists it has been falsified.

                      What may be true is humans are responsible for some small amount of warming that is unlikely to be a problem.

                    • “Science is about things proven to a high degree of probabilty.”

                      Wrong. Science is activity in the study of… or an organized body of knowledge…

                    • “What do you think knowledge is ?”

                      Knowledge is an acquired amount of facts, information, etc. Once you mix in a lot of misstatement I don’t think one can still call that knowledge.

                    • “Unresponsive, asserts facts not in evidence.”

                      I wasn’t asserting a scientific fact. I responded to another remark of yours by defining the word knowledge.

                    • Epistemology and philosophy of science are the branches of philosophy and science (and their overlap) respectively concerned with the study of knowledge.

                      You do not just get to define knowlegde or the science of knowledge or the philosophy of knowledge from thin air either.

                      The primary argument I have made that you have issues with – as many arguments in science, is not absolute, it is probabalistic. It is extremely unlikely that CAGW theory is correct AND the existing facts are correct AND the laws of physics are correct. My argument comes very close but does not quite reach the high standard of absolute.

                      Philosophy of science and epistemology tell us that in a conflict between the near certain – the laws fo physics and facts, and the highly improbable – CAGW conformance, that one must either establish that the highly improbable is actually true, or reject it.
                      Put simply the burden of proof rests with you.

                    • “You do not just get to define knowlegde or the science of knowledge or the philosophy of knowledge from thin air either.”

                      I use a dictionary.

                  • While there are excellent arguments against CAGW that are rooted in details.
                    Every argument I have made here is rooted in immutable principles of physics.

                    To claim they are blenderized or political or Gore like, is to politicize basic science.

                    If you wish to confront Arrenhius, SB, or Plank – either fundimentally, or as applied. Do so.
                    But that is a scientific or mathematical, or factual argument. It is not a political one.

                    • “Every argument I have made here is rooted in immutable principles of physics.”

                      If only that were true of your rhetoric. Al Gore thinks as much of his science as you think of yours. Both of you add opinion to your science. That you add less sour milk than Gore to the fresh milk still leaves the milk sour.

                    • “my arguments are what you call my rhetoric”

                      OK, I will substitute the word arguments for the word rhetoric and repeat what I said.

                      If only that were true of your arguments [rhetoric]. Al Gore thinks as much of his science as you think of yours. Both of you add opinion to your science. That you add less sour milk than Gore to the fresh milk still leaves the milk sour.

                    • Are you caying that Arrenhius, Stephan-Boltzman and Plank are wrong ?
                      All three of these merely convert the laws of thermodynamics to mathematics.
                      The last two are far far broader than climate.

                      Al Gore is not discussing actual science. I am.

                      Warmist generally do not.

                      If you can not explain how CAGW theory does not run affoul of the laws of thermodynamics, why does anyone think you are credible ?
                      Warmism is like pretending that the laws of gravity do not apply to communists.
                      Your ideological views do not defeat science.
                      Nor does the ideological science of climate overrule centuries of basic physics.

                      I have raised several very specific and fairly easy to understand challenges to CAGW.
                      They mostly rely on basic physics. They are arguments that can be understood and tested by those with high school physics.
                      Even in the unlikely event that I am actually wrong – and what that requires is gargantuan energy capture that no one has been able to find, these are still questions that warmists are REQUIRED to answer.

                    • “Are you caying that Arrenhius, Stephan-Boltzman, and Plank are wrong ?”

                      You are talking about good scientists that I am sure made mistakes, but as usual, you didn’t set any parameters, just threw out names and then you ask if I am saying they are wrong. WRONG about What? It is your application of their theories that is in question, not their accepted theories or proofs. Unfortunately, you don’t seem to recognize the difference.

                      “Al Gore is not discussing actual science. I am.”

                      Al Gore thinks he invented the Internet. You at least attribute science to the scientists you mention and others however your application of the theories of others is poorly performed and too broad making even those that might agree with you want to step a few feet away.

                      My ideology is closer to yours as you well known from much earlier discussions. I am not referencing your ideology rather how inadvertently that seems to influence your rhetoric with regard to science.

                    • In this instance I am not talking about “scientists” I am talking about very specific equations that are their work. Equations that are all intrinsically related, and all derived from the laws of thermodynamics.

                      If they are mistaken we have far worse problems that CAGW. You could not heat water, or launch a rocket, and the earth would be a ball of ice.

                      To be tediously precise with you, Arrenhius, Stephan Boltzman, and Plank’s equations all mathemtaically reflect the concept that exponential increases in energy are necescary for each linear increase in temperature. E = AT^2 = that should be an incredibly familiar equation permutations of it are all over.
                      It is the equation relating energy to temperature, it related energy to mass, it relates energy to distance.
                      It is all over the place in physics. You can look up Arrenius’s equation or Stephan Boltzman’s or Planks and you will find permutations of that equation. The entirety of climate science as well as much other science rests on it.

                      The point I am making – which you can validate with any graphing calculator is that linear increases in T require exponential increases in E regardless of what the coefficient A is.
                      In climate A would be ECS. Which if you are paying the slightest attention is expresses as Degress C per doubling of CO2 or CO2 = ECS*T^2. Same equation all over.

                      Anyway graph it. For linear increases of T you need exponential increases of CO2 (or Energy).
                      Or graphed differently for linears increases in CO2 (or Energy) you will get ever diminishing increases in temperature.

                      From know factual date – earth’s energy levels are increasing linearly – we can know that from SLR.
                      Earth’s CO2 levels are increasing linearly – we know that from gathered data that everyone agrees on.

                      You can dick arround with coefficients all you want, you get the same type of curve no matter what, and not the one warmists predict.

                      Either the fundimentals of physics are wrong or climate models are.

                    • “In this instance I am not talking about “scientists” I am talking about very specific equations that are their work. ”

                      How in the h-ll, dhlii, would anybody know what you are talking about?

                    • “How in the h-ll, dhlii, would anybody know what you are talking about?”

                      By reading.

                      I will cede that it is unclear to a random person that references to Plank, SB, and Arrenhius are references to their work, and specifically to the mathematical equations that they derived expressing the relationship of energy (or CO2 in the case of Arrenhius) with temperature.

                      But if you are claiming more than cursory knowledge of climate and do not clearly know that you are being deliberately obdurate.
                      Further the common thread between the three of them is permutations of the same equation that has the general form E = At^2

                      If you do not know that – you should not be debating this.

                    • “By reading.”

                      That is your problem. You are too intent on what you wish to say than what the other person was talking about.

                    • I suggest re-reading your own remarks.

                      I do two things that put us at odds:

                      I read and respond to what you actually wrote rather than what you “Wish you wrote”.

                      I focus on the net overall benefit/harm to humans rather than some tunnel vision.

                  • The closest things I am having to a political argument with you are:

                    Debating how to debate.
                    Assuming – which is far from proven, that there is a problem, deciding whether fixing it is the legitimate role of government. Even that is arguably not political as we have lots of data.

                    • “Debating how to debate.”

                      It’s not as much how to debate as to how to control your rhetoric so it appears more level-headed.

                    • “Controling what others say is fortunately not in your power.”

                      That is quite obvious for you rant about things not under discussion.

        • Please do not slander the enlightenment by associating it with collectivists and statists.

          The actual enlightenment is about grasping the incredible importance of individual liberty.
          Warmists are about as far from enlightened as you can get.

      • When warmists say someone was discredited, they mean a bunch of warmists got together and said “we discredit you”.

        This is one of the problems with this “concensus” garbage. Scientific work is discredited by demonstrating error.

        CERN was the appropriate place to conduct the cloud studies. Their facilities were unequalled for that. The results have been illuminating, and have not been discredited.

        There results regarding cosmic rays confirm claims that are 40 years old and that warmists have rejected out of hand. Cosmic rays are a far more significant factor in cloud formation than warmist scientists have credited. Likely as much as 25% of warming since 1975 is due to cosmic ray cloud effects.

        Overall developments in our understanding of clouds have substantially changed, as warmist models assume that clouds are on net a significant positive feedback for warming, and the evidence indicates that clouds can be both positive and negative feedbacks and are must likely to function was a regulator rather than an acceplorator.

        • “When warmists say someone was discredited, they mean a bunch of warmists got together and said “we discredit you”.”

          Here, dhlii, you are correct. David Benson is an academic with an ego far in excess of his talent. He is about as narrow minded as one will encounter. One can neither trust his facts nor his opinions. The best one can say is that he has mastered the art of sophistry.

          “CERN was the appropriate place to conduct the cloud studies. Their facilities were unequalled for that. The results have been illuminating, and have not been discredited.”

          David disputed the above but based his argument totally on his own beliefs. That sounds more like a Liberal Arts graduate than anyone engaged in science. Regarding cloud formation and their effects, I agree with you and disagree with David who seems not to be aware of the literature. However, I am open to all opinions if they have science backing them up.

          • My god, agreement!!!.

            Mostly I have not engaged the CERN debate – though David is wrong, the results essentially indicate that about 1/4 of the past 40 years of warming can be attributed to cosmic rays.
            That weakens CAGW, but it is not fatal to it. It is not a direct confrontation of the purported science.

            Related, but more damaging, which David actually asserted failing to grasp that his own claims are central to the failure of CAGW, is the overall effect of clouds and water vapor.

            As I have noted my Thermodynamic argument is valid, strong, but probabilisitc – it does not preclude “positive feedbacks”, but it does prove that CO2 alone without positive feedbacks must result in a rapidly slowing rate of increase much as we have seen.

            Warmists have been ignoring water vapor and clouds in the past decade – because the evidence is running against them. Water vapor functions as both a positive and negative feedback – over the long run functioning as a sort of govenor, swinging positive or negative as needed to reach equilibrium.

            The details are not actually important. What is critical is that water vapor is inarguably NOT a strong universally positive feedback, and there is no warmist substitute for CO2, and hence CAGW fails.

            The planet may continue to warm or cool, or … but if will not track the Global Climate models absent a huge positive feedback from water vapor.

            The CERN work is one of many nails in the coffin of strong positive feedbacks from water vapor.

  10. David writes: “So once again we see that the concensus climatology has it about right. One ought to read it from reliable sources, not just whatever shows up on the Internet”

    None of us on this blog are climatologists. We all rely on what others tell us and we know that consensus thinking will be the status quo until someone proves it wrong. That is how science advances.

    The first thing I would have thought you would have done was to provide what you believe to be what the consensus is in climatology today and where the disputes lie within that consensus. Do we have a specific date in the near future as Al Gore says or in the distant future or somewhere in between. Should the consensus be correct, the timing of potential disaster is what most affects policy.

    • The concensus is the published literature, or rather, to be found in the published literature as some of it is wrong. There is quite a bit of it so summaries are helpful. On this thread I have suggested several but Weart is a historian of science and has put together an encyclopedic coverage in his online book. One cannot do better.

      By the way, I am now not so impressed with the IPCC process, but sometimes it is a good place to reference the very latest.

      • David, you said, “concensus climatology has it about right”. That should mean that you are able to provide the basics of the consensus along with a few of the major disputes so that we all have an idea of exactly what the “consensus” thinks the problem is. I don’t believe for a second that you think what Al Gore has said is true.

        • Concensus: carbon dioxide concentration controls global temperature when there is enough of it. When in low supply, Milankovitch cycles control temperature and so then the carbon dioxide concentration.

          Just now there is so much carbon dioxide that the sea level will go way up, nobody knows how fast. It will also become quite, quite warm. For the effects see the first three degrees in “Six Degrees” by Mark Lynas which is available online at a Guardian website. Also from some IPCC working group?

          • Both of these theories have been around and studied a long time, but should other variables be excluded from consideration?

            OK, for the time being, assume those two theories that have been around for generations exist alone.The only manmade component in your theory is CO2 and though I understand how it can trap heat, even the effects of CO2 have been widely debated. The earth is not of consistent nature so the absorption of heat due to its axis, etc. will vary.

            For the moment I’m living with your assumptions (the consensus) of a dual cause of temperature control. What is the consensus as to the slope in the rise of temperature based upon current CO2 production and is the temperature rise in relationship to CO2 linear or something else? (I am just trying to figure out exactly what *your* consensus says along with timelines for policy considerations)

            • The climatology research of the past 15 years or so shows that the other factors are bit players. Very interesting details to be sure, but nothing major is missing.

              • “Very interesting details to be sure, but nothing major is missing.”

                Considering many of the opinions rendered that statement surely can’t be one of a trained scientist? Perhaps you wear two hats, one of a scientist and one of a politician pushing claims that are unfounded. The problem is that it is difficult to tell what hat you are wearing since your degree gives you some credence even if your statements of fact don’t.

          • David, science is NOT consensus. It never has been.

            The consensus was AGAINST Galleleo.
            The consensus has been at odds with every scientific advance ever.

        • Of course the consensus climatology has it about wrong.

          The planet is about 2.5 std dev’;s below predicted warming. In any other field of science that degree of error would be called falsification.

      • I am not impressed by the IPCC either – even they over estimate everything.

        Regardless. despite their over bias toward too much warming, the IPCC is actually the best summary of
        the science – the book you tout it not, and not constructed by someone with the background to do so.

        Regardless, in areas of controversy – and this definitely qualifies, I would strongly suggest that you deal with primary sources as well as their critiques.

        The primary critique of warmists – is that they no shit about statistics and statistical processes.
        With few exceptions to many of those who go into climate science, are people who could not handle the rigor of hard sciences. When warmists scientists provide their raw data and methods – which is supposed to be a requirement for actual science, their work rarely holds up when subject to established statiscial and mathematical processes. Warmist scientists with poor math backgrounds continuously invent new statistical methods to produce the results they want.

        Ultimately it does not matter much. The planet is real, most humans are ultimately capable of grasping that whatever warmists may say during their lifetimes no catastrophic changes have occured.

        Ultimately to be meaningful every CAGW claim must manifest itself in something that ordinary Humans can easily observe and note on their own as consequential, because without that there is no catastrophe.

  11. BEST — Richard Muller, Physics @ Cal Berkeley, thought he knew better than the climatologists, so he put together the BEST team to develop a new global temperature product. Actually, Richard Rohde did the work involved in producing their land temperature product. Two things. First, it is essentially the same as the land temperature products from NOAA/NCDC, NASA/GISS, Hadley Centre and the Japanese climatology effort. Second, they found it too difficult to produce an SST, sea surface temperature product, so stopped. The climatology groups all have some sort of SST, not that there are not difficulties.

    But Muller, to his credit, wrote
    not that it not somewhat self-serving.

    So once again we see that the concensus climatology has it about right. One ought to read it from reliable sources, not just whatever shows up on the Internet

    • BEST created a competing measure of global temperatures using public data and public methodology and complete transparency – something missing in the warmest datasets.

      BEST confirmed – what everyone already knew – that the planet has warmed since the little ice age.
      There are critiques of BEST’s algorithm’s and methodology – mostly because some aspects of determining global temperatures from the records we have are inherently error prone given that vast portions of the earths surface have few recording stations, or dubious quality.
      But atleast those debates are public – something that is near impossible with other warmist projections.

      BEST is NOT in strong agreement with the other projections.

      Neither BEST nor the other projection confirm CAGW.
      BEST does not prove fudging by other sources, but it strongly hints at it.

      BEST does show a near linear trend since 1900 – which tends to discredit CAGW as anthropogenic CO2 was inconsequential until the 70’s.

      Dr. Mueller’s original critiques of CAGW are as sound today as they were initially.
      Mueller has found that it is hard to be on the worng side of politics even in science.

      Your conclusion refering to “consensus” is self refuting.

      Science is NOT concensus. A single paper, study, fact, argument that holds up refutes the entirety of the scientific community in any field – regardless of concensus.
      The falsification of consensus views in science has been an attribute of science since the greeks, but it is particularly prevelant today, were in feild after field we find significant figures dominating and stiffling science often for a generation, and often driven by politics.

      Claims of consensus are naked and fallacious appeals to authority.

      If you can not make your arguments on the merits, you do not have much of an argument.

  12. Due to the influence of
    somebody who should have known better the CLOUD experiment was performed at CERN. To nobody’s surprise indeed the simulated cosmic rays did not produce CCNs, Cloud Condensation Nuclei.

    More sensible experiments and actual data collection via airborne instruments show that CCNs are too large and permanent to be the result of “cloud chamber”-like effects from meson bombardment. Disclosure: I experimented with a cloud chamber as a senior in high school, Los Alamos High School, Los Alamos, New Mexico.
    What was discovered is that there is always a superabundance of CCNs available to start clouds; just takes water vapor.

    Clouds of course require water vapor. The amount is temperature dependent. Some interesting relationships are developed in “Principles of Planetary Climate” by Ray Pierrehumbert.

    But briefly, neither water vapor nor the resulting clouds are determiners of global climate. Once again “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart gives enough detail to satisfy most.

    • “But briefly, neither water vapor nor the resulting clouds are determiners of global climate. ”

      If what David says is true that would mean clouds do not reflect heat. If David thinks that clouds do not reflect heat he could discuss that factor as well. If they do reflect heat then they have an effect on climate change. As I stated earlier I am agnostic on climate change and not stating what theories are right or wrong only discussing what some scientists have suggested.

      • Some clouds reflect incoming light, not heat. Others more absorb heat and reradiate it. Of course you could go study this; I have told you where.

        But the cloudiness depends upon temperature so the effects of clouds are but a feedback. Thi makes it more difficult to understand the whole thing so just keep your eye on the bouncing ball, temperature.

        The Wikipedia page on Milankovitch cycles, which I helped edit, is one place to look for quite good, not perfect, starter information. You won’t find it just cruising around the Internet.

        • David Benson – now we know why you like Wikipedia, you have skin in the game. You should have mentioned that at the beginning of our discussion on Wikipedia. You have a bias.

          • On the contrary. I find Wikipedia usually a good place to begin some research as the articles provide references to, in situations of interest to me, the peer reviewed literature. These choices of reference are thoughtful, unlike just using the search engine.

            I will sometimes go check other online encyclopedia; Britannica is a favorite.

            But when I notice something which could be better Wikipedia makes it fairly easy to improve the article.

            • Lots of us use wikipedia, It is an incredible resource.
              But it is not the word of god. Particularly on controversial issues.

              Your own remarks discredit it.

              You claim that we should rely on experts – you are clearly not one. Worse you keep making appeals to non-experts – as if a historian is the appropriate source for science.

              And then you tell us that you edit the climate pages at wikipedia.

              So now you are making an appeal to authority, using yourself as the authority.

              Frankly, I am surprised at the virulence of the discussion here.

              CAGW is a dead horse. The prominent warmists – those scientists you placed your faith in are backpedalling. We can fight over whether there was any warming in the past 20 years, but there is zero doubt the predicted warming did not occur – not be a long shot.

              Another malthusian fallacy is biting the dust.

          • Wikipedia is an amazing resource, but it is completely untrustworthy in any area of significant controversy as editorship of those areas gets co-opted by political actors.

        • So the question David on this one issue is whether or not clouds can reflect some of the heat away from the earth or not. If the cloudiness depends upon temperature and they radiate even some of the heat away from the earth then the researcher on clouds was right, they act as a thermostat. They may not be perfect, but they upset calculations unless they are included.

          • Yes, clouds are included but to first approximation the low clouds cancel the high clouds. Whatever, it is not a major factor.

            • OK, so now you are saying there are other things that can vary climate temperature. Not to complicate things further CO2 and stimulates the growth of trees, plants, algae, mosses, likens etc. that remove tremendous amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. Doesn’t that impact a warming trend?

            • While there is much wrong with your assertions about clouds – still accepting what you say as given – that clouds cancel, that falsifies CAGW – because the direct warming effects of CO2 are insufficient.
              CAGW and the global climate models have always depended on strong positive feedback from clouds – approximately 4 times as strong as CO2. Without it the extent of warming is small.

              The least you should know is your own side of the argument.

          • Warmists tend to suck people into these types od stupid arguments all the time.

            We need not debate most of these things – we actually know them.

            As noted before we can now monitor the energy flows to the planet from space.
            We know the wavelengths and energy quantities radiated to the planet.
            We know the same for what is radiated away.

            It does not matter whether that is the result of clouds, or flying chipmonks in the upper atmosphere holding mirrors. We do not have to debate how somethings MIGHT work, we know what the result its.

            Another example of the same garbage is the warmists search for hidden heat in the oceans.
            The heat in the oceans is known from SLR, exactly where within the ocean that heat is, is unimportant.
            Unless warmists are postulating some different version of H2O with different physical properties, there is no need to ponder the depth of the heat within the oceans. But it is easy to get sucked into a debate with a warmist who will tall you that there must be gargantuan quantites of heat stored deep in the oceans, and then end up in a debate over the fact that it takes centuries for heat to migrate to the deep ocean.
            That debate is unnecescary – as we know how much thermal expansion there is and therefore how much stored energy.

        • Light, heat, energy on any wavelength is still energy.

          With sufficiently accurate means of measure, which we now have whether the earth is warming or not can be determined by measuring energy flows from space. All parts of the spectrum are significant as they all have effects and deficits of surpluses in any frequency range can manifest themselves in heat losses or gains for the planet.

          I would further note that determining the temperature of the planet from space is Physics – and fairly simple physics at that, only requiring accurate measurements, It is not climatology – though ultimately much of the mathematics in climatology comes from that physics.

          In discussion after discussion here and elsewhere, you and other warmists have ducked the physics completely. The laws of thermodynamics, require exponential increases in the earth’s energy level for linear increases in temperature. This is why Trendberth went running arround searching for the “missing heat” in the oceans – one place we know it can not be, because again using physics SLR tells us the changes in the stored energy of the oceans.

          CAGW is on the wrong side of the physics.

  13. David writes: “Humans are responsible for slightly more than 100% of the global warming. More because otherwise the surface of Terra would be slowly cooling.” This doesn’t have an explanation of 100% of what so I will assume that the number reflects whatever warming may or may not have occurred plus the deficit created by what you believe to be global cooling.

    That is a tremendous leap considering the fact that there seem to be wide ranges of temperatures over the millennia. Too pick out a short period of time and say we should be cooling IMO, but for man’s “global warming”, would be wrong because the swings are constantly going up and down and we don’t know what side of the curve we are on in any singular short period of time. You would have to prove your contentions over the widest birth of time and if such a statement is correct then “human global warming” might be necessary to keep temperatures at a level for human survival.

    Let me state that I am agnostic on the subject but pragmatic about what to do about it. I am also concerned with the data and the politicalization of the science. Let us assume that you are correct and the earth has been cooling. That was the idea in the 1970’s. (Of course, the earth would cool except for the externalities such as the sun that warm the planet.) There was a point in time Greenland was warm. What caused that warmth before “human global warming” and what has caused all the other spikes in temperature that we have seen over the ages?

    CERN claimed not that long ago that abrupt changes in climate were at least mostly due to changes in solar activity That seems like it could account for the short time periods that could skew a linear progression of natural cooling. We can see documentation of these climate changes in the medieval period where there were sun and warmth where it should have been cold and dreary. We have to explain these “aberrations” and remember that the predictions and predictive models use fudge factors.

    How have the modelers managed all the interactions occurring such as cloud particles created by cosmic rays that are electrically charged and produce clouds that can reflect heat into space? Don’t clouds act as thermostats?

    I’m not saying that many of the theories are right or wrong, only that there are a lot of them and they are only theories that I believe do not adequately express what we are seeing. Placing inexact theories with such a huge variability into a model might be helpful, but one cannot trust that model which needs to be able to explain climate change over much longer periods of time than many like. One can’t just pick a year that suits the model. The model should work for any random years and explain the aberrations.

    (You are having trouble reading due to narrowing. How many levels can you comfortably go with short answers? Anytime you have a problem I can always copy it into a new posting. I post from multiple devices and many are on large screens.)

    • The short answer is Milankovitch cycles. Otherwise, don’t waste your time writing long screeds which simply demonstrate your ignorance. Use the time instead to read Weart’s masterpiece.

      • Take note David how you are unable to debate the issue. On climate change, you pin everything on one item, Milankovitch cycles, when other causes have been proven to have effects as well. You have just called CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, ignorant. You have called other reputable scientists ignorant. What does that mean?

        It means you know diddly-squat and are a poseur.

        • CERN doesn’t do climatology. Anyone commenting on it ought to know some; there are plenty of scientists who while respected in their field blunder badly outside of their narrow specialty.

          You are just putting off doing your homework.

          • David, CERN is involved in physics and utilizing the equipment available which is used by competent scientists the information I wrote about was developed.

            I await your comments that demonstrate why you believe those thoughts and theories I wrote about do not have an effect on the small changes in climate that occur. Your use of insult in an honest discussion is appalling.

            ” there are plenty of scientists who while respected in their field blunder badly outside of their narrow specialty.”

            You are one of them.

      • Paul, It was David that has the small screen. That small screen represents his small intellect and narrow vision. I don’t know how he ever became a professor unless with time he lost a lot of what he had. The man is totally ignorant about climate change.

        • Your last sentence is not quite true but it is the case that fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

          Think about whether that last might apply to you, yes?

          • David, my last statement is absolutely true. Instead of discussion, you said, “simply demonstrate your ignorance.”

            That was a response to several scientific observations made by scientists that do not believe that there is only one cause of external warming that need be discussed.That included CERN. You could have disputed them, but you chose to insult. You didn’t bother to discuss all the aberrations, failures in the model predictors nor did you discuss the fudge factors. You responded only with an insult.

            Such a method of discussion means you know diddly-squat and are a poseur who is totally ignorant about climate change. The accumulation of facts that are unable to be utilized in a debate is proof enough of what I said.

            • I discussed the involvement of CERN in a subsequent comment, found above.

              I will also do BEST in a still later post.

              There is a reason for the consensus view of climatology; it is close to the way nature actually happens to work.

              • David, I understand you were unhappy with the inclusion of CERN by the author of the study and you wish to discredit him and the study. That, however, is not the question. The question is whether or not clouds reflect heat away from the earth.

                There is a reason for consensus, but as we all know the consensus was the earth is flat. Consensus exists to be disproven or at least modified or advanced. I can’t predict the future and neither can you.

          • Yes, Robert Rohde did some nice graphs under the rubik Global Warming Art. These are often used as illustrations in Wikipedia pages on various aspects of climatology.

          • Yes, Paul, you can say that climate change is now climate art. David would probably be more comfortable in the art department since rigorous science is above his head.

            • “Allan, that was beneath you. For shame.”

              David, I responded to you as an agnostic regarding climate change trying to eventually understand what needs to be done (if anything) and how fast. You replied in a reprehensible way, so what type of response did you expect?

              Al Gore tried to frighten the nation into believing that he was climate guru and knew exactly what he was talking about. He was full of it and in the process created a counterforce exactly the opposite. The experts with definitive positions have a hard task with the number of variables that exist. To say their model or theory is correct means they have to prove it and all the opposition has to do is find one example to make that model or theory fail.

              In the end, the question will not be determined by scientists or by those not in the field that have read all the books. It will be determined by politicians, the most dangerous species for honest scientists.

              You can engage in debate or not, but be prepared for more of the same if you can’t act in a decent manner.

  14. It would help if those intending to comment about some aspect of climatology first actually learned some. Online on can find “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart. It is quite thorough although still introductory.

    • David, it would help if you engaged instead of sending everyone to the library. There is wide disagreement over the major points of climate change, but you brought up a crucial point, it is not catastrophic, which is quite different than the prevailing political view as presented by Al Gore.

      That is your entrance into the real debate. How much climate change, if any, is based on human beings and if there is warming is what we are doing with carbon credits having any real effect? The US is a major nation that walked away from the Paris climate accords and appears to be the only one reducing its emissions.

      • I have a mobile device so replies become ever narrow guttered to the point of unreadability. So in the future, start brand new comments for the sake of readibility. This once I will reply to some points but you may have to ask again about clarifications or other matters in brand new comments.

        Humans are responsible for slightly more than 100% of the global warming. More because otherwise the surface of Terra would be slowly cooling.

        Other nations are reducing emissions. Britain is doing so successfully. In the Middle East both of UAE and now Saudi Arabia are starting. India is building nuclear power plants as fast as possible. China is also trying to cut down on the use of coal.

        I am quite pessimistic about the prospect of limiting global warming to just 2 °C. For the prospects then, see “Six Degrees” by Mark Lynas, a good summary available online.

  15. According to Paul Mirengoff:

    “Now we learn that in the years since the global agreement was reached, world-wide emissions of carbon dioxide are rising after several years of remaining flat, as many nations, including some very big ones, are failing to fulfill the promises they made. The problem hasn’t been the U.S., where emissions have declined since the Paris agreement, according to the Washington Post. The problem has been with much of the rest of the world.”

  16. “Over the next few weeks our fake news and fake science sources are going to start parroting claims that Arctic sea ice is at a record low, and the ice is doomed. In this video I show that Arctic sea ice thickness has grown substantially over the last ten years, and that Arctic alarmism is in deep trouble.”

  17. I fully understand some of the damage that we (civilization) has done to the earth. And it is horrible. I can’t say sinful because generations survive on what they have been told. We have gone from grunting and drawing information to speaking it. I’m sure something was lost in the translations.

    Lets say we have been screwing it up since 1517. It wasn’t until 1607 when Galilei constructed the first thermo scope that recording even started. Yes, there were hundreds of meteorological firsts before then but they were incident specific.

    In 1654 Medici established the first weather observing network. He developed a network of 9 stations from Paris to Warsaw. “No ice pack studies”.

    In 1724 Fahrenheit built the first mercury type thermometer. And finally, Joseph Black verifies that ice does not loose it’s temperature while melting. But no loss mentioned.

    In 1870 the US Weather Bureau is founded. They recorded data from 150 spots in the Nation. Information was telegraphed to New York. No Ice data to be found there.
    In 1892 the term “El Nino”. is coined regarding the weather and turbulence. (mostly regarding oceans).
    In 1938 Guy Callendar first proposed global warming from carbon dioxide emissions. Any mention of ice pack degradation in all that? No.
    My point is that core sampling alone does not provide sufficient information to declare that the packs have (melted more now than they have in the last 1,500 years). And. Further more, if the first type of core drilling in the Antarctica did not commence until 1902/03. That’s only about 114 years. where did they get their information from 1,500 years ago?

    How do the global warming scientists expect to sway people when they lie outright about their predictions based on false data. No doubt that the packs may be melting. Our weather meisters have not been on the face of the earth long enough to guarantee the length of any weather cycle let alone (specific) lost inches of ice.

    • The Arctic oceanographers are clever; cleverer than you. It takes some study to understand from where the 1500 years of data arises.

    • Because remarkably ice is layed down in seasonal layers. When you core through an accumulated ice pack (one that does not melt away) you can observe those layers, like the rings of a tree, compressed in the ice and determine how thick the ice was in each year the ice pack was accumulating. You can even do interesting measurements on the ice in each layer (which is why they are so damn careful in how it is collected) such as looking at gases dissolved in the ice to determine what was in the atmosphere when the ice accumulated; and yes for those jumping ahead that would include carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas levels if that was what you were interested in studying. The data is incredibly accurate, and it may be taken anywhere there are annual accumulations of ice or glaciation, there was no need for Medici to send teams around the world in an attempt to collect it back in his day – that would be silly.

      Btw – for the record, geologists play the same tricks with layers in the earth… Medici didn’t have to observe the dinosaurs either.

      • These are called proxies, because they are indirect measures.
        Also because they are based on assumptions about the correlation between some other phenomena and temperature.

        Proxies are the best we have for determining temperatures more than a few centuries in the past.
        But we should not be deluded into beleiving they are more relibale than they are.

        In some instance it is debateable whether the proxy is an actual proxy for temperature – or whether other factors that effect that proxy have been adequately corrected.

        The “nature trick, to hide the decline” was the truncation of several proxies and the grafting on of the thermometer record to the work of Mann and Biffra – because in the modern era the proxies started all asserting that temperatures were dropping when they were rising.
        This is a huge deal because it means the proxy – isn’t a temperature proxy.

        But even where a proxy is reasonably good – the error bars are enormous, and the granularity large.
        The further back int he past we go the worse both are.

        How useful is it to say that the average temperature over a 10,000 year period was 1C colder than today +-2C 1,000,000 years ago.

        It is a very common statistical error in science to attribute far more meaning to some data than it can possibly bear.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s