Greenland Meltdown Update

Climate fraudsters like Dr. James Hansen and Joe Romm are lying about Greenland “melting down”and saying that it will drown coastal cities.

The interior of Greenland never got anywhere close to the melting point in July.

ScreenHunter_10040 Aug. 01 09.59

summit:status:weather

85% of Greenland’s surface has gained ice over the past year.

ScreenHunter_10041 Aug. 01 10.05

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

The surface of Greenland has gained 250 million tons of ice over the past year.

ScreenHunter_10042 Aug. 01 10.07Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

There has been no change in the average rate of sea level rise over the past century. Fastest rates were from 1925 to 1950.

ScreenHunter_10043 Aug. 01 10.09

Data and Station Information for ATLANTIC CITY

There isn’t one shred of real word evidence to back up any of these criminals’ claims about a meltdown or catastrophic sea level rise.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

312 Responses to Greenland Meltdown Update

  1. rah says:

    So they have to lie and make it up or at the very least just ignore that the claims were ever made until some weather event happens to allow them to bring it up again.

  2. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    By literally every ‘metric’, including the great booga booga Greenland SeaLevelRise meltdown catatrophe, the theory of global warming is bust. Literally.
    – Embarrassingly large Arctic recovery
    – No warming in 20 years
    – Cooling since 2000
    – Record Antarctic Sea-Ice
    – Record low ‘extreme’ US weather events (Hurricanes, Tornadoes)
    – Greenland gaining billions of tons of ice on previous years.

    What more ‘reality’ needs to happen to end the lie that CO2 (your energy supply) controls climate?

    • For one thing, sea level would need to fall. Low-information voters cannot tell the difference between sea level rise and the rate of sea level rise. They think mere SLR is proof of AGW. And from this conclusion follows the conclusion that you and I are obviously in flat-earther territory, and fit only for the worst derision.

      I have almost given up on the idea of trying to dissuade them of their sea level delusion. Most of them are indeed capable of understanding the difference if they apply themselves to it, but they simply don’t want to. They are blinded by their a priori assumption that CO2 emissions must be, have to be, bad.

      And most of them can’t even distinguish between CO2 and CO, and just assume they are the same thing, or close enough that for practical purposes they can be considered the same. That delusion feeds the belief that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cannot possibly be benign. And most other climate delusions simply follow from that one belief.

      I can show them how Einstein admitted that he lied about light quanta, and they just gloss right over it as if it makes not the slightest difference whatsoever to anything. I have actually had people tell me that the thermodynamic results are self-evidently the same, either way!

      It just goes to show yet again that you can take the most ridiculous baloney you can imagine, and if you package it and sell it with an “attractive” or charismatic salesperson (a la Lenin, Hitler or Obama, or dare I say, Mann), it will sell, regardless of the level of insanity of the product itself. Because most people are principally concerned with pleasing the charismatic salesperson. It’s a mental defect of the human race.

      • R. Shearer says:

        A major fraction of Americans don’t know from whom we gained our independence or who won the civil war. They really don’t care about these things or even their own civil rights so long as their cell phone works, or Tom Brady does or doesn’t get to play, etc.

        • Thanks.

          Yes, you’re right, and I’ve made similar points in the past. But even if that weren’t the case, I still think we’d have major problems convincing them of the AGW hoax, for the reasons I mentioned. If you spend time trying to talk to university graduates with technical degrees, most of whom do know about those things you mentioned, you’ll find the same delusions and the same mental defects, if perhaps in slightly lesser proportions.

          Low-info voters come from many walks of life, including the highly educated. Sometimes especially the highly educated!

      • Marsh says:

        Richard, I totally agree in relation to the way humans are psychology flawed. A very interesting Quote attributed to Albert Einstein : “The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.” Was paraphrased from his papers; but true, just the same.

        Point being, most people do not have the full diversity of Cognitive function, particularly in the area of intuition for reasoning & sound judgement. Of course, no one is perfect but if these critical keystones are wanting ; even seeking advice, is a challenge to navigate. At the risk of offending some; organised religion, is evidential in mankind’s weakness in being susceptible, to following all manner of beliefs around the world.

        The keystone problem can also apply to the well educated and even for many intelligent persons if their Cognitive set is incomplete. Most of these flawed individuals have no concept of any failing, particularly if they have a big ego and are ambitiously driven.
        Of course, the keystone problem is compounded, if there is no ethical foundation to augment a moral pathway ; this is evidential by those driving Global Warming.

      • Beale says:

        I can show them how Einstein admitted that he lied about light quanta, and they just gloss right over it as if it makes not the slightest difference whatsoever to anything.
        I’ll probably be sorry, but I have to ask. (1) What on earth are you talking about? (2) What difference does it really make?

        • Marsh says:

          Beale – since you ask, I hope these answers don’t make you feel sorry:
          .
          1/ People are susceptible to being led like sheep & more so if they are not intuitive.
          This human flaw is common to many ; it often goes unrecognised by the individual.
          2/ Such people are easily baited & conned with clever propaganda. The difference is
          judging information & separating what is right: it applies to AGW, Politics, whatever..
          .
          Einstein issue : tell me a Scientist who never lied and that would have to be a lie.
          There is a difference : covering-up a mistake or compliciant to a global conspiracy.

        • Beale, if you will admit that it affects macroscopic experimental results as to whether light is quantized, I will refer you to the answer to your question 1. It is not my intention here to make people sorry that they asked for evidence; and if you can’t already see that it would make a difference, then my answer likely would make you feel sorry for asking.

          – Richard

    • transrp says:

      Lies and more Lies. And as usual unsupported by any actual observations or link. Here is the evil and conspiratorial NASA. Caution, this is way beyond your limited attention span.
      http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Greenland/
      For those of you who can not read long articles, here is a picture:

      In a typical cherry picking move some of you will say — see the graph stops in 2010. and you will show 2014 which, to use your words “proves” that the ice loss has stopped. Of course it does no such thing. Here is 2015 through Mid June:

      The rest of the claims are also either lies or irrelevant. How can I be absolutely positive of this. Because no supporting links, except from other AGW denier sites are offered as evidence. If you had evidence, then you would use it to support your argument. like I do. Oh — and news flash. Neither the US nor greenland matter all that much as we are speaking of GLOBAL warming.
      The globe 64M sq miles, and the greenland, which sits over a volcanic hot spot, comprises less than 900K sq miles.

      • AndyG55 says:

        If you go to this page,

        You will see that , Greenland melt has dropped down way below average again

        http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

        But don’t let reality bite you, child-mind. !!

        • transrp says:

          Have you thought of trying politics? You lie so consistently and often. Reminds of what mary McCarthy said of Lillian Hellman: “every word [Hellman] writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the’.”
          You stopped at last year which showed only a 6 GT loss after years of losses of hundreds of tons or more.

          But it is back into the hundres this year.
          http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/ And one of many pictures since you have no knowledge of numbers, and limited reading comprehension as you have demonstrated.

          Which is why you do not like posting links. Cause every time you do I refute it. And when you do something other than name calling, well you just make a fool of yourself. Radiation striking a molecule makes it move faster indeed.

          Actually you are correct, in many circumstances. But not in the circumstances when the molecule actually absorbs the radiation. It seems that your pathological lying mind has not been able to discover a way of fabricating how that statement of yours was not just plain wrong.

        • AndyG55 says:

          The graphs from DMI are different..
          DMI shows melt below the average. You have not refuted anything.

          But you don’t understand science at all, do you. Nope didn’t think so.

          And I suggest you go back and show where I said that “Radiation striking a molecule makes it move faster indeed.” Or are you going to keep LYING about that too.

          Go and study up on vibrational states, and also try to look up something about where in the atmosphere CO2 emits.
          hint, above 15km, and none of that re-emitted radiation makes diddly-squat difference to the troposphere, as is obvious from the missing “hot-spot”, and absolutely no difference to the surface temperature.

          So much of current climate science has been proven wrong by reality, time and time again, but there you are… hanging onto the failed science for all you are worth.

          Anyway, you have lots of homework for you still to do… have you even started ?

          or you can remain ignorant. which, I’m guessing, will be your choice..

      • Climatism says:

        News flash: Greenland matters because its touted “meltdown” is used by warmists as a sea level rise metric.
        The Arctic has not melted as the myriad of ‘experts’ and alarmist media predicted it would by now.

        • transrp says:

          1. No model predicts an ice free arctic. Well, I have not seen any, and you produced none.
          2. As far as I know none of these predictions made by mostly non-scientists, have ever been written up in any peer reviewed paper. Again, maybe you can find one.

          As to the “alarmist media” Have you never heard “If it bleeds, it leads”?

          3. Regardless of the causes, or its locality, the melting of the Greenland Ice sheet will definitely be a problem. My point is that you can not use what is happening there as an indicator for what is happening all over the rest of the world for 2 reasons
          I it sits on a geological hot spot
          II. It is not very big, so is not indicative.

        • Climatism says:

          An example why climate change alarmism is real and hurts:
          In the height of global warming hysteria ~2007, Former climate commissioner of Australia Tim Flannery stated “even the rains that fall won’t actually fill our dams and river systems. ..”
          Subsequently, $12 BILLION worth of desal plants were built (x4 across eastern board). To this day, not one of them producers a drop. They are all 100% mothballed, costing the taxpayer a further $200-300 million a year ‘each’ to maintain and meet contract fees.

          Yes, global warming hysteria and alarmism causes immense suffering. Perhaps more than any warming would….if it does ever start warming again after 18 years of hiatus.

          And no, you don’t need pal review to see the devastation that alarmism and hysteria inflicts.

        • transrp says:

          In the future, if I do not see a link supporting an allegation, then I will just assume that the allegation is a lie / made up / due to really poor reading combination skills or some combination of the above, and delete it.

          Subsequently, $12 BILLION worth of desal plants were built (x4 across eastern board). To this day, not one of them producers a drop. They are all 100% mothballed, costing the taxpayer a further $200-300 million a year ‘each’ to maintain and meet contract fees.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_desalination_plants_in_Australia
          But Wiki pedia is a lying conspiracy So how about this;
          http://www.pressreader.com/australia/the-advertiser/20150723/281539404650087/TextView

          http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-06/drought-prompts-australia-to-turn-to-desalination-despite-cost.html

          These plants were not build because of AGW predictions. They were build because australia perceived an immediate problem in the near term. OR do you think that they should have done with the Brazillains have done— waited and prayed
          http://www.ibtimes.com/sao-paulo-drought-2015-photos-historic-water-crisis-brazil-show-city-brink-collapse-1912767

          Building critical facilities for something that you do not need now, but may have a desperate need for in the future is called planning. My guess is that your time frame for planning is measured in days, and probably involves nothing more complex than putting a dinner in the microwave.

          Again… No links no response.

        • AndyG55 says:

          I it sits on a geological hot spot

          Ah! so a melting can be put down to the geological hots spot.. no need to call the boogieman of CO2.

          II. It is not very big, so is not indicative.

          Ummm.. so it doesn’t matter in the scheme of thing.

          Seriously trancer.. make up your mind.. !!!!

          Why are you wasting so much of your time on something that doesn’t matter..

          Seems you are just ….. DUMB !!!! or psychopathic.!

        • Climatism says:

          Simply commenting on the healthy state of the Greenland ice cap, versus its supposed “meltdown” alarmists use as a metric for catastrophic sea level rise.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Still the mis-representation and use of newspaper reports as facts. Poor work as usual.

          The only time the Brisbane desal plant was used was for one week after the 2010 flood, because the normal water processing plants were flooded. Ironic, hey.

          Plants in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne are now mothballed and will continue that way for the foreseeable further, ever a burden on the tax-payer. All East coast desal plants are basically white elephants and even with the continued expensive maintenance will be lucky to be functional in our next major drought, whenever that might be.

          If the Greens had got out the way and let proper dam infrastructure building, there would never have been any need for the utter waste of those pointless and useless desal plants.

          Adelaide is current running at 10% on a trial basis. Adelaide has minimal major storage and low rainfall and relies on flows from the Murray River which can have issues of its own. It is sensible for Adelaide to have one ticking over.

          Perth is a very different situation. It has neither the rainfall nor the terrain for major dams, and has relied on aquifer water which has been under stress for a long time. Of course expansion of Perth required an alternative water source.

          Israel runs almost exclusively on desal.

          Desal is very useful in its place, but the statement by Climatism is totally correct

          “Subsequently, $12 BILLION worth of desal plants were built (x4 across eastern board). To this day, not one of them producers a drop. They are all 100% mothballed, costing the taxpayer a further $200-300 million a year ‘each’ to maintain and meet contract fees.”

          The east coast desal plants were a complete and utter waste of money, brought about by the scare tactic of a particularly moronic fool who somehow got some cred from the green/far-left agenda.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Climatism is totally correct

          “Subsequently, $12 BILLION worth of desal plants were built (x4 across eastern board).

          except that there are only 3 on the east coast, not 4

        • Climatism says:

          Inclusive of Adelaide. The fifth was Perth which does have a use.

        • AndyG55 says:

          The reason for water problems from the early 2000 drought was lack of water storage infrastructure development. Inadequate planning and implementation. The desal plants were a wasteful knee-jerk reaction to what should have been a non-problem, and there was a very large component of the AGW farce in that reaction.

          As cities expand they need more water supply storage. Like California, this had been way behind requirements due to greenie agenda interference. California is getting exactly what its applied for with its water shortages. When was the last major storage infrastructure built there?

          Brisbane should have built Wolfdene.
          Sydney should have built Welcome Reef.
          Melbourne should have build the Mitchell River dam.
          Newcastle needs to seriously start looking forward as well.

          None of these places has a shortage of rainfall, just water storage infrastructure.

        • Marsh says:

          transrp You stated : “”Building critical facilities for something that you do not need now, but may have a desperate need for in the future is called planning”” I doubt if you have ever put a foot in Australia to take such a stupid stance on Desal Plants. This goes to your credibility on everything else ; your assessment skills are flawed.

          Global Warming proponents were certainly part of the driving force towards those Reverse Osmosis Plants that are now “White Elephants”. Then to state that it’s planning for the future leaves me to Question your Engineering background?? If you knew anything about the maintenance costs & standing life cycle of RO you would not have got it so wrong!
          ….
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Desalination_Plant ( the part you missed )
          “In 2014, it was reported that the desalination plant was costing the taxpayers $534,246 per day as the plant sits idle. This was the price that the Labor NSW government agreed upon when they set the 50-year lease with the plant’s owners. To turn off the desalination plant all together would cost an extra $50 million.[31]”

          The population increase on the East Coast, together with the fact that No new Dams have been built for some decades; this compounded the problem. The Droughts were no worse but the Global Warming alarmist’s were. The false premise that there wont be rain to fill Dams… AGW advisors leveraged the bad decision,,, rather than build more Dams, they built expensive white elephants; stupid & costly in the extreme.

          Fortunately, the Federal Govt. has removed all of the AGW advisors and Warmist Committees because the “global warming fraud, is better realised in Australia”.

          Remember the last G20 held in Brisbane & the way Obama made a fool of himself because Global Warming had been removed from the agenda; he couldn’t accept it!
          The President in effect, became the arrogant Elephant in the room:
          http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/15/g20-obama-puts-climate-change-in-spotlight-as-australian-agenda-sidelined

          Earlier last year – The “Ship of Fools” was the high point of alarmist incompetence;
          a ship of warmist scientists & reporters ventured to Antarctica to prove once & for all, AGW was causing Melting? Trapped in too much Ice, they were helicopter rescued.
          From there, every other AGW Prediction looks just as ridiculous & unprofessional.

          Overall, the Global Warming initiatives cost the US over a “trillion” dollars a year.
          It’s fools like you ” transrp ” that are causing the harm by both; holding back the USA and corrupting other Countries… all based on a mad hypothesis.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Not sure Adelaide could be classed as “eastern seaboard ” 😉

          A second in Adelaide under construction iirc.

          Sensible in a way.. the Murray supply is always going to be a problem, salinity-wise, not that too many people want to move to Adelaide (I’ll get into trouble for that one 😉 ).

          I suspect a couple more up the WA coast in the near future too, if common sense prevails.

          The east coast needs dams, not desal !

        • Climatism says:

          Agree.
          My boarder point is the hysterical rush to schemes and scams that green catastrophists go to to “save the planet” when all they actually do is destroy it. And destroy ‘other people’s’ wallets and standard of living.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “And destroy ‘other people’s’ wallets and standard of living. ”

          I had the impression that was part of the intent !!

        • Climatism says:

          There’s a scary and contagious disconnect that exists in these times of radical Eco-earth-worship, pushed by the sanctimonious elite, that dismisses the livelihoods of the middle class and grinding poor, in order to “save the planet”.

  3. Marsh says:

    It’s interesting in the way Greenland correlates with the Arctic Ice recovery and even the Hudson Bay will gain more multi year Ice. Those warmists have another lot of Failed Predictions on their hands, given the growing Ice extent across the region,,, don’t you feel sorry for them!

    Remember Al Gore’s Ice free Arctic Summer PREDICTION along with Greenland melting and raising the Sea Level by 20 Foot ? We are not even seeing an Ice free Hudson Bay let alone Arctic or Greenland. The only change to Water Levels of note is the Great Lakes and they are “Rising” partly due to Ice being slow to evaporate ; strange, they never predicted that!

    Rest assured everyone, we can rely on the warmists to keep all of their “failed” predictions alive by resuscitating & postponing them “till much later in the Century… when they have all retired.

    • Menicholas says:

      I do not feel the tiniest bit sorry for a single person in the entire pack of filthy warmista lying scum.

  4. omanuel says:

    Thank you, Steven, for successfully pointing out the difference between REALITY and Public Research-Funds-Purchased 97% Consensus Science“.

  5. Andy DC says:

    It may take 10 years, it may take 50 years, it might even tale 100 years, but we are all going to die! And it’s all your fault!!

  6. Henry P says:

    Whilst the sun is at its hottest, earth is getting cooler.
    It makes sense if you think about it?

    • omanuel says:

      Henry P. –

      It does NOT make sense to ignore the fountain of energy Copernicus discovered at the gravitational center of the solar system in 1543 and to falsely claim I am a climatologist!”

      • Henry P says:

        What is your point? Are you interested in knowing what goes on TOA or not?

      • omanuel says:

        Henry P

        NEUTRON REPULSION is the force used in creation, destruction, preservation and redemption.”

        1. CHAOS and FEAR of events during a NEWS blackout in Aug-Sept 1945 transformed science into a propaganda tool of world tyrants:

        Click to access CHAOS_and_FEAR.pdf

        2. Frightened world leaders secretly agreed to unite nations (UN) and national academies of science (NAS) into a worldwide “Orwellian Ministry of Consensus Science (UN)Truths” to prevent public knowledge of the source of energy in cores of heavy atoms on October 24, 1945.

        3. But while standing in the ruins of Hiroshima in Auguat 1945, Kuroda had already realized that the same source of energy in the core of the Sun made our elements and sustains our lives, NEUTRON REPULSION:

        Click to access Solar_Energy.pdf

        4. After Max Planck’s 1944 speech in Florence, Italy on the nature of matter assured humanity of survival of this seventy-year (1945-2015) effort to take totalitarian control of the globe by combining sovereign nations into one United Nation.

        Click to access Assurance.pdf

        That is humanity’s assurance Big Brother is going down !

    • omanuel says:

      Yes, it makes sense if heat is transferred from the Sun to the planets by way of deep-seated magnetic fields that penetrate through the top of the photosphere as sunspots.

      This new paper confirmed that Earth’s surface temperatures from 1955 to 2010 was correlated with the number of sunspots:

      Click to access npgd-2-1275-2015.pdf

      Sunspots occur when deep-seated magnetic fields protrude through the photosphere [1].

      These magnetic fields carry H+ ions up from the deep interior, and may then accelerate protons to energies high enough to induce the CNO cycle at the top of the photosphere [2], thus heating the chromosphere.

      References:

      1. “Super-fluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate,” Journal of Fusion Energy 21, 193-198 (2002). http://www.springerlink.com/content/r2352635vv166363/ http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0501441 http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/jfe-superfluidity.pdf

      2. “Observational confirmation of the Sun’s CNO cycle,” J. Fusion Energy (2006)

      http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10894-006-9003-z

  7. Psalmon says:

    Billion? 250 Billion? Gt?

  8. Jim Steele says:

    In contrast to the maximum loss of 570 gigatons in 2012-2013 from Greenland, there was only an insignificant loss of 6 gigatons from June 2013 to June 2014, or mere 1% of the previous year’s loss. A loss of 360 gigatons translates into a 1 millimeter rise in sea level, therefore the 2013-2014 sea level rise should be 1.3 mm less than the year before. But in 2015 we see alarmists like Joe Romm pushing sea level is rising faster than we thought. Hmmmmm

  9. Their are so many lies by the Establishment about everything. At least this is simple, Carbon Tax with the split U.N. gets their share for cooperating. I measure my yard every year or Two, it’s always the same for the last 15 years.When we started the Income Tax in 1913 it was 1 % for the truly Rich, Oh How Times Change !

  10. Martin says:

    Slightly O/T I just saw this:

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/595354/White-beluga-whale-British-water-record-books

    about a Beluga whale seen off the coast of Northern Ireland – thousands of miles from where it should be. The quoted expert mentioned that a Bowhead whale had also been seen for the first time in European waters this year, and that “sea temperatures have been unusually low this summer”

    ……Climate change ??? 🙂

  11. Henry P says:

    yes,
    the climate is changing
    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/08/01/greenland-meltdown-update-11/#comment-533595
    contrary to AGW [where theory would have it that minimum temps. are rising], it is getting cooler

    live with it,

  12. Henry P says:

    pulsar?
    now I am puzzled

  13. bleakhouses says:

    I had a bit of a “chat” with “chicken little” (my name for him) on a Huff Post forum last week in re the Hansen nonsense. I linked him to 30 sites from NOAA’s sea level page from around the globe chosen at random to illustrate no change in trend. Needless to say, I didn’t get a peep in response.

  14. Henry P says:

    omanuel says
    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/08/01/greenland-meltdown-update-11/#comment-533660

    henry says
    not a bad response!
    nice link to an interesting paper.
    I figured out that there must be a small window at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) that gets opened and closed a bit, every so often. Chemists know that a lot of incoming radiation is deflected to space by the ozone and the peroxides and nitrogenous oxides lying at the TOA. These chemicals are manufactured from the UV (C) coming from the sun. Luckily we do have measurements on ozone, from stations in both hemispheres. I looked at these results. Incredibly, I found that ozone started going down around 1951 and started going up again in 1995, both on the NH and the SH. Percentage wise the increase in ozone in the SH since 1995 is much more spectacular.I also suspect more peroxides [which are not monitored] above the ocean. The spectra of ozone and peroxide looks very similar…it does the same thing: protecting us.
    in other words: there never was an ozone hole. There is a preferable reaction of peroxides being formed if OH radicals are available.
    I found three exact confirmations for the dates of the turning points of my A-C wave for energy-in. The mechanism? We know that there is not much variation in the total solar irradiation (TSI) measured at the TOA. However, there is some variation within TSI, mainly to do with the more energetic particles coming from the sun. It appears (to me) that as the solar polar fields are weakening,

    more of these particles are able to escape from the sun to form more ozone, peroxides and nitrogenous oxides at the TOA. In turn, these substances deflect more sunlight to space when there is more of it. So, ironically, when the sun is brighter, earth will get cooler. This is a defense system that earth has in place to protect us from harmful UV (C).
    Most likely there is some gravitational- and/or electromagnetic force that gets switched every 44 year, affecting the sun’s output. How? That is the question.

  15. transrp says:

    WOW. Profound! You keep saying how you hate models and how they are wrong. Here you present as evidence : ” The snow and ice model from one of DMI’s climate models is driven every six hours with snowfall, sunlight and other parameters from a research weather model for Greenland,” A model which updates from another model. A model based on a model.

    I look at this and wonder. Could I be wrong? So I do a search on “greenland ice sheet growing”
    Ad there are lots of sites. And they all comed back to this same site with the same pictures. And without exception they are all as stupid, ignorant and incopetent as you are. They all see something that confirms their view, that has pictures and they go with that.

    No one reads the source, let alone the article. No on enquires what SMB is. It is enough that their view, and yours, is confirmed for this to be true. No one enquires if the DMI.dk is a legetimate source or maybe a spoof like The Onion. Wouldn’t that be funny?

    I find a place, and trace it to another link http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Greenland/ which has 5 pages and mentions, among other things, the difficulty of doing measurements. Hmmm Measurements. Did your article mention actual measurements? Why it does. AND it also says what the surface mass budget is.

    Now my articles talk about greenland losing ice. You talk about how the greenland ice sheet is growing. Except what you call the ice sheet is NOT the ice sheet. It is the SMB. And you were to stupid/lazy/ignorant/ to find out what SMB is.

    Here is what your article says: The two first contributions make up the **surface mass balance**. the amount of snow that falls and is compressed to ice
    the amount of snow and ice that melts or evaporates (sublimates) and
    But SMB is not the the entirety of what makes up the ice sheet.

    Is there more ? Why yes there is. Item 3: the amount of ice that flows away due to the ice motion. Then , the one place in the article where the word measure is used says this:

    As mentioned, satellites measuring the ice sheet mass have observed a loss of around 200 Gt/year over the last decade.

    You Posted a link that says exactly the opposite of what you think that it says, and that in fact offers more evidence that I am right and that you are wrong. It will be fun watching you torture language to do something equivalent to demonstrating that white is black

    You are right about one thing. You are not here to do my homework for me. That is because you are to incompetent to do homework for anybody, including yourself. Did you ever graduate high school? Surely you never wrote a research paper for college. Not with this level of incompetence.

    I am writing a book. Working title, the little book of big stupid. This entire debate will be an example. Hopefully I will be able to identify you and your retarded friends.

    I look forward to more links that you find that offer more evidence that supports my position.

    • omanuel says:

      Arrogance and ignorance are close companions.

      • transrp says:

        1. Produce evidence that there is a single AGW denier person who has respect for a single model that has not been trashed when said model was published.

        Not sure what SMB as the posted article did not say But the word measurement was used only once in the article, and that paragraph said that ice was decreasing. See right here:
        . As mentioned, satellites measuring the ice sheet mass have observed a loss of around 200 Gt/year over the last decade.

        AndyG claimed that ice was increasing. I am sure that there are many bits of information upon which one could base that, most drug induced. But his post only showed pictures of SMB and he was claiming that ice on greenland was growing.
        http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
        That is not what the article said. See paragraph above. I have no idea what happens when ice sheets are growing, but the only evidence for such in the past 20 years is the unsupported hot hair that comes out of people like you and Andy G and your echo chamber. And of course supported by information that says that
        and let me repeat:
        . As mentioned, satellites measuring the ice sheet mass have observed a loss of around 200 Gt/year over the last decade.
        And no. I have not read ” peer reviewed reports showing no acceleration, and even a slow down of the rate of glacial ice melt.” And neither have you. Or else you would have posted links to the alleged papers. and even if such exist, then — well you are aware that a slowdown in the rate of ice loss is still an ice loss, and NOT an ice gain.

        Your own posting, as much as admits that ice is being lost on a global scale. I guess that you are to stupid to even know what you are saying.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Poor Little Trancer..

          Seems I have really got under his skin.

          Reality bites, doesn’t it, child-mind 🙂

          http://iceagenow.info/2015/01/greenland-ice-sheet-growing-fastest-rate-years-video/

        • transrp says:

          Wow. The ice sheet grew in the winter. Imagine that. All that did was to create a situation where for the first time in about 20 years there was no net ice loss for the year. http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/

          NOT Ice gain for the year, just no net ice loss for 2014. . That will not be true this year when this image: http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/images/greenland_melt_area_plot_tmb.png would seem to predict near record ice loss. But definitely a net ice loss for the year 2015 in the tens of gigatons. Wana bet?

          In other words FAIL!!!

        • AndyG55 says:

          And Arctic sea ice is also showing an interesting change in trend.

          Unfortunately, it seems the slight warming out of the coldest period of the last 10,000 years, is coming to an end. 😦

          After a series of very strong solar peaks in the latter half of last century, the sun is going quite. The world could have done with some more warming to bring it back to somewhere near the Holocene average, or even up to the time of the MWP…

          ….. but it doesn’t look like its going to happen.

          If the cooling trend predicted by many real scientists (as opposed to climate scientists) does happen, then those countries that have destroyed there reliable fossil fuel energy systems in favour of heavily subsidies, unreliable, expensive , non-energy renewables , could be in for a world of hurt.

          But Trancer will be ok.. he’ll just take more gunja and continue to reject the reality around him.

        • AndyG55 says:

          forgot the link

        • transrp says:

          Ahhh…. This is an image that shows less and less ice for the past 35 years, including this year.
          In fact http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1_CY.png this years trend seems to indicate more loss than last year. Image is from the same site that you cherry picked your image from
          http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

          FAIL!!

        • AndyG55 says:

          If you are so brain-blind that you can’t see the change in the last few years, I can’t help you.

          If you still don’t realise that we WERE warming from the COLDEST period in the last 10,000 years, again you are proving your wilful brain-washed blindness.

          When one warms from a LIA, one would expect melting.. warming is GOOD,
          Cooling is not good for the world (trying to keep it really, really simple for you)

          But that melting seems to have stopped and may be turning around, just like the global temperatures have become station from the last 18 or so years.

          The beneficial warming appears to have CEASED.

          If the cooling predicted by many real scientists now starts, that will not be good for anyone. !!

    • You spell too with just one o. You do it several times so I know it’s not a typo. It’s actually your academic level, I believe that’s 3rd grade.

      For example, when you say the ice mass is losing 200 Gt a year, that’s called calving. The numbers are 500 – 300 = 200. Let me spell it out on a 3rd grade level:

      It snows 500 Gt a year in Greenland, in the winter.

      It melts and sublimates 300 Gt a year, in the summer.

      That leaves 200 Gt, which it calves every year.

      If you have 200 apples and 300 oranges, how many fruit does that give you? Is it 500? I hope you say 500 or we’ll have to hold you back another year.

      • transrp says:

        FAIL!!! Remember that logic puzzle that I posted that you failed? Well, you were unnable to answer it or you would have told us how smart you are. And here you do it again. See the article says: . This is important to keep track of, since such a mass loss will lead to global sea level rise. The ice loss is net ice loss, not the loss due to calving. The sattelites do not measure calving. They measure “ice sheet mass”

        Now if, as you claim, there is a net ice gain, then please explain how the global sea level will rise.

        I bet that if you are not a trust fund baby or the equivalent that you make a living doing some kind of simple labor, since you can not read and comprehend even the most simple statements.

        • Normal honest scientists would measure from one date of one year to the same date of another year. Keep all constants the same, that’s the basis of the scientific method. But what the goon squad does it tell you how much it melted one summer, and pretend that’s an ongoing thing. The douchbags don’t tell you that ice in Greenland normally melts every summer.

          The sea levels are mainly rising because of glacial rebound of the continents. As the northern half of N America and Eurasia rebound, the southern half of said continents sink. Like a log floating in water, if you raise one end the other end sinks. Notice that the sea level rise has not accelerated in the 150 we’ve been tracking it.

          Aside from that, there is the thermal expansion which has been ongoing since the end of the Little Ice Age, which you are now going to tell us never happened, because you are a…

          Moron.

        • transrp says:

          Seriously??? Are you all functionally illiterate? How exactly do you get from “As mentioned, satellites measuring the ice sheet mass have observed a loss of around 200 Gt/year over the last decade.” To: “how much it melted one summer.” Exactly how did you parse the language to arrive at that. Do you really think that ” a loss of around 200 Gt/year” Really means how much ice melted every summer.

          You folks not only have no science education — Does anyone have any degrees in science on this blog? — you have no concept of language or meaning?

          As to the alleged glacial rebound (again, note no links), then if he northern half, which I assume includes the northeast coast of NA, unless you are again torturing language, then what exactly is this?
          http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150224/ncomms7346/abs/ncomms7346.html.
          The coastal sea levels along the Northeast Coast of North America show significant year-to-year fluctuations in a general upward trend.
          Did you add a phrase to double speak, where peace is war, and freedom is slavery. We now have up is down?

          And as I have said, before — even if you are correct, and you provided exactly no information to support your allegation that the rise has not accelerated — the sea levels are still rising. They are rising all over. I have seen no evidence that they are going down anywhere, and of course, as is your wont, you have provided none.

          In the future, no links to support an allegation. No response from me. So you can continue to tell me that I am wrong, call me names and supply no supporting links (A supporting link would be to someone other than yourselves and your echo chamber — some paper published somewhere or some university, not just more unsupported rants) and no response from me.

          The bright side is that you can pretend that your bloviating won the argumet

        • I meant keep all variable the same.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Trancer comes across as a ranting failed Art/Lit student.

          Doesn’t have the knowledge or intelligence to realise that the current state of Arctic and Greenland sea and land ice is actually anomalously HIGH compared to the rest of the current interglacial. Has to base all his ranting and tear-jerking on the short climb out of the COLDEST period of the last 10,000 years.

          Here’s some basic homework, Trancer .

          1. put down the dong for 10 minutes

          2. try to find out the state of Arctic and Greenland ice in the first 6000 years of the Holocene

          3. Look up “Neoglaciation” and “Little Ice Age”

          4. Then stop weeping and ranting about very minor losses to Arctic and Greenland sea and land ice that are in reality, totally unimportant.

          (doubt you will get past step 1.)

        • AndyG55 says:

          And here is a scientist..

          Under that halo of gunja smoke, do you even know what a scientist is, Trancer?

        • transrp says:

          Ohhhh a Link. 1. greenland is not the globe. 2. Greenland was a name given for marketing purposes. 3. Here is a map of the temps for the Medieval Warm period. http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temperature_Pattern_MWP.gif Note that greenland is warmer. 4. There are many ways to measure temperatures, possibly to 1/1000 th of a degree. But does anyone here really believe that a solid mass over a period of many thousands of years will not achieve almost perfect temperature equilibrium, and if that mass does not do that, then this would be do to external variables. The statement at about 1 min that they can use a thermometer to measure temps at 1/1000 of a degree and that this will give an accurate picture of what temps were like thousands of years ago was made by someone ignorant of the most basic principles of thermodynamics. Probably never even had a course in the subject. And yes, I did have a course in the subject.

          You can determine what temps may have been by measuring various isotopes and other parameters that are fairly good indicators of ambient temps when the ice was made. They did not discuss these. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_core_project

          Here is a picture. Please show me where it is 2 degrees warmer in the past 2000 years

          You may not be aware of this, but Greenland is on a volcanic hot spot. Perhaps this is why is is anomalous hot. Greenland is not the globe.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “You folks not only have no science education — Does anyone have any degrees in science on this blog? — you have no concept of language or meaning?”

          From a failed Arts/Lit student.. that is quite funny ! 🙂

          You are projecting your own blatant inadequacies onto others.

          You have nothing, except empty ranting, little Trancer.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Again the moronic un-scientific links to SkS and Wiki.

          You are NO scientist , that is for sure.

        • AndyG55 says:

          You do realise that the video is simplified to get through to morons like you, don’t you. !

          Those are the guys actually doing the science, not some trumped up farce from Wiki or SkS.

        • AndyG55 says:

          And you do realise that topic of this thread is Greenland, don’t you.?

          if you want to LEARN about the MWP, and LIA go and read under “m” and “l’ at..

          http://www.co2science.org/subject/subject.php

          If you want to remain IGNORANT.. stick to SkS and Wiki.

          I know which you will choose. 😉

        • transrp says:

          Hey… Some of yo have added links to your name calling. Unfortunately they usually show either nothing, or support my position. Greenland is kind of a non starter since it is greenland, is very small, (less than 900K sq mi compared to the globe of 64 million sq miles) and it sits on top of a volcanically active area — hence the hot springs http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/greenland-ice-melt-is-geothermal-not-manmade.html. Hence historical temps from such a place can not be generalized to the globe. Small, plus hot springs is kinda like standing in a large house and deciding that despite the ice on the windows, that it is really warm cause you are next to the stove.

          As to this. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/08/01/greenland-meltdown-update-11/?replytocom=534137#respond They lost me when they claimed no cause. Actually the cause was predicted in the 19th century. https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm.

          I realize that a paper from the American Institute of Physics is a bit beyond your level of comprehension. To bad. My degree is actually in engineering physics and math so I understand all of it. It is really quite simple.

          Not a computer model. Just basic physics and pencil and paper, and a triple digit IQ
          Three things that none of you have.

          So the next CO2 change might not be a cooling decrease, but an increase. Arrhenius made a calculation for doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere, and estimated it would raise the Earth’s temperature some 5-6°C (averaged over all zones of latitude).(3)

          And here we are almost 120 years later with computers and more data:
          IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report slightly narrowed this range, arguing that climate sensitivity was “likely” between 2 C to 4.5 C, and that it was “very likely” more than 1.5 C.

          Not to many theories survive 100 years, especially when dealing with large fuzzy complex things like the entire planet. That is a damn good track record.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “You may not be aware of this, but Greenland is on a volcanic hot spot. Perhaps this is why it is anomalous hot. ”

          Wow, You goofed big time there. Rookie error. !!

          Greenland is ANOMALOUSLY COLD compared to the rest of the rest of the Holocene.

          Sure, it has warmed somewhat since the LIA, a fact we can be very thankful of.

          Unfortunately, that small amount of warming seems to have stopped. 😦

        • transrp says:

          Greenland is ANOMALOUSLY COLD compared to the rest of the rest of the Holocene.

          Even if this were true (You supplied no supporting link) it is irrevelant. Volcanoes are not active all the time.

          As you would say, a rookie error.

        • AndyG55 says:

          ps Trancer..

          Have you put down you bong and done your homework yet ??

          Have you checked to make sure your gunja isn’t grown in real greenhouses (with glass roofs and raised CO2 levels ?) Wouldn’t want to be hypocrite, would you now. 😉

          HYPOCRITE = a rabid alarmista that still drives a petrol, diesel or electric car, relies on coal or gas fired electricity, uses implements manufactured using coal (steel, aluminium etc, etc), or other fossil fuels, eats any food grown in greenhouses, uses anything with plastic, rare earths in it .. etc .etc, etc basically any alarmista not living in a cave. 🙂

        • AndyG55 says:

          “and a triple digit IQ”

          wow 101.. well done !!! 🙂

          certainly more than you are displaying here.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Ah, I see..

          You think that the current slight increase in Greenland melt is due to volcanic activity,

          just like the West Antarctic Peninsula.

          A totally natural melting.

          I think we can agree on that.

          As you confirmed, a rookie error on your behalf 🙂

          Understandable from a child-mind that only has one degree and no PhD.

          No wonder you are constantly playing catch-up.

          But you go on thinking how good you are.. its good for your inferiority complex. 😉

        • transrp says:

          And you have what? A high school degree? Maybe a certificate in english, with a minor in cosmetology

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Greenland is ANOMALOUSLY COLD compared to the rest of the rest of the Holocene.
          Even if this were true (You supplied no supporting link) it is irrevelant. ”

          Hey, I gave you some homework..

          Apparently you haven’t done it yet, and wish to remain ignorant.

          And wtf do you mean by “irrevelant” ?

        • transrp says:

          And wtf do you mean by “irrevelant” ? I am dyslexic. Which also means that I have above average pattern recognition skills. For example, the pattern that I see in you is that you are schizophrenic, with an incredibly short attention span

          As to your homework. Why would i want to go chasing after your imaginary information. It would just waste my time. And the only reason that I responded without a link is to raise the point of your severe mental condition. I have seen it before, but yours is rather mild. There may be help for you.

          You have not held a steady job for more than a few months have you?

        • AndyG55 says:

          I did think that simple video would give some hints as to the state of temperatures and ice in the first 6000 years of the Holocene, but apparently your intelligence doesn’t reach that far.

          If you really wanted to learn, you could also do some research on bio-markers from the Fram Straight sediment cores. You will probably have to search much further than SkS or Wiki though. 😉

          The word “Neoglaciation” may also get past your brain-washing in time.

        • We should stop replying to this transrp moron. The guy with the triple digit IQ who spells at a 3rd grade level, and quotes from SkS and Wikiedia. Most often, these people go away when you ignore them.

        • AndyG55 says:

          The poor child with his base-level degree still hasn’t figured out that he is way out of his depth. That’s how thick he is..

          When I was a nipper, Mum always told me not to play with my food. ! 🙂

        • AndyG55 says:

          Notice how his rants are becoming more and more incoherent and spaced out.

          His puerile attempts at insult, trying to boost his sagging self-esteem….so junior high !

          Poor child needs to leave before he has a nervous breakdown. 🙂

        • AndyG55 says:

          A few more posts, and he is ours.. unable to escape.

          Such fun ! 🙂

        • AndyG55 says:

          Told you he couldn’t escape.. 🙂

          He still thinks his base-level degree actually means something… so sad !!

          Passes make asses.!

  16. David A says:

    Dear transrp, your post is full of profound ignorance, mixed with arrogance. Where is you evidence that T.H. hates models. The models skeptics object to are the PCC climate models that all run way to warm, off for the troposphere by about 300 percent. The further objection is to those wrong in one direction models being used for political policy decisions.

    Ice gain/loss SMB models are primarily based on measurements / observations of snowfall and temperature.

    Now where do you find T.H. asserting that there are only two ways for ice to be lost? (Another straw man in a post full f them) Tell me, what are the primary factors determining how rapid ice sheets move towards the ocean? When ice sheets are growing, do they still move with gravity towards the ocean?

    Have you read any of the peer reviewed reports showing no acceleration, and even a slow down of the rate of glacial ice melt. Are you aware that sea ice has been increasing, and is above average for the past three years?

    Good luck on your book, I am certain four or five guardian readers will enjoy it.

    • omanuel says:

      Henry P

      Sorry I didn’t see your comment earlier.

      Briefly, we have absolutely irrefutable evidence the core of the Sun is the pulsar remains of the supernova that birthed the Solar System five billion years (5 Ga) ago, and

      Neither Oliver nor anyone else can yet predict the behavior of a pulsar.

      I will try to post a more complete answer where you asked.

      • Henry P says:

        I am interested.
        I found the connection that switches the sun’s decreasing polar field strengths;
        it is a gravitational pull.
        [planets’ configuration]

        The consequence of my research is that if something happens to the planets, on their way to the switch, it could affect earth. This is what [I suspect] happened what led to the LIA.

      • transrp says:

        Anybody who claims that there is irrefutable evidence for anything is completely ignorant of the nature of science and the scientific method. See Hawking and Karl Popper. About popper:

        I went and did a little searching and came across this: http://news.mst.edu/2003/03/research_suggests_neutron_repu/

        Now, remember you made a statement like it was a fact. There are few if any “facts” in science. There are theories and evidence that support or contradict those theories. The theories are more or less useful. For example, I could claim that I have a theory that your mother drank a lot when she was pregnant with you, thus impairing your IQ. I could find evidence supporting and or refuting that theory. I doubt that the theory could be falsified. If it can not be falsified, then it is “not even wrong” Your statement is one of those. It is “not even wrong” That is, you have no idea how to construct an observation that would falsify it.

        Cheer up. Your ignorance of how science works, or what it is, means that you have found your home on this site

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Your ignorance of how science works, or what it is, means that you have found your home on this site”

          All the available evidence contradicts the AGW agenda..

          In those 120 or so year since Arrhenius made his incorrect supposition, there has been basically zero to back his supposition.. Any other supposition that hadn’t been co-opt by political control agenda would have died a natural death ages ago.

          AGW is a FAILED HYPOTHESIS.. based on zero science.. and your low-end education has allowed you to be sucked in by it. Well done., bozo !!!

          but you hang on for grim death…

          but you better keep hammering it….because its all you have.

          That is not science.. that is religion.

  17. Henry P says:

    transrp says
    Because no supporting links, except from other AGW denier sites are offered as evidence. If you had evidence, then you would use it to support your argument.

    henry says
    been there where you are now.
    so I will ask you [as somebody did ask me then]: what proof have you collected [yourself] that proves that man made global warming is for real? Provide me your own data?

    I started looking at minimum temps. here in Pretoria, South Africa. I had noted that in winter people burn a lot of fossil fuels here and they burn the (dry) grass a lot (veld brande) to clean up and prevent major bush fires. AGW theory is that minimum temps. should be rising as CO2 increases, pushing up means. We have inversion here in the highveld, which means layers of air with high CO2 trapped in between cooler air layers. If AGW were true, I had definitely expected to find rising minimum temps. as time progressed (from 1973) in the winter months here. I found the opposite happening……

    Consequently I took a balanced sample of weather stations all over the world. The rest is history [to me}. There is no man made global warming. It is only getting cooler. But not by that much.

    God is keeping us warm.

  18. transrp says:

    Henry: You appear to have not yet partaken of the cool-aid and have an inquisitive if untrained mind. I have a degree in engineering math and physics with some graduate work in math. I have always loved science and have been a devotee of it and the world. Let me set out what what is the nature of science as agreed upon by almost anyone who cares.

    1. No one EVER EVER proves something about the physical world. The concept of a proof only applies to the areas of logic and math.
    2. As Stephen Hawking has remarked based on the Philosopher Karl Popper, a theory is never proven. Rather it is supported or not by evidence. A theory can be falsified. More often, it is just modified.
    3. become familiar with the null hypothesis. This is not easy. Well, at least I have not found it to be easy to completely comprehend.
    4. I doubt that anyone has very much of their own data on anything. Scientists who do their own research can sometimes add some data to the total pool. If you think that it is easy to get your own data, then I invite you to get your own data that shows that the sun does, in fact, move around the earth. Not so easy is it? What? You claim that the sun does not move around the earth. Than provide your own data to falsify that. It sure looks like it moves around the earth to me. I can watch it “move” from my very own window
    5. About falsification. Remember “the germ theory of disease” Or Newtons laws of gravitation? They were shown to be not universally true. One could even claim that the germ theory is hardly ever true. As Hawking said, however, theories are quite useful or not. They are not true or false. Some are more useful than others.

    Gathering accurate information about large, complex, squishy and fuzzy things like biological systems, ecologies and other things requires large scale effort and a lot of money. One person, or one group is not able to do it. Then the information must be interpreted. It would be nice if there were a theory to set a framework for said information.

    So I confess. I do not have any information of my own. I do have a lot of information from people who have devoted their lives to gathering data and trying to understand it, including theoretical physicists whose theories go back almost 120 years. And Just as I do not think that the theory of germs or gravitation, or the moon landings were conspiracies, I do not think that the great body of scientists is involved in some conspiracy. (Though there is abundant evidence that oil companies, and their paid for scientists are — see below) If you prefer to believe that your measurements done on 1/10,000 of the planet (6000 sq miles) combined with a conspiracy theory is more accurate than all of the other information. Well, there is no fixing stupid — a refusal to learn from available evidence. On the other hand, if you think that a 100+ year old theory (which has made pretty good predictions and hence is useful) combined with almost anybody who counts (The pope, the defence dept, the navy, almost insurance companies, the american petroleum institute : http://www.api.org/environment-health-and-safety/climate-change
    “The contribution of possible man-made warming is uncertain as are the extent and timing of potential future impacts. Nevertheless, the need to take action is clear.”) are not part of the largest conspiracy in the world and are actually 1/2 way competent then you may wish to look at the available info again.

    The theory of AGW goes back almost 120 years. You might find this useful. A knowledge of radiative transfer by gasses is useful in understanding the article
    https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
    and this: https://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
    https://www.aip.org/aip/search?cx=004445072414534619134%3Azoo0-stuoya&q_ry=CO2&cof=FORID%3A11&searchaip=Search

    Note that this statement by AIP admitting that climate change “MAY” be a problem is a lot weaker than what fossil fuel companies say in private. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/internal-documents-show-f_b_7749988.html

    was much more vocal than Exxon about it. In November 1988, five months after NASA scientist James Hansen rang the alarm bell before Congress, Mobil President Richard F. Tucker cited the “greenhouse effect” in a list of serious environmental challenges during a speech at an American Institute of Chemical Engineers national conference.

    “Our strategy must be to reduce pollution before it is ever generated — to prevent problems at the source,” he said. “That will involve working at the edge of scientific knowledge and developing new technology at every scale on the engineering spectrum. …Prevention on a global scale may even require a dramatic reduction in our dependence on fossil fuels — and a shift toward solar, hydrogen, and safe nuclear power. It may be possible — just possible — that the energy industry will transform itself so completely that observers will declare it a new industry.”

    An internal 1995 GCC primer included in the UCS report, however, indicates that the coalition’s own scientific and technical experts were telling its members that greenhouse gases were indeed causing global warming.

    “The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established,” the 17-page document stated, “and cannot be denied.” The primer’s lead author was none other than Leonard S. Bernstein, who at the time was Mobil’s manager for corporate environmental, health and safety issues. After retiring from Mobil in 1999, Bernstein was a lead chapter author for U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports in 2001 and 2007.

    I include this paragraph because it uses the word “reality”, which is a favorite among the ore ignorant on this site:

    Bernstein referenced his role with the coalition in his October 2014 email. “I was involved in GCC for a while,” he wrote, “unsuccessfully trying to get them to recognize scientific reality.”

    Would you like more evidence?

    Is there any part of my post that you disagree with, and if so,, why?

    • omanuel says:

      I disagree because rest mass data of every known atom in the universe confirms that NEUTRON REPULSION:

      1. Powers heavy atoms, some planets, the Sun and the Cosmos, and
      2. The atomic bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945

      • transrp says:

        You are free to disagree all that you want. You have a theory. It may be correct. Sort of like Genesis may be correct. However it is not a scientific theory unless it is falsifiable, and you have yet to state an experiment or observation which would falsify it.

        For example, I could work up a theory that the real cause of the explosions in 1945 was the release of magical unicorns who had eaten sanctified pigs and then belched magic sanctified gas which was ignited by their Pyrophoric farts. Like your idea, it is not falsifiable. Take heart though. There have been many theories which, when first postulated, were not falsifiable. Entanglement was one of them. Perhaps you will come up with a way of falsifying your idea. Until then it remains Not even wrong.

        • omanuel says:

          Precise rest mass data – that you ignore – are not a theory.

        • transrp says:

          Preciss rest mass data are just that data. You can present the data. But it remains data. You then state that it confirms something. What does it confirm? Does it confirm that your mother is a zombie? Does it confirm that you won the nobel prize? No!!! It confirms an idea that you have. But this idea is “NOT EVEN WRONG”. Since it can not be falsified, then it is not a scientific theory. As when entanglement was first proposed. Entanglement turned out to be an excellent theory, and in fact, was a direct result of QM. So, until you find a way of falsifying your theory, and even better, making it useful, your idea that :

          I disagree because rest mass data of every known atom in the universe confirms that NEUTRON REPULSION:

          1. Powers heavy atoms, some planets, the Sun and the Cosmos, and
          2. The atomic bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945

          Is just that. An idea. Figure out how to make it a theory, and you might get some serious prize money. Until then, all that you are doing is demonstrating an ignorance of the nature of science.

    • darwin says:

      Nothing predicted by AGW proponents has come true. Nothing. Not only did their models fail, their predictions failed as well.

      Only an idiot would continue to believe something that has failed to predict anything for at least the last forty years.

      • transrp says:

        List of idiots: The Pope. The joint chiefs of staff. The head of the navy. The CEO’s, & boards of all insurance companies. Most Nobel prize winners who express an opinion now. (Some have changed from deniers to pro AGW or neutral. The one steadfastly a denier is over 85, and, just possible, may not have all his faculties. Also, his prize was in solid state physics which is a far cry from cosmetology Perhaps he just suffers from Dunning Kruger. And perhaps he appreciates the additional income from The Heartland Institute 🙂 ) The C officers and boards on most coal oil & gas companies. including their in house scientists (see prior posts). This is just one example: http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/oil-giant-shell-dumps-alec-over-climate-change-position-20150807

        So … aside from conservative republicans, Young earth Creationists, the few who hang out here, who, exactly are not idiots? Oh yes, and those who are getting paid by various conservative organizations like Cato, the Heritage institute, and others. Anybody not an idiot? Anybody with skin in the game?

        • AndyG55 says:

          Follow the money and the power.. fool !!!

        • AndyG55 says:

          Again you show your total ignorance is grabbing at the consensus meme.

          But as it is all you have.. you will have to keep wacking it with all of your low-end education.

        • darwin says:

          Again, only an idiot would continue to believe a “theory” that for forty years hasn’t had one single correct prediction.

          The people you mentioned are either idiots, or have a part in the massive scam to not only snatch freedom but as much money as possible from an unsuspecting public.

          You? You’re an idiot.

        • transrp says:

          I could be wrong, but I believe that one of the most common excuses for failure in life is the idea that “everyone is against me”. And the most common excuse for everyone of any import being against a persons ideas is, not that their ideas are wrong, or that everyone else is part of a massive conspiracy.

          And you are right. But my conscious is bothering me. See — I am part of that conspiracy. And now I have to tell you that at the latest meeting of all those people (in the rose bowl — we need a big forum) they decided to start monitoring sites like these. Cause you are awakening the sheep. And an almost unanimous resolution was passed to send out a cleaning team. Nothing obvious. Car crashes. Diseases. “heart attacks” , The usual stuff when “they” need to fix a problem. You have been warned. Take care

        • AndyG55 says:

          “I could be wrong, but I believe that one of the most common excuses for failure in life.. blah blah…. ”

          And your excuse is ????

        • darwin says:

          Odd that you completely ignored what I said. Nothing predicted over the last forty years has come true.

          All you can do is list either conspirators in the hoax or people who have been pressured to lie … or idiots, like you.

        • transrp says:

          Odd that you completely ignored what I said. Nothing predicted over the last forty years has come true.

          See my post in Answer to Rah above. (or below?) In any case it is the response to:
          ” For example in the case of global temperatures they will point to one data set they believe supports their case while the ignore several others that all contradict the one they point to.”

          Hmmm 700 GT of ice, times 40. Lets say the average was 1/2 that. So we have 20*36 or 720 cubic miles of ice melted. enough to bury Manhattan over 20 miles in ice. And to you that is a failed prediction. What would a successful prediction look like?

        • rah says:

          darwin it’s not “odd” but in fact is the standard modus operandi of the true believers. They must studiously ignore or deny that not a single specific prediction of disaster from CAGW has occurred and that the not a single claim for signature changes in climate due to human activity has occurred to near the extent that was predicted if at all. In order to continue to believe and not be drown by the flood of evidence that AGW theory has already been clearly falsified they breath through a straw. For example in the case of global temperatures they will point to one data set they believe supports their case while the ignore several others that all contradict the one they point to.

          IOW they must ignore or deny reality in order to be a true believer. It is they that are the “deniers”.

        • transrp says:

          ” For example in the case of global temperatures they will point to one data set they believe supports their case while the ignore several others that all contradict the one they point to.”

          How about a bet. You specify the conditions of the wager such as which studies to accept, how far back those studies go, and what specific predictions they will make. Then you specify how those predictions will be measured. Then we will see who can produce the greater number of predictions.

          To the best of my knowledge neither published scientific papers nor computer models make predictions of disasters. Individuals make such predictions, as does the popular press. As you know individuals are prone to error. And as far as the press goes — well, if it bleeds, it leads, so that only a fool would use them as a reference here. And you, not being a fool, I am sure that you did not mean predictions by the popular press.

          So what do the models predict?

          They predict a lot less cold stuff, and a lot more warm stuff. And by less and more, I do not mean last month in your grandmas home town. I mean over a time frame of at least 5 years, and globally. If not globally, then at least something approaching the size of a continent.

          So what do we have? Well, almost all glaciers everywhere are smaller than they were 5, 10, or 110 years ago. Also there are some specific events such as general precipitation. A warmer globe means more evaporation, which means more precipitation.

          I am sure that you are all smart enough to realize that in the winter, precipitation falls as snow. So you will get more snow when it is cold. But overall you will have fewer days of snow cause you will have fewer cold days.
          Snow cover:

          I chose snow cover as opposed to amount of snow. More precipitation would counter the trend to less snow. But higher temps will cause the snow to melt faster. So we get this:

          While looking I found this. You can tell us why it is wrong.
          http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

          Here are higher temps. Feel free to cherry pick from 1935 and ignore the 50 or 100 year trend

          and here are the fewer cold things:

          and record highs vs record lows

          Now — why exactly does this data not conform to predictions by models of more hot stuff and less cold stuff.

          I mean other than your claim that all data from the government is false.

          Now perhaps you can show me your claimed failed predictions. that would be a prediction made by an actual scientist in an actual published paper.

        • transrp says:

          ” For example in the case of global temperatures they will point to one data set they believe supports their case while the ignore several others that all contradict the one they point to.”

          How about a bet? You specify the conditions of the wager such as which studies to accept, how far back those studies go, and what specific predictions they will make. Then you specify how those predictions will be measured. Then we will see who can produce the greater number of predictions.

          To the best of my knowledge neither published scientific papers nor computer models make predictions of disasters. Individuals make such predictions, as does the popular press. As you know individuals are prone to error. And as far as the press goes — well, if it bleeds, it leads, so that only a fool would use them as a reference here. Ad you, not being a food, I am sure that you did not mean predictions by the popular press.

          So what do the models predict?

          They predict a lot less cold stuff, and a lot more warm stuff. And by less and more, I do not mean last month in your grandmas home town. I mean over a time frame of at least 5 years, and globally. If no global data can be found we can settle for something the size of a continent — a few million sq miles.

          So what do we have? Well, almost all glaciers everywhere are smaller than they were 5, 10, or 110 years ago. Also there are some specific events such as general precipitation. A warmer globe means more evaporation, which means more precipitation.

          I am sure that you are all smart enough to realize that in the winter, precipitation falls as snow. So you will get more snow when it is cold. But overall you will have fewer days of snow cause you will have fewer cold days.

          While looking I found this. You can tell us why it is wrong.
          http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

          I could not find snow days. Amount of snow is not a valid indicator since, as I stated above, there will be more precipitation which in the winter falls as snow. On the other hand snow cover. Well, that will likely be less because — well it is warmer so even if more snow falls, it will melt faster. Oh look: 1. https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/snow_1967-2012.gif less snow cover.

          and here we have record highs vs record lows.
          2. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/indicator_downloads/high-low-temps-download6-2014.png

          and more hot stuff — more higher summer temps
          3. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/indicator_downloads/high-low-temps-download2-2015.png

          and fewer lower winter temps:
          4. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/indicator_downloads/high-low-temps-download3-2015.png

          though I am sure that you can cherry pick the data to prove that from 2000 to 2015, there were more cold daily lows and more cold daily lows.

          I suspect that you now respond with name calling, and pretend that none of this information in any way shows that we have more hot stuff, and less cold stuff.

          Oh, and we also have less ice: 5. http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/global_ice_viewer
          about 700 billion tons a year less ice per year. And we are ignoring glaciers. 700 billion tons a year is about 80 cubic miles of ice.

          I suspect that one could come up with more predictions. These were the obvious ones. I really want to see your mental gymnastics in ignoring 1 & 5. Or claiming that they are wrong. Or it is part of a conspiracy. Or how global warming does not predict them.

        • transrp says:

          ” For example in the case of global temperatures they will point to one data set they believe supports their case while the ignore several others that all contradict the one they point to.”

          How about a bet? You specify the conditions of the wager such as which studies to accept, how far back those studies go, and what specific predictions they will make. Then you specify how those predictions will be measured. Then we will see who can produce the greater number of predictions.

          To the best of my knowledge neither published scientific papers nor computer models make predictions of disasters. Individuals make such predictions, as does the popular press. As you know individuals are prone to error. And as far as the press goes — well, if it bleeds, it leads, so that only a fool would use them as a reference here. Ad you, not being a food, I am sure that you did not mean predictions by the popular press.

          So what do the models predict?

          They predict a lot less cold stuff, and a lot more warm stuff. And by less and more, I do not mean last month in your grandmas home town. I mean over a time frame of at least 5 years, and globally. If no global data can be found we can settle for something the size of a continent — a few million sq miles.

          So what do we have? Well, almost all glaciers everywhere are smaller than they were 5, 10, or 110 years ago. Also there are some specific events such as general precipitation. A warmer globe means more evaporation, which means more precipitation.

          I am sure that you are all smart enough to realize that in the winter, precipitation falls as snow. So you will get more snow when it is cold. But overall you will have fewer days of snow cause you will have fewer cold days.

          While looking I found this. You can tell us why it is wrong.
          http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

          I could not find snow days. Amount of snow is not a valid indicator since, as I stated above, there will be more precipitation which in the winter falls as snow. On the other hand snow cover. Well, that will likely be less because — well it is warmer so even if more snow falls, it will melt faster. Oh look: https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/snow_1967-2012.gif less snow cover.

          and here we have record highs vs record lows.

          and more hot stuff — more higher summer temps

          and fewer lower winter temps:

          though I am sure that you can cherry pick the data to prove that from 2000 to 2015, there were more cold daily lows annd more cold daily lows.

          I suspect that you now respond with name calling, and pretend that none of this information in any way shows that we have more hot stuff, and less cold stuff.

          Oh, and we also have less ice: http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/global_ice_viewer
          about 700 giga tons per year less ice. That is about 36 cubic miles.

        • D. Self says:

          I missed what your degree is in. And you were sent here as an attack dog by George Soros?.

        • Marsh says:

          transrp ; Your statement following, exemplifies how out of touch you are from reality.
          .
          transrp says, “”To the best of my knowledge neither published scientific papers nor computer models make predictions of disasters. Individuals make such predictions, as does the popular press””.
          .
          The IPCC is more than just an “individual” it’s the hierarchy of your divine faith. That institution, is guilty of some of the worst fraud involving predictions / projections. Much of their philosophy, is borne of scientific papers that spew such ridiculous garbage.
          .
          What is most amazing, is how you can squeeze an argument from a scintilla of truth
          and warp it your way. When others presented clear & concise evidence revealing the AGW hypothesis to be flawed; you remain unwaveringly resolute to your obsession?
          .
          Last week, we had another self absorbed person with a different form of disorder…
          Despite your above average IQ and broad knowledge, you do need to address your psychosis for your own benefit. Sorry if it offends, but your status is also revealing.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Love the way the worm tries to discount the fact that NOAA and the EPA are at the very vanguard of the temperature data manipulations.

          The “Adjustments™” to the US temperature record are well documented.

          The fact that the little troll tried to talk his way around it is more than enough to show that even he knows that to be the truth.

          You should have not mentioned it, dopey.. you gave the game away. 🙂

        • AndyG55 says:

          When you do this to the raw data.. ANYTHING is a LIE

        • rah says:

          transrp

          The very post this awfully long string is on is a prime example of a forecast made that has not come to pass. But really nobody has to provide a number of examples to falsify the AGW hypothesis. Just a single example nullifies the CAGW hypothesis.

          Don’t confuse ‘hypothesis’ and ‘theory.’ The former is a possible explanation; the latter, the correct one. The establishment of theory is the very purpose of science.
          — Martin H. Fischer

          That example is the temperatures predicted by Hanson and the IPCC in their models. Despite massive adjustments of the surface temperature data set over time the temperatures have not approach the increase predicted in the hypothesis despite CO2 having reached 400ppm. No one has to prove any other point to you, though there are many others, to make the case that the hypothesis is untrue because it only takes one!

          https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/screenhunter_8962-may-05-07-17.gif?w=557&h=444

          Game, set, match!

        • AndyG55 says:

          I find it absolutely amazing that anyone with any mathematical training at all could not look at the model mean deviation from reality of the lower tropospheric temperatures and not just throw the whole CO2warming conjecture in the bin where it belongs.

          My guess is that this inept troll is very deep in the AGW trough, and is feeling the desperation of seeing his swill running dry.

        • rah says:

          Wll AndyG55 it seems that most of the best and brightest are avoiding Academia like the plague. http://www.academia.org/best-brightest-avoid-academia/

          And there is no doubt in my mind that the “consensus” mentality where by the nails who’s heads stick above the others are pounded down when their views to not conform or challenge the prevalent views is the reason why.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Forgot the pic.

          No real mathematician, scientist or engineer should ever accept this sort of deviation from reality. In industry the modeller would be laughed at…. then would get the sack.

          Imagine trying to fly to the moon with that sort of inaccuracy… !!

          The models are JUNK,

          And at least 97% of climate predictions have been JUNK.

        • Andy DC says:

          Adjust (riig) the data, then claim that the rigged data proves your hypothesis. Not exactly the scientific method at its finest.

        • transrp says:

          “Adjust (riig) the data, then claim that the rigged data proves your hypothesis. Not exactly the scientific method at its finest.”

          So, you admit that Dr. Spencer is a fraud?
          http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/

          If you were not completely and totally ignorant about how scientists work, then you would realize that almost all raw data and measurements are adjusted for numerous reasons

          I suspect that a short search would turn up numerous courses on how and when to adjust raw data.

          Jesus —- are you really that ignorant / stupid?

      • rah says:

        perhaps transrp might learn something from hearing a real climate scientists speak? No detectable hot spot in the upper troposphere over the tropics as predicted in the AGW hypothesis.

        Again! It only takes one fault like this to disprove the hypothesis and so the AGW hypothesis is falsified by this also.

        • transrp says:

          I could not resist. You stupid ignorant morons!!! You want truth? You want science? Try this:
          http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/02/windfall_mckenzie_funk_describes_the_business_of_climate_change.html

          Even the petro companies now conceed about the reality of AGW. the only people left on your side are the stupid conservatives, and their psychopathic political leaders.

          One relevant excerpt:

          As it turned out, of course, we got neither.

          For that we can thank congressional Republicans and their supporters, who continued to insist that climate change wasn’t real, wasn’t a problem, or wasn’t worth doing anything about. You see, unlike big oil companies, congressional Republicans aren’t required to understand science in order to do their jobs. And unlike big oil companies, their financial fortunes don’t necessarily depend on being right about the future. Bankrolled by Koch Industries, conservatives in Congress and the media have continued to oppose environmental regulations and downplay climate change even as companies like Coke and Nike are starting to feel its effects.

        • How many times a day do you have these meltdowns, transrp?

        • AndyG55 says:

          Oh look another drug fuel rant from the trancer.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Since CO2 has been much higher in Earth’s history and the Earth is still here.

      the NULL hypothesis must be that CO2 just above the minimum required for life are no damage to the planet.

      NO-ONE has proven otherwise, therefore the null hypothesis holds. see.. reality bites.

      Now go back to your low-end maths work, and leave the thinking and the science to those more capable.

      And please stop big-noting yourself thinking that your basic maths degree is in some way important.. its not, and you are embarrassing yourself.

      As soon as you even mention James Hansen, you know you are quicksand.

      Just remember this..

      NOT ONE prediction of the climate glitterati has been correct

      Models based on the AGW hypothesis have been proven woefully wrong, and the best they can mange is to adjust the data to fit those models and still miss by a proverbial mile.

      If that is your idea of science.. then you need to go back and re-sit your degree.

      Start in junior high again, and try to at least learn something this time.

    • AndyG55 says:

      And seriously links to api who want to destroy coal so as to increase their slice of the energy market , and huffington post ? really ?????

    • Marsh says:

      transrp : You profess the Scientific method yet present AGW as though it’s absolute unflinching fact in your mind ; that goes beyond hypocrisy to psychological issues.

      What you don’t seem to grasp; after all those years involving Predictions ( by so called reputable Scientists ) : almost all events have FAILED to materialize in the real world.

      A key Indicator of where we are at is Snow and Ice !!!! If the true trend was Warming, we would NOT be seeing the greatest Volume of Ice in recorded history on & around Antarctica. Also, the Sea is Not rising & flooding as the warmists wrongly predicted.

      Those in Science that have been supporting Global Warming are now starting to have some doubt , given the contrary indicators / trend analysis . You should take a look around & do a head count… global warming is fast losing support around the world.

      • AndyG55 says:

        There has in fact been absolutely NO CHANGE in the rate of sea level rise… except if you want to start splicing upward adjusted satellite data (incidentally recently found to be using a sinking point as a reference.. DOH !! )

        There is absolutely no CO2 warming signal in sea level changes.

        There is absolutely no CO2 warming signal in the satellite temperature record. (which measures the lower troposphere which was apparently meant to warm faster than the surface and isn’t)

        There absolutely NO indication that CO2 does anything except enhance the biosphere.

  19. Henry P says:

    @transpr
    I am a chemist and a statistician, almost 60 years old. I am now in semi retirement running two charities and science is now my hobby again. Indeed, I started my own investigation as I felt guilty about driving my big truck complete with dog house in the back that and I remember looking at Tyndall and Arrhenius first. They were wrong because they looked at closed box experiments.
    Come back to me when you understand from this paper:

    Click to access turnbull06a.pdf


    that the CO2 is [also] cooling the atmosphere
    (figure 6 &7)
    and can explain to me as to why it is [also] cooling the atmosphere.

    • transrp says:

      I have looked over your paper. I confess that I did not read it closely. I did do some word searches. I found no reference to heating or cooling. Correct me if I am wrong, but the paper seems to be considering how one might determine the liklihood of the existence of life on a planet by examining the spectrum of reflected light, then using this information to determine the composition of the atmosphere, then making guess based on known physics and chemistry about the likelihood of life existing on such a planet.

      At this time, the consensus is that if a planet has a large percentage of free oxygen in the atmosphere, then there must be some dynamic system powering the generation of that gas, and the only known system is life / photosynthesis.

      People can draw conclusions from data, and see patterns. Sometimes they are wrong. Not everyone draws the same conclusions or sees the same patterns. People often see patterns where none exist (false positive — the most common type of pattern recognition error). Perhaps if you tell me what information in this paper made you conclude that CO2 is cooling the atmosphere I will agree. But as of now, I am not seeing the pattern.

      One more thing, I can not find any reference to a closed box experiment done by Arrhenius. The only references to such are allegations that he did them. Can you give me a link to such an experiment? Thanks

      • rah says:

        There is that “consensus” word again. In science “consensus” is the enemy of unbiased experimentation and inquiry.

        “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
        ― Michael Crichton

        And he’s right. Anyone with some knowledge of the history of science and discovery will have seen that great discoverers and scientists were great because they ignored or even directly disputed the “consensus”.

        Consensus is the realm of committees and politics. NOT science.

        • transrp says:

          So, our space program is not based on science because there is a consensus that Newtons and Einstein’s laws of gravitation are useful, and it is assumed that the earth mover around the sun. Good to know.

          One thing that all scientific discoveries have in common is that the scientists followed the evidence, based their theories on math, and published in peer reviewed journals. when they did this publishing, they were not thought to be fools, though they may have been wrong in details.

          Can you produce a peer reviewed paper that has not been shown to be crap. Perhaps when Henry P. publishes his work, we will have a single such paper.

        • AndyG55 says:

          DOH ! .. Newton and Einstein were not peer-reviewed.

          Peer review by anonymous unpaid reviewers is NOT a part of the Scientific Method.

          Only a brain-washed non-scientific idiot would think that it is.

        • AndyG55 says:

          The term “Peer Review” is used by those in influential positions in the science world to guard their turf, and is a bar to entry for risky, innovative or politically incorrect work.

          It certainly doesn’t seem to stop self-evidently stupid papers from being published as is patently obvious from the very high proportion of moronic and inept “climate science™” papers.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Watson and Cricks’s paper on DNA was also not peer-reviewed nor were the papers of Arrhenius and Tyndall etc etc

          so you make a fool of yourself by your blatant ignorance, yet again!!

          I strongly suggest you go back and do a proper science course, because one you say you did seems to have been sadly lacking.

        • rah says:

          Peer review is also the method that science publications use to lend credibility to what they publish and sometimes the way they will exclude what they don’t want to publish because it does not agree with the editors views. Seeings how the system has been proven to be full of fraud I have no idea why anyone would have any faith in it unless they actually know the quality of the author and the reviewers.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/07/08/fraudulent-peer-review-strikes-another-academic-publisher-32-articles-questioned/

          http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/science/science-journal-pulls-60-papers-in-peer-review-fraud.html

          http://junkscience.com/2014/07/11/peer-review-fraud-peer-review-failure/

    • AndyG55 says:

      ” I confess that I did not read it closely.”

      You were unable to comprehend a word of it, right !!

  20. Henry P says:

    transrp says
    I do not think that the great body of scientists is involved in some conspiracy
    henry says
    in science, there often is no “consensus” on a studied subject. You cannot have vote on it either. History proves it. Where would we be now without Newton, Einstein, etc/
    You only need one man to get it right. The rest can all be wrong.

    • transrp says:

      Again: AGAIN AGAIN!!! There is no right / wrong. There is no True / False. Newton was not right. His theory was just a lot more useful than the other ideas at the time. Einstein did not make him wrong. The planets did not move differently after Einstein put forth his theories of relativity. His ideas simply explained observations better. Now we have new observations that his theories do not entirely explain. That does not make his ideas wrong.

      In the case of AGW we have theories that go back almost 120 years. We have observations that are not 100% mushy and do not accord 100% with any model. But the vast majority of information that is available is in line with the predictions. And as I said, everyone who counts, including many of the carbon based energy companies agree that CO2 is a problem. It is acidifying the oceans and is the source of heating of the planet.

      So far your post and the link to the berkeley paper is the only link that I saw that is not false on its face. It will take time for me to check it out. In the meantime I suggest that you check Carl Popper, falsifiability, the null hypothesis, and other ideas of a similar that I have referenced

      From a historical point of view, when someone has put forward a new idea of a scientific nature, and it turned out to be a better idea, sometimes overthrowing established dogma that has, as far as I know, happened within a few years. Perhaps you can find one that was resisted for more than a few years, by almost everyone, that turned out to be true. I doubt that you can find one that is similar to this AGW denier circus. The nearest is the show put on by the Tobacco industry. Some of those “scientists” now deny AGW.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “In the case of AGW we have theories that go back almost 120 years”

        Arrhenius made a baseless supposition based on wonky evidence.

        That error was revived for the global warming agenda.

        If it weren’t for the political agenda the AGW farce would have dies a natural death.

        Some facts for you to confirm. more homework since you FAILED miserably on the previous lot..

        1. CO2 does not re-emit in below about 15km.

        2. In the lower atmosphere, when CO2 absorbs radiation, the lifetime of the excited state caused by the absorption of the photon is much longer than the mean free time between molecular collisions between the CO2 molecule and other molecules in the surrounding gas. That means that the radiative energy absorbed by the molecule is almost never resonantly re-emitted, it is transferred to the surrounding gas, warming not just the CO2 but the oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, argon as well as the other CO2 molecules around.

        3. Convection and Conduction rule in the lower atmosphere, with H2O being the only radiative gas. CO2 has zero affect on either of them.

        4. Any radiation from CO2 will be in the stratosphere and aids in the cooling of the planet.
        No CO2 radiation can have any affect on the surface temperatures. end of story. !!

        Now go away, do your homework, stop hunting alarmist propaganda sites, and open your low-education mind to reality.

        • transrp says:

          since you did not provide any links I can only assume that you made this up or are lying. That and name calling seem to be your main, well no, actually your only debate techniques. And even here you are inconsistent.

          In 2 you say: “That means that the radiative energy absorbed by the molecule is almost never resonantly re-emitted, it is transferred to the surrounding gas, **warming** not just the CO2 but the oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, argon as well as the other CO2 molecules around. ”

          Then in 3 & 4 you say that 2 is not true. You say that the energy is not transferred to the surrounding gas and does not warm it.

          4. by itself “Any radiation from CO2 will be in the stratosphere and aids in the cooling of the planet.” could only be made by someone ignorant of science and radiation. Just how, exactly, does a molecule know to radiate energy in one direction, away from the planet?

          When you make up these fables, do you even think about them, or just blurt out the first brain fart that happens?

        • AndyG55 says:

          Your ignorance precedes you !!

          You didn’t do your homework or even understand any of what I said did you…. doh !!!

          I’ll give you some more basic hints, because I really want you to actually think for a change.

          The emission temp of CO2 is about -80C..

          The atmosphere in the stratosphere is far less dense

          Any downward radiation will be captured by lower CO and converted through conduction to other atoms..

          Now do run-off , little child.. and engage your brain for once.

        • transrp says:

          Any downward radiation will be captured by lower CO and converted through conduction to other atoms..

          Yes. that is exactly how the atmosphere gets warmer. You finally “get it” ( I assume that you meant CO2) The more CO2 is in the atmosphere, the more IR it captures and then re-radiates back to the planet. Every bit of IR that a CO2 molecule captures — well about 1/2 gets re-radiated back to the planet. Hence more CO2 means a smaller amount of IR escapes into space, hence a warmer planet.

          Now I realize that some CO2 radiated back to the planet will also be captured and 1/2 of that will be re-radiated away from the planet. But since the source of the IR is the ground, as you add CO2, the net result will be more and more IR going back to the source causing it to get warmer until equilibrium is re-established.

        • Transrp says:

          “Yes. that is exactly how the atmosphere gets warmer. You finally “get it” ( I assume that you meant CO2) The more CO2 is in the atmosphere, the more IR it captures and then re-radiates back to the planet. Every bit of IR that a CO2 molecule captures — well about 1/2 gets re-radiated back to the planet. Hence more CO2 means a smaller amount of IR escapes into space, hence a warmer planet. Now I realize that some CO2 radiated back to the planet will also be captured and 1/2 of that will be re-radiated away from the planet. But since the source of the IR is the ground, as you add CO2, the net result will be more and more IR going back to the source causing it to get warmer until equilibrium is re-established.”

          By saying this he shows that he believes The CO2 absorbs and re-radiates IR. But Andy had previously and correctly pointed out to him that:

          “In the lower atmosphere, when CO2 absorbs radiation, the lifetime of the excited state caused by the absorption of the photon is much longer than the mean free time between molecular collisions between the CO2 molecule and other molecules in the surrounding gas. That means that the radiative energy absorbed by the molecule is almost never resonantly re-emitted, it is transferred to the surrounding gas, warming not just the CO2 but the oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, argon as well as the other CO2 molecules around.”

          Which went right over Transrp’s head. He probably still thinks the CO2 radiates IR downward. Unbelievable. He has no understanding of the subject.

        • transrp says:

          it (ENERGY) is transferred to the surrounding gas it (ENERGY) is transferred to the surrounding gas it (ENERGY) is transferred to the surrounding gas it (ENERGY) is transferred to the surrounding gas

          That is how the surrounding gas (atmosphere) gets warmer. What part of “energy is transferred to the surrounding gas” do you not understand? Oh. Just out of curiosity. If the excited CO2 molecule does not transfer its energy via radiation, then how does it do it? The molecule is not hotter (moving faster) The molecule is in an excited state. I suppose that it can touch another molecule and transfer its higher state to increased velocity in the 2nd molecule, but I am unfamiliar with that mechanism. perhaps you can refer me to a paper. Yea!! right!!

        • AndyG55 says:

          OMG.. the thickness continues. Your inability to think rationally is highlighted for all to see.

          Once energy is conducted to the other 99.96% of the atmosphere, conduction and convection through the atmospheric pressure gradient take over.

          NONE of the re-emitted radiation form CO2 at 15+ km gets anywhere near the surface.

          None of that re-emitted radiation is CAPTURED.. that is a childish fabricated piece of BS !! Gees next you will be using the brain-dead blanket analogy again, just to prove how little you understand of anything to do with anything.

          It becomes part of the energy balance of the atmosphere and dealt with exactly as any other energy would be.

        • transrp says:

          No links. No supporting information. I can only conclude that you are making stuff up or lying.

          Which does not matter much since:
          Once energy is conducted to the other 99.96% of the atmosphere, conduction and convection through the atmospheric pressure gradient take over.

          As you said. The energy from the captured IR is transferred to the atmosphere.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Hint, little child..

          CO2 does not affect the conductive and convective flows within the atmosphere.

          CO2 just provides for a further conduit for this energy balancing.

          The pressure temperature gradient controls the flow of energy in the troposphere,
          There is no trapping of energy, none.
          That is why the Trenberth tropospheric “hot-spot” has never been discovered.

          IT DOESN’T EXIST !

          The whole CO2 warming meme is built on erroneous assumptions.

          And as the current cooling trend increases over the next few years, the whole farce will come crashing down. And your stupidity will be recorded for all to see. 🙂

        • transrp says:

          No evidence. No links. Just hot air.

        • Transrp, let me help you out here. You said:

          “If the excited CO2 molecule does not transfer its energy via radiation, then how does it do it? The molecule is not hotter (moving faster) The molecule is in an excited state. I suppose that it can touch another molecule and transfer its higher state to increased velocity in the 2nd molecule, but I am unfamiliar with that mechanism. perhaps you can refer me to a paper.”

          The excited CO2 molecule is warmer. It’s moving faster. It can bump into another molecule (nitrogen, oxygen, etc) and warm it, or it can re-emit the photon and go back to being cold again. But the time it takes to re-emit a photon is microseconds, while the time it takes to bump into a neighboring molecule in the lower atmosphere is fractions of a nanosecond. Therefore, the CO2 molecules never re-emit IR at all in the lower atmosphere (they do in the upper, where the air is too thin to bump into anything), they just warm the air.

        • transrp says:

          You have finally done what I expected. Shown scientific illiteracy. The temp of a gas is determined by one thing, and one thing ONLY. The mass of the molecules, and their velocity.

          http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation. Note that there is NO, none, nada change in the velocity

          http://www2.ignatius.edu/faculty/decarlo/surfacepower/pages/KineticTheoryOfGases.htm
          The molecules may also have vibrational and rotational kinetic energies, but these will not affect the Pressure. Note that if these energies do not affect pressure, then they do not affect temperature

          Note the connection between mean velocity and temperature

          This is all undergraduate, but upper division, physics, of which you have had none. You could not solve a differential equation to save your life.

          Anyway, as you can see, the above well known (absolutely no person with a degree in science on the planet who is not senile or deeply on medication will disagree) descriptions of the interaction between molecules, radiation, and temperature show that your statement

          “The excited CO2 molecule is warmer. It’s moving faster.” is WRONG!!! As is almost everything else that you have said relating to science and AGW.

          Watching you try and doublespeak, humptydumpty speak yourself out of this will be fun.
          Wait. You will claim that physics is a conspiracy. NO. Universities are a conspiracy. Yea. Thats it. Since all these scientists are part of a conspiracy, then science itself must be a conspiracy

        • AndyG55 says:

          Poor Trancer puppy..

          Cannot get its mathematical and science illiterate mind around basic principles.

          Methinks he missed even the most basic stuff in junior high..

          amazing what passes in a maths degree nowadays !!

          I know, I see them everyday. !

        • AndyG55 says:

          Again your puerile attempts to big-note yourself.. inferiority complex much !!!

          If you only have a basic maths degree with a bit of physics, then you are a mathematical minnow….. you just are so full of yourself that your don’t realise it.

          The real hint is that you obviously think basic differential equations are difficult… roflmao !!

          How about 3 stage integrations over a surface, second order partials, Naiver-Stokes equations, LaPlace transforms, Runge-Kutter approximations and programming. FEM, Bernoulli, Fourier series etc

          Simple differential equations are puppy food. Suited to a weak mind like yours.

        • transrp says:

          How do you think that I got into graduate school? I noticed that you have not mentioned what your education is, but I am fairly certain that you never took any of those courses that you mentioned, let alone passed them, or else you would have posited an answer to my number color question. And we already know that you have no understanding of the most basic of physics as it regards gasses and temperature.

          Hour ability to rattle off a list of courses that you have never taken does not any lessen the observation that you still can not solve a basic differential equation.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “How do you think that I got into graduate school?”

          no idea..? passes make asses I guess.

          I don’t feel the need to post my qualification, and not an insecure little child like you are.

          ….. but they are considerable more than yours. !!

          Your childish attempts to big note yourself are quite hilarious. 🙂

        • transrp says:

          I don’t feel the need to post my qualification, and not an insecure little child like you are.

          ….. but they are considerable more than yours. !!

          Except that they do not include the ability to solve a simple puzzle, And as you demonstrated, they do not include a basic knowledge of the properties of gasses. And of course you need the knowledge of gasses pv=rt which is basic physics to take atomic physics and qm. Basically, no matter what your claim is (a lie) we know that your qualifications definitely do not include a degree in physics. And probably not math.

          This is not a guess. This is a demonstrable fact based on your demonstrated ignorance!

        • AndyG55 says:

          As I said before.. take you child-like little differential equation, change the index 2 into a -2, then solve it and get back to me.

          Let’s at least lift it a bit above basic high school level, to a low-end grad question.

          Answer has two terms and an indeterminate.

          crickets chirping !!!

        • transrp says:

          You have offered more evidence of your stupid and ignorance. You went on line and looked up some words. Differential equations, at least when I was taking upper division math : — well let me just give you the definition:

          For a general DAE system , the index of the system refers to the minimum number of differentiations of part or all the equations in the system that would be required to solve for uniquely in terms of and .

          I do not think that one can differentiate an equation a negative number of times. But maybe you meat to say integrate. Which would make sense since you said that there was an indeterminate.
          But really, who, other than some nut job would say differentiate this equation a negavie number of times?

          And you still have not found the answer to the numbers and color card question have you?

        • AndyG55 says:

          When I saw your original basic question, I assumed you wanted help with your homework.

          I’m not here to do that. Ask your grandma. !

        • AndyG55 says:

          Oh dear, you learnt a little bit of kinetic theory.
          Not much, obviously.. just the very basic stuff.
          So much you can’t even type the correct formula.. oh dear !!!!

          Your ignorance again writ large.

          Go back to high school and try to get more than a basic pass next time, drone. !

          Your continued demonstration of your total inability to do any basic research or mathematics really does show you up.

          Have you done that slightly more difficult differential yet, the one that shows you made it out of junior high ?

          cricket’s chirping !!

        • transrp says:

          Actually it was not something that I had to learn. You just pretend that:

          The excited CO2 molecule is warmer. It’s moving faster. It can bump into another molecule (nitrogen, oxygen, etc) and warm it, or it can re-emit the photon and go back to being cold again

          the statement that you made was not flat out wrong. I read a book recently. The wisdom of the Psychopath. When a psychopath is caught out in an error, one way that they deal with it is to pretend that they did not actually commit the error, or deny the error. Clearly, hear you can not deny that you made the error since we have a written record. So you have elected to pretend that it never happened, even though we have a record of it.

          There are many web sites about psychopathy. Almost without exception, they recommend that unless they are one of the good kinds (Steve Jobs, Some great leaders, etc.) that the best, and often the only way to deal with them is to ignore them. And in the future, that is what I will do with you since — well you have demonstrated many of the attributes of a psychopath. Trying to engage them in any meaningful way is kind of like trying to walk through a brick wall.

          Oh… By not respond, that includes never, not at all, no way. Not even if you attach documentation and links. I may respond to others if they include some actual statements and/or links. But this is the last that you will hear from me.

        • AndyG55 says:

          OMG, ignorance personified. !!!

          your original, trivial equation was something like dy/dx = x(x+1)^2

          I’m saying “why do you choose a junior high question”..
          is it really the hardest you can cope with??.

          solve dy/dx = x(x+1)^(-2)

          Stop squirming and prove you got out of junior high into 1st year maths. !

          oh, and good to see you can still cut and paste out of your “upper division” junior high introductory notes.. well done. Your limited education was maybe not a waste.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Actually it was not something that I had to learn.”

          It is obvious that you never had to learn it. Totally obvious.

          And its good to know that you read a book recently. Obviously nothing to do with physics of science. !

          “The excited CO2 molecule is warmer. It’s moving faster. It can bump into another molecule (nitrogen, oxygen, etc) and warm it, or it can re-emit the photon and go back to being cold again”

          This is not something I said. You are a base-level LIAR !!!!!

        • AndyG55 says:

          “The wisdom of the Psychopath.”

          Oh dear.. and you took it as an instruction manual !

        • AndyG55 says:

          Again, your child-like junior high attempts at insults are cause for great mirth and hilarity.

          Please don’t run away, little un-educated child-mind…

          …. we all need a sense of the ridiculous to laugh at.

          You truly are like a child chucking a tantrum in a supermarket.

        • AndyG55 says:

          And just in case you STILL don’t understand..

          1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

          2. The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a BILLION times as long).

          Now engage the brain.. for once !!!

          CO2 does NOT re-emit in the lower atmosphere. !

        • AndyG55 says:

          Let’s make a really simple one for you.

          solve y’ = 2y, where y is a function of t

        • Tranny, you idiotically said:

          “You have finally done what I expected. Shown scientific illiteracy. The temp of a gas is determined by one thing, and one thing ONLY. The mass of the molecules, and their velocity. http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation. Note that there is NO, none, nada change in the velocity”

          No kidding. It absorbs and emits a photon, so of course it does not change velocity. It sped up when it absorbed it, and slowed down, by the same amount, when it emitted it. Therefore no NO none nada nyet nein no non bu nichts change in velocity.

          The question is, how can you be so stupid that you think a molecule can absorb a photon of heat radiation and not get hot. That’s my main question.

        • transrp says:

          I confess — you are correct. There is a change in velocity. Lets see what it is. Let us assume that we are talking about really cold CO2 100 K.

          Now feel free to point out any errors:
          The wavelength of our IR light is about 2.7*10-6 meters.
          Planks constant is about 6.62 * 10-34 m^2 kg/s
          so the momentum is about 24 * 10^-28 km/s

          For a CO2 molecule at 100K you have a mass of 7*10-26 kg
          average velocity (look it up or figure it out) is 160 m/s

          so the momentum is about 1100 * 10^-26 m/s

          So the CO2 molecule has about 5000 times greater than the momentum of the photon.

          Do you see any errors here? If not, then while I have to admit that there is a change in velocity, it is about as much as one would expect to see if a HumV hit you in your head and you were both going 10 mph. Do you really think that the passengers in the HumV would notice?

          Sorry that I did not spell this out in great exacting detail. Most people think that one part in 5000 is close enough to zero to be considered zero. Certainly when measuring atmospheric phenomena that is the case.

        • Look, you can see it in your own video:

          http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation.

          See how the molecule absorbs the photon, wiggles real fast, then stops wiggling when it emits the photon?

        • transrp says:

          See how the molecule absorbs the photon, wiggles real fast, then stops wiggling when it emits the photon?

          Yep. Now all you have to do is to present some paper written by someone somewhere, maybe an elbonian, that shows that vibrational energy figures into computations for temperature. Especially since it does NOT figure into computations for pressure. good luck.

          YOU never had high school physics did you? Well maybe, but no upper division college physics courses.

        • But that’s not what happens. What really happens is, it absorbs the photon, wiggles real fast and transfers that kinetic energy to the N2 or the O2.

          You idiot

        • henrypool7@telkomsa.net says:

          You saw this happening?
          Plse stop name calling. It is so infantile and does not suit a distinghuished like yourselves. Henry

          Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

        • transrp says:

          I am not sure why this just showed up in my mailbox. Henry — you might as well try and teach a dog algebra. For some reason Mr. Wright, who never had, let alone passed a college physics class, thinks that vibration energy is the same thing as kenetic energy. He probably thinks that a really lound viola, if placed next to a ping pong ball, would cause that ping ball to fly off.

          He simply does no understand that temperature is a measure of the average velocity of molecules, not how quickly they vibrate at a specific frequency, and that the two may be interchangeable, but only under special circumstances. Failing to have either knowledge or information to support his position, and being unwilling to learn, he resorts to name calling.

          Give up henry. These people are incapable of learning new stuff. FWIW, I wrote a 6000 word essay, called orwells boot. It is number on all search engines after paid links. Do a search on the two words orwells boot. There I show that evolution works to make most people stupid and authoritarian. It is how nature/evolution works.

          Anyway, having realized that most of the people on this site literally can not learn new important stuff that does not come from an authority figure that they recognize, or that conflicts with their world view (In this case the view that the vast majority of scientists, including the pope, the defence dept, insurance companies, and more and more even fossil fuel companies are part of some vast conspiracy) I gave up and stopped posting. This is just a notice to pass on to you what I learned.

        • Henry P says:

          The sun is now at its brightest/hottest point in 87 years

          everybody [who is anybody] knows why
          http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1972/to:2016/offset:10/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:2016/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:1972/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:2016/trend

          even those that know that a hotter sun will eventually cause a cooler earth

          Click to access cli267_293.pdf

        • transrp says:

          Perhaps you can point out just which data point(s) on your graph of sunspots supports your allegation that “The sun is now at its brightest/hottest point in 87 years”. By the way, a single person writing a post in the world famous center of science at Cairo University (We know that they are world famous because they rank 737 in patents, and have a world ranking of 802 (out of 1000) http://cwur.org/2014/Cairo-University.html, and exactly zero nobel prize winners (all of Egypt has 1) ) is not “everybody [who is anybody]”

          Basically you did a meaningless data dump supported by a 2nd rate scholar from a nth rated university where n is probably over 500.

          Here is a more clear image of actual data. I was going to say that even you can understand it, but I doubt, as a person who earns his living (if you even do actually earn a living) as a bus driver (lowest intellect required of any job Job) that you will understand it. http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/ Specifically see this data: of total solar irradiance on earth. It has actually been going down for the last 75 years, having peaked in 1960

        • Henry P says:

          Hi Tony
          remember in science you only need one man to get it right.
          But Yousef is not alone. In table II and III he quotes all the people excluding me who stumbled upon the Gleissberg solar cycle of 87-88 years which makes for a 80-100 year weather cycle.
          If you want to know why I say the sun is at its brightest now in 88 years you must go further up this thread and have a look at my comments. Otherwise just take a look [at the sun] as it appears now.

        • transrp says:

          I noticed that you did not comment on my graph and information showing that Solar radiation incident onto the earth is not the highest in the past 87 years. You also failed to point to the (Non existent??) evidence which supports that assertion.

          I am not disputing the existence of a cycle. You have not presented evidence of more radiation regardless of the alleged existence of such a cycle. As to “just take a look [at the sun] as it appears now” Are you referring to the sun as it appears to circle the earth? That sun. You have also offered no evidence that this man is right and offered no evidence as in quotes that he claims that the sun is hotter now.

          Just how badly did you fail your reading comprehension tests ?

        • transrp says:

          But that’s not what happens. What really happens is, it absorbs the photon, wiggles real fast and transfers that kinetic energy to the N2 or the O2.

          Like Andy you seem to believe that if you say it then it must be true. Perhaps you can find a paper that indicates that the energy is transmitted to the nearby molecules via this vibration. Hey, lets say that it is. But that would mean that the absorbed IR is heating the atmosphere directly

          Or did I miss something here?

          Really — do you even read and think about what you write?

        • AndyG55 says:

          The little video is also very simplified for dumbos like Tran

          The picture is somewhat misleading. If the CO2 molecule in air absorbs a resonant photon, it is much more likely ( on the order of a BILLION times more likely) to heat the surrounding air molecules with the energy it acquired from the absorbed photon, than to re-radiate a photon at the same or some different frequency.

        • AndyG55 says:

          I think I’ll take the understand of William Happer over that of a low-level maths graduate.

          Oh look.. some more homework for you…. have you done any of the previous home yet..??

          So, off you go, little student that doesn’t want to learn. (or is incapable of it)

        • AndyG55 says:

          And because you still show ZERO understanding of how the atmosphere works.

          Any excess energy/heat is moved upward, controlled by the pressure temperature gradient.

          If the surface is too warm, the atmosphere cools the surface.. not a blanket.. understand ???? (trying to keep it really really simple for you.)

          That’s enough hints for now.. so off you go and do some more homework.

          more?? .. oh.. you haven’t done any!!… bad little boy !!!

        • AndyG55 says:

          So So FUNNY, you pose a basic high school question…

          but as soon as asked to answer anything even the slightest bit more advanced.

          Nothing… NADA …. ZIP.

          You truly are a mathematical non-entity DOH!!-boy .

          PATHETIC !!!!!!

        • AndyG55 says:

          “And probably not math.”

          When it comes to maths.. you have not made first base. !

          Do try harder.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “but I am unfamiliar with that mechanism.”

          Well… of course you are ! DOH !

          Its called conduction, bozo !!

          And with convection it controls/regulates the tropospheric atmosphere.

        • Tranny, you said:

          “Perhaps you can find a paper that indicates that the energy is transmitted to the nearby molecules via this vibration. Hey, lets say that it is. But that would mean that the absorbed IR is heating the atmosphere directly Or did I miss something here?”

          Yes you missed something. The absorbed IR is heating the atmosphere directly, the part you are missing is that there is a finite number of 15 micron IR photons radiating from the surface, and when the CO2 has absorbed all of them, which is does in the lowest few hundred feet of atmosphere, (the elevation of extinction) there is no more to absorb. The lower troposphere is opaque to 15 microns. Opaque, look it up. What that means is, adding CO2 to the air won’t increase the amount absorbed, because you can’t absorb MORE than ALL.

          Now do you understand?

        • Tranny, you said

          “perhaps you can find a paper that shows that vibrational energy figures into computations for temperature. Especially since it does NOT figure into computations for pressure. good luck”

          No paper needed. This is how microwave ovens work. The photons from the microwaves (not IR but similar) make the molecules in the food wiggle. This vibrational energy is heat.

          Now do you understand?

        • transrp says:

          No paper needed. This is how microwave ovens work. The photons from the microwaves (not IR but similar) make the molecules in the food wiggle. This vibrational energy is heat.

          Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant. Reminds me of a statement that a professor is said to have made. This theory is obvious, clear, coherent and elegant. It is also wrong. Sort of on the level of the geocentric theory of the earth sun system.

          However, since you are convinced of its correctness, then I am sure that you can find a paper that supports your theory that vibrational energy is a component of heat in a gas. Oh… Did you notice that microwaves are used to heat liquids? In particular they are used to heat water? Your analogy is kinda like saying that mice have 4 legs. Elephants have 4 legs, so elephants must eat what mice eat and have the same body temp.

          But you are welcome to provide actual evidence that your claim is correct, and to refute my statement that since vibrational energy does not figure into any calculations for temp, that my claim is wrong. Ie falsify my claim.
          Here is a paper explaining this with no equations, but pictures:
          http://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/greenhouse-effect

        • Tranny said “you are welcome to provide actual evidence that your claim is correct, and to refute my statement that since vibrational energy does not figure into any calculations for temp, that my claim is wrong. Ie falsify my claim.”

          No problem. If you send 15 micron IR into CO2, it gets warmer.

          Now do you understand?

        • transrp says:

          “No problem. If you send 15 micron IR into CO2, it gets warmer”: You have done the experiment? You have actual evidence of this? I know of no such. Either the IR is absorbed by the molecule which increases its velocity and thus its temp by something less than 1/10 of 1%, or the photon goes right past. In either case, I see no theoretical basis for your unsubstantiated claim.

          But lets say that you are correct. Then if the gas gets warmer, and thus warms other molecules, well then it has given up its energy, is no longer in an excited state, and can thus absorb more IR. Thus your claim supports the idea that more CO2 absorbs more IR and warms the atmosphere more. If you claim that the CO2 does not lower its energy state, than how can it warm the other gasses?

          Can you point out an error in my logic?

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Here is a paper explaining this with no equations, but pictures:”

          Kindergarten propaganda pictures. well done. !!

          The sum total of the trancer’s atmospheric understanding. !! 🙂

          He hasn’t understood or learnt one tiny bit, has he.

          Bet he hasn’t been able to do his homework, either.

        • I said:

          “If you send 15 micron IR into CO2, it gets warmer”:

          Tranny replied:

          “You have done the experiment? You have actual evidence of this? I know of no such.”

          Tyndall and Arrhenius did this experiment 100 years ago. This is the exact experiment you keep boring us all with, and you don’t even know what they did.

          Tranny also says:

          “But lets say that you are correct. Then if the gas gets warmer, and thus warms other molecules, well then it has given up its energy, is no longer in an excited state, and can thus absorb more IR. Thus your claim supports the idea that more CO2 absorbs more IR and warms the atmosphere more. If you claim that the CO2 does not lower its energy state, than how can it warm the other gasses? Can you point out an error in my logic?”

          The error in your logic is you fail to remember when I told you the earth’s surface radiates a finite amount of 15 micron radiation, and when the CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs ALL of it, it can’t absorb any more of it. You can’t absorb more than all. The 15 micron radiation goes into the atmosphere and is absorbed until you get to a point called the elevation of extinction, which is around 500 feet of elevation, above which there is no 15 micron IR. In other words, the atmosphere is opaque to 15 mike IR. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere merely lowers the elevation of extinction. It doesn’t absorb MORE radiation, because you can’t absorb more than all of it.

          Now do you understand?

        • transrp says:

          ““You have done the experiment? You have actual evidence of this? I know of no such.”

          Tyndall and Arrhenius did this experiment 100 years ago. This is the exact experiment you keep boring us all with, and you don’t even know what they did.”

          You keep telling us / me that they did. I found no evidence of this. You supplied none. So, since you are supplying none, I am assuming that you are lying.

          2. The error in your logic is you fail to remember when I told you the earth’s surface radiates a finite amount of 15 micron radiation, and when the CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs ALL of it, it can’t absorb any more of it. You can’t absorb more than all.

          And again you provide no supporting information. Because there is none, at least according to this http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/eoc/special_topics/teach/sp_climate_change/p_solar_radiation.html

          which was #1 on this search earth: radiation by wavelength. You understand pictures don’t you? If what you said were true, and all the 15 micron radiation were absorbed, it seems unlikely that 15 micron radiation would be near the top of the graph for where earth radiates into space. Or are you claiming that — well, I am sure that you have some sort of doublespeak explanation you have, and am not interested. Unless that absorbed radiation is re-radiated as a previous post showed (again using pictures, which you fail to understand) But it the molecules are re-ratiating, then they can again absorb.

          Which suggests that you lie. Since you repeatedly call me names, and lie, and ignore evidence that can not be ignored, and seldom if ever supply supporting documentation, then I am going to put into the same category as Andy. Psychopath. And will deal with you in the same way. Ignore you as a waste of time. The alternative to being a psychopath is that you are incredibly stupid and incapable of learning new stuff even when one uses color images to explain simple things. In any case, talking to you or interacting with you is a waste of time.

        • AndyG55 says:

          And Trans, the yapping psychotic mathematically-illiterate Chihuahua, returns with another empty meaningless ignorant rant.

        • AndyG55 says:

          It seems the poor little child’s unsubstantiated ego can’t cope with being PERPETUALLY WRONG !!

        • Tranny says:

          You keep telling us / me that they did. I found no evidence of this. You supplied none. So, since you are supplying none, I am assuming that you are lying.

          I keep telling you what now? You are the one reminding everybody about the fact that Tyndall and others discovered 100 years ago that CO2 absorbed IR. I have to supply you with evidence of your own argument? I am lying when I use your own argument? You are denying your own argument, because it destroys your argument. You are a useless idiot, even for the Marxists.

          2. The same idiot says:

          ” If what you said were true, and all the 15 micron radiation were absorbed, it seems unlikely that 15 micron radiation would be near the top of the graph for where earth radiates into space. Or are you claiming that — well, I am sure that you have some sort of doublespeak explanation….”

          Yeah, here’s the doublespeak. The 15 micron radiation is all gone by 500 feet of elevation. From that point, all heat rising into the atmosphere is my convection, latent heat of water, and adiabatic heat loss due to expansion of the air. The radiation at the top of the atmosphere, in your graph, where earth radiates into space, is from the CO2 in the upper atmosphere radiating heat into space because the atmosphere is so thin up there that CO2 molecules can’t bump into N2 and O2 molecules anymore, like they did in the lower troposphere. Since CO2 radiates at 15 microns that’s what you see. Most of the heat that the CO2 has up there is from convection from the lower atmosphere, some is from the incoming solar radiation absorbed by ozone.

          The fact that you still think earth’s surface radiates through a chain of CO2 absorptions and re-radiations all the way to the top of the atmosphere, only shows that you are a drooling imbecile, as is common among the science illiterati who promote this stupid hoax.

        • transrp says:

          A exception for you. Because this last post of yours was so incredibly, indescribably incoherent and wrong. I can not imagine that you ever passed let along actually took a college physics course. And if my book ever comes out (I hope next year) I am definitely going to feature this post. But I no longer think that you are a psychopath. Just mind numbingly stupid. And I can tell you where you learned this so called physics. It was from another AGW denier web site, because there is no college or online site anywhere that would teach this. At least none that is accredited.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Oh, and its good to see a part of me has taken up residence in your warped mind..

          .. you will be much more intelligent because of this fact. 🙂

        • AndyG55 says:

          Oh look , Tranny says he’s writing a science fiction book. 🙂

          With your limited knowledge of physics, and zero mathematical understanding, should be a hoot !! 🙂

          Looking forward to not reading it.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Poor tranny, still hasn’t realise that he is mental chihuahu, yapping.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Oh and..

          Don’t forget to get it peer reviewed..

          Maybe contact Cook and Lewendowsky just to add to your credibility.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Notice that Tranny thinks a “college course” is a big thing.

          Hilarious to say the least. ! 🙂

          You go boy, don’t let your ego deal cards you can’t cover. 🙂

          This guy is sooooooo, sooooooo HILARIOUS !

        • AndyG55 says:

          What’s the title of this illiterate tome?

          “Gunja filled rantings of a maniacal true believer”

          Come one everyone,, we must come up with a relevant book title for the poor child !! 🙂

        • AndyG55 says:

          I love the way you cowardly refuse to respond..

          It gives me carte blanche to say whatever I like, sweeeeet ! 🙂

          When do I start having to pay rent for living in the empty spaces in your cranium, little child ?

          Trancer is now a puppet on a string !! 🙂

        • I’m dying to find out how my post was mind-numbingly stupid. Tell me one thing that is wrong with it. To refresh out memories here is what I said. (Edited)

          “The 15 micron radiation is all gone by 500 feet of elevation. From that point, all heat rising into the atmosphere is by convection and latent heat of water. The 15 micron radiation at the top of the atmosphere, in your graph, where earth radiates into space, is from the CO2 in the upper atmosphere radiating heat into space because the atmosphere is so thin up there that CO2 molecules can’t bump into N2 and O2 molecules much, like they did in the lower troposphere. Since CO2 radiates at 15 microns, that’s what you see. Most of the heat that the CO2 has up there is from convection from the lower atmosphere, but some is from incoming solar radiation absorbed by ozone.”

        • I just looked at your cited graph:

          http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/eoc/special_topics/teach/sp_climate_change/p_solar_radiation.html

          That’s not a graph of the radiation of earth into space, that’s just a basic Planck’s curve of a black body radiating at earth’s temperature. It is completely irrelevant to anything the atmosphere does. I thought you had a graph of radiation into space, as you said you did, so I didn’t look.

          It just occured to me. I’ve been talking to an idiot.

        • transrp says:

          An exception to my not posting responses to you any more, because — well you pointed out an error that I made. If, as you claim, **ALL** IR in the relevant band widths for CO2 is absorbed, and adding more CO2 can not increase the absorption then no radiation into space could occur in those band widths. Because it is all absorbed In the mental universe of most people, removing all of something means that there is nothing left.

          So, I refined my search to measured radiation.

          the temp for a black body radiating in CO2 bands would be about what it is at the cruising altitude of a Jet.

          This of course does not make you less stupid, and the reason that I will not attempt to explain why you are wrong, is the same reason that I will not attempt to explain why the earth is more than 6000 years old, or is not flat (There are sites that claim that it is) or why we really did land on the moon. You might try and read some of the articles that I posted about how radiation works, and how radiative transfer works or take an online course, and stop relying on blather put out by the echo chamber. You might start here: http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/1/pdf/i1052-5173-22-1-44.pdf

          One more thing, which I was going to put in as a separate post, The great climate conspiracy has now brainwashed one of your few remaining scientists. (AGW denier definition of a scientist… Any one who took a course in science and agrees with them.) He now admits that the earth is probably getting warmer, and that this probably due to CO2.
          http://www.drroyspencer.com/category/blogarticle/

          Not cooler. Not staying the same. But warmer. Not as warm as most other people with a scientific background (The ones that you call stupid, conspiratorial hacks) But definitely moving in the direction that is away from you guys

        • AndyG55 says:

          Gees Morgan.. its been obvious pretty much from the start !! 🙂

          Base level maths, base level physics, and a major in verbal diarrhea. !

        • Disillusioned says:

          trans: “He now admits that the earth is probably getting warmer, and that this probably due to CO2.
          http://www.drroyspencer.com/category/blogarticle/

          Are you purposefully twisting what he says, or speaking out of ignorance? As long as I have read his blog or listened to him interviewed, he has always said the same thing – that CO2 may add a little warming to the atmosphere, but that there is no indication it is significant, or a problem. His satellite dataset doesn’t show the ‘probable’ warming you claim he “admits”; it doesn’t show much in the way of warming this century, and that the global average has been cooler since the Super El Nino year of 1998.
          http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2015_v6.png.

        • transrp says:

          My claim was the he admitted that the globe was warming, and that CO2 was a contributor. That is warming as opposed to what so many on this site claim, that is is getting cooler, or not warming at all. Perhaps you can show a recent (this year) claim where he maintains that CO2 is not significant. I did not find

          Your graph shows .5 degree C per century rise, but that is in only on part of the atmosphere, using only 1 set of data. I believe that this is the smallest rate measured.

        • Tranny,

          Your post of August 10 backs up all my points, especially the link you gave. You are so stupid you don’t even know it.

          When you write that book, are you going to use your real name, or make up a new fake one?

        • For example, this is from the link you gave to the geosociety web site, describing collisional warming of the N2 and O2 molecules that Andy and I tried to educate you about:

          “At the higher densities of Earth’s atmosphere, the excited molecule will bump into (collide with) another molecule (any molecule in the atmosphere). In the collision, the energized greenhouse gas molecule loses its rotational energy, which is transferred to the kinetic energy of the molecule it collides with (this is called collisional de-excitation). The increased kinetic energies of the colliding molecules means that the molecules are moving faster than they were prior to the collision, and the increased velocities of such molecules represents a direct measure of increased atmospheric temperature. “Greenhouse gas” warming occurs because the collisional de-excitation time for greenhouse molecules in Earth’s lower atmosphere is much shorter than the radiation lifetime of excited molecular states. This is the basic science of greenhouse gas warming, and can be computed from the laws of physics and demonstrated and measured in laboratory experiments. There is no doubt about the efficacy of the science behind greenhouse gas warming (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo). ”

          Now do you understand?

        • AndyG55 says:

          And of course, once any part of the atmosphere warms more than the temperature pressure gradient can sustain, convective COOLING takes place.

          Because of the nature of all thing to want to equilibriate, CO2 is just another part of the cooling chain of the atmosphere.

          Any increase in CO2 just alters very slightly the balance between radiative cooling and convective cooling, but the whole procedure is CONTROLLED by the temperature pressure gradient..

          And CO2 DOES NOT CHANGE THAT GRADIENT.

          CO2 does not cause any warming in the atmosphere. End of story !!!

        • There is nothing we can do with Tranny. He still goes along with the 4th grade idea “CO2 absorbs IR so more CO2 absorbs more IR”

          Wood blocks sunlight so thicker woods blocks more sunlight.

          A paper towel dries your hands so 100 paper towels will make them 100 times drier.

          A bullet killed him so 100 bullets will make him deader

          400 ppm CO2 absorbs all the 15 micron IR so adding more CO2 absorbs more than all of it.

        • AndyG55 says:

          I’m guessing he is lying through his teeth about having done any physics or maths.

          Arts/Lit maybe, from the way he writes.

          I mean, he seemed to think that that very basic DE he posted was difficult..
          well maybe it was when he did maths, at junior high level.

          And his understanding of basic atmospheric physics is so limited, its a joke.

          The guy’s ego really is trying to cash cheques with a near zero balance in his brain account !!!

          He still hasn’t figured out why he is wasting his time here, because with his basic ignorance of most things to do with climate, he is not going to persuade anyone of anything.

          Is he paid by someone prepared to waste their money on his ineptitude..

          or is he just very psychotic, and desperately looking for some meaning for himself.. ?!!!!

        • He’s gone. I guess we convinced him that AGW is wrong, and he’s on our side now.

        • Marsh says:

          Morgan, he maybe gone in more ways than one. As you probably have observed over the years, there is a correlation with Intelligent people in science and mental illness.
          Bipolar psychosis is unfortunately common and we all need to be aware that this site
          will draw them out to vent their frustrations. It’s sad to see and recount this thread in that, we feed their problem ; I just hope we don’t harm anyone in the process.

        • transrp says:

          I am aware that it is kind of foolish to attempt communication with entities that have less ability to learn than trees, or fish, or almost any living thing, almost all of which are migrating to the poles. Yes, trees and plants are actually migrating to the poles. But I came across an article where Dr. Roy Spencer admitted that the planet was getting warmer. Of course this was on a Fox News broadcast. But I started looking and found this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2SokDwoc34
          Where Dr. Spencer says that global warming is happening, it is, at least in part, caused by Humans, and that CO2 should cause some warming

          and
          http://www.drroyspencer.com/
          In this case, we see that a climate sensitivity of only 1.5 C was required, a 40% reduction in climate sensitivity. Notably, this is at the 1.5C lower limit for ECS that the IPCC claims. Thus, even in the new pause-busting dataset the warming is so weak that it implies a climate sensitivity on the verge of what the IPCC considers “very unlikely”.

          So, this raises a few questions. When will the last person with a degree in science come over to the dark side?

          What will people like you, and others on this site do at that point? Form a cult. Claim revealed truth?

          When psychologists study your absolute refusal to admit such warming will you volunteer your services so that we can learn what causes a brain to behave so strangely?

          I could go on, but I really do have a life, and as I have said, If it were not for this admission by a scientist (well former scientist since he no longer agrees with those here who claim that there is no global warming (mentioned at least 3 times on this page alone) and it is my understanding that the definition of a scientist on this page is all people who walked by a science class and agree with the writers here) who was a denier, and now claims, well, there is warming, it is probably caused by humans, but we can not be to sure of much else.

      • AndyG55 says:

        http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=51443

        Significant releases of CO2 and CH4 have “no essential effect on the Earth’s climate” …

      • AndyG55 says:

        Some REALITY for you, Trancer

        CO2 is actually one of the most important of all molecules in the atmosphere because it is one of the key constituents for ALL life on this Earth.

        H2O+CO2+sunshine via photosynthesis = FOOD

        CO2 is currently still at very low levels compared to biosphere requirements, as is shown by plant response in raised CO2 greenhouse
        (greenhouse -> you know, those sheds will glass roofs, unlike the atmosphere)

        http://carbon-sense.com/2013/05/28/carbon-dioxide-more-abundant/

        • transrp says:

          Yea — about that CO2 in the atmosphere. You also need water in the ground. Preferably not a flood of 4 in per hour. Ask the residents of Tx and California how that extra CO2 is working out for them? Want more info: try this: do A SEARCH on the two words: drought global

        • AndyG55 says:

          California get what they ask for.. No decent water infrastructure in what 50 or so years.. DOH !!!

          And California has always had droughts .. it part of their normal climate.. and that has not changed.

          Again.. your post displays your abject ignorance of anything to do with climate and climate history.

          But do keep going.. its funny to watch. 🙂

        • transrp says:

          And California has always had droughts .. it part of their normal climate.. and that has not changed.

          Non sequiture. I was responding to CO2 being necessary for plants and more being better. Plants also need water. And that drought. Not just CA. do a search on global drought. Leave out warming. in fact search on global drought -warming

          Here is one site: http://www.wunderground.com/news/california-historic-drought-world-brazil-africa-korea

          It is global.

        • AndyG55 says:

          There have always been droughts here and there around the global.

          Always have been, always will be. Nothing unusual about present.

          It is the lack of water infrastructure and decent reliable power systems that really hits people hard…

          Notably, those are the of two main things that the climate change/green agenda is very much against.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Gotta luv the headline

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/earth/11242908/Brazils-worst-drought-in-80-years-from-the-air-in-pictures.html

          ” Worst drought in 80 years ”

          Oh you mean there was a even worse one 80 years ago !!! DOH !

          History brings reality

      • AndyG55 says:

        And of course, after his first incorrect supposition, Arrhenius – a chemist and not a physicist – (had not at that time come across the fundamental equation of radiative transfer) changed his original false statement
        in 1906, in Vol. 1, No. 2 of the Journal of the Royal Nobel Institute, he recanted and divided his earlier climate-sensitivity estimate by three:
        “Likewise, I calculate that a halving or doubling of the CO2 concentration would be equivalent to changes of temperature of –1.5 Cº or +1.6 Cº respectively.”

        It is also important to note that Arrhenius confined his analysis to radiative transports only. He did not take account of all the numerous non-radiative transports – afternoon convection in the tropics, baroclinic eddies in the extratropics, evaporation everywhere, etc. – that militate homeostatically against any sufficiently small perturbation of the natural climate (such as doubling the tiny concentration of CO2 in the air).
        Nor did he take into account the effect of clouds and water vapour as climate regulators.

        So even his final GUESS is a massive over-estimate of the real non-effect of atmospheric CO2.

        If it weren’t for the rest of the atmosphere (99.96%)..
        CO2 would have a warming effect. 😉

        • AndyG55 says:

          oh look.. no reply..

          Nothing, NADA …… ZIP..

          just like 30 or more years of the CO2 warming farce..

          Nothing,,

          No CO2 warming,

          No change in sea level rise rates..

          A total NON-EVENT !!!

      • Disillusioned says:

        trans: ” Perhaps you can show a recent (this year) claim where he maintains that CO2 is not significant. I did not find”

        It’s on the very page *you* linked to. Is August 4th not recent enough?

        trans: “Your graph…”

        Nah, that’s not my graph. It is the University of Alabama at Huntsville MSU/AMSU global satellite temperature dataset – from the dude’s website that you linked to.

        trans: “… shows .5 degree C per century rise”

        So?

        trans: “but that is in only on part of the atmosphere, using only 1 set of data.”

        Silly me..yeah, that’s the part of the atmosphere in which we live. Not to worry – the other layers of the atmosphere are also on the website that you linked to:

        trans: “I believe that this is the smallest rate measured.”

        Clearly the data don’t jive with your belief. But WHY would do “believe” that? Even if it were, what would that prove?

        Using Dr. Spencer to sell your propaganda has been quite impressive!

      • Marsh says:

        transrp; I believe you’ve misread my statement ; over the stance you’ve taken.
        You stated: “”I am aware that it is kind of foolish to attempt communication with entities that have less ability to learn than trees, or fish, or almost any living thing, almost all of which are migrating to the poles.””
        That’s clever, but it’s twisted arrogance that has little bearing on the reality today.

        No doubt, you would be aware of the foundation principles in Science with the key being “The Scientific Method” but being aware: is different to applying it in practice.

        Point being, most contributors to this site today, had in fact previously accepted AGW as a “probability” some years ago; myself included. The Scientific Method implies that one should never be absolute on a hypothesis that is questionable or being challenged.
        Problem is; your position appears 100% in defiance of The Scientific Method !

        Despite the mass of evidence, well presented by others on this site; one would expect some balance of assessment, given your high IQ and where Science is your passion.
        I am not so naive as to say, that you would change sides on the AGW debate, but by accepting NOAA & NASA “data tampering” & believing IPCC “propaganda as truth” & with absolute conviction; sorry,, the mental health comments are well founded.

        • transrp says:

          The last two responses were just more evidence of peoples inability to even read and understant simple paragraphs. While researching the general honesty of scientists I had occasion to come across this. https://tonyhellerakastevengoddardisnotasociopath.wordpress.com/who-is-tony-heller/

          Like a shit stain, my blog is ugly, embarrassing and, as much as you hate to, it’s something you have to deal with. One fellow climate denier described my blog as “the crack house of skepticism.” But enough uneducated morons and right-wing ideologues link to my blog to grant me substantial ranking on Google search results.

          So, I am going to go take a shower. You folks, with limited reading comprehension, can stay here and wallow in Tony hellers and your own SH*T!

        • AndyG55 says:

          Is that you in you make-believe gunja soaked second existence, Trancer.?

          It is the sort of thing we expect from the low-life climate cultists.

          The very bottom of the barrel where all the stinking fetid excrement like you sinks to.

        • AndyG55 says:

          The only thing that blog exposes is that the owner has recently suffered some severe mental trauma, and is in desperate need of an extended stint in psychiatric re-hab.

        • Marsh says:

          transrp ; This Research and Comprehension you just provided , goes to your own credibility & capacity to assess what is false & separate such propaganda.The first comment is a wake up call to what is contrived : ” Lol, someone sounds jealous.”

          I don’t like to see anyone suffer a breakdown episode like this,,, but I do hope you get better in the short term ; the condition is treatable.

  21. transrp says:

    And your point is? My point was that the original theory goes back over 100 years. Since the earth is a big fuzzy complex system, it would be surprising if that first guess was all that good. But the basic science has not changed. It has been modified. And we are still getting warmer, losing ice, having droughts etc. etc.

    • One of the stupidest arguments your side keeps giving is that they discovered 100 years ago that CO2 absorbs IR and nothing has changed since then. You really need to drop that unbelievably stupid argument. We’ve discovered a lot since then, you idiot. The only people who haven’t learned anything about CO2 absorption in 100 years are the Climate Cause-A Nostra.

    • AndyG55 says:

      And droughts.. OMG.. go study some history, bonehead !!!

      There have been much harsher droughts even in the very short span of modern history, and plenty of evidence of much, much harsher droughts before that.

      Also consider that biomarkers clearly indicate that for most of the first 6000 or so years of the Holocene, the Arctic was ice free for considerable parts of the year.

      The current Arctic sea ice levels are actually ANOMALOUSLY HIGH compared to all but the coldest period of the last 10,000 years, ie the LIA., and now look like they are increasing again as the current low solar activity starts to bite.

      View what so REAL scientists say about the recent history of Earth.

      • transrp says:

        Again. No evidence. Just your words.

        • AndyG55 says:

          You were given some homework.

          Its your choice to remain ignorant.

        • transrp says:

          When you offered evidence before it was clearly demonstrably wrong. If you had evidence then you would post it. We have been down this road before. So far, only one person has posted anything resembling evidence that was not, on its face, wrong. He actually has some scientific background. i am reviewing it

          You just make things up or lie, or cut ans paste from other cult sites.

        • AndyG55 says:

          You have not demonstrated anything wrong.. except your own mind.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Your scientific background is very obviously too light-weight to analyse anything beyond very basic concepts. Certainly not up to doing any of your own thinking.

          That is what you have proven.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Again, it is so funny to see you actually ignoring the real scientists doing the real work.

          Stick to those erroneous, invalidated models for your climate-muddler buddies.. that’s the way to get to a real understanding. 😉

        • rah says:

          transrp you throw like a girl: http://i.imgur.com/t3CF25z.gif

    • Chewer says:

      You do mean “Working Hypothesis”, don’t you?
      Scientific Theory is the pinnacle of human knowledge, modeled AGW is not!

  22. AndyG55 says:

    We are NOT currently getting warmer. Warming ceased after the 1998 El Nino and a slight cooling trend started. The three records that try to get an untainted even spread of temperatures around the world all show COOLING . UAH and RSS since 2001, and USCRN since it was established in 2005 also shows COOLING !

    We WERE recovering from the COLDEST period in the last 10,000 years..
    THANK GOODNESS for the small amount of warming form the series of strong solar maxima at through the latter part of last century..
    Unfortunately the sun looks like heading back into LIA type energy, so that HIGHLY BENEFICIAL warming has stopped.

    In REALTY apart from the NON-CO2 forced El Nino/La Nina ocean energy release between 1997 and early 2001 (about 0.26C atmospheric warming) there has been BASICALLY NO WARMING in the whole of the satellite record.
    The slight warming trend before has been almost totally cancelled out by the slight cooling trend since.

    There is ZERO CO2 WARMING SIGNATURE in the whole of the satellite record.

    • transrp says:

      No evidence.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Yes, I know you have no evidence.

        Go and find some..

        You have a lot of learning homework to catch up on. !!

        Heck you could even do the simple analysis yourself , if you had the most basic clue how to. !!

        All you have to do is find the data, and do some very basic maths.. beyond you, I suspect.

      • AndyG55 says:

        I have all the data from UAH, RSS, USCRN in front of me.. do you ??

        Have you even bothered to look and do some basic analysis.??

        • transrp says:

          I have all the data from UAH, RSS, USCRN in front of me..

          Of course you do

        • AndyG55 says:

          And of course you don’t. !

        • AndyG55 says:

          The cooling in USCRN since it was established, (including the July data posted this morning.. anomaly 0.13ºF), is -0.24ºF/decade..

          Now, off you go, little puppy !!

      • AndyG55 says:

        Let’s start with the first paragraph I wrote..

        “We are NOT currently getting warmer. Warming ceased after the 1998 El Nino and a slight cooling trend started. The three records that try to get an untainted even spread of temperatures around the world all show COOLING . UAH and RSS since 2001, and USCRN since it was established in 2005 also shows COOLING !”

        Now off you go, find the data, and prove me wrong.

        Otherwise you are just another pointless worm, not interested in anything except your own ranting.

        • transrp says:

          http://www.newsweek.com/daily-caller-just-reminded-us-all-ways-people-are-still-pretending-global-344262

          I figured that this would be easy to check:
          USCRN since it was established in 2005 also shows COOLING !”

          On its face wrong: First, in 2005, the USCRN was far from complete. As of January 1, 2005, only 69 of its 114 temperature monitoring stations, or just 60 percent of the ultimate total, had been installed, according to NOAA’s Howard Diamond, who is the program manager of USCRN

          And in addition to installation, those things need to be calibrated for their location.

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/understanding-tobs-bias.html

          Scientist: Anyone who says anything that agrees with you.
          Evil plotter and part of a conspiracy — or an idiot. Anybody who disagrees with you.

          Accurate data: Stuff that you like
          Lies. Things that disagree with you.

          Watching you explain this years temps, next year should be FUN! an exercise in double speak, and humpty duptyisms

          http://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/6/13/1434208514432/71edda07-fb6e-498e-a522-979b02edd244-620×456.png?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=00e478f70547d39d573995d5adc15987

        • AndyG55 says:

          UAH 48 gives the same trend as USCRN as does Climdiv.

          Up until August when it ceased to be reported on the NOAA site, USHCN had a cooling trend since 2005 of 0.8F/decade. You have NOTHING but your empty nonsense.

          And again the rabid links to the most unreliable climate site in the world, SkS.

          And the Gruniad and newsweak…. and pretend they are science.. really ???????

          You truly mark yourself as a brain-washed non-thinking climate apostle as well as a mathematical minnow incapable of even the most simple of analysis.

        • AndyG55 says:

          ClimDiv give a COOLING of -0.45F/ decade since 2005

          Find the data and do the analysis yourself, you mathematically inept fool.

        • Marsh says:

          Transrp ; In following this debate, it’s obvious you’re a match for my earlier statement:
          Human beings are flawed; even educated persons can be duped & take the wrong handle on a situation such as unconditionally believing AGW.
          .
          People are susceptible to being led like sheep & more so if they are “not intuitive”.
          This human flaw is common to many ; it often goes unrecognised by the individual.
          Such people are easily baited & conned with clever propaganda. The shortcoming is in
          judging information & separating what is right: it applies to AGW, Politics, etc, etc…
          .
          Others on this site, have rightly debunked the Greenhouse Gas hypothesis. If you take a middle stance & research this questionable AGW premise ; you will find the hypothesis so weak, that it’s a non event!

        • AndyG55 says:

          And there’s that MORONIC link to newsweak and SkS yet again.

          No science.. just empty brained nothingness. !!!

        • AndyG55 says:

          I repeat…

          ClimDiv give a COOLING of -0.45F/ decade since 2005

          Find the data and do the analysis yourself, you mathematically inept fool.

          —————————————————————————————–

          yet your response.. where is it? Not even the crickets are chirping….

          Non-existent.. like the warming from CO2.

          Why oh WHY do you continually run away from any point that refutes your climate alarmism.

          So sad to see someone so intellectually pathetic.

  23. transrp says:

    By the way. You have now lost the Koch Brothers:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/charles-koch-gets-some-climate-science-right-economics-wrong.html

    Koch replied,

    Well, I mean I believe it’s been warming some. There’s a big debate on that, because it depends on whether you use satellite measurements, balloon, or you use ground ones that have been adjusted. But there has been warming. The CO2 goes up, the CO2 has probably contributed to that.

    They just became part of the grand conspiracy. But they will probably stop supporting people like Soon
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/02/23/the-favorite-scientist-of-climate-change-deniers-is-under-fire-for-taking-oil-money/

    and if the Koch borthers have left the AGW deniers, can Cato and the Heartland institute be far behind. Then the conservative republicans to whom those people supply (soon no longer) money.

    That leaves ???

    • AndyG55 says:

      We never had Koch , you idiot.

      He, unlike you.. can think for himself. !!

      Again the link to the most unreliable climate site on the internet.. SkS.. so funny !!!!!

      Oil money funds the climate glitterati to a massive extent.. Willie just managed to get a tiny amount of those funds. So what !!!

      The alarmista just got upset because he reported his real findings rather than bending them to the climate funding agenda.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Hello Trancer.. not enough gunja for a response ???

      Where are you, child-mind !!

    • AndyG55 says:

      Oh look…. you forgot the rest of the quote…. I’ve separated the statements for easier reading so everyone can see just how much of a base-level lying con-artist you are.

      “But they say it’s going to be catastrophic.

      There is no evidence to that.

      They have these models that show it, but the models don’t work …

      To be scientific, it has to be testable and refutable.

      And so I mean, it has elements of science in it, and then of conjecture, ideology and politics.

      So do we want to create a catastrophe today in the economy because of some speculation based on models that don’t work? ”

      Koch knows REALITY….. perhaps you should wake up to that REALTY as well. !!

  24. Henry P says:

    henry@all

    I am disgusted by the name-calling:
    idiot,
    bozo,
    moron,
    idiotic,
    moronic,
    etc.
    If you want to have an interesting discussion on science with someone you should refrain from this. Learn to respect others – even if you think they are completely wrong.

    In the interest of science, I am calling upon Tony to intervene and to reprimand such offenders. Once reprimanded and still not complying, such people should be banned from posting for a certain amount of time. This is how you keep the site civilized and interesting: we are all students and teachers to each other. It must be realized that we are sitting in a lecture room. The person who calls the teacher an idiot must leave the class. It is as simple as that.

    • transrp says:

      Name calling. The device used by people who have neither information no logic to support their position. As you may have seen from one of my posts, I think that Andy also exhibits traits of psychopathy. At one time I indicated that I would not respond unless links were attached to support the positions. I believe that your link was the one of only two that I did not show to be, on its face, wrong or self contradictory.

      I came back on a post that was questioning the amount of gigatonnage because it intrigued me.
      I have learned stuff so it is not all bad.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Analyse yourself first, little child.. There is only one psychopath here.. and its you.

      • AndyG55 says:

        You are the child thinking that your low-level degree is the bee’s knees, and thinking any of us care.

        You are a minnow, a yapping Chihuahua.. you are just way too thick to realise it.

      • AndyG55 says:

        What you should be doing is asking yourself why you are still here.

        Its not for any rational reason….

        If you can answer truthfully to yourself…. you will know who the real psychopath is.

        If you cannot answer truthfully to yourself, you again have the same answer.

  25. Henry P says:

    transpr says
    So far your post and the link to the berkeley paper is the only link that I saw that is not false on its face. It will take time for me to check it out

    henry says
    If you want learn, you must try to understand. From your comments I don’t have too much hope that you really understand or want to understand the principle of re-radiation of the so-called GH gasses. I am also not sure if others here figured it out correctly.
    The problem with Tyndall and Arrhenius and most of the AGW crowd is that they only observed – or want to acknowledge – the warming properties of GH gasses (re-radiation 5-15 um, leading to entrapment). They never saw or talked about the cooling properties, as observed from the berkeley paper, i.e. radiation specific to ozone, water, CO2, etc bouncing back to space (i.e. re-radiation 0-5 um)
    So where are the balance sheets?
    Note that radiation specific to ozone, peroxide, etc at 0.1 um bouncing back to space is many times more energetic then the radiation trapped on earth at around 10 um (water, CO2)

    Hence, we are currently cooling.

    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/08/01/greenland-meltdown-update-11/#comment-533664

  26. Henry P says:

    Henry@all

    teaching: GH effect 101
    (forget about the pictures, shown here
    http://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/greenhouse-effect
    ……..)
    The best way to experience re-radiation is to stand in a moist dark forest just before dawn on a cloudless night. Note that water vapour also absorbs in the visible region of the spectrum. So as the first light of sun hits on the water vapour around you can see the light coming from every direction. Left, right, bottom up, top down. You can see this for yourself until of course the sun’s light becomes too bright in the darkness for you to observe the re-radiated light from the water vapour.
    A second way to experience how re-radiation works is to measure the humidity in the air and the temperature on a certain exposed plate, again on a cloudless day, at a certain time of day for a certain amount of time. Note that as the humidity goes up, and all else is being kept equal, the temperature effected by the sun on the plate is lower. This is because, like carbon dioxide, water vapour has absorption in the infra red part of the spectrum.
    We can conclude from these simple experiments that what happens is this: in the wavelengths areas where absorption takes place, the molecule starts acting like a little mirror, the strength of which depends on the amount of absorption taking place inside the molecule. Because the molecule is like a perfect sphere, 62,5% of a certain amount of light (radiation) is send back in the direction where it came from. This is the warming or cooling effect of a gas hit by radiation.
    Unfortunately, in their time, Tyndall and Arrhenius could not see the whole picture of the spectrum of a gas which is why they got stuck on seeing only the warming properties of a gas.
    If people would understand this principle, they would not singularly identify green house gases (GHG’s) by pointing at the areas in the 5-20 um region (where earth emits pre-dominantly) but they would also look in the area 0-5 um (where the sun emits pre-dominantly) for possible cooling effects.
    For comprehensive proof that CO2 is (also) cooling the atmosphere by re-radiating sunshine, see
    http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/644/1/551/64090.web.pdf?request-id=76e1a830-4451-4c80-aa58-4728c1d646ec

    They measured the re-radiation from CO2 as it bounced back to earth from the moon. So the direction was sun-earth-moon -earth. Follow the green line in fig. 6, bottom. Note that it already starts at 1.2 um, then one peak at 1.4 um, then various peaks at 1.6 um and 3 big peaks at 2 um. It all comes back in fig. 6 top.
    This paper here shows that there is absorption of CO2 at between 0.21 and 0.19 um (close to 202 nm):

    Click to access DUV-CO2.pdf


    There are other papers that I can look for again that will show that there are also absorptions of CO2 at between 0.18 and 0.135 um and between 0.125 and 0.12 um.
    We already know from the normal IR spectra that CO2 has big absorption between 4 and 5 um.

    So, to sum it up, we know that CO2 has absorption in the 14-15 um range causing some warming (by re-radiating earthshine) but as shown and proved above it also has absorption in the 0-5 um range causing cooling (by re-radiating sunshine). This cooling happens at all levels where the sunshine hits on the carbon dioxide same as the earthshine. The way from the bottom to the top is the same as from top to the bottom. So, my question is: how much cooling and how much warming is caused by the CO2? How was the experiment done to determine this and where are the test results?

    Alternatively, do your experiments and end up where I did:

    i.e.
    there is no man made warming
    none
    zero
    and/or
    not measureable

    • Marsh says:

      Henry P : It’s refreshing to see some logic of yours amongst the battle on this thread.
      Yes I too, once accepted AGW some years back; up until doing “honest research”.
      Even when understanding the Psychology involved, the way in which educated persons can be so accepting & indoctrinated to AGW,,, it still alarms me.

      Despite the intelligence & education, there are those with obsessive traits that cause an aversion to recognising contrary evidence. Psychological problems like Aspergers
      explains the delusion of some, but it shows how flawed human beings are. Of course, there are genuine believers & then there are fraudsters; something entirely different.

      • Henry P says:

        Thx for the comment.
        All people calling each other names (idiot, moron, wurm) and those mentioning the name of God (Jesus) deserve our pity. It is a waste of time to reply to them as they think they know everything.
        What is Truth? It is exactly what Pilate asked Jesus about at His trial.

    • transrp says:

      Your observations are profound. Your reasoning is brilliant, though I am way to ignorant to follow it. Have you published in a peer reviewed journal? How about PLOS. These insights should not be restricted to only the AGW deniers sites. With your irrefutable logic making your views well known could garner you some fame and maybe money.

      At the least, the carbon based energy companies and conservative think tanks would be very generous to find someone who could substantiate and, in your words, PROVE their skepticism.

      And I am sure that your iron clad logic will withstand any arguments that others may put forward. I look forward to seeing your published work.

      When do you expect that to happen, and who will be the lucky journal to get rights of first publication.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Yawn.. ! another worthless rant from the psychotic, mathematically-inept troll. !

        • Marsh says:

          AndyG55, remember a troublesome Lisa from a week ago,,, my assessment was Aspergers AS : all the clues were there. Some are extremely obvious to profile &
          this one really is psychotic ( not in jest ) ; arguing is a waste of time.

      • Disillusioned says:

        “At the least, the carbon based energy companies and conservative think tanks would be very generous to find someone who could substantiate and, in your words, PROVE their skepticism.”

        Mother Gaia has been doing a pretty good job of proving herself a skeptic of AGW. But you DO realize that with the scientific method it is not the skeptic who must prove a hypothesis is wrong, don’t you?

        • transrp says:

          But you DO realize that with the scientific method it is not the skeptic who must prove a hypothesis is wrong, don’t you?
          Actually within the paradigm of science that is the only people who are expected to prove anything. Check Karl Popper and falsifiability, as well as the null hypothesis. Also see Hawkings relevant remarks on the nature of theories. Theories can be supported by evidence, and they can be found to be useful. They are NEVER PROVEN TRUE. The worst kind of theory is one that is “not even wrong” That is, it can not be falsified, or PROVEN to be false. That is, in fact, exactly the responsibility of the skeptic.

          In a sort of related idea. Useful ideas, that can be shown useful, and that can be supported by a lot of evidence. Well, then you dump your evidence on a rich guys desk, and try and raise money. 🙂 But no matter how much money you raise, and no matter how rich you get, that does not “prove” your idea.

        • Disillusioned says:

          trans: “That is, in fact, exactly the responsibility of the skeptic”

          The validity of a hypothesis – the explanation (scientific guess) for a phenomenon – rests on the shoulders of the person making it. It is up to the experimenter to try and prove it wrong. If he (or others) cannot, then it may get to the next stage – a theory.

          trans: “Theories can be supported by evidence, and they can be found to be useful.”

          AGW hasn’t broken out of the gates of hypothesis yet. A hypothesis is just a hypothesis until experiments agree with it or they don’t. It then either moves on to theory or the trash heap of failed hypotheses.

          “If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.”
          Richard Feynman

        • transrp says:

          I notice that you are new here. Well, you may have posted earlier, but this page does not go back before 8/1 and I am not smart enough to find where all the stuff is posted. There is no search fearture that I found, and my guesses for earlier poses were of no avail, except for, possible the first one. I did not find any links to “earlier posts”

          Nice to see that you actually provide rational discourse, and supporting links.

          https://carm.org/difference-hypothesis-theory
          A hypothesis is an attempt to explain phenomena. It is a proposal, a guess used to understand and/or predict something. A theory is the result of testing a hypothesis and developing an explanation that is assumed to be true about something. A theory replaces the hypothesis after testing confirms the hypothesis, or the hypothesis is modified and tested again until predictable results occur.

          “If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.”
          Richard Feynman

          Argument from authority. I doubt that Feynman thought that Newtons theory of gravitation was wrong because it did not agree with some experiments. I doubt that because some people get sick from “bad air”, or “the vapors” that Dr. Feynman would call the germ theory of disease wrong.

          What is your source for: ” It is up to the experimenter to try and prove it wrong” I have never seen that before. I am assuming that in the above definition that “confirms the hypothesis” is synonymous with confirms predictions.

          I have yet to find any person knowledgeable with the revelant physics who disagrees with the basic premise of how more CO2 can warm the planet. Certainly every single college physics course that teaches about radiation and energy transfer teaches that more CO2 means a warmer planet. I suspect that even a creationist college or university like Bob Jones will teach that. So the have a theory. Now there are several ways that one can check for a warmer planet, and measuring temps (tricky and fuzzy) is only one.

          I mentioned a few above. Warmer planet means more warm stuff, and less cold stuff. Warm stuff is more precipitation, more melting, less snow cover, less glaciers, less ice, more hotter days, fewer colder days. These are the kind of things that require only counting stuff (With the possible exception of space based gravity measurements of the mass of ice on continents) In any case, they do not require the “adjustments” of raw data that deniers rail against.

          No one, not even the AGW deniers here have denied that these things exist and are happening. If they do, then they do so by claiming that all such data is the result of fraud and then engage in name calling

          Even plants and animals are sufficiently aware of the temperature changes to take appropriate action, viz. migrating towards the poles or, if possible, up the sides of adjacent hills/ mountains. Which makes trees smarter than global warming deniers, or at least more sensitive to the environment

          So, there is some solid evidence that the earth is getting warmer in support of a theory developed over 100 years ago. It is clear that the increase in CO2 is caused by man. So we can say that humans probably are contributing to this warming, and so far no one has offered a competing explanation. People have postulated, counter factually, that the sun is warmer (it is not, and if there has been a change, it is to cooler) or galactic rays are causing it, or ????

          But no one has attached any numbers to these ideas. So, while AGW has not been 100% accurate in its predictions, no one has offered a better theory, to what is observed.

          Perhaps you can suggest something?

          Here is another discussion on theory and hypothesis. Also check out falsifiability, Karl Popper, “not even wrong”, Hawkings ideas on the nature of theories.

        • rah says:

          In this case the hypothesis that atmospheric temperature not only has a significant effect on temperature but can cause a chain reaction of feedbacks resulting in even more warming has already been disproved by observations as I pointed out before. Quite simply the temperatures have not risen even close to the extent the models predicted. In short the models, who’s projections upon which both Hanson and the IPCC have based their claims and which are the direct “scientific” expression of the hypothesis, have been proven to in gross error, and thus the hypothesis has been falsified.

          clip_image014
          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/09/the-trouble-with-global-climate-models/

          This is not unexpected since the models have not even been developed enough to accurately hindcast without severe manipulation of the historic data despite all claims to the contrary. As they say “the proof is in the pudding”. Failed climate modeling results in failed forecasts and that means a failed hypothesis. Only deniers deny that reality.

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/08/validation-of-a-climate-model-is-mandatory-the-invaluable-work-of-dr-vincent-gray/

        • transrp says:

          In something as complex and squishy as the climate of an entire planet there is a lot of data from which one can choose. Almost without exception AGW deniers chose data that supports their position and ignores all other data.

          Here is another chart https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-spm-5.jpeg
          and as you can see their most extreme model for surface warming shows .6 degree in 2020 which is quite a bit less than your alleged 1 degree by 2020.

          And of course there are actual temp measurements. We could use this set:

          which comes closer to the model.

          But temps are, in themselves, squishy. All scientists make adjustments of the raw data, including Saint Roy Spencer.

          What is harder to manipulate are things like precipitation, snow cover, ice melt, glacier shrinkage, number of hotter days, number of colder days etc. I posted this earlier. No one has chosen to address these data points. These are data points that can not be selectively chosen or manipulated. Though one could of course accuse those who have presented them of lying. And of course there is the universal fall back position of name calling.

          I do not expect anybody to address my earlier post. Which I accidentally posted three times. After that happened, I expected people to mock me about such stupidity. But in order to do that you would have to have actually read them to realize that they were the same, and then it would be obvious that you were ignoring them since they could not be rebuffed. I mean how do you rebuff something like NASA satellite gravitational measurements of ice mass. Or snow cover. These are data that are not adjusted. They are just raw data, and they unequivocally support global warming. All that is left is to say “ITS THE SUN” Except that the sun has been putting less radiation over the past 40 years https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png/280px-Solar-cycle-data.png

        • Disillusioned says:

          rah: “In this case the hypothesis that atmospheric temperature not only has a significant effect on temperature but can cause a chain reaction of feedbacks resulting in even more warming has already been disproved by observations as I pointed out before.”

          I’m thinking you meant to say atmospheric “CO2″ on the first line of that sentence.

          rah: ” Quite simply the temperatures have not risen even close to the extent the models predicted.”

          True. Even the GISS and NCDC upward-adjusted surface stations artifacts have not. Let alone the satellites.

          rah: “In short the models, who’s projections upon which both Hanson and the IPCC have based their claims and which are the direct “scientific” expression of the hypothesis, have been proven to in gross error, and thus the hypothesis has been falsified.”

          Bingo. AGW never got out of the starting gate.

        • rah says:

          thank you. Your correct. Should have read :In this case the hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 not only has a significant effect on temperature but can cause a chain reaction of feedbacks resulting in even more warming has already been disproved by observations as I pointed out before.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Well, then you dump your evidence on a rich guys desk, and try and raise money. But no matter how much money you raise, and no matter how rich you get, that does not “prove” your idea.”

          Yet that is exactly what has happened with the AGW hypothesis.

          Even after massive funding, there is zero evidence for the hypothesis, and massive evidence against it.

          In fact , it is only that massive funding and the political agenda that are keeping the FAILED zombie AGW hypothesis out of its rightful grave.

          And we all know what happens when you keep a zombie out of its grave.. its rots and putrefies.

        • AndyG55 says:

          There is no evidence of any CO2 warming in the whole of the satellite record.

          There was slight warming before the 1998/2001 El Nino and slight cooling afterwards. These essentially cancel each other out.

          The only warming event was the realise of energy from the ocean after a series of strong solar cycles.

          Apart from that , Nothing, Nada… ZIP !!

          THERE IS NO CO2 WARMING SIGNATURE IN THE WHOLE SATELLITE RECORD

          Meanwhile the CO2 level continues to climb, and the plants are loving it.

          The CO2 warming hypothesis is TOTALLY DESTROYED by 36 years of data.

  27. Henry P says:

    transrp says
    I confess that I did not read it closely. I did do some word searches. I found no reference to heating or cooling.
    One more thing, I can not find any reference to a closed box experiment done by Arrhenius. The only references to such are allegations that he did them. Can you give me a link to such an experiment?

    henry says
    sorry I cannot help you there then, as clearly you are not interested in the science of GH gases. See my comments that I made above this comment.
    Try at least to understand my comment named GH effect 101 and explain to me why people sometimes grab for sun glasses whilst driving their cars, even when they have the sun shining from behind their backs. Is it perhaps re-radiation due to high humidity?
    I will say that I started my investigation with the faulty formula of Arrhenius – I cannot remember now exactly why it was faulty – and I have no interest in re-visiting that problem as I have moved on far ahead –
    but just to end my circle of thought here on this thread, for those interested,
    I started off thinking that AGW must be true (ca. 2009)
    and ended up finding that GH gases do have an influence on temperature on earth (2015),
    although the effect I am finding is opposite to what I had expected.
    I left you all the clues on this thread, starting here,
    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/08/01/greenland-meltdown-update-11/#comment-533595
    Wishing you a great weekend,
    H

    • rah says:

      This big truck driver grabs the sunglasses when driving away from the sun when it’s low on the horizon because it reflects from those big mirrors into my eyes.

      • Henry P says:

        @rah
        sorry
        I forgot to say it was midday

        • Henry P says:

          @rah
          btw
          was it not you, who like me, figured out [correctly] that temperature [on earth] can be related to the position of the planets?

      • rah says:

        I personally didn’t figure it out. I learned it from reading ‘The Resilient Earth’

        http://www.amazon.com/The-Resilient-Earth-Science-Humanity/dp/143921154X?tag=duckduckgo-ffab-20

        Figuring something like that out on my own is well beyond the capabilities of this old truck driver. But learning? I can still do that Thank God! My greatest weakness in this realm of Climate Science is the math. I can understand some of it, but the statistical analysis and some of the other heavy stuff is well beyond anything I have experienced in my 60 years on this planet. And to be frank, that will be the way it is for me because my interests are far too varied and my remaining time on earth to short and valuable for me to concentrate enough on such a subject as a hobby.

        Late last night I pulled into the terminal having completed a roughly 500 mi trip up to Romulus, MI and back. Standing there was an acquaintance that I went to truck driving school with. Though we both drive for the same company out of the terminal in Anderson, IN our paths had not crossed in nearly a year.

        He and I are about the same age and similar in some ways. He was a computer whiz and had a successful career in programing that lasted 30 years. I came out of the Army and had my own small company providing specialized products and services to much larger corporations. Both of us sitting at our desks doing our work one day finally admitted to ourselves that we just did not want to do what we had been doing for a living anymore and eased out the door and became truck drivers. And both of us really like our driving jobs.

        • transrp says:

          I read part of this on your link:
          “Today we are told that all life on earth is threatened by a new peril.” Well, I suppose that depends on what threatened means and what “ALL” means. I have never been told that. I am unfamiliar with any person who believes AGW has ever said that. They have said that extinction rates will accelerate, and that life for humans will become — shall we say less pleasant. but those are very different concepts.

          If you do a look at CO2 levels and extinctions you will see that the last time we saw CO2 go to 400+ ppm, or just increase dramatically, that there followed an extinction event.

          A favorite quote by AGW deniers. The newsweek article. Newsweek is not a science journal.
          What scientists were actually saying is more accurately seen in this:
          http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
          annd this http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 and probably 100’s of other links. No compilation of science papers, NONE, will show that scientists thought that the earth would cool.

          Finally: An accurate specific statement. There may still be a few scientists out there who would disagree (And a log of ???? on this and similar cites), but the fact that the planet is warming comes a close to a universal acceptance Ii.e. consensus) as anything in science.

          (Be warned — the idea that you seem to be promoting is likely to get you labelled by the inhabitants of this site a 100 variations of stupid)

          Change likely to absolutely certain based on this quote:
          “Here are a few facts that are not in dispute (They are definitely disputed on this cite) The earth has experienced a general warming trend …

          Human Beings are addings lareg amounts of CO@ to the atmosphere… (Even the people here accept that)

          Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has a warming effect on the planet as a whole. (As near as I can tell, this view is rejected by over 90% of the visitors to this cite.) This will get you called all forms of stupid that one can imagine.

          Looks like this would be a nice book. At the risk of sounding arrogant, while it does raise a few new points with which I was not familiar, I will take a pass on reading it, as it seems to cover ground with which I am familiar, and is not quite a rigorous as I would like. By and large, however, from the Kindle intro, I like it, and agree about 80% with its message.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “This will get you called all forms of stupid that one can imagine. ”

          Yep, and here you are. All forms of stupid. !!

        • AndyG55 says:

          “but the fact that the planet is warming ”

          The planet is NOT warming. It did warm for the last 25 or so years of last century, and it has warmed out of the COLDEST period in the whole of the Holocene.. thank goodness !!

          It stopped warming from the series of strong solar highs in the latter half of last century.

          That warming peaked at the 1998/2001 El Nino.

          There has been NO WARMING THIS CENTURY !!!

          ——————————————————-

          “Human Beings are adding large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere”

          GOOD.. the planet’s plant life needs it to make food.

          Feel free to “decarbonise” your food….. anytime you have the fortitude to do so. 😉

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has a warming effect on the planet as a whole. ”

          Again, a totally unproven statement.

          It is all you have, a baseless assumption from an erroneous FAILED hypothesis.

          There is no evidence of any CO2 warming in the whole of the satellite record.

          There was slight warming before the 1998/2001 El Nino and slight cooling afterwards. These essentially cancel each other out.

          The only warming event was the realise of energy from the ocean after a series of strong solar cycles.

          Apart from that , Nothing, Nada… ZIP !!

          THERE IS NO CO2 WARMING SIGNATURE IN THE WHOLE SATELLITE RECORD

          Meanwhile the CO2 level continues to climb, and the plants are loving it.

        • Henry P says:

          God bless the truck drivers!
          to give you an idea of the complexity of what happens top of the atmosphere (TOA)
          https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2015/08/10/no-consensus-earths-top-of-atmosphere-energy-imbalance-in-cmip5-archived-ipcc-ar5-climate-models/
          and they don’t have it even half right
          because they simply don’t understand the Gh effect and the principle of re-radiation (of a gas)
          water (liquid) in abundance can trap heat but water (gas) cannot

          this guy figured it out

          Click to access cli267_293.pdf

          the timing fits my curves as well

        • AndyG55 says:

          THERE IS NO CO2 WARMING SIGNATURE IN THE WHOLE SATELLITE RECORD !!

  28. transrp says:

    sorry for the repeats. My system was not working right, Maybe the site monitor can remove the duplicates

  29. Henry P says:

    @rah
    God bless the truck drivers!
    to give you an idea of the complexity of what happens top of the atmosphere (TOA)
    https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2015/08/10/no-consensus-earths-top-of-atmosphere-energy-imbalance-in-cmip5-archived-ipcc-ar5-climate-models/
    and they don’t have it even half right
    because they simply don’t understand the Gh effect and the principle of re-radiation (of a gas)
    water (liquid) in abundance can trap heat but water (gas) cannot

    this guy figured it out

    Click to access cli267_293.pdf

    the timing 87 years fits my curves as well
    look at table III

  30. Henry P says:

    @transrp

    I don’t know why anyone would waste their time with you as you obviously have no data (measurements) that would back your side. You are a fraud.
    There is no man made global warming.
    If there were, there would be [some] chaos in my curve:

    But there isn’t any.
    There was some natural warming, up until a time.
    There is some natural cooling, from a time.
    When was that, you ask
    Go figure it out from the equation.
    First year mathematics. Or was that at the end of school?

  31. Henry P says:

    transrp says
    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/08/01/greenland-meltdown-update-11/#comment-535983
    henry says
    So,
    I was right.
    transrp=tony heller
    the devil’s advocate.
    I figured as much.

  32. Henry P says:

    btw
    we
    in South Africa
    also experience the el nino now
    mostly as greater drought and higher heat during the day,
    which results in more dust…
    so I take two showers a day now.

    I still prefer the heat though, rather than the cold.

    I pity all of you living in the NH
    which by my calculations
    can only get cooler and cooler

    i still like it here, better.
    (coming from the NH to the SH)

  33. Henry P says:

    @tony
    try not to be insulting?
    sorry,forgot to tell you, I don’t bother much about TSI as such….
    Man cannot make any material that can withstand the most energetic particles from the sun.
    The reported TSI is an illusion.
    OTOH
    the observation of declining polar solar field strength is not an illusion
    [note that you can draw parabola from bottom to top and hyperbola top to bottom]
    I figure that there must be a small window at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) that gets opened and closed a bit, every so often. Chemists know that a lot of incoming radiation is deflected to space by the ozone and the peroxides and nitrous oxides lying at the TOA. These chemicals are manufactured from the UV coming from the sun. Luckily we do have measurements on ozone, from stations in both hemispheres. I looked at these results. Incredibly, I found that ozone started going down around 1951 and started going up again in 1995, both on the NH and the SH. Percentage wise the increase in ozone in the SH since 1995 is much more spectacular.
    I had now already found three exact confirmations for the dates of the turning points of my A-C wave for energy-in. The mechanism? We know that there is not much variation in the total solar irradiation (TSI) measured at the TOA. However, there is some variation within TSI, mainly to do with the more energetic particles coming from the sun. It appears (to me) that as the solar polar fields are weakening,

    more of these particles are able to escape from the sun to form more ozone, peroxides and nitrogenous oxides at the TOA. In turn, these substances deflect more sunlight to space when there is more of it. So, ironically, when the sun is brighter, earth will get cooler. This is a defense system that earth has in place to protect us from harmful UV (C).
    Most likely there is some gravitational- and/or electromagnetic force that gets switched every 44 year, affecting the sun’s output. How? That was the question.
    [which I also figured out]

  34. transrp says:

    I was not insulting. This is insulting. You are stupid and unable to learn new things. You do not read articles completely. When you do read them you do not understand them. Because of this you provide links to data that support my position, and not yours. If something does not support your position you simply dismiss it with unsubstantiated claims. You are a textbook case of stupid / ignorant / arrogant. And all with never having passed a college physics class. I know this because of the aforementioned obvious reading comprehension deficits.

    So to simpify things, I will simply ignore you in the future.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s