El Nino and the end of the global warming hiatus

El Niño and the end of the global warming hiatus
Pacific Ocean sea surface height anomalies during the 1997-98 El Nino (left) are compared with 2015 Pacific conditions (right). The 1997 data are from the NASA/CNES Topex/Poseidon mission; the 2015 data are from the NASA/CNES/NOAA/EUMETSAT Jason-2 mission. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

A new climate model developed by Yale scientists puts the "global warming hiatus" into a broader historical context and offers a new method for predicting global mean temperature.

Research by professor Alexey Fedorov and graduate student Shineng Hu indicates that weak El Niño activity from 1998 until 2013, rather than a pause in long-term global warming, was the root cause for slower rates of increased surface . The research, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, also finds that volcanic activity played only a minor role.

"Our main conclusion is that global warming never went away, as one might imply from the term 'global warming hiatus,'" said Fedorov, who has conducted extensive research on the oceans' role in climate. "The warming can be masked by inter-annual and decadal natural climate variability, but then it comes back with a vengeance."

El Niño events contribute to year-to-year variations in global mean temperature by modulating the heat that is released from tropical oceans into the atmosphere, the researchers noted. That is, El Niño warms the atmosphere, while the cold phase of the phenomenon, La Niña, cools the atmosphere.

Multiple strong El Niño events occurred in the 1980s and 1990s. This was followed by much weaker El Niño activity, which lasted until 2014.

"The recent rapid rise in global temperature mainly resulted from the prolonged 2014-2016 El Niño conditions in the tropics that reached an extreme magnitude in the winter of 2015," said Hu, who is the first author of the study. "The corresponding heat release into the , together with the ongoing background global trend, made 2014, 2015, and 2016 the three consecutive warmest years of the instrumental record so far."

Hu and Fedorov constructed a simple model of global mean surface temperature (GMST) that incorporates greenhouse gas emissions, El Niño-Southern Oscillation data, and stratospheric sulfate aerosols produced by volcanic eruptions. The model closely mirrors GMST changes since 1880, including the so-called hiatus and the more recent temperature rise.

"From a practical perspective, our method, when combined with El Niño prediction, allows us to predict next-year global mean temperature," Fedorov said. "Accordingly, 2017 will remain among the hottest years of the observational record, perhaps just a notch colder than 2016 or 2015."


Explore further

Report: Can't blame El Nino as global temps spike in March (Update)

More information: Shineng Hu et al. The extreme El Niño of 2015-2016 and the end of global warming hiatus, Geophysical Research Letters (2017). DOI: 10.1002/2017GL072908
Journal information: Geophysical Research Letters

Provided by Yale University
Citation: El Nino and the end of the global warming hiatus (2017, April 27) retrieved 18 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2017-04-el-nino-global-hiatus.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
54 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 27, 2017
Artificial intelligent robots exterminating humans, a global pandemic from a genetically modified virus, self replicating nano machines overrunning the planet or black holes created by high energy particle collisions are disaster scenarios that show science is the carbon destroying humanity. Sequester science which trends to destroy everything.

Apr 27, 2017
Always easier to predict backwards.

Apr 27, 2017
So, it gets warm when the El Nino kicks in; and, it stays cool when it goes away. This, apparently, explains global temperatures for the last twenty or so years--maybe longer. Well, what causes the El Nino? Do climatoligists know? And, if they know, then why isn't this considered the cause of 'global warming'? Nothing but nonsense psuedoscience! It's been warming since the middle of the 19th Century. Good luck getting a warming hysteric to give you an answer as to what caused the rise almost 200 hundred years ago--at least one that makes any sense at all.

Apr 27, 2017
@Lino:
Read the linked article if you want, but I am posting it for the plot of human population as a function of time. Draw your own conclusions, but it would only make sense that emissions of byproducts from humans (i.e. potential GHG) would increase as population increased.
https://www.visio...075.aspx

Apr 27, 2017
....Low Costs of Solar Power & Wind Power Crush Coal, Crush Nuclear, & Beat Natural Gas

December 25th, 2016

We already published a great article from Nexus Media regarding Lazard's new report showing the extremely low (and falling) costs of solar power and wind power.

However, I've been wanting to highlight these awesome new findings since Larmion shared the updated report with us earlier this month, and I want to break out the amazing news in 5 specific ways.

These are 5 messages that I think anyone wanting a better US economy (or a better economy in practically any country), anyone wanting national energy freedom (aka energy independence), anyone wanting to advance the most cost-effective choices for electricity generation, and anyone wanting to make logical energy decisions should know and share with others.
....
1. Wind & Solar Are Cheaper (Without Subsidies) Than Dirty Energy


Apr 27, 2017
It's been warming since the middle of the 19th Century. Good luck getting a warming hysteric to give you an answer as to what caused the rise almost 200 hundred years ago--at least one that makes any sense at all.


The middle of the 19th century was roughly 1850's, right in the thick of the coal-burning, forest-felling Industrial revolution. That said, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that there's been appreciable warming since 1850. Warming until roughly the last few decades has been pretty slight (as is expected given the lag time necessary for GHG's to concentrate and decrease infrared transparency in the atmosphere).

Apr 27, 2017
And, if they know, then why isn't this considered the cause of 'global warming'?

I don't think the actual cause is known, however, it's pretty trivial to show that ENSO isn't the cause of the current warming. ENSO is a cycle and if it was the cause of the warming, then separating out El Nino from La Nina years would should each of these at roughly constant temperatures. But that's not what's seen (https://www.skept...php?g=67 ) so ENSO (as well as PDO, since they're related) can't be the cause of the warming.

Apr 27, 2017
It's been warming since the middle of the 19th Century. Good luck getting a warming hysteric to give you an answer as to what caused the rise almost 200 hundred years ago--at least one that makes any sense at all.

I don't know what a "warming hysteric" is (you seem pretty hysterical about the current warming - is it you?), but Koch funded research shows that it's pretty much anthropogenic CO2 (with volcanoes for the cooling spikes): https://thinkprog...c6b67d60 .

Apr 27, 2017
There is a direct correlation between the G experiment results and global temperature.

Apr 28, 2017
As added heat moves through the Earth climate system, it burbles, just like a boiling pot burbles, but much more slowly. ENSO is one of the burbles. During one part of the cycle, heat goes into the ocean; during the other, it goes into the atmosphere. But the amount of heat increase stays constant; it's only local effects that seem to change.

Apr 28, 2017
I don't think the actual cause is known,
Sure it is; the very Koch-funded study you cite says it is anthropogenic CO2.

Apr 28, 2017
I don't think the actual cause is known,
Sure it is; the very Koch-funded study you cite says it is anthropogenic CO2.

I meant the cause of the ENSO cycle. I've heard some hypotheses, but nothing's ever come of them, that I know of. As I say, however, the cause isn't important to the long term climate trend. ENSO isn't the cause of the current warming, although it does allow a way for those opposed to science to mislead the gullible among us into thinking that the warming has stopped. Cherry picking short trends will always make you a fool.

Apr 28, 2017
I don't think the actual cause is known,
Sure it is; the very Koch-funded study you cite says it is anthropogenic CO2.

I meant the cause of the ENSO cycle.
Ah. That clarifies things considerably. I have to agree with that.

Apr 28, 2017
zz5555:
I don't know what a "warming hysteric" is (you seem pretty hysterical about the current warming - is it you?), but Koch funded research shows that it's pretty much anthropogenic CO2 (with volcanoes for the cooling spikes): https://thinkprog...c6b67d60 .

I connected to the link. And there, they have a link to this "Koch Study." Nothing. It's linked to nothing. Is this 'fake news'? Perhaps you have a better link?

As to hysteria: when earth's temperatures have increased about a degree in 150 years, and then it increases by half a degree in 50, I don't think this is cause of alarm, nor reason to spend trillions of dollars (given to rich, 'fat-cat', crony capitalists, like GE), nor for stopping third world countries from having children and building power plants: do you?


Apr 28, 2017
As to this "increase," let's note that beginning in the early to mid 70's, humans no longer recorded the temperatures, as NOAA, or whoever was in charge, switched over to digitalized systems. When this occurred, the thermometers were "adjusted" upward as a correction. What if the 'correction' was wrong, or not needed? Then what?

Well, then we have real "anthropogenic warming" since the supposed 'warming' is simply an ill-considered correction. There are trillions of dollars at stake here. If tobacco companies fudged their science to make billions, what will crony capitalists do to make trillions? If you suspect cigarettte companies, then why don't you suspect this whole 'global warming industry' that has sprung up? Are all these companies and institutions 'lily white'?


Apr 28, 2017
And then there's Lord Monchton:http://heartland....e-model.

The feedback equation used in climate models accounts for all the warming they predict. The equation comes over from electronic circuitry. Monchton questioned the applicability of that equation, substituted a much simpler one that was more reasonable, and was able to match temperatures over the last twenty or so years--unlike IPCC models.

Anytime I spend an hour or so looking around at these things, it always ends up smelling. Global warming will go down as the biggest hoax in human history.

Apr 28, 2017
Hat1208:

How could you possibly know if I'm "parroting back" what someone else had said? Are you speaking of yourself here?

No, I know of what I'm talking about. I've spent time looking into it. For example, the NOAA did a simulation around 2006 or 7, and they tried to correlate CO2 levels in the troposphere with warming, and couldn't do it. Then they tried to use both CO2 and Methane. This helped, but was still way off. Then, finally, they used a simulation that included water vapor levels in the troposhere. Then they got a match. What's the bottom line? Warming is caused by water vapor levels, not CO2, as anyone who has ever stepped into a "hothouse" can attest. It's horrible science. A fraud. And it hurts people. (But helps the capitalists. How ironic since the environmental wackos are all on the left).

Apr 28, 2017
No, I know of what I'm talking about. I've spent time looking into it
@lino
calling bullsh*t on this one
main reason: you aren't linking studies, you're linking political sites with political rhetoric
secondary reason: this quote here
I don't think this is cause of alarm, nor reason to spend trillions of dollars (given to rich, 'fat-cat', crony capitalists, like GE)


so, instead of linking political sites, you should try reading strictly science and evidence based research (which is not based upon opinion) like here: https://scholar.g...dt=0%2C4

Apr 28, 2017
@lino235 cont'd
How could you possibly know if I'm "parroting back" what someone else had said?
because you linked to political sites and not to valid or validated studies
What's the bottom line? Warming is caused by water vapor levels, not CO2
for starters, WV is a definite issue, but you forgot to do some basic research as to why CO2 and WV are important when linked - try reading Lacis et al
http://science.sc...356.full

and please note that since Lacis et al there have been corroborating studies that validated Lacis claims in said linked study

so again, when you choose to get your information from political sites and rhetoric, you will always get biased misinformation, regardless of your political party

when you want to talk science, you should talk with peer reviewed studies - not political sites

so, if you want to learn about the facts, try skipping the politics and going straight to the science

like google scholar

Apr 28, 2017
Captain Stumpy:

Please spare me your condescending attitude. If you think that 'science' is 'virgin,' and that political issues don't flow into it, or away from it, you're woefully naive.

Try reading Moncthon's paper. It's good science. Your claim that I don't understand the linkage between CO2 and WV (water vapor) is completely undermined by what I've posted. It is you, it would appear, that needs some information about how climate models work.

Apr 28, 2017
Captain Stumpy: (cont'd):

Here's from Lacis' 2010 article:
"Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important
climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current
climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases,
which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable
temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state."


This is pure garbage. NOAA studies refute this.

Apr 28, 2017
Captain Stumpy: Did you know that methane (CH4) is fifteen times more powerful a GHG than CO2? Did you read about the NOAA simulation, i.e., a climate model run to match observed data, could NOT match the data using CO2 at all! It could match it somewhat using CO2 and CH4. It ONLY matched when concentrations of WV were included! Yes, despite what Lacis writes about WV "condensing," there is an appreciable amount of it in the troposphere.

As to linking CO2 and WV, that's what is meant by "radiative forcing," and it works via the "feedback" process. That's where the feedback equation the Lord Christopher Monchton uses is able to MATCH observed data, while IPCC and NOAA climate models do NOT.

OK, Captain Stuffy?

Apr 28, 2017
From Lacis' paper:
This radiative interaction is the greenhouse effect, which was first discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 (2), experimentally verified by John Tyndall in 1863 (3),and quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 (4).These studies established long ago that water vapor and CO2 are indeed the principal terrestrial GHGs. Now, further consideration shows that CO2 is the one that controls climate change.


Pure pap. Why was Svante Arrhenius interested in CO2? Because WV changes daily, while volcanic eruptions produce CO2 which changes over geological time. So, there you have it: volcanoes and the sun; these are what produce climate change. Isn't this obvious? What Arrhenius didn't know was the radioactive heating taking place in the earth's core, and which interacts with magma close to the surface, connecting it to volcanic activity, and CO2 levels indirectly.

IOW: two basic sources of heat: fission at the center of the earth, and fusion in the sun's core.

Apr 28, 2017
The ''hiatus'' ? i thought that had been massaged away , time to get the story straight .
OH ! and 2017 is already the hottest evah !!!!!! Gee, i can predict the future now , every year from now on will be the 'hot , hot hottest evah ! no matter how many sweaters i have on put on or snow i have to wade through.

Apr 28, 2017
I connected to the link. And there, they have a link to this "Koch Study." Nothing. It's linked to nothing. Is this 'fake news'? Perhaps you have a better link?

Sure. It wasn't hard to find from the "Not Found" page: http://berkeleyea...indings/ .

As to hysteria: when earth's temperatures have increased about a degree in 150 years, and then it increases by half a degree in 50,

Actually, it's 1.5C in the last 250 years and ~0.9C of that in the past 50 years. But nice try.
I don't think this is cause of alarm, nor reason to spend trillions of dollars (given to rich, 'fat-cat', crony capitalists, like GE), nor for stopping third world countries from having children and building power plants: do you?

Now everybody knows you just made all that up, so why did you bother?

Apr 28, 2017
And then there's Lord Monchton:http://heartland....e-model.

That link's dead, probably because the paper was so bad. Their model assumes that the climate is stable, contrary to all evidence, and that the climate reaches equilibrium immediately after a change in energy. Unbelievably incompetent.

Monckton is a well-known con man. Did you know he cured AIDS? Of course, he didn't. Did you know he was a member of the House of Lords? Of course, he wasn't. Monckton just makes things up (https://bbickmore...p-sheet/ ).

He also invented the tilted graph to "prove" that sea level isn't rising (I'm not making that up - https://www.skept...vel.html ). That's how incompetent his arguments are.

He's the Donald Trump of the anti-science group. Lying seems to come naturally to him.

Apr 28, 2017
No, I know of what I'm talking about.

You haven't exhibited any evidence of that.
Warming is caused by water vapor levels, not CO2, as anyone who has ever stepped into a "hothouse" can attest.

Like this right here. It's a fundamental error in your thinking. Water vapor cannot cause warming because it's a short-lived gas that condenses out of the atmosphere in a few days if something else isn't providing the required warmth. Because of this, water vapor can only act as a feedback and something else must provide the forcing for the water vapor to act (https://skeptical...iate.htm ). This is all very basic science, so how does someone who "knows what they're talking about" not already know this?

And as your unnamed NOAA paper showed, that something is greenhouse gases.

Apr 28, 2017
IOW: two basic sources of heat: fission at the center of the earth, and fusion in the sun's core.

So let's look at that. The energy coming from the sun has been dropping for the last ~40 years and could only account for about 1.6% of the warming since 1950 (https://skeptical...iate.htm ). Besides, the fingerprint of the warming is all wrong. If the sun was providing the warming, then the stratosphere would be warming. Instead, the stratosphere is cooling (as it must when CO2 levels increase). So the sun's out.

Energy from the earth's core is < 10% of the increase in energy from anthropogenic sources (https://skeptical...mate.htm ). And there's no evidence that energy from the earth's core is changing as would be required to heat the earth. So the earth's core is out.

I think you were right with the NOAA paper - it's greenhouse gases.

Apr 29, 2017
A new climate model developed by Yale scientists puts the "global warming hiatus" into a broader historical context and offers a new method for predicting global mean temperature.

More fake science models/studies to push their political motivations. Seems that this has been going on for sometime now...
Fake science, fake news, real fools!
http://dailycalle...d-wrong/

Apr 29, 2017
@zz5555:

Sure. It wasn't hard to find from the "Not Found" page: http://berkeleyea...indings/ .


So, is it your position that the "Koch Brothers" funded this study from Berkeley? There have been Five Phases of funding. The Koch brothers supplied about half of the original funding. Since this first funding, they have had no part in any additional funding. Maybe they thought the results were loony, eh?

To say something is "funded by the Koch Brothers" is to suggest that they supplied the principal funding, and are in some way directly responsible for the results. This is not the case: neither Bill Gates, nor the Koch brothers participated after the first year. What does that tell you?

The First Phase was in 2010. It wasn't until the Fourth Phase, 2012, that their "analysis" was released. So, to say it is "Koch Brother" funded is, like manmade global warming, a myth.


Apr 29, 2017
@cantthink69, why should anyone pay any attention to your posts of popular media, much less your psychotic rejections of current science?

You're even using the same construction the whiners use, "fake science." If anyone believes anything you say after that I pity them, but I consign them to their fate.

Apr 29, 2017
@zz5555:

Actually, it's 1.5C in the last 250 years and ~0.9C of that in the past 50 years. But nice try.


Nice try, yourself.

From the chart: in 1940, mean average temperature was 9.0 C; in 2008 (roughly) it was 9.8 C. So, that's 0.8 C in about 70 years. And, as recently as 1830, it was 8.4 C.

Now it looks this way: 0.7 degree C increase in 110 years; and 0.8 degree C increase in 75 years.

Yes, let's get hysterical.


Apr 29, 2017
@Lino, it's a shame you make up a lie that shows you cannot read a chart. But it is not unusual among those who received an "education" from a religious school.

Apr 29, 2017
@zz5555:
I don't think this is cause of alarm, nor reason to spend trillions of dollars (given to rich, 'fat-cat', crony capitalists, like GE), nor for stopping third world countries from having children and building power plants: do you?


zz5555: Now everybody knows you just made all that up, so why did you bother?


Al Gore has just asked for $16 Trillion to fight Global Hysteria. Did I make that up? GE makes wind turbines, one of the 'antidotes' to AGW. Are they, or, are they not, "fat cats"? Pope Francis himself has asked for developing countries to limit their children, and, of course, he is famously in favor of efforts at eliminating putative "climate change." It is a known fact that pressure is being applied for developing countries not to build carbon producing power plants. Bjorn Lomborg has talked about his.

No, I'm not making this up. You're the one who is simply ill-informed.

Apr 29, 2017
@zz5555:
Like this right here. It's a fundamental error in your thinking. Water vapor cannot cause warming because it's a short-lived gas that condenses out of the atmosphere in a few days if something else isn't providing the required warmth. Because of this, water vapor can only act as a feedback and something else must provide the forcing for the water vapor to act.


In one cubic meter of the atmosphere, there is less than one gram of CO2. 100% humidity means there are 30 gm of WV/cubic meter of atmosphere. The Atacama Desert, the "driest place on earth", has a relative humidity of 17%, or, proportionately, 4 gm/cubic meter. So, you've simply presented nonsense. Where is WV zero? It's not even zero in the troposphere.


Apr 29, 2017
And as your unnamed NOAA paper showed, that something is greenhouse gases.


Look again at what I wrote. You've completely misunderstood it. The result of the NOAA computer model was this: CO2 does not account for observed temperature data. CO2, along with methance, also does not account for observed temperature data.

But, when you add water vapor to both the CO2 and methane to the climate models, then, and only then, is there some correlation between model results and observed data. IOW, the water vapor present in the troposphere, even though it's next to nothing, has a much more powerful "feedback effect" and so-called "radiative forcing" than CO2 has.

Please stop distorting what I've written. And why don't you look up the result?

Apr 29, 2017

So let's look at that. The energy coming from the sun has been dropping for the last ~40 years and could only account for about 1.6% of the warming since 1950. And there's no evidence that energy from the earth's core is changing as would be required to heat the earth. So the earth's core is out.


Dispute my statement. I said that there are two sources of energy/heat: fission and fusion. Would you like to dispute that? One is the sun, and one is the earth's core.

Your silly notion that CO2 is causing the earth to warm relies on an assumed "feedback" formula that treats CO2 as radiatively 'forcing' global warming. How does this work per this hypothesis? EM radiation is 'trapped' by the CO2, then 'radiated' back to surface waters, thus 'heating' them. This releases water vapor in response, and IT IS the WATER VAPOR which causes the heating.

You don't seem this.

Now, notice this: EM is "light." And where does "light" come from? Yes, of course, the SUN!

Apr 29, 2017
@zz5555:

Besides, the fingerprint of the warming is all wrong. If the sun was providing the warming, then the stratosphere would be warming. Instead, the stratosphere is cooling (as it must when CO2 levels increase). So the sun's out.


Not if there isn't a lot of WATER VAPOR! Something has to absorb the sun's radiation, and every atom and molecule has certain frequencies that it absorbs due to its own quantum mechanical make-up. And, guess what, WATER absorbs the sun's energy readily. CO2 does not.

Apr 29, 2017
This fabrication should be titled --- El Nino and the pathological lies of the AGW Cult and their Pathological "science"

Apr 29, 2017
Global warming marchers in snow Hahaha !
https://realclima...comments

Apr 29, 2017
El Nino and the end of the global warming hiatus


Going to continue with the myth that you can actually measure the planetary temperature to 2 or 3 significant figures? NASA/NOAA/MIT would have trouble actually measuring your backyard to an average of 1 degree, much less .01 or even .1 degree..

Apr 30, 2017
#Climatemarch in Washington DC - ironic that today is the hottest April 29th on record in DC snoosebaum (same thing in Beijing) - and Elon Musk - not exactly a tree hugging hippy (in fact advisor to our anti science president) forwards a tweet about the march - and how huge it is.

Apr 30, 2017
From the chart: in 1940, mean average temperature was 9.0 C; in 2008 (roughly) it was 9.8 C. So, that's 0.8 C in about 70 years. And, as recently as 1830, it was 8.4 C.

Now it looks this way: 0.7 degree C increase in 110 years; and 0.8 degree C increase in 75 years.

There's so much wrong in what you've written that I don't know if it's worth bothering with. This was such a silly response from you that it makes me wonder if you've had any exposure to science in your life. I'm not sure what chart you're talking about, but it doesn't really matter. You're looking at a noisy plot and trying to make a claim using 2 endpoints on the plot. Which is nonsense. With a noisy plot like that, you use the individual points as representing the signal (climate) as opposed to the noise on that (weather). In that case, you need to look at the trend.

Cont'd.

Apr 30, 2017
The trend over the last 50 years for BEST is 0.17C/decade. Which makes the change 0.85C over the last 50 years. For GISTEMP, the trend is 0.177C/decade or ~0.88C over the period. And HadCRUT's global product gives a trend of 0.171C/decade or ~0.85C over the period. I used the trend calculator at skepticalscience.com, but any spreadsheet should be able to do that for you.

So how did you calculate your trend, and what was it to give you only a 0.5C rise in the last 50 years.

(By the way, that's the fastest rises in at least 11000 years (or through all human civilization) and fast increases in temperature have been associated with bad things over the history of the earth, which is why some people are concerned.)

Apr 30, 2017
Look again at what I wrote. You've completely misunderstood it. The result of the NOAA computer model was this: CO2 does not account for observed temperature data. CO2, along with methance, also does not account for observed temperature data.

Yes, that's what I said. No one (and certainly I didn't) claims that water vapor isn't important. What we point out is that water vapor can only act as a feedback. You seem to have missed the part about how water vapor requires something to cause an initial temperature rise before water vapor quantities will increase in the atmosphere. Maybe the ACS can explain it better: https://www.acs.o...co2.html . From the link:
However, water vapor does not control the Earth's temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature.

This is because water vapor will condense out of the atmosphere if something isn't keeping things warm.

Cont'd.

Apr 30, 2017
If something increases the temperature, than more the air can contain more water vapor and that water vapor, in turn, acts as a feedback to increase the temperature even more (but don't worry, there's no possibility of a runaway feedback). And if something cools things, then the amount of water vapor the air can hold will drop and excess water vapor will condense out. Now here's the fun part: You've agreed that the temperature has increased and claim that it's due to 3 things: the earth's core, the sun, and water vapor. But as we've just seen, something else must have caused the earth to warm (and keep warming it more over the last 50 years) for water vapor to have any effect. That's why it's called a feedback.

Cont'd.

Apr 30, 2017
So now you have only two choices left: the earth's core and the sun. But as you know, the energy we've received from the sun has dropped over the last ~40 years. That means it can't be the source of warming. And the earth's core has show no signs of increasing it's output over the period (and it's output is much, much less than the increase in warming due to anthropogenic release of greenhouse gases). That means that the earth's core doesn't help you.

However, greenhouse gases are not condensable. That is, once their levels increase (and we know that humans are ~100% responsible for the increase in, at least, CO2), the levels stay there for many years, regardless of the temperature. It's very well known (as in no one denies this) that doubling the level of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause, on it's own, ~1C of temperature increase. This is just the physics of the situation. It's this increase that causes the initial warming that allows the water vapor feedback.

Cont'd.

Apr 30, 2017
I think you've completely misunderstood the NOAA paper (or as much as I can tell since you can't seem to produce the paper). They show that CO2 and methane alone can't account for the current warming. But I bet that the paper showed that CO2 and methane do cause warming (that's why CO2 is called driver). That warming would allow more water vapor to enter the atmosphere - as a feedback to the initial warming. And that's what the paper showed with the CO2/methane/water vapor result.

Note: Some of your comments indicate that you have no idea how the greenhouse effect works. I don't have the time to cover that, and others can do it much better than I could, so I would suggest that you take some time to read up on it: https://scienceof...-effect/ .

Apr 30, 2017
hey onions , looked it up , 30C today , record was 32 , 1974 https://www.wunde...qdb.wmo=

Apr 30, 2017
snoosebaum - KDCA is in Virginia. Here is a link to an article about Washington DC - https://www.washi...1eca4edf

Apr 30, 2017
I think it's amazing that someone who demonstrates complete incompetence to read a simple graph has the arrogance to claim anything at all, much less that a bunch of people obviously smarter than they are don't understand things better than they do.

The entire point of graphs is to make the data easier to read. What do you do with someone who doesn't get that, and can't see trends in the data? How can you even discuss science with them? It's silliness. It's like trying to have a conversation about nuclear physics with a cat.

Apr 30, 2017
The wider point - is that all this data nit picking over single days, in single cities - is silliness. It is like good old Senator Inhofe with his snowball - https://www.scien...l-stunt/

When we talk about climate - we are looking at global trends - https://data.giss...aphs_v3/

Apr 30, 2017
Apologies for my horrible grammar - that's what happens when I try to squeeze things into a busy schedule.

I do agree it can be hard to discuss science when one of the people has no real understanding of science, but think they do. Add to that the fact that I'm not the best writer (one of the reasons I didn't try for a professorship after getting my PhD), which doesn't help when discussing science with someone without a science background. It can still be fun if both parties enter into the discussion honestly, but I find that happens less and less nowadays. And as I've gotten older, I've found that I suffer fools much less than I used to, which is probably bad on my part.

Apr 30, 2017
Please spare me your condescending attitude
@lino-denier
condescending?
i was actually attempting subtle derision
meh
If you think that 'science' is 'virgin,' and that political issues don't flow into it
you're the nutbag linking politics, not science, ya idiot

political idiots always tend to screw up the science

that is the reason i attempted to warn you off of getting your "science" from political sites
This is pure garbage. NOAA studies refute this
1-bullsh*t
2- NOAA studies actually validate it
Did you know that methane
yup
Captain Stuffy?
did i hurt your brain cell?

shall i just start calling you the Lying POS paid political denier idiot who can't tell a journal from a political site?

my points are factual - but as zz55 notes, you can't read and you're sadly misinformed
and that is why you don't get your science from political sites
Pure pap
funny - you make the claim but you cant link evidence

links/ref's?

Apr 30, 2017
@illiterate lino
So, to say it is "Koch Brother" funded is, like manmade global warming, a myth
really?
well, i see a real problem with what you're saying re: koch et al
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

Here's from Lacis' 2010 article:...This is pure garbage. NOAA studies refute this
From Lacis' paper:..Pure pap
lets examine your arguments for a moment, starting with:
(as zz555 noted above) Where is your evidence?
you've provided absolutely none (no NOAA paper or studies refuting the Lacis paper)

so you have a claim but you can't support your claim...

at best, it's an untested claim - but considering you're making references to science you can't produce, that means it's either unsubstantiated conjecture or an outright false claim (AKA - a lie)
http://www.auburn...ion.html

so, until you can provide supporting evidence...

May 01, 2017
onions, here is all the temp data un-massaged] for Baltimore , just looking at Apr , see any trend ?

http://www.weathe...emps.pdf

May 01, 2017
Why are you just looking at April Snoosebaum? Did you see the annual increase in temps? And that is just for one city - in the U.S. The U.S. is 5% of the earth. Did you notice the disclaimer on your page about "Climate data on this page are PRELIMINARY (unofficial). CERTIFIED (official) climate data are available from theNational Climatic Data Center (NCDC)"?

Did you notice the trends in the global data that I referenced? What is your point?

May 01, 2017
onions , you countered my comment about snow in CO. with news about hot Apr 29 in D.C. so i was pretty sure i could find some hot april 29 in the last 100 yrs , getting past the GW hysteria headline about the march in DC . then i found the data for baltimore because the DC data would come up Wash VA . Yes i pointed out the Baltimore data was unmolested and since we are talking about april 29 's there is no trend .

and here is some more fun , GW is so great for our local berry farms this yr ,' the HOTTEST 2017 ever ! '
http://bc.ctvnews...=1112539

May 01, 2017
Snoosebaum - did you look at the global data I referenced? What is your point?

Cherry picking data does not come off well. Even looking at the data you referenced for Baltimore - there is a clear annual trend of increasing temperatures. Look at the trends if you want to understand the climate.

May 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

May 02, 2017
Dingbone - from your very objective article " In the last few thousands of years, the sea level has been rising at the rate of 0.2-1.0 inch per decade, and no acceleration has been detected in the last several decades." Come on - when your source contains total misinformation...
https://www.clima...ea-level

May 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

May 02, 2017
"Actually in postglacial period the rise of sea levels was way faster than today." Perhaps - but that does nothing to change the fact - that your reference contains information that is counter factual. Total rubbish.

May 02, 2017
@zeph
Brief Summary of Science for the Climate Debate
1- there is no debate
there are idiots who can't read and don't know the science who claim there is no AGW, and there is the evidence based science which proves they're idiots

2- political links to make a point about data and science?
really?

that is almost as stupid as making the argument about a failed debunked historical theory is somehow factual today even though the empirical evidence demonstrates that it's falsified to an incredibly high degree

... i mean, anything above 10^-17 is just incredibly high degree of accuracy, right?
no one in their right mind would deny that evidence unless they didn't comprehend what it meant...

oh, wait.
I see what you're doing now...

May 03, 2017
"1- there is no debate
there are idiots who can't read and don't know the science who claim there is no AGW, and there is the evidence based science which proves they're idiots"

Ok, what about the people saying that dry ice and water increase the energy in a system with constant and limited energy supply? And those who didn´t check the science and missed that absorption of heat in a heat absorber in the surroundings, doesn´t add heat the emitting body? The people saying GHG:s are insulating earth like a blanket?

"Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body"

So, should we call those people idiots or blanket people?

Prevost stated that the emission of a body depends on the internal state alone. Is the atmosphere part of the internal state of the surface?

May 03, 2017
Prevost's comment doesn't apply since from space, "the Earth" includes its atmosphere. Not to mention that the atmosphere getting warmer is the problem, not the ground.

Nice try, @Bark, but logically and scientifically incorrect.

May 03, 2017
Prevost's comment doesn't apply since from space, "the Earth" includes its atmosphere. Not to mention that the atmosphere getting warmer is the problem, not the ground.

Nice try, @Bark, but logically and scientifically incorrect.


Ok, that is a bold statement. Prevosts statement is a logical conclusion drawn from the fact that all solids glow at the same temperature. The draper point. Temperature and emission have an exclusive relationship independent of the mass of the body. This is the foundation of heat transfer and the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, that emission and absorption is relative to temperature only. The vacuum of space, the blackbody heat source of the sun, the infinite heat sink of 3K space, all give perfect circumstances for clean radiative heat transfer to earth.

To claim that Prevost´s statement wouldn´t apply since from space, is like saying that water is not wet if it comes from the ocean.

May 03, 2017
what about the people saying that dry ice and water increase the energy in a system with constant and limited energy supply?
@bark
dry ice?
WTF are you on about?
if you're referring to CO2, then please reference Lacis et al for starters, then proceed to the referenced material within said study

from there i recommend the following link: https://ocw.mit.e...=physics

on that link you can divert some time to Thermodynamics, should you want to learn more

most importantly, i also highly recommend not getting your data from political sites as this is not science, it's political agenda wrapped in techno-babble and often not correct (from any side)

you should be hitting up Google Scholar and studies for the science behind AGW as most studies are open since the denier camp started their BS "climate gate" arguments

May 03, 2017

WTF are you on about?
if you're referring to CO2, then please reference Lacis et al for starters, then proceed to the referenced material within said study

you should be hitting up Google Scholar and studies for the science behind AGW as most studies are open since the denier camp started their BS "climate gate" arguments


This is very, very old physics. It is the most fundamental theories of modern science, and you try to avoid attention to the fact that the study is based on a theory where adding dry ice in small quantities to cold, damp air at a mean temperature of -18C, can increase the intensity of emission from the heat source, earth surface. The emission of a body, the atmosphere or earth surface, depends on the temperature alone. You need to read up on the foundation of modern physics. There is no experiments or observations showing how co2 increase the amount of heat without adding more energy. Do you mean that co2 create energy?

May 03, 2017
Prevost's comment doesn't apply since from space, "the Earth" includes its atmosphere. Not to mention that the atmosphere getting warmer is the problem, not the ground.

Nice try, @Bark, but logically and scientifically incorrect.
Ok, that is a bold statement.
No, not really.

Prevosts statement is a logical conclusion drawn from the fact that all solids glow at the same temperature.
"The Earth" is not a solid. It has an atmosphere. You're obfuscating. It's not working.

May 03, 2017
Bark - are you asserting that adding greenhouse gases (C02, CH4, water vapor) to the atmosphere of the earth - will not affect the temperature of the earth?

May 03, 2017

Prevosts statement is a logical conclusion drawn from the fact that all solids glow at the same temperature.
"The Earth" is not a solid. It has an atmosphere. You're obfuscating. It's not working.


You are not very clear in your argument. You write that our planet is not a solid. I never thought I would ask someone to give a reference for their claim that the ground they stand on is not solid, and the reason for the planet not being solid is the atmosphere. But here I am, so please do!

You are right about something not working. It is the argument that you can increase the amount of energy in a system heated by a blackbody by increasing the amount of dry ice in the thin gas-layer surrounding it. Just a tiny amount of dry ice is enough to bring raging heat that means catastrophe. The really strange part is that you don´t need to add energy, energy supply is constant.

May 03, 2017
You are not very clear in your argument.
I think my argument is perfectly clear. The Earth is not a solid. You are arguing from a finding about solids. Your argument is logically flawed from the first sentence:
Prevosts statement is a logical conclusion drawn from the fact that all solids glow at the same temperature.
I didn't and don't see any reason to look at it further.

It's unfortunate but obvious that you don't understand the first thing about thermodynamics.

May 03, 2017
Bark - are you asserting that adding greenhouse gases (C02, CH4, water vapor) to the atmosphere of the earth - will not affect the temperature of the earth?


I think you read well enough to see understand what I assert. But I am a nice person so I will make it easy for you.
There is no data from experiments or observation that you can increase the energy density inside a system with constant, limited energy supply, by just adding a heat absorber.

Would you like to answer the question:

Can you give a reference for the claim that co2 alone can increase the intensity emitted by the heat source heating it with constant limited energy supply?

May 03, 2017
Just noticed this second boner:
There is[sic] no experiments or observations showing how co2 increase[sic] the amount of heat without adding more energy.
Strawman argument. No one is arguing that CO₂ "increase[sic] the amount of heat."

More obfuscation. More thermodynamics ignorance. The ignore stick is looking better and better.

Edit: We cross-posted, but you made the same strawman argument again. If you can't even correctly represent the arguments you oppose, it's obvious you can't hope to refute them.

May 03, 2017

It's unfortunate but obvious that you don't understand the first thing about thermodynamics.


Then please educate me.
There is no data from experiments or observation that show how greenhouse gases can increase the intensity of the heat source heating it (earth surface)

1.Why do you say that increasing the fraction of dry ice in the troposphere at a mean -18C, is increasing the temperature of the earth surface?

2.Or even the atmosphere?

3.What mechanism allow the intensity of heat to increase in the system by only adding tiny amounts of dry ice, but no energy?

4.If you don´t add energy, just heat absorbers, where is the energy created that doesn´t come from the sun?.

You are aware of what the greenhouse theory actually says, are you?

May 03, 2017
Just noticed this second boner:
There is[sic] no experiments or observations showing how co2 increase[sic] the amount of heat without adding more energy.
Strawman argument. No one is arguing that CO₂ "increase[sic] the amount of heat."

More obfuscation. More thermodynamics ignorance. The ignore stick is looking better and better.


Nice, you like to play with words. I like physics. Everyone likes different things, and that is ok.

We can exchange the word heat for energy, or temperature, if it is easier for you to focus on those words.

Can you give a reference for the scientific foundation where we can learn about the relationship between heat absorbers and temperature? That show how there is no need for energy to be added, if you add a heat absorber to the surroundings of a heat source?


May 03, 2017
4.If you don´t add energy, just heat absorbers, where is the energy created that doesn´t come from the sun?.

Can you point to where anybody has said this?

You are aware of what the greenhouse theory actually says, are you?

I think it's apparent that you're not familiar with it. You might try reading up on it: https://scienceof...-effect/

May 03, 2017
Then please educate me.
Sure.

Energy enters the Earth system (Earth + atmosphere) with a peak in the visible light part of the EM spectrum, peaking specifically in the green part of that spectrum; the atmosphere is transparent in that portion of the spectrum. The light is absorbed by the ground increasing its temperature. Because the ground is considerably cooler than the Sun, its peak is below the visible light part; it's in the infrared. Near the peak of the Earth's Wien curve (that's the curve the peak of the spectrum is in, determined by the temperature), CO₂ has a few absorption lines. This means that it absorbs some of the heat radiated by the ground. That heat then is either re-radiated in a random direction, or enters the atmosphere as mechanical vibration.

The more CO₂, the more heat is absorbed. The atmosphere thus is warmer with more CO₂.

There. Are you educated now?

May 03, 2017
There is no experiments or observations showing how co2 increase the amount of heat without adding more energy. Do you mean that co2 create energy?
@bark
strawman and epic thermodynamics fail
see also: http://blog.times...ct/1196/

simple and easily understood
There is no data from experiments or observation that show how greenhouse gases can increase the intensity of the heat source heating it (earth surface)
you mean like Evans 2006? hell the even managed to segregate WV from the other GHG's

that was the first one to come up at google scholar... there were only about 100K others though

do you know anything about radiative forcing/trapping?
Then please educate me.
there are plenty of sites to do exactly that, including my links above
or you can check out certain blogs that are using studies to validate the claims - but you already know that one

you're here for something else


May 03, 2017
I didn't and don't see any reason to look at it further.

It's unfortunate but obvious that you don't understand the first thing about thermodynamics.


It is really hard to see what your argument is. Do you mean that the discoveries from thermodynamics childhood, where Prevost drew the conclusion about the exclusive relationship between temperature and emission, has been falsified? It would be big news and I´m sure I would not have missed that.
What was it you didn´t look at further? Prevost´s statement or the evolution of thermodynamics that followed it? The science that over and over again confirmed the independent relationship between temperature of the emitter and the emitted intensity?

Since you bring up the subject of first things that can be understood:

The first thing about thermodynamics that you need to understand is that Prevost´s statement is the foundation for thermodynamics. The internal state and the emission.

May 03, 2017
It is really hard to see what your argument is.
No it's not. It's perfectly straightforward. You're claiming the Earth is a solid object, and you're wrong. See how easy it is?

May 03, 2017

strawman and epic thermodynamics fail
see also: greenhouse-effect

Did you just give me a reference to the greenhouse theory to validate greenhouse theory?

you mean like Evans 2006? hell the even managed to segregate WV from the other GHG's

that was the first one to come up at google scholar... there were only about 100K others though


So, if I read there, I will learn how adding a heat absorber to a system can increase the temperature? Experimental study or computer climate?

do you know anything about radiative forcing/trapping?


I know that in physics we either have a force or we don´t. The word forcing is a slippery one. It is unique for the greenhouse theory. Where it is something that adds energy to a system without adding energy. I usuallly call that creation of energy. For some reason you have been allowed to include that when you try to change policy.

May 03, 2017
It is really hard to see what your argument is.
No it's not. It's perfectly straightforward. You're claiming the Earth is a solid object, and you're wrong. See how easy it is?


So your argument is that dry ice can heat the earth without adding any energy, because the earth is not solid. That is another statement I never thought I would need ask anyone to support with a reference. But, here I am, and go ahead!

May 03, 2017

I know that in physics we either have a force or we don´t. The word forcing is a slippery one. It is unique for the greenhouse theory. Where it is something that adds energy to a system without adding energy. I usuallly call that creation of energy. For some reason you have been allowed to include that when you try to change policy.

You might read up on it (https://en.m.wiki..._forcing ). No energy needs to be created, just prevention of energy from leaving.

May 03, 2017
It is really hard to see what your argument is.
No it's not. It's perfectly straightforward. You're claiming the Earth is a solid object, and you're wrong. See how easy it is?


So your argument is that dry ice can heat the earth
Nope, and you are strawmanning again. I never claimed anything of the kind and defy you to show where I did. I've shown exactly where you claimed the Earth is a solid object, and exactly where that's wrong. You keep trying to either change the subject to dry ice or claim there's something "hard" about not getting the fact that the Earth is not a solid object because it's covered with air. You're really flailing. It's pretty pitiful. Maybe you should stay off science sites if you believe these kinds of fairy tales.

May 03, 2017

You might read up on it (https://en.m.wiki..._forcing ). No energy needs to be created, just prevention of energy from leaving.


Cool. Preventing energy from leaving is something I gave a wikipedia reference for higher up. It is called thermal insulation and it says;

"Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body"

So when you say in the GH-theory it works the opposite way, that absorption is something that prevent energy from leaving, how do you mean?

The link to wiki about forcing, why do you use that reference? It does not give any information about why the GH-theory use a mechanism for adding energy without energy, does it? Can you show us any other references outside your nice little GH-theory where that mechanism is confirmed?

May 03, 2017
I've shown exactly where you claimed the Earth is a solid object, and exactly where that's wrong. You keep trying to either change the subject to dry ice or claim there's something "hard" about not getting the fact that the Earth is not a solid object because it's covered with air


Ok, so when a solid is surrounded by air, it is not solid anymore? I´m trying to understand your argument here, but it makes no sense. Can you give any references outside the GH-theory?

Ok, yes. I claim that our planet is solid. What is your objection? Is it a gas planet? Liquid?

And how does that change things. Why do I not need to add energy if I want to heat a planet that is not solid?

May 03, 2017
Were you an African American psychiatrist or a nurse in a former life? Or a CIA cryptographer? NASA engineer maybe? Oooh, I know, you were a Green Beret AND a Seal, right?

May 03, 2017
Ok, so when a solid is surrounded by air, it is not solid anymore?
Nope. You're strawmanning again.

This is becoming boring. Stop lying about what people say. Next post you do this, it's time for the ignore button.

May 03, 2017
Bark
I think you read well enough to see understand what I assert.
Well - you obfuscate a lot - so it is good to nail it down - and then it is clear for those who are reading along. The green house effect is very well understood. It is also pretty straight forward. Read up on it if you want - https://www.skept...fect.htm
http://solar-cent...arm.html

May 03, 2017
So when you say in the GH-theory it works the opposite way, that absorption is something that prevent energy from leaving, how do you mean?

Did you bother to read any of Da Schneib's response about re-radiating energy? Some of the energy that's re-radiated by greenhouse gases goes back to the surface, increasing the energy there above what it would be without the greenhouse gases.

At this point, I think Bark understands he's talking nonsense and is just being argumentative because reasons.

May 04, 2017
Did you just give me a reference to ...
@barf
are you building a strawman argument based on your lack of knowledge of physics because you can't take the time to read the studies that refute your denial?
So, if I read there, I will learn how adding a heat absorber to a system can increase the temperature?
no, you will learn: This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.
Experimental study or computer climate?
answered in the abstract, which i just quoted
The word forcing is a slippery one
not if it is explicitly defined
if you want to talk climate you need to utilise their lexicon
For some reason you have been allowed to include that when you try to change policy
i'm not talking politics, you are
i already told you to skip those sites because you won't get legit science from them

May 04, 2017
cont'd
Ok, so when a solid is surrounded by air, it is not solid anymore? I´m trying to understand your argument here, but it makes no sense
no, you're being obtuse for the purpose of building a strawman argument based upon your specific bias (AKA- denial of the science)

this is demonstrated when i link a study and in the abstract it specifically states it's experimental, observed as well as then modeled, yet you asked if it was "Experimental study or computer climate"

if you want to demonstrate ignorance or play that game, you will learn that the science doesn't care what you believe or what your political orientation is... the facts are true regardless

as a side note: Wiki can be a decent reference if said linked references in the article validate the claim
that means: the scientific facts are facts whether you or your political friends believe it or not

May 04, 2017
Were you an African American psychiatrist or a nurse in a former life? Or a CIA cryptographer? NASA engineer maybe? Oooh, I know, you were a Green Beret AND a Seal, right?


All of them.

May 04, 2017
Ok, so when a solid is surrounded by air, it is not solid anymore?
Nope. You're strawmanning again.

This is becoming boring. Stop lying about what people say. Next post you do this, it's time for the ignore button.


But you refuse to say anything. You can ignore physics all you want. Not a problem for me.

I am asking questions to you, to find out. How is a question a strawman?

Are you saying that the earth is not solid? How does a cold skin of air make it possibel to raise temperature without adding energy, when the fraction co2 increase? Why can absorption in an atmosphere prevent heat loss when we need to prevent absorption to do that in all other cases?

Are these strawmans? Or could you answer them in another way than hiding behind a word?

May 04, 2017
answered in the abstract, which i just quoted


No, sorry. FTIR spectroscopy and absorption is what that study is about. This is what I mean about not being clear and focused. You know the difference between absorption and emission?
If you show how a gas absorbs radiation, you show how the amount of heat decrease in the surroundings of that gas. Just like the absorption spectrum from the atmosphere show how co2 decrease the intensity of surface emission to space.


if you want to talk climate you need to utilise their lexicon


I think it is more about climate scientists that need a basic physics course. "Forcing" is something that only exist in the greenhouse theory. It has the function where energy increase in the system without adding energy, just heat absorbers. Like I said, in physics there is a force or there is not a force. Physics doesn´t use these ghost-mechanisms like "forcings".


May 04, 2017
@Captain Stumpy
no, you're being obtuse for the purpose of building a strawman argument based upon your specific bias (AKA- denial of the science)


It is fine if you want to talk about other stuff. Like what names you use to describe people that don´t agree with you. But, please, when I ask questions about the validity of your claims, referring to proven physics, could we do name-calling later?

in the abstract it specifically states it's experimental, observed as well as then modeled

You prove my point. You don´t know the physics of radiation. Absorption is not emission.

" the facts are true regardless"
That is my point.

Wiki can be a decent reference if said linked references in the article validate the claim

That refers to what? My copypasta from the wiki-article on thermal insulation? Or your circular argumentation when you use links to a *blog* explaining GH-theory or wiki-articles about made up concepts called "forcing"?

May 04, 2017
@Captain Stumpy
you're being obtuse for the purpose of building a strawman argument based upon your specific bias (AKA- denial of the science)

It is fine if you want to talk about other stuff. Like what names you use to describe people that don´t agree with you. But, please, when I ask questions about the validity of your claims, referring to proven physics, could we do name-calling later?
in the abstract it specifically states it's experimental, observed as well as then modeled

You prove my point. You don´t know the physics of radiation. Absorption is not emission.
the facts are true regardless

That is my point.
Wiki can be a decent reference if said linked references in the article validate the claim

That refers to what?argumentation when you use links to a *blog* explaining GH-theory or wiki-articles about made up concepts called "forcing"?

May 04, 2017

Some of the energy that's re-radiated by greenhouse gases goes back to the surface, increasing the energy there above what it would be without the greenhouse gases.

This argument is also about something unique that only happens in the GH-theory. Heat, thermal radiation, is thoroughly studied over a long time. This re-radiation that you write about, it has not been shown anywhere to increase the temperature of the heat source heating it.

At this point, I think Bark understands he's talking nonsense and is just being argumentative because reasons.


So you think thermal physics is nonsense. That explains quite a lot. Would you say that your view is typical within climate science?

May 04, 2017
@ greenonions1
Read up on it if you want - https://www.skept...fect.htm


I have read all of it. And you can find my comments on that page. I was met with the same name-calling and attempts to divert attention from the problems of the GH-theory there. It is not scientific at all, that page. Just look at the amount of erased comments, the comment section is full of just erased comments. There is no way around the fact that it is a sign of censorship and intolerance to being questioned. To read the comments there gives me a chinese feeling, if you catch my drift.

I have read everything I can find on the greenhouse theory. The questions remain.
Why can absorption in the greenhouse theory prevent heat loss, when proven physics say that you want the opposite for prevention of heat loss?
How can greenhouse gases add energy to a system without adding energy?
What is the difference between a "forcing" and a force?

May 04, 2017
Da Schneib
Earth is not a solid object because it's covered with air.


I think this statement you made is important so I want to go back to where I started. The draper point show how all solids start glowing at the same temperature, temperature and emission is thereby proven to have an independent relationship. The earth we stand on is solid rock at the crust. The inside is glowing. I think that there is no doubt about that earth we live on is a solid, and funnily enough, it also glows. This qualifies it to fall under the description of the draper point. Even though the relationship between emission and temperature applies to everything anyway, earth is a perfect example.
Now, you seem hung up on the atmosphere being a cold fluid. I say a cold fluid is not something that makes earth hotter. You claim that the greenhouse theory show that it does. How cana cold fluid make a glowing solid with a crust hotter?

May 04, 2017
@Da Schneib
the Earth is not a solid object because it's covered with air.


Here you clearly say that the earth is not a solid object because it is covered with air. I have not seen this in any textbooks, and neither has someone else. So could you please support this extraordinary statement with a reference? The reference per definition have to be from a non-greenhouse theory source in physics, since you try to use the statement to validate the greenhouse theory.

I wonder if you are trolling? Because the above statement leaves no doubt that you lack all education in physics needed to make claims about temperature and radiation.

May 04, 2017
@Da Schneib
That heat then is either re-radiated in a random direction, or enters the atmosphere as mechanical vibration.
The more CO₂, the more heat is absorbed. Are you educated now?


Oh, you mean that heat as mechanical vibration doesn´t show up as emission? Sorry, all heat does. Emission is dependent on temperature only, and temperature is the thing we use to determine the amount of heat that leaves a body, atmosphere or solid.

When co2 absorb heat from the earth, and absorption spectrum show how the intensity of emitted heat from the atmosphere reduce the heat on it´s way to space, how is that a sign of anything getting hotter? You need increased emission to show heating and rising temperature. The atmosphere and greenhouse gases show the opposite.

Are you educated now?


Well, yes, it seems like I am. It turned out to be your problem, not being educated. Not mine.

May 04, 2017
@Da Schneib

You said:
the Earth is not a solid object because it's covered with air.


Then I asked a question, because I think this statement is a mystery. I asked:

"Ok, so when a solid is surrounded by air, it is not solid anymore?"

Because, as you see above, your exact words were that the earth is not a solid because it is surrounded by air. Your answer:

Nope. You're strawmanning again.


Are you sure that you know the meaning of the word strawman? Because citing you, and asking a question using your exact words is not strawmanning. I want to make sure you know what you are saying by giving you the opportunity to repeat it when I ask you that question. Or, you could choose to change your mind, to say that solids are solids, even when surrounded by air. Do you stand by your statement? That if air is surrounding a solid object, the solid object is not a solid object.

It's pretty pitiful.


The air or the solid?

May 04, 2017
Asked and answered. Not my problem if you don't like the answer. I got no time for this, and you did it again. Bye now.

May 04, 2017
@Captain Stumpy
@barf


Did you accidently hit the wrong key here? It seems strange, because k and f is pretty far apart. Or is there another reason for you calling me "barf". Is it a scientific reason?

May 04, 2017
Just one parting shot: if Earth has weather, is that weather underground? This is duh ummm.

May 04, 2017
Asked and answered. Not my problem if you don't like the answer. I got no time for this, and you did it again. Bye now.

Ok, I feel confident knowing that comments are still here for everyone to read. How about you?

May 04, 2017
@Da Schneib

Just one parting shot: if Earth has weather, is that weather underground? This is duh ummm.


Another mystery statement. The earth has an atmosphere, the earth is heated by a blackbody heat source that is balanced to a glowing solid rock/mineral/metal ball, called planet Earth. The glowing interior of the planet has a fluid atmosphere that is heated by the solid part of the system with a known limited and constant amount of energy. "Weather" is what we call the turbulent changes in water vapor and other gases as they fluctuate in a circulation according to how much heat it absorbs at a certain moment in a certain location.

I thought everyone knew this, at least here, on this page. Why do you ask if the weather is underground? And, wasn´t this about climate? And dry ice causing temperature of the heat source heating it, to rise?

May 04, 2017

Another mystery statement. The earth has an atmosphere, the earth is heated by a blackbody heat source that is balanced to a glowing solid rock/mineral/metal ball, called planet Earth. The glowing interior of the planet has a fluid atmosphere that is heated by the solid part of the system with a known limited and constant amount of energy. "Weather" is what we call the turbulent changes in water vapor and other gases as they fluctuate in a circulation according to how much heat it absorbs at a certain moment in a certain location.

I thought everyone knew this, at least here, on this page. Why do you ask if the weather is underground? And, wasn´t this about climate? And dry ice causing temperature of the heat source heating it, to rise?


So what happens when you change the composition of the gases in the atmosphere?

May 04, 2017
@Da Schneib
Asked and answered. Not my problem if you don't like the answer.. Bye now.


I have learned that when dealing with religious people, be it climate religion, christianity or Islam, you need to just keep repeating your questions about the claims about unnatural things that is supposed to guide our moral in policy-making. Because the debate around all those three religions, is caused by policy making based on claims that has not been proven.

I found some problems with your faith in the GH-theory that is about radiation, absorption and emission, and how you model earth as a body that is not solid, only because it is covered with air. So I gave you questions about your claims, and I repeat them. Because religious people always respond the same way. They avoid answerring it, like you did. And it becomes clear to everyone reading it. But the questioned preacher will deny it all the way to the door, which he is seen running towa

May 04, 2017
@434a
So what happens when you change the composition of the gases in the atmosphere?


From what to what? Can we first establish what happens when you add cold, damp air to a glowing body with a shell, that is heated by a much hotter heat source? And then talk about smaller changes?

Can we start with this question: Can you increase the temperature inside a system heated by an external heat source, by adding heat absorbing gas, but not adding any energy? Any system, forget about earth for a minute. Then add the ultimate heat sink of space vacuum. Then make sure the temperature of the absorber is an average of 33 degrees colder than the hot surface in the system. Can we start there?

May 04, 2017

Can we start with this question: Can you increase the temperature inside a system heated by an external heat source, by adding heat absorbing gas, but not adding any energy?


Yes.

I could boil a litre of ethanol, outside with an air temp of 20°C at 1 atmosphere.
The temperature of the heat source 250°C, the temperature of the environment will remain 20°C, the ethanol will boil at 78.37 °C

If I add 10% water by volume to the ethanol and repeat the experiment with all of the other parameters being the same the boil point will be 79°C

Replace ethanol with air, water with CO2, heat source with Sun, atmosphere with space.


May 04, 2017
Yes.
The temperature of the heat source 250°C, the temperature of the environment will remain 20°C, the ethanol will boil at 78.37 °C
If I add 10% water by volume to the ethanol and repeat the experiment with all of the other parameters being the same the boil point will be 79°C


I simplify by giving them all the same surface area.

The intensity of the heat source is 4145W/m^2, correct? The surroundings have the intensity of a body at 417W/m^2, correct? The ethanol boils with an intensity of 860W/m^2, correct?

If so, the ethanol only absorbs about 860W/m^2, and 3300W/m^2 is absorbed into the surroundings by different mechanisms. Where do you see the plate getting hotter?

I would say, the empty pan would be the earth surface, and pouring water into it is like oceans, with steam being the atmosphere. Which is hotter, empty pan or the one with liquid in it? Same amount of energy? Then submerge into 3K vacuum of space...

May 04, 2017
@434a
Replace ethanol with air, water with CO2, heat source with Sun, atmosphere with space.


This is so simple physics. I really don´t understand why you always need to replace everything with something else to explain it. And I mean no offence, because you at least keep on topic. But it is always blankets or insulation, co2 is gasoline at skepticalreligion.com, and so on...

Co2 is dry ice, the atmosphere is really cold, there are no radiant barriers, there is nothing preventing absorption which is what is needed for heat retention. There is no reflection of thermal IR. There is only a highway into the bottomless heat sink in space, and a couple more heat sinks on the way, where co2 is one of them. You can easily feel its absorptive power, just put some dry ice in your hand...

May 04, 2017
@434a

For your own sake, you seem like a reasonable guy, spend some time reading the many experiments about absorption of heat in co2, maybe start with Hottel. Try to find some support for what the greenhouse theory say, that water vapor and co2 can increase the amount of energy in a system without adding energy. Temperature is a measure of the average energy of a volume of mass. If you add mass, the average energy drops, if you add energy, the temperature rise. You claim that adding potent heat absorbing mass to a system with limited and constant energy supply, increase the average energy level per molecule. Do you see the problem? That is what we call "creation of energy".

May 04, 2017
@434a
You claim that adding potent heat absorbing mass to a system with limited and constant energy supply, increase the average energy level per molecule. Do you see the problem? That is what we call "creation of energy".


No I don't claim that. I claim that the [b]rate[/b] at which heat is lost varies depending on the medium which is mediating the transfer. Pretty simple stuff. Change the properties of the medium and the transfer rate will change. In the Earth's atmosphere the consequence of more CO2 is a decrease in the rate of transfer. That slower rate of transfer means an increase in the total energy in the system at any one time. The consequences to us would be more volatile weather conditions. I'm certainly not talking about the surface temperature of the material Earth, I'm talking about the energy within the atmosphere - I would include the oceans as they are just condensed atmosphere.

May 04, 2017
Guys, you're falling for arguing with a psycho again. The deluded person is always correct, and will never sere logic or reason - psychosis simply never works that way.
Bark is a delusional psycho engaging in fecal regurgitation to validate his delusions. He just made my ignore list.

May 04, 2017
@434a
In the Earth's atmosphere the consequence of more CO2 is a decrease in the rate of transfer.

Here we have another problem. The surface transfer heat to the atmosphere. The rate of transfer is according to the difference in temperature. T1^4-T2^4. When absorption of heat in T2 increase, but the a rise in T1 is not the initial change (you do claim that absorption is the changing factor), it means that the temperature T2 is dropping. That means that the rate of transfer INCREASE. And the surface needs to account for both emission and transfer.
That slower rate of transfer means an increase in the total energy in the system at any one time.

I agree, that would be true. The problem is that you make claims about increasing absorption, which means lower temperature. Try this, which absorbs most heat, cold water or hot water?

May 04, 2017
@434a
I'm talking about the energy within the atmosphere - I would include the oceans as they are just condensed atmosphere.


Ok, few climate religion defenders acknowledge this. So you are actually more scientific than most of them. Then, we are not talking about an actual heating of the planet, we are talking about a less cold atmosphere? If I accept that increased absorption in the troposphere would work in the opposite way to what physics say, and the troposphere temperature is 254 Kelvin on average, about -18C. What will the less freezing temperature be? -17.5C?
Since the surface temperature(air close to surface), is entirely dominated by emission from the surface, and an increasing rate of absorption in the troposphere would mean colder temperature close to the surface, how much colder will the close-to-surface temp be?

I would say the atmosphere is excited(vaporized) oceans, not condensed atmosphere.

May 04, 2017
Guys, you're falling for arguing with a psycho again. The deluded person is always correct, and will never sere logic or reason - psychosis simply never works that way.

That is a very harsh comment. I thought this was a discussion about science, but you talk like a hate-preacher.
Bark is a delusional psycho engaging in fecal regurgitation to validate his delusions. He just made my ignore list.


You could have cited me to make your point clear. Show where I make delusional claims that are not based on physics. When you use words like "psycho" in a discussion about scientific issues, you really come out like the one less mentally stable.

May 04, 2017
He just made my ignore list.

This is a common reaction among believers in the doomsday climate religion of the dry-ice burning hell. Stick your head in the sand if any skeptic arguments are presented. Don´t listen to anyone. Because the high priests of IPCC has told you that they are sinners and evil. Now give your power to IPCC so they can start the world government that they have claimed to be needed to save you from yourself. You see, according to the priests of your religion, you can not think for yourself, you are harmful to yourself and your surroundings. So you must give your power to them and Al Gore, because they have made big bets on winning world governance.

May 04, 2017
@434a
the consequence of more CO2 is a decrease in the rate of transfer. That slower rate of transfer means an increase in the total energy in the system at any one time.


I want to put extra attention to this. Observations show how emission decrease from co2, or increasing co2, I hope we agree on that? Emission is dependent on temperature, and established 100% consensus physics confirm this. It has not been proven wrong, on the contrary, it is one of those things in science that no one would even dare to contradict.
Absorption increase and emission decrease from the atmosphere when co2 increase. I think you can agree that what we see is decreasing temperature in the atmosphere from the increasing co2 then? Quite often we see the claim that this decrease in emission is the "forcing" that increase temperature of the surface(yes, most scientist mean solid surface).

The equation for heat transfer say that you are wrong. How do you relate to that?

May 04, 2017
https://www.ncdc....ear=2017

Could someone point to the "pause" for me?

May 04, 2017
@PTTG
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/12/1/1880-2017?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1880&lasttrendyear=2017

Could someone point to the "pause" for me?


Sure. You need to make a graph of absolute temperature. Don´t be shy, use Kelvin full scale, because that shows the energy in the system more clearly. Don´t pack the timeline to tight either, but it doesn´t matter much anyway. If you do such a graph, it will be very hard to see any change at all. You will come out of the experience saying "the pause have lasted for a 100 years, and more". And life will be happy everafter. Here is my "trick", and it is better than Michael Mann`s: Don´t listen to doomsday preachers, it will just make you sad. If they have been wrong several times, and try to get to your(ours) money, turn aroun and run. Call the police, because that is criminal behaviour.

May 04, 2017
So you're saying modify the data until it tells you want you want to hear.

May 04, 2017
PTTG
So you're saying modify the data until it tells you want you want to hear.


No, that is what you do when you graph anomalies and the scale is as tight as in the graph you linked to. The changes in that graph are about 0.1 in 10 years, and the time scale is packed tight as hell. What I am talking about is to not treat the data at all. Use straight temperature readings, but for honesty´s sake, use Kelvin to show the energy of the system, because that is what it is about, right?
You can make the Kelvin scale logaritmic, because the relationship to energy is logaritmic. If you want. Or use Celsius, it wont make a big difference as long as it covers readings. So, as you see, I say that you should NOT treat the data.
And when much warming comes from areas with no coverage in data(arctic), and southern hemisphere does not have good coverage, questions arise if the graph you link to should even be included in climate science. In climate religion you may do as you wish.

May 04, 2017
@PTTG

And the anomalies are relative to some decade in the 20th century. It seems like it is somewhat randomly chosen. Who decides what the baseline is when we only have roughly a century of temperature readings? Since 280ppm is not very far from the point where plants start dying from co2 starvation, isn´t it more likely that it is far from baseline, much below? Plant growth seems to be at optimal level around 1000ppm. Sure, there are variations in plants, but adding the fact that water transpiration gets lower at higher co2, it seems that more speaks towards trying to increase co2 in the atmosphere. Now I dont think humans make much of a difference, correlation is not causation in regards to the rising co2 in the last century. But hey, lets try harder! With lower fuel taxes I can drive more. And I like fishing, so I can fish further away more often if we lower taxes. I can try and get my dream job, finding oil for oil companies. If we work as a team we can make a difference!

May 04, 2017
https://www.ncdc....ear=2017

Could someone point to the "pause" for me?


How ironic. I´m not much for these studies about historical temperature data, since temperature and emission is instantaneous, but you seem to like them. So here is a gift from me to you, The Pause:

https://www.natur...iegel.de

May 04, 2017
@barf
No, sorry
wrong (again).
perhaps you should back track and read the entire conversation again
I think it is more about climate scientists that need a basic physics course
really?
ROTFLMFAO

so... you're saying that climate scientists from all over the planet being educated in various institutions all over the planet in an area of expertise that requires extreme physics knowledge and application are the ones who need to take a basic physics course?

that is called conspiracist ideation and indicates not only your personal bias (and delusion) but also dunning-kruger with a touch of political ideological bullsh*t
Physics doesn´t use these ghost-mechanisms like "forcings"
what part of using their lexicon did you misunderstand?
if you want to talk specifics about climate, you need to use climate lexicon because otherwise you will make confusing nonsensical comments like above


May 04, 2017
@barf cont'd
Did you accidently hit the wrong key here? It seems strange, because k and f is pretty far apart. Or is there another reason for you calling me "barf". Is it a scientific reason?
considering you're intentionally attempting to misconstrue data, present a strawman and now are (literally) calling everyone who is in climate science idiots who don't know basic physics... then no, it isn't an accident, even though it could have been with short fingers

call it a label to insure others are wise to your tactics

you have yet to actually address any science with anything other than your opinion, so considering that alone there is no need to present anything but derision for your insistence on denial...like this gem
That refers to what?
so you don't know what a reference is? considering the specific quote you posted of mine, it states you are ignorant of the basics of the scientific method as you don't know what the word "references" means...

May 04, 2017
@barf last
... to make a point
You could have cited me to make your point clear. Show where I make delusional claims that are not based on physics
ok - i can do that for ya!
I think it is more about climate scientists that need a basic physics course
here is another
I know that in physics we either have a force or we don´t. The word forcing is a slippery one. It is unique for the greenhouse theory. Where it is something that adds energy to a system without adding energy. I usuallly call that creation of energy
[sic]
there is plenty more, but essentially you're being obtuse for a purpose, and it's likely related to either:
1- denial and political rhetoric
2- http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

3- all of the above

May 04, 2017
Bark
How can greenhouse gases add energy to a system without adding energy?
That comment shows how little Bark understands the basic issues. How can a wool hat make you warmer - without adding energy to the system. Answer - it can affect the energy balance of the system. Zzzzzz is of course correct in assessing the futility of this argument. Bark does not understand first principles. Off out into the garden now.

May 04, 2017
@Captain Stumpy
you need to use climate lexicon because otherwise you will make confusing nonsensical comments like above


You really don´t want to face the fact that your "science" is full of violations of thermal physics. "Blocking of heat", "the atmosphere is like a blanket", "photons in all directions", "absorption is heating", "decreasing emission means heating" etc. etc.

No thank you. Now, go and play with your little unicorn forcing.

May 04, 2017
@greenonions1
How can a wool hat make you warmer - without adding energy to the system.

Here we go with the textiles again. Blanket people never learn. Wool, thermal insulation. Here:
"Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body."
https://en.wikipe...sulation
As you can see, it does the opposite of what the atmosphere does. And you really think your body temperature increase from wool? You wont freeze as much, but your body temperature wont rise.

Bark does not understand first principles. .


As I said, you need basic physics. Or just read the first paragraphs at wikipedia. Your physics knowledge is below average.

May 04, 2017
@Captain Stumpy

1- denial and political rhetoric
2- http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

3- all of the above


Here you go with the standard personal attacks again, instead of keeping on topic. Blanket people have gotten really aggressive, is it because people are dropping of from your church?

You think that knowledge about basic thermal physics, and arguments supported with references, makes me a psycho? That speaks volumes of climate science, I think you understand that?

May 04, 2017
@ Captain Mean
considering you're intentionally attempting to misconstrue data,

Where?
present a strawman and now are (literally) calling everyone who is in climate science idiots who don't know basic physics...


Where did I say idiots? About the physics, given what you say about absorption, it is true. Without doubt you need to study.

tcall it a label

I think most people reading can see who has a label. It says "rabies" on your forehead.


you have yet to actually address any science with anything other than your opinion

I did, with references. But you are religious, and that is always a problem in science.

denial

And the namecalling again. You have used your weapons, "denial" and personal attacks. Time for "fake facts", or can you try to keep it to the scientific issues of physics instead?

Do you realize you are coming out as a raging lunatic. Not even blanket people likes you now.

May 04, 2017
@Captain Stumpy

2- http://www.drexel...nge.ashx


Haha, I have read that type of crap earlier. They are hilarious. Only in climate science people write papers about why so many people won´t believe in their preached message. The rest of science focus on, yeah, science. There is not even a single word in that study that is scientific, it is pure propaganda.

Just like "consensus" used to defend a science of how dry ice will create a burning heat in the future. It´s just hiding in the ocean for a while. But yeah, be sure, the temperature is rising really fast, even though it´s not getting hotter anywhere. It just hides, probably in the arctic, because we have no data there. So, yeah, the arctic....and the ocean. Just wait, it´s gonna be soooo hot later. Just wait. And give the power to IPCC, so they can rule the world.

May 04, 2017
Bark
Your physics knowledge is below average.
You are perhaps correct. I did take a college level physics class - and like to read on the internet. But I am certainly not a physicist. What I can do is understand information presented by people who are physicists - and are very confident in their understanding of the " heat-trapping dynamics of the atmosphere" That quote was from https://physics.s...e-effect
Of course you have superior knowledge to all of the experts in the field of physics - who have studied, and continue to study the green house effect. Why would someone think that my level of physics literacy is in any way relevant to anything - when this number of trained scientists have already weighed in on the issue of "heat trapping emissions." http://www.ucsusa...548a1uM8
I'm sorry - what were your credentials again?

May 04, 2017
I have no idea why anyone is still talking to someone who thinks weather happens underground. @Bark is a troll.

May 04, 2017
@barfTROLL
You really don´t want to face the fact that your "science" is full of violations of thermal physics
here's the thing: if you could prove that you would be the hero of the denier movement and likely appointed head of EPA or some such agency
but you're not
and you've yet to produce even a single shred of evidence other than your claims about the science
Science is open - all you have to do is pass peer review
so it's far, far more telling that you have nothing but rhetoric
Here you go with the standard personal attacks again, instead of keeping on topic
really?
i linked topical studies, a blog and evidence
you've made a claim that all the worlds scientists are ignorant of physics

but you can't see why you're being treated like an idiot now?

perhaps you should peruse your own comments and re-think your global conspiracy?
or the intimation that the worlds inept... except you, who can... erm... what, exactly?
LOL

May 04, 2017
@barfbagTROLL cont'd
Where?
see above
Where did I say idiots?
actually, you claim the worlds climate scientists are inept at physics... and considering the bulk of their work is physics and thermodynamics, that means they're all idiots, or at least illiterate and part of a grand conspiracy (and an idiot by extrapolation)
besides being libel, it's also evidence of your own ineptitude - also known as projection
Without doubt you need to study
I did, with references
no, you made claims about references
you have yet to provide evidence that your claims are factual, relevant or even applicible

considering my initial links/ref's, you have used your weapons, false claims, reiteration of delusion, denial and projection. Time for your "fake facts" to hit the road, or can you try to keep it to the scientific issues?

Do you realize you are coming out as a raging lunatic? Not even denier idiots like you now

May 04, 2017
@barfbagTROLL cont'd
Haha, I have read that type of crap earlier. They are hilarious. Only in climate science people write papers about why so many people won´t believe in their preached message
see... you are doing it again
so, if you're even semi-cognizant of the scientific method than you would be able to refute the study with equivalent evidence showing said information to be false

you can't
so instead you make a claim, like above (denial of science) then denigrate the study and call it propaganda
why?

more to the point: why can't you provide an equivalent refute?
i can answer that one: because it doesn't exist
not even the koch brothers want to publish their delusional refute because that is technically fraud

that is almost as stupid as your argument about consensus science - it doesn't exist
if there is a fact, then said fact is validated, it becomes a scientific fact
AGW and warming is a scientific fact

deny it all you want - it doesn't change the fact

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more