Best products from r/climateskeptics

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but the debate is how potent of a climate gas CO2 is when added to our atmosphere. How much of the warming since 1850 is caused by CO2 is uncertain because other forcings influence the temperature simultaneously.

In climate modeling "ECS"(Equilbrium Climate Sensitivity")
expresses the potency of CO2 as a climate gas. ECS expresses how much temperature increases from doubling CO2 at equilibrium. Changes in "forcings" take centuries to fully propagate in climate due to thermal inertia, and ECS is "at equilibrium".*

The IPCC in AR5 (2014) stated that the (ECS) is "likely between 1.5 and 4.5"
The climate models "CMIP5" cited by IPCC in AR5 have an average ECS of 3.2.

The significance of ECS=1.5 would be huge, implying almost no further warming this century.
CO2 has increased from around 280 ppm in 1850 to around 410 in 2019 (due to human emissions), and in that time the temperature on earth has increased approximately 1 degC. Atmospheric CO2 looks set to hit 560 ppm (a double from 1850-levels) sometime late this century. ECS of 1.5 will imply another 1.5-1=0.5 degC of eventual warming, while ECS=3.2 implies 3.2-1=2.2 degC eventual warming.

The IPCC have themselves observed that lower ECS better fit observations and that their climate models are running hot.
ECS can be estimated directly from data without climate models.
AR5 WG1 technical report states that "best fit to the observed surface and ocean warming for ECS values in the lower part of the likely range" (page 84) ("no best estimate for ECS is given because of a lack of agreement").
"For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than the observations" (Box 1.1, Figure 1a). A comparison of temperature and CMIP5 model predictions can be found here.

ECS estimates vary based on what temperature sets are considered, choice of start- and end-dates in the analysis, carbon-cycle modeling and what warming is attributed to other sources.
Temperature datasets differ significantly. Using the sattellite dataset UAH (starting in 1979) and removing vulcanic events and El-Ninos results in ECS-estimates in the 1.5-2 range [paper1], [paper2].
Man-made emissions are part of a larger carbon cycle, and simulations of the "coupled earth-system response" to man-made CO2-emissions indicate TCR below 1
The accelerated recent warming in datasets like GISTEMP is not corroborated by an accelerated sea level rise at tidal gauges, indicating that warming in them may be spurious. "homogenization" in GISTEMP is accused of spurious warming, and an audit of HADCRUT4 has found serious data-quality issues.

Changes in solar forcing occurs on longer timescales than our satellite- or instrumental records, and is potentially the cause of exaggerated ECS estimates. The solar activity is known to oscillate with 11-year cycles, but also longer ones (see and sources therein) including a grand 350-400 year cycle and a major ~1000 year cycle. Solar forcing(TSI) had two major minima (1645–1706 Maunder solar minimum and 1810–1838 Dalton solar minimum) prior to the beginning of the instrumental temperature record around ~1850. The period 1700-1850 is referred to as the end of the Little Ice Age(LIA), a time when historical sources document average winter temperatures dropping 2 degrees (in Europe). After a dip around 1900 TSI has been increasing throughout the 20th century.
There is ample evidence that 1850, start of the instrumental record and baseline pre-industrial temperature, was an unusually cold period. Temperatures will have recovered gradually after 1850 due to climate inertia and gradual TSI increase, a temperature recovery that could be mistaken for CO2-related warming.

Climate models cited by IPCC assume that solar forcing varies little, potentially causing the warming after the LIA to be wrongly attributed to CO2 increases. TSI estimates before about 1980 are constructed from proxies and are uncertain, while satellite measurements exist since then. Some TSI estimates are "high variability" while other are "low variability". A low-variability solar forcing dataset is mandated in "CMIP5" climate models.
Some authors have studied ocean temperatures found that historical changes in ocean temperature are 5-7 times
greater than TSI-estimates suggest (but no accepted explanation as to why).
Changes in low-variability TSI-estimates are also too low to explain the temperature declines at the end of the LIA. These observations hint that TSI may be changing far more on the timescale of centuries than is currently thought. The "high-variability" Hoyt&Schatten TSI-estimate is correlated with the equator-pole temperature gradient and a causal link has been suggested. If Hoyt&Schatten is a better estimate of TSI, it would directly explain much of the solar "amplification" seen.

Solar forcing variability of just 5 W/m2 or 0.3% would be enough to explain the 1 degC warming since 1850. TSI ~1360 W/m2 raises the earth's temperature from around -268 degC to 15 degC (284 degC), a gain of 0.209 degC per W/m2. Existing "high-variability" TSI-estimates vary by 3-4 W/m2 over the past centuries.

CMIP5 model properties indicate that solar forcing is under-estimated. As solar activity fell from around 2000 (as seen here ),
CMIP5 models have run warm, as the IPCC itself states.
If climate models underestimate TSI-increases, one would expect that they would need larger-than-life ECS-estimates be able to describe the warming of the past century, and this is exactly what has happend: "AOGCMs [...]with ECS values in the upper part of the 1.5 to 4.5°C range show very good agreement with observed climatology"(WG1 AR5 report). This discrepancy should be seen as a sign of structural model errors rather than evidence of a high ECS.

Compensating for "high-variability" TSI-changes results in ECS even lower than 1.5.
ECS estimates based on "high variability" Hoyt&Schatten TSI-estimate gave an ECS of 0.44. Authors hand-picked rural temperatures, but would still have obtained low ECS estimates with other data sets. It was encouraging that their model autonomously chose a gain of 0.210 degC per W/m2 (close to expected value).

Exaggerated ECS in CMIP5 is evidenced by IPCC observations that (a) temperature predictions overshoot since 1998, and (b) lower ECS better fit observations. Under-attributed (1)solar variability, (2)transient warming after LIA, and (3)carbon-cycle response could separately or jointly explain the discrepancy. Persistent flaws in climate research is plausible, outside investigators have commented on the the tendency to downplay flaws in climate research and to withhold data requests and on weaknesses of models used.
ECS 1.5,the low end of the IPCC likely range, indicates only 0.5 degree of eventual extra warming from CO2-concentration doubling by late century, and would have enormous policy implications.

(Peer-reviewed literature where possible, presumably vetted by independent reviewers. Known that some of the cited authors are shunned by established climate scientists.)

*= "TCR" (Transient Climate Response) expresses the temperature change immediately after doubling CO2 gradually, before transients settling. TCR and ECS both express the potency of CO2, TCR is often lower than ECS by 0.5-0.8 degC. TCR likely range is given as 1-2.5 degC in AR5. ECS 1.5 is roughly equivalent to TCR~1.

TESTING COPY PASTE OF TEXT:::: PLEASE IGNORE.

Read the linked papers:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but the debate is how potent of a climate gas CO2 is when added to our atmosphere. CO2 has increased from around 280 ppm in 1850 to around 410 in 2019 (due to human emissions), and in that time the temperature on earth has increased approximately 1 degC. Atmospheric CO2 looks to hit 560 ppm (double 1850-levels) late this century.

The potency of CO2 is expressed as "ECS"(Equilbrium Climate Sensitivity") in climate modeling. ECS expresses temperature increase at equilibrium from doubling CO2.
Due to climate's thermal inertia roughly half of a temperature change due to forcing is realized within 10 years, while 14-40% has still not arrived after a century. The IPCC in AR5 (2014) stated that ECS is "likely between 1.5 and 4.5" The climate models "CMIP5" cited by IPCC in AR5 have an average ECS of 3.2 *.

Lower ECS ~1.5 better fit satellite era observations. ECS can be estimated directly from data without climate models. AR5 WG1 stated "best fit to the observed surface and ocean warming for ECS values in the lower part of the likely range" (p.84). There is least uncertainty in temperature data after the start of satellite record ~1979, and for this timeframe ECS is estimated in 1.5-2 range [1], [2]
(In general, ECS-estimates vary based on temperature dataset**, choice of start- and end-dates, carbon-cycle*** modeling and warming attribution to other sources (overview)).
The significance of ECS=1.5 would be huge, implying almost no further warming this century. ECS of 1.5 will imply another 1.5-1=0.5 degC of eventual warming, while ECS=3.2 implies 3.2-1=2.2 degC eventual warming. ECS=1.5 thus implies four times less warming from CO2 increases this century than current IPCC models!

Removing multi-decadal oscillations from data yields ECS 0.5-1.5. Natural oscillations with multi-year periods such as El Niño(11y), AMO(~60y) and PDO(~50-60y) dominate data on the timescale since 1850. Climate models do not accurately [ch1.2] model these oscillations. Removing oscillations mathematically to isolate underlying warming results in much lower climate sensitivity than in AR5: ECS ~1.5,TCR ~1.2 on 150 years of instrumental data, and ECS=0.6 on ~1000 years of proxy-data. These papers remove oscillations without the need to attribute causes to them, but as some of the oscillations removed will be solar-induced, the work is related to the sections below.

Human CO2-emissions coincide with the end of the "Little Ice Age"(LIA) and with solar forcing transitioning from abnormally low to abnormally high. LIA had globally colder climate, coinciding with "Maunder" (1645-1715) and "Dalton"(1790-1830) solar minima. LIA average temperatures were 0.5-0.7 degC lower than Medieval Warm Period(MWP). 1850 at the end of LIA was unusually cold, is thus a poor baseline. Climate inertia should apply for solar as well as CO2-driven warming, implying a long post-LIA transient warming. Second half of the 20th century is the period of highest solar activity in the last 8000 years. A link between solar forcing changes and LIA/MWP has been found, so solar variation partially explaining modern warming up to the early 00ies is also plausible.

There is disagreement on if solar variability is "high variability" or "low variability"
Modeling solar activity is challenging because no direct measurements of solar variability exist prior to satellite record from ~1980, and because the record is "grafted" together from a data from many short-lived satellites, (review of challenges given in ch1).
CMIP5 uses a "low-variability" estimate of solar variation "PMOD" based on work by Kopp&Lean,
that has been strongly critized(ch9) for being an unverified theoretical model which implements alterations not recognized by the original experimental teams to drifts that are postulated but not verified. The alternative to "PMOD" are "high-variability" TSI-estimates such as that of Hoyt&Schatten that agree with "ACRIM" satellite data. Evidence that high-variability TSI-estimates are more accurate are:

• "low-variability" TSI-changes appear amplified 5-7 times in oceans,
  
• "high-variability" TSI is correlated with the equator-pole temperature gradient, and
  
• "low-variability" TSI-changes are too small to explain MWP/LIA temperature changes (AppendixB).
  
  Solar forcing variability is key to climate modeling, because just a 0.3% (5 W/m2) increase is enough to explain the 1 degC warming since 1850. TSI ~1360 W/m2 raises the earth's temperature from around -268 degC to 15 degC (283 degC), a gain of ~0.2 degC per W/m2.
  "High-variability" TSI vary by 3-4 W/m2 over the past centuries, and could thus explain 50-80% of observed modern warming.
  
  CMIP5 models are running hot as solar activity falls, indicating that variability in their solar forcing estimate is too low. Because solar forcing and CO2-concentrations co-incident rise 1850-2000, underestimating climate solar sensitivity would wrongfully raise CO2-sensitivity (ECS),explaining why:
  
  
• as solar activity fell from around 2000 (as seen here ), CMIP5 models have run warm. "For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than observations" (Box 1.1, Figure 1a)(A comparison of temperature and "hot" CMIP5 model predictions can be found here)),
  
• larger-than-life ECS were needed to fit data pre-2000: "AOGCMs [...]with ECS values in the upper part of the 1.5 to 4.5°C range show very good agreement with observed climatology"(WG1 AR5 report), and why
  
• CMIP5 underestimates solar-induced LIA/MWP in hindcasts.
  
  Compensating for "high-variability" TSI-changes results in ECS<1.5. "Hoyt&Schatten" TSI-estimate results in ECS of 0.44. Paleo-analysis of climate, CO2 and sun variability similarly found ECS=0.5.
  
  Persistent flaws in climate research are plausible, outside investigators have commented on the the tendency to downplay flaws in climate research and to withhold data requests.
  
  * "TCR" (Transient Climate Response) is temperature change immediately after doubling CO2 gradually (before transients settle). TCR and ECS both express the potency of CO2, TCR is often lower than ECS by 30-40% (or 0.5-0.8 degC). TCR likely range is given as 1-2.5 degC in AR5.
  
  ** Estimates of ECS from data prior to 1979 require use of GIS/HADCRUT instrument records, adjusted by proprietary algorithms using climate models and homogenized which can create spurious warming. Audits of these datasets have uncovered data-quality issues, but datasets are generally hard to independently verify. The sea/surface global temperature record is only globally complete for the satellite era. A reason for skepticism is that recent warming is not corroborated by an accelerated sea level rise at tidal gauges. Prior to~1880 proxies are used, but suffer from «the divergence problem» of not describing recent warming.
  
  ***Carbon cycle simulations indicate TCR below 1

> "Even the ancient Romans...". By the standards of that time, exposing oneself to radiation is not dangerous so using 100-year-old guesses as "evidence" smacks of desperation.

You missed the point. You claimed that models are the cornerstone of the evidence behind global warming. That is laughably wrong; the basic physics and chemistry of the topic were elucidated decades before computers even existed. That's something Arrhenius contributed to.

> So, climate models that have been calibrated with 20th century data simulate the 20th century extremely well? Color me unsurprised. Even if that were true, it's hardly evidence of their validity, just the very minimum requirement for them to even have the possibility of any predictive capability. Bob Tisdale for one has done exhaustive reviews of climate model performance and has found them to perform very poorly. Considering their shortcomings, I don't find that hard to believe

Models are not calibrated with 20th century data. That's simply not how they work.

You said models perform poorly. And yet, they are able to reproduce observed 20th century climate variability among many, many other things - dynamical responses to volcanic eruptions, coupled oceanic-atmosphere oscillations, etc. Bob Tisdale's work is incredibly slip-shod; it's deconstructed regularly at Tamino and elsewhere. If you have nothing but citations to blog-science to back up your point here, I think we can move on.

> Whether it's a parametrization or results from the model run itself is irrelevant; all AR4 models had a positive cloud feedback. In actuality if a cloud feedback arises in the model as an emergent phenomenon, it is a condemnation of said model because a positive cloud feedback is not supported by any kind of empirical evidence. I suppose we'll see how your "virtually zero cloud feedback" claim stands up when AR5 gets released.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, the CMIP3 models generally had a weak positive cloud feedback. Soden and Held (2006) is a good paper which elaborates on this analysis. Above all else, that you think there is a settled "empirical evidence" estimate of the magnitude of cloud feedback really betrays how little time you have spent on this topic. The most relevant pre-AR4 article on cloud feedbacks is Randall et al, 2006. Read it; you'll find that observational estimates of cloud feedbacks had even higher uncertainty than model estimates, for a host of tehnical and dynamical reasons. As of AR4, theo bservations msot definitely did not exclude the modeling results.

I've already read drafts of the section on clouds in AR5. You do know that you don't have to wait for the report to come out, right? You can go to Google Scholar and start reading up on the topic; all the papers cited have already been published.

> Elementary physics like this one? In case you don't understand what a positive water vapor feedback means, it doesn't mean that warmer air can hold more water vapor. It means that A) the absorption bands of water vapor are not saturated, B) the latent heat going into evaporating said water is not equal or greater than than the increasthed absorption, C) that relative humidity stays constant and D) increased absolute humidity does not cause an increase in albedo through increased precipitation (more clouds?). I am sure there are more parameters but I guess those are enough.

Trying to deflect by invoking Al Gore? I see why it's necessary:

A) If absorption bans are not saturated, then that means adding water vapor will inrease absorption. How do you increase the water vapor? By warming, and letting Clausius-Clapeyron take effect.

B) That has nothing to do with the water vapor effect, and doesn't make sense. Latent heat is consumed during evaporation; it would cool the surrounding air. Hence why precipitation kills downdrafts in convection.

C) Assuming relative humidity stays constant in a global average is just an approximation - and it's a very good one on the time scale of global warming.

D) Nonsense; absolute humidity has nothing to do with precipitation, which is a consequence of dynamic cloud physics. This is entirely irrelevant to water vapor feedback.

You might want to brush up on a basic climate science text.

> Now I'm confused. This guy seems to disagree with you, perhaps you should go and educate him of Real Climate Modelingtm. One thing the GCMs do achieve consistently, though, is not replicating the 1910-1970 warming/cooling period.

Barnston is simplifying the response since it's an IAMA, not a journal article. He's also not disagreeing with me; He's talking about how the oscillations interact, which is a different topic.

For your irrelevant topic change in the middle here - when you look at model output, you're typically looking at ensemble statistcs. There will be ensemble members that reproduce many finer details of observed 20th century warming. Others won't, becuase in ensemble modeling, you perturb the initial conditions slightly to get a better sense in the response's sensitivity to the initial conditions. Observed fine details aren't outside of the ensemble statistics by any stretch of the imagination, and they're a result of internal variability - not exogenous forcing.

> That is, the models are incapable of explaining past climate variability. This does not mean that a high feedback is a requirement, it can just as easily mean that having such a requirement means the climate models are flawed.

False. Models aren't usually used to simulate geological climate variability because it's too expensive to run them for that long. The necessity for a higher cliamte sensitivity comes from our knowledge of the time scales on which geological climate change has occurred. This is once again where physics and chemistry come into play - physical climatology dictates this. It ain't from models.


> So, I was correct then wasn't I, since I said that "The justification is that nothing else except a CO2 forcing and a high climate feedback could explain the rate of warming of the latter 20th century". That's a very roundabout way of agreeing with me. Also note the difference between "can measure" and "have sufficient historical data of".

No, you're wrong because you're playing semantics. There are plenty of other forcings that could explain modern observed warming. They just aren't happening. The sun isn't enormously increasing it's output. The Earth's orbit isn't rapidly changing. We're not releasing huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere. We're not seeing a global decrease in stratospheric ozone.

I'm not interested in word games.

> Hmmmm? Besides, I didn't say no warming trend for 15 years, I said practically no warming for 15 years. I guess the Real Climate Sciencetm filter was too eager to mush what I said to agree with its parameters.
> Also, "models routinely produce variability which has characteristics similar to what we observe." I almost blew milk out of my nose without drinking any when I read this spin. That statement could mean practically anything or nothing.

A trendline is meaningless without a robust estimate of uncertainity. Gee, I wonder why you don't produce that statistic here?

After you clean up your keyboard, devote a handful of neurons to understanding the sentence. If I were to hand you a timeseries of model output and a timeseries of observed global temperature, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. That's because models produce decent climates - certainly decent enough to study the physics of how different processes elicit different responses in teh climate system.

> Oh, so that's why there has been such a scramble to explain the lack of warming with Chinese aerosols and heat magically disappearing in the deep oceans, yes? Gotcha. Decadal weather also has a funny ring to it, I must remember that the next time someone goes "zomg is HOT we has global warmings ok?!?!?!?" and tell them that counters himself of the Climate Science Businesstm talks of decadal weather.

Not all aerosols cause warming. Aerosols in china are an intense focus of research, especially in Asian-language journals (not so much in the West). No one has claimed that Chinese aerosols are a major contributor to global warming. There are many interesting things to talk about with respect to aerosols and their impacts on cloud physics, but that's an entirely different topic.

The deep ocean does store large amounts of heat. The infamous Trenberth quote alludes to our difficulty in building monitoring systems to measure this with any certainty. The physics is (relatively) straightforward; read the Hartmann book linked above.

Decadal variability is hard to produce in models which is why no one produces downscaled decadal forecasts. It's a technical problem involving needing too many ensemble members running at too high a resolution to resolve the statistics necessary to say anything meaningful about decadal-scale changes. that doesn't mean it isn't done; it means that there is lage uncertainty.

> More like the Art of Spin by Coun Tzurs.

Calling out your BS isn't spin, despite your heavy spinning trying to call it such. And that's what it is - BS.

> Also what do you think is their motive behind lying to us about this

I don't think they are lying about it -- "they" being the vast majority of alarmist or alarm-leaning scientists in general. They mean well and are doing what the vast majority of everyone else in society does, which is to "go with the flow". There are certainly a few who are absolutely lying about it, but I'd estimate those are only 1 out of 10,000 or possibly even much less. Presumably they are motivated by greed and or power, but who really knows? They have prepared a very tricky path that is difficult to step off of.

Here is an example of what I mean by that in this book you can preview on Amazon, called Quantitative Chemical Analysis. (I am not suggesting the author is a liar or purposely misleading students, BTW) Read section 0-1, which is near the beginning. It is well written, easy to read, very interesting, enlightening, informative, technical, and mostly, educational. Put simply, it is great shit. This is what freshmen(ish) in college learn. Here's a quote near the end of the section (please excuse my typos and editing for brevity):

> The significance of the Keeling curve is apparent by appending Keeling's data to the 800 000-year record of atmospheric CO2 and temperature preserved in Antarctic ice. ... Temperature and CO2 have followed each other for 800 000 years. Burning fossil fuel in the last 150 years increased CO2 from its historic cyclic peak of 280 ppm to today's 380 ppm. ... which might significantly affect climate. The longer we take to reduce fossil fuel use, the longer this unintended global experiment will continue. Increasing population exacerbates this and many other problems.

Who is going to go home and truly contemplate the depth of what they learned from that? I'd say it'd be much easier to just take it at face value, not question the professor, and ace the test and move on with your life. It's not worth the fight. Is some freshman student going to research the validity of comparing against this "800 000-year record" that was mentioned? There is a deep rabbit hole to explore there. What about the more fundamental question of whether temperature follows CO2 or the other way around? The book says, "Temperature and CO2 have followed each other". That is a very clever dodge of a fact that has been long debunked. I mean, seriously, how much weirdness can we dig out of just this tiny broken excerpt of only ONE college textbook I extracted for you?

All I can do is offer you what I know as a middle-aged man who did college 25 years ago and have learned a lot more about society in general since then, and continue to learn daily: Your professors are people with opinions, just like everyone else, and the facts they present which are the basis of their opinions, while almost always factually based, are not necessarily based on the truth. That is, scientific fact and the truth are not always the same. I'm not saying scientific facts are lies, I'm saying they aren't necessarily the truth. If you forget about everything else, it is really important to remember that. For good measure, I should also mention the Dunning-Kruger effect, which tends to help college professor's and other "iamverysmart" people seem like they know more than they do (especially in subjects they are not educated in, for some reason), and Hanlon's razor, which tends to make the world a lot dumber when you think about it too much. Good luck!

>You should respect the priest turned bishop if you're asking him a theological question, or to interpret some Biblical point. They have the specialized knowledge required to give an answer that is not missing some piece of vital context. Should you trust them on non-Biblical questions? Certainly not! But Biblical ones, why wouldn't you!

LOL. Egads. Again you demonstrate naivete. Despite what you think, Priests and Bishops (or Preachers/Pastors) generally spend very little of their time actually studying scripture (not even in seminary). And their "theological" answers will come from what they have actually studied -- their sect's pile of doctrine and dogma.

>I'm not asking for you to trust climate scientists on every thing. I'm not asking you to blindly trust anyone on anything. I'm just asking you to trust that they are not malevolent or idiotic.

Again, chiefly because you are young and terribly naive.

There are a host of books you need to read, and I would strongly suggest you begin with this book was published back in 1982.

From the Wikipedia entry on the book (note the publishers and especially the RE-publishers -- this was considered a really important book in it's day, Oxford Press does not generally choose to "reprint" trash):

>Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science is a book by William Broad and Nicholas Wade, published in 1982 by Simon & Schuster in New York, and subsequently (1983) also by Century Publishing in London, and with a simplified subtitle as Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in Science by Oxford University Press in 1985. The book is a critique of some widely held beliefs about the nature of science and the scientific process.

>The book argues that the conventional wisdom that science is a strictly logical process, with objectivity the essence of scientist's attitudes, errors being speedily corrected by rigorous peer scrutiny and experiment replication, is a mythical ideal.

>>Our conclusion, in brief, is that science bears little resemblance to its conventional portrait. We believe that the logical structure discernible in scientific knowledge says nothing about the process by which the structure was built or the mentality of the builders. In the acquisition of knowledge, scientists are not guided by logic and objectivity alone, but also by such nonrational factors as rhetoric, propaganda, and personal prejudice. Scientists do not depend solely on rational thought, and have no monopoly on it.[1]

>The authors present a series of case studies associated with the conduct of scientific research, from the manipulation of results to the total fabrication of whole experiments.[2] [3][4]

And before you say "bad apples" and "well, that was 1980's"; here are a couple of more recent articles (there are plenty of others, these are from within the past year):

• http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/06/opinion/fraud-in-the-scientific-literature.html?_r=0
  
  
• http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/science/rise-in-scientific-journal-retractions-prompts-calls-for-reform.html
  
  Again, you are simply terribly naive, you have been sold (and bought into) a proverbial quasi-religious "bill of goods" which you NEVER really critiqued: the "scientific method" was only ever a mythical ideal, and the public "prestige" of and for scientists in general is (and always was) a wholly unwarranted accident; leveraged off of a handfuls of accidental/serendipitous and rather astounding "breakthroughs" in medicine and physics, and the general triumph of technology & engineering & manufacturing (for which alas, industry gets maligned {dirty PROFIT seekers, how DARE they!}; and which conversely, science/scientists get far, far too much credit {saints in white lab coats!}; and which the vast majority of them are not deserving AT ALL, as they have done absolutely nothing to earn or warrant it {in fact, quite the opposite}).
  
  >But maybe you should try and seek out some of that direct experience-after all, it sounds like that's the only thing you trust.
  
  I know more than my fair share of PhD's. That's one reason I have little regard for them: they are virtually all idiots.
  
  >I'd encourage you to try and find the time to call or email someone from your local university who works on the climate.
  
  LOL.
  
  >If you're cordial in your outreach, I'm sure they'll return the civility. They're certainly busy, but maybe you can find someone with the time to sit down for some coffee or tea and chat about things.
  
  Oh no doubt... that is the ONE thing they love to do... TALK (and talk).

> but never demonstrated

What do you even mean by that? Water vapor content in the atmosphere must go up when it gets warmer, it is impossible for it to do anything else. And we measure this increase corresponding to the warming atmosphere.

> above the equator are actually the result of increased water vapor acting as secondary effects of CO2 absorption of IR.

That's not the point at all. The point is when it gets warmer, there is more water vapor in the atmosphere. That doesn't need to be "proven", that's thermodynamics 101.

> Not mine. YOU prove their truth, or quit lying on the internet

Here's your proof.

> You claim CO2 is the main forcing. And it is to a point, but that point has been passed and now it has declining effect.

Look, I have certain sympathy for laymen theory but sometimes it's just too much. What you are trying to say (what exactly are you trying to say?) does not make any sense. Please support your ramblings with literature sources, even denialist sources, or WUWT blogposts so I can at leas start comprehending what your "argument" actually is.

> Now show a 10% decline in overall solar radiation that accounts for your last bit of nonsense. just document it. Better yet give us an explanation of how the Stage 5 problem doesn't kill that little hypothesis of yours.

???

I'm not claiming that this is what happened, I just want to make clear to you that you can see some cooling even when CO2 is increasing, because there are other factors at play as well.

Speaking of Banker Fronts - The Bolsheviks in Russia were funded - indirectly according to some sources - by bankers in London and New York. Even the New York Times admits that the Bolsheviks were given a loan in exchange for fighting against Germany, despite the fact that the Provisional Government at the time wanted peace. If that sounds familiar, it's because it's textbook US policy or carelessness. For instance, arming the Taliban to fight Russia and helping Iraq to fight Iran.

https://www.nytimes.com/1984/11/07/opinion/us-aid-to-the-bolsheviks.html

>To avert bankruptcy, the Provisional Government sought assistance from allies - America, Britain, France, Italy. Woodrow Wilson sent a mission to assess conditions and discuss aid[...]
>
>The key personality and leader was an elderly former Secretary of State, Elihu Root. A conservative Republican, Root undertook his assignment with reluctance, a patronizing attitude toward Russia and ignorance of changes taking place there[...] After the mission reached the capital, Petrograd (now Leningrad), Root talked extensively with the Kerensky administration but made no serious effort to contact non-establishment groups such as the Bolsheviks. After three weeks, he was prepared to recommend loans and credits. But there was one key condition - Russia must continue to fight Germany[...]To survive financially, the Provisional Government agreed. All told, American credits came to $325 million, of which $185 million was disbursed. Kerensky launched a new offensive against Germany in July. After initial successes, Russian troops retreated in disarray. The domestic political consequences were instant. Confidence in the Provisional Government plunged. The Bolsheviks gained and became a major force.

Even the Jerusalem Post had this to say:

https://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Was-the-Russian-Revolution-Jewish-514323

>The roughly three million Jews of the Soviet Union at the time of the revolution constituted the largest Jewish community in the world, but they were only around 2% of the USSR’s population. They were concentrated in the Pale of Settlement (a western region of Imperial Russia) and in Ukraine and Belarussia, where they were 5% to 10% of the population, whereas in Russia itself the 1926 census found only 600,000 Jews.
>
>As a group in the vastness of the USSR, they were one of the largest minorities, alongside Georgians, Armenians, Turks, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Kyrgiz, Tartars, Moldovians, Poles and Germans. None of these other groups played such a central role in the revolution, although members of many of them rose to senior levels.

​

​

Already you've got two different hypothesises mixed up.

On the one hand you want to know if CO2 affects temperature

On the other you want to know if the Earths atmopshere can 'self regulate' CO2 levels.

​

You can test the first one at home pretty easily All you need is somestick on thermometers and some empty 2L bottles. Once you're satisfied that CO2 does infact lead to higher temperatures you can progress to see current C02 levels.

In Hawaii the current CO2 levels are at about 415 ppm, while historically (ie over the past 800,000 years) the average is almost 50% lower at 200-300. Infact the ppm in the 1900's when oil was first discovered was near the common 'highest point' of the past 800,000 years. Now in less than 100 years since oil was discovered (and CO2 added by humans) we are now a good 40% higher than any other point in the past 800,000 years. Rising more rapidly than ever before, we have quite clearly left 'normal' territory of anything in the past millenia

I've seen this conversation going on for some time, but haven't read all of it. This is the second time, though, that I've seen you push the long debunked idea that eating meat leads to heart disease. There's simply no truth to it. Heart disease results from elevated blood sugar and insulin binding to it. Here's a pretty accessible article on it: http://preventdisease.com/news/12/030112_World-Renown-Heart-Surgeon-Speaks-Out-On-What-Really-Causes-Heart-Disease.shtml

You are trying to perpetuate the same fraud that Ancel Keys pushed all those years ago that has been widely debunked. I recommend Good Calories, Bad Calories from Gary Taubes (or any of his YouTube lectures). I also recommend The Big Fat Surprise by Nina Teicholz.

Thanks for sharing and our consumption has to do with it too. Eating animal products is a form of consumption. Like consuming plastic, or a new Iphone every year. It all affects the balance of nature which is about to tip over. Check out this book. There are a lot more like this. I am studying this in one of my classes for my masters degree.
https://www.amazon.com/Sixth-Extinction-Unnatural-History/dp/1250062187/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1487629182&sr=8-1&keywords=6th+extinction

"Watermelons" by James Delingpole is one of my favorite books about climate skepticism:

http://www.amazon.com/Watermelons-Green-Movements-True-Colors/dp/0983347409

Here are some other books that I recommend.

The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Deliberate-Corruption-Climate-Science/dp/0988877740

Don't Sell Your Coat: Surprising Truths About Climate Change:

http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Sell-Your-Coat-Surprising/dp/0615569048

The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert:

http://www.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Worlds-Climate/dp/1466453486

The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Hockey-Stick-Illusion-Climategate/dp/1906768358

That's an excellent article. Non-tree ring proxies, done by a skeptic, and still shows a fast upswing to temperatures slightly above the MWP.

But the RealClimate article is a review of The Hockey Stick Illusion by Andrew Montford, aka Bishop Hill.

For the record, counters suggested Principles of Planetary Climate in another thread.

Sure, I'll bite. Mann's stupid Hockey Stick used tree ring data that was cherry picked to exclude any indication of the MWP or the LIA. Because those would make our current warm period look like more of the same.

Then he tacked on temperature data from a dataset skewed upward by urban heat sources. Unhappy with how slowly the graph was "spiking", his cronies at CRU "fix" the numbers by applying a correction -- in the wrong direction.

Mann and his UVA cronies refuses to disclose how much he tweaked his data, but more than one book has been written about his junk science. But he keeps clinging to it: “there’s not just a hockey stick — there’s a hockey league.” The mann is an embarrassment to real researchers everywhere.