Dorian Could Be A Big Problem IMPORTANT UPDATES

Spread the love

UPDATE for Friday 20 Aug AM:

The information below is still pretty accurate for Dorian, except a few important details.

1) The storm is now expected to move more slowly as it gets closer to the Florida coast. This means that the timing is shifted later, possibly by a half a day or more. But, this is not certain, so if you were planning on buying umbrellas don’t put that off. Or, evacuation. Don’t put that off either.

2) For the same reason, the slowdown, Dorian may spend more time in a position to remain strong off the coast but still hitting the coast with severe winds and storm surges, for a longer period of time.

With hurricanes, fast is better, once you know they are coming.

Chances are about even that Dorian will affect the Florida coast as a Category 3 or a Category 4 hurricane. The centerline prediction from the National Hurricane Center has Dorian as just barely a Category 4 as it makes landfall, but as a mid-range Category 4 (i.e., more severe) prior to getting near the coast. This will, of course, cause confusion as reporters spew poorly formed sentences like “Dorian has weakened” instead of “Dorian has made the expected adjustment from a very very very dangerous storm to a very very very dangerous storm because it lost some of its energy scraping your homes and beaches into the sea” or words to that effect.

Best guess right now: Dorian will be a Category 3/4 hurricane as it moves onto land over a several hour long slog centered on about 2:00 AM on Tuesday morning. It will remain a hurricane, but weakening to a Category 1 storm over the next 24 hours as it moves well inland, veering north. Tropical storm force winds will be arriving on the Florida coast early Sunday morning.

The center point for landfall of the eye, with lots of areas to the north and south affected, is West Palm Beach or a bit north of there. 24 hours later, still as a hurricane, the storm may be just south of Orlando.

The norther Bahamas are going to have something very close to a direct hit.

The Hurricane Center has not yet put out information about storm surges, because the possible range of actual landfall is still too uncertain. Indeed, it is still possible that the storm will turn north and hardly hit anything.

It was looking for a while there that Dorian, after moving well inland in Florida, would then stay inland a couple/few hundred miles and find a track across all the states to Maine. Now, it is looking more like it will pop back across the coast and go up the Atlantic, either near the coast nor farther at sea. That would make Dorian’s future very unpredictable, and I suppose it would open up the possibility of reforming as a hurricane.

OLDER POST:

Most of the models show Hurricane Dorian striking the Atlantic Coast of Florida, though the exact location is not something that can be predicted yet. Somewhere between Palm Coast and Miami, most likely near Melbour, Palm Bay or Port St Lucie. That’s a pretty large area.

This depends, however, on a weather system that is only now forming up north of Dorian, which would cause the storm to not to the usual pull-out where the storms go north and head in the general direction of Bogna Riva.

And, if that weather system forms, some models say its western end will weaken, and that would be an escape door Dorian might use for that northward turn.

So, there is maybe a one in ten chance Dorian will bug out before hitting Florida. There is a small possibility it will come right up to Florida and then bug out, meaning, it would scrape the coast of Florida and Georgia, or just inland, at first as a hurricane then as a tropical storm.

But most likely, Dorian is going to slam into the Atlantic coast of Florida, then move inland. After moving inland, it is very likely to then stay inland, as a major storm of some sort, dumping rain and blowing winds in inland Florida, Georgia, maybe all the way up to Maine. That should be interesting. Wet, and interesting.

How strong will Dorian be? Don’t believe the hype Major news outlets are suddenly saying that Dorian may be a Category 4 storm. Maybe. But almost every model puts Dorian squarely in the extremely dangerous major-storm Category 3 range, with just a couple of models showing it forming into a Category 4 storm. One model actually shows it becoming a Category 5 storm.

But these categories are felatas. You evacuate and/or batten down the hatches for a Category 3 storm because that is a killer storm. You can save the discussion of whether your house was flattened, flooded, or flew away by a Cat 3 vs a Cat 4 storm felata.

When will Dorian strike?

As you know, “ladnfall” is not when a hurricane strikes. It strikes when the storm’s outer bands come ashore and start making for a lot of rain, some wind. It strikes when a storm surge comes through, and the timing of that can vary a lot. It strikes when the hurricane force bands arrive, which can be hours before, and continue hours after, the eye comes ashore.

The Center of the storm is currently predicted to be in “striking” distance at about sunup on Monday morning. SO, overnight Sunday to Monday is a safe estimate of when Dorian might be “strking.”

By sunup the next day, the storm should be well inland, probably turning north, and very large, wet, dangerous, but probably not really a hurricane any more.

The National Weather Service suggests that tropical storm force winds will arrive on the coast of Florida between nightfall Saturday and maybe midnight.

One more small detail: It is possible that Dorian, if it strikes Florida, will pass into the Gulf. If it does, then that will be interesting.

Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:

In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle or Paperback

Spread the love

122 thoughts on “Dorian Could Be A Big Problem IMPORTANT UPDATES

  1. Read the second sentence that uses the word out loud a couple of times

    And imagine you come from New Jersey or Long Islsnd

  2. just praying hard that there’s still enough Log Cabiners and that devil rock n roll around Mar A Lago to attract the wrath of gawd’s Doria….

    1. Linking to watts****, a site dedicated to dishonesty and misrepresentation for science deniers like you, doesn’t make a good argument.

  3. Oh dear no … just to warn everyone, Swallow is a repulsive climate change denier, a ‘legend in his own mind’ who seems to be on a mission to troll every progressive blog that discusses climate change. He is a serial misinformer on DeSmogblog, where he uses the gish-gallop to try and drown out everyone else. He is clearly not a scientist, and he has never been near a university laboratory in his life, but he tries to give the impression that not only the science, but the scientific community, lines up behind the piffle he spews.

    When I have confronted him with the fact that the 18 major scientific organizations in the U.S., including NASA, the NOAA, the AMS, the AGU (and 14 others) as well as the National Academies of every industrialized nation on Earth ALL affirm that the biosphere is warming, that the human combustion of fossil fuels is the primary if not exclusive cause, and that society needs to mitigate GHG emissions as soon as possible, Swallow ignores it, like this fact does not exist. He covers his eyes and his ears as a means of dismissing inconvenient truths. Although he is on the ‘outside’ looking in, he berates scientists like me for arguing that the scientific consensus over warming is enormous. In the 24 years since I did my PhD the number of scientists I have met at universities, research institutes, workshops and conferences who do not think that the recent warming is anthropogenic is less than the number of fingers I have on one hand. By now, the evidence is overwhelming, and denial is in its death throes. Sadly, social media gives cranks like Swallow a platform. This explains his serial trolling on progressive blogs.

  4. By the way, note that Swallow is stuck in 2013, based on his execrable link. In the past few years the US has been hit by several category 4 and 5 hurricanes.

    More importantly, it is not the number of extreme climatic events that is just of concern, but their intensity. There is no doubt that the frequency and intensity of heatwaves, for example, is increasing.

    Be prepared for Swallow to come on here with old newspaper clips showing warm spells and record warm temperatures that occurred in some places over 50 years ago. Of course the bigger point is the ratio of record warm:cold weather events (as an example). I looked up the dates for record warm and cold temperatures in different countries around the world. Here is the crunch: out of 103 countries where dates are available, 61 high temperature records have been recorded in countries since 2000; by contrast, only 14 low temperature records have been recorded in countries since 2000.

    The ratio is therefore over 4 to 1 in favor of warm records being set in 103 countries since 2000. If the planet wasn’t warming, the ratio would be around 1:1.

    Conclusion: the biosphere is unambiguously warming.

    1. I can’t tell you how honored I am to have someone such as Jeffh spend so much time launching an ad hominem attack on me. My telling the truth about his hoax of anthropogenic climate change must really hit a nerve when Jeffh is actually realizing that his favorite hoax of AWG being fueled by an increase of the absolutely essential for all life on earth trace gas, CO?, is not working out well for him because there is no acceleration in global temperatures. Jeffh warns everyone to; “Be prepared for Swallow to come on here with old newspaper clips showing warm spells and record warm temperatures that occurred in some places over 50 years ago”. That leads to an interesting question to ask this person who hates me to the degree that he does to put together two comments about what a horrible person I am because I do not believe as he does about this issue of global warming. I will, with great anticipation, await the one who is not confident enough of his position on AGW to present his real name, Jeffh, to explain why this all-time high temperature record still stands in his planet that is being incinerated by an increase in CO?.
      World Meteorological Organization Assessment of the Purported World Record 58°C Temperature Extreme at El Azizia, Libya (13 September 1922)
      “On 13 September 1922, a temperature of 58°C (136.4°F) was purportedly recorded at El Azizia (approximately 40 kilometers south-southwest of Tripoli) in what is now modern-day Libya…………. The WMO assessment is that the highest recorded surface temperature of 56.7°C (134°F) was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley) CA USA.”
      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00093.1?af=R&
      This is a record that still holds after 106 years & isn’t it the same WMO that said that this is the warmest time in earth’s history, or some other such nonsense?

  5. Exactly on cue, old man Swallow shoes up pasting up irrelevant information. What did I say?

    Once again, I reiterate: 61 countries have set national high temperature records since 2000.

    Only 14 have set cold national records.

    This unambiguously proves that it is warming. End of story.

    It does not matter whatsoever what the all-time surface temperature record is (and that is also open to discussion, based on temperatures in Iran in 2018 which nudged the all-time record). Swallow, you are citing a single data point or two. I am citing trends over large scales.

    As for knowing my identity, look for it. The reason I try (and not always succeed) at remaining anonymous is because climate change deniers are bullies, continually harrassing and threatening scientists. What have you got to lose? You are an anonymous nobody. Scientists who are well known like Mike Mann are treated like pariahs by deniers. And given the ad homs that you and other deniers have levied at leading scientists, its a bit rich of you accusing me if it.

    I have asked you a million times and I will ask you again politely: please explain why every major scientific organizaton and National Scientific Academies around the world affirm the reality and threats posed by anthropogenic climate change. It is a simple question. You repeatedly avoid it, as do other deniers. Is there some vast ‘mother of all conspiracies’ at work here that involves governments, scientific agencies and the bulk of the scientific community? If not, how is it that trained scientists know less than laymen like you? Is this some kind of divine miracle that has bestowed unlimited wisdom on people who have never attended a university science lecture? Please explain.

    1. “This is a record that still holds after 106 years & isn’t it the same WMO that said that this is the warmest time in earth’s history, or some other such nonsense?”

      Swallow, the fact that you are stupid enough to believe a one time event contradicts long term patterns speaks volumes. You truly are an idiot – just like the other deniers who have posted here.

    2. Old what’s his name, Jeffh, said; among other things, that;
      “Once again, I reiterate: 61 countries have set national high temperature records since 2000. Only 14 have set cold national records. This unambiguously proves that it is warming. End of story.” That could well be part of the story if you were to supply me with the links to verify this “information” that you present. In the meantime you can contact this site, Infoplease, and straighten them out regarding what they believe all-time record high temperatures to be for different regions.
      Highest Recorded Temperatures
      Below is a table of the highest recorded temperatures for each continent. Death Valley, Calif., tops the list, hitting a stifling 134 degrees in 1913.
      Place Date Degrees Degrees
      Fahrenheit Celsius
      North America Furnace Creek Ranch (Death Valley), Calif., USA July 10, 1913 134.0 56.7
      Asia Tirat Tsvi, Israel June 21, 1942 129.2 54.0
      Africa1 Kebili, Tunisia July 7, 1931 131.0 55.0
      Australia Oodnadatta, South Australia Jan. 2, 1960 123.0 50.7
      Europe Athens, Greece (and Elefsina, Greece) July 10, 1977 118.4 48.0
      South America Rivadavia, Argentina Dec. 11, 1905 120.0 48.9
      Oceania Tuguegarao, Philippines April 20, 1912 108.0 42.2
      Antarctica Vanda Station, Scott Coast Jan. 5, 1974 59.0 15.0
      https://www.infoplease.com/math-science/weather/highest-recorded-temperatures

    3. This is a very interesting site that deals with the last hot weather episode in Europe this summer. We were in Europe last fall and the weather was great in Sept, 2018, especially when we took a cruise from Tromsø down the coast of Norway. I’m sure that the professor and anonymous expert on all matters concerning this subject of the hoax regarding how his devil in the sky, CO?, is going to cause the planet to incinerate, Jeffh, who did his PhD 24 years ago, will have some verifiable explanation for why euronews.com would publish information that he says is incorrect in the way it is dealing with record high temperatures. Are they lying to us, Jeffh? Please note that they also claim that the record high temperature for Europe was “The highest temperature ever recorded on European soil was 48C. It was observed in Greece in 1977.” & that is also what Infoplease is maintaining. “Europe Athens, Greece (and Elefsina, Greece) July 10, 1977 118.4 48.0”. Jeffh, who did his PhD 24 years ago, owes it to these organizations that are reporting what he considers to be false information the correct information, according to him, to set them straight so that they are not proragating “false” information.

      Heatwave: what are the highest temperatures ever recorded in each EU state? 25/06/2019
      As Europe braces for another heatwave with highs expected to reach between 35C and 40C, some might take solace from the fact that these temperatures remain well below the region’s record.
      The highest temperature ever recorded on European soil was 48C. It was observed in Greece in 1977.
      https://www.euronews.com/2019/06/24/heatwave-what-are-the-highest-temperatures-ever-recorded-in-each-eu-state

  6. As an addendum, the 1913 Death Valley record is in serious dispute because of meteorological inaccuracies, well discussed in recent years. The temperature reached 53.7 degrees in Ahvaz, Iran in 2017. This is considered by a growing number of scholars to be the warmest recorded temperature in history.

    1. Of interest: a colleague of mine at Univ of Tehran was supposed to attend an oral defense over in Ahvaz in July. The event was cancelled because the temperature hit 55 degrees. Agriculture in that part of the world is already at or near the limits of human endurance. Workers set out well before dawn, wearing winter coats. (Think about it…) They work until about 10 am, then are done for the day.

  7. As a final addendum, 24 out of 103 countries have broken their all-time warm record in just the past 5 years (i.e. since 2014). Only 3 out of 103 countries have broken their all-time cold records over the same time.

    The ratio is thus now 8:1 in countries around the work breaking recent hot or cold records.

    I rest my case.

    1. JeffH, if global warming stopped, and annual temperatures stayed the same year after year, I would still expect heat records to outpace cold records, because the temperature level is more than a degree higher than when the temperature measurements were first being taken.

  8. MikeN, what a pointless remark. I don’t know why I even bother to respond to it, but I will.

    First of all, 24 of the 61 heat records to be set in nations since 2000 have occurred in just the past 5 years, or almost 40% of them. The ratio of hot:cold records being set is 4:1 and that ratio, as I said earlier is increasing with time. Since 2014 it is 8:1. If global warming has stopped we would expect to see a slowdown in the number of heat records being set but that clearly is not the case. The number is increasing because the planet continues to warm.

    Swallow contradicts himself constantly. On here and on other blogs he tries (and fails) to argue that it isn’t warming by posting up irrelevant data points from a century ago or newspaper clippings reporting melting in Greenland or the Arctic. Then he suggests that it is warming, but that CO2 has nothing to do with it because it is due to the sun. He conveniently downplays the fact that solar activity has declined since 1980; heck, deniers have been banging on about an imminent little ice age for over 10 years now because of this as the planet continues to warm.

    He writes on blogs as if this is where the science is being done, and as if the relationship between atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and surface temperatures had not been established long ago. In doing so he flippantly dispenses with over 100 years of science and the view of the overwhelming majority of scientists along with all of the major scientific bodies and National Academies around the world.

    Why do I respond to this nonsense on the internet? I must be crazy, because in truth I am wasting my time and as a scientist I do have much better things to do with my time.

  9. Swallow this Mr. Swallow:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_extreme_temperatures

    And while I am at it, please explain this: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

    And this: http://sites.nationalacademies.org/sites/climate/index.htm
    https://science.sciencemag.org/content/292/5520/1261

    Truth is, your ‘arguments’ are so easy to deconstruct. The reason is not only because science is not on your side; it is because you are not a scientist and don’t know how science works.

  10. One final point: John, your link is out of date. Belgium, Germany, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom ALL broke their all-time heat records just this summer.

    https://www.euronews.com/2019/07/25/europe-heatwave-belgium-germany-and-the-netherlands-topple-all-time-high-temperature-recor

    Three of the countries went over 40 degrees, and the old records were broken by two degrees or more.

    France broke its old record in late June: https://earther.gizmodo.com/france-just-obliterated-its-all-time-heat-record-1835947429

    Then Paris broke its all-time record during the July heat wave: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49108847

    Oh dear. You like scoring own goals, don’t you? Please desist from any more self-humiliation.

    1. Oh! The horror of it all! This has to be the proof that Jeffh has been frantically searching for since he cannot find the link to back up his claim that “Once again, I reiterate: 61 countries have set national high temperature records since 2000. Only 14 have set cold national records. This unambiguously proves that it is warming. End of story.”

      “Record-breaking temperatures were also reported in Paris with a reading of 42.6°C (42.6°C=108.68°F) at Montsouris weather station, breaking the 40.6°C record set just two hours earlier and the 1947 high of 40.4°C.” I wondered if Jeffh can explain why it took 72 years for this record for Paris to be broken by 2°C?

      It is obvious that Jeffh, who did his PhD 24 years ago, is desperate to try to blame his devil in the sky, CO?, for this 2°C over the previous record set in Paris 72 years ago; but, there is another reason that makes good sense to most logical folks and it is that; “The current heatwave is being caused by an ‘omega block’ — a high-pressure pattern that is blocking and diverting a jet stream of warm air from Northern African and the Iberian Peninsula”.
      https://www.euronews.com/2019/07/25/europe-heatwave-belgium-germany-and-the-netherlands-topple-all-time-high-temperature-recor

    2. It appears that for folks like Jeffh, who did his PhD 24 years ago, that if records can’t be broken with actual measurements, then it is fair to just eliminate them with a stroke of a pencil, as in the cases that I present to Jeffh now. The NEW Records that Jeffh is more comfortable with, even if they are incorrect, are in (parentheses).
      North America (U.S.), Death Valley, Calif.; July 10, 1913 (134F);
      Asia; Tirat Tsvi, Israel, June 21, 1942, (129F):
      Australia, Cloncurry, Queensland; Jan. 16, 1889 (128F):
      (Australia Oodnadatta, South Australia Jan. 2, 1960 (123.0?F) 50.7)
      Europe, Seville, Spain,Aug. 4, 1881 (122F):
      (Europe Athens, Greece (and Elefsina, Greece) July 10, 1977 118.4 48.0)
      South America, Rivadavia, Argentina; Dec. 11, 1905 (120F):
      Canada, Midale and Yellow Grass, Saskatchewan, Canada; July 5, 1937 (113F):
      Oceania; Tuguegarao, Philippines, April 29, 1912 (108F):
      Persian Gulf (sea-surface): Aug. 5, 1924 (96F):
      Antarctica; Vanda Station, Scott Coast, Jan. 5, 1974 (59F):
      South Pole, Dec. 27, 1978, (7.5F).
      Highest average annual mean temperature (world): Dallol, Ethiopia (Oct. 1960 Dec. 1966), 94° F.
      Longest hot spell (world): Marble Bar, W. Australia, 100° F (or above) for 162 consecutive days, Oct. 30, 1923 to Apr. 7, 1924. Notice anything regarding the dates of these records? Anyone heard of the dust bowl & wasn’t that in the 30s
      http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001375.html

    1. I never use Wikipedia as a sources of information on any matter such as the climate for this reason.
      “Good research and citing your sources
      Articles written out of thin air may be better than nothing, but they are hard to verify, which is an important part of building a trusted reference work. Please research with the best sources available and cite them properly. Doing this, along with not copying text, will help avoid any possibility of plagiarism. We welcome good short articles, called “stubs”, that can serve as launching pads from which others can take off – stubs can be relatively short, a few sentences, but should provide some useful information. If you do not have enough material to write a good stub, you probably should not create an article. At the end of a stub, you should include a “stub template” like this: {{stub}}. (Other Wikipedians will appreciate it if you use a more specific stub template, like {{art-stub}}. See the list of stub types for a list of all specific stub templates.) Stubs help track articles that need expansion”
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article

  11. This is another view of the OLD, unaltered temperature record until someone saw fit to change it.
    National Weather Facts
    (Hottest, Coldest, Windiest, Snowiest)
    World Weather Extremes
    Highest Temperature Extremes
     
     
     
     
    Continent
    Highest
    Temp.
    (deg F)
    Place
    Elevation
    (Feet)
    Date
    Africa
    136
    El Azizia, Libya
    367
    13 Sep 1922
    North America
    134
    Death Valley, CA (Greenland Ranch)
    -178
    10 Jul 1913
    Asia
    129
    Tirat Tsvi, Israel
    -722
    21 Jun 1942
    Australia
    128
    Cloncurry, Queensland
    622
    16 Jan 1889
    Europe
    122
    Seville, Spain
    26
    4 Aug 1881
    South America
    120
    Rivadavia, Argentina
    676
    11 Dec 1905
    Oceania
    108
    Tuguegarao, Philippines
    72
    29 Apr 1912
    Antarctica
    59
    Vanda Station, Scott Coast
    49
    5 Jan 1974
    http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/weather_extremes.php

  12. You old clot, these Wikipedia records are verified. And you linked to a redundant article in early June before five west European countries all set new records in late June and July. How stupid can you get? You didn’t cross-check.

    1. “In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

      “Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
      I know you are unaware that the Doctor that treated George Washington (I have seen the bed that he died in at Mt. Vernon) and ended up killing him was using the prescribed treatment of the day and following the “consensus” of that time when he basically bled George Washington to death because he had a sore throat. You can look at and consider what people who are for sure deeper thinkers than how you come across with such post as: “Give it up John. I am annihilating your piffle”. I will present the thoughts of people who were actually able to think to you for your consideration. I can hardly wait for your next round of insults with no meaningful answers to such questions as to why you have not presented me with the links to; “First of all, 24 of the 61 heat records to be set in nations since 2000 have occurred in just the past 5 years, or almost 40% of them. The ratio of hot:cold records being set is 4:1 and that ratio, as I said earlier is increasing with time. Since 2014 it is 8:1”.
      “The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement” — Karl Popper
      “Skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the unpardonable sin.” Huxley
      “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of the truth“ Albert Einstein
      “The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” Bertrand Russel
      “Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.” —WALTER LIPPMANN (This is you, Jeffh. Try coming up with an original thought some time and you might feel good about yourself)
      I place more stock in what these wise people say than what someone who is not confident enough to issue forth his real name or what the fraud, John Cook says about “consensus”.

    2. I assume, Jeffh that you know what “The Guardian’s” stance is on this issue of climate change; but, this is what they have to say about your 97% consensus nonsense.
      “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.”
      https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

       “The abstracts of the 12,000 papers were rated, twice, by 24 volunteers. Twelve rapidly dropped out, leaving an enormous task for the rest. This shows. There are patterns in the data that suggest that raters may have fallen asleep with their nose on the keyboard. In July 2013, Mr Cook claimed to have data that showed this is not the case. In May 2014, he claimed that data never existed. The data is also ridden with error. By Cook’s own calculations, 7% of the ratings are wrong. Spot checks suggest a much larger number of errors, up to one-third.”
      “Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong. Cook’s consensus is also irrelevant in policy. They try to show that climate change is real and human-made. It is does not follow whether and by how much greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced.”
      http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming
       
      This is what a source that you hate, Fox News, says about the issue:
       
      “Cook and Co. analysed somewhere between 11,944 and 12,876 papers – they can’t get their story straight on the sample size – but only 64 of these explicitly state that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming. A reexamination of their data brought that number down to 41. That is half a per cent or less of the total, rather than 97 percent.”
      http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/05/28/climate-change-and-truth-mr-obama-97-percent-experts-do-not-agree-with.html
       
      The Legates et al (2013) xxxix review of the paper reveals that only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it. The 41 papers that supported the consensus as defined by the IPCC declaration represents only 0.34% of the papers examined, not 97%. xl The Legates review found that 23 of the papers that Cook claimed support the IPCC declaration that – “Man caused most of the warming since 1950” – in fact these papers did not support the theory. 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 De Consensus of Cook et al (2013) 2/17/2014 32 Dr. Legates said: “It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%.” Statistical Probability Three of four studies cite a 97% consensus
      https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf
       
      I am still in hopes that someday you will submit something that has truth and logic and not just the same warmed over alarmist hype that you love to spout, over and over and over again.

    3. You, like other contrarians who witter about consensus, don’t understand the causality.

      The consensus arises from the strength of the scientific evidence. It is an emergent property, if you like.

      Now shut up and fuck off.

  13. This is fun. I feel like Muhammed Ali taking on a kindergarten student. Swallow is a lousy debater. He says he doesn’t trust Wikpedia records, yet –

    EVERY HEAT RECORD HE LISTED (ABOVE) IS IN THE WIKIPEDIA ENTRY.

    What he has done is cherry pick the ones he likes. He has avoided the 61 post-2000 heat records that destroy his analysis. Watch what he does next: he will argue that the old records are reliable but that the recent heat records listed aren’t. Yup folks, when his arguments are debunked one-by-one, he tries to slither his way out of it by cherry picking and/or invoking conspiracy theories.

    Swallow, it won’t work. You are busted. You are wrong. You scored an epic own goal with your temperature record map of European nations (sadly outdated, vanquished by searing heatwaves this summer) and now you cite single-location continental records that mean diddly squat when placed against countries and larger-scale regions.

    Even MikeN, a right winger on here, claimed that warm temperature records should be being broken more than cold temperature records because, as he put it, “the temperature level is more than a degree higher than when the temperature measurements were first being taken”. In other words, its warming!!!!!!!!!!!

    Please desist. Go back to Breitbart or whatever repugnant site you most frequent and stay there.

    1. I am so grateful to Jeffh, who did his PhD 24 years ago in an as yet undefined discipline, such as perhaps ‘Folklore’, because he seems to believe that the “trace gas”, CO?, that absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat as CO? or 99.9% of all “global warming.” CO? does only 0.1% of it is now going to cause the planet to incinerate in 12 years because of information that he discovered in a Wikipedia source that he trust without question. In Jeffh eyes, if it is Wikipedia it has to be true without any doubt, end of the story.

      I took the time to analyze the Wikipedia link that Jeffh proudly presented to me & this is what I found.
      France 46.0 °C (114.8 °F) Vérargues, Hérault 28 June 2019[74]
      Belgium 41.8 °C (107.2 °F) Begijnendijk, Flemish Brabant[notes 4] 25 July2019[72]
      Germany 42.6 °C (108.7 °F) Lingen, Lower Saxony[notes 4] 25 July 2019[81]
      Netherlands 40.7 °C (105.3 °F) Gilze en Rijen[notes 4] 25 July 2019[97]
      Norway 35.6 °C (96.1 °F) Nesbyen, Buskerud /Mosjøen, Nordland 20 June 1970[99] /27 July 2019[100]
      UK 38.7 °C (101.7 °F) Cambridge, Cambridgeshire[notes 4] 25 July 2019[113][114]
      Luxembourg 40.8 °C (105.4 °F) Steinsel, Luxembourg[notes 4] 25 July 2019[92]

      It is obvious that Jeffh, who did his PhD 24 years ago, is desperate to try to blame his devil in the sky, carbon dioxide, for these new records that were basically all set on 25 July 2019; but, there is another reason that makes good sense to most logical folks and it is that; “The current heatwave is being caused by an ‘omega block’ — a high-pressure pattern that is blocking and diverting a jet stream of warm air from Northern African and the Iberian Peninsula”.

      I am led to wonder if these nations, that I have been too, were by some miracle spared the curse of the imagined devil in the sky, carbon dioxide?
      We were in Sweden and Norway a year ago and they share a long border but this is what the record is for Sweden.
      Sweden 38.0 °C (100.4 °F) Ultuna, Uppsala County /Målilla, Kalmar County 9 July 1933 /29 June 1947[110]
      We were also in Denmark and this is the record that Wikipedia gives for that northern nation.
      Denmark 36.4 °C (97.5 °F) Holstebro, Midtjylland 10 August 1975[78]

      The UK and Ireland are very close together geographically but yet this is what their record high Temp is;
      Ireland 33.3 °C (91.9 °F) Kilkenny Castle, County Kilkenny 26 June 1887[87]

      I have been to Bosnia and Herzegovina when I drove from Zagreb, Croatia to Dubrovnik and this is their temp record;
      Croatia 42.8 °C (109.0 °F) Plo?e 5 August 1981[76]
      Bosnia and Herzegovina 46.2 °C (115.2 °F) Mostar 31 July 1901[73][74]

      There are many sources that still believe as I do that Seville, Spain still holds the record high temp for Europe, as it had for all of the years since it was set in 1881 until just a couple of years ago when it was changed to;
      (Europe Athens, Greece (and Elefsina, Greece) July 10, 1977 118.4 48.0)

      Aug 04   In the year 1881 122?F (50?C), Seville, Spain (European record)  
      https://www.hisdates.com/years/1881-historical-events_6.html

      List of fields of doctoral studies in the United States
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fields_of_doctoral_studies_in_the_United_States
      Folklore
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folklore

    2. Denying the validity of everything known about the radiative properties of CO2, palaeoclimate behaviour and the validity of the proxy and instrumental temperature record is stupid.

      It’s also pathologically antisocial in this day and age, like advocating race hate or paedophilia.

      Shut up and fuck off.

  14. Swallow, eager to avoid further self-humiliation after posting a redundant site up yesterday, actually checked the updated data, then scrapes the barrel to find another way of downplaying the human fingerprint. Pathetic, but expected from him.

    The heatwave, you fool, was many thousands of times for likely because of anthropogenic warming. There have been ‘Omega blocks’ before but they resulted in temperatures several degrees below those experienced in recent years. CO2-mediated warming is amplifying these heat waves. This was widely discussed in the aftermath. Your attempt to downplay its significance is just another straw at which you are grasping. You deniers are so utterly dishonest that you continually distort the science and conjure whatever feeble excuses you can to avoid the truth.

    By the way, the record in France (46.1) occurred a month earlier (late June) than those in more northern parts of Europe (late July). There were two record-breaking heatwaves, not one. Moreover, the frequency and intensity of heatwaves is increasing in every European nation. In the Netherlands, for example, there have been 29 official heatwaves since 1911. Twelve (12) of those have occurred since 2000. So there were only 17 over the first 89 years, but 12 over only the past 19 years. Only four times since 1911 has the Netherlands had more than 2 heatwaves in s single year; three of those have occurred since 2006 (2006, 2018, 2019). Last summer was the warmest on record across most of central Europe; this year came in at #4.

    I also showed that 61 out of 103 nations have experienced record warm temperatures since 2000 with only 14 showing record cold temperatures. Twenty-four (24) of those warm records have been set in just the past 5 years. The ratio of warm:cold records being set in the world now is over 4:1 and increasing (in 1960 it was approximately 1:1). In Europe the ratio is 8:1.

    As for consensus, science may not operate by it but public policy must be based on it. The scientific consensus for climate change by now is immense. Deniers are hanging on for dear life with their outdated rhetoric and kindergarten-level science. Of course they won’t go away any more than flat Earthers or creationists or conspiracy theorists. This is because climate change deniers like Swallow are simply mangling science in support of far-right political agendas at whose alter they worship.

    1. As for consensus…

      Deniars like swallow are trying to claim, dishonestly, that scientists are saying “All of us believe XXXS therefore climate change is true” — i.e. — conspiratorial consensus is being used to claim climate change is true

      when, in fact, it is

      “The evidence is overwhelming that climate change is occurring” — that is, theory and observation lead to the conclusion of climate change, hence the consensus.

      Does inveterate liar swallow have any science experience?

    2. “Gosh, tough one, Dean.”

      Well, it isn’t inconceivable that sometime he could have had some training. There are creationists who have degrees in geology, for example.

    3. “There have been ‘Omega blocks’ before but they resulted in temperatures several degrees below those experienced in recent years. CO2-mediated warming is amplifying these heat waves.”
      In his post to me, September 3, 2019 at 3:27 am, he reminded me that; “By the way, the record in France (46.1) occurred a month earlier (late June) than those in more northern parts of Europe (late July)”
      “Record-breaking temperatures were also reported in Paris with a reading of 42.6°C (42.6°C=108.68°F) at Montsouris weather station, breaking the 40.6°C record set just two hours earlier and the 1947 high of 40.4°C.” I wondered if Jeffh can explain why it took 72 years for this record for Paris to be broken by 2°C?

      It is obvious that Jeffh, who did his PhD 24 years ago, is desperate to try to blame his devil in the sky, CO?, for this 2°C over the previous record set in Paris 72 years ago; but, there is another reason that makes good sense to most logical folks and it is that; “The current heatwave is being caused by an ‘omega block’ — a high-pressure pattern that is blocking and diverting a jet stream of warm air from Northern African and the Iberian Peninsula”.

    4. And the increase in GMST of ~1C over pre-industrial? Unicorn farts is it?

      The increase in OHC in all major basins likewise?

      Or shall we be parsimonious and ascribe both to the sustained increase in RF from the rising levels of atmospheric CO2?

      Here’s the thing John: at this late stage in the game, denying the validity of the scientific evidence about the causation and nature of AGW is simply stupid or mendacious or both.

      It’s also offensive. So fuck off with your ignorant / dishonest nonsense.

  15. Lastly, while John continues his desperate search for cherries to pick, another statistic: 24 out of 38 European nations have recorded their warmest-ever temperatures since 2000.

    And to answer his mute question regarding the decades-long interval between records being set, THIS IS IRRELEVANT. I am a scientist and I focus on trends. You, whatever you did or are doing, clearly have a limited understanding of regression analyses or of scale. Your focus is on single data points that you inflate to draw conclusions. Mine is to take many data points to extrapolate patterns in the data. And these trends are unambiguously clear: the biosphere is warming and warming rapidly. Your strategy is to take convenient data points and say look! For instance, you will say it is cooling because 2016 was warmer than 2017 and 2018 (although not statistically). But of course if you bring in data over the past several decades and regress them, then the pattern is clear.

    It is the same with your attempts to inflate the empirical significance of temperature records of nation states that you cherry-pick. Sure, some have records that were set over a century ago. But the trend is for more and more countries to be setting warm records in recent years, or for the frequency, duration and intensity of heatwaves to increase. The same is true for other climate change-related processes including droughts and heavy rainfall events. Studies are showing that they are increasing in severity as well. The trends are obvious to most scientists. Plucking individual events out of the past as ‘proof’ that it isn’t warming may work for laymen, but it doesn’t pass muster in science.

    Of course Swallow will come back with more simplistic rejoinders because that is what he does. He is wrong and he, and most readers on here, know it. His problem is that he is so blinkered by his political views that he can’t see the wood from the trees.

  16. @ John Swallow :

    ” .. he seems to believe that the “trace gas”, CO?, .. “

    Carbon dioxide or Co2 Ipresume. What’s with your consistent questionmark here Jhn?

    “..that absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat as CO? or 99.9% of all “global warming..”

    Er, huh? You lose your train of thought somewhere here or in your very long and poorly phrased , question, is it? Or statement rather? Or spouting of a long debunked Point Refuted A Thousand Times regarding water vs CO2. See for instance :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAtD9aZYXAs

    Which was from 2009 -litrrallya decade ag -but still very nicely, entertaingly and effectively demolishes that supposed point which (I think?) you are trying to make.

    In short, water vapour responds to what Co2 does whereas CO2 drives the forcing and is the factor responsible for chnges in water vapour.

    Did you really think you would fool or puzzle people with that one?

    .. CO? does only 0.1% of it is now going to cause the planet to incinerate in 12 years..

    Er, what? Talk about a straw person.

    Who said our planet would be “incinerated”in “12 years” exactly other than you?

    That our planet is overheating as far as our climate goes with horrific implications for people living with increased risks of heatwaves, droughts, storms, bushfires, loss of glaciers, rising sealevels, loss of sea ice, loss of icesheets, disappearanc eof permanent water, increased desertificatuion, loss of coral reefs et. etc ..

    “.. because of information that he discovered in a Wikipedia source that he trust without question. In Jeffh eyes, if it is Wikipedia it has to be true without any doubt, end of the story.”

    Er, again, what? Really? I don’t think so. Pointing out that wikipedia may have this issue right or that the cites to it he’s used are accurate is a long way from what you are claiming here.

    1. I certainly need to thank StevoR for providing that wonderful You Tube that for sure set me straight about how insignificant H?O (when I use a small 2 it shows as a ?). Now that I have found out from this Climate Denial Crock how mistaken that I have been about the water cycle when it causes a river the size of the Amazon. Where the river opens at its estuary it is over 202 mi wide. I now understand that water vapor is totally meaningless as far as the earth’s climate and temperature is concerned when everything is controlled by a powerful trace gas, carbon dioxide, that is responsible for all life on earth but it is causing the earth to incinerate in a short time. The question for you is, what are we to do to prevent this disaster from occurring? Is it now too late to find salvation even if all of the fossil fuel producing companies are made to quit producing today so that the wind turbines and solar farms can power our industries and homes with electricity? Shut the evil fossil fuel producing companies all down and we can ride around in our electric cars. Where will you want me to plug mine in for a recharge? Where will you plug yours in? A couple of points to consider that Peter Sinclair passed over in his You Tube is that it is a fact that carbon dioxide is 1.6 times heavier than the rest of the air it resides in and the law of gravity takes over and it sinks. That is a fact that was proven when this happened & you can open the link to understand what it does in the atmosphere, it sinks to the low spots, just like the vapor that comes off of dry ice in a glass of water.
      http://historyofgeology.fieldofscience.com/2010/08/august-121986-lake-nyos-catastrophe.html

      This New York Times site is interesting to show just how much of the earth is cloud covered.
      “One Year of Clouds Covering the Earth
      At any moment, about 60 percent of the earth is covered by clouds,(According to a NASA web page 70% of the earth is covered by clouds) which have a huge influence on the climate. An animated map showing a year of cloud cover suggests the outlines of continents because land and ocean features influence cloud patterns.”
      http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/05/01/science/earth/0501-clouds.html

      Here is a finial question for you StevoR; The sun makes up 99.86% of the mass of the solar system. Carbon dioxide is .03% of the earth’s atmosphere. Of the two, the sun or CO?, which do you believe has the most influence on the earth’s climate?
      http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/64-What-is-the-atmosphere-of-Earth-made-of-

    2. I now understand that water vapor is totally meaningless as far as the earth’s climate and temperature is concerned when everything is controlled by a powerful trace gas, carbon dioxide

      No. The increased RF from non-condensing GHGs like CO2 results in a sustained warming of the atmosphere which increases the amount of atmospheric WV and keeps it elevated. So CO2 leverages the WV greenhouse effect.

      If you don’t understand basic stuff like this, you should NOT be posting ‘sceptical’ bollocks on the internet. You have no idea what you are talking about.

  17. Of the two, the sun or CO?, which do you believe has the most influence on the earth’s climate?

    I’ll go with the science swallow, not your patently dishonest items that don’t support your crap despite your ignorant attempts at cherry picking.

    Normal people tire of being wrong. You seem to love being massively wrong.

  18. Ditto Dean, I go with the science and the scientific consensus, not on some scientifically illiterate hack (John Swallow) who trolls the blogosphere.

    I would ask Swallow this: what if atmospheric composition that ‘trace gas’ (CO2) was reduced from 0.3% to 0%? What would the biosphere look like then? Go ahead and tell. I am listening. I am curious as to what a luminary like you thinks would happen.

    Here is my take, writing as a scientist. All plant life would be dead, and as a result, all animal life. The planet would also be an iceball. It is remarkable therefore, what effect that ‘trace gas’ has for life and climate on the Earth.

    Isn’t it amazing, though, how an old layman like Swallow believes that he knows more than 97% of the scientific community and every relevant scientific organization on Earth? Indeed, it is a miracle.

    Or not.

    1. ” All plant life would be dead, and as a result, all animal life. ”

      But HOW would it happen? Which would happen first: The Photosynthesis stops, then the food supply runs low and O2 starts to get used up. I susect the former is faster for herbifores, the latter might be quite slow because there is a LOT of O2.

      Meanwhile, the planet is cooling rapidly. As I understand that, this could be very nearly instant in a planet where an atmosphere like ours is replaced instantly with N only. But we have a few other greenhouse trace gases, and water vapor.

      So maybe the cooling would take days, maybe even a couple of weeks.

      Conclusion: This is complicated and we don’t really know the answer, therefore global warming can not be proven.

    2. Jeffh asked the rhetorical question; “what if atmospheric composition that ‘trace gas’ (CO2) was reduced from 0.3% to 0%? What would the biosphere look like then?” The first matter that must be clarified is exactly what is the definition of carbon dioxide? “CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life– plants and animals alike– benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.”
      The State Climate Office of North Carolina offers up this as a definition of “trace” & hopefully Jeffh is able to accept that as the definition of trace.
      “The atmosphere is composed of a mix of several different gases in differing amounts.  The permanent gases whose percentages do not change from day to day are nitrogen, oxygen and argon.  Nitrogen accounts for 78% of the atmosphere, oxygen 21% and argon 0.9%.  Gases like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone are trace gases that account for about a tenth of one percent of the atmosphere.”  https://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/Composition

      Then Jeffh asked; “what if atmospheric composition that ‘trace gas’ (CO2) was reduced from 0.3% to 0%? What would the biosphere look like then?” Uranus’ atmosphere appears to be devoid of carbon dioxide; therefore, even though all things in this hypothetical case are not even, it answers, Jeffh’s inane question.
      Uranus’ atmosphere is mostly hydrogen and helium, with a small amount of methane and traces of water and ammonia. The methane gives Uranus its signature blue color.
      Uranus’ planetary atmosphere, with a minimum temperature of 49K (-224.2 degrees Celsius) makes it even colder than Neptune in some places.
      https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/uranus/in-depth/

      Neptune’s atmosphere is made up predominately of hydrogen and helium, with some methane. 
      The average temperature on Neptune is about minus 200 degrees Celsius (minus 392 degrees Fahrenheit).

      I hope that Greg Laden sees fit to allow this reply to Jeffh pass his stringent moderation criteria and not let me reply. There was no use of profanity or name calling contained in the two that he chose not to allow to be seen by Jeffh & only verifiable facts were presented by me.

  19. Good point Greg. But does it matter which way around? What matters is that CO2 (1) plays a major role in regulating global climate, and (2) is vitally important in plant photosynthesis. Take it away, given that Swallow implies it is just a ‘trace gas’, and let’s see what happens. Disaster for life, that’s what.

  20. This Quora article, along with the great Peter Sinclair video (a must-see), reveals how utterly ludicrous it is to assume that Tim Ball ‘won’ the libel case against Mike Mann. Not even close.

    1. Since mikeN, swallow, and rickA are too lazy to read anything that doesn’t show up on right wing dishonesty sites it’s worth the effort to post some of the items given at Jeffh’s link:

      In his judgement B.C. Supreme Court Justice Ronald Skolrood wrote: (I added emphasis)

      “… despite Dr. Ball’s history as an academic and a scientist, the Article is rife with errors and inaccuracies, which suggests a lack of attention to detail on Dr. Ball’s part, if not an indifference to the truth.”

      and

      the Article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views, including his views of Dr. Weaver as a supporter of conventional climate science.

      The article points out that Ball was never a “Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg”, he was a historical geographer, and that U of Winnipeg never had a department of Climatology. Another lie that should have been easily observed, but since climate denial is espoused and populated by serial liars, it apparently didn’t matter.

      The inspiration of these clowns to push such easily outed lies is beyond me — they are as unbelievably dishonest as anti-vaccine folks.

  21. Moving away from the dishonest folks who post the anti-science drivel here: did you see the altered impact map for Dorian trump displayed during a FEMA briefing.

    Sunday he had included Alabama in the list of states where people should evacuate because of a “likely” impact of Dorian.

    The NWS immediately sent out a message saying Alabama would not be hit by the hurricane.

    Trump repeated the claim, said a reporter was given “false news” when the reporter said it wouldn’t be hit.

    Then, at the FEMA meeting, he held up the NWS map with an extra loop drawn by sharpie to show the hurricane hitting Alabama.

    Rather a direct and blatant lie by the shit-bag in chief.

  22. Swallow, look at the Peter Sinclair video. It pretty well demolishes your ‘trace gas’ nonsense. In it he explains how climate change deniers use this argument based simply on ‘feelings’ and not on empirics. There are no verifiable facts in your CO2 argument. Indeed in most of your posts you cherry-pick outliers (as when citing heat records). The relationship between atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and temperature have been established for over a century and are acknowledged by the overwhelming majority of scientists including most importantly climate scientists and every scientific body I linked earlier. You, in your naievete, write as if this relationship had never been discussed, examined and accepted and as if it is a new, unverified theory only being explored on blogs. Sinclair explains it in his video; there are by now a huge number of published scientific studies whose results confirm the importance of CO2.

    The same thing goes for heatwaves and temperature records. Unlike you, because you are a layman, I examine frequencies in my research. You focus on single data points. Epic fail. Your attempt to dismiss the two exceptional heat waves in Europe in 2019 as being due to an anomolous Omega block won’t work. Already a number of climate scientists have commented on it and have said that the human fingerprint was all over it, and that climate warming amplified the heat considerably. As I said before, the frequency of intense heatwaves is increasing. In several European countries, for instance summer heatwaves are becoming more and more frequent over the past 20 years compared with the previous 100.

    By now I am fed up with your wilful ignorance. You are a textbook example of an internet troll, and you show up on progressive blogs where your arguments, as on here by me and others, are easily debunked. However, like trolls, you persist and try to have the final word. I am sure that you are probably treated like a deity on right wing sites like Breitbart and the Daily Caller where readers are seeking information that confirms their ignorant views on climate and other environmental issues. I am also sure that those people inflate your ego, giving you the confidence to take your piffle to progessive blogs like Greg’s and Desmogblog. It won’t work because on these sites there are people who will deconstruct what you write.

    Having easily refuted everything you have written on here, me, BBD, Dean and others by now are exasperated with your persistence. Please just go away.

    1. It appears to be you, BBD, or whatever your alias for today is, that has no clue. Where in the post that you are referencing that I made did I mention anything about the temperatures on other planets other than Uranus’ planetary atmosphere, with a minimum temperature of 49K (-224.2 degrees Celsius) or
      Neptune’s atmosphere, that is made up predominately of hydrogen and helium, with some methane.
      The average temperature on Neptune is about minus 200 degrees Celsius (minus 392 degrees Fahrenheit). The next reply to Jeffh question about zero CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere will be about Mars that per square meter of surface, Mars has nearly 70 times as much C02 in its atmosphere as Earth, but the low Martian atmospheric pressure results in narrower spectral lines. The average temperature on Mars is about minus 80 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 60 degrees Celsius). That is getting close to what the temperature is today at the South Pole.

      Weather in South Pole, Antarctica
      Now

      -48 °C
      Overcast.
      Feels Like: -69 °C
      Forecast: -41 / -44 °C
      Wind: 32 km/h ? from North
      Location: Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station
      Current Time: 5 Sep 2019, 22:29:37
      Latest Report: 5 Sep 2019, 18:00
      https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/antarctica/south-pole

    2. I notice that Jeffh made no effort to reply to my answers to his question in his “comment” to me on September 5,2019 at 12:18 am when he said; “Swallow, look at the Peter Sinclair video. It pretty well demolishes your ‘trace gas’ nonsense”. I presented Jeffh with a definition of what trace gas is defined as being; “Gases like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone are trace gases that account for about a tenth of one percent of the atmosphere.”
      If he is unable to understand that, my heart goes out to him and all of the others that seem to believe that carbon dioxide is a devil in the sky that will cause the earth to be incinerated, soon, if everyone doesn’t stop using what provides the energy demand for 80% of the planets requirements of energy, fossil fuels.

      As for you suggesting that I watch the Peter Sinclair video. I have watched his videos and interacted with Peter on different occasions. One time it was in regard to one of his videos where he was trying to convince his ignorant followers that the Vikings had not carried on an agrarian life style on Greenland for 400 years during the MWP when the remains of their farms and settlements exist today on Greenland. Peter Sinclair is to whom someone such as yourself goes to for his “scientific” information since he graduated from the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor years ago with a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree & in the 90’s he worked as a graphic artist.
      This is another reply to your question about zero CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere. It will be about Mars, that per square meter of surface, Mars has nearly 70 times as much C02 in its atmosphere as Earth. The low Martian atmospheric pressure results in narrower spectral lines. The average temperature on Mars is about minus 80 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 60 degrees Celsius). That is getting close to what the temperature is today at the South Pole, -48 °C.

      “What is Mars’ atmosphere made of?
      The atmosphere of Mars is about 100 times thinner than Earth’s, and it is 95 percent carbon dioxide. 
      Mars’ thin atmosphere and its greater distance from the sun mean that Mars is much colder than Earth. The average temperature is about minus 80 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 60 degrees Celsius), although it can vary from minus 195 F (minus 125 C) near the poles during the winter to as much as a comfortable 70 F (20 C) at midday near the equator.
      The atmosphere of Mars is also roughly 100 times thinner than Earth’s, but it is still thick enough to support weather, clouds and winds.” 
      https://www.space.com/16903-mars-atmosphere-climate-weather.html

      It does not appear that even though Mars possess 70 times as much C02 in its atmosphere as Earth has, there will be no banana harvest for many years to come on Mars.

    3. This information from Jeffh may present hope for humanities future since if an organism is alive, it is happier with warmth than with cold. “Already a number of climate scientists have commented on it and have said that the human fingerprint was all over it, and that climate warming amplified the heat considerably. As I said before, the frequency of intense heatwaves is increasing. In several European countries, for instance summer heatwaves are becoming more and more frequent over the past 20 years compared with the previous 100.”

      I wonder if Jeffh is aware of these facts that follow or if any of the other true believers in the hoax about carbon dioxide being a devil in the sky that is eventually going to cause the earth to be incinerated have ever looked into the valid statistics about heat versus cold and human deaths attributed to each condition.

      “Cold weather kills far more people than hot weather”
      May 20, 2015
      The Lancet
      Summary: “Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings also reveal that deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells.”
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150520193831.htm

       
      https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002619

      MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 2016
      THANG LONG – HANOI
      Lao Cai province protects cattle from snowfall VNA FRIDAY, JANUARY 22, 2016 Lao Cai (VNA) – The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development of the northern mountainous province of Lao Cai is taking all necessary measures to cope with coming snowfall. The move follows the local hydro-meteorological station’s forecast that a severe cold spell will hit the northern region from January 22’s night, according to Department Deputy Director Nguyen Van Tuyen. http://en.vietnamplus.vn/lao-cai-province-protects-cattle-from-snowfall/88038.vnp
       

    4. It appears to be you, BBD, or whatever your alias for today is, that has no clue.

      What horseshit is this? I only post as BBD.

      Why haven’t you read the link I provided before commenting again?

      You need to learn, not talk, so why are you back spouting ignorant crap instead of filling in the gaping holes in your knowledge? Shut up, go away and read.

    5. It does not appear that even though Mars possess 70 times as much C02 in its atmosphere as Earth has, there will be no banana harvest for many years to come on Mars.

      Assuming I’m parsing this subliterate gabble correctly, you are claiming that the high CO2 content of the Martian atmosphere should result in a higher surface temperature than observed. But no. Because:

      1/. Mars is COLD at the surface because it is far away from the Sun and because it has an extremely tenuous atmosphere.

      2/. Stefan-Boltzmann law: black-body radiation is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature (E = ?T^4). But the surface of Mars is COLD. Do you have the cognitive power to work out why S-B will reduce the efficacy of the GHE? Not holding my breath.

      And most important of all – and already posted here by me earlier:

      The increased RF from non-condensing GHGs like CO2 results in a sustained warming of the atmosphere which increases the amount of atmospheric WV and keeps it elevated. So CO2 leverages the WV greenhouse effect.

      But the Martian atmosphere is very, very dry. So there is virtually no WV GHE for CO2 to leverage. So Mars is COLD.

      If you don’t understand this (and you obviously don’t), then stop posting garbage and go and read a fucking textbook.

  23. Swallow, it’s over for you. The pages of scientific journals are filled with hundreds and hundreds of pages showing an indisputable link between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and Earth’s surface temperature. These studies form the foundation of the scientific consensus. You write here as if these studies didn’t exist and as if our understanding of the field was in its infancy. You are a clueless troll who is not providing a shred of empirical evidence to dismiss these studies except your ‘gut feelings’. As I said above, Peter Sinclair took apart your feelings in his youtube video posted above. It means squat what current temperatures are in Antarctica, or what conditions are on Uranus, Mars, or any of the other planets. Here on Earth, short-term term events are weather and are stochastic. Longer term trends are climate and are more deterministic. I study trends and those are absolutely clear. The biosphere is warming and all evidence points to us as the culprit.

    Me and others here are sick of you and your ignorance. The more you post, the stupider you look. Get lost.

    1. These graphs demonstrate that when Jeffh says; “I study trends and those are absolutely clear. The biosphere is warming and all evidence points to us as the culprit.” he is not stating the truth. All of these graphs show a decline in the temperature peaks of the recent past.
      https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/CM_7_2017_TLT_time_Series_compare_w_v33.png

      https://sealevel.info/GISS_vs_UAH_and_HadCRUT_1958-2018_woodfortrees_annot2.png

      uah6/nean:12
      WoodForTrees.org
      http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/plot/uah6/mean:12

    2. These graphs demonstrate that when Jeffh says; “I study trends and those are absolutely clear. The biosphere is warming and all evidence points to us as the culprit.” he is not stating the truth. All of these graphs show a decline in the temperature peaks of the recent past.

      Bollocks, again:

      HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH6, common 1981 – 2010 baseline, from 1979

      Even with the highly problematic UAH6 product in there, the upward trends of all datasets are absolutely unambiguous.

      You are so far out of your depth it’s funny.

  24. These graphs demonstrate that when Jeffh says; “I study trends and those are absolutely clear. The biosphere is warming and all evidence points to us as the culprit.” he is not stating the truth. All of these graphs show a decline in the temperature peaks of the recent past.

    UAH Version 6 of Global Lower Troposphere Temperatures (“LT”)
    has less warming (+0.114 C/decade) than V5.6 (+0.140 C/decade)
    https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/V6-vs-v5.6-LT-1979-Mar2015.gif

    UAH Satellite-Based
    Temperature of the
    Global Lower Atmosphere
    (Version 6.0)
    August, 2019: +0.38 deg. C
    https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_August_2019_v6.jpg

    https://sealevel.info/GISS_vs_UAH_and_HadCRUT_1958-2018_woodfortrees_annot2.png

    uah6/nean:12
    WoodForTrees.org
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/plot/uah6/mean:12

  25. Swallow, GET LOST. Every bit of nonsense you raise has been evaluated – and dismissed before by the scientific community. Sinclair puts a number of papers up on his video that have evaluated the contribution of CO2 to the Earth’s climate. See if you can debunk them one by one. It will keep you busy, given there are hundreds if not thousands of them.

    Then, write a scientific paper explaining why climate scientists are wrong and an old guy like you (because it strikes me that you are like one of the old white males who attends the Heartland Institute denier gigs) is right and submit it to a relevant journal. By now you may have guessed that most of us on here and on Desmogblog are sick of you.

  26. J ‘hard to’ Swallow

    The Lancet
    Summary: “Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries.

    That was posted from denial wishful thinking when reality is considerably more nuanced whilst undermining the simplistic assessment implied by the heading so excitedly broadcast by one who fails due diligence.

    Bottom line

    I would like to conclude with the following thought: Let’s assume – albeit extremely unlikely – that the study discussed here does correctly predict the actual future changes of temperature-related excess mortality due to climate change, despite the mentioned caveats. Mostly rich countries in temperate latitudes would then indeed experience a decline in overall temperature-related mortality. On the other hand, the world would witness a dramatic increase in heat-related mortality rates in the most populous and often poorest parts of the globe. And the latter alone would be in my view a sufficient argument for ambitious mitigation – independently of the innumerous, well-researched climate risks beyond the health sector.

    .

    Source:

    Will climate change bring benefits from reduced cold-related mortality? Insights from the latest epidemiological research

    And that is not all, not by a long chalk.

    1. Lionel A said; “That was posted from denial wishful thinking when reality is considerably more nuanced whilst undermining the simplistic assessment implied by the heading so excitedly broadcast by one who fails due diligence”
      This is the back ground of the person that Lionel A seems to believe just has to be more correct about the subject of whether cold or heat kills more people. Is there a chance for bias in her report, Lionel A, & would that be important to you?
      “Veronika Huber I am a climate impacts scientist with a special interest in human health and aquatic systems.
      Climate impacts on phytoplankton”
      http://veronikahuber.de/

      This is the background of The Lancet, whose findings I submitted so you could say “That was posted from denial wishful thinking when reality is considerably more nuanced”.
      “About the journal
      The Lancet is an independent, international weekly general medical journal founded in 1823 by Thomas Wakley. Since its first issue (October 5, 1823), the journal has strived to make science widely available so that medicine can serve, and transform society, and positively impact the lives of people. The Lancet is committed to applying scientific knowledge to improve health and advance human progress. In our weekly issues, and online first content, we publish some of the best science from the best scientists worldwide, providing an unparalleled global reach and impact on health.
      The Lancet has grown from a 19th century pamphlet to a high impact, international journal. The Lancet is proud to have published papers that have made a crucial contribution to science and human health. View a selection of our research landmarks from more than 10 000 published issues.
      Reputation and impact
      The Lancet is a world leading medical journal. We have a Journal Impact Factor of 59·102® (2018 Journal Citation Reports®, Clarivate Analytics 2019) and are currently ranked second out of 160 journals in the Medicine, General & Internal subject category.”
      https://www.thelancet.com/lancet/about

      Can this be said about your source, Real Climate, Lionel A?

  27. BBD suggested to J ‘hard to’ Swallow:

    If you don’t understand this (and you obviously don’t), then stop posting garbage and go and read a fucking textbook.

    I would suggest a text that considers the whole Earth system. Just so happens that texts on Oceanography are excellent primers here.

    One such being: ‘Oceanography: An Invitation to Marine Science’ by Tom Garrison

    Even an old edition as mine now is would be good enough and probably found at bargain prices.

    Seeing as JS has trouble understanding the mechanism of CO2 in radiative heating then perhaps the papers by three scientists of the nineteenth century will demonstrate the principles and also how long they have been understood. The three papers concerned by; Jean-Baptiste Fourier, John Tyndall (a description of his experimentation is on Wikipedia) and Svante Arrhenius are in a larger collection brought together under the title The Warming Papers.

    1. Well said, Lionel.

      What is it with deniers and intellectual laziness?

      Can it be that they do not want to understand the facts as doing so would undermine their ideological stance?

    2. Lionel A Explains to me by way of BBD’s eloquent and thoughtful comment that seems to sum up the mentality of the anthropogenic global warming/climate change group; “If you don’t understand this (and you obviously don’t), then stop posting garbage and go and read a fucking textbook”. Lionel A then post this to me; “The three papers concerned by; Jean-Baptiste Fourier, John Tyndall (a description of his experimentation is on Wikipedia) and Svante Arrhenius are in a larger collection brought together under the title The Warming Papers”. One need not wonder long as to why Lionel A would rely on Wikipedia for his source of information about the amazing scientist, John Tyndall, when he, if he actually had any interest in the truth about Tyndall & his work, he could have went to this site and found out about what Tyndall actually knew 160 years ago that the alarmist can’t come to understand to this day.
      “In 1859 Tyndall began to study the capacities of various gases to absorb or transmit radiant heat. He showed that the main atmospheric gases, nitrogen and oxygen, are almost transparent to radiant heat, whereas water vapour, carbon dioxide and ozone are such good absorbers that, even in small quantities, these gases absorb heat radiation much more strongly than the rest of the atmosphere.
      Tyndall concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling surface air temperature by inhibiting leakage of the Earth’s heat back into outer space. He declared that, without water vapour, the Earth’s surface would be ‘held fast in the iron grip of frost’ – the greenhouse effect.
      The greenhouse effect works as follows. Most of the Sun’s energy is radiated as visible light. This is not absorbed by the atmosphere and passes through to warm the Earth. The warm Earth radiates heat back into the atmosphere as infrared radiation. This is avidly absorbed by atmospheric water vapour and carbon dioxide, trapping the heat and preventing the Earth from freezing.”
      https://archive.is/EC8Ig#selection-901.0-913.378

    3. Tyndall concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling surface air temperature by inhibiting leakage of the Earth’s heat back into outer space. He declared that, without water vapour, the Earth’s surface would be ‘held fast in the iron grip of frost’ – the greenhouse effect.

      The greenhouse effect works as follows. Most of the Sun’s energy is radiated as visible light. This is not absorbed by the atmosphere and passes through to warm the Earth. The warm Earth radiates heat back into the atmosphere as infrared radiation. This is avidly absorbed by atmospheric water vapour and carbon dioxide, trapping the heat and preventing the Earth from freezing.”

      Still ignoring the key part of the causal chain, like the dishonest / stupid muppet you clearly are. Third repeat:

      The increased RF from non-condensing GHGs like CO2 results in a sustained warming of the atmosphere which increases the amount of atmospheric WV [water vapour] and keeps it elevated. So CO2 leverages the WV [water vapour] greenhouse effect.

      Which is why the hyper-dry Martian atmosphere doesn’t exhibit a strong greenhouse effect, and the Martian surface is COLD.

      Why haven’t you read the link I posted and sorted out the mess in your head yet?

      Why are you still posting bollocks here?

    4. One need not wonder long as to why Lionel A would rely on Wikipedia for his source of information about the amazing scientist, John Tyndall, when he, if he actually had any interest in the truth about Tyndall & his work, he could have went to this site and found out about what Tyndall actually knew 160 years ago that the alarmist can’t come to understand to this day.

      Oh you lazy clown. If you’d bothered to read Tyndall’s paper as Lionel suggested, you could have avoided yet more humiliation. Lionel, I strongly suspect, *has* read Tyndall, and knows what you do not. Here is Tyndall, writing in his seminal 1861 paper On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction (page 28; my comments are in square brackets):

      De Saussuee, Foueiee, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of the terrestrial rays as exercising the most important influence on climate. Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid [CO2] diffused through the air; while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours [eg. methane, CH4] would produce great effects on the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding changes of climate.

      Full PDF here.

      Oh dear. Tyndall did indeed recognise the importance of CO2 and indeed methane as greenhouse gasses in trace quantities. Arhennius went on to estimate the warming effect of CO2 and Callendar explicity linked human emissions to climate change, but Tyndall identified CO2 as a climate forcing. Just as Lionel explained.

      * * *

      One has to wonder what is going on here. You are getting reamed every time you post, which ought to be painfully embarrassing, yet you keep on coming back for more. This raises the possibility that you actively enjoy being humiliated and mocked. A simple confirmatory test would be to see if you continue returning to have your nose rubbed in your own ignorance.

  28. Swallow, GO AWAY. If you have something useful to say, then write rebuttals to the thousands of published studies that conclusively establish the link between atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and the Earth’s surface temperature. Instead of blathering on here and on other progressive blogs, let us see you write a paper and get it published somewhere. I have over 200 of them now. You have none. Put your money where your mouth is.

    Your long rants are nothing more than a Gish-gallop. Every one of your points has been addressed over decades and decades of research. You are so arrogant that you somehow believe the debate over the roles of various forcings on climate only began yesterday. You have never once brought in the primary literature with regards to the aforementioned studies.

    Greg, I am sure that I speak on behalf of most posters on here. Ban Swallow. In my honest opinion he is a lunatic, full of himself and his ‘ideas’. He only persists in order to have the last word. Everyone on here is sick of him.

    1. I am sure that since, by his own admission, Jeffh, has over 200 papers published now that it should be no problem for him to elucidate for me his comment when he stated; “I study trends and those are absolutely clear. The biosphere is warming and all evidence points to us as the culprit.” Why haven’t you addressed what these graphs are showing you?

      These graphs demonstrate that when Jeffh says; “I study trends and those are absolutely clear. The biosphere is warming and all evidence points to us as the culprit.” he is not stating the truth. All of these graphs show a decline in the temperature peaks of the recent past.
      https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/CM_7_2017_TLT_time_Series_compare_w_v33.png

      https://sealevel.info/GISS_vs_UAH_and_HadCRUT_1958-2018_woodfortrees_annot2.png

      uah6/nean:12
      WoodForTrees.org
      http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/plot/uah6/mean:12

      Jeffh; do these graphs actually show what you are saying; “The biosphere is warming…” or do they demonstrate that you prevaricate and just make stuff up as you go along your merry way while trying to come up with more insults directed at me because you seem to rarely post anything that has to do with climatology. Why are you true believing anthropogenic global warming alarmist such a surly group of people to anyone who you consider to be heretic because they know the truth about your invented devil in the sky, carbon dioxide? You do not seem bright enough to understand that without CO2 and the sun that there would be NO life on planet earth.
      What you alarmist ignore is this truth. The sun makes up 99.86% of the mass of the solar system. Do you agree with that summation? Carbon dioxide is .03% of the earth’s atmosphere. Do you agree with that summation? Of the two, the sun or CO?, which do you believe has the most influence on the earth’s climate?
      What is the atmosphere of Earth made of? Earth’s atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon, and 0.03% carbon dioxide with very small percentages of other elements. Our atmosphere also contains water vapor. In addition, Earth’s atmosphere contains traces of dust particles, pollen, plant grains and other solid particles. http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/64-What-is-the-atmosphere-of-Earth-made-of-
      How large is the Sun compared to Earth?
      Compared to Earth, the Sun is enormous! It contains 99.86% of all of the mass of the entire Solar System. The Sun is 864,400 miles (1,391,000 kilometers) across. This is about 109 times the diameter of Earth. The Sun weighs about 333,000 times as much as Earth. It is so large that about 1,300,000 planet Earths can fit inside of it. Earth is about the size of an average sunspot! http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/5-How-large-is-the-Sun-compared-to-Earth-

  29. And one final thing, Swallow. Why don’t you write to Dr. Huber and ask her for her opinions on climate change, instead of distorting the findings of her research in support of your own narrative? She would be rightfully annoyed that some climate-change denier is severely contextualizing her research. It happened once with colleagues at my research institute where one of their Nature papers was used by CO2 Science (the abominable Idso blog) to argue that CO2 enrichment benefits soil ecosystems. My colleagues were outraged because their paper said no such thing.

    Deniers love cherry picking and then manipulating the cherries. They all do it. They will ignore 5000 studies they don’t like and focus intensively on a lone outlier often published in a low ranking journal and then go on to explain why that lone study is the truth. Swallow has mastered the art, only those with more experience and knowledge than him can easily see through it.

    The indoctrinated fools who read the Daily Caller and Breitbart will easily swallow what Swallow writes, boosting his ego and sending him on a trolling mission. We aren’t fooled here by his kindergarten science and he doesn’t like it.

    Tough.

  30. Now I geddit. Swallow is trying to downplay Dr. Huber’s comments because they appeared on one of the few blogs run by climate scientists, RealClimate. Of course this hasn’t stopped him or others in the past from citing stuff from blogs like WUWT, or Goddard/Heller, or other execreable sites.

    What a piece of work Mr. John Swallow is. I want to ask him a question, given that his views contradict those of people who have studied the field of climate and atmospheric science for years. I expect a straight answer.

    Mr. Swallow, who do you think knows more about climate science.

    *Delete as appropriate.

    1. You or Michael Mann
    2. You or Kevin Trenberth
    3. You or James Hansen
    4. You or Stefan Rahmstorf

    I will exapnd upon that.

    You or 97% of the climate science community.
    You or members of the 18 major relevant scientific organizations in the US that affirm the link between CO2 and climate.

    I anxiously await your reply.

    As someone working in a different field, I defer to the expertise of people trained in climate science. You apparently don’t. By the way, what is or was your career in? I say ‘was’ because I have the strong suspicion that you are retired. To me it is clearly not science. But what?

    1. When Mr. Jeffh presents the name Michael Mann I’m assuming that he means the one that had a case just thrown out of court in Canada for slander or whatever. The truth always prevails because in 2003 two Canadian statisticians, Steve McIntyre & Professor Ross McKitrick, showed how the graph had been fabricated by a computer model that produced “hockey stick” graphs whatever random data were fed into it. Mann would never show his “work” so now a Canadian court has ruled against him and he must pay all court cost to Dr Ball. Is that the Michael Mann you are referring to that said what follows in the Climategate debacle when the lies a deception that alarmist try to slip over on the public became exposed.
      You feel so good that 195 countries who signed the Paris Agreement without wanting to recall how the 2009 Copenhagen get together fell apart after the climate gate emails came public knowledge that showed the dishonesty and deception of these charlatans who want people to believe in the anthropogenic global warming hoax? An example of how your “science” conducts itself.
      From: Phil Jones
      To: ray bradley ,REDACTED, REDACTED

      Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
      Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
      first thing tomorrow.
      I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
      to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
      1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
      land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land 
      N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
      for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
      data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. 
      Thanks for the comments, Ray.
      Cheers
      Phil
      http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/0938018124.txt

    2. Does Mr. Jeffh mean this James Hansen?
      What Hansen, when he had a better idea of what honesty was and could even manage to tell the truth, said this below.
      “Whither U.S. Climate?
      By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato — August 1999
      What’s happening to our climate? Was the heat wave and drought in the Eastern United States in 1999 a sign of global warming?
      Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath.”
      http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

    3. I’m never one for honorifics, but in this case I’ve make an exception.

      Jeff is a very well-regarded ecologist, with a doctorate. He’s also a professor at his institution, so at the very least you should be referring to him a ‘Dr,’ and preferrably as ‘Prof’ – but not as ‘Mr,’ as you are doing in a ham-fisted attempt to diminish his standing.

      Had my path not taken a different turn I’d seriously have considered leaving the country where I live to return to the land of my birth for the opportunity to work in Jeff’s group.

  31. Jeffh has a point. I should write to Dr. Huber and point out that; “The Lancet is an independent, international weekly general medical journal founded in 1823 by Thomas Wakley. Since its first issue (October 5, 1823), the journal has strived to make science widely available so that medicine can serve, and transform society, and positively impact the lives of people.” and The Lancet did a study on the topic of whether cold or heat causes more deaths in the world and that their results were totally different than what hers were.
    These are some more studies done by qualified people who are not doing studies on “Climate impacts on phytoplankton” while doing supposed research on heat/cold related deaths in humans.

    Heat Mortality Versus Cold Mortality: A Study of Conflicting Databases in the United States
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-86-7-937
     The impact of heat, cold, and heat waves on hospital admissions in eight cities in Korea.
    Cold waves boost admissions some 50% versus 5% for heat waves.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24445484
    “Summer no sweat for Aussies but winter freeze fatal January 12, 2015
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150112110820.htm

    When are you going to respond to your; “I study trends and those are absolutely clear. The biosphere is warming and all evidence points to us as the culprit.” he is not stating the truth. All of these graphs show a decline in the temperature peaks of the recent past?

  32. One need not wonder long as to why Lionel A would rely on Wikipedia for his source of information about the amazing scientist, John Tyndall, …

    With that John Swallow demonstrates one typical trait of the amature denier – a lack of comprehension, he having failed to notice that I mentioned Wikipedia in passing, as a courtesy, on my way to citing ‘The Warming Papers’.

    That the Wiki article mentions water vapour is by the by for the proximate cause of heating is from the radiative absorption of CO2 (note also the other gases mentioned that have an effect), the heat rise that results causes more water to evaporate which is a feedback mechanism.

    “That was posted from denial wishful thinking when reality is considerably more nuanced”.

    I am well aware of the reputation of The Lancet, indeed I get notifications from that source, the wishful thinking indicated was that of yourself by virtue of being selective about the conclusions reached plus a lack of wider perspective.

  33. “Whither U.S. Climate?
    By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato — August 1999…

    John Swallow didn’t see the banana skin from the same source:

    In the meantime, we can venture two “predictions” on “whither U.S. climate”. First, regarding U.S. temperature, we have argued (Hansen et al., 1999a) that the next decade will be warmer than the 1990s, rivaling if not exceeding the 1930s. The basis for that prediction is the expectation of continued greenhouse warming and probable slackening of regional ocean cooling. Second, regarding precipitation and drought, even without analysis of regional patterns of change, we can offer the probabilistic statement that the frequencies of both extremes, heavy precipitation and floods on the one hand and droughts and forest fires on the other, will increase with increasing global temperature. The rationale for this (Hansen et al., 1991) is that increased surface heating increases evaporation, and this increases the intensity of both precipitation and drought conditions where and when they occur.

    JS reminds me of the circus clowns and their car which slowly falls apart.

  34. Swallow… bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Wrong answer. We have already well discussed how Ball and his lawyers used the defense of him being an old, feeble-minded individual and having health problems so that the Judge would have mercy on him. The decision had absolutely nothing to do with the proxies used by Mann to produce a graph that has been replicated by at least 8 other research groups since then.

    As for climategate, another non-event that has gone down in history for the desperate attempts of climate change deniers to quote-mine and make a mountain out of less than a molehill. Didn’t work then , doesn’t work now.

    Anyway, I didn’t ask about no-name/no expertise Ball or the libel case or about climategate. I asked if you think that you know more about climate science than:

    Michael Mann
    Kevin Trenberth
    James Hansen
    Stefan Rahmstorf

    …and the members of 18 major scientific organizations that all affirm the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and surface temperatures across the Earth.

    Citing 20-year old articles and attempting to smear these scientists does not answer my question. Do you think that you know more than they do about climate science? A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will suffice.

    Go ahead. Give it a whirl.

  35. …recall how the 2009 Copenhagen get together fell apart after the climate gate emails came public knowledge that showed the dishonesty and deception of these charlatans who want people to believe in the anthropogenic global warming hoax?

    It is you JS, along with those who perpetrated Climategate and those who tried to make capital out of it from a vicious, braying campaign who are the real charlatans here.

    First off, in your own words describe what ‘Mike’s nature trick is’, BTW ‘trick’ is not used in the sense of being part of a deception that is one clue for you.

    If you have difficulty with that then here is another explanation of that whole sorry business with some of the real climate criminals, in e.g. the media, highlighted.

    Fake news, hacked mail, alternative facts – that’s old hat for climate scientists.

    I don’t know who is feeding you this crap (Tom Harris perhaps – or maybe that is the ID behind your handle) but they are shockingly poor at it.

    1. “First off, in your own words describe what ‘Mike’s nature trick is’, BTW ‘trick’ is not used in the sense of being part of a deception that is one clue for you.” Where did you arrive at that lie from when you say; “…..in your own words describe what ‘Mike’s nature trick is’? Besides not being honest, you folks are also delusional. Now you want to undertake to rewrite the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Get a life after you show that you are incapable of understanding what the definition of ‘trick’ is.
      Trick
       noun
      \ ?trik  \
      Definition of trick
       (Entry 1 of 3)
      1a: a crafty procedure or practice meant to deceive or defraud
      b: a mischievous act : PRANK
      c: a deceptive, dexterous, or ingenious feat especially : one designed to puzzle or amusea juggler’s tricks
      d: an indiscreet or childish action
      2a(1): a quick or artful way of getting a result : KNACKthe trick is to make it look natural
      (2): an instance of getting a desired result one small adjustment will do the trick
      b: a technical device (as of an art or craft)the tricks of stage technique
      3a: a delusive appearance especially when caused by art or legerdemain : an optical illusiona mere trick of the light
      b: a habitual peculiarity of behavior or mannera horse with the trick of shying

      https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trick

    2. Who is Tom Harris? I’m sure that if you dislike him that he is an intelligent honest person that knows the truth about your hoax regarding anthropogenic climate change. Out of curiosity I did look up who Tom Harris is. He is a Canadian mechanical engineer. Bill Nye ‘the Science Guy’, is a mechanical engineer.
      This may be a shock to some that worship at this cathedral of their religion, global warming, but Al Gore has no scientific credentials and Steve Running, who holds a “B.S. in Botany; Oregon State University, Corvallis, 1972, M.S. in Forest Management; Oregon State University, Corvallis, 1973 and a Ph.D. in Forest Ecophysiology; {whatever that is}, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, 1979.
      “Plant ecophysiology is an experimental science that seeks to describe the physiological mechanisms underlying ecological observations.” At least he has been exposed to science but is a long way from being a climatologist, but then again, how much difference do credentials make when one of the heads of the IPCC is an economist? “Hoesung Lee (born December 31, 1945) is a South Korean economist and current chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” Then do not forget that Jeffh’s main source of scientific information is Peter Sinclair. Peter Sinclair is to whom someone such as yourself Lionel A, goes to for his “scientific” information since he graduated from the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor years ago with a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree & in the 90’s he worked as a graphic artist.

  36. When Mr. Jeffh presents the name Michael Mann I’m assuming that he means the one that had a case just thrown out of court in Canada for slander or whatever….

    Good lord swallow, you are both monumentally dishonest and monumentally stupid — a typical combination for science deniers. I’m surprised you haven’t used the lie that mann was condemned for “failing to turn over data, methods, and report how he obtained his r-squared value”, none of which is true but all of which is the talking point for ignorant dicks like you (and despite the fact that an r-squared value would not give anything useful in this setting).

    The case was dismissed because ball cried like a spoiled child and claimed he couldn’t handle the stress due to his age and claimed health issues. The judge also wrote that balls “arguments” in his work were so foolish that nobody with an understanding of the issues would believe them and that they indicated a willful disregard of facts by ball. Just the way you continue to lie and ignore facts yourself.

    1. Good lord dean, you are both monumentally dishonest and monumentally stupid — a typical combination for alarmists who know no valid science about the climate.
      Breaking News: Dr Tim Ball Defeats Michael Mann’s Climate Lawsuit! Supreme Court of British Columbia dismisses Dr Michael Mann’s defamation lawsuit versus Canadian skeptic climatologist, Dr Tim Ball. Full legal costs are awarded to Dr Ball, the defendant in the case. The Canadian court issued it’s final ruling in favor of the Dismissal motion that was filed in May 2019 by Dr Tim Ball’s libel lawyers. The plaintiff Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, first published in 1998, was featured prominently in the U.N. 2001 climate report. The graph showed an “unprecedented” spike in global average temperature in the 20th Century after about 500 years of stability. Skeptics have long claimed Mann’s graph was fraudulent.
      https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-news-dr-tim-ball-defeats-michael-manns-climate-lawsuit/

      The truth always prevails because in 2003 two Canadian statisticians, Steve McIntyre & Professor Ross McKitrick, showed how the graph had been fabricated by a computer model that produced “hockey stick” graphs whatever random data were fed into it. Mann would never show his “work” so now a Canadian court has ruled against him and he must pay all court cost to Dr Ball.
      “More and more concerned about our statement”
      Steve McIntyre, posted on Apr 8, 2010 at 6:56 PM
      In a previous post, I reported that Coordinating Lead Author Overpeck wanted to “deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature”. The MWP was one such target; the Holocene Optimum was another.
      http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/08/more-and-more-concerned-about-our-statement 

  37. JS – When are you going to admit that you don’t even understand the relationship between CO2 and water vapour in the greenhouse effect?

    When are you going to admit that you lied about increasing temperatures?

  38. Bernard J

    Had my path not taken a different turn I’d seriously have considered leaving the country where I live…

    I suspect that the behaviour of the government where you live has something to do with that, the following is an example of their poor judgement. Oh, and don’t mention the coal, Gina does not like criticism.

    Australia waters down Pacific Islands plea on climate crisis

    Then there is this in the northern hemisphere:

    Swedish mountain loses highest peak title due to global heating

    Evidence of warming continues to accrue.

  39. John Swallow has history:

    #59 [by cosmic comics]
    Re. John Swallow

    Swallow is an extreme manifestation of not atypical denialist behavior. He’s combative, but he doesn’t engage in combat. He doesn’t rebut what others say, he ignores it or argues around it. He’s a repository of climate septic memes. To a great extent his cuts and pastes are self-quotes, and his comments are essentially inner-monologues.

    You could use a word like dogged, but I think obsessive is more appropriate.

    https://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/09/26/analysis-of-a-recent-interview-with-seth-borenstein-about-doubt-cf-denial

    1. 2015… and JS has learned exactly nothing.

      Were he a student, he’d be kicked off the course for laziness and / or intellectual deficit.

      Were he a good faith participant in a discussion, he’d have altered his position in the light of the evidence.

      Which leaves us with a default diagnosis of thick rightwing nutter.

  40. Bernard J. has taken the time to set me straight about the one who is not confident enough about his post here to use his real name & goes by a pseudonym, Jeffh. From this pseudonym, Bernard J. is inferring that I should have been able to have recognized that Jeffh ?…is a very well-regarded ecologist, with a doctorate. He’s also a professor at his institution? That inference goes a long way to explain how certain people that believe that at 408.63 ppm CO2 is soon going to cause the earth to be incinerated and with it, all life on the planet. They do as Bernard J. has done and think that I should have known all of this about Jeffh that he outlined for me; but, how is the question that I ask Bernard J.?

    Bernard J. or any of the other alarmist on here needs to provide me with the experiment that shows that CO2 does what some maintain as far as being the driver of the earth’s climate. I do not need to be reminded of Tyndall’s 1859 lab experiments that do not prove that humanity’s CO2 emissions are warming the planet. In the real world, other factors can influence and outweigh those lab findings and that is why these experiment must deal with the real world and not computer models that do not have the ability to factor in all of the variables that effect the earth’s climate. If they cannot provide a verifiable experiment regarding the present amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and how it effects the climate and creates their anthropogenic global warming, then believing that it does so is akin to believing that Santa Clause is real and you need to be good to get something left under the tree.
     
    It is a fact that real scientist devise experiments to either prove or disprove their hypotheses and welcome people to try to disprove them so that they can move on. They sure do not say that the science is settled and the argument is over because there are REAL scientist out there doing REAL scientific work that are not blinded by some agenda that they support so that they can get more “research” money or money to fund a boondoggle renewable energy scheme that will never work.
     
    Albert Einstein addressed the theory of quantum entanglement. In Dec. of 2011 this experiment was carried out:
    Quantum Entanglement Links 2 Diamonds.
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=room-temperature-entanglement
     
    Speaking of Albert Einstein, he had an answer for those continually trying to claim that there is a consensus for their flawed, unproven hypothesis regarding anthropogenic global warming, climate change or whatever the charlatans now call it: “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of the truth” Albert Einstein.

    1. Bernard J. or any of the other alarmist on here needs to provide me with the experiment that shows that CO2 does what some maintain as far as being the driver of the earth’s climate.

      It’s not ‘the main driver of Earth’s climate’ it is an effective climate forcing. To see how effective, one only has to look at past climate states and most mass extinction events, which were caused by perturbations in the carbon cycle. But you actually need to have a clue to understand this. You’d need to read a textbook or two and a few papers or at the very least some popular science treatments. And you haven’t so you remain a muppet, spouting crap on the internet.

      Sad.

    2. It is a fact that real scientist devise experiments to either prove or disprove their hypotheses and welcome people to try to disprove them so that they can move on.

      The radiative properties of CO2 are very well understood (see Tyndall etc. – did you read the paper I linked for you? No? Lazy, aren’t you?).

      The role of CO2 as a major climate forcing is well understood and despite exhaustive investigation, has not been falsified. In fact the scientific evidence has become more and more robust over the decades.

      Denialism on the other hand, has emerged as an increasingly intellectually and socially disreputable activity with a sharply declining demographic. Most people are sane enough to see what’s going on around them and in the world at large, and accept the scientific evidence. Apart from the nutters and the rightwing fools too mired in ideology to face the facts.

  41. Greg Laden has to know that this experiment was played out in real time when the asteroid struck the planet 65 million years ago. Basically all life on the surface of the earth was destroyed other than the burrowing mammals of the time and some creatures that lived in the seas. Since it was cold with no sun light due to debris in the atmosphere, there was no photosynthesis. The Earth does now enjoy plant life due to carbon dioxide & the sun providing for photosynthesis and without plant life there is not much possibility for animal life. There is animal life without the sun and that is around the deep ocean hydrothermal vents where Dr. Ballard discovered the profusion of life around the black smokers in 1977.

    Life did return to the earth after the dinosaurs were caused to become extinct and carbon dioxide has had a major role in the revival of life because it is what plant life MUST have to produce sugars by sun induced photosynthesis that are the bases for animal life, plus the byproduct of photosynthesis, oxygen.
    I will list, with links, some of the benefits that the increase in CO2 is now having for the planet & it is important to keep in mind that for plants to grow they need warmth.
    Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
    Africa’s deserts are in “spectacular” retreat
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2811-africas-deserts-are-in-spectacular-retreat/
    NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | LETTER Greening of the Earth and its drivers Nature Climate Change 25 April 2016 “CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau.”
    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n8/full/nclimate3004.html
    “The fertilisation effect occurs where elevated CO2 enables a leaf during photosynthesis, the process by which green plants convert sunlight into sugar, to extract more carbon from the air or lose less water to the air, or both”
    https://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2?fbclid=IwAR0O-wR2sTkC8NDfwLMRKsICCOu8MmZh2nY_t_nx9JU2-CO0PFhDbkiXj8g
     
    In regards to the information above, this further explains the benefits of CO2 to plants.
    “It works like this. Stomata control a tradeoff for the plant: they allow carbon dioxide in, but they also let precious water escape”
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/mcelwain_03

    “Conclusion: This is complicated and we don’t really know the answer, therefore global warming can not be proven” Greg Laden

  42. BBD demonstrates with his beyond inane comment that he needs his glasses changed. It is obvious that the general trend is up for all of the graphs. What the poor brainwashed individual cannot come to grips with is that the one graph shows the Observed warming over the Mauna Loa C02 measurement period (315 410 ppmv) & that shows 0.90C in 60 years (GISS) & HadCRUT [1958-1989]) 0.40C in 60 years (IJAH6 [1979-2018] +. I would never expect, what’s its name, BBD, to ever wonder at why there is a 0.05?C difference for the same period of time for these two reporting agencies, (GISS) & HadCRUT. I assume that BBD lacks the rational to ever wonder why, if you AGW anthropogenic global warming folks honestly believe that it is carbon dioxide that is only responsible for the earth’s temperature, then if you could do so while launching another of your infantile ad hominem attacks against me, then please explain why the Earth’s temperatures declined from a peak in around 2016 while the CO2 levels increased in that same period of time.

    There are thousands of climate scientist that do not believe in your flimsy hypothesis about CO2 driving the earth’s climate.
    “James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too.
     
    It will also reflect his new opinion that global warming has not occurred as he had expected.
     
    “The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.
     
    “The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.
     
    “The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.
    http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite
     

    1. What the poor brainwashed individual cannot come to grips with is that the one graph shows the Observed warming over the Mauna Loa C02 measurement period (315 410 ppmv) & that shows 0.90C in 60 years (GISS) & HadCRUT [1958-1989]) 0.40C in 60 years (IJAH6 [1979-2018] +. I would never expect, what’s its name, BBD, to ever wonder at why there is a 0.05?C difference for the same period of time for these two reporting agencies, (GISS) & HadCRUT.

      GISTEMP handles Arctic interpolation differently to HadCRUT. GISTEMP is considered to be the more accurate measure of GMST as a result. UAH6 is deeply problematic and RSS4 is regarded as the more reliable satellite TLT product. I know all this stuff – and a great deal more besides. The ignorance is entirely on your part and you are projecting mightily.

      if you could do so while launching another of your infantile ad hominem attacks against me, then please explain why the Earth’s temperatures declined from a peak in around 2016 while the CO2 levels increased in that same period of time.

      That was El Nino, you fucking muppet. A cycle riding up the trend. You really don’t have a clue, do you?

      And… you don’t even understand what an ad hominem is. You are a muppet who knows nothing. Pointing this fact out is not an ad hom. It’s a statement of fact.

      There are thousands of climate scientist that do not believe in your flimsy hypothesis about CO2 driving the earth’s climate.

      No there aren’t. Pants on fire.

      Lovelock doesn’t know what he’s talking about, now or in 2012. He’s not a climate scientist, just an increasingly confused old man. You want climate science, talk to climate scientists or read climate science textbooks. Not random shite on the internet.

  43. Swallow is exhibiting exactly what cosmic comic said on the link Lionel provided. I have seen what cc calls ‘septics’ do this time and time again, so Swallow is no exception. He insists on having the final say, and his rants become longer and longer using his well-honed Gish gallop technique. He doesn’t or can’t rebut a single thing we say but either talks around it or dismisses the sources we provide. He tries to give the impression that our sources (well over 95% of the published literature) are flawed not by directly responding to the studies embedded in them but by attacking or dismissing the messenger. The reason he does this is a standard climate strategy of climate change deniers: when overwhelmed by many lines of evidence, isolate one or two lines and then tirelessly work to attack and undermine those. If this appears to work, then all other lines of evidence can be dismissed with little or no effort, a form of ‘dismissal by association’. Swallow has not once here even mentioned or discussed the findings of any of the thousands of peer-reviewed studies affirming the relationship between CO2 and climate because he can’t. What he can do is attack a few of the prominent scientists (Mann, Jones, Hansen), and by doing so try and convince readers that these scientists are deliberately distorting the data or are exaggerating, thereby smearing not only them but by association thousands of other climate scientists who are part of the consensus. And he can do this with minimal effort. It is well-described by Mann as the ‘Serengeti Strategy’, and Swallow employs it like many deniers because he cannot debunk many thousands of published studies.

    Look at how Peter Sinclair was described as my ‘main source’ by Swallow when Sinclair refers to the empirical literature entirely (on his CO2 video presentation he provides a selection of studies in leading scientific journals affirming the link between CO2 and temperature) and how the stated positions of the National Scientific Academies in every industrialized nation in the world along with every relevant scientific body that also acknowledge the link between CO2 and temperature are simply dismissed by him.

    I asked him directly if he thinks he knows more about climate science than four leading climate scientists and clearly this put him into a very uncomfortable position so he slithered his way around it by trying to smear one of them (Mann) with the same old meme (Climategate). This non-event was the Alamo for climate change deniers, but its insignificance and distorted use of words and phrases is all they have left. Swallow then tried to dismiss Hansen based on some 20-year old newspaper clip. But again, he did not answer my question and he won’t, because he knows that he looks like a hypocritical idiot either way. If he, an utter laymen, with ZERO publications, says YES to my question, then he will come across as a putalant, arrogant jerk who rates his own non-qualifications above those of 4 trained climate scientists with a combined total of around 500 career papers in peer-reviewed journals and over 30,000 citations. If he says NO, then he is admitting that they know more than he does, bringing into disrepute everything he writes. I have cornered him and he doesn’t like it. He is used to getting his own way on denier blogs and expects us all on here to swoon at his brilliance. Instead, we call him what he is: a legend in his own mind and a self-righteous person driven by a warped, right wing political ideology.

    1. Jeffh, or whatever his name is this week, is a real hoot. He comes up with this lie; “He doesn’t or can’t rebut a single thing we say but either talks around it or dismisses the sources we provide.” He is too ignorant to understand that these three graphs make a liar out of him when he said that; “I study trends and those are absolutely clear. The biosphere is warming and all evidence points to us as the culprit.”
      These graphs demonstrate that when Jeffh says; “I study trends and those are absolutely clear. The biosphere is warming and all evidence points to us as the culprit.” he is not stating the truth. All of these graphs show a decline in the temperature peaks of the recent past.
      https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/CM_7_2017_TLT_time_Series_compare_w_v33.png
      https://sealevel.info/GISS_vs_UAH_and_HadCRUT_1958-2018_woodfortrees_annot2.png
      http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/plot/uah6/mean:12
      OH! BTW; Thanks for the kind words; “Instead, we call him what he is: a legend in his own mind and a self-righteous person driven by a warped, right wing political ideology.” “….because he knows that he looks like a hypocritical idiot either way.” “then he will come across as a putalant, arrogant jerk who rates his own non-qualifications above those of 4 trained climate scientists…” and then this finial senseless comment even by Jeffh’s less than honest standards; “I have cornered him and he doesn’t like it.” This is just exactly the type of conduct that we have come to expect from; “….is a very well-regarded ecologist, with a doctorate. He’s also a professor at his institution” That explains why this is true:
      “Just 6 percent of U.S. students performed at the advanced level on an international exam administered in 56 countries in 2006. That proportion is lower than those achieved by students in 30 other countries”
       http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/27/education-olympics-how-do_n_1707968.html

    2. I know that Dr. Robert B. Laughlin has a much better understanding of this topic than you could ever hope to acquire from where ever you get your delusional information.
      “Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.” — Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
      Dr. John Christy: “Ph.D., Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, 1987 M.S., Atmospheric Sciences, , University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, 1984; B.A., Mathematics, California State University, Fresno, 1969” and also
      “Richard Siegmund Lindzen who is a Harvard-trained atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 books and scientific papers. He has been a critic of some anthropogenic global warming theories and the alleged political pressures on climate scientists” I tend to listen to Dr. Christy, Dr Spencer,
      Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, and Dr. Lindzen before paying much attention to your badly tarnished heroes who have proven nothing about the subject of climate change, other than that they can corrupt data;
      Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, James Hansen & Stefan Rahmstorf.

      How much difference do credentials make when the head of the IPCC is an economist? “Hoesung Lee (born December 31, 1945) is a South Korean economist and current chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
      “It is well known that many, if not most, of its members are not scientists at all, 80 percent of the IPCC membership has absolutely no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies.” Another interesting point regarding this scam is why it has become a left-right issue. What ever happened to the days gone by when science was apolitical and stood on the merits of the research and that meant that the debate was never over. This is one of the key components of the scientific process that, at one time before Al Gore the likes of Jeffh became involved, challenges were welcomed to tests the hypotheses “A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.”

  44. Swallow is swamping Greg’s blog with lengthy rants now, a sure-fire indication that he is losing and is a raving lunatic. Push a few buttons with these morons and they go ballistic. Keep going Swallow. It is fun watching you self-destruct.

    He berates our sources then provides a link to one of the most vile, dishonest blogs out there – Principia – when making an argument. So it is he who decides which sites are ‘reputable’ and which aren’t. How generous of him.

    He also decides which cherry-picked data sets we must believe. He can dismiss thousands of peer-reviewed studies as if they don’t exist by blaming Al Gore or Peter Sinclair (blame the messenger!). He can dismiss National Scientific Academies around the World as well as every major scientific organization because they must all be part of a global conspiracy. Why else would the vast majority of scientists affirm that it is warming and that increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of burning fossil fuels is the primary cause?

    Indeed Swallow says it is cooling! But wait, what is nature telling us? Biodiversity doesn’t lie, it just RESPONDS. Of course Swallow hasn’t read any of the primary scientific literature here, either, so expect the usual run-around. But the data once again are unambiguously clear. Environmental scientists and ecologists are seeing clear patterns emerging over time: distributional shifts polewards and to higher elevations, changes in voltinism among invertebrates, seasonal shifts in germination and growth patterns in plants, changes in the phenology of trophic interactions, earlier nesting in many birds, increased overwintering survival in formerly colder habitats in insects, and so on. The emerging patterns point to a warming climate across much of the biosphere. And the increasing tendency for extreme climatic events such as heat waves and droughts is also becoming clear.

    Swallow can huff and puff all he likes but he is vetoed by nature. Given that some of my research is in this field, I am up on the literature. Swallow isn’t, but watch him, in true Dunning-Kruger fashion, wish it all away on here.

    And he still has not answered my simple question. Does he think he knows more than climate science than the four scientists I named? Again, he knows that it is a lose-lose situation for him whatever he answers so by ignoring the question he is trying to wish it away. Of course he wants to answer it with a resounding YES! but he can’t.

    1. This how one of Jeffh’s heroes, Jim Hansen, felt that it was an honest way to put forth his flawed information before Congress, find out what the hottest day of the year should be, open all the windows and make sure that the aircons were not working. The alarmist still use this kind of “science” by deception and dishonesty to try to make their flawed conjectures to seem to have some merit.
      “What else was happening that summer? What was the weather like that summer?
      Believe it or not, we called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6 or June 9 or whatever it was, so we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo: It was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it. It was stiflingly hot that summer. [At] the same time you had this drought all across the country, so the linkage between the Hansen hearing and the drought became very intense.

      And did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?
      … What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot. …
      So Hansen’s giving this testimony, you’ve got these television cameras back there heating up the room, and the air conditioning in the room didn’t appear to work. So it was sort of a perfect collection of events that happened that day, with the wonderful Jim Hansen, who was wiping his brow at the witness table and giving this remarkable testimony. …

      The one thing that Hansen didn’t do that day in front of your committee is use the term “global warming.” He said, “Gentlemen, I’m 99 percent sure that human beings are contributing to climate change,” but he didn’t quite have the nerve, because he was outside scientific consensus at the time. …
      Oh, Hansen went a long way. This was a very, very brave statement. He was on the edge of the science and almost 20 years younger than he is today, so he’s relatively new in the field. He’s working for the federal government, and certainly this was not cleared far up the line, what he had to say. So the summary of what Jim Hansen had to say that year, plus the fact that it had gotten so much attention from the [press] — it was on every channel, Hansen was widely reported. He went as far as anybody could possibly have expected him to go, I think. Again, it was a very brave thing for him to do.
      https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html

      “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
      https://anhonestclimatedebate.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/time-hotandcold.jpg

    2. Jeffh’s maintains that; “Environmental scientists and ecologists are seeing clear patterns emerging over time: distributional shifts polewards and to higher elevations, changes in voltinism among invertebrates, seasonal shifts in germination and growth patterns in plants, changes in the phenology of trophic interactions, earlier nesting in many birds, increased overwintering survival in formerly colder habitats in insects, and so on. The emerging patterns point to a warming climate across much of the biosphere.” 

      Is the poor confused academic too out of touch with reality to understand that if these changes are due to the increase in CO2 then it is a great thing to have happening and if a warming planet is all part of the equation, then so be it? The poor professor who is not confident enough regarding his believes that he is willing to disclose his real name, as I have, because I am confident regrading what I believe and I know it to be the truth. Lionel A issued one of the only true statements that he has ever made when he said that; “John Swallow has history”.
      Life did return to the earth after the dinosaurs were caused to become extinct because of when the asteroid struck the planet 65 million years ago and carbon dioxide has had a major role in the revival of life because it is what plant life MUST have to produce sugars by sun induced photosynthesis that are the bases for animal life, plus the byproduct of photosynthesis, oxygen.
      I will list, with links, some of the benefits that the increase in CO2 is now having for the planet & it is important to keep in mind that for plants to grow they need warmth.
      Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
      https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
      Africa’s deserts are in “spectacular” retreat
      https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2811-africas-deserts-are-in-spectacular-retreat/
      NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | LETTER Greening of the Earth and its drivers Nature Climate Change 25 April 2016 “CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau.”
      http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n8/full/nclimate3004.html
      “The fertilisation effect occurs where elevated CO2 enables a leaf during photosynthesis, the process by which green plants convert sunlight into sugar, to extract more carbon from the air or lose less water to the air, or both”
      https://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2?fbclid=IwAR0O-wR2sTkC8NDfwLMRKsICCOu8MmZh2nY_t_nx9JU2-CO0PFhDbkiXj8g
       
      In regards to the information above, this further explains the benefits of CO2 to plants.
      “It works like this. Stomata control a tradeoff for the plant: they allow carbon dioxide in, but they also let precious water escape”
      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/mcelwain_03

    3. Jeffh’s maintains that; ” The emerging patterns point to a warming climate across much of the biosphere.”  The poor confused academic can present me with what he believes are causing these wonderful increase in crop production. Could an elevation in CO2 have some effect on it as well as the deserts greening?
      Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
      https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
      09.13.2018
      WASHINGTON, D.C., U.S. — The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s September World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates report issued Sept. 12 included bearish surprises for wheat and corn.
      In the case of wheat, the surprise came in the USDA’s world supply-and-demand forecasts, as there were no changes to the 2018-19 domestic all-wheat outlook. 
      https://www.world-grain.com/articles/10967-usda-issues-bearish-report-for-wheat-and-corn

      We were in India in 2018 and their farming practice have advanced very little but this is what they produced:
      “Govt revises food grain outpuice sheett to record 275.68 million tonnes Aug 17, 2017, 01:30 PM ISTNEW DELHI: India’s food grain production for the 2016-17 crop year is estimated at record 275.68 million tonnes. The government on Wednesday revised its previous figures upward by 2.3 million tonnes and came at the new figure which is over 4 per cent higher than the previous record production achieved in the country during 2013-14.”
      http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/govt-revises-foodgrain-output-to-record-275-68-million-tonnes/articleshow/60090001.cms

    4. This man below, Dr. Norman Borlaug, and the work that he did made this book by Paul Ehrlich, “The Population Bomb”, who I’m sure Jeffh agrees with, out to be nothing but a fictitious novel of the worst kind. Paul Ehrlich was also one of the main opponents of the use of DDT to combat malaria. He is all heart as these quotes show:
      “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” – Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies
       
      “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” – Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
       
      “For over a half century, the scientific and humanitarian achievements of Dr. Norman Borlaug (Nobel Peace Prize winner, Congressional Gold Medal Winner, and recipient of over 50 honorary Doctorate Degrees) kept starvation at bay for millions of people in third world countries. Gregg Easterbrook wrote of Borlaug “Though barely known in the country of his birth, elsewhere in the world Norman Borlaug is widely considered to be among the leading Americans of our age.”
      http://www.normanborlaug.org/
       
      What have you and your fellow ”alarmist” done to help anyone, Jeffh? Who has been “helped” because of the papers that you have written?
       
      Dr. Norman Borlaug did more for humanity than a whole army of foaming at the mouth anthropogenic global warming alarmist such as we encounter who are spouting their fabricated lies about the earth and its climate. This is what real scientist do, they find out what works for the benefit of humanity and in the case of Dr. Norman Borlaug that was to enable for the increased production of food crops. We see NO alarmist doing anything productive for anyone, anywhere, with all of their inane nonsense that they try to get folks to believe.
      “In addition to the Nobel Peace Prize, Dr. Borlaug has received extensive recognition from universities and organizations in six countries: Canada, India, Mexico, Norway, Pakistan, the United States. In 1968 he received an especially satisfying tribute when the people of Ciudad Obregon, Sonora, Mexico, in whose area he did some of his first experimenting, named a street in his honor.”

      “For over a half century, the scientific and humanitarian achievements of Dr. Norman Borlaug (Nobel Peace Prize winner, Congressional Gold Medal Winner, and recipient of over 50 honorary Doctorate Degrees) kept starvation at bay for millions of people in third world countries. Gregg Easterbrook wrote of Borlaug “Though barely known in the country of his birth, elsewhere in the world Norman Borlaug is widely considered to be among the leading Americans of our age.”
      http://www.normanborlaug.org/

  45. Blah, blah, blah. Swallow, you need psychiatric help. Immediately. You are a loon.

    You dredge up three old white men as ‘experts’ to counter tens of thousands of climate scientists publishing 99.9% of the research. Laughlin isn’t even a climate scientist. The risible piece he wrote where you cut and pasted the quote was taken apart by actual bonafide climate scientists. One even suggested to Laughlin that he attend an undergraduate course to learn the basics of the field (ouch!). Lindzen had to admit before Congressional testimony in the 1990s that he was receiving $ 2,500 a day in ‘consulting fees’ from the fossil fuel lobby. He pretty much disqualified himself from being taken seriously after that.

    And again, the paucity of qualified climate scientists who deny anthropogenic climate change is clear. The deniers are scraping the bottom of the barrel and have been relying on primarily the same motley bunch for almost 30 years: Lindzen, Spencer, John Cristy, Pat Michaels, Robert Balling, Willie Soon (who is not a climate scientist either and has received lots of money from Exxon-Mobil) and other ancient non-climate scientists like Fred Singer, Freeman Dysen and William Happer. Where is the fresh blood? A leaked memo from the American Petroleum Institute in 1998 expressed concern that the denial community risked its longer term credibility by relying on the same small group of scientists to push the denial meme. Well, 21 years later and nothing has changed. Same old, same old, only older. What is telling is that an unqualified loon like you can tell ‘good science’ (the tiny fraction of published research that disputes AGW theory) from ‘bad science’ (which in your meaningless opinion represents more than 97% of published studies and underpins the strong consensus).

    You really are a legend-in-your-own-mind, Swallow. What other purpose brings you here or on other progressive blogs where virtually everyone thinks you are nuts? You are being annihilated and you don’t even know it. How delusional can you get.

    And again, you evade my question. Who knows more about climate science: you or the four scientists I named earlier? It isn’t a difficult question to answer, except for the implications of how you are perceived. You have painted yourself into a corner and to anyone reading your posts that is patently obvious. If I was debating you face-to-face, you would have to answer it. The only thing saving your butt here is that you can twist, fake, deceive, lie, distort, mangle, obfuscate etc. and seemingly get away with it.

    And once again, you dipsy-doodle your way around inconvenient facts like the huge number of studies reporting ecological responses to warming. There are been several prominent reviews by Eric Post, Camille Parmesan and others. That the biosphere is warming is absolutely beyond doubt and nature is proving it.

    Again, you are so easy to debunk. A cake walk.

  46. Amongst the cacafuego that JS produced overnight (I am in the UK) was this turd:

    “The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

    The contrarian views of Lovelock have long been noted and he has lost the respect of most climate scientists of achievement and repute.

    Unfortunately, these statements by James Lovelock are inconsistent with up-to-date climate data sets. These indicate:

    the 1st decade of the 21st century includes unprecedented instrumentally measured peak temperature records, including a peak temperatures about ~2005-8 of up to 1.1 degrees Celsius above the 1950-1980 reference mean measured by NOAA, NASA and HadCRU, as compiled by the Berkeley Earth Surface Tempeature analysis group (see Figure 1). According to NOAA, mean temperature maxima between 1998 and 2010 have risen by ~0.17 degrees Celsius (0.014C/year), whereas mean temperature minima rose between 2000 and 2009 by ~0.2 degrees Celsius (0.022C/year) (see Figure 1)

    Now here is empiricism (the emboldened para’) which goes to the consensus (clearly a concept which you struggle to understand) that humans have contributed more than 100% to the present warming, notwithstanding that the source article here is dated back to 2012:

    It is a strawman argument to expect temperature trends to change smoothly, or to highlight periods when temperatures have risen at low rates or even declined, and at the same time overlook the mean decadal trend where measured temperatures have risen during the 20th – early 21st centuries by more than 1.0 degrees Celsius (see Figure 1).

    A far greater rise is currently masked by sulphur aerosols of short (one to two years) atmospheric residence time, without which mean global temperatures would have risen above 2.0 degrees C since the early 20th century.

    Source.

    It would be the hight of folly to attempt to counter every misleading statement in your Gish Gallops but I will pick out a few more key deceptions in due course.

  47. Borlaug? Wtf has he got to do with climate change?

    And Paul Ehrlich was so wrong in his predictions that there are more people starving in the world now than were alive in the 1930s. Wow. That is some progress. Economist Jason Hickel argues that, if we based human welfare on the basis of merely achieving equilibrium in terms of health, then 4.5 billion people on Earth are living below the poverty line. Again, some progress.

    Borlaug’s miracle of agricultural intensification has had some extremely nasty side effects: chemical pollution, habitat loss and fragmentation and an increase in the already alarming rate of extinction of species and loss of genetic diversity. And the proceeds of development have largely been monopolized by the rich. The equity gap has grown larger and larger under neoliberal capitalism while our assault on the natural world and on our ecological life support systems has intensified. We do not possess the technology to replicate most ecological services that permit us to exist and persist. The slash-and-burn approach of humanity to the biosphere will have dire consequences.

    Easterbrook is a hack writer. I read parts of his abominable book, “A Moment on the Earth” (1995) and that was enough. Pure drivel, all of it.

    But again, what has Borlaug got to do with AGW? And what great contributions have you made to the world, Swallow, aside from being a serial-ranter on blogs? Trust you to try and smear Paul Ehrlich, one of the world’s leading ecologists and recipient of numerous prestigious awards. You are pathetic.

  48. I tend to listen to Dr. Christy, Dr Spencer,
    Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, and Dr. Lindzen before paying much attention to your badly tarnished heroes…

    That is bleeding obvious JS, obvious from the badly broken ideas you have about climate studies, state of the consensus and the poor reputation of those you have above cited.

    Now Jeffh (who needs little further introduction to those of us who have been following this issue for more than a dog-watch for we know who he is, what he does and what he achieves – he has more knowledge of this field in his little toe-nail than yOu have in your whole sorry edifice) has put your ‘heroes’ in their boxes but if further amplification is needed, which appears to be the case, then simply consult each of your contrarian scientist mini-bio’s in this Research Database

    However I will land one more punch against Christy (the pair of Christy & Spencer confused and mislead the public and policy makers from flawed temperature data for decades).

    Christy set himself up for a fall at a subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing entitled “Questions Surrounding the ‘Hockey Stick’ Temperature Studies: Implications for Climate Change Assessments” in 2006, the Barton- Wegman/ McIntyre farrago.

    Read down from this line (highlighted) “In his testimony at the hearing, Christy lectured the audience about scientific openness, presenting himself as a paragon of virtue when it came to sharing source…” at

    Christy’s self immolation

    Wegman and Barton provided a fascinating window onto the realms of the obfuscaters and denialists for hire which exposed their shenanigans to layman’s view, although some laymen remained ideologically blind, as clearly they still do.

    1. Now Jeffh (who needs little further introduction to those of us who have been following this issue for more than a dog-watch

      Someone too muppetty to know what ENSO is might struggle with the concept of a dog watch (it’s cur-tailed 🙂 – with apologies to Mr O’Brian).

      It’s interesting too, how out-of-date JS is, with all this talk of Lindzen and Giaever etc. Has the man never heard of Nic Lewis? :-0

    2. Excellent demolition jobs Lionel and BBD on the scientifically illiterate muppet.

      How much science does he not understand? Virtually everything. He has absolutely no conception of scale when arguing trying to downplay the slight decrease in temperature since 2016. As BBD said, each El Nino cranks the temperature up around 2 or 3 tenths of a degree. When the planet enters a La Nina phase, the temperature drops marginally until the next El Nino cranks it up to record levels again. Moreover, three years is far too short a time frame to elucidate temperature trends. A minimum of several decades are required at the very least. Scientists know the difference between deterministic processes and stochastic processes. At smaller temporal or spatial scales processes are stochastic, but they become more predictable as the scales increase in size or duration. This is not only true in climate but in ecology. Brian Maurer, a theoretical ecologist, wrote elegantly about scale as a major factor in ecology in his book, “Untangling Ecological Complexity” (1999). For several decades scientists have been studying the relationship between biodiversity (e.g. species and genetic richness) and ecosystem functioning. Ecology is an exceedingly complex science because cause-and-effect relationships are non-linear. Change one small component in a system – for example by adding or eliminating a keystone species or an ecosystem engineer – and the effects may rippe through the system, changing the dynamics completely. Furthermore, scientists recognize that ‘rules’ governing ecosystem assembly and functioning generally occur over quite large scales of space and time. Consequently, whereas small-scale experiments (e.g. studying a predator-prey-foodplant interaction) can provide wonderful insight into mechanisms and explain co-evolutionary processes, it is imperative to scale up to the level of multiple communities or ecosystems if we are to understand functioning of the system.

      Climate is no different. Climate change deniers like Swallow constantly conflate weather and climate. Note how Swallow is a master of picking single data points out of long-term data sets (as he does by cherry-picking temperature records in various countries). He then greatly exaggerates the significance of these cherry-picked data points. If a scientist did this with a long-term data set (containing many hundreds or thousands of data points) and then tried to use it to make a point, he/she would be roasted for it. Trends in record temperatures being set in countries around the world are totally clear. Heat records are being set more rapidly than cold records by a ratio of 4:1 and the gap between the two is increasing. The duration, frequency and intensity of extreme climatic events is increasing. And, as I said above, we have the biological and ecological evidence gathered over many decades to PROVE that it is warming.

      There are four main chapters in the last IPCC document. The first asks if ut is warming and then looks at the evidence. The second asks what is causing the warming and looks at the evidence. Beyond any reasonable doubt it was concluded that the biosphere is warming rapidly and that the indiscriminate burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause. Chapter three posited what we can do about and Chapter four asked what we should do about it.

      By 2014 the scientific debate had acknowledged the warming and was focused on Chapter 4 and has been ever since. The public debate, however, certainly in part due to a well-organized and well-funded campaign by powerful, vested interests is still stuck largely in Chapter 1. There are many previous examples where public opinion lagged behind scientific opinion by up to several decades before finally coming around. No doubt as the evidence keeps coming in the voices of denial will fade away (as they already are). The problem is that we just don’t have the time to procrastinate much longer. The climate change denial lobby is gambling with the future of humanity. History will not judge them kindly.

  49. The problem is that we just don’t have the time to procrastinate much longer. The climate change denial lobby is gambling with the future of humanity. History will not judge them kindly.

    Speaking of which, have you seen this?

    https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-science-deniers-boris-johnson-environment-leak-a9094631.html

    Not a surprise but vile, all the same. God this Brexit thing is a disaster.

    Desmog link:

    https://www.desmog.co.uk/2019/09/06/climate-science-deniers-planning-coordinated-european-misinformation-campaign-leaked-documents-reveal

  50. BBD

    Someone too muppetty to know what ENSO is might struggle with the concept of a dog watch

    I have worked a few. Now betwixt Johnson and Trump which is ‘the lesser of the two weevils?’

    Yes I have picked up on that desmog story on the denier fuelled push-back against climate change action.

    I wonder how many of those agents of lies and death will not be found listed here?

  51. Seeing as John ‘hard to’ Swallow prefers older climate information sources he really should read and learn from two informative publications published not that long ago by the UK Met’ Office.

    The first concerns that over hyped and misrepresented warming pause, there are three papers to this namely,

    Paper 1: Observing changes in the climate system

    Paper 2: Recent pause in global warming

    Paper 3: Implications for projections

    with links to be found here:

    The recent pause in warming

    The other study explains the mechanisms behind the terrific battering that the western coasts of the UK sustained during the winter of 2013-2014.

    The Recent Storms and Floods in the UK.

    A prominent cabinet minister at the time came adrift by being literally out of his depth at that time but that does not stop him acting in a dishonest fashion through the agency of the dreadful GWPF which will be amongst the forces in that propaganda campaign highlighted by BBD above.

    Now JS do not make the mistake of thinking that the above could not possibly have any relevance to your existence, a parochial attitude is not the way forward if humanity and all the other unfortunate species we will doom if we do not reverse the trends. Read learn and mostly understand.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.