Climate Change Drivers


Thermalization and the complete dominance of water vapor in reverse-thermalization explain why atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) has no significant effect on climate. Reported average global temperature (AGT) since before 1900 is accurately (98% match with measured trend) explained by a combination of ocean cycles (41.7%), sunspot number anomaly time-integral (38.0%) and increased atmospheric water vapor (20.3%). 



The only way that energy can significantly leave earth is by thermal radiation. Only solid or liquid bodies and greenhouse gases (ghg) can absorb/emit in the wavelength range of terrestrial radiation. Ghg absorb/emit only at specific wavelengths which are characteristic for each molecule specie. In the range of terrestrial temperatures, non-ghg must transfer energy to ghg (or liquid or solid bodies) for this energy to be radiated.


The word ‘trend’ is used here for temperatures in two different contexts. To differentiate, α-trend is an approximation of the net of ocean surface temperature oscillations after averaging-out the year-to-year fluctuations in reported average global temperatures. The term β-trend applies to the slower average energy change of the planet which is associated with change to the average temperature of the bulk volume of the material (mostly ocean water) involved.


Some ocean cycles have been named according to the particular area of the oceans where they occur. Names such as PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation), ENSO (el Nino Southern Oscillation), and AMO (Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation) might be familiar. They report the temperature of the water near the surface. The average temperature of the bulk water that is participating in these oscillations cannot significantly change so quickly because of high effective thermal capacitance [1].


This high thermal capacitance absolutely prohibits the rapid (year-to-year) AGT fluctuations which have been reported, from being a result of any credible forcing. According to one assessment [1], the time constant is about 5 years. A likely explanation for much of the reported year-to-year fluctuations is that they are stochastic phenomena in the over-all process that has been used to determine AGT. Volcanic activity is occasionally also a contributor. A simple calculation shows the standard deviation of the reported annual average measurements to be about ±0.09 K with respect to the trend.

The temperature fluctuations of the bulk volume near the surface of the planet are more closely represented by the fluctuations in the trend. The trend is a better indicator of the change in global energy; which is the difference between energy received and energy radiated.


The kinetic theory of gases, thermalization, Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of energy in atmospheric gas molecules, some thermodynamics, the absorb/emit bands of water vapor and other ghg, and the rudiments of quantum mechanics provide a rational explanation of what happens with terrestrial thermal radiation.


Some of the mistakes made by the consensus and other relevant issues are discussed at Ref [29].

Refutation of significant influence from CO2 (rev 4/21/17)


What is meant by the statement that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas (ghg)? If by that is meant CO2 absorbs electromagnetic radiation with a wave length of 15 microns (including +/- a micron or so due to pressure broadening, etc. at low altitude), well, that was demonstrated in the lab a long time ago and remains true. But if by that is meant CO2 significantly contributes to global warming, there is multiple compelling evidence (most identified earlier [2] ) that CO2 has no significant effect on climate:

  1. In the late Ordovician Period, the planet plunged into and warmed up from the Andean/Saharan ice age, all at about 10 times the current CO2level [3].
  2. Over the Phanerozoic eon (last 542 million years) there is no correlation betweenCO2leveland AGT [3, 4].
  3. During the last and previous glaciations AGT trend changed directions before CO2trend [2].
  4. Since AGT has been directly and accurately measured world wide (about 1895), AGT has exhibited up and down trends while CO2trend has been only up. [2]
  5. Since about 2001, the measured atmospheric CO2trend has continued to rise while the AGT trend has been essentially flat. [21, 13]
  6. Analysis of CO2and Temperature data 2002-2008 shows a close correlation between dCO2/dT and lower tropospheric temperature. This demonstrates that CO2follows temperature and not the reverse. [30]

Thermalization refutes CO2 influence on climate. (rev 10/21/16, 4/21/17, 8/6/17)

At a scale of the size of atoms, the atmosphere consists of gas molecules with empty space between them. Activity of the gas molecules determines what can be measured as temperature and pressure. Imagery of the activity of the molecules making up the atmosphere is helpful. Wikipedia, in the article on kinetic theory of gases, has a pretty good 2-D animation of the 3-D activity. It shows simulated molecules bouncing elastically off each other and the walls of the container. At any point in time, the speed (and energy) of the molecules ranges from zero to high values with the highest probability being towards the low end.


Emission of electromagnetic radiation from both solid and liquid surfaces of the earth complies with the Planck spectrum and Stephan-Boltzmann (T4) law. Most particles of clouds, smoke and aerosols emit similarly because they typically contain millions of molecules. Emission of radiation from gas molecules is entirely different (only ghg molecules can absorb/emit at earth temperatures). It is quantized and depends on the energy levels of individual molecules which are determined probabilistically according to the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution which favors lower energy photons. The average molecule energy level of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution depends on the temperature.



Graphs of the probability distribution curve shape are shown in the Wikipedia article on Maxwell-Boltzmann. A ghg molecule which is jostled to high enough energy for long enough time can emit a photon (of allowed wavelength for that molecule). This is called, for lack of a better term, reverse-thermalization. The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution is more highly populated at lower energy levels resulting in biasing the Planck spectrum radiation emitted by the surface to lower energies favored according to Maxwell-Boltzmann. This also results in the energy from higher energy (shorter wavelength) photons which was absorbed by CO2 molecules being substantially redirected to the lower energy (longer wavelength) photons of the water vapor molecules.


The relaxation time (amount of time that passes between absorption and emission of a photon by a molecule) for CO2 in the atmosphere is about 6 µsec [5, 6]. The elapsed time between collisions between gaseous molecules at sea level average temperature and pressure is about 0.0002 µsec [7]. Thus, at sea level conditions, it is approximately 6/0.0002 = 30,000 times more likely that a CO2 molecule (or any other ghg molecule), after it has absorbed a photon, will bump into another molecule, transferring at least part of the momentum and energy it acquired from the photon. After multiple collisions, essentially all of the added photonic energy becomes distributed among other molecules and the probability of the CO2 molecule emitting a photon at sea level conditions becomes negligible.


The process of distribution of the energy to other molecules is thermal conduction in the gas. The process of absorbing photons and conducting the absorbed energy to other molecules is thermalization. Thermalized energy carries no identity of the molecule that absorbed it. Note that ghg molecules can absorb/emit only photons with certain quanta of energy, but the energy itself is not quantized (or the quantization is immeasurably fine). There are no forbidden wavelengths of photons. But only terrestrial wavelength photons at about 15 microns can be absorbed/emitted by CO2 molecules.


Significant terrestrial thermal radiation is nearly all in the wavelength range 6.5-100 microns (1538-100/cm). Water vapor molecules can absorb (and emit) photons at hundreds of wavelengths in this wavelength range compared to only one (15 microns) for CO2 (wave length range of the single absorption band for CO2 is broadened to about 14-16 microns (714-625/cm) at low altitude due to pressure, etc. but the multiple absorb/emit wave length bands for water vapor are also broadened).


Reverse-thermalization, where the warmed jostling molecules (Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution) excite some molecules to emit photons is almost entirely to water vapor molecules at sea level conditions. There are about 35 times as many water vapor molecules in the atmosphere below about 5 km as there are CO2 molecules (See Figure 2) and each of the water vapor molecules has many absorb/emit bands where lower energy photons are emitted compared to the one higher energy band for CO2. One reference states each water vapor molecule has “about 170 lines in the range 75-550 cm-1” (133-18.2 µm) [28]. (Note: At low altitude the word ‘line’ in that reference, because it is broadened by pressure etc., is more accurately a band. Line has a different meaning in that reference than as used in the Hitran data base where it refers to an entity inconsequential to climate change, sometimes calculated using Quantum Mechanics.)


Most of the photons emitted by the water vapor molecules are at wavelengths different from the narrow band that CO2 molecules can absorb. Effectively, terrestrial thermal radiation energy absorbed by CO2 is thermalized and rerouted to space via water vapor.


At very high altitudes, temperature, molecule spacing and time between collisions increases to where reverse-thermalization to CO2 molecules becomes significant as does radiation from them to space.


Figure 1 is a typical graph showing top-of-atmosphere (TOA) thermal radiation from the planet. The TOA radiation from different locations on the planet can be decidedly different, e.g. as shown in Figure 9 of Reference [8]. Figure 1, here, might be over a temperate ocean and thus typical for much of earth’s surface.




Figure 1: Terrestrial thermal radiation and absorption assessed from top-of-atmosphere.


Typical ‘top-of-atmosphere’ (TOA) emission spectra such as shown in Figure 1 include a ‘notch’ associated with the CO2 absorb/emit wavelength. The existence of this notch demonstrates that CO2 absorbs terrestrial radiation in this wavelength range. Perhaps not as obvious, the presence of the notch also demonstrates thermalization and that the Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity/energy distribution substantially redirects the radiation that was absorbed by the CO2 molecules and thermalized to the 170+ absorb/emit bands of lower energy (longer wavelength) photons of water vapor molecules. This explains the reduced number of photons at the notch.


An ‘experiment’ demonstrating the effect of reduced water vapor in the atmosphere already exists. Near the poles, the extremely low temperatures result in very low water vapor content while the CO2 level is about the same as everywhere else. With few water vapor molecules available to emit radiation, more of the emission is from CO2 molecules near 15 microns as shown in Figure 9 of Ref 8.



Approximately 98% of dry atmospheric molecules are non-ghg; nearly all nitrogen and oxygen with about 1% argon. They are substantially warmed by thermalization of the photonic energy absorbed by the ghg molecules and, at higher altitudes, cooled by reverse-thermalization back to the ghg molecules.


Figure 2: Water vapor declines rapidly with altitude. [9] (original from NASA)


Thermalized energy carries no identity of the molecule that absorbed it. The thermalized radiation warms the air, reducing its density, causing updrafts which are exploited by soaring birds, sailplanes, and occasionally hail. Updrafts are matched by downdrafts elsewhere, usually spread out but sometimes recognized by pilots and passengers as ‘air pockets’ and micro bursts.


A common observation of thermalization by way of water vapor is cloudless nights cool faster and farther when absolute water vapor content of the atmosphere is lower.


Jostling between gas molecules (observed as temperature and pressure) sometimes causes reverse-thermalization. At low to medium altitudes, EMR emission stimulated by reverse-thermalization is essentially all by way of water vapor.


At altitudes below about 10 km a comparatively steep population gradient (decline with increasing altitude) in water vapor molecules favors outward radiation with increasing amounts escaping directly to space. At higher altitudes, increased molecule spacing and greatly diminished water vapor molecules favors reverse thermalization to CO2. This is observed in the sharp peaks at nominal absorb/emit wavelengths of non-condensing ghg (See Figure 1).


Even if the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of molecular velocity/energy is ignored, a simple calculation shows that doubling the CO2 level has no significant effect on climate. CO2 has only one absorb/emit band in the range of significant terrestrial thermal radiation. Water vapor has about 170 bands in the spectral interval 75-550 /cm for each molecule and there are on average near sea level about 35 WV molecules for each CO2 molecule. Thus there are about 35 * 170 = 5950 absorb/emit bands for WV plus 1 absorb/emit band for CO2 for a total of 5951 absorb/emit bands. Doubling the CO2 increases this to 5952 absorb/emit bands. This is an insignificant increase of less than 0.02%. Thermalization results in ‘climate sensitivity’, the increase in AGT from doubling CO2, to be not significantly different from zero.


Environmental Protection Agency mistakes

The US EPA asserts [10] Global Warming Potential (GWP) is a measure of “effects on the Earth's warming” with “Two key ways in which these [ghg] gases differ from each other are their ability to absorb energy (their "radiative efficiency"), and how long they stay in the atmosphere (also known as their "lifetime").”


The EPA calculation overlooks the very real phenomenon of thermalization. Trace ghg (all ghg except water vapor) have no significant effect on climate because absorbed energy is immediately thermalized.


The EPA calculation of the GWP of a ghg also erroneously overlooks the fact that any added cooling from the increased temperature the ghg might have produced is also integrated over the “lifetime” of the gas in the atmosphere so the duration in the atmosphere ‘cancels out’. Therefore GWP, as calculated by the EPA, egregiously overestimates the influence on average global temperature of noncondensing greenhouse gases. The influence (forcing) of a ghg cannot be more than determined by its immediate concentration. The EPA assessment completely ignores the effect of water vapor which, by far, is the most important ghg and appears to be the only significant ghg.

Water vapor (Rev 8/26/16, 1/11/17, 6/10/17, 9/10/17)

Water vapor is the ghg which makes earth warm enough for life as we know it. Increased atmospheric water vapor contributes to planet warming. Water vapor molecules are far more effective at absorbing terrestrial thermal radiation than CO2 molecules (even if thermalization did not eliminate CO2 as a significant warmer). Humanity’s contribution to atmospheric water vapor increase is primarily (≈ 96%) as a result of increased irrigation (Figure 3.5), with comparatively small contribution from cooling towers at electricity generating facilities. Fossil fuels make an insignificant contribution. Switching to ‘renewables’ will have no significant effect on climate.


Because water vapor is a ghg, increased water vapor causes the planet to warm which further increases water vapor so there is a cumulative effect (in control system analysis and electric circuit analysis as done by engineers, this is called positive feedback and is quantified by a dimensionless number which is the ratio of the change with feedback to the change if there was no feedback. The term ‘feedback’ has a different meaning to Climate Scientists and is quantified in units of W/m2). This cumulative effect also increases the rate of cooldown.


Planet warming, as discussed later, increases the vapor pressure of water contributing to the water vapor increase. At present, (thru July 2017) water vapor appears to be increasing about twice as fast as expected based on AGT increase alone. Global temperature increase since 2002 from UAH is about 0.127 K. At 24°C increase in water vapor partial pressure is 5.88% per degree. Percent increase in water vapor due to temperature increase = 0.127 * 5.88% = 0.747%. Measured % increase from TPW in 28 yr = (29.5-28.25)/28.875 = 0.043 = 4.3%. In 10 yr = 10/28*4.3 = 1.54%. Thus measured increase in WV is about 1.54/.747 = 2+ times that for temperature increase alone.


The increased water vapor also causes increased cloud cover which counters temperature increase and will eventually limit it. An increase of only about 1.6% of cloud area would result in an eventual temperature decline of 0.5 °C. Water vapor exhibits a logarithmic decline in absorption effect of equal added increments of water vapor (Fig. 3 of Ref. [12]).


More water vapor in the atmosphere means more warming, acceleration of the hydrologic cycle and increased probability of precipitation related floods. How much of recent flooding (with incidences reported world wide) is simply bad luck in the randomness of weather and how much is because of the ‘thumb on the scale’ of added water vapor?


Essentially all of the ghg effect on earth comes from water vapor. Clear air water vapor measurements over the non-ice-covered oceans in the form of total precipitable water (TPW) have been made since about 1987 by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) [11]. A graph of this measured ‘global’ average anomaly data, with a reference value of 28.73 added, is shown in the left graph of Figure 3. The trend of this data is extrapolated both earlier and later using CO2 level as a proxy, with the expression kg/m^2 TPW = 4.5118 * ppmvCO2^0.31286. The result is the right-hand graph of Figure 3. (The 1940-1950 flat exists in the Law Dome CO2 data base.)


Figure 3: Average clear air total precipitable water over all non-ice-covered oceans. (Rev 8/24/17)


Clouds (average emissivity about 0.5) consist of solid and/or liquid water particles that radiate approximately according to Planck spectrum and Stephan-Boltzmann (S-B) law (each particle contains millions of molecules).


The perception water vapor content of the atmosphere depends even minutely on CO2 content is profoundly misleading and precisely wrong because it ignores the partial pressure of water.


World Sources of Water Vapor (added 9/10/17)

Irrigation, industrialization, and, increasing population are causing the rise in atmospheric water vapor. (WV). A survey of available on-line literature provides direct and indirect quantification of significant global sources.


Transportation fuel, linearly interpolated to 2017, amounts to 113E15 BTU/y [31]. Energy content of a typical liquid fuel is 115,000 BTU/gal [32]. Liquid fuels weigh about 6.073 lb/gal = 2.75 kg/gal. Therefore transportation fuels amount to

113E15 * 2.75/115000 = 2.7E12 kg fuel/y                 (a)


About 1.42 kg of WV is produced for each kg of liquid fuel [32] so the amount of WV produced by transportation is

2.7E12 * 1.42 = 3.8E12 kg WV/y                  (b)


World electricity generation is now about 25,000 TWH/y [33]. At an average efficiency of 50% this requires a thermal input of 50,000 TWH/yr. Fuel source fractions of energy [34] interpolated to 2017 are 0.38 coal, 0.36 natural gas and 0.26 non fossil fuel.


Coal combustion produces about 0.4 kg WV/kg coal [35]. Energy content of bituminous coal is about 8200Wh/kg [36]. The amount of WV resulting from burning coal to generate electricity is then

50E15 * 0.38 * 0.4/8200 = 0.93E12 kg WV/y                       (c)


The amount of WV produced by natural gas (nearly all methane, CH4) is readily calculated from the dominant chemical reaction

CH4 + 2O2 => CO2 + 2H2O                (d)


Where a mole of methane weighs about 16 g and the two moles of WV weigh about 18 g each.

Natural gas energy content is about 15,400 Wh/kg [36]. The amount of WV resulting from burning natural gas to generate electricity is then

50E15 * 0.36 *36/16/15400 = 2.6E12 kg WV/y                    (e)


The total WV from all fossil fuel used to generate electricity is then

0.9E12 + 2.6E12 = 3.5E12 kg WV/y                         (f)


Waste energy during electricity generation can be approximately accounted for by evaporation of water in cooling towers, etc. At 50% efficiency the waste energy is the same as the energy in the electricity produced, 25,000 TWH/yr = 25E12 kWh/y.

Latent heat of water = 2257 kJ/kg = 0.627 kWh/kg = 1.594 kg/kWh.

The amount of WV from waste heat (cooling tower, etc.) during electricity generation is then

25E12 * 1.594 = 39.8E12 kg WV/y                           (g)


Irrigation is by far the largest source of WV. The increase in irrigation is indicated by the increase in withdrawal for agriculture as shown in Figure 3.5 [37].

Figure 3.5: Global water withdrawal includes both ground water and surface water [37]


The total agricultural area equipped for irrigation in 2009 was 311E10 m2 of which 84% were actually being irrigated [38]. Estimating an increase of 2% to 2017, the total area being irrigated is now about

311E10 * 0.84 * 1.02 = 266E10 m                           (h)


Total annual fresh water withdrawal (both ground and surface) is now 3,986 km3 = 3.986E15 kg/y [39]. Of this, about 70% is for agricultural use [40]. This works out to

3.986E15 * .7/266E10 = 1052 kg/m2/y ≈ 1 m/y                     (i)

which appears reasonable because average rainfall for the planet is about 1 m/y.


Evapotranspiration, WV from plants and landscape, is discussed in the ‘thematic discussion’ of Aquastat [37]. From there, the amount of precipitation on land is 110,000 km3 of which the fraction evapotranspirated is 0.56 + 0.05 = 0.61. Given the planet surface area of 510.1E6 km2, and land fraction of 0.29 this results in the equivalent depth of the total amount of water leaving the surface as WV as

110,000 * 0.61/0.28/510.1E6 = 0.00047 km = 0.47 m                       (j)


Water weighs 1000 kg/m3 so evapotranspiration amounts to 470 kg/m2


Approximately 95% of the irrigated area is flood irrigated so, to simplify calculation, assume all irrigation is flood irrigation approximated as furrow type [41]. Optimum frequency is to flood the furrows about every 10 days [42]. Thus about half the area is covered by water 10% of the time where evaporation from the water is about one meter per year [43] and the rest of the time, evaporation is according to the calculated evapotranspiration. The total amount of WV resulting from irrigation is then

(0.1 * (1 + 0.47)/2 + 0.9 * 0.47) * 266E10 = 132.1E10 m3 = 132.1E13 kg/y                        (k)


These calculations are summarized in Table 0

Water vapor source

E13 kg/y



Transportation fuel


Fossil fuel for electricity generation


Cooling towers, etc. for electricity generation




Table 0: Summary of contributions to atmospheric water vapor.


Approximately 132.1/136.9 = 0.96 or 96% of atmospheric WV results from irrigation.



Summary of why CO2 has no significant effect on climate (6/10/17)

The observation that CO2 is a ghg (greenhouse gas) is a shallow penetration of the science and means only that it has an absorb/emit band within the wavelength range of significant earth surface thermal radiation. 


Delve deeper into the science and discover that CO2 does not now, has never had and will never have a significant effect on climate.


Here is why.


1) Essentially all absorbed radiation energy is thermalized (i.e. shared with surrounding molecules).

2) Thermalized energy carries no identity of the molecule that absorbed it.

3) Emission of EMR from a gas is quantized and depends on the energy of individual molecules.

4) This energy is determined probabilistically according to the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution.

5) The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution favors lower energy (longer wavelength) photons.

6) Water vapor exhibits many (170+) of these longer wavelength bands.

7) The Maxwell-Boltzmann energy distribution in atmospheric gas molecules effectively shifts the radiation energy absorbed by CO2 molecules to the lower energy absorb/emit bands of water vapor. The ‘notches’ in top-of-atmosphere measurements over temperate zones demonstrate the validity of this assessment.


8) As altitude increases (to about 10 km) the temperature declines, magnifying the effect.


The AGT Model

Most modeling of global climate has been with Global Climate Models (GCMs) where physical laws are applied to a 3-dimensional grid consisting of hundreds of thousands of discrete blocks and the interactions between the discrete blocks are analyzed using super computers with an end result being calculation of the AGT trajectory. This might be described as a ‘bottom up’ approach. Although theoretically promising, multiple issues currently exist with this approach. Reference [13] discloses that nearly all of the more than 100 current GCMs are obviously faulty. The few which appear to follow measurements might even be statistical outliers of the ‘consensus’ method. The growing separation between calculated and measured AGT as shown at Figure 9 in Ref. [14] also suggests some factor is missing.


The approach in the analysis presented here is ‘top down’. This type of approach has been called ‘emergent structures analysis’. As described by Dr. Roy Spencer in his book THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING BLUNDER, “Rather than model the system from the bottom up with many building blocks, one looks at how the system as a whole behaves.” That approach is used here with strict compliance with physical laws.


The basis for assessment of AGT is the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy, applied to the entire planet as a single entity. Much of the available data are forcings or proxies for forcings which must be integrated (mathematically as in calculus, i.e. accumulated over time) to compute energy change. Energy change divided by effective thermal capacitance is temperature change. Temperature change is expressed as anomalies which are the differences between annual averages of measured temperatures and some baseline reference temperature; usually the average over a previous multiple-year time period. (Monthly anomalies, which are not used here, are referenced to previous average for the same month to account for seasonal norms.)


The AGT model, a summation of contributing factors, is expressed in this equation:


Tanom = (A,y)+thcap-1 * Σyi=1895 {B*[S(i)-Savg] + C*ln[TPW(i)/TPW(1895)] –                              F * [(T(i)/T(1895))4 – 1]} + D                                                                                 (1)



Tanom = Calculated average global temperature anomaly with respect to the baseline of the anomaly for the measured temperature data set, K

A = highest-to-lowest extent in the saw-tooth approximation of the net effect on planet AGT of all ocean cycles, K

y = year being calculated

(A,y) = value of the net effect of ocean cycles on AGT in year y (α-trend), K

thcap = effective  thermal capacitance [1] of the planet = 17±7 W yr m-2 K-1

1895 = Selected beginning year of acceptably accurate world wide temperature measurements.

B = combined proxy factor and influence coefficient for energy change due to sunspot number anomaly change, W yr m-2

S(i) = average daily V2 sunspot numbers [15,16] in year i

Savg = baseline for determining SSN anomalies

C = influence coefficient for energy change due to TPW change, W yr m-2

TPW(i) = total precipitable water in year i, kg m-2

TPW(1895) = TPW in 1895, same units as TPW(i) 

F = 1 to account for change to S-B radiation from earth due to AGT change, W yr m-2

T(i) = AGT calculated by adding T(1895) to the reported anomaly, K

T(1895) = AGT in 1895 = 286.707 K

D = offset that shifts the calculated trajectory vertically on the graph, without changing its shape, to best match the measured data, K (equivalent to changing the anomaly reference temperature).


Accuracy of the model is determined using the Coefficient of Determination, R 2, to compare calculated AGT with measured AGT.



Approximate effect on the planet of the net of ocean surface temperature (SST)

The average global ocean surface temperature oscillation is only about ±1/6 K. It is defined to not significantly add or remove planet energy. The net influence of SST oscillation on reported AGT is defined as α-trend. In the decades immediately prior to 1941 the amplitude range of the trends was not significantly influenced by change to any candidate internal forcing effect; so the observed amplitude of the effect on AGT of the net ocean surface temperature trend anomaly then, must be approximately the same as the amplitude of the part of the AGT trend anomaly due to ocean oscillations since then. This part is approximately 0.36 K total highest-to-lowest extent with a period of approximately 64 years (verified by high R2 in Table 1).


The measured AGT trajectory (Figure 9) suggests that the least-biased simple wave form of the effective ocean surface temperature oscillation is approximately saw-toothed. Approximation of the sea surface temperature anomaly oscillation can be described as varying linearly from –A/2 K in 1909 to approximately +A/2 K in 1941 and linearly back to the 1909 value in 1973. This cycle repeats before and after with a period of 64 years.


Because the actual magnitude of the effect of ocean oscillation in any year is needed, the expression to account for the contribution of the ocean oscillation in each year to AGT is given by the following:


ΔTosc = (A,y)             K (degrees)                 (2)


where the contribution of the net of ocean oscillations to AGT change is the magnitude of the effect on AGT of the surface temperature anomaly trend of the oscillation in year y, and A is the maximum highest-to-lowest extent of the effect on AGT of the net ocean surface temperature oscillation.


Equation (2) is graphed in Figure 4 for A=0.36.


Figure 4: Ocean surface temperature oscillations (α-trend) do not significantly affect the bulk energy of the planet.



Comparison of approximation with ‘named’ ocean cycles

Named ocean cycles include, in the Pacific north of 20N, Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO); in the equatorial Pacific, El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO); and in the north Atlantic, Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).


Ocean cycles are perceived to contribute to AGT in two ways: The first is the direct measurement of sea surface temperature (SST). The second is warmer SST increases atmospheric water vapor which acts as a forcing and therefore has a time-integral effect on temperature. The approximation, (A,y), accounts for both ways.


SST data is available for three named cycles: PDO index, ENSO 3.4 index and AMO index. Successful accounting for oscillations is achieved for PDO and ENSO when considering these as forcings (with appropriate proxy factors) instead of direct measurements. As forcings, their influence accumulates with time. The proxy factors must be determined separately for each forcing. The measurements are available since 1900 for PDO [17] and ENSO3.4 [18]. This PDO data set has the PDO temperature measurements reduced by the average SST measurements for the planet.


The contribution of PDO and ENSO3.4 to AGT is calculated by:

PDO_NINO = Σyi=1900 (0.017*PDO(i) + 0.009 * ENSO34(i))        (3)



            PDO(i) = PDO index [17] in year i

            ENSO34(i) = ENSO 3.4 index [18] in year i


How this calculation compares to the idealized approximation used in Equation (2) with A = 0.36 is shown in Figure 5.



Figure 5: Comparison of idealized approximation of ocean cycle effect and the calculated effect from PDO and ENSO.


The AMO index [19] is formed from area-weighted and de-trended SST data. It is shown with two different amounts of smoothing in Figure 6 along with the saw-tooth approximation for the entire planet per Equation (2) with A = 0.36.

Figure 6: Comparison of idealized approximation of ocean cycle effect and the AMO index.


The high Coefficients of Determination in Table 1 and the comparisons in Figures 5 and 6 corroborate the assumption that the saw-tooth profile with a period of 64 years provides adequate approximation of the net effect of all named and unnamed ocean cycles in the calculated AGT anomalies.


Atmospheric carbon dioxide (rev 1/11/17)

The level of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) has been widely measured over the years. Values from ancient times were determined by measurements on gas bubbles which had been trapped in ice cores extracted from Antarctic glaciers [20]. Spatial variations between sources have been found to be inconsequential [2]. The best current source for atmospheric carbon dioxide level [21] is Mauna Loa, Hawaii. The left graph in Figure 7 provides insight as to the fraction of atmospheric CO2 for various times and conditions. The planet came perilously close to extinction of all plants and animals due to the low level of CO2 at the end of the last glaciation. For plant growth, even at the current level the atmosphere is impoverished for CO2.


Figure 7: Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.



Extrapolation to future CO2 levels, shown in the right side graph in Figure 7, is accomplished using a second-order curve fit to data measured at Mauna Loa from 1980 to 2012. Although CO2has no significant effect on climate, the trajectory shape, including data back to 1610 from Law Dome (275 ppmv), was used as a proxy to extrapolate TPW back to 1610. 


Sunspot numbers

Sunspots have been regularly recorded since 1610. In 2015 historical (V1) SSN were reevaluated in light of current perceptions and more sensitive instruments and are designated as V2. The V2 SSN data set is used throughout this assessment. V2 SSN [15] are shown in Figure 8.


Sunspot numbers (SSN) are seen to be in cycles each lasting approximately 11 years. The current cycle, called 24, has been comparatively low, has peaked, and is now in decline.


The Maunder Minimum (1645-1700), an era of extremely low SSN, was associated with the Little Ice Age. The Dalton Minimum (1790-1820) was a period of low SSN and low temperatures. An unnamed period of low SSN (1880-1930) was also accompanied by comparatively low temperatures.


An assessment of this is that sunspots are somehow related to the net energy retained by the planet, as indicated by changes to the average global temperature trend. Fewer sunspots are associated with cooling, and more sunspots are associated with warming. Thus the hypothesis is made that SSN are proxies for the rate at which the planet accumulates (or loses) radiant energy over time. Therefore the time-integral of the SSN anomalies is a proxy for most of the amount of energy retained by the planet above or below breakeven.


Also, a lower solar cycle over a longer period might result in the same increase in energy retained by the planet as a higher solar cycle over a shorter period. Both magnitude and time are accounted for by taking the time-integral of the SSN anomalies, which is simply the sum of annual mean SSN (each minus Savg) over the period of study.


SSN change correlates with change to Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). However, TSI change can only account for less than 10% of the AGT change on earth. Because AGT change has been found to correlate with SSN change, the SSN change must act as a catalyst on some other factor (perhaps clouds [22]) which have a substantial effect on AGT.



Figure 8: V2 SSN [15]



Possible values for Savg are subject to two constraints. Initially they are determined as that which results in derived coefficients and maximum R2. However, calculated values must also result in rational values for calculated AGT at the depths of the Little Ice Age. The necessity to calculate a rational LIA AGT is a somewhat more sensitive constraint. The selected value for Savg results in calculated LIA AGT of approximately 1 K less than the recent trend which appears rational and is consistent with most LIA AGT assessments.



AGT measurement data set

In the last few years, reported temperature data, especially land temperature data, have been changed by the reporting agencies. This detracts from their applicability in any correlation.


Rapid year-to-year changes in reported temperature anomalies are not physically possible for true energy change of the planet. The sharp peak in 2015, which coincides with an extreme El Nino, is especially distorting. It, at least in part, will be compensated for by a La Nina which is likely to follow. For analysis here, the El Nino spike is compensated for by replacing reported AGT for 2013-2015 with the average 2002-2012.


 A further bit of confusion is introduced by satellite determinations. Anomalies they report as AGT anomalies are actually for the lower troposphere (LT), have a different reference temperature (reported anomalies determined using satellite data are about 0.2 K lower), and appear to be somewhat more volatile (about 0.15 K further extremes than surface measurements) to changes in forcing.


The data set used for this assessment is the current (5/27/16) HadCRUT4 data set [23] through 2012 with 2013-2015 set at the average 2002-2012 at 0.4863 K above the reference temperature. This set is shown in Figure 9.


Figure 9: HadCRUT4 data set as of 5/27/16 with flat starting in 2013 as used here.



The sunspot number anomaly time-integral is a proxy for a primary driver of the temperature anomaly β-trend

By definition, energy change divided by effective thermal capacitance is temperature change.


In all cases in this document, coefficients (A, B, C, & D) which achieved maximum R2 for unsmoothed data sets were not changed when calculating R2 for smoothed data. F=1 for all cases.


Incremental convergence to maximum R2 is accomplished by sequentially and repeatedly adjusting the coefficients. The process is analogous to tediously feeling the way along a very long and narrow mathematical tunnel in 4-dimensional mathematical space. The ‘mathematical tunnel’ is long and narrow because the influence on AGT determined by the SSN anomaly time-integral, at least until the last decade or so, is quite similar to the influence on AGT as determined by the rise in TPW.


Measured temperature anomalies in Figure 10 are HadCRUT4 data as shown in Figure 9. The excellent match of the up and down trends since before 1900 of calculated and measured temperature anomalies, shown here in Figure 10, and, for 5-year moving average smoothed temperature anomaly measurements, in Figure 11, demonstrate the usefulness and validity of the calculations. All reported values since before 1900 are within the range ±2.5 sigma (±0.225 K) from the calculated trend. Note: The variation is not in the method, or the measuring instruments themselves, but results from the effectively roiling (at this tiny magnitude of temperature change) of the object of the measurements.


Projection until 2020 uses the expected sunspot number trend for the remainder of solar cycle 24 as provided [16] by NASA. After 2020 the ‘limiting cases’ are either assuming sunspots like from 1924 to 1940 or for the case of no sunspots which is similar to the Maunder Minimum.


Some noteworthy volcanoes and the year they occurred are also shown on Figure 10. No consistent AGT response is observed to be associated with these. Any global temperature perturbation that might have been caused by volcanoes of this size is lost in the natural fluctuation of measured temperatures.


Much larger volcanoes can cause significant temporary global cooling from the added reflectivity of aerosols and airborne particulates. The Tambora eruption, which started on April 10, 1815 and continued to erupt for at least 6 months, was approximately ten times the magnitude of the next largest in recorded history and led to 1816 which has been referred to as ‘the year without a summer’. The cooling effect of that volcano exacerbated the already cool temperatures associated with the Dalton Minimum.


Figure 10: Measured average global temperature anomalies with calculated future trends using Savg = 60 and with V2 SSN. R 2 = 0.904520. (Rev 8/26/16)


Coefficients in Equation (1) which were determined by maximizing R2 identify maximums for each of the factors explicitly considered. Factors not explicitly considered (such as unaccounted for residual (apparently random) variation in reported annual measured temperature anomalies, aerosols, CO2, other non-condensing ghg, volcanoes, ice change, etc.) must find room in the unexplained residual, and/or by occupying a fraction of the effect otherwise occupied by each of the factors explicitly considered. 


Figure 11: Same as Figure 10 but with 5-year running average of measured temperatures. R2 = 0.981782. (Rev 8/26/16)


The derived coefficients and other results are summarized in Table 1. Note that a coefficient of determination, R2 = 0.981782 means a near-perfect correlation coefficient of 0.99.


The influence of the net effect of factors other than the net effect of ocean cycles on AGT can be calculated by excluding the α-trend (set 'A' to zero) from the AGT which was calculated using Equation (1). For the values used in Figure 10, this results in the β-trend as shown in Figure 12. Note that in 2005 the anomaly from other than α-trend, as shown in Figure 12, is A/2 lower than the calculated trend in Figures 10 and 11 as it should be.



Figure 12: Anomaly trend (β-trend). Equation (1) except summation starts at i = 1610 and excluding α-trend. (Rev 8/26/16)



How the β-trend could take place

Although the connection between AGT and the sunspot number anomaly time-integral is demonstrated, the mechanism by which this takes place remains somewhat speculative.


Various papers have been written that indicate how the solar magnetic field associated with sunspots can influence climate on earth. These papers posit that decreased sunspots are associated with decreased solar magnetic field which decreases the deflection of and therefore increases the flow of galactic cosmic rays on earth.


Henrik Svensmark, a Danish physicist, found that increased flow of galactic cosmic rays on earth caused increased low altitude (<3 km) clouds and planet cooling. An abstract of his 2000 paper is at [24]. Marsden and Lingenfelter also report this in the summary of their 2003 paper [25] where they make the statement “…solar activity increases…providing more shielding…less low-level cloud cover… increase surface air temperature.” These findings have been further corroborated by the cloud nucleation experiments [26] at CERN.


These papers [24, 25] associated the increased low-altitude clouds with increased albedo leading to lower temperatures. Increased low altitude clouds would also result in lower average cloud altitude and therefore higher average cloud temperature. Although clouds are commonly acknowledged to increase albedo, they also radiate energy to space so increasing their temperature increases S-B radiation to space which would cause the planet to cool. Increased albedo reduces the energy received by the planet and increased radiation to space reduces the energy of the planet. Thus the two effects work together to change the AGT of the planet.


A contributing or possibly alternate speculation is that clouds might also be affected by solar wind. End result is the same: Average global temperature correlates with the time-integral of sunspot number anomalies (when combine with two other factors as shown in Equation (1)).

Simple analyses [22] indicate that either an increase of approximately 186 meters in average cloud altitude or a decrease of average albedo from 0.3 to the very slightly reduced value of 0.2928 would account for all of the 20th century increase in AGT of 0.74 K. Because the cloud effects work together and part of the temperature change is due to ocean oscillation (low in 1901, 0.2114 higher in 2000), substantially less cloud change would suffice.



Hind Cast Estimate

Average global temperatures were not directly measured in 1610 (accurate thermometers had not been invented yet). Recent estimates, using proxies, are few. The temperature anomaly trend that Equation (1) calculates for that time is roughly consistent with other estimates. The decline in the trace 1615-1715 on Figure 12 results from the low sunspot numbers for that period as shown on Figure 8.


As a possibility, the period and amplitude of oscillations attributed to ocean cycles demonstrated to be valid after 1895 are assumed to maintain back to 1610. Equation (1) is modified to begin integration in 1610. The coefficient D is changed to make the calculated temperature in 2005 equal to what it is in Figure 10.


Temperature anomalies thus calculated, estimate possible trends since 1610 and actual trends of reported temperatures since they have been accurately measured world wide.  This assessment is shown in Figure 13.



Figure 13: Calculated temperature anomalies using Equation (1) with the same coefficients as for Figure 10 and V2 SSN. Measured temperature anomalies from Figure 9, and anomaly range estimates determined by Loehle are superimposed. (Rev 8/26/16)



A survey [27] of non-tree-ring global temperature estimates was conducted by Loehle including some for a period after 1610. Simplifications of the 95% limits found by Loehle are also shown on Figure 13. The spread between the upper and lower 95% limits are fixed, but, since the anomaly reference temperatures might be different, the limits are adjusted vertically to approximately bracket the values calculated using Equation (1). The fit appears reasonable considering the uncertainty of all values.


Calculated temperature anomalies look reasonable back to 1700 but indicate higher temperatures prior to that than most proxy estimates. They are, however, consistent with the low sunspot numbers in that period. They qualitatively agree with Vostok, Antarctica ice core data but decidedly differ from Sargasso Sea estimates during that time (see the graph for the last 1000 years in Reference [2]). Worldwide assessments of average global temperature, that far back, are sparse and speculative. Ocean oscillations might also have been different from assumed.



Projection from 1990

Figure 14 shows the calculation using Equation (1) with coefficients determined using HadCRUT4 measured temperatures to 1990. The calculated AGT trend in 2020 projected from  1990 is 0.06 K cooler than the projection from 2015.


Figure 14: Same as Figure 11 except coefficients determined using data through 1990.



Step changes in AGT

Interpretation of a reported sudden AGT increase (or decrease) as planet energy increase (or decrease) is physically impossible because of the huge effective thermal capacitance which results in a 5-year time constant [1] for thermal response of the planet to a step change in forcing.



Influence of atmospheric water vapor on AGT

The temperature increase through 2015 attributable to TPW is the net of the increase from TPW and the decrease from added S-B radiation due to the part of the temperature rise attributable to TPW which is above the 1895 value of 286.707 K. The net effect is designated ΔTTPW.


At least until the last decade or so, the influence on AGT due to TPW has been quite similar to the influence on AGT determined by the SSN anomaly time-integral. This similarity has resulted in the effect of TPW being erroneously masked by the calculated effect of sunspot number anomalies.


Figure 15 shows how increasing water vapor has contributed to AGT. It is the same as Figure 11 but shows also the calculated trajectory if there had been no increase in water vapor since 1895. This is calculated by setting C to zero and retaining the other coefficients in Equation (1).


It is speculated that local conditions might result in a local thermal runaway which is observed as a super el Niño. The sharp spike and following la Nina are consistent with this hypothesis.



Figure 15: Same as Figure 11 but with calculated trajectory incorporated for the case if there was no increase in water vapor since 1895. (added 10/31/16)

Values for the coefficients and results are summarized in Table 1.



Table 1: A, B, C, D, F refer to coefficients in Equation 1. The column headed # is a code identifying the particular EXCEL file used. (Rev 8/26/16)


Three factors explain essentially all of AGT change since before 1900. They are ocean cycles, accounted for with an approximation, influence quantified by a proxy which is the SSN anomaly time-integral and, the gain in atmospheric water vapor measured since 1987 and extrapolated before and after using measured CO2 as a proxy.


Others have looked at only amplitude or only duration factors for solar cycles and got poor correlations with average global temperature. The excellent correlation comes by combining the two, which is what the time-integral of sunspot number anomalies does. Prediction of future sunspot numbers more than a decade or so into the future has not yet been confidently done.


As displayed in Figure 12, the β-trend shows the estimated true average global temperature trend (the net average global energy trend) during the planet warm up from the depths of the Little Ice Age.


The net effect of ocean oscillations is to cause the surface temperature α-trend to oscillate above and below the β-trend. Equation (1) accounts for both trends.


Figure 11 shows the near perfect match with calculated temperatures which occurs when random fluctuation in reported measured temperatures is smoothed out with 5-year moving average.


Warming attributed to increasing water vapor explains the flat measured AGT trend in spite of declining sunspot and ocean cycle forcings and might delay or even prevent global cooling.


The increasing trend of global average water vapor as shown in Figure 3, besides countering the temperature decline which would otherwise be occurring, is a likely contributor to increased precipitation and flooding.


Long term prediction of average global temperatures depends substantially on long term prediction of sunspot numbers.



References: (rev 10/21/16, 9/10/17)

  1. Effective thermal capacitance & time constant: Schwartz, Stephen E., (2007) Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of earth’s climate system,J. Geophys. Res., vol. 113, Issue D15102, doi:10.1029/2007JD009373 

On line at

  1. 2008 assessment of non-condensing ghg
  2. Phanerozoic AGT & CO2:
  3. Phanerozoic AGT & CO2:
  4. 6 microsecond relaxation time in atmosphere 10 microsecond CO2relaxation in atmosphere:
  5. 7.1 microsecond CO2relaxation in pure gas!divAbstract ).      
  6. Time between molecule collisions:
  7. Barrett TOA radiation
  8. Water vapor vs altitude
  9. EPA GWP

The above HTTP access link leads to this one with last digits of last number being the latest month

  1. Willis TPW graph:
  2. Epic fail of ‘consensus’ method
  3. Analysis with V1 SSN sans water vapor: Pangburn 2014,Energy & EnvironmentV25, No. 8 1455-1471
  4. V2 sunspot numbers
  5. Graphic of V2 Solar cycle 24:
  6. PDO index
  7. El Nino 3.4 index from )
  8. AMO index
  9. CO2level at Law Dome, Antarctica:
  10. Mauna Loa CO2:
  11. Sensitivity of AGT to clouds
  12. Current HadCRUT4 data set:
  13. Svensmark paper:Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5004–5007 (2000)
  14. Marsden & Lingenfelter 2003,Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences60: 626-636
  15. CLOUD experiment at CERN
  16. Loehle non-tree-ring AGT
  17. Water vapor 170 absorb/emit lines p 499
  18. Relevant issues and consensus mistakes
  19. MacRae assessment of dCO2/dT
  20. Transportation fuel
  21. Fuel properties
  22. World electricity generation
  23. Fuel sources for electricity generation
  24. WV from coal combustion
  25. Energy content of bituminous coal
  26. Global water withdrawal
  27. Irrigated agricultural area
  28. Annual fresh water withdrawal
  29. 70% of withdrawal for agriculture
  30. Surface irrigation
  31. Frequency of furrow irrigation
  32. Pond evaporation rate



Saint George Added Sep 11, 2017 - 2:31am
What I do know is that we are facing an ecological emergency on numerous fronts and the destruction of agricultural land
1) The biggest polluters in the world are the non-capitalist countries, including the industrialized socialist or communist ones. Facts are easily available to prove this.
2) LOLzZ! This isn't the half-witted syntax of the previous "John G" who could neither spell correctly nor put a sentence together in anything resembling intelligibility. You're a new, brighter, shinier, "John G." So on behalf of everyone at WriterBeat, I say, "Welcome, New and Improved John G!"
Now impale yourself at the bottom of a Turkish toilet. Try it. You'll like it. Just be sure to make room for the old, inarticulate John G.
Oh, he's already there? Never mind.
Saint George Added Sep 11, 2017 - 6:06am
No problem, fascist-fuck-the-common-man-skidmark-g:
1) Former Soviet Union (Marxian communist regime). See works by Antony C. Sutton, for example, and quotes below.
2) North Korea (Marxian communist regime). Many articles online. See, for example:
3) Cuba (communist regime). See:
4) China under Mao (pre-capitalist). See, for starters:; and this:; and this:
[Mao's War Against Nature by Judith Shapiro]
5) Central and Easter Europe under communism
East Germany.
In sum, when private rights are abandoned and resource allocation taken over by the state, economic anarchy ensues. Economic anarchy leads to environmental degradation and pollution. See:
When the Iron Curtain collapsed in November 1989, the world saw for the first time the immense environmental devastation that decades of communist rule in Central and Eastern Europe had wrought. Throughout the region, an emphasis on production at any cost -- without regard for its environmental consequences -- had greatly compromised the quality of the air, water, soil, crops, and forestlands. Author Kevin Williamson writes in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism, "By the time the Soviet government collapsed, fully one-sixth of Russia's territory had been rendered uninhabitable because of pollution and other environmental devastation. Water pollution in particular was extreme–far beyond anything in the capitalist world's experience ..."
In 2009, Time magazine listed the world's ten most polluted cities. Every one of them was in a country with a socialist government or a formerly socialist government; these countries were China, India, Peru, Russia, Ukraine, Zambia, and Azerbaijan.
Saint George Added Sep 11, 2017 - 6:19am
On a more contemporary note, see:
The 20 countries with the most polluted urban areas 

Pakistan - average PM 2.5 concentration: 115.7
Qatar - 92.4
Afghanistan - 86
Bangladesh - 83.3
Egypt - 73
UAE - 64
Mongolia - 61.8
India - 60.6
Bahrain - 56.1
Nepal - 50
Ghana - 49
Jordan - 48
China - 41.4
Senegal - 40
Turkey - 39.1
Bulgaria - 38.6
Mauritius - 38.1
Peru - 38
Serbia - 35.8
Iran - 34.2

No great exemplars of capitalism in the above list.
Ari Silverstein Added Sep 11, 2017 - 10:25am
I have the same problem with this article as I do with all those that perpetuate the belief the Earth is warming via science.  You don’t know.  There are simply too many variables and moving parts to ascertain the direction of our climate and if humans are to blame. 
Mike Haluska Added Sep 11, 2017 - 11:37am
Ari - you make a great point.  My adversaries on the pro-AGW side still can't explain this:
The current CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere is 400 ppm.  Of that amount, less than 1% is attributable to human activity.  Even if we somehow managed to eliminate all human CO2, the atmospheric concentration would only drop to 395 ppm!!!  If 400 ppm didn't "wreck the planet", why would 395 ppm????
Tamara Wilhite Added Sep 11, 2017 - 4:37pm
Very well researched and documented. Thank you.
Saint George Added Sep 11, 2017 - 6:21pm
Interestingly Iraq , Afghanistan on't get mentions
Read the list again, skidmark-g. (Afghanistan is listed 3rd from the top). You're pathetic.
Re: Fukushima
The nuke plant at Fukushima didn't pollute anything before the tsunami, so it's not an example of a country regularly and irresponsibly polluting its environment; it was an example of an unpredicted (and unpredictable) natural catastrophe (a perfect case of "Force Majeure"). If you can't distinguish the difference between those two, you're stupider than I originally assumed . . . and I've always assumed you were impressively stupid.
A better example of a non-capitalist country's irresponsibility regarding its own environment:
The meltdown at the nuke plant in Chernobyl, Ukraine, under the Marxian socialist Soviet regime. There was no unpredictable natural catastrophe such as a flood or an earthquake that caused this disaster; it was pure fuck-up by an irresponsible Marxian-socialist regime. Details here:
Saint George Added Sep 11, 2017 - 7:39pm
This capitalism is perfect vs Marxism is pure evil is childish and boring.
Cool. But no one here ever claimed that capitalism perfect. Marxism and socialism are simply unworkable by nature. The "evil" comes in when those in power under socialism try to coerce people into making it work.
Flying Junior Added Sep 12, 2017 - 1:51am
John G.
I thought maybe you were going to take this fake science cut and paste guy to task and be a real hero for once, so I clicked.  Instead you used it as yet another platform for your unique economic theories.  I can't help you with solving the problems of economic systems and financial organs such as banks and lenders, both private, national and international.  That's something that I know very little about.  But I will say this as far as the economics of climate-change-believer-guys.  It's the wave of the future.  It's the way of almost every nation on the face of the earth as well as most states in the U.S.  Even Texas has many progressive energy programs.  The economic engine of the future is renewable energy.
But I digress.  If you really care as much about climate change as you profess I have some pointers.
Go to UCSD and the University of Hawaii.  Look for podcasts related to your questions.  Take the time to sit down and watch some programs.  There is so much that you do not understand.  Learn about the origins of the greenhouse gas theory in 1930 and learn about actions that were taken by academic institutions after WWII.  The U.S. Congress even considered action in 1967, but ended up deciding that acute air pollution that was being experienced was a more immediate problem.
I imagine that you have heard of the research done by Roger Revelle and Howard Keeling.  You know, capturing atmospheric air on a mountain in Hawaii for sixty years.  Of course.  Maybe nobody denies the doubling.  But take the time to find out what it means.
To the author, I would only postulate this.  You got one thing correct.  Water does indeed play the predominate role.  But its role in absorbing and preserving the energy if much more important than the theory that you propose.  (Source, please?)
Oceanic absorption of heat energy of the sun is measured in square meters of surface waters.  You're right.  It's pretty complicated.  Who could even begin to understand meteorology as a layman?  The amount that escapes back out into space has more to do with the atmosphere.  I don't get how anybody could seriously contend that a man-made cloud of CO2 over our planet, more than doubled over the last two hundred years could have zero effect?  That's comical if it were not so tragic.  What do you suppose are the average surface temperatures of Venus?  You and your ilk are alone in the world.  China does not have such a short-sighted propaganda agenda.  It's the U.S. petroleum industry that has fought to invent this myth.  And lamentably, even the coal industry is supported by the iconoclast Trump.
Flying Junior Added Sep 12, 2017 - 3:06am
Thank you for the answers, John.
People of my circle consider nuclear energy poison fire.  The idea of floating it to reduce C02 is criminal.  In my corner of Reagan Country, we had the San Onofre nuclear plant breakdown.  SDG&E had, according to their contract, 65 years to dispose of the remaining nuclear material.  Googol San Onofre nuclear disaster.  Thank the goddess they have agreed to remove it sooner than that at ratepayer expense.  Neither was there loss of life or disability.  Maybe in 400 years it will return to coastal sagebrush and sinkholes.
After Fukushima, no thinking person on earth supports nuclear power.  And yes.  Same people.  Try Dick Cheney.  The fucking son-of-a-bitch sold the technology to India!
Flying Junior Added Sep 12, 2017 - 3:09am
And my apologies to the author.  In the last 215 years, the ppm has only increased from 275 to 410, barely 50%.  No big, right?
Mike Haluska Added Sep 12, 2017 - 10:44am
Flying Junior - the answer to your question:
"I don't get how anybody could seriously contend that a man-made cloud of CO2 over our planet, more than doubled over the last two hundred years could have zero effect?"
is given in my post near the top time stamped (Sep 11, 2017 - 11:37am).  You need to learn the difference between causality and correlation and also comprehend the concept of statistical significance.  The relative impact of CO2 compared to water vapor is INSIGNIFICANT!   
Bill H. Added Sep 12, 2017 - 11:09am
It's pretty simple to correlate man's impact of CO2 concentration based on this data from NASA. You will see a low ppm of 284.9 in 1854, a present level of 402.3 in 2017, and a projected level of 560 in 2099. You will also see the quick rise as the industrial age begins to expand in the mid '40s.
Mike Haluska Added Sep 12, 2017 - 5:48pm
Bill H - take your "correlation hat" off your head and use your "thinking cap" instead! 
First of all, we had absolutely NO WAY to directly measure the worldwide CO2 concentration back in 1854 - PERIOD.  There was no technology to sense and measure CO2 concentration back then and certainly no world-wide means of collecting the data if there was!  The idea that somebody "knows" the worldwide CO2 concentration in 1854 to a tenth of a PART PER MILLION is statistically laughable and ridiculous!!!
Second, as I stated dozens of time, the percentage of CO2 DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO HUMAN ACTIVITY IS LESS THAN 1%!!!  You know the CO2 level has varied since well before the Industrial Age - so you should be able to reason that CO2 changes WITH OR WITHOUT human industrial activity!  You act like the projected jump from 400 to 560 is guaranteed, verifiable and SOLELY CAUSED BY HUMANS!!! 
You need to step back and use your common sense and perspective.  We're talking about a TRACE GAS, measured in PARTS PER MILLION!!! 
To put this in a visual perspective, imagine looking at all the stars visible to the naked eye (about 5,000).  If those stars represented all of the gas molecules in the atmosphere, only 2 of those stars would be CO2!!!  And less than 1% of those 2 stars are related to human activity!!!
Mike Haluska Added Sep 12, 2017 - 5:54pm
What we're supposed to believe, according to the "Climate Change" pseudo-scientists, is that those two CO2 stars scattered about 5,000 stars "outshine" the 3,000 water vapor stars!  It's no wonder these frauds had to resort to fear mongering and "Consensus Science" to sell their crap to politicians and the general public.
Dan Pangburn Added Sep 12, 2017 - 8:27pm
Ari Sept 11 - Trying to deal with 'all the moving parts' is a 'bottom up' type analysis which has resulted in "epic fail". I used a 'top down' analysis aka 'emergent structures analysis' which works. It is all explained in the analysis . . . but you need to read it.
Dan Pangburn Added Sep 12, 2017 - 8:45pm
Mik Sep 11 11:37 - The CO2 level 450 million years ago was about 10 times the current level and it didn't "wreck the planet" either.
Dan Pangburn Added Sep 12, 2017 - 8:47pm
Tam Sep 11 4:37 - Thanks for noticing . . .
Dan Pangburn Added Sep 12, 2017 - 9:20pm
Sai Sept 11 6:21 - Adding a bit to your comments: At Fukushima about 20,000 were killed by the tsunami but no one died from nuclear radiation. 
No one is dumb enough to build another plant like Chernobyl. It didn't even have a containment structure.
Dan Pangburn Added Sep 12, 2017 - 9:46pm
Fly Sep 12 1:51 - Apparently you lack the engineering science skill to understand this climate stuff. Because all of the analysis is a  result from my own research, there is nothing out there to 'cut and paste' from. 
As to renewable energy, I determined this:
The fallacy of wind turbines is revealed with simple arithmetic.
5 mW wind turbine, avg output 1/3 nameplate, 20 yr life, electricity @ wholesale 3 cents per kwh produces $8.8E6.
Installed cost @ $1.7E6/mW = $8.5E6. Add the cost of standby CCGT for low wind periods. Add the cost of land lease, maintenance, administration.
Solar voltaic and solar thermal are even worse.
The dollar relation is a proxy for energy relation. Bottom line, the energy consumed to design, manufacture, install, maintain and administer renewables exceeds the energy they produce in their lifetime.
Without the energy provided by other sources these renewables could not exist.
The people who believe in AGW caused by CO2 are the people who are denying science. The science of thermalization and the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of molecule energy explain why CO2 does not now, has never had and will never have a significant effect on climate.
Dan Pangburn Added Sep 12, 2017 - 10:04pm
Fly Sep 12 3:06 - Ironic that the most feared method of producing electricity is actually the safest:
When the fossil fuels have been used up, nuclear will be mandatory.
Dan Pangburn Added Sep 12, 2017 - 10:30pm
Bil Sep 12 11:09am - CO2 has no significant effect on climate.
Plants must now sort through about 2500 molecules to find one, CO2, that they can use to make food. The planet is impoverished for CO2.  The CO2 level for various times and conditions is shown in Figure 7 of my blog/analysis at . The graphics all show there.
Bill H. Added Sep 12, 2017 - 11:52pm
Dan, May I ask who is your present (or former) employer?
Please be truthful.
Dan Pangburn Added Sep 13, 2017 - 1:22am
I retired from Aerojet General (solid rockets, nuclear stuff, smart projectiles). Their Azusa Ca plant was bought by Northrup-Grumman for whom I consulted for several years mostly on structural issues on meteorological satellites (AMSU, SSMIS) after retiring from Aerojet.  
I got interested in climate change stuff about a decade ago. Discovered the major influence of water vapor a little over a year ago. Identified the major source of the WV about 6 months ago. Refined the calcs just a couple days ago.
Flying Junior Added Sep 13, 2017 - 2:36am

I appreciate your sincere responses to my limited understanding of the phenomenon.  Perhaps your own scientific knowledge surpasses my own.  You have been pondering this problem in a very real way.  I have never encountered an opponent on this issue who had anything of substance to say.  Usually it's just a knee-jerk response to liberal academia or something fifteen-hundred times as stupid, such as Trump's conclusions.
I suppose that I have been indoctrinated watching UCTV for so many years.  Yet you and I can agree on one thing.  The governing factors are solar radiation and water.  Maybe we should look to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution for a more ongoing and complete study?  It's far more complicated than any one person could possibly conceive.  From the weather over the lands to the jet stream and hurricanes.  We don't really know.  Some correlations seem to be too difficult to deny to many of us.  But in one sense, it could not be truer.  No one can prove or even claim  one side or the other with any certainty.
But, in the end, who really knows?  Why have the last twenty-seven years been so hot?  Haven't you noticed it where you live?
But OTOH.  Nuclear energy is extremely dangerous.  It is only safe when plotted out in a flow chart on a chalkboard.  What do you do with the one hundred year waste?  Aren't all of the best deep sites in the Nevada desert already full of the poison?  Happily, even the demon Trump has not supported nuclear energy.   You, of all people, should understand this better than any of us.
Right.  Nobody could measure atmospheric CO2 in 1852.  It has been corroborated with multiple samples of core ice several feet deep.  Maybe not to one tenth of a degree Farenheit, I will give you that.
Mike Haluska Added Sep 13, 2017 - 10:23am
Bill H -
I am employed as a Project Manager for an Engineering Consulting Firm.  I have provided consulting services in the field of Civil Engineering and Manufacturing Engineering since I graduated from Purdue in 1978.  I have NEVER worked for or consulted to a petrochemical company - primarily because they hire Chemical and Petroleum Engineers.
In any case, I thoroughly resent the implication you continually try to sell to the Writer Beat authors that I am some kind of "shill for Big Oil".  Even if I was, it would have no bearing on any position I take on subjects related to science and engineering.  One of the main attractions to me of mathematics, engineering and science courses is the objectivity.  Nobody debates or has an opinion that the "area of a circle equals Pi x radius squared" - if you doubt it you prove it using rational means. 
My problem with the "Climate Change" proponents is not that I think the Earth's climate is static or even that humans influence the climate.  If the "Climate Change" proponents claimed that everything was hunky dory and there's nothing to be concerned about I would still chastise them for their methods. 
Here is how I KNOW that the "Climate Change" gang are frauds.  They avoided using Scientific Method and when they were exposed they responded by "demonizing" anyone who dared question them.  Throughout history, scientific advancement and understanding has been the direct result of "questioning our current understanding".  Isaac Newton did so with his Laws of Motion, James Clerk Maxwell did so with his 3 equations on Electromagnetism and Albert Einstein did so with Relativity.  They all "upset the apple cart" and NONE of them called those who disagreed with them "DENIERS" or tried to run them out of the profession. 
Now, if you think this "omission" is just a technicality ("so what if the "Climate Change" proponents use "Consensus Science"?) then I strongly suggest you read ALL of Dr. Crichton's article.  Millions of people died because of the "consensus" that Eugenics was sound science.  Millions of people died from malaria when DDT was mistakenly banned.  Who knows how many kids will die from diseases that we have inoculations for because the parents believe vaccinations cause Autism?  Don't just assume that going along with the "Climate Change" gang is "erring on the safe side" - as Mark Twain once said:
"It ain't what you don’t know that gets you into trouble.  It's what you know for sure that just ain’t so"
Mike Haluska Added Sep 13, 2017 - 10:33am
Flying Junior - the answer to your question:
"But, in the end, who really knows?  Why have the last twenty-seven years been so hot?  Haven't you noticed it where you live?"
is based in your personal observation being anecdotal.  If you did a little research, you would find that in other areas of the world the exact opposite weather is occurring.  Besides, a 27 year window in geological terms is a "blink of an eye". 
Forecasting what is happening based on a 27 year sample is like taking the 2nd reel of a 3 reel movie, going to the middle of the 2nd reel, watching 3 frames and then predicting how the movie will end.
Bill H. Added Sep 13, 2017 - 12:35pm
I am simply trying to figure out what causes the politicization of the topic of climate change, along with what appears to be an obsession to absolutely avoid implementing or applauding any efforts whatsoever to err on the side of caution when it comes to minimizing human emission of CO2.
Yourself and several others out here seem to be on a "mission from God" to condemn and stop any efforts at all to try and clean up the air we breath. All of the energy and rage that you dedicated to the subject must have a root somewhere. I am just curious what causes this.
Mike Haluska Added Sep 13, 2017 - 3:14pm
Bill H - thank you for an honest discourse.  I shall attempt to address your questions:
"I am simply trying to figure out what causes the politicization of the topic of climate change" 
I think the culprit is the usual suspect - money.  A lot of people stand to lose a lot of government grant money and investment money made in "green" start-up companies that are only competitive if fossil fuels are forcibly taken off the market.  Over $26 BILLION was spent by the Federal Government in 2016 on Climate Change research.  That is far more than any fossil fuel company spent on lobbying - here is what BP's financials were for 2016:

4Q 2016 underlying replacement cost profit $400 million, full year 2016 $2.6 billion
Full year underlying operating cash flow $17.8 billion
Full year 2016 reported headline profit $115 million vs 2015 loss of $6.5 billion: 

headline profit excluding Gulf of Mexico legacy charges $4.1 billion

BP's profit was $2.6 Billion - there is NO WAY they outspent the Feds!  They had to pay $4.1 Billion for the Gulf Oil Spill in 2015.
along with what appears to be an obsession to absolutely avoid implementing or applauding any efforts whatsoever to err on the side of caution when it comes to minimizing human emission of CO2.
In order to "err on the side of caution" it is reasonable to expect that there is a direct causal relationship between human CO2 and climate change and there simply isn't.  Going back to my example of "getting rid of all human CO2", a TOTAL ABANDONMENT (physically impossible) of fossil fuels would only drop the CO2 concentration from 400 ppm down to 396 ppm.  Such a drop would make NO DIFFERENCE in any change of the Earth's climate - we know this because it was at 396 ppm and the Frakkin' World didn't come to an end - or anything close!!!
In closing:
1) $$$ is the driver behind the politicization of CO2
2) Accomplishing the goals of the "Climate Change" proponents would result in NO CHANGE in the Earth's temperature.
Just think of all of the actual human suffering OCCURRING NOW - NOT 100 YEARS FROM NOW that could be permanently eliminated with $26 Billion! 
- I don't know the first thing about microbiology, cancer, etc..  But I'll bet if 5 years ago we put up a $10 Billion prize for the first person (anywhere on Earth) to come up with a vaccination/cure for Cancer it would have been claimed by now. 
- We could have spent a $2 Billion getting clean water and sanitation around the world. 
- Another $3 Billion to irrigate crops in areas where hunger is prominent.
- We could entirely replace all of our dilapidated public schools with modern facilities for another $5 Billion
After accomplishing the above we would still have $6 Billion to spend!!!
Dan Pangburn Added Sep 13, 2017 - 5:49pm
Fli - You can probably get a more complete understanding of what I have discovered from my blog/analysis at . It covers a lot of ground but the graphics show which helps a lot. Bottom line, the results match measured average global temperatures (AGT) 98% 1895-2015 using only 3 factors; 1) A simplistic approximation of the effect of ocean cycles, 2) a proxy which is the time-integral of sunspot number anomalies (IMO the associated solar magnetic field indirectly influences earth clouds and I determined that AGT is very sensitive to cloud changes), and, 3) the increasing water vapor, 1.5%/decade, 8% since 1960.
As to the last 27 yr, all three factors were increasing or high at about the same time. At present, 1) & 2) are declining but 3) is more than making up for them. I expect cloud cover (especially low altitude clouds) increase to put an end to the uptrend. My calculations show a sustained increase of only 1.7% of cloud cover (e.g. 62% to 63.7%) would result in an eventual decline of about 0.5 K.
Determining what happens on average for the planet is what I have done and once I got a handle on what matters, isn't particularly complicated. Determining local climate at many different locations, is IMO extremely complex and needs a valid GCM & giant computer. Until they fix the GCMs to attend to what is important their GCMs are worse than useless because they mislead e.g. predicting average global temperature increase more than twice measured.
As to nuc safety, it is mostly fear of the unknown hyped people who don't know. My comments and link to actual experience data are above. 
John Minehan Added Sep 13, 2017 - 6:52pm
"Mik Sep 11 11:37 - The CO2 level 450 million years ago was about 10 times the current level and it didn't "wreck the planet" either."
Although, that is based on fossil record that is by definition incomplete.
I think the potential problem with Carbon is something John G (of all people) points out "widespread ocean pollution and acidification."
Again, based on fossil data, the KT (Permian-Triassic) Extinction was due to "acidification" that came about because of CO^2 buildup in the seas f: of volcanism. 
Now, it is fossil data, so causation is unproven, but there does appear to be correlation, aat least to the degree we can determine about events that occurred millions of years before humans existed. ,
At minimum, monitoring the build up of Carbon and learning to adopt to it and, at minimum, learning to adopt to it is required. 
Dan Pangburn Added Sep 13, 2017 - 9:24pm
John - That was just one piece of evidence. There are several others. Monte Hieb has a chart showing both CO2 & temperature over the Phanerozoic eon here:
I list 5 others in by blog/analysis. 
You say the KT extinction was due to 'acidification'. Where do you think all that limestone (primarily CaCO3) got its carbon?
The preponderance of evidence is that CO2 has no significant effect on climate, or the oceans.
Bill H. Added Sep 13, 2017 - 10:39pm
Mike - I actually believe that Big Oil is behind the efforts to convince people that their mainstay product is not at least partially responsible for climate change. They realize that their profits will decrease as the use of alternative energy sources increases, and they have almost unlimited financial resources to keep up the fight. The industry consistently uses its political and financial muscle to try and block the alternatives. In 2015, oil companies spent $11 million on successfully killing a provision in California’s SB 350 climate bill to halve petroleum use by 2030. Coal-burning utilities have tried to penalize consumers for installing rooftop solar. In Europe, Shell successfully lobbied against targets for renewable energy. Locally they have pushed utility companies to add a surcharge to power bills for customers who have solar and have gotten cities to charge high permit rates for solar system installation. I heard recently that they are pushing laws in an attempt to outlaw the installation of batteries in conjunction with solar systems stating the "fire hazard danger".
Flying Junior Added Sep 13, 2017 - 11:10pm
Thank you Dan.  I have bookmarked the page.  I look forward to a closer look.
Flying Junior Added Sep 13, 2017 - 11:11pm
Good points.
Mike Haluska Added Sep 14, 2017 - 10:55am
Bill H - despite the fact that there is NO CAUSAL LINK between human generated CO2 and climate AND the fact that our CO2 contribution is insignificant, you still want to "punish" the Oil Companies???
It is easy for politicians to grandstand and demand that "XYZ must be reduced 50% by 2025.  It is another thing entirely to actually implement them - which is of no consequence to the politicians. 
You talk about "Big Oil" spending millions protecting their business - are you so naïve that you think solar/wind corporations aren't spending millions bribing politicians to "see things their way"?  These "green" corporations have been bribing politicians to pass government subsidies so their businesses can be profitable!  Do you really think that these "green" corporations aren't going to raise their prices through the roof if the government gets rid of their competition for them?  What? - the "green" corporations are all run by all-knowing, all-compassionate, all-charitable Angels who care nothing about lining their own pockets???
Let EVERY FORM OF ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPETE and the market will weed out the inefficient and in the end the consumer will decide what is best.  Maybe some will choose solar, some will choose wind, some will stick with conventional.  Otherwise, in 15 years you will be back on this website bitching about "Big Sustainable Energy Corporations" abusing the consumer!!!
Mike Haluska Added Sep 14, 2017 - 11:17am
John - your statement:
"Now, it is fossil data, so causation is unproven, but there does appear to be correlation, at least to the degree we can determine about events that occurred millions of years before humans existed. ,"
should be qualified.  Not only is the data from fossils, it is what is called "PROXY DATA".  In other words, the data is indirectly derived from another source.  For example, tree rings vary slightly in width from one year to the next due to the length of the growing season (among other variables).  It is ASSUMED by the "Climate Change" pseudo-scientists that there is a LINEAR RELATIONSHIP between the width of the tree ring and average earth temperature - in linear equation form:
Average Annual Earth Temp (AAET) =
    Tree Ring Width (TRW) x Temperature Conversion Coefficient (TCC)
                  AAET = TRW x TCC
The only thing directly measurable by the "Climate Change" pseudo-scientists is the tree ring width. 
1) They ASSUME that there is a linear relationship between the Average Annual Earth Temperature and the Tree Ring Widths.
2) They GUESS what the Temperature Conversion Coefficient is
3) They MULTIPLY the GUESS by the ASSUMPTION and pronounce that the Earth's Average Temperature 65 million years ago was 98.56429 degrees Fahrenheit.
It is because the general public is so poorly educated in legitimate science that these frauds even dare to publish their 8 decimal place accuracy studies!  If you really believe that a GUESS multiplied by an ASSUMPTION about a single data point occurring 65 million years ago is somehow accurate to 6 decimal places, then I simply have nothing to add.
Dave Volek Added Sep 15, 2017 - 1:15pm
Thanks Dan. I found the link to your blog and I will be posting it on FB soon. The paper is well laid out and I found within my grasp of high school science to understand most of it.
Dave Volek Added Sep 15, 2017 - 1:34pm
I like your analysis of the tree ring data. Sometimes the climate change scientists are their own worst enemy. 
Saint George Added Sep 17, 2017 - 10:13pm
The preponderance of evidence is that CO2 has no significant effect on climate, or the oceans.
That's right.
Mike Haluska Added Sep 19, 2017 - 10:50am
John G -
I'm still waiting for the deadly Fukishima nuclear cloud that was headed for our West Coast to arrive.  The "Environmentalists" told us that it was a certainty and massive fatalities would occur (unless we allocate a lot of taxpayer funded grant money to them).
Doug Cotton Added Mar 19, 2018 - 7:29am
The solar radiation reaching the surface of Earth has a mean of about 168W/m^2 and that can only produce a mean surface temperature colder than 233K which is -40°C.  Hence there is another input of thermal energy and that was explained for the first time in world literature (correct me if I'm wrong) in my 2013 paper "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" here:
Doug Cotton Added Mar 21, 2018 - 8:57am
For those who wish to learn about the 21st century breakthrough in our understanding of the role of so-called "greenhouse gases" in cooling the Earth, see my article and three papers.