Climate "Science" 101: Excess Heat

[CrusaderFrank]

Care to show me that in AR5 Frank? I didn't ask for you to make one up. You've been trying to shit on me for half the day now Frank, claiming that because you found those two words in AR5, that they have some huge scientific significance. What is it Frank? Can't you find them in the AR5 glossary Frank?

Or you could grow a set of balls and tell us the truth for once Frank.

Crick, start with reading the Title of the thread you're in "Climate "Science" 101: Excess Heat"

 

[IanC]

There's been no warming for 2 decades, then AR5 backdates the records to magically include "excess heat" retained by the ocean, and we learn that 93% of the energy budget is now in this brand new X factor and VIOLA! No Pause

It just ain't science

What is the official scientific definition of "excess heat" Frank?

It's the amount of heat needed to make the pause disappear

Trenberth's 'reanalysis' of Ocean Heat Content filled in the gaps for the 'travesty'. it also fixed the discrepancies of the measured effects (or lack of) for volcanoes in the modeled results.

a 2012 paper on OHC claimed that the 20th century increase was the 'highest rate of change evah'. what no one seemed to pay any attention to was that OHC was at a very low level, that OHC was higher 1000 years ago, and higher still 2000 years ago, etc.

Shakun's paper on how CO2 caused the end of the last ice age was very odd in that it stopped showing CO2 levels about 8000 years ago. why is that important? because temperatures have been dropping since then but (you guessed it) CO2 levels have continued to rise. ****for the last 8000 years (except the most recent 65) the relationship between CO2 and temperature was a negative one, CO2 apparently caused cooling ****

 

[Crick]

Shakun's paper on how CO2 caused the end of the last ice age was very odd in that it stopped showing CO2 levels about 8000 years ago. why is that important? because temperatures have been dropping since then but (you guessed it) CO2 levels have continued to rise. ****for the last 8000 years (except the most recent 65) the relationship between CO2 and temperature was a negative one, CO2 apparently caused cooling ****

Link please Ian

or did you mean this one
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html
Abstract

• Abstract•
• References•
• Author information•
• Supplementary information•
• Comments

The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.

The CO2 rise to which Shakun refers goes from 180 to 260 ppm, a 67% increase. The rise to which you refer goes from 260 to 280 ppm, a rise of less than 8%.

And then you could explain why you're surprised that a study of the Pleistocene would not provide data going to the present day.

 

[Crick]

So, Ian, are you rejecting the greenhouse effect, rejecting CO2 as a greenhouse gas or simply accusing Jeremy Shakun of deceptive practices?

And, of course, your buddies here would choose "All Three"

 

[IanC]

So, Ian, are you rejecting the greenhouse effect, rejecting CO2 as a greenhouse gas or simply accusing Jeremy Shakun of deceptive practices?

And, of course, your buddies here would choose "All Three"

Deceptive practice, of course.

As well as the less than perfect correlation of temp to CO2.

I have stated my beliefs many times on the subject of the greenhouse effect and GHGs. Why are you misrepresenting me? I would prefer you to actually quote me, but then you couldn't make outlandish statements like the above, eh?

 

[Crick]

Well, you're certainly better than most of the deniers here at CYA.

So, you think Shakun was being deceptive when, in a paper on the Pleistocene, he failed to point out that less than one-eighth the CO2 rise during the rest of the Holocene failed to produce warming? Your threshold is certainly at least as low as one that would accuse you of attempting to throw doubt on the greenhouse effect.

 

[IanC]

Shakun's paper on how CO2 caused the end of the last ice age was very odd in that it stopped showing CO2 levels about 8000 years ago. why is that important? because temperatures have been dropping since then but (you guessed it) CO2 levels have continued to rise. ****for the last 8000 years (except the most recent 65) the relationship between CO2 and temperature was a negative one, CO2 apparently caused cooling ****

Link please Ian

or did you mean this one
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html
Abstract

• Abstract•
• References•
• Author information•
• Supplementary information•
• Comments

The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.

The CO2 rise to which Shakun refers goes from 180 to 260 ppm, a 67% increase. The rise to which you refer goes from 260 to 280 ppm, a rise of less than 8%.

And then you could explain why you're surprised that a study of the Pleistocene would not provide data going to the present day.

you dont seem to understand how easy it is to present things in a way to support just about any hypothesis.

use Marcott's thesis diagram, from page 40 diagram C

Taylor dome ice core CO2

flip the x axis on one or the other. maybe trim off the end of the CO2 record just to make things match up better (variation of 'hide the decline' perhaps), and Voila!......a perfectly serviceable eight or ten thousand year study on how CO2 has a negative correlation with temperature. CO2 up, temps down, 8000 years worth of data. make no mistake, for a reasonably sized funding grant you can argue any point you like.

dont get me wrong...I am not saying that I believe that increasing CO2 causes lower temps. I also dont believe CO2 causes higher temps in any catastrophic, runaway fashion. the last 10,000 years is obviously equivical.

cherrypicking, you say? well yes, so what? Shakun picked HIS proxies, they dont match the average for either temperature or the timing of events, but you have no problem with that. you have no problem with him cutting off the last 6 or 8 thousand years of CO2 numbers because they were inconvenient. no problem with Mann's hide the decline.. no problem with upsidedown proxies.

hahahahaha, you are a gullible fool who believes what he is told, until he is told to believe something different. 'Oceania was at war with Eastasia: Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia'. Crick, you would have been right at home with Lysenko. hahahaha

 

[Crick]

flip the x axis on one or the other. maybe trim off the end of the CO2 record just to make things match up better (variation of 'hide the decline' perhaps), and Voila!......a perfectly serviceable eight or ten thousand year study on how CO2 has a negative correlation with temperature. CO2 up, temps down, 8000 years worth of data. make no mistake, for a reasonably sized funding grant you can argue any point you like.

Except Shakun's data makes use of an eight-fold greater increase in CO2 and a far more dramatic temperature change than you'd be working with over the period that you seem to think significant.

dont get me wrong...I am not saying that I believe that increasing CO2 causes lower temps. I also dont believe CO2 causes higher temps in any catastrophic, runaway fashion. the last 10,000 years is obviously equivical.

Shakuns data has many times the correlation that anything you could produce; his results are not the least equivocal.

cherrypicking, you say? well yes, so what? Shakun picked HIS proxies, they dont match the average for either temperature or the timing of events, but you have no problem with that.

I have no problem with it because the lag is a major point in his thesis and it is thoroughly discussed.

you have no problem with him cutting off the last 6 or 8 thousand years of CO2 numbers because they were inconvenient. no problem with Mann's hide the decline.. no problem with upsidedown proxies.

There is no upside down to the proxy to which McIntyre has brought that charge - its values are absolutes. And thinking you've got a case because Shakun doesn't speak about the present only shows that you truly have no case. Shakun made no comments about the present. He is not, therefore, obliged to present data from the present. Personally, I think you're a fucking dick for trying to say he is.

hahahahaha, you are a gullible fool who believes what he is told

Go fuck yourself Ian. Then rinse, later, REPEAT.

until he is told to believe something different.

I have stated repeatedly that I follow mainstream science. If someone around here is being a fool, it's far more likely to be the one rejecting the view of better than 97% of the world's experts.

'Oceania was at war with Eastasia: Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia'.

Babbling nonsense

Crick, you would have been right at home with Lysenko. hahahaha

If you think the situation re climate science today has any resemblance to Lysenko's biology in the USSR, you're a raving fool with a LOT less intellectual capability than I once thought you possessed.

You've seen what came out of Paris. You've lost. You've helped hold things up years longer than they should have been and you have seriously fucked with the lives of my children and theirs for many generation. I will never forgive any of your for that. Ignorance has a cost and in this instance it has been very high indeed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

flip the x axis on one or the other. maybe trim off the end of the CO2 record just to make things match up better (variation of 'hide the decline' perhaps), and Voila!......a perfectly serviceable eight or ten thousand year study on how CO2 has a negative correlation with temperature. CO2 up, temps down, 8000 years worth of data. make no mistake, for a reasonably sized funding grant you can argue any point you like.

Except Shakun's data makes use of an eight-fold greater increase in CO2 and a far more dramatic temperature change than you'd be working with over the period that you seem to think significant.

dont get me wrong...I am not saying that I believe that increasing CO2 causes lower temps. I also dont believe CO2 causes higher temps in any catastrophic, runaway fashion. the last 10,000 years is obviously equivical.

Shakuns data has many times the correlation that anything you could produce; his results are not the least equivocal.

cherrypicking, you say? well yes, so what? Shakun picked HIS proxies, they dont match the average for either temperature or the timing of events, but you have no problem with that.

I have no problem with it because the lag is a major point in his thesis and it is thoroughly discussed.

you have no problem with him cutting off the last 6 or 8 thousand years of CO2 numbers because they were inconvenient. no problem with Mann's hide the decline.. no problem with upsidedown proxies.

There is no upside down to the proxy to which McIntyre has brought that charge - its values are absolutes. And thinking you've got a case because Shakun doesn't speak about the present only shows that you truly have no case. Shakun made no comments about the present. He is not, therefore, obliged to present data from the present. Personally, I think you're a fucking dick for trying to say he is.

hahahahaha, you are a gullible fool who believes what he is told

Go fuck yourself Ian. Then rinse, later, REPEAT.

until he is told to believe something different.

I have stated repeatedly that I follow mainstream science. If someone around here is being a fool, it's far more likely to be the one rejecting the view of better than 97% of the world's experts.

'Oceania was at war with Eastasia: Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia'.

Babbling nonsense

Crick, you would have been right at home with Lysenko. hahahaha

If you think the situation re climate science today has any resemblance to Lysenko's biology in the USSR, you're a raving fool with a LOT less intellectual capability than I once thought you possessed.

You've seen what came out of Paris. You've lost. You've helped hold things up years longer than they should have been and you have seriously fucked with the lives of my children and theirs for many generation. I will never forgive any of your for that. Ignorance has a cost and in this instance it has been very high indeed.

You've seen what came out of Paris. You've lost.

Lost what?

You've helped hold things up years longer than they should have been and you have seriously fucked with the lives of my children and theirs for many generation.

Darn that Ian, getting China to burn so much coal. It's good Obama and Paris will make them stop. Wait, what?

I will never forgive any of your for that.

Gosh, I hope Ian can carry that heavy burden.

Ignorance has a cost and in this instance it has been very high indeed.

I think you should cut back on the estrogen you're taking.

 

[IanC]

flip the x axis on one or the other. maybe trim off the end of the CO2 record just to make things match up better (variation of 'hide the decline' perhaps), and Voila!......a perfectly serviceable eight or ten thousand year study on how CO2 has a negative correlation with temperature. CO2 up, temps down, 8000 years worth of data. make no mistake, for a reasonably sized funding grant you can argue any point you like.

Except Shakun's data makes use of an eight-fold greater increase in CO2 and a far more dramatic temperature change than you'd be working with over the period that you seem to think significant.

dont get me wrong...I am not saying that I believe that increasing CO2 causes lower temps. I also dont believe CO2 causes higher temps in any catastrophic, runaway fashion. the last 10,000 years is obviously equivical.

Shakuns data has many times the correlation that anything you could produce; his results are not the least equivocal.

cherrypicking, you say? well yes, so what? Shakun picked HIS proxies, they dont match the average for either temperature or the timing of events, but you have no problem with that.

I have no problem with it because the lag is a major point in his thesis and it is thoroughly discussed.

you have no problem with him cutting off the last 6 or 8 thousand years of CO2 numbers because they were inconvenient. no problem with Mann's hide the decline.. no problem with upsidedown proxies.

There is no upside down to the proxy to which McIntyre has brought that charge - its values are absolutes. And thinking you've got a case because Shakun doesn't speak about the present only shows that you truly have no case. Shakun made no comments about the present. He is not, therefore, obliged to present data from the present. Personally, I think you're a fucking dick for trying to say he is.

okay, here we go again. here are Shakun's proxies

The variety in the shapes of these graphs is quite surprising. Yes, they’re all vaguely alike … but that’s about all.
The main curiosity about these, other than the wide variety of amounts of warming, is the different timing of the warming. In some proxies it starts in 25,000 BC, in others it starts in 15,000 BC. Sometimes the warming peaks as early as 14,000 BC, and sometimes around 5,000 BC or later. Sometimes the warming continues right up to the present.

these are the wildly varying proxies that produced the green line in Shakun's global temp graph -

is the green shading +/- 2 SD? or only 1SD? hahahahahahahahahaha

interesting....it's good to go back and look at things again. I never noticed that the two Greenland ice cores are claiming 32C and 27C warming. should he have been using such obvious outliers? remember YAD061, the wonderous 5 sigma outlier that gave the hockey stick shape to Mann's graph and many of the subsequent spaghetti graphs?

undoubtedly the most influential tree that has ever lived


anyways...so you think Im a fucking dick, eh? well, I do enjoy screwing with your head by making you think up new ways to avoid answering my questions and rationalizations to ignore my ideas.

 

[SSDD]

You've seen what came out of Paris. You've lost.

Clearly, you have not seen what came out of paris...here is what your high priest had to say about what came out of paris.

Mere mention of the Paris climate talks is enough to make James Hansen grumpy. The former Nasa scientist, considered the father of global awareness of climate change, is a soft-spoken, almost diffident Iowan. But when he talks about the gathering of nearly 200 nations, his demeanor changes.

“It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”

The talks, intended to reach a new global deal on cutting carbon emissions beyond 2020, have spent much time and energy on two major issues: whether the world should aim to contain the temperature rise to 1.5C or 2C above preindustrial levels, and how much funding should be doled out by wealthy countries to developing nations that risk being swamped by rising seas and bashed by escalating extreme weather events.

But, according to Hansen, the international jamboree is pointless unless greenhouse gas emissions aren’t taxed across the board. He argues that only this will force down emissions quickly enough to avoid the worst ravages of climate change.

The fact is, crick, that you and yours have lost and continue to lose and will continue to lose....with every day that passes, more people wake up to the pseudoscience and decide that it just isn't worth it to spend theirs, their children's and their grandchildren's legacy on what might be a reduction of warming of a small fraction of a degree if you believe the pseudoscience and no change at all if you are a realist and realize that you and yours don't even have empirical evidence to support the most basic claim of the AGW hypothesis.

 

[Crick]

You've seen what came out of Paris. You've lost.

Clearly, you have not seen what came out of paris...here is what your high priest had to say about what came out of paris.

I don't have a high priest, a low priest or a priest out in left field. That would be for those among you who choose to believe in the supernatural.

Mere mention of the Paris climate talks is enough to make James Hansen grumpy. The former Nasa scientist, considered the father of global awareness of climate change, is a soft-spoken, almost diffident Iowan. But when he talks about the gathering of nearly 200 nations, his demeanor changes.

“It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”

The talks, intended to reach a new global deal on cutting carbon emissions beyond 2020, have spent much time and energy on two major issues: whether the world should aim to contain the temperature rise to 1.5C or 2C above preindustrial levels, and how much funding should be doled out by wealthy countries to developing nations that risk being swamped by rising seas and bashed by escalating extreme weather events.

But, according to Hansen, the international jamboree is pointless unless greenhouse gas emissions aren’t taxed across the board. He argues that only this will force down emissions quickly enough to avoid the worst ravages of climate change.

The fact is, crick, that you and yours have lost and continue to lose and will continue to lose

You're probably correct. But let's be clear that "you and yours" is all of humanity and the reason we will lose is due in no small part to greedy, ignorant, bitter right-wing assholes like you.

....with every day that passes, more people wake up to the pseudoscience

Show us a survey or poll or study that supports that claim you lying fucking idiot.

and decide that it just isn't worth it to spend theirs, their children's and their grandchildren's legacy on what might be a reduction of warming of a small fraction of a degree if you believe the pseudoscience and no change at all if you are a realist and realize that you and yours don't even have empirical evidence to support the most basic claim of the AGW hypothesis.

Again, here, as with so many other topics, you appear to be WRONG. Support for action among humanity and its leadership is growing. The reality of AGW has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Feel free to continue to sputter and yell but you have no science, you have no evidence, you have no models, you have NOTHING supporting your claims. NOTHING. The only reason you continue to make them is that you're all too cowardly to admit you've been wrong all along.[/QUOTE]

 

[SSDD]

Again, here, as with so many other topics, you appear to be WRONG. Support for action among humanity and its leadership is growing. The reality of AGW has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Feel free to continue to sputter and yell but you have no science, you have no evidence, you have no models, you have NOTHING supporting your claims. NOTHING. The only reason you continue to make them is that you're all too cowardly to admit you've been wrong all along.

By "support" you mean the toothless agreements that come out of those wastes of time like paris? And if AGW has been established beyond reasonable doubt, then lets see the empirical evidence that proves just the most fundamental claim of the AGW hypothesis? What's that? You have none because it doesn't exist...and yet, you claim that AGW is proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Tell me crick...where is the proof that the warming we saw at the end of the 20th century was anything other than natural? Where is the proof that establishes how much, if any of it was due to man's activity? Where is any proof of anything you claim?

And it's true...I don't have any epically failing computer models to establish that my claims are wrong...you have them proving you are wrong in spades...and since I am claiming that you are wrong...and the comparison of the models to reality bear me out...I must be right.

 

[Crick]

Empirical evidence may be found in AR5. You will simply lie to us and say it isn't there. Well, that would be YOUR problem.

I don't claim proof. I claim overwhelming evidence. Despite numerous lectures on the point, you still don't understand the very basics of the natural sciences.

You don't have any models because no models without AGW work. That would be why you can make no projections. Forecasts, predictions and projections all take models. Again, your problem.

 

[SSDD]

Empirical evidence may be found in AR5. You will simply lie to us and say it isn't there. Well, that would be YOUR problem.

And yet, you don't seem to be able to cut it out and paste it here...and what you do bring here certainly does not prove that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming...it is clear that you believe you have seen proof, but what you have done is nothing more than fool yourself. There is no such evidence, you have never seen it, and your claim that it is in AR5 is a blatant lie.

I don't claim proof. I claim overwhelming evidence. Despite numerous lectures on the point, you still don't understand the very basics of the natural sciences.

What you have is correlation...and no amount of correlation proves causation...and even your correlation only looks convincing if you restrict the time frame to an eye blink...the first look at the larger picture sends all your claims based on correlation right down the drain.

You don't have any models because no models without AGW work. That would be why you can make no projections. Forecasts, predictions and projections all take models. Again, your problem.

I have been making projections all along...and what do you know...mine have been right and yours have been wrong...I have said all along that adding CO2 to the atmosphere won't cause warming and what has happened...for the past 2 decades plenty of additional CO2 has been added to the atmosphere but no warming has happened... because the greenhouse hypothesis is wrong...

And I already gave you a model...sorry you didn't like it.

 

[SSDD]

Empirical evidence may be found in AR5. You will simply lie to us and say it isn't there. Well, that would be YOUR problem.

And yet, you don't seem to be able to cut it out and paste it here.. and what was hit you said about people who claim that evidence exists somewhere and then just send you off hoping that they will find something....you said that they are just talking out of their asses....guess you are just talking out of your ass again because you certainly haven't brought anything that could be construed as empirical evidence that proves that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming from any source....and what you do bring here calling it proof certainly does not prove that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming...it is clear that you believe you have seen proof, but what you have done is nothing more than fool yourself. There is no such evidence, you have never seen it, and your claim that it is in AR5 is a blatant lie.

I don't claim proof. I claim overwhelming evidence. Despite numerous lectures on the point, you still don't understand the very basics of the natural sciences.

What you have is correlation...and no amount of correlation proves causation...and even your correlation only looks convincing if you restrict the time frame to an eye blink...the first look at the larger picture sends all your claims based on correlation right down the drain.

You don't have any models because no models without AGW work. That would be why you can make no projections. Forecasts, predictions and projections all take models. Again, your problem.

I have been making projections all along...and what do you know...mine have been right and yours have been wrong...I have said all along that adding CO2 to the atmosphere won't cause warming and what has happened...for the past 2 decades plenty of additional CO2 has been added to the atmosphere but no warming has happened... because the greenhouse hypothesis is wrong...

 

[Crick]

I see you're having trouble with quotations.

Empirical evidence may be found in AR5. You will simply lie to us and say it isn't there. Well, that would be YOUR problem.

And yet, you don't seem to be able to cut it out and paste it here.. and what was hit you said about people who claim that evidence exists somewhere and then just send you off hoping that they will find something....you said that they are just talking out of their asses....guess you are just talking out of your ass again because you certainly haven't brought anything that could be construed as empirical evidence that proves that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming from any source....and what you do bring here calling it proof certainly does not prove that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming...it is clear that you believe you have seen proof, but what you have done is nothing more than fool yourself. There is no such evidence, you have never seen it, and your claim that it is in AR5 is a blatant lie.

As I promised, so you perform

I don't claim proof. I claim overwhelming evidence. Despite numerous lectures on the point, you still don't understand the very basics of the natural sciences.

What you have is correlation...and no amount of correlation proves causation.

And, once more you demonstrate a complete failing in the absolute basics of natural science.

..and even your correlation only looks convincing if you restrict the time frame to an eye blink...the first look at the larger picture sends all your claims based on correlation right down the drain.

My timeframe is the span of human history. You're going to have to explain why you think it needful to go further when looking for the impact of current changes on human civilization.

You don't have any models because no models without AGW work. That would be why you can make no projections. Forecasts, predictions and projections all take models. Again, your problem.

I have been making projections all along...and what do you know...mine have been right and yours have been wrong

Liar.

..I have said all along that adding CO2 to the atmosphere won't cause warming and what has happened...for the past 2 decades plenty of additional CO2 has been added to the atmosphere but no warming has happened... because the greenhouse hypothesis is wrong...

And what caused this warming?

and this warming

if, as you claim, it was NOT this:

 

[Old Rocks]

The rightwingnut fruitloops started out stating that there was no warming going on at all. When the warming became evident enough that all could see that they were totally wrong, they changed over to 'but it's all natural'. Now that they have been called out on the fact that there are no natural forcing to account for the increase in temperature in the atmosphere and ocean, they have gone to a two pronged attack.

One, well, who are those scientists to tell us what temperature is best, in any case. Total admission that AGW is a fact, and only saying that 'Try it, you might like it'. Of course, the increase in extreme weather events is affecting enough people and nations that this is becoming untenable, as the world's population is finding that they really don't like it.

Two. All these scientists from all the different nations and cultures are in on a gigantic conspiracy, one so tightly knit that no one has come forward to reveal the nature or purpose of this conspiracy. The old tin hat stuff that the rightwingnutjobs thrive on. And the rest of us find amazingly humorous. The same way a drunk harmless old uncle is humored in his nonsensical ramblings.

As the agreement in Paris has demonstrated, the nut jobs have lost, and the President's budget, including the funds for meeting the agreed targets, passed. One more time you fruitloops lose.

 

[jc456]

Empirical evidence may be found in AR5. You will simply lie to us and say it isn't there. Well, that would be YOUR problem.

I don't claim proof. I claim overwhelming evidence. Despite numerous lectures on the point, you still don't understand the very basics of the natural sciences.

You don't have any models because no models without AGW work. That would be why you can make no projections. Forecasts, predictions and projections all take models. Again, your problem.

so as others have stated previously, post the excerpts from the document that is this empirical evidence that CO2 causes warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 96, NO. D5, PAGES 9027-9063, MAY 20, 1991

A Description of the Correlated k Distribution Method for Modeling Nongray Gaseous Absorption, Thermal Emission, and Multiple Scattering in Vertically Inhomogeneous Atmospheres

ANDREW A. LACIS

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Institute for Space Studies, New York VALDAR 0INAS Queensborough Community College of CUNY, New York STX, Incorporated, New York

We describe a radiative transfer method for treating nongray gaseous absorption and thermal emission in vertically inhomogeneous multiple scattering atmospheres. We derive probability density distributions of absorption coefficient strength from line-by-line calculations to construct line-by-line and band model based k distributions. The monotonic ordering of absorption coefficient strengths in these k distributions implicitly preserves the monochromatic structure of the atmosphere at different pressure levels, thus simulating monochromatic spectral integration at a fraction of the line-by-line computing cost. The k distribution approach also permits accurate modeling of overlapping absorption by different atmospheric gases and accurate treatment of nongray absorption in multiple scattering media. To help verify the accuracy of the correlated k distribution method, we compare radiative cooling rates by atmospheric water vapor, CO2, and ozone against line-by-line calculations. The results show the correlated k distribution method is capable of achieving numerical accuracy to within 1% of cooling rates obtained with line-by-line calculations throughout the troposphere and most of the stratosphere. 1.

INTRODUCTION Accurate determination of atmospheric heating and cooling rates is essential for understanding the radiation balance of the Earth and the changes that occur in climate. Direct measurements are available only for the troposphere, where the radiative flux divergences are largest [e.g., Smith et al., 1977; Cox and Griffith, 1979]. Also, the limited sampling in time and space of such in situ measurements precludes global monitoring. Further, in order to usefully interpret measurements of radiative flux divergences, simultaneous knowledge is required of the contributing absorber amounts and their vertical distributions.

http://folk.uio.no/jegill/gef4320/Lacis_Oinas_1991_JGR.pdf

Many, many such document available in Google Scholar. For this one, the complete document available at the link. Not that I expect you to read it, or even be capable of beginning to understand it if you did open that link.