The possibility to reverse global warming

75
RAN works to protect lands such as the Leuser Ecosystem in the Bangkung district of Sumatra, Indonesia.
Paul Hilton for RAN

With each passing day, global warming seems more like a death sentence for the Earth. Rainforests are shrinking, carbon emissions are rising and many corporations are consistently putting profits before people. Even theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking recently gave humanity 100 years to find a new planet. There’s a certain Day After Tomorrow vibe around the topic, running down the doomsday clock with each new pipeline constructed.

But environmental agencies around the world are diligently working to curb global warming and infuse the future with some hope. On May 30 at the Dairy Arts Center, Rainforest Action Network (RAN) hosts Reversing Global Warming: It’s Possible! featuring RAN Executive Director Lindsey Allen and Project Drawdown Director Paul Hawken.

RAN has spent the past three decades fighting to preserve the rainforest, protect the climate and uphold human rights all over the world. It’s challenged companies through direct action and influenced many to change their practices. The organization has taken on large financial institutions and corporations like Home Depot, Pepsico and Citibank. It even went after the Disney Corporation when it was causing major forest destruction to make its paper products.

“It took us getting Mickey and Minnie Mouse handcuffed in front of their business office and chained to their gate to get [the Disney Corporation’s] attention,” says Christopher Herrera, director of communications for RAN. “But once we got their attention, they started working with us and we helped them develop a policy. We helped them become a leader in stopping deforestation.”

Joining RAN at the Dairy event is Project Drawdown, an organization working to shed light on the various actions rallying against climate change. Director Paul Hawken recently released a book detailing these practices called Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming. The book, which is a New York Times bestseller, covers 100 different solutions that have all been researched and analyzed and are working toward one of the ultimate goals of Project Drawdown: reversing the buildup of atmospheric carbon within 30 years.

The list of viable actions includes composting, educating women and girls, farmland irrigation, forest protection, green roofs, bio plastic and more.

“What we’re trying to do here is say, hey, let’s create this collection of things that are happening, that the world is already doing, and put this together and model it and really assess it, and show the world what it looks like when you knit that tapestry together,” says Chad Frischmann, research director with Project Drawdown.

Moreover, by assembling the list of all the various solutions, it helps to put a positive spin on the conversation about environmentalism.

“The organization’s goal is to transform how we think about global warming and climate change,” Frishmann says. “The discourse has been so dominated by fear, apathy and confusion of the science. We want to transform that into one of optimism, opportunity and potential to really make change. … The possibility that we’re presenting is not pie in the sky. It’s actually something that people can latch onto and feel really empowered at their level of decision making.”

Herrera of RAN also sees hope for the future, citing last year’s Paris Climate Agreement as a groundbreaking step forward as nations from around the world gathered, committing to cap global warming levels. While the United State’s current administration is threatening to pull its support, Herrera knows RAN will keep up the fight.

“As an organization with a tagline of, ‘Challenge corporate power,’ [RAN is] now in a position that we haven’t really been in the past,” he says. “The president of the U.S. is an embodiment of corporate power overreaching the rights of individuals and the protection of the planet. So it is a bigger challenge than we’ve faced before. … But the fact that we’ve been challenging corporate power for 30 years also positions us fairly uniquely. … We’re going to continue going forward and trying to pull back this overreach of profits over people and try to put the priorities where they should be.”

And with the troves of protesters who have flooded the streets in the past few months, Herrera says there’s enough power for change.

“The one thing that we know is that people power is the one that can challenge money and political power,” he says. “When people are organized and when people are pointed in the right direction and coming together for what they believe in, that has changed history repeatedly.”

By focusing on real world solutions and tackling the issue of global warming one action at a time, we stand a chance at proving Stephen Hawking wrong. 

On the Bill: Reversing Global Warming: It’s Possible! 6 p.m. Tuesday, May 31, The Dairy Arts Center, 2590 Walnut St., Boulder, 303-641-7165.

  • > The list of viable actions includes composting, educating women and girls, farmland irrigation, forest protection, green roofs, bio plastic and more.

    until the continuing holocaust of fossil fuel power generation’s co2 release comes under control, sorry but, all the rest is wishful thinking.

    • JLKeller

      I agree.

    • Jmac0013

      You’re whole premise is wrong and the listed actions are laughable. To reduce CO2 it might make more sense for everyone to stop breathing for 1 minute.
      But seriously, if all the countries abided by the Paris accords for the rest of the century, temperatures would be reduced by an unmeasurable .03 degrees.. Meanwhile, the cost would be between 1 and 2 trillion dollars a year!
      In 30 years of trying, scientists have failed to prove that CO2 causes more than a slight amount of warming. Their models have failed. Most of the warming and cooling throughout history can be laid to natural causes, not the least of which is the sun.

      • stephan011

        Here’s a simple proof of global warming that doesn’t depend on any assumptions or predictions:

        1st. CO2 levels have been rising sharply ever since the industrial revolution, when we started releasing massive amounts of stored carbon. This graph shows what that looks like. Note the sharp spike on the right hand side:

        https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_10k.png

        2nd. CO2 traps heat. The more CO2, the more heat.

        You can’t fight physics, if we’re trapping more heat, then the planet is heating up.

        Everything else is just about the details, this graph breaks out the different factors that are contributing to (and also mitigating) global warming: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

        • Philip Bruce Heywood

          Your proof of global warming depends on total ignorance of the past, the geologic record especially. The geologic record, ice cores, and human history, prove that carbon gases can not possibly be closely linked to climate.
          The fraud and ignorance involved here is unbelievable.
          Rather than drown the entire forum in downloads, I mention in passing the blindingly obvious fact that NO GREENHOUSE GAS OF ITSELF could possibly be the sole driver of global climate. We don’t actually have fairies up in the sky, metering in the various atmospheric components, to give us the climate. Atmospheric gases and carbon gases in particular arrive/arrived in our atmosphere from volcanoes, from Space, from chemical processes of the Earth. The amount of CO2 currently in our atmosphere is a ‘flea bite’. Point zero zero zero four atmospheres. By measurement/estimation of carbon in rock strata and the Earth’s water bodies, guess how much CO2 or it’s equivalent must have been processed through our one atmosphere during the 4 thou. mill. yrs + of Earth history?
          Of the order of twelve atmospheres consisting of nothing but CO2 or its equivalent.
          Those fairies were busy, regulating gases in and out every day, stopping the disasters.
          One huge fairy tale.
          Zero science, zero meaningful facts.
          And while these blind men are seeing all future, they aren’t seeing the obvious climate disasters that overtook the planet during Man’s brief so-journ here. Everyone knows about one-quarter of our land surface turned desert. Hot, dry, disasters. CO2? If ice cores mean anything — they are not ironclad — CO2 was lower, much lower, when half Africa, the Middle East, the Gobi, Australia, etc etc. were hit by hot/dry climate disasters. And even the Arctic went nearly ice-free at one stage. Look it up. Do what the ‘experts’ criminally fail to do.

          • stephan011

            But just because changes in insolation have been the cause of planetary heating in the past, doesn’t mean that’s the cause today.

            The sun’s insolation is *decreasing* right now, if the sun were the driver, temperatures would be going down. They’re not going down, they’re going up.

            If insolation was the only thing going on, the planet would be cooling, but we are dumping so much CO2 into the atmosphere it’s overwhelming it.

            When insolation drives the change, CO2 can lag, because the heating is driving trapped CO2 into the atmosphere. The same is happening today, as the human-sourced CO2 is driving heating, we’re getting positive feedbacks as permafrost melts.

            But we know insolation is not driving this: insolation is going down actually.

            Carbon dioxide levels are now 410 ppm. For over 400,000 years, CO₂ levels have never been below 180 or above, until now, 300 ppm. Three hundred years ago they were 280 ppm.

            At its lowest, the Earth was about 10 C° colder than it is now, with about 180 ppm CO₂, and glaciers covered much of the Earth. So, at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, CO₂ was 100 ppm more than at the depths of the glaciations. Now it is 120 ppm higher than at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

            The last time CO₂ levels are thought to have been this high was more than 2.5 million years ago, an era known as the Pliocene, when the Canadian Arctic had forests instead of icy wastes. The globe’s temperature averaged about 3 C° warmer, and sea levels were 15 feet or more higher.

          • Philip Bruce Heywood

            The figures you quote re. palaeocarbon and palaeotemperature are best guesses and estimates. Ice cores — if accurate — go back 8 hundred thousand yrs. From then on back, it’s proxies, which are only indicators at best.
            This takes up space, but you appear to have a head on your shoulders:
            The ‘proof’ of man made climate is simple. In the time since satellites began measuring solar irradiance, global temperature has risen whilst said irradiance, if anything, has fallen. Therefore our sun does not govern our temperature closely, it must be ‘greenhouse’ (so-called) gases here on Earth. The ‘greenhouse’ gas(es) which increased in concentration over the past few decades, are the carbon gases. The production of these gases since satellites were launched was largely humanly induced.
            ERGO. Man caused the recent global warming. Make sense? No questions? Believe the ‘science’?

            1). Solar irradiance is defined as, “The power per unit area received from the Sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation in the wavelength range of the measuring instrument.” (WIKIPEDIA). Up until the past several decades, it was never effectively nor accurately done! — for what obvious reason? Space flight and upper atmosphere measurements are recent developments. Skipping back to WIKIPEDIA: “Solar activity before the 1970s is estimated using proxy variables, such as tree rings and the number of sunspots….. Since 1978, solar irradiance has been measured by satellites …. with significantly greater accuracy. These measurements indicate that the Sun’s total solar irradiance has not increased since 1978.”
            2). So, up until 1978, solar irradiance was never directly measured. The supposed measure of it was found by estimates of vegetable growth and by re-counts of old sunspot frequency records. Immediately, this awakens anyone with the slightest education in anything to do with climate and solar activity. HYPERPHYSICS .phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/… “The solar output is very nearly constant ……………… The range of variation is about 0.2%, so reproducible that it is often referred to as the “solar constant”. But there are other aspects of the Sun’s activity that are not constant, as indicated by the changing sunspot activity. ………An early indication that the Sun’s variability in ways other than total output had something to do with climate was the “Maunder Minimum”. The researcher Maunder found that during this cold period between 1645-1715 there was very little sunspot activity, and this discovery led to the naming of the phenomenon after him. It suggested that solar activity was coupled to climate and led to tabulations of sunspot number as an indication of solar activity…… “. “. END HYPERPHYSICS QUOTE. Please note, regarding sunspots — The variation caused by the sunspot cycle to solar output is relatively small, on the order of 0.1% …… (WIKIPEDIA). Sunspot numbers do not equate to gross solar electromagnetic output. If sunspots have any effect, it is subtle.

            3). So, The only empirical facts re. solar irradiance (in hard figures) are post 1978. Since 1978, temp. has gone up, atmospheric carbon gases have gone up, and the sun has gone down. (Not here – it’s daytime!)
            4). It therefore becomes necessary to test whether our reasoning is fact based, or circular. Do atmospheric carbon gases closely influence temperature? What evidence did the ‘scientists’ have at their disposal, to test the carbon – warming “proof”?
            a). Half a millennium of human observation.
            Long-term Variations in Solar Activity and their Apparent Effect on the Earth’s Climate
            “K. Lassen, 1998. Danish Meteorological Institute, Solar-Terrestrial Physics Division,
            Lyngbyvej,100, DK-2100 Copenhagen (2), Denmark
            Abstract
            The varying length of the 11-year cycle has been found to be strongly correlated with long term variations of the northern hemisphere land surface air temperature since the beginning of systematic temperature variations from a global network, i. e. during the past 130 years. Although direct temperature observations before this interval are scarce, it has been possible to extend the correlation back to the 16th century due to the existence of a series of proxy temperature data published by Groveman and Landsberg in 1979. Reliable sunspot data do not exist before 1750, but we have been able to derive epochs of minimum sunspot activity from auroral observations back to 1500 and combine them with the direct observations to a homogeneous series.
            Comparison of the extended solar activity record with the temperature series confirms the high correlation between solar activity and northern hemisphere land surface air temperature and shows that the relationship has existed through the whole 500-year interval for which reliable data exist.
            A corresponding influence of solar activity has been demonstrated in other climatic parameters. Thus, both the date of arrival of spring in the Yangtze River Valley as deduced from phenological data and the extent of the sea-ice in the Atlantic sector of the Arctic sea have been shown to be correlated with the length of the sunspot cycle during the last 450 years.
            Conclusion
            70-90 years oscillations in global mean temperature are correlated with corresponding oscillations in solar activity. Whereas the solar influence is obvious in the data from the last four centuries, signatures of human activity are not yet distinguishable in the observations.
            Introduction
            Variations in the activity of the Sun greatly influence the physics of the upper atmosphere. Thus, magnetic disturbances, occurrence of auroras at low latitudes, sporadic ionization ….. ” END DAN. MET. INSTITUTE QUOTE.
            b). The fact that electromagnetic radiation — the heat carrier involved in satellite etc. measurement of solar irradiance — published, known fact — electromagnetic radiation is almost certainly not the main heat transfer mechanism inside and in some measure, outside, the sun. SCIENCEDAILY 1/08/011.
            “Discovery of Alfvén waves in the corona of the Sun
            Source:
            Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
            Summary:
            For the very first time, powerful Alfvén waves — magnetic plasma waves — have been observed in the Sun’s corona. The plasma in the observed waves moves at speeds of 20 km/s and the waves themselves propagate at high speeds of 200 to 250 km/s. The discovery of these powerful Alfvén waves is important because they may explain the high temperatures in the sun’s corona and the high speeds of solar wind…….”. END SCIENCEDAILY QUOTE. Implication? Go back to the drawing board, get modern, don’t claim to know everything about a star when we can not measure its gross energy output with existing equipment.
            c). The human historic, ice core, and geologic records. Absolutely packed with evidence that carbon can not possibly be a close governing climate factor. E.g., SCIENCEDAILY October 20, 2008
            Source:
            Geological Survey of Norway
            Summary:
            Recent mapping of a number of raised beach ridges on the north coast of Greenland suggests that the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean was greatly reduced some 6000-7000 years ago. The Arctic Ocean may have been periodically ice free.
            ”The climate in the northern regions has never been milder since the last Ice Age than it was about 6000-7000 years ago. We still don’t know whether the Arctic Ocean was completely ice free, but there was more open water in the area north of Greenland than there is today,” says Astrid Lyså, a geologist and researcher at the Geological Survey of Norway (NGU).
            Shore features
            Together with her NGU colleague, Eiliv Larsen, she has worked on the north coast of Greenland with a group of scientists from the University of Copenhagen, mapping sea-level changes and studying a number of shore features. She has also collected samples of driftwood that originated from Siberia or Alaska and had these dated, and has collected shells and microfossils from shore sediments.
            ”The architecture of a sandy shore depends partly on whether wave activity or pack ice has influenced its formation. Beach ridges, which are generally distinct, very long, broad features running parallel to the shoreline, form when there is wave activity and occasional storms. This requires periodically open water,” Astrid Lyså explains.
            Pack-ice ridges which form when drift ice is pressed onto the seashore piling up shore sediments that lie in its path, have a completely different character. They are generally shorter, narrower and more irregular in shape.
            Open sea
            ”The beach ridges which we have had dated to about 6000-7000 years ago were shaped by wave activity,” says Astrid Lyså. They are located at the mouth of Independence Fjord in North Greenland, on an open, flat plain facing directly onto the Arctic Ocean. Today, drift ice forms a continuous cover from the land here.
            Astrid Lyså says that such old beach formations require that the sea all the way to the North Pole was periodically ice free for a long time.
            ”This stands in sharp contrast to the present-day situation where only ridges piled up by pack ice are being formed,” she says……………..
            END SCIENCEDAILY QUOTE. NOTE: CO2 by ice core was little more than HALF current level! And we have not even begun on the historic and geologic evidence of temperature non-compliance with carbon gases.
            5). So, what did the ‘scientists’ do with the glaring evidence at their fingertips? — The fact that solar irradiance does not technically equal heat transfer, and the fact that climate is closely tied to solar-terrestrial magnetic field manifestations — which are interrelated with climate and probably with non – infra-red modes of energy transmission? They added ignorance to fraud. Right now, they ignore the fact that sensitive magnetometers and weather stations are showing some sort of link between terrestrial magnetism and climate. This measured link is in concert with Lassen, Maunder, and everyone who can reason. Ryskin, G. 2009, ‘Secular variation of the Earth’s magnetic field: induced by the ocean flow?’ New Journal of Physics, 11 (6).Quote:
            “…….. The results presented suggest that the observed secular variation of the Earth’s magnetic field owes its origin to the ocean flow. A numerical simulation using the induction equation of magnetohydrodynamics and the ocean flow field yields secular variation in rough agreement with observations. Data analysis exhibits striking temporal correlation between the intensity of the North Atlantic oceanic circulation and secular variation in Western Europe; this explains, in particular, the geomagnetic jerks, and the recently discovered correlation between secular variation and climate……. “. END NEW J. PHYS. QUOTE.
            Further, they may have talked the Danish Met. Institute into ignorance?? Lassen, after publishing his landmark compilation, conceded that the satellite irradiance measurements could indicate that carbon — and, therefore, humanity– became governors of the atmosphere — subsequent to weather satellites, 1978!
            Always said it was aliens. Those satellites. Who sent ’em?

          • Jmac0013

            What about other effect from the sun. How about it’s magnetic field allowing or deflecting cosmic rays which play a part in the formation of condensation nuclei and clouds. Varying global cloud amounts have a direct effect on warming and cooling.

          • Philip Bruce Heywood

            Many factors come into play, including clouds.
            Let’s consider the big picture.
            The obvious big picture is one small planet in an endless universe of blasted, frozen, frazzled planets. Billions.
            Answer that question and the picture falls into place.
            A very sophisticated mechanism kept the Earth livable. What was it? And here is the point of the exercise. What IS it?
            ALL’ greenhouse’ gases, not to mention the sun itself, must have fluctuated. At various times.
            Why no total wipeout of life? Life being carbon dependent and climate sensitive?
            I answer that question on-line. Or, more exactly, science answers. “Climate Moderation Magnetic Interaction Sun – Earth”.

          • Concerned

            Past warming mechanisms (the sun plus CO2 feedback) have nothing to do with the present warming mechanism (CO2 forcing). This can be seen clearly in the following graph. Enough said.

            http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png

          • TheDudeofVoo

            uh, Concerned, that isn’t a graph of the sun’s “cooling trend” … it is a hockey stick graph of temperature anomaly.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            ❝… global temperature has risen whilst said irradiance, if anything, has fallen. Therefore our sun does not govern our temperature closely, it must be ‘greenhouse’ (so-called) gases… ❞

            Wow, that is quite a leap, with no evidence. For a man with a head on his shoulders, you should know that you cannot leap across a chasm using just two jumps. Evidence of warming is no evidence of the cause of the warming. Even Richard Alley hedges his bets. In a youtube video, 2009: Richard Alley, 08:52 ”…if you put it [anthropogenic CO2] in models, it is sufficient to explain what happened …so far, we can’t find anything else that is… We don’t have, sort of, pound on the table, this [anthropogenic CO2] is nailed, we’re done on this one, yet …”

            For you to surmise ❝it must be ‘greenhouse’ (so-called) gases❞ amounts to a logical fallacy:
            Argumentum ad Ignorantiam https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/32aef29cd76b1f2041cbda6b52cb1e2798302ffd8f39c0fa2100c82df8213473.jpg

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Dr Richard Alley continues, with a whole lot less conviction that your statement …

            “• Search for additional answers is ongoing, but so far, CO2 is the only hypothesis that succeeds in explaining events.”

            23:44 “…once again, there’s a warmth here, a warmth that is attributed to CO2, we can’t figure out how else to get it…”

            ”And so it’s really stinking hot, and the only explanation we can find on this is that CO2 is really high again. Probably again because volcanism is running pretty fast. If you put high CO2 in the models, you sort of match what happened, except the world seems little bit too warm at the Poles. If you leave the CO2 out of the models, you don’t get very close.”

            ”The only way we can attribute this warmth, of having an ice-free world, is to have a high CO2.”

            Dr. Alley: ”And it’s really that simple. We don’t have any plausible alternative at this point, and so it surely looks like it…”

            Richard Alley video presentation “The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s …” youtube

          • Philip Bruce Heywood

            Read the comment before commenting. You are littering the place.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Okay. I did.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            ❝… changes in insolation have been the cause of planetary heating in the past, doesn’t mean that’s the cause today. ❞

            Doesn’t mean that you should ignore it, either. Odelle Coddington’s work, reconstruction the Total Solar Irradiance, shows that the TSI has increased 0.85W/m^2 since 1880 (including the flat spot, recently) https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6debb7dfd76965483121588403f9985c1b2ed2069f1548391b6f4077a81f664d.jpg
            L’Ecuyer 2015 pegged the magnitude of all “Global Warming” at 0.45W/m^2 … James Hansen said 0.58 W/m^2. Coddington’s reconstructed 0.85W/m^2 has to be divided by four, but that is 0.2125W/m^2, amounting to 42% of “Global Warming”
            What is the “thermal inertia” of the Earf? Just because the TSI has been flat or slightly decreasing, lately, doesn’t mean that the Earf’s temperature has fully responded to the 0.85W/m^2 increase yet …

          • TheDudeofVoo

            2.5 million years ago? Nope. You don’t have to venture past the beginning of the Holocene to find evidence of 350+ maybe 425 PPMV.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ec7335fba625acf7f8f84d2f3f512dab3f90e67c44df110d42461ef0776287f9.jpg
            Steinthorsdottir, Margret, et al. 2013

        • Jmac0013

          You’re wrong. The first 100 ppm absorbs (interferes with) 90% of the outgoing infrared radiation. By the time CO2 reaches 300 ppm, virtually all of the infrared radiation is being absorbed and little further warming is possible. Putting it another way, the finite amount of infrared radiation, dictated by the amount of direct radiation from the sun, diminishes logarithmically as CO2 increases. Thus the warming also diminishes logarithmically. (The law of diminishing returns).

          • stephan011

            Just stop, you’re embarrassing yourself. Your talking points are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry.

            Even Dr. Roy Spencer, hero of the denialists, thinks your theory that CO2 magically attenuates to the point where it doesn’t matter, is utter bullshtt:

            “American Thinker Publishes a Stinker”
            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/american-thinker-publishes-a-stinker/

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Eleven, it is just as thirteen said. The contributions of each additional ppm of CO2 have a diminishing return, getting progressively less and less … decreasing logarithmically.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/266c6c3dae2a8132b619a17cdb34e0212a1ecee3e60283500ef8186a6626a01f.jpg

            Callendar in 1938 knew it:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a1560494091878f6119028b6730f1333d086956e7ff433022163194723881dc4.jpg

            As did Plass, in 1956: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/14818a939aaa12c67b33e94ddd9b78c9b9cb76c3aa651fc26440045942b23bbf.jpg

            but there is no observational evidence that Mannkind’s further emissions of CO2 will cause any warming at all … in fact, there exists no observational evidence that Mannkind’s emissions of CO2 ever caused any warming.

            The only thing that ‘science’ can produce as ‘evidence’ that CO2 causes warming, is from computer models. Bear in mind, correlation does not show causation, and evidence of warming, however ample, does not show any evidence of the cause of the warming.

            CO2 has caused the Earf to warm… Past tense “caused” … Adding more, on top of the accumulated 280 ppmv or so, will have truly negligible further effects.

          • stephan011

            Plass’s *actual* conclusions are not what you claim:

            “The most recent calculations of the infra-red flux in the region of the 15 micron CO2 band show that the average surface temperature of the earth increases 3.6° C if the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is doubled and decreases 3.8° C if the CO2 amount is halved, provided that no other factors change which influence the radiation balance.”

            Got that? Plass: 3.6 degrees of warming for every doubling of CO2.

            From Plass’s paper: “If the CO, amount is doubled, ARRHENIUS (1896) calculated that the temperature in- creased about 6” C, while CALLENDAR (1938) obtained a 2’C increase. “

          • TheDudeofVoo

            What you quoted from Plass is correct, I assume, but it does not mitigate the fact that Plass already knew the diminishing contribution of each increment of CO2 … decreases logarithmically. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/14818a939aaa12c67b33e94ddd9b78c9b9cb76c3aa651fc26440045942b23bbf.jpg
            Plass had no idea what the planetary albedo is, and his assumption of a “climate sensitivity” might be correct for the assumptions that he made, in the absence of measurements, that long ago. Even today, the measurements of planetary albedo is insufficiently accurate to determine anything regarding the planetary energy imbalance.
            Stephens 2015:

            0.37 Abbot and Fowle [1908]
            0.50 Dines [1917]
            0.43 Aldrich [1922]
            0.43 Simpson [1929]
            0.35 Fritz [1950] and Robinson [1958]
            0.34 Houghton [1954]
            0.89, 0.39, 0.29 Very [1912] and Danjon [1928, 1936]

            If an albedo reflection of 0.29 results in 100W/m^2 being reflected … and the magnitude of ‘Global Warming’ is ½W/m^2, then
            (½÷100)=0.005 {that’s 0.5%}
            Even today, measurements of the albedo is more uncertain than that.

            Zhan & Davies 2016: ”Direct comparisons of co-located near-nadir radiances from CERES, MODIS, and MISR show relative agreement within 2.4% per decade.”

            ”Satellite-based measurements of radiant fluxes scattered or emitted by the Earth are crucial to the understanding of climate and to monitoring changes in climate. The ability to detect change, however, is severely limited by the short duration and the calibration uncertainty of individual satellite radiometers.”

            ”In earlier work, Loeb et al. [2007] found that the radiances measured by CERES, MODIS, and MISR remained stable relative to one another to better than 1% from 2000 to 2005. Wu et al. [2014], however, noted calibration differences between MISR and MODIS of up to 4% between 2000 and 2014, …”

            ”Results indicate that the calibration differences among the three instruments are up to 2.4% per decade during the study period.”

            Zhan, Yizhe, and Roger Davies 2016. “Intercalibration of CERES, MODIS, and MISR reflected solar radiation and its application to albedo trends.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

          • stephan011

            And the from Schmithüsen is intentionally deceptive, Schmithüsen is talking about *Antartica* and the reason why higher CO2 doesn’t lead to more heat entrapment over Antartica is because the surface is *colder* than the atmosphere, so more CO2 means less radiation from the atmosphere to the surface.

            This is the abstract from his paper, it completely contradicts what you claim it means:

            “CO2 is the strongest anthropogenic forcing agent for climate change since preindustrial times. Like other greenhouse gases, CO2 absorbs terrestrial surface radiation and causes emission from the atmosphere to space.

            As the surface is generally warmer than the atmosphere, the total long-wave emission to space is commonly less than the surface emission. However, this does not hold true for the high elevated areas of central Antarctica. For this region, the emission to space is higher than the surface emission; and the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative, which has not been discussed so far.

            We investigated this in detail and show that for central Antarctica an increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long-wave energy loss to space, which cools the Earth-atmosphere system. These findings for central Antarctica are in contrast to the general warming effect of increasing CO2.”

            Full paper here:
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/full

          • TheDudeofVoo

            so, what part of
            Schmithüsen 2015: ”The observation of an intensity maximum in the CO2 band above Antarctica corresponds to a negative [Greenhouse effect], in agreement with the negative surface-stratosphere temperature differences. This implies that increasing CO2 causes the emission maximum in the TOA spectra to increase slightly, which instantaneously enhances the LW cooling in this region, strengthening the cooling of the planet.”
            …did you not get? Was it the region of the negative greenhouse effect or
            the part of the strengthening the cooling of THE ENTIRE PLANET part?

          • stephan011

            This effect *only* occurs over Antartica where the surface is colder than the atmosphere. And it mitigates the overall amount of planetary heating (slightly).

            The rest of the planet is being heated by CO2 as the paper clearly states.

            Please read that paper more closely. You are spreading misleading and deceptive information.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            ❝And it mitigates the overall amount of planetary heating (slightly).❞

            Yep.

          • stephan011

            The Antarctica is the exception only because the surface is *colder* than the atmosphere so the insulation works in reverse. Anywhere, where the atmosphere is colder than the planet, i.e. basically everywhere, CO2 is heating the planet.

            You are misrepresenting this paper.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Just how much, is “slightly”? Well, compare the (supposed) planetary “heating” of which CO2 is accused … the (supposed) planetary imbalance: L’Ecuyer 2015 0.45 W/m^2; Stephens 2012: 0.6W; Lyman 2010: 0.64 ± 0.11 W/m^2; Loeb 2012: 0.5 ± 0.43 W/m^2; Allan 2014: 0.34 ± 0.67 W/m^2 from 1985 to 1999 and 0.62 ± 0.43 W/m^2 from 2000 to 2012; Levitus 2000: 0.3 W/m^2; Llovel 2014: 0.67 ± 0.43 W/m^2; Wild 2017: 0.60W/m^2; Church 2011 ~0.5 W/m^2 … so, about ¾ Watt per square metre.

            The incoming energy from the sun is 340W/m^2, of which about 100W/m^2 is reflected by the Earf’s albedo … leaving 240W/m^2 to be dealt with.

            (½÷240)=0.00208 =0.21% … do you suppose that “slightly” cooing might amount to 0.2%?

          • stephan011

            That’s nice. You are misrepresenting what the paper says.

            The Antarctica is the exception only because the surface is *colder* than the atmosphere so the insulation works in reverse. Anywhere, where the atmosphere is colder than the planet, i.e. basically everywhere, CO2 is heating the planet.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            How am I misrepresenting when the title of the paper says, “How increasing CO2 leads to an increased negative greenhouse effect in Antarctica” ?? The title of the paper is not “basically everywhere, CO2 is heating the planet”

            Wait, WHAT? “… so the insolation works in reverse”?? Insolation is incoming sunshine. The enhanced planetary cooling from Antarctica is outgoing infrared “heat” radiation.
            If you are making sizeable mistakes, confusing insolation with infrared, I rather doubt you comprehend what is going on, here.

            Schmithüsen 2015 does not quantify the enhancement. We both agree that it is a small enhancement; but, how big does it have to be, in order to count as significant? To judge the impact, there are two important points here. One, is how really small the supposed “Global Warming” is … and two, the basic methods of heat transfer through the Earf-environment. In a crude sense, Earf heats up at the equator, and shuffles this heat to the poles, using winds and ocean currents. Between the equator and the poles, there is a mix of heat gain and loss, but the primary heat gain is from insolation … incoming short-wave sunshine, and the heat loss is in the infrared radiation to space. The wind and ocean current transport of the absorbed heat to the poles is an important concept. Antarctica is not some obscure, distant spot on Earf, it is a central focus-point for infrared heat-radiation to space (as is the Arctic).

          • stephan011

            Um, insulation works to keep things both warm AND cold. The antarctica is colder than the atmosphere a CO2 blanket means it stays colder there while means everywhere else stays warmer.

            It’s not that hard to understand when you aren’t being willfully obtuse.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            ❝ Um, insulation works to keep things both warm AND cold. ❞

            No. the temperature to the fourth power portion of he Stefan-Boltzmann equation, in this case of Schmithüsen 2015, the CO2 in the atmosphere does not insulate at all, it amplifies the radiant cooling. The idea that CO2 acts as an “insulating blanket” is a concept for fourth graders.

          • stephan011

            CO2 traps heat. The more CO2, the more heat. This was discovered in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius who later went on to win the Nobel Prize, here is his original paper: http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

            And here’s an actual demonstration of the CO2 greenhouse effect, it takes about 3 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

            This experiment can be repeated by anyone, anywhere.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Few people doubt the “greenhouse effect” (though it is stupidly named). The key point is, however, what happens when we add CO2 to our planetary atmosphere that is already past 300 ppm… The “greenhouse” of the gases, CO2 included, has a logarithmically decreasing effect. Theoretically, if you have an Earf-type planet, but with no CO2, it would be colder than the real Earf is, today. If you add an increment of CO2 to this modelled, theoretical Earf, the first 20 ppm has a significant effect … around 1.5 °C https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6b05a169497043601d4e089b44afc98346ff38d7778bb7fde61fb167699c5220.jpg
            but if you add another increment, another 20 ppm, reaching 40 ppm total,https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9ea05fe446f1d2d61b707247290e70d1c6e09139dcd9699cc89dd292490da10e.jpg
            the effect is much less.

          • stephan011

            Even Dr. Roy Spencer, hero of the denialists, thinks your theory that CO2 doesn’t trap heat is embarrassing nonsense:

            “Please stop the ‘no greenhouse effect’ stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad.”

            “Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water”
            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/

            “American Thinker Publishes a Stinker”
            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/american-thinker-publishes-a-stinker/

          • TheDudeofVoo

            That’s about saturated lines. Read it. The logarithmic decrease of the effect is not the same as saturated lines. The logarithmic effect is well documented. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b6c6a95ae9472ef4b84024840898ec4278e041e62490a0301853d98a9b76b928.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fde9c04f51355415dff046ffe96a0c3d3c983d537a49e62b6b5b748a57b152e2.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3ea420def875b816288f7ae8dcc24353617a4809c0cf2307b681405a3eefce94.jpg
            …the only thing left to dispute is the magnitude of the “climate sensitivity”

          • TheDudeofVoo

            ”Arrhenius’ rule reads as follows:

            ❝if the quantity of carbonic acid [ CO2 + H2O → H2CO3 (carbonic acid) ] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.❞”
            Arrhenius, Gustaf 1962 “Svante Arrhenius.” Contribution to Earth Science and CosmoIogy, Levnadsteckn

            … a linear (‘arithmetic’) progression, in response to a geometric increase … what is now approximated by 􏰋 ΔF=α ln(C/C0) as in Myhre 1998.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/572213c6dc27798c3c8a3a8f1b7eeec9d0b71f4039b16b85ac61278dff91e546.jpg

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Mythbusters? Good one! However, the Earf is not a plastic box. The Earf has a real atmosphere, in which water evaporates, condenses, and freezes … The Earf has gravity, which exerts buoyancy on warm air masses. Heat is contained (latently) in evaporated water, which rises in warmed air. The vapour condenses, releasing the latent heat high up in the troposphere. Most of the mass of the atmosphere is below the tropopause … which means most of the CO2 is lower, as well. Here, the condensed water can also freeze, releasing more of that latent heat. From this altitude, the heat can radiate to space, almost unimpeded by CO2’s interference in certain wavelengths of infrared radiation. Above the tropopause, the atmospheric temperature starts to rise, which switches CO2 from a “greenhouse effect blanket” (for your fourth-graders) into a potent radiator … The real Earf-system has massive, non-radiant heat transfer mechanisms that are not present inside that plastic box. Also, the real Earf system responds to added heat by increasing evaporation, which forms clouds. Clouds reflect the short-wave sunshine before it ever reaches the ground to be absorbed. Clouds, overall, cool the Earf. Clouds preferentially form when the surface temperature exceeds a certain point.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/92e4c1c6d06504c78e03bbd3185cb63b1992d7fc7b768bc85a84377b5f5845f0.jpg

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Arrhenius 1906: ”By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.” (p63)”

            Arrhenius, Gustaf 1962 “Svante Arrhenius.” Contribution to Earth Science and CosmoIogy, Levnadsteckn

            https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Svante_Arrhenius

          • stephan011

            Yes, elevated CO2 levels are helping crops in some places and accelerating plant growth. Here are some other things that are also happening:

            “Climate Change Has Made Heat Waves Much More Deadly, Mainly for the Poor”
            https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608089/climate-change-has-made-heat-waves-much-more-deadly-mainly-for-the-poor/
            =====
            “Climate change raises new risk: Are inland bridges too low?”
            http://www.twincities.com/2017/06/10/climate-change-raises-new-risk-are-inland-bridges-too-low/
            =====
            The Great Barrier Reef is dying from overheated water:
            http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/03/13/great-barrier-reef-mass-coral-bleaching-second-year-row/99116432/
            =====
            Massive wildfires across Russian Siberia:
            http://mashable.com/2016/07/18/siberia-forest-fires-smoke-satellite/#oPXoInMxqaqm
            =====
            “The Nightmare Scenario for Florida’s Coastal Homeowners”
            https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-04-19/the-nightmare-scenario-for-florida-s-coastal-homeowners
            =====
            Thawing methane in the far north threatens runaway greenhouse gasses:
            http://www.sciencealert.com/photos-reveal-more-than-200-bright-blue-arctic-lakes-have-started-bubbling-with-methane-gas
            =====
            World’s Oceans Experiencing Significant Decline In Dissolved Oxygen
            https://cleantechnica.com/2017/05/07/worlds-oceans-experiencing-significant-decline-dissolved-oxygen-analysis-shows/

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Yep. That’s the hype. The alarmists don’t even have a viable hypothesis to form into a theory. There is no observational evidence that Mannkind’s CO2 is, or ever has been, a cause of warming. None. I think we all agree that the Earf is a little warmer (just how much, well, that is disputed).

            The only (supposed) ‘evidence’ comes from the fantasy world of computer models. There is no observational evidence that Mannkind’s further emissions of CO2 will cause warming … in fact, there is no observational evidence that Mannkind’s prior emissions of CO2 have caused any warming, either.

            Headlines … that’s all you have.

          • stephan011

            In point of fact, the models are *quite* accurate, I don’t know where you got the idea they weren’t:

            From Forbes:

            “The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly”

            https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/#e100d046614d

          • TheDudeofVoo

            A model is not a hypothesis. Besides, you (apparently) have no idea what problems exist in the models. I’ll try and condense some entire papers into their salient points. To do so, I must build upon concepts established earlier … rather than substantiate those claims in this post. Feel free to ask questions. First off, the averaged (pole to pole, season to season, daylight to dark-side) average of the incoming sunshine to Earf is about 340 Watts per square metre of the Earf’s surface. Second, the magnitude of all the supposed warming, whether natural or anthropogenic, is roughly ½W/m^2. A simple ratio between those two is an adequate description of the level of absolute accuracy that is required of the models … about (½÷340)= 0.001471 ×100 = 0.15% … Most things in “climate science” are grossly inaccurate. The ’science’ is fortunate to land a guess within a factor of two, relative to reality. Often, ‘climate science’ is off by an order of magnitude.

            Wunsch 2016: ”What has tended to be missing from much of the discussion is the quantitative aspects: How accurate and precise must the resulting measurements be?””As the science now stands, great accuracy is not required … as theory, in some cases, is still coping with explaining factors of two or larger. ”

            Here, Wunsch 2016 has hit upon a recurring theme of “Climate Science” … being off, by a factor of two… that is 50% (or, 200%) … nowhere near the 0.15% required accuracy.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            This is the second post, regarding the inaccuracy of the models.

            Wyant 2015: ”Most models are a within a factor of 2 of the observed means.”

            Blewit 2010: ”… modeled [ocean] bottom-pressure amplitudes taken from the Estimating the Circulation and Climate of the Ocean (ECCO) project are a factor of two smaller than those observed.”

            Maycock, 2016: ”We also show that alternate satellite ozone datasets have issues … methods of accounting for instrument offsets and drifts … can have a substantial impact … solar-ozone response varies by around a factor of two across different versions … ozone database for future coupled model intercomparison projects (e.g., CMIP6).”

            Lee & Shindell 2015: ”… the model has a reasonable agreement (mostly within a factor of 2) with observations … DMS is about a factor of 2 higher than the ModelE2-TOMAS… SO2 … roughly within a factor of 2.”

            Gero & Turner 2011: ”The projections of … temperature vary by a factor of 2 between … climate models worldwide (Solomon et al. 2007 )”

            Lehner 2016: ”Comparisons of the observed global-scale cooling following recent volcanic eruptions to that simulated by climate models… indicate that the models … overestimate the global temperature response to natural forcing by a factor of 2, …”

            Wang 2016: ” … mean model results underestimate the magnitude of the observed changes by a factor of two …”

          • TheDudeofVoo

            This is the third post, regarding the inaccuracy of the models. The best “line” is expressed by Patricia Probst:
            Probst 2012: “Some models agree quite well with the observations in one or more of the metrics employed in this analysis, but not a single model has a statistically significant agreement with the observational datasets on yearly averaged values of [cloud cover fraction for total cloudiness] and on the amplitude of the seasonal cycle over all analysed areas.”

            Huang, Tan, & Xia 2016: ”Radiative forcing … Phase 5 models, we find that intermodel discrepancy in CO2 forcing caused by model climatology … effect on the energy transport has a factor of 2 variation…”

            Li 2016 : ”… biases of LW radiative cooling rates … and their difference by the factor of 2 (black), ….”

            E. Brisson 2016: ”… high temperature extremes was attributed to deficiencies in the cloud properties: The modelled cloud fraction is only 46% whereas a cloud fraction of 65% was observed. [models fell short of reality by 29% a factor of three.] Surprisingly, the effect of this deficiency was less pronounced …due to a compensating error, … overestimation of the reflectivity of clouds …”

            ”…low (600 W/m^2) of OSR [off by a factor of two] are more prevalent in [the simulations] than in the satellite observations.”

            According to the University of Colorado Boulder, GIA [Glacial Isostatic Adjustment, aka PGR, Post-Glaical Rebound] is, at best, subject to a 50% uncertainty:

            “… but the GIA uncertainty is at least 50 percent.”

            Ramanathan & Feng 2009: ”…but the observed warming trend of about 0.8 °C from 1900 to 2005, was a factor of two to three smaller than the magnitude predicted by most models,…”

            Thompson, Green, & Kingston 2014: “However, [General Circulation Model]-related uncertainty, … on average, 3.5 times greater than [potential evapotranspiration] method-related uncertainty.”

            Wick, Gary 2016: ”These climate change signals … are far below any expected observational accuracy … significant scientific gains could be made if the uncertainty in … could be improved by an order of magnitude.”

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Let’s take one, and dissect it.

            ❝ Massive wildfires across Russian Siberia ❞

            Andrew Freedman’s article make the claim in just the 2nd paragraph … “…human caused global warming…”
            World-wide, GLOBALLY, wildfires are decreasing both in measures of area burned, and in number. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ccef470d96fa142b7faa47e4b0d4f44fa729f43ee32579294827f423e2a65dd3.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/940c40a5c5c1c6327111dea579427cc2e6d3cd79ef1e18213200125791930cbd.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/554521b99c0542bce30875bb14e425fac7e5c121b56eb59987ae6f1f64821be3.jpg

          • stephan011

            Your information is old. This is what’s happening today:

            “How climate change is increasing forest fires around the world”
            http://www.dw.com/en/how-climate-change-is-increasing-forest-fires-around-the-world/a-19465490

            “Global Warming Cited as Wildfires Increase in Fragile Boreal Forest”
            https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/science/global-warming-cited-as-wildfires-increase-in-fragile-boreal-forest.html

            “Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity”
            http://science.sciencemag.org/content/313/5789/940.full

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Historical records are not “old” … and what is happening “today” (while not totally irrelevant) is much like comparing “weather” to “climate”.
            Your first two examples are just media sources (DW and NY Times); not worth responding to, but the third, at least, has a science title.
            “Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity”So, let’s specifically examine the western US https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d49a1a77739ea3ae9614ce699839aca1b2b46471689665900f961f13740b0d52.jpg Taking into account the last three thousand years the US western region is in a “wildfire drought” … even including the massive conflagrations of the past few years. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/36007e5e6d426cda483f2e6de5bd208f993c2937ea822b6348a5b960f45b773a.jpg

          • stephan011

            Oh look, your talking point is completely wrong. When you rely on biased sources who are trying to deceive you, you get fed all sorts of BS. Read more widely.

            “from 1979 to 2013. We show that fire weather seasons have lengthened across 29.6 million km2 (25.3%) of the Earth’s vegetated surface, resulting in an 18.7% increase in global mean fire weather season length. We also show a doubling (108.1% increase) of global burnable area affected by long fire weather seasons (>1.0 σ above the historical mean) and an increased global frequency of long fire weather seasons across 62.4 million km2 (53.4%) during the second half of the study period. ”
            http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8537

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Exactly. What you (apparently) don’t realize is the second word of your quote … “from 1979 to…”
            Why, from 1979? Because, that segment of the historical record supports the alarmist point … but, other segments, particularly much longer segments, do not. While not “the whole world”, the US is extensively researched, instrumented, and documented. Let’s look at some alarmist-tactics, such as the one you just fell for (1979-…)
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/935570670ca29d2c0da206a205f1313c40bf4c4c3be777fc375b0e74795f9a51.jpg As opposed to your myopic, cherry-picked “1979…” this starts in 1930. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dc8ebcf8c244a77198b7a1a1215aa43c9ddd4eb987e099ba49ea243a9ab76b9b.jpg This starts a little earlier.
            The typical alarmist chart looks like this:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/adfbbc89f914381be8683e3cdc09456f19a318ad43e0c9ff0f84265418fc3a03.jpg or this:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d593ba6f6177b2eaa7e31a6aa9f9ffa95b26857e561c1e63a0551598b4a2809c.jpg

          • TheDudeofVoo
          • TheDudeofVoo

            ❝ Thawing methane in the far north threatens runaway greenhouse gasses gases ❞

            It’s summer. One would think that summer in the Arctic would mean a large peak in the methane production, right? All those BUBBLES! …so why is it that the seasonal dips in the atmospheric methane occur in summer? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/95204eeddf36010e08d56a674e7137e586010222833a15ff847ef5d168a14724.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cde3b8f7cfd9b355f729edfaa09e62506337702919ac8c68364590174f9981fc.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5a4fb116a40d06e8633236927dde1a82bd3364901a0f83afb1d124932db592a2.jpg

          • TheDudeofVoo

            oops

          • TheDudeofVoo

            ❝Thawing methane in the far north threatens runaway greenhouse gasses gases ❞

            Thawing permafrost liberates frozen MOB (methane OXIDIZING bacteria) which eat methane. As the Arctic warms, these MOB will be come more active.

            Lau 2015: ”… the mineral creosols at Axel Heiberg Island in the Canadian high Arctic consistently consume atmospheric CH4.”

            ”active atmospheric CH4-oxidizing bacteria (atmMOB) in permafrost-affected cryosols, … The atmospheric (atm) CH4 uptake at the study site increases with ground temperature between 0 °C and 18 °C. Consequently, the atm CH4 sink strength is predicted to increase by a factor of 5–30 as the Arctic warms by 5–15 °C over a century.”

            The MOB produce the seasonal “dip” in the global atmospheric methane concentration; while summertime in the Arctic produces visible bubbles in Arctic meltwater pools, the consumption of atmospheric methane exceeds production. The gradual average increase in atmospheric methane originates from the tropics, not the polar regions … (and is is biogenic methane). Sure, Mannkind’s “natural gas” leakage contributes, but the stable isotopes of carbon (12C and 13C) have ratio indicating a biogenic origin, not a fossil fuel origin. The atmospheric carbon isotopic ratio has been slightly negative, δ13C (PDB) around −6‰ to −8‰ … Fossil fuel is about -27.5‰ and biogenic methane ranges from δ13C -65‰ to −600‰ (PDB)

            Ruppel & Kessler 2016: ”There is no conclusive proof that hydrate-derived methane is reaching the atmosphere now, … The values quoted by the various IPCC reports have never been based on observational evidence for CH4 emissions derived from gas hydrate dissociation, since no such measurements exist … Even when CH4 is released from gas hydrate during dissociation, physical, chemical, and biological sinks in the sediments and ocean waters mitigate the amount that reaches the atmosphere (Figure 7). These sinks are so strong, that there are likely very few locations on present-day Earth where gas hydrate dissociation could release CH4 that reaches the atmosphere in any significant quantities. … Under expected patterns of climate change, [Axel Heiberg Island] will continue to be a microbial atm CH4 sink and the sink strength will vary distinctly in accordance with seasonal and inter-annual temperature variability. “

          • TheDudeofVoo

            ❝Climate Change Has Made Heat Waves Much More Deadly, Mainly for the Poor❞

            Okay, death from heat waves is not nice. I don’t mean to de-emphasize the tragedy of death. It is not likely that the Earf will remain at the same temperature, indefinitely … when a heat wave comes, people die. However, when a cold snap arrives, more people die! For the same number of degrees of variance above normal (heat wave) or below normal (cold snap), the cold kills more.

            Shaposhnikov & Revich 2016: ”Cold spells seem to be more hazardous for human health than heat waves.”

            ”The evidence of impacts of cold on mortality was more robust than the same for heat. Greater increases in mortality were observed during long cold waves than during short ones; however, the opposite was true for heat waves. ”

            Shaposhnikov, Dmitry, and Boris Revich 2016. “Toward meta-analysis of impacts of heat and cold waves on mortality in Russian North.” Urban Climate

            Keatinge 2000: “➤Numbers of heat related deaths were always much smaller than cold related deaths”

            ”Populations in Europe have adjusted successfully to mean summer temperatures ranging from 13.5°C to 24.1°C, and can be expected to adjust to global warming predicted for the next half century with little sustained increase in heat related mortality.”

            ”All regions showed more annual cold related mortality than heat related mortality. … Falls in temperature in winter are closely followed by increased mortality, with characteristic time courses for different causes of death. The increases are of sufficient size to account for the overall increase in mortality in winter, suggesting that most excess winter deaths are due to relatively direct effects of cold on the population. 9”

            ”The adjustment of the populations in our study to widely different summer temperatures gives grounds for confidence that they would adjust successfully, with little increase in heat related mortality, to the global warming of around 2°C predicted to occur in the next half century. 15”

            Keatinge, W. R., et al. 2000 “Heat related mortality in warm and cold regions of Europe: observational study.” Bmj (formerly British Medical Journal)

            Guy 2014: ”… cold effects were delayed, and lasted for many days, whereas heat effects appeared quickly, and did not last long.”
            ”…overall cumulative relative risks of cold and hot effects on mortality over lags of 0–21 days…”

            Guo, Yuming, et al. 2014 “Global variation in the effects of ambient temperature on mortality: a systematic evaluation.” Epidemiology

            Currieo 2000: ”For all cities, mortality risk decreased as temperature increased from the coldest temperatures. …the cold slope was steeper (more negative) for the southernmost cities, and the hot slopes were steeper (more positive) for the northernmost cities.”

            Curriero, Frank C., et al. 2000 “Temperature and mortality in 11 cities of the eastern United States.” American journal of epidemiology

          • TheDudeofVoo

            ❝World’s Oceans Experiencing Significant Decline In Dissolved Oxygen❞

            This article has two points. One, the oceans are a bit warmer, which, due to the solubility of oxygen in water. Warmer water reduces oxygen levels. Two, “Research from Ito … air pollution … was responsible …The exact cause? Iron and nitrogen pollution was/is causing plankton blooms that deplete oxygen. Oh, how myopic. Plankton blooms are a net benefit!
            Overall, in a planet-wide effect, plankton produces 80% of the oxygen, and plankton blooms produce more oxygen … but, as that same plankton is deprived of sunlight … plankton, after all, is a living organism, so they respire just like the rest of us non-photosyntetic organisms, consuming oxygen. So as the plankton die (and all living things must, eventually die) the carbon that they are made of becomes oxidized (consuming oxygen). Oh, by the way, they sequester carbon dioxide to the deep ocean, while doing so. This is a typical alarmist tactic … taking a net, triple benefit, and point out only the ‘dark side’. The benefits: (1) Consuming pollution, (2) Producing oxygen, (3) Sequestering carbon! But, as a fourth effect, locally depleting dissolved oxygen.

            As for the first point, about how warming oceans has less oxygen do to the natural solubility of oxygen in water, and the warming … well, evidence of warming does not lend evidence of the cause of the warming. There is no observational evidence that Mannkind’s CO2 is, or ever has been, a cause of warming.

            The only (supposed) ‘evidence’ comes from the fantasy world of computer models. There is no observational evidence that Mannkind’s further emissions of CO2 will cause warming … in fact, there is no observational evidence that Mannkind’s prior emissions of CO2 have caused any warming, either.

          • stephan011

            No, temperatures are *not* flat, you are being lied to.

            “2014 Confirmed as Hottest Year On Record, With Spike in Ocean Temperatures”
            http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/150116-2014-hottest-year-global-warming-climate-science/

            “2015 shatters the temperature record as global warming speeds back up”
            https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/nov/18/2015-shatters-the-temperature-record-as-global-warming-speeds-back-up

            “2016 Was the Hottest Year on Record”
            https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2016-was-the-hottest-year-on-record/

          • TheDudeofVoo

            ❝No, temperatures are *not* flat, you are being lied to.❞

            Um … Stephan-three, are you, talking’ to me? When did I suggest that temperatures were flat? In this entire comments section, the word “flat” was mentioned four times … Yours is one. I mentioned that the TSI was flat (used the word twice, in that post); Phillip mentioned a “flat plain” (referring to a geological feature). That is all the mentions of “flat” (until I stared typing this reply). So, who said temperatures were flat?

            …as far as the “shattered” temperature record, none have been statistically significanthttps://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/be78eabd60eadcc34c3c16301d0f19da39e3765a21fa34ce0140315a993caa92.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/913336872da07a61053dcbb28f7fe325e29199bd940c6d63aaea2bfd0b054f2e.jpg
            Similar things can be said of the 2015 and 2016 “record” … Numerically, yes … Probability? Statistically insignificant.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e275dcca6a33a19e43c2618fbe2ba74af5a9bd31dc6ef6e7b4a0c562eae30ee1.jpg

          • TheDudeofVoo

            XXXX ❝”… Confirmed as Hottest Year On Record, With Spike in Ocean Temperatures”❞

            Is really irrelevant.
            Von Schuckmann 2016: ”…global temperature rise, increased [ocean heat content], sea level rise, and the acceleration of the hydrological cycle (Fig. 2b). These are all symptoms of [Earth’s energy imbalance].” As to what actually causes the Earf’s energy imbalance, well, Mannkind’s CO2 stands accused, but no evidence has been presented. None. There is no observational evidence that Mannkind’s continuing of CO2 emissions will cause … or, had caused … any warming at all. That is just conjecture, fortified by computer models. No evidence, just the fantasy imaginings of computer models.

          • stephan011

            READ the paper, it clearly contradicts your claims.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            My point is ONLY what the paper claims.
            Schmithüsen, Holger, et al. “How increasing CO2 leads to an increased negative greenhouse effect in Antarctica.” Geophysical Research Letters

            ”… the high elevated areas of central Antarctica. For this region, the emission to space is higher than the surface emission; and the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative, …

            ”The observation of an intensity maximum in the CO2 band above Antarctica corresponds to a negative [Greenhouse effect], in agreement with the negative surface-stratosphere temperature differences. This implies that increasing CO2 causes the emission maximum in the TOA spectra to increase slightly, which instantaneously enhances the LW cooling in this region, strengthening the cooling of the planet.”

            I don’t expect that this small region will hoooohver up all the (supposed) heat imbalance, but, how much heat imbalance is there, really? It amounts to zero point twenty-one percent of the absorbed sunshine. That is the measure of the whole of “Global Warming” … 0.21% of (340-100)W/m^2 …

          • stephan011

            No, it will hoover up close to zero of it. It’s a very limited effect.

          • TheDudeofVoo
          • Concerned

            “By the time CO2 reaches 300 ppm, virtually all of the infrared
            radiation is being absorbed and little further warming is possible.”

            The saturation argument is false. Here’s the way it really works.

            Radiation heat transport and convection occur in all directions, especially vertically. Eventually the heat is transported to the upper atmosphere where the CO2 is less dense, and radiation can escape to space. It is colder in the upper atmosphere than on earth, so the radiation cooling is less than would occur if the IR photons went straight from earth to space. Adding CO2 raises the altitude where radiation escapes, resulting in even less cooling. Less cooling is the same as warming.

            There are also little details like pressure broadening that increase the outward heat transfer.

            “What is the best description of the greenhouse effect?”
            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/02/what-is-the-best-description-of-the-greenhouse-effect/

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Concerned, your apt description is not applicable to all places … there is one place on Earf where the ground is sooooo dam cold, the upper atmosphere is actually warmer! In this case, the SB “radiation according to the fourth power of temperature” actually reverses your description …

            Schmithüsen 2015: ”… the high elevated areas of central Antarctica. For this region, the emission to space is higher than the surface emission; and the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative, …

            Really. So, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere actually increases radiation into space. Even though it is only in one spot of the entire Earf, it is rather conveniently located at the south pole, where it affects the entire Earf

            Schmithüsen 2015: ”The observation of an intensity maximum in the CO2 band above Antarctica corresponds to a negative [Greenhouse effect], in agreement with the negative surface-stratosphere temperature differences. This implies that increasing CO2 causes the emission maximum in the TOA spectra to increase slightly, which instantaneously enhances the LW cooling in this region, strengthening the cooling of the planet.”

            Schmithüsen, H., et al. 2015 “How increasing CO2 leads to an increased negative greenhouse effect in Antarctica.” Geophys. Research Letters

        • TheDudeofVoo

          11 stephan, you myopically ignore other proxy data, and you cling to the “ice-core data” as if it was your gospel. The scientific literature is rife with examples as to why the “ice-core data” is a smeared, under-representation of a very long average.

          Beerling & Royer 2011: Stomatal pores of fossil leaves have been ”… specifically identified by the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as showing the most promise” as a proxy for atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

          Wagner 2004:”The majority of the stomatal frequency-based estimates of CO2 for the Holocene do not support the widely accepted concept of comparably stable CO2 concentrations throughout the past 11,500 years.”

          Rundgren & Beerling 1999: ”A stomatal-based method of palaeo-CO2 estimation … indicating that the carbon cycle has not been in steady state over this time.”

          • stephan011

            I see, do you have any papers that aren’t a decade old? that don’t use stomatal-based methods which are known to not be very reliable?

            “The present findings suggest that it is not possible to generalize how conifer species respond to fluctuations in [CO2] based upon taxonomic relatedness or habitat. This apparent lack of a consistent response, in conjunction with high variability in SI, indicates that reconstructions of absolute palaeo-[CO2] based at the genus level, or upon multiple species for discrete intervals of time are not as reliable as those based on a single or multiple temporally overlapping species.”

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2826259/

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Eleven, (or is that three, in binary?) What you found,

            ❝…not possible to generalize how conifer species respond …❞

            specifically, “among four genera of Cupressaceae conifers”
            and you slam my “a decade old” (Beetling & Royer is 6 years old) peer-reviewed, journal-published science with a 7 year old paper regarding a different species?
            Read up.
            Beerling & Royer 2011: Stomatal pores of fossil leaves have been ”… specifically identified by the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as showing the most promise” as a proxy for atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

            Seems to me that the IPCC thinks that stomata are a good proxy for atmospheric CO2.

            Wagoner 2004: “…Based on the well defined response rates of Betula and Tsuga, palaeo-atmospheric CO2 records have been established for three key periods …” So the aspersions you cast upon “among four genera of Cupressaceae conifers are a clean miss.
            Rundgren & Berlin 1999: …Salix herbacea L. …” not conifer, but a creeping dwarf willow. Another miss.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Even if you cast aspersions on stomata, as a proxy for paleo-atmospheric CO2 … there is this:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/47fbaeebc4607dd6a6451f4b178654b194496fba048813b541300f769cb5c8d6.jpg

            Jasper, John P., et al. “Photosynthetic fractionation of 13C and concentrations of dissolved CO2 in the central equatorial Pacific during the last 255,000 years.” Paleoceanography

            http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/14732/Jasper%20et%20al%20Paleo%201994.pdf?sequence=1

      • DiogenesDespairs

        The fact is, there has been global warming, but the contribution of human-generated carbon dioxide is necessarily so minuscule as to be nearly undetectable. Here’s why:

        Carbon dioxide, considered the main vector for human-caused global warming, is some 0.038% of the atmosphere[1]- a trace gas. Water vapor varies from 0% to 4%[2], and should easily average 1% or more[3] near the Earth’s surface, where the greenhouse effect would be most important, and is about three times more effective[4] a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So water vapor is at least 25 times more prevalent and three times more effective; that makes it at least 75 times more important to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide[5]. The TOTAL contribution of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect is therefore 0.013 or less. The total human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution has been estimated at about 25%[6]. So humans’ carbon dioxide greenhouse effect is a quarter of 0.013, works out to about 0.00325. Total warming of the Earth by the greenhouse effect is widely accepted as about 33 degrees Centigrade, raising average temperature to 59 degrees Fahrenheit. So the contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide is less than 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit, or under 0.1 degree Centigrade. Global warming over the last century is thought by many to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade.

        But that’s only the beginning. We’ve had global warming for more than 10,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age, and there is evidence temperatures were actually somewhat warmer 9,000 years ago and again 4,500 to 8,000 years ago than they are today[7]. Whatever caused that, it was not human activity. It was not all those power plants and factories and SUVs being operated by Stone Age cavemen while chipping arrowheads out of bits of flint. Whatever the cause was, it melted the glaciers that in North America once extended south to Long Island and parts of New York City[8] into virtually complete disappearance (except for a few mountain remnants). That’s one big greenhouse effect! If we are still having global warming – and I suppose we could presume we are, given this 10,000 year history – it seems highly likely that it is still the overwhelmingly primary cause of continued warming, rather than our piddling 0.00325 contribution to the greenhouse effect.

        Yet even that trend-continuation today needs to be proved. Evidence is that the Medieval Warm Period centered on the 1200s was somewhat warmer than we are now[9], and the climate was clearly colder in the Little Ice Age in the 1600s than it is now[10]. So we are within the range of normal up-and-down fluctuations without human greenhouse contributions that could be significant, or even measurable.

        The principal scientists arguing for human-caused global warming have been demonstrably disingenuous[11], and now you can see why. They have proved they should not be trusted.

        The idea that we should be spending hundreds of billions of dollars and hamstringing the economy of the entire world to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is beyond ludicrous in light of the facts above; it is insane. Furthermore, it sucks attention and resources from seeking the other sources of warming and from coping with climate change and its effects in realistic ways. The true motivation underlying the global warming movement is almost certainly ideological and political in nature, and I predict that anthropogenic Global Warming, as currently presented, will go down as the greatest fraud of all time. It makes Ponzi and Madoff look like pikers by comparison.

        [1] Fundamentals of Physical Geography, 2nd Edition 
by Michael Pidwirny Concentration varies slightly with the growing season in the northern hemisphere. HYPERLINK “http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html” http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html

        [2] ibid.

        [3] HALOE v2.0 Upper Tropospheric Water Vapor Climatology Claudette Ojo, Hampton University; et al.. HYPERLINK “http://vsgc.odu.edu/src/Conf09/UnderGrad%20Papers/Ojo%20-%20Paper.pdf” http://vsgc.odu.edu/src/Conf09/UnderGrad%20Papers/Ojo%20-%20Paper.pdf. See p. 4.The 0 – 4% range is widely accepted among most sources. This source is listed for its good discussion of the phenomena determining that range. An examination of a globe will show that tropical oceans (near high end of range) are far more extensive than the sum of the earth’s arctic and antarctic regions and tropical-zone deserts (all near the low end). Temperate zone oceans are far more extensive than temperate-zone desert. This author’s guess of an average of 2% or more seems plausible. I have used “1% or more” in an effort to err on the side of understatement.

        [4 NIST Chemistry Webbook, Please compare the IR absorption spectra of water and carbon dioxide. ] HYPERLINK “http://webbook.nist.gov/” http://webbook.nist.gov/

        [5] Three quarters of the atmosphere and virtually all water vapor are in the troposphere. Including all the atmosphere would change the ratios to about 20 times more prevalent and 60 times more effective. However, the greenhouse effect of high-altitude carbon dioxide on lower-altitude weather and the earth’s surface seems likely to be small if not nil.

        [6] National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. HYPERLINK “http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html” http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html. The estimated 90ppm increase in carbon dioxide, 30% above the base of 280 ppm, to a recent reading of 370 ppm, equates to just under 25% of present concentration, the relevant factor in estimating present contribution to the greenhouse effect.

        [7] History of Earth’s Climate. http://www.dandebat.dk/eng-klima7.htm This account was written by someone for whom English was a second language and focuses on Scandinavia, but it draws together evidence from around the world, and provides insight into the challenges of judging temperatures in earlier geological times.[8] New York Nature – The nature and natural history of the New York City region. Betsy McCully http://www.newyorknature.net/IceAge.html

        [9] Global Warming: A Geological Perspective John P. Bluemle HYPERLINK “https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/Newsletter/NL99W/PDF/globlwrmw99.pdf” http://www.azgs.az.gov/arizona_geology/archived_issues/Winter_1999.pdf This article, published by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency, is drawn from a paper by the author in Environmental Geosciences, 1999, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 63-75. Note particularly the chart on p.4.

        [10] Ibid.

        [11] Wikileaks: Climatic Research Unit emails, data, models, 1996-2009 HYPERLINK “http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_data,_models,_1996-2009” http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_data,_models,_1996-2009.

        See also HYPERLINK “http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html and

        HYPERLINK “http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html and, more diplomatically: HYPERLINK “http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html. Et al.

        ADDENDUM

        What initially troubled me was the aberrant behavior of the climate research unit at East Anglia University, which had been the main data source for AGW arguments. They initially refused (!) to reveal their algorithms and data on the grounds that they were proprietary(!!). They responded to critics with ad hominem attacks and efforts to block their publication in scientific journals. Now, as I am sure you know, this is not how one does honest science, in which you PUBLISH your data and methodology and invite critical comment to ferret out error or oversights. It took the now-famous Wikileaks “Climategate” to pry loose the data and expose their machinations. Yet despite the devastating blow these revelations should have to their credibility, the AGW “cause” has taken on a life of its own.

        Fundamentally, the argument seems to rest on a logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc – after this, therefore because of this. We see a rise in temperature and a rise in (principally) carbon dioxide, and therefore conclude one must have caused the other. It does not necessarily follow at all. There can be other causes entirely behind both phenomena, and as you see above, almost certainly there are. Beyond that, I have encountered numerous assertions of fact that cannot add up given the physical properties of water vapor and carbon dioxide that go unchallenged. One-sided arguments proliferate and people arguing the other side are frequently denounced as being employed by business interests rather than rebutted on the merits.

        In sum, I have not come lightly to the conclusion that the AGW argument as it applies to carbon dioxide is largely untrue and certainly does not account for more than a very small, nearly negligible part of the phenomena we are seeing. The implications of widespread assertions of and belief in such an untruth are staggering, and potentially enormously destructive. It is unwise indeed to let oneself be stampeded in this matter, and stampede is clearly what many have been and are trying to induce.

        I can understand politicians behaving this way; a carbon tax or carbon trading regime would allow enormous revenues to fall into their hands. I can understand “Progressive” ideologues; it logically leads to enormous expansion of government power over industry, the economy, and the daily life of individuals, which they regard as a good thing. I understand the environmentalists; they want to shrink the size and impact on the environment of modern civilization. But responsible citizens need to put aside such considerations.

        • Concerned

          As predictably as the sunrise, or the rotation of the earth, Diogenes copy / pastes his denialist “essay,” word for word, every time he finds a climate science article.

          In fact, his “essay” is plagiarized word for word from another climate denier, Harold Senneker.
          http://hseneker.blogspot.co.uk/

          One might suspect that they are the same person, but I think not. Senneker uses his real name and links to his blog with a preamble. Diogenes just copies it with no citation to poor Harold.

          Diogenese has been schooled on his / Seneker’s errors countless times. He never learns because he does not want to learn. His motive is to deceive.

          If anyone is interested, I can post a point by point rebuttal. This gets boring after a while. I don’t want to clutter this comment space, as has already been done by Diogenes.

          • DiogenesDespairs

            I invite interested readers to read my post and decide its merits for themselves. It has passed the test of time.

          • smithpd

            “test of time”

            The only “test of time” is the fact that you keep repeating your derp ad infinitum. That does not make it either tested or correct.

            OK, since you are basically begging me, here is my rebuttal of your “test of time” nonsense.

            But first, tell me, are you Harold Senneker, or are you plagiarizing him?

            —————–

            You said:
            “Carbon dioxide, considered the main vector for human-caused global warming, is some 0.038% of the atmospher [1]- a trace gas. Water vapor varies from 0% to 4%[2], and should easily average 1% or more[3] near
            the Earth’s surface,”

            That may be approximately true, but the conclusions you reach from it are wrong. It is the only the macroscopic properties of a gas that matter, not the numerical value of its concentration. The “trace gas” argument is false on the face of it. Try breathing 400 ppm arsenic.

            As a start, the CO2 greenhouse effect is well-known, almost 200 year old physics, proven by theory, laboratory experiments, climate models, and confirmed by satellite measurement of the earth’s energy balance. It is incontrovertible and widely repeatable. It is the strongest and least controversial aspect of the global warming discussion. Read this for details.

            The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
            https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

            You said:
            “The TOTAL contribution of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect is therefore 0.013 or less”

            That is too low by a factor of over 15. The attribution of various greenhouse gases (GHGs) to the greenhouse effect is 50% water vapor, 25% clouds, 20% CO2, and 5% other, per Schmidt (2010) (see link below). Furthermore, water vapor has a very short residence time and is limited by condensation. The only thing that can increase average water vapor concentration is increasing the average surface temperature, per the Clausius Clapeyron equation. So, water vapor is not a driver, also known as a “forcing.”

            The concentration of CO2 has increased 46%, from 280 ppm to 410 ppm now. That increase could have been caused only by humans. There is no other plausible source for it. CO2 is the only GHG that is forcing the climate significantly. Water vapor is a positive feedback to CO2-induced warming. So, although water vapor is important, it follows CO2, as part of the response of the system.

            Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect – Schmidt – 2010
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD014287/full

            Also see this for an overview of the H20 vs. CO2 contributions and another view of the falsity of the water vapor argument.
            https://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

            Water vapor feedback roughly doubles the warming from CO2 alone.

            —————–

            You said:
            “We’ve had global warming for more than 10,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age, and there is evidence temperatures were actually somewhat warmer 9,000 years ago”

            That is almost (but not quite) true, but it is a misrepresentation of the big picture. You are missing some necessary steps.

            Sure, the end of the last glaciation occurred around 10,000 years ago, but the interglacial thermal maximum was 7000 years ago. The natural temperature trend, caused by the Milankovitch cycle, should have been, and has been, cooling for most of the last 7000 years since the thermal maximum. However, around 100 years ago there was a dramatic and rapid reversal of the global average cooling trend. The last 100 have been warming. The warming has completely reversed the natural cooling, and it has occurred 70 times as fast.

            This is shown in the graph below. The blue curve is the natural trend of the Milankovitch cycle, which shows the interglacial maximum and the 7000 years of cooling. The red curve is the recent warming in the last 100 years.

            http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png

            That recent warming was caused by the CO2 greenhouse effect. There is no other plausible cause. The 40% increase in CO2 concentration was caused by humans.

            ——————

            You said:
            “Evidence is that the Medieval Warm Period centered on the 1200s was somewhat warmer than we are now”

            Peer reviewed science does not support “somewhat warmer than now”. See this informative video by potholer54 for an explanation of where this myth comes from (falsified and unsourced graphs) and what the actual evidence shows. The bottom line is this. It was warm during the MWP. Current paleo reconstructions show that it is much warmer today than it was during the MWP.

            23 — Medieval Warm Period — fact vs. fiction – YouTube
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4Yecsx_-s

            See also Mann (2008), in which the authors used more proxies rectified a few things based on some valid criticism. There have been no complaints about this updated version.

            Mann (2008) Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia
            http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252.full

            And this, from the PAGES 2k project. Paper is behind a pay wall.
            https://thinkprogress.org/most-comprehensive-paleoclimate-reconstruction-confirms-hockey-stick-e7ce8c3a2384#.e7war7u57

            More important than the history is that the history doesn’t matter. The mechanisms of warming during the MWP were completely different from the mechanisms today. There probably was a solar maximum during the MWP. Right now, however, the sun and global warming are going in opposite directions. The sun is causing cooling, but AGW is warming. Furthermore, the current warming is projected to increase significantly, another 2 C, by the end of this century. The sun is not, and cannot be, involved in that projected increase because the effects of sun cycles are not nearly so large – 0.1 C typically, 0.5 C at most (MWP).

            In short, the MWP is a red herring and has nothing to do with present warming.

            —————–

            You said:

            “So the contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide is less than 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit, or under 0.1 degree Centigrade”

            That is just the reductio ad absurdum of your previous false assumptions and calculations. The errors keep compounding with every multiplication. The actual measured anomaly of global average surface temperature is 1.0 C since the pre-industrial times and 1.3 C since 1910, when the aforementioned turnaround began. My numbers are confirmed by this graph of global average surface temperature anomalies relative to a baseline of the 20th century average. As I said previously, CO2 is primarily responsible for this increase in global average temperature because it is the only driver. Water vapor contributes to it phyically, but water vapor is not a driver.

            https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2016

            —————

            You said:

            “It took the now-famous Wikileaks “Climategate” to pry loose the data and expose their machinations. Yet despite the devastating blow these revelations should have to their credibility, the AGW “cause” has taken on a life of its own.”

            Climategate has been debunked by eight major investigations. There was no nefariious activity.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Inquiries_and_reports

            All of the so called “devastating” quotes were taken out of context. Some are explained in the above link. The most popular ones, concerning “Mike’s Nature trick” and “hide the decline” are also explained here.

            Clearing up misconceptions regarding ‘hide the decline’
            https://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm

            ——————

            In summary, my conclusions, based on cited science papers and articles, are this: CO2 is important. The CO2 greenhouse effect is the only significant forcing for the current global warming. Water vapor is an important greenhouse gas, but it is a feedback – it cannot be a forcing. Humans are responsible for increasing CO2 concentration 46% from its natural level. The current global average warming has been 1.3 C since 1910. This is a sharp reversal from the natural cooling trend of the Milankovitch cycle. The MWP is a red herring, not worth talking about. Climategate has been debunked.

            ===================

            Previous takedowns of your arguments by User cgs

            https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/05/did-global-warming-really-pause-during-the-2000s/525645/#comment-3303660738

            https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/05/did-global-warming-really-pause-during-the-2000s/525645/#comment-3304305167

      • Concerned

        “if all the countries abided by the Paris accords for the rest of the
        century, temperatures would be reduced by an unmeasurable .03 degrees.”

        That is a lie. “The Paris Agreement’s central aim is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius…”

        http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php

        That is compared with a mean IPCC projection of 3.1C without mitigation. The difference is 1.1C, so you are off by a factor of 37.

      • TheDudeofVoo

        The contributions of each additional ppm of CO2 have a diminishing return, getting progressively less and less … decreasing logarithmically.
        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/266c6c3dae2a8132b619a17cdb34e0212a1ecee3e60283500ef8186a6626a01f.jpg

        Callendar in 1938 knew it:
        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a1560494091878f6119028b6730f1333d086956e7ff433022163194723881dc4.jpg
        As did Plass, in 1956: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/14818a939aaa12c67b33e94ddd9b78c9b9cb76c3aa651fc26440045942b23bbf.jpg

        but there is no observational evidence that Mannkind’s further emissions of CO2 will cause any warming at all … in fact, there exists no observational evidence that Mannkind’s emissions of CO2 ever caused any warming.

        The only thing that ‘science’ can produce as ‘evidence’ that CO2 causes warming, is from computer models. Bear in mind, correlation does not show causation, and evidence of warming, however ample, does not show any evidence of the cause of the warming.

        CO2 has caused the Earf to warm… Past tense “caused” … Adding more, on top of the accumulated 280 ppmv or so, will have truly negligible further effects.