Tsi Academic Progress Report: Fill & Download for Free

It is the politicalization of climate science by the UN IPCC and alarmist scientists and not their ideas that are damaging the scientific community worldwide. It began when the Father of Climate Change Maurice Strong a multimillionaire Canadian socialist and oil man, not a scientist, organized the UN to redress imbalances of wealth globally under the banner of the environment. Cheap fossil fuel energy became the enemy with fear mongering dooms day predictions and new government carbon taxes became the weapon to change the world. The old theory of green house gases GHG warming the climate revived as it had been abandoned at the turn of the century. Although Co2 was only a trace amount of GHG it could be tied to the idea that the industrial revolution is the enemy of the environment an easy sell for a too gullible public.Recent IPCC leaders like Dr. Ottmar Endenhofer have admitted the glaring political bias of their work.The IPCC crusade caused many climate scientist to fudge historical data to support the fear mongering narrative of the politicians like Al Gore. The great civilizing benefits of the industrial revolution was turned on its head by Junior scientist like Michael Mann James Hansen who are guilty of manipulating data to advance public concern for fossil fuels. The most notorious and successful fudge of climate data was the infamous hockey stick graph of Michael Mann erasing the Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age to show unprecedented global warming beyond natural variation.Michael Mann A Disgrace to the Profession“ From all corners of the world, the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age clearly shows up in a variety of proxy indicators, proxies more representative of temperature than the inadequate tree rings used by Michael Mann.
What is disquieting about the `Hockey Stick' is not Mann's presentation of it originally. As with any paper, it would sink into oblivion if found to be flawed in any way. Rather it was the reaction of the greenhouse industry to it - the chorus of approval, the complete lack of critical evaluation of the theory, the blind acceptance of evidence which was so flimsy. The industry embraced the theory for one reason and one reason only - it told them exactly what they wanted to hear.
Proponents of the `Hockey Stick' should recall George Orwell's `Nineteen Eighty-Four', a black SF drama in which his fictional totalitarian regime used `memory holes' to re-invent past history [22]. In this age of instant communication, there is no `memory hole' big enough to overturn the historical truth about the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age.THE HOCKEY SCHTICKIf you can't explain the 'pause', you can't explain the cause..The rise and fall of the Hockey Stick and Mann-made global warming alarmA first-class summary of the rise and fall of Michael Mann's bogus Hockey Stick graph, and the Mann-made global warming alarm along with it, reblogged from A Skeptical Mind:The rise and fall of the Hockey StickThe rise of the so called Hockey Stick graph is pivotal to the story of the rise of the alarm about man made global warming.The fall of the Hockey Stick graph is pivotal to the rise of scepticism about man made global warming.Here is the story of the rise and fall of the Hockey Stick.The BackgroundA central and critical plank of the alarmist global warming case is that the current phase of warming that started in the late 19th century is unprecedented.Why is this claim so important?Because if a similar or greater warming phase has occurred in the very recent past, before human CO2 emissions had caused CO2 levels to rise, then clearly any such recent warming must have been natural and was not caused by CO2. And if any recent similar warming phase was natural then clearly the current phase of warming could also be a natural phenomena.If the current phase of warming could be natural then those arguing that it was primarily caused by human CO2 emissions would have to prove their hypothesis. And this is something they cannot do.The only “proof” that CO2 is currently forcing up global temperatures is the claim that the current warming is somehow unusual, unique and unnatural. That’s the total argument for CO2 forcing. Something unprecedented is happening to the climate and CO2 is the only candidate for what is causing this unique phenomena.Its certainly true that the well understood physics of CO2 in the atmosphere demonstrates (see “CO2 the basic facts“) that CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas and will have a warming impact. No one disputes that. The issue is what is the scale of impact that this CO2 warming is having on the overall climate system. Is the effect of the CO2 so big that it can drive the temperature of the whole planet up in a way that is big enough to actually alter the climate?This is a much harder question to answer because no one has a model of the total climate system that actually works and which verifiably produces even remotely accurate forecasts about climate trends.So without a working model of the total climate system the only way to “prove” that CO2 is driving climate change is to prove that something truly unique is happening to the climate, that there is unprecedented warming occurring, and and then propose man made CO2 change as the only candidate as the cause of this ‘unprecedented’ warming.The “problem” of the Medieval Warm PeriodUntil the 1990s there were many, many references in scientific and historical literature to a period labelled the Medieval Warm Period(MWP) lasting from about AD 800–1300. It was followed by a much cooler period termed the Little Ice Age. Based on both temperature reconstructions using proxy measures and voluminous historical references it was accepted that the Medieval Warm Period had been a period when global temperatures were a bit hotter than today’s temperatures. Until about the mid-1990s the Medieval Warm Period was for climate researchers an undisputed fact. The existence of the Medieval Warm Period was accepted without question and noted in the first progress report of the IPCC from 1990. On page 202 of that 1990 IPCC report there was the graphic 7c (see below), in which the Medieval Warm Period was portrayed as clearly warmer than the present.By the time of the second IPCC report in 1995 where for the first time CO2 forcing began to be proposed more prominently as a cause of serious alarm, the Medieval Warm Period was sidelined in the text and narrative. An important way that this was done in the report was to alter the diagram of recent climate history by simply shortening the time period it covered so that it now started after the Medieval Warm Period. All that was shown was the long slow recovery from the Little Ice Age to today’s temperatures, i.e. a long period of increasing temperatures. But clearly this was only a short term solution. The way that the Medieval Warm Period dominated the recent climate graph challenged the basic argument for CO2 forcing which was that the late 20th century climate was some how unique. As Jay Overpeck, an IPCC participant said in his email to Professor Deming, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”.In order to prove CO2 forcing the Medieval Warm Period had to be eliminated.The Rise of the Hockey StickBetween the 1995 second IPCC report and the 2001 third IPCC report there was a complete revision in the way that recent climate history was portrayed. The supporters of the theory that CO2 changes were driving temperatures up had succeeded in their goal of eliminating the Medieval Warm Period. This rewriting of climate history and the elimination of the Medieval Warm Period was achieved through the famous Hockey Stick graph.To understand the scale of the revision that had taken place compare the two graphs below.The one on the left is diagram 7c from page 202 of the 1990 IPCC report in which the Medieval Warm Period was portrayed as clearly warmer than the present. On the right is the Hockey Stick graph from the 2001 IPCC report in which the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age have all but disappeared and the recent climate history is dominated by a rapid temperature rise in the last 20th century.The first blow against the accepted understanding of climate history came in 1995 when the English climatologist Keith Briffa (based at the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia) published in the journal Nature a study with sensational results. According to his studies of tree rings in the Siberian Polar-Ural, there had never been a Medieval Warm Period and the 20th century suddenly appeared as the warmest of the last 1000 years. The most recent part of this study is known as the Yamal study, because of the name of the region it was done in, and it has recently been discredited – see here.Briffa’s work boldly proposed that the 20th Century had experienced the warmest climate of the millennium and this claim was now the central battlefield for the scientific argument about CO2 forcing. This of course ignored the Climatic Optimum (see Happy Holocene) between 5000 and 9000 years ago when temperatures were significantly higher than today but most people (and certainly the media and politicians) actually think that 5000 years is a long time ago so there was no need to undermine the Climatic Optimum in order to win wide public support for the CO2 forcing hypothesis. Hottest in the last 1000 years would do.Briffa’s work had an impact and laid the ground work but the real knock out blow that finally succeeded in eliminating the Medieval Warm Period was a paper published in 1998 in Nature by Mann, Bradley and Hughes entitled, “Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries” (you can download it here). This was the original peer reviewed hockey stick article.Michael Mann of the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, who was the primary author of the paper, had in one scientific coup overturned the whole of climate history. Using tree rings as a basis for assessing past temperature changes back to the year 1,000 AD, supplemented by other proxies from more recent centuries, Mann completely redrew climate history, turning the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age into non-events.In the new Hockey Stick diagram the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age have disappeared, to be replaced by a largely benign and slightly cooling linear trend in climate until 1900 AD after which the Mann’s new graph showed the temperature shooting up in the 20th century in an apparently anomalous and accelerating fashion.In every other science when such a drastic revision of previously accepted knowledge is promulgated, there is considerable debate and initial scepticism, the new theory facing a gauntlet of criticism and intense review. Only if a new idea survives that process does it become broadly accepted by the scientific peer group and the public at large.This never happened with Mann’s `Hockey Stick’. The coup was total, bloodless, and swift as Mann’s paper was greeted with a chorus of uncritical approval from the increasingly politically committed supporters of the CO2 greenhouse theory. Within the space of only 12 months, the new theory had become entrenched as a new orthodoxy. The ultimate consummation of the new theory came with the release of the draft of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC in 2000. Based solely on this new paper from a relatively unknown and young scientist the IPCC could now boldly state:“It is likely that the rate and duration of the warming of the 20th century is larger than any other time during the last 1,000 years. The 1990s are likely to have been the warmest decade of the millennium in the Northern Hemisphere, and 1998 is likely to have been the warmest year.”Overturning its own previous view in the 1995 report, the IPCC presented the `Hockey Stick’ as the new orthodoxy with hardly an apology or explanation for the abrupt U-turn since its 1995 report. The IPCC could show almost no supporting scientific justification because other than Mann’s Hockey Stick paper, and Briffa’s Siberian tree ring study there was little in the way of research confirming their new line.The Hockey Stick graph, the new orthodoxy, was blown up to a wall sized display and used as a back drop for the public launch of the 2001 IPCC report.Within months of the IPCC draft release, the long-awaited draft U.S. `National Assessment’ Overview document featured the `Hockey Stick’ as the first of many climatic graphs and charts in its report, affirming the crucial importance placed in it by the authors and by the active pro CO2 warming campaign at large. This was now not an esoteric theory about the distant past but rather the core foundation upon which the offensive on global warming was being mounted.Soon the Hockey Stick was everywhere and with it went the new simple and catchy campaigning slogans “its hotter now than the last 1000 years!“, “1998 was the hottest year for a 1000 years!”Not long after the 2001 IPCC report the Government of Canada sent the hockey stick to schools across the country, and its famous conclusion about the 1990s being the warmest decade of the millennium was the opening line of a pamphlet sent to every household in Canada to promote the Kyoto Protocol.Al Gore’s Oscar winning and hugely popular film “An Inconvenient Truth” was virtually built around the Hockey Stick (although Gore couldn’t resist tweaking it to make it look even more compelling by changing the way the graph data was displayed along the axis so that the temperature trend line it showed looked even steeper and starker).In the UK the Government announced that the DVD of the “An Inconvenient Truth” would be sent to every school in the country as a teaching aid.The Hockey Stick seemed to be carrying all before it. Dr Mann was promoted, given a central position in the IPCC and became a star of the media.And then it all went horribly wrong.The Fall of the Hockey StickIn the years immediately after the 2001 IPCC report it seemed as if the sudden adoption of the Hockey Stick model of the earth’s recent climate past had created a new orthodoxy which could not be challenged. Even when some scientists quietly worried that the new theory about the past climate had been adopted way too quickly or were unhappy about the way that satellite temperature readings didn’t seem to fit the Hockey Stick model or they noticed that new individual proxy studies still seemed to keep showing that the Medieval Warm Period was hotter than today, they mostly stayed silent. They didn’t want to be branded as ‘deniers‘ after all.Then an unlikely hero emerged in the shape of Stephen McIntyre a retired mineralogist from Toronto. McIntyre is not a scientist or an economist but he does know a lot about statistics, maths and data analysis and he is a curious guy. He didn’t start off as a climate sceptic but was just someone interested in the nuts and bolts of these new and apparently exciting ideas about climate change, and he was curious about how the Hockey Stick graph was made and wanted to see if the raw data looked like hockey sticks too. In the Spring of 2003, Stephen McIntyre requested the raw data set used in the Hockey Stick paper from Mann. After some delay Mann arranged provision of a file which he said was the one used in the original 1998 Hockey Stick paper and McIntyre began to look at how Mann had processed all the data from the numerous different proxy studies cited as his source material and how they had been combined to produce the average that was the basis of the famous Hockey Stick shape.About this time Steve McIntyre linked up with Ross McKitrick a Canadian economist specialising in environmental economics and policy analysis. Together McIntyre and McKitrick began to dig down into the data that Mann had used in his paper and the statistical techniques used to create the single blended average used to make the Hockey Stick. They immediately began to find problems. Some of these problems just seemed the sort of errors that caused by sloppy data handling concerningAbove are two separate temperature reconstructions running from 1400AD, both use tree rings, one is from California and one is from Arizona. Both were were part of the data used by Mann and included in the Hockey Stick average. The top one shows a temperature up tick at the end in the 20th century like the final Hockey Stick, the other shows a relatively flat temperature for the 20th century. Mann’s statistical trick gives the top series, the one with the desired Hockey Stick shape a weighting in the data that is 390 times that of the bottom series just because it has a Hockey Stick bend at the end. This means that whatever data is fed into Mann’s statistical manipulations is almost bound to produce a Hockey Stick shape whether it is actually in the data or not.McIntyre and McKitrick then took their critical analysis a step further. When you apply a statistical manipulation to a set of data it is important to make sure that what you doing is not actually distorting the data so much that you are really just creating something new, spurious and false in the numbers. One way to do this is to take the statistical manipulation in question and apply it to several examples of random numbers (sometimes this is called a Red Noise test). To simplify, you use random numbers as input data, then apply the statistical technique you are testing to the random numbers then if the techniques are sound you should get a set of random numbers coming out the other end of the calculations. There should be no false shape imparted to the random noise by the statistical techniques themselves, if what you get out is random numbers then this would prove that the techniques you were testing were not adding anything artificial to the numbers. This is what McIntyre and McKitrick did using the techniques that Mann had used in the Hockey Stick paper. And the results were staggering.What they found was that 99% of the time you could process random data using Mann’s techniques and it would generate a Hockey Stick shape. This meant that Mann’s claim that the Hockey Stick graph represented an accurate reconstruction of the past climate was in tatters.Here are some examples. Below are eight graphs. Seven were made by processing random numbers using Mann’s techniques. The eighth is the actual Hockey Stick chart from Mann’s paper. See if you can spot which is which.McIntyre and McKitrick submitted a letter to Nature about the serious flaws they had uncovered in the methodology used in the Hockey Stick paper. After a long (8-month) reviewing process Nature notified them that they would not publish it. They concluded it could not be explained in the 500-word limit they were prepared to give McIntyre and McKitrick, and one of the referees said he found the material was quite technical and unlikely to be of interest to the general readers!Instead of publishing anything from McIntyre and McKitrick explaining the serious errors that they had found Nature allowed Mann to make a coy correction in an on-line Supplement (but not in the printed text itself) where he revealed the nonstandard method he had used, and added the unsupported claim that it did not affect the results.Eventually in 2003, McIntyre and McKitrick published an article entitled “Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series” in the journal Energy and Environment raising concerns about what they had found in Manns Hockey Stick paper. By this point following further work analysing Mann’s paper McIntyre and McKitrick showed that the data mining procedure did not just pull out a random group of proxies, instead it pulled out a single eccentric group of bristlecone pine chronologies published by Graybill and Idso in 1993 called the Sheep Mountain series.The original authors of the bristlecone study have always stressed that these trees are not proper climate proxies, their study was not trying to do a climate reconstruction and that they were surprised that Mann included it in the Hockey Stick data set. McIntyre and McKitrick had discovered that just removing this odd series from Mann’s proxy set and then applying Mann’s own eccentric statistical averaging caused the Hockey Stick shape to disappear. This revolutionary new model of the recent climate past was that fragile and it revealed the Hockey Stick graph as just a carefully worked artificial creation.In the graph below the dotted line is the original Hockey Stick chart as published by Mann and as adopted and promoted by the IPCC. The solid line shows the past temperature reconstruction if the data used by Mann is averaged using the correct statistical analysis techniques rather than Mann’s unconventional ones. As can be seen the familiar Medieval Warm Period re-emerges and the 1990s cease to be the hottest of the millennium, that title is now claimed by the early 1400s.In doing this research McIntyre and McKitrick had legitimately accessed Mann’s public college web site server in order to get a lot of the source material, and whilst doing this they found the data that provoked them to look at the bristlecone series in a folder entitled “Censored”. It seems that Mann had done this very experiment himself and discovered that the climate graph loses its hockey stick shape when the bristlecone series are removed. In so doing he discovered that the hockey stick was not an accurate chart of the recent global climate pattern, it is an artificial creation that hinges on a flawed group of US proxies that are not even valid climate indicators. But Mann did not disclose this fatal weakness of his results, and it only came to light because of McIntyre and McKitrick’’s laborious efforts.You can download McKitrick’ss own account of the whole Hockey Stick saga here and this web page compiled by McIntyre and McKitrick has a list of links and documents relating to the Hockey Stick controversy.Following the publication of McIntyre and McKitrick’s critique of Mann’s work there was an immediate counter attack by some climatologists who had worked closely with Mann in the past. The attack on McIntyre and McKitrick’s critique of Mann’s work really boiled down to saying that of course the Hockey Stick disappeared if you stopped using Mann’s techniques and that you should carry on using Mann’s techniques and then you could get the Hockey Stick back!Eventually a US senate committee of inquiry was set up under the chairmanship of Edward Wegman a highly respected Professor of mathematics and statistics and in 2006 his report was published. You can download it here.The report examined the background to Mann’s Hockey Stick paper, the paper itself, the critique of it by McIntyre and McKitrick and took evidence from all the key players. Interestingly Wegman’s committee commissioned some original research into how the small world of climatology actually worked. The study of the social networking of the paleoclimatology world showed how closed it was and how often a small group of scientists both co-wrote and peer reviewed each others papers. For work that depended so much on making statistical claims about trends it was noted that it was surprising that no statisticians ever seemed to be involved in either the research work itself or its peer review.The key finding in the WEgman Report was that “Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 [the technical name of Mann's original Hockey Stick paper]”The other conclusions of the Wegman Report are also very interesting; It listed the following conclusions:Conclusion 1. The politicization of academic scholarly work leads to confusing public debates. Scholarly papers published in peer reviewed journals are considered the archival record of research. There is usually no requirement to archive supplemental material such as code and data. Consequently, the supplementary material for academic work is often poorly documented and archived and is not sufficiently robust to withstand intense public debate. In the present example there was too much reliance on peer review, which seemed not to be sufficiently independent.Conclusion 2. Sharing of research materials, data, and results is haphazard and often grudgingly done. We were especially struck by Dr. Mann’s insistence that the code he developed was his intellectual property and that he could legally hold it personally without disclosing it to peers. When code and data are not shared and methodology is not fully disclosed, peers do not have the ability to replicate the work and thus independent verification is impossible.Conclusion 3. As statisticians, we were struck by the isolation of communities such as the paleoclimate community that rely heavily on statistical methods, yet do not seem to be interacting with the mainstream statistical community. The public policy implications of this debate are financially staggering and yet apparently no independent statistical expertise was sought or used.Conclusion 4. While the paleoclimate reconstruction has gathered much publicity because it reinforces a policy agenda, it does not provide insight and understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change except to the extent that tree ring, ice cores and such give physical evidence such as the prevalence of green-house gases. What is needed is deeper understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change.Generally the response of the IPCC, the supporters of the CO2 hypothesis and the broader coalition of climate campaigners to all this was a cross between a sneer and a yawn, and the Hockey Stick continued to be used widely as a campaigning and propaganda tool.It is still being used today.In 2008 the BBC paid for a large truck to tour central London displaying a giant version of Mann’s Hockey Stick as part of the promotion of its very pro CO2 warming mini series called “Climate Wars”.http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca...New and past climate research from across the Southern Hemisphere including Australia demolishes Mann’s HOCKEY STICK data trick. The IPCC also erased the graph,Here are a selected number of peer reviewed science ABSTRACTS with their full texts below covering the Southern Hemisphere.·ABSTRACT: The Little Ice Age climate of New Zealand reconstructed from Southern Alps cirque glaciers: a synoptic type approach, 2014.·ABSTRACT: Tropical rainfall over the last two millennia: evidence for a low-latitude hydrologic seesaw, 2017.·ABSTRACT: Cold conditions in Antarctica during the Little Ice Age — Implications for abrupt climate change mechanisms 2017·ABSTRACT: Little Ice Age Climate near Beijing, China, Inferred from Historical and Stalagmite Records·ABSTRACT: Evidence for Little Ice Age in Antarctica, 2017.·ABSTRACT: How climate change impacted the collapse of the Ming dynasty Nov. 2014·ABSTRACT: Extreme cold winter events in southern China during AD 1650–2000, 2012.·ABSTRACT:Climate extremes revealed by Chinese historical documents over the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River in winter 1620Michael Mann is uniformly repudiated by the science community as “a disgrace to the profession” because of his fudged data chart. He is just one of many who besmeeched the reputation of the climate science community. Lawyer Mark Steyn compiled a book of > 100 leading climate scientists who in their own words repudiated the Mann data fudge.Now there are dozens of peer reviewed studies with extensive references confirming the global reach of the Medieval ‘Warming period and the Little Ice Age. Here is one example - CURRENT LONG-TERM NEGATIVE AVERAGE ANNUAL ENERGY BALANCE OF THE EARTH LEADS TO THE NEW LITTLE ICE AGEby Habibullo ABDUSSAMATOVPulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences,Saint Petersburg, RussiaOriginal scientific paper DOI:10.2298/TSCI140902018A The average annual decreasing rate of the total solar irradiance is increasing from the 22nd to the 23rd and 24th cycles, because the Sun since the 1990 is in the phase decline of quasi-bicentennial variation. The portion of the solar energy absorbed by the Earth is decreasing. Decrease in the portion of total solar irradiance absorbed by the Earth since 1990 remains uncompensated by the Earth's radiation into space at the previous high level over a time interval determined by the thermal inertia of the Ocean. A long-term negative deviation of the Earth's average annual energy balance from the equilibrium state is dictating corresponding variations in it's the energy state. As a result, the Earth will have a negative average annual energy balance also in the future. This will lead to the beginning of the decreasing in the Earth's temperature and of the epoch of the Little Ice Age after the maximum phase of the 24th solar cycle approximately since the end of 2014. The influence of the consecutive chain of the secondary feedback effects (the increase in the Bond albedo and the decrease in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to cooling) will lead to an additional reduction of the absorbed solar energy and reduce the greenhouse effect. The start of the total solar irradiance Grand Minimum is anticipated in the solar cycle 27 ± 1 in 2043 ± 11 and the beginning of the phase of deep cooling of the 19th Little Ice Age for the past 7,500 years around 2060 ± 11. Key words: energy balance, Grand Minimum, climate, Little Ice Age, feedback effects Introduction The average annual balance of incoming and outgoing energy for the Earth (on the outer layers of the atmosphere) in the equilibrium state determines the stability of the climate. The main reason for long-term deviations from the equilibrium state is the quasi-bicentennial cyclical variation of the total solar irradiance (TSI) and the absorbed of the Earth its portion due to the thermal inertia of the Ocean. Thereby, the climatic system is affected by quasi-bicentennial cyclic external actions connected with corresponding variations of the TSI. The basic features of climate variations are connected, in particular, with fluctuations of the power and velocity of both the atmospheric circulations and oceans currents, including the thermal current of Gulfstream driven by the heat accumulated by oceans water in the tropics. They are determined by common action of bicentennial and eleven-year cyclic variations of TSI. Significant climate variations during the past 7.5 millennia indicate that bicentennial quasi-periodic TSI variationsdefine the corresponding cyclic mechanism of climatic changes from global warming to Little Ice Age and set the timescales of practically all physical processes that occur in the Sun-Earth system [1-3]. The observed long-term decline of TSI since 1990 and upcoming deep cooling will, first of all, essentially affect climate-dependent natural resources and hence the economic brunches closely connected with the state of the climate. The upcoming global cooling will dictate the direction of variations of different natural processes on the Earth's surface and in the atmosphere as well as the change for the worse of conditions for creating material and financial resources of the society. For practical purposes, the most important task is to determine the tendencies of expected climate changes for the next 50-100 years until the middle and the end of the 21th century.A cyclical decrease of the portion TSI absorbed by the Earth remains uncompensated by high level of radiation into space at the previous same level over a time interval 20 ± 8 year that is determined by the thermal inertia of the World Ocean [5]. That is why the debit and credit parts of the average annual energy balance of the Earth as a planet (eq. 2) always deviate from the equilibrium (E 0), which is the basic state of the climatic system. Long-term deviation of the average annual energy balance of the Earth from the equilibrium state (excess of incoming TSI accumulated by the Ocean E > 0 or its deficiency E < 0) dictates a corresponding change of the Earth's energy state and hence the climate. As a result, the Earth will gradually warm up or cool down, respectively, what imply an upcoming climate variation and its amplitude with account forecasted quasi-bicentennial variations of the TSI and the subsequent feedback effects (Bond albedo and greenhouse gases: H2O, which is the most important, and CO2). That is why the Earth's climate will change in a quasi-bicentennial cycle every 200 ± 70 years from theglobal warming to the Little Ice Age. My definition of the Little Ice Age with quasi-bicentennial cycle differs from an often mentioned in the literature long period of global cooling in the 14 to 19 centuries, which have been interrupted by several quasi-bicentennial warming periods. Deep cooling associated with Wolf (~1280-1340), Sporer (~1450-1550), Maunder (~1645-1715), and Dalton (~1790-1830) Grand Minima cannot be regarded as a single Little Ice Age. At the same time, insignificant more long-term variations of the average annual TSI entering the Earth's upper atmosphere due to changes in both the shape of the Earth's orbit, inclination of the Earth's axis relative to its orbital plane, and precession, known as the astronomical Milankovitch cycles [6], together with the subsequent non-linear feedback effects, lead to the Big Glacial Periods (with the period of about 100,000 years). These variations of the TSI cause significant temperature fluctuations from the global warming to the Big Glacial Period, as well as of atmospheric concentration of the greenhouse gases. Antarctic ice cores provide clear evidence of a close coupling between variations of the temperature and atmospheric concentration of the CO2 during at least the past 800,000 years induced by Milankovitch cycles. According to the ice core data drilled near Vostok site, Antarctica: the peaks of the CO2 concentration have never preceded the warming, but on the contrary always took place 800 ± 400 years after them, being their consequences [7, 8]. Since according to Henry law, warm liquid absorbs less gas and hence more CO2 remains in the atmosphere. Considerable changes of the content of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are always governed by the corresponding temperature fluctuations of the World Ocean. The amount of natural flows of water vapor and CO2 from the Ocean and land to the atmosphere and from the atmosphere to the Ocean and land exceeds many times the anthropogenic discharges of these substances into the atmosphere [9]. The overall content of the CO2 in the Ocean is 50 times higher than in the atmosphere, and even a weak breath of the Ocean can change dramatically the CO2 level in the atmosphere. There is no evidence that CO2 is a major factor in the warming although CO2 has some warming influence but the Sun plays a far greater role in the whole scheme of things. Natural causes play the most important role in climate variations rather than human activity since natural factors are substantially more powerful. [emphasis added].The current trend decreasing TSI suggests starting the new Little Ice Age epoch Herschel was the first to report correlation between a level of solar activity and a climate after his discovery of inverse interrelation between a wheat price and a level of cyclic variations of solar activity [1]. During high levels of solar activity the wheat production increased resulting in a drop of prices. Nobody could explain the nature of this phenomenon. Later was discovered interconnection between clearly determined periods of significant variations of the solar activity during the last millennium and corresponding deep climatic changes in both phase and amplitude [2]. During each of 18 deep Maunder-type minima of solar activity with a quasi-bicentennial cycle found in the preceding 7.5 millennia, deep cooling was observed, while during the periods of high maximum warming [3]. Our studies have shown (fig. 1) that a physical nature of these phenomena is directly connected with corresponding variations of TSI since cyclic variations of the solar activity and TSI are synchronized and inter-correlated in both phase and amplitude [10-13]. The Sun provides the largest TSI at the maximum of solar activity. Thus, significant climate variations during at least the past 800,000 years indicate that quasi-bicentennial and 100,000 years cyclic variations of the TSI entering the Earth's upper atmosphere (taking into account their direct and subsequent non-linear secondary feedback influences) are the main fundamental cause of corresponding alternations of climate variations from global warming to the Little Ice Age and Big Glacial Period. The quasi-bicentennial variations of the TSI set the timescales of practically all physical processes taking place in the Sun-Earth system and are the key to understanding cyclic changes in both the nature and the society. Since 1990 the Sun is in the quasi-bicentennial phase of decline, and we have been observing a decrease in both eleven-year and quasi-bicentennial the components of the TSI and the portion of its energy absorbed by the Earth. The 11-year component of TSI in the current cycle has decreased by more 0.6 W/m2 with respect to cycle 23 (fig. 1). Decrease of the TSI from the 22nd cycle to the 23rd and 24th cycles is increasing: an average annual decrease rate in the 22nd cycle was ~0.007 W/m2 per year, while in the 23rd cycle it already became ~0.02 W/m2 per year. The current increasing rate of an average annual TSI decline is almost 0.1 W/m2 per year and this will continue in the 25th cycle. The average cyclical values of the TSI were also lower by ~0.15 W/m2 in the 23rd cycle than in the 22nd cycle. The value of TSI at the minimum between 23/24 cycles (1365.27 0.02 W/m2 ) was lower by ~0.23 and by ~0.30 W/m2 than at the minima between 22/23 and 21/22 cycles, respectively (fig. 1).What we are seeing now in the solar cycle 24 and the quasi-bicentennial cycle and also at stability of temperature (fig. 2) has been predicted by me in 2003-2007, long before the cycle 24 began [10-13]. These forecasts have been confirmed both by the Sun itself and by stabilization of both the temperature and the Ocean level for the past 17 years which are the result of TSI fall since 1990 and a sign of the upcoming beginning Grand Minimum of TSI. Every time the TSI experienced its quasi-bicentennial peak up to ~0.5% [17] a global warming began with a time delay of 20 ± 8 years defined by the thermal inertia of the Ocean, and each deep quasi-bicentennial descent in the TSI caused a Little Ice Age (together with the subsequent non-linear feedback effects). All eighteen periods of significant climate changes found during the last 7,500 years were entirely caused by corresponding quasi-bicentennial variations of TSI together with the subsequent feedback effects, which always control and totally determine cyclic mechanism of climatic changes from global warming to Little Ice Age. Observed decrease of the TSI portion absorbed by the Earth since 1990 has not been compensated by decrease of its average annual energy emitted into space which practically remains on the same high level during 20 ± 8 years due to thermal inertia of the Ocean. The Earth as a planet will continue to have a negative average annual energy balance in the future cycles25-28 because the Sun is moving to the Grand Minimum. Gradual consumption of the solar energy accumulated by the Ocean during the whole XX century will to begin decrease of global temperature after 20 ± 8 years due to the long-term negative average annual balance of the energy incoming and emitted by the Earth into space. As a result should expect the beginning of a stable temperature decrease and of the epoch of the Little Ice Age after the maximum phase of the solar cycle 24 approximately since the end of 2014. The direct impact of the TSI variations on the climate changes is always additionally (with some time-lag) enhanced due to the secondary feedback effects: non-linear changes in Bond albedo (additional changes of TSI fraction being absorbed) and opposite changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere additional variations of the greenhouse effect influence. The Bond albedo increases up to the highest level during a deep cooling and decreases to the minimum during a warming, while the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere varies inversely since their variations are mostly defined by the temperature of the Ocean. Variations in the parameters of the Earth's surface and atmosphere generate successive non-linear changes in the temperature due to multiple repetitions of such causal cycle of the secondary feedback effects, even if the TSI subsequently remains unchanged over a certain period of time, as in the late 20th century. The subsequent increase of the Bond albedo (in particular, because of increasing surface of snow and ice coverage) and decrease in the content of greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor in the surface air, as well as CO2 and other gases) in the atmosphere due to cooling will lead to an additional reduction of the absorbed portion of solar energy and reduce the influence of the greenhouse effect. These changes will lead to a chain of recurrent drops in the Earth's temperature, which can be comparable to or surpass the influence of the direct effect of the TSI decrease in a bicentennial cycle. The start of the Grand Minimum of TSI is anticipated approximately in cycle 27 ± 1 approximately in 2043 ± 11 and the beginning of the phase of deep cooling of the 19th Little Ice Age (of the Maunder Minimum type) in the past 7,500 years approximately in 2060 ± 11, with possible duration of 45-65 years (fig. 3).Even insignificant long-term TSI variations may have serious consequences for the climate of the Earth and other planets of the Solar System. Warming on the Mars [18] and other planets was observed in the 20th century practically simultaneously, that indicated the season of solar summer and alternation of climate conditions throughout the Solar System. By analogy with the seasons on the Earth there is also a similar alternation of climatic conditions in the Solar System, dictated by the quasi-bicentennial cycle variation of the TSI. From this point of view, after the maximum phase of solar cycle 24 (approximately at the end of 2014), after the season of solar summer in our Solar System as a whole we expect beginning of a season solar autumn, and then, approximately in 2060 ± 11, beginning of a season of solar winter of the quasi-bicentennial solar cycle. Sensitivity of climate to the carbon dioxide abundance drops with the increase of water vapor content Water plays an essential role in the greenhouse effect. The volume concentration of the water vapor in the atmosphere in contrast to that of CO2 strongly depends on the height (fig. 4). The water vapor has its maximum concentration in the surface layer. Long-term small rise of TSI leads to increase of a temperature which according to the Clausius-Clapeyron relation results leads to increase of water evaporation rate. This leads to substantial changes in the transfer of thermal flow of long wave radiation of the Earth's surface by the water vapor. As a result, the climate sensitivity to increasing content of carbon dioxide decreases with significant growth of water vapor concentration in the surface layer. Negligible effect of the human-induced carbon dioxide emission on the atmosphere has insignificant consequences. Convection, evaporation and condensation together with the greenhouse effect participates in the transfer of thermal flow the Earth's surface As early as in 1908 Wood made two identical boxes (mini-greenhouses) of the black cardboard: one of them was covered with a glass plate, while another with the plate made of rock salt crystals which are almost transparent in the infrared part of the spectrum [20]. The temperature in both green-houses simultaneously reached ~54.4 C. However, the plate made of rock salt is transparent at long wavelengths and, according to the commonly adopted theory of the greenhouse effect this cover should not produce it at all. Wood is established that in the greenhouse, where the heat is blocked from all sides and there is no air exchange with the atmosphere, the radiative component is negligibly small compared to the convective component. Heat accumulated in the greenhouse only slightly depends on its cover transparency to the infrared radiation. Thus convection, evaporation and condensation together with the greenhouse effect participate in the transfer of thermal flow of long wave radiation of the Earth's surface to the atmosphere. Powerful volcanic eruptions lead only to short-term cooling periods The volcanic eruptions increase the number of solid particles and gases in the lower stratosphere. Their scattering, screening and partial absorption of the incident solar radiation decrease the portion of TSI reaching the surface which can result in short-term climate cooling. However, these changes are not long-term because of the limited lifetime of volcanic particles in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is able to self-cleaning and gradual increase of its transparency up to its previous level over a time span from 6 months to a few years. The role of volcanic eruptions in climate variations cannot be long-term and determinant. Future deep cooling can become one of the major risks in the development of hydrocarbon deposits in the Arctic Intense interest in the development of the Arctic is stimulated by UN experts predicted further melting of Arctic ice due to warming. This could open up new areas of the shelf, making them available for deep-water drilling. However due to the beginning of the phase of deep cooling of the Little Ice Age in the middle of this century would be almost impossible to exploit offshore fields, pump oil and gas in the tens to hundreds of kilometers from the coast. In the future a fuel and energy complex will not be of easy oil and gas in the Arctic. So that long-term forecasts portend to fuel and energy complex even more complex difficult working conditions and not only in the Arctic. Physical interconnection between the duration and power of the 11-year solar cycle Previously, it has been found that the duration of the 11-year solar cycle (fig. 5) is a possible indicator of climate change, because there is a correlation between the duration of the cycle and the Earth's surface temperature in the Northern Hemisphere [21]. We try toestablish why it could happen. For this purpose, we have constructed a graph showing interconnections between the duration of solar cycle and its power W the average level of the index of solar activity throughout the cycle (fig. 6). Average level of the index of solar activity throughout the cycle is W = SWDt/SDt. Here W sunspot number,t the time interval between successive observations throughout the cycle. Figure 6 is showing physical dependence power of the 11-year cycle solar activity from its duration. It is obvious that such an interconnection exists also between the cycle TSI variation and its duration. Therefore, the previously observed dependence of [21] can be easily explained of established by us existence interconnections between the duration of the 11-year solar cycle and its power. Only the average weighted level of the cycle both solar activity and TSI may allow objectively and quantitatively determine the average level of the relative power of the 11-year cycle, as well as to predict their impact on the processes occurring in the Sun-Earth system. Conclusions Long-term deviation of the average annual energy balance of the Earth from the equilibrium state (excess of incoming TSI accumulated by oceans or its deficiency) practically determines a corresponding change of the energy state of the Earth-atmosphere system and, hence, a forthcoming climate variation and its amplitude. Long-term cyclic variations of the total energy of solar radiation entering the upper layers of the Earth's atmosphere are the main fundamental cause of corresponding climate variations. The Sun is controlling and practically totally determining the mechanism of quasi-bicentennial cyclic alternations of climate changes from warming to Little Ice Age and set corresponding time-scales for practically all physical processes taking place in the Sun-Earth system. The current long practically stable levels of World Ocean and of temperature additionally reflects the current state of global warming during past 17 years, which are under the direct control of the quasi-bicentennial decrease of TSI. Approximately in the end of 2014 we begin the descent into 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7,500 years [22, 23]. Early understanding of reality of the upcoming global cooling and physical mechanisms responsible for it directly determines a choice of adequate and reliable measures which will allow the mankind, in particular, population of countries situated far from the equator, to adapt to the future global cooling. Pictures of the frozen Thames and a historical study of the effects of recently deep cooling in the period of Maunder minimum are warning about the serious alarm to the future of energy security humanity. Mankind since the middle of current century will meet with the same very difficult times as well as of change for the worse conditions for creating material and financial resources of the society. The most reasonable way to fight against the coming Little Ice Age is to work out a complex of special steps aimed at support of economic growth and energy-saving production in order to adapt mankind to forthcoming period of deep cooling which will last approximately until the beginning the 22nd century. The mathematical modelingof climate processes without its a fundamental modernization and also without the use of the quasi-bicentennial variations of the TSI will not allow to obtain significantly more reliable results [24]. The most reliable method for accurately predicting the depth and time of the coming Little Ice Age is to study the long-term variations of the effective global parameter: an average annual energy balance in the budget of the Earth-atmosphere system in the income and expenditure of thermal power. References [1] Herschel, W., Observations Tending to Investigate the Nature of the Sun, in order to Find the Causes or Symptoms of its Variable of Light and Heat; with Remarks on the Use that May Possibly Be Drawn from Solar Observations, Phil. Trans. R. Soc., 91 (1801), Apr., pp. 265-318 [2] Eddy, J. A., The Maunder Minimum, Science, 192 (1976), 4245, pp. 1189-1202 [3] Borisenkov, E. P., et al., Climate Oscillations of the Last Millennium (Kolebaniya Klimata za Poslednee Tisyaceletie, in Russian), Gidrometeoizdat, Leningrad, SSSR, 1988 [4] Abdussamatov, H. I., Bicentennial Decrease of the Solar Constant Leads to the Earth's Unbalanced Heat Budget and Deep Climate Cooling, Kinematics and Physics of Celestial Bodies, 28 (2012), 2, pp. 62-68 [5] Abdussamatov, H. I., et al., Modeling of the Earth's Planetary Heat Balance with Electrical Circuit Analogy, J. Electromagn. Anal. Appl., 2 (2010), 3, pp. 133-138 [6] Milankovitch, M., Canon of Insolation and the Ice Age Problem. With Introduction and Biographical Essay by Nikola Pantic (Kanon der Erdbestrahlungen und seine Anwendung auf das Eiszeitenproblem, in German), Alven Global, 1998 [7] Petit, J. R., et al., Climate and Atmospheric History of the Past 420,000 Years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica, Nature, 399 (1999), 6735, pp. 429-436 [8] Pedro, J. B., et al., Tightened Constraints on the Time-Lag between Antarctic Temperature and CO2 During the Last Deglaciation, Clim. Past., 8 (2012), 4, pp. 1213-1221 [9] Nigmatulin, R. I., The Ocean: Climate, Resources, and Natural Disasters, Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 80 (2010), 4, pp. 338-349 [10] Abdussamatov, H. I., About the Long-Term Coordinated Variations of the Activity, Radius, Total Irradiance of the Sun and the Earth's Climate, Proceedings, IAU Symposium, Cambridge, UK, 2004, Vol. 223, pp. 541-542 [11] Abdussamatov, H. I., Long-Term Variations of the Integral Radiation Flux and Possible Temperature Changes in the Solar Core, Kinematics and Physics of Celestial Bodies, 21 (2005), 6, pp. 328-332 [12] Abdussamatov, H. I., Decrease of the Solar Radiation Flux and Drastic Fall of the Global Temperature on the Earth in the Middle of the XXI Century, Izv. Krym. Astrofiz. Observ., 103 (2007), 4, pp. 292-298 [13] Abdussamatov, H. I., Optimal Prediction of the Peak of the Next 11-Year Activity Cycle and of the Peaks of Several Succeeding Cycles on the Basis of Long-Term Variations in the Solar Radius or Solar Constant, Kinematics and Physics of Celestial Bodies, 23 (2007), 3, pp. 97-100 [14] Frohlich, C., Solar Constant, 2013, http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant [15] ***, SIDC Solar Influences Data Analysis Center, 2014, Sunspot Number | SILSO [16] ***, HadCRUT3, Global surface temperature [17] Shapiro, A. I., et al., A New Approach to the Long-Term Reconstruction of the Solar Irradiance Leads to Large Historical Solar Forcing, Astron. Astrophys., 529 (2011), A67, pp. 1-8 [18] ***, Odyssey Studies Changing Weather and Climate on Mars. The Changing South Polar Cap of Mars: 1999-2005. MGS MOC Release No. MOC2-1151, 13 July 2005. Mars Global Surveyor [19] Abdussamatov, H. I., The Sun Dictates the Climate, Fourth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-4), ppt-presentation, Chicago, USA, 2010, Habibullo Abdussamatov, ICCC4 [20] Wood, R. W., Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse, Philosophical Magazine, 17 (1909), pp. 319-320 [21] Friis-Christensen, E., Lassen, K., Length of the Solar Cycle: an Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate, Science, 254 (1991), 5032, pp. 698-700 [22] Abdussamatov, H. I., 2014 the Beginning of the New Little Ice Age, Ninth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-9) (2014), ppt-presentation, Las Vegas, Nev., USA,Paper submitted: September 2, 2014 Paper revised: November 4, 2014 Paper accepted: December 2, 2014http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/(X(1)A(O911W9Dm0gEkAAAANjcxNWQ2NGEtM2ExNy00MTkwLWI3YTgtYTQ1N2QzMzI1NzgxAg7CGrxyf6_S075rvy0gkboWe-c1))/img/doi/0354-9836/2015/0354-98361500018A.pdfAbdussamatov, 2015 SummaryA long-term negative deviation of the Earth’s average annual energy balance from the equilibrium state is dictating corresponding variations in it’s the energy state. As a result, the Earth will have a negative average annual energy balance also in the future. This will lead to the beginning of the decreasing in the Earth’s temperature and of the epoch of the Little Ice Age after the maximum phase of the 24-th solar cycle approximately since the end of 2014.The influence of the consecutive chain of the secondary feedback effects (the increase in the Bond albedo and the decrease in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to cooling) will lead to an additional reduction of the absorbed solar energy and reduce the greenhouse effect. The start of the TSI’s Grand Minimum is anticipated in the solar cycle 27±1 in 2043±11 and the beginning of the phase of deep cooling of the 19th Little Ice Age for the past 7,500 years around 2060±11.Thus, the long term variations of the solar constant (allowing for their direct and secondary impacts, with the latter being due to feedback effects) are the major and essential cause of climate changes because the Earth’s climate variation is a function of longterm imbalance between the solar radiation energy incoming into the upper layers of the Earth’s atmosphere and Earth’s total energy outgoing back to space.Full peer reviewed paper in pdf published by Thermal ScienceAbdussamatov, H.: Current Long-Term Negative Average Annual ... THERMAL SCIENCE: Year 2015, Vol. 19, Suppl. 2, pp. S279-S288http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/(X(1)A(O911W9Dm0gEkAAAANjcxNWQ2NGEtM2ExNy00MTkwLWI3YTgtYTQ1N2QzMzI1NzgxAg7CGrxyf6_S075rvy0gkboWe-c1))/img/doi/0354-9836/2015/0354-98361500018A.pdf

Actually abundant science already exists which potentially discredits the theory of AGW. Much of it involves the science regarding the primary player in this theory-CO2.There are numerous physicists who believe the theory of AGW is a violation of Newton’s 2nd law of thermodynamics in that a cooler object (atmospheric CO2) can not warm a warmer body (the earth’s surface).John Murphy's answer to Who thinks climate change is a hoax?“In the fictitious fiddled physics of climatology the incorrect assumption is made that pencils of radiation from the colder atmosphere can transfer thermal energy into a warmer surface, thus creating an independent process that would decrease entropy. Nature does not permit this…because radiation does not compound like that, and radiation from the colder atmosphere cannot be added to solar radiation in Stefan Boltzmann calculations because the Second Law [of thermodynamics] cannot be violated.” itsnotco2“The ‘greenhouse effect’ is simply the temperature difference between the actual surface temperature and theoretical value of what the temperature would be without the insulation effect from the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect can easily be calculated from geophysical data that has been provided by weather satellites since their launch in late 1978. ‘Climate change’ is entirely based on the assumption that the rapid increase in global CO2 emissions is enhancing the greenhouse effect resulting in catastrophic global warming; but somehow no one ever bothered to verify this conjecture by actually calculating the greenhouse effect! The 1980 value for the greenhouse effect is 35.56°C and the value for 2010 is 0.14°C lower at 35.42°C. This demonstrates that the 70.9% increase in global CO2 emissions since 1980 did not in any way enhance the greenhouse effect as has been falsely claimed since 1988 when this global warming debacle first began.” A Basic and Powerful Analysis of Greenhouse Effect Fallacies“It may be deduced that none of the radiation from a cooler body (and only a portion of the radiation from a warmer body) has any thermodynamic effect on the other body. All such radiation from a cooler source is rejected in some way, and it can be deduced that resonance and scattering occurs without any conversion to thermal energy. The radiation continues in another direction until it strikes a cooler target, which could be in space.” Radiated Energy and the Second Law of ThermodynamicsThis fact is totally ignored by climate scientists who claim that cooler CO2 (and H2O) molecules re-radiate some of the solar IR radiation they receive from earth back to the earth, which then makes the earth warmer. As mentioned above, that would violate Newton’s second law of thermodynamics.How about a simple thought experiment for clarification?:Suppose you could stand in a bowl made of 10 tons of 30 degree F (minus 1.1 C) ice. Although cold, ice still contains heat energy that it radiates in all directions. In fact, that much ice contains immensely more heat energy than a 175 pound (79 kg) 98.6 F/37 C human. (I calculated approximately 4.95 billion Joules for the ice vs only roughly 98 million Joules for the human.) But in spite of having roughly 50 times as much heat energy, not only will the ice never make you warmer, it will make you colder as it absorbs much more radiant heat energy from you than you absorb from it. Even though the ice absorbs some heat energy from you and then re-radiates a portion of that back towards you, this process will never result in an increase in your total heat energy/warmth, no matter how much ice is added to your surroundings.Even if the sun is shining down upon you and the ice, causing both you and the ice to absorb heat, the continuously added heat absorbed by the ice will never warm you as long as its temperature is less than yours; only the sun’s incoming radiation directly striking you will do so since the sun is much warmer than you. Again, if anything, the ice will always make you feel cooler by absorbing more radiant heat from you than you absorb from it.This same principle applies to cold atmospheric CO2. The earth’s troposphere (where most of the CO2 is located) varies from an average of 59 F adjacent to the earth’s surface to minus 70 F at the top (15 C to - 56.7 C), overall averaging around minus 1.3 F (minus 18.5 C). Essentially all is less than the temperature of the earth’s surface over which it hovers. So how could it possibly warm the earth’s surface via radiative heat transfer, no matter how much CO2 is present or added?In addition to violating this law of physics, there are other problems with the hypothesis that rising CO2 is responsible for rising temperatures.Ice core studies covering the past 400,000 years have revealed, in fact, that, whenever there is a correlation, increases in atmospheric CO2 follow global temperature increases as warming oceans release more CO2 into the atmosphere. The oceans contain about 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere and 19 times more than the land biosphere.The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature - graphedWith each glacial cycle, atmospheric CO2 levels start decreasing after the earth begins to cool, and start increasing approx. 800–1000 years after earth begins to warm:Carbon follows Temp last 10,000 Years.JPGIn addition, the warming effect of CO2, if any, would be logarithmic, meaning that it has less and less warming effect as its concentration increases. Many postulate that significant warming effect, if any, caused by CO2 has already occurred and that further increases will not result in any significant increase in global temperatures.Why logarithmic? A note on the dependence of radiative forcing on gas concentration - Huang - 2014 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres - Wiley Online Library“The logarithmic dependence of CO2 arises from a peculiar detail of how CO2 absorbs infrared radiation of various frequencies—a peculiarity not shared with other greenhouse gases, particularly the most important, water vapor.” IbidThe IPCC previously admitted the logarithmic nature of CO2 warming in its older reports: “For carbon dioxide, parts of the spectrum are already so opaque that additional molecules of carbon dioxide are even less effective, the forcing is found to be logarithmic in concentration.” Countering The Fallacy Of Global Warming (This quote used to be available from the IPCC online at: https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf. But not unexpectedly, the IPCC has removed it. Linking to that site now will show: “Page not found”! No doubt this is just an honest oversight on the IPCC’s part! Unfortunately, more and more previous reports from various sources which counter alarmists’ claims are being removed from the internet, as I discovered when trying to access a number of my older references.)Alarmists continuously but incorrectly claim that Arrhenius “proved” the greenhouse gas theory. In 1896 Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish chemist, claimed “If the quantity of carbonic acid [essentially CO2][in the air] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase very nearly in arithmetic progression.” This indicates a logarithmic dependence of the temperature increase on the CO2 concentration C, calculated by T2 – T1 = S log2 (C2/C1). T1 and T2 represent the Earth’s equilibrium temperatures at CO2 concentrations, C1 and C2, respectively, and log2 (x) denotes the base-2 logarithm of x ( i.e., log2 (2) = 1).The parameter S is the doubling sensitivity, or equilibrium climate sensitivity. According to Arrhenius’ hypothesis (which is used by the IPCC), the Earth’s average surface temperature would eventually increase by an amount S (of the atmospheric CO2 concentration) if CO2 were to double. Since Arrhenius first proposed his hypothesis, climate scientists have been unable to significantly advance the understanding of the sensitivity (S) of atmospheric temperature to changes in CO2 concentrations.The change in temperature is the value averaged over the Earth’s entire surface. It is a very small number compared with the constantly occurring temperature differences (between day and night, winter and summer, during various solar and oceanic cycles) at most locations on Earth. But more CO2 hinders atmospheric radiative (but not convective) heat transport. Since radiative heat transport is most important at night and near the poles, the surface warming from more CO2 should be greater at night than during the day, and greater near the poles than near the equator. If a 50% increase of CO2 were to increase the temperature by 3.4 C—as Arrhenius first calculated—the doubling sensitivity would be S = 5.8 C. However, in his subsequent book, Worlds in the Making; the Evolution of the Universe (1906), Arrhenius again postulates logarithmic warming, but with a smaller climate sensitivity, S = 4 C: “… any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the Earth’s surface by 4 C and if the carbon dioxide were increased by four fold, the temperature would rise by 8 C.”However, it is vital to realize that Arrhenius never conducted any experiments to prove his hypothesis- and neither has anyone else since! Thus it is complete speculation and remains just a hypothesis, despite the fallacious claim by many alarmists. It wasn’t proven in the past and hasn’t been since. Any such successful experiment would have been 24/7 news for days on end. The Nobel prize likely would have been awarded. But, alas, it hasn’t happened, even after a century of research.Indeed it has been proven experimentally that CO2 absorbs and radiates certain frequencies of infrared radiation, but that in no way proves that IR radiation from cooler CO2 can increase the temperature of the warmer earth’s surface.So are alarmists ignorant of the facts or are they purposely prevaricating in another fallacious attempt to convince the world of CAGW?The numerical value of S (the sensitivity of the atmosphere to changes in CO2) is influenced by complex, poorly understood interactions between the atmosphere, the surface, the oceans, water vapor and clouds, and by extraterrestrial influences like solar activity or the cosmic ray background, that, in turn, may affect cloud formation. Arrhenius’s minimal knowledge of CO2 IR radiation absorption/emission, the chaotic structure and dynamics of the atmosphere, and the above interactions, limited him to making only “educated” guesses of the doubling sensitivity.“There was academic debate about Arrhenius‟ figures but limited interest until 1981. In that year Dr James Hansen, a NASA scientist, published his PhD thesis predicting that man-made carbon dioxide threatened the earth with damaging temperature increases. He became the leading and very articulate advocate for that prediction. He focused it to say that the ‘safe’ limit for atmospheric CO2 was 350 ppmv.” http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/carbon-dioxide-feeds-the-world.pdfBut, as is seen with most climate research, he conducted no experiments to prove his thesis. It was all speculation. But it started an incredibly wasteful and completely unsuccessful $multi-billion taxpayer-funded effort to “prove” it, the cost of which continues to grow as rapidly as the increase in atmospheric CO2!So more than a century after Arrhenius and the $tens of billions spent on climate research, the value of S remains an “educated” guess. The IPCC states: “equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5 C–4.5 C”, again just “educated” and widely variable guesses (usually with the aid of other computer models). But any attempt to correctly predict the magnitude of future atmospheric warming by CO2, if any, depends critically on the precise value of S.The computer models used to predict future warming are based upon this guess for the value of S. In addition, models are unable to accurately incorporate the many known, highly variable natural phenomena that significantly influence temperature. To compensate, the models use a variety of special parameterizations, or “fudge factors”, which, again, are derived by “educated guesses”. Combine these limitations with using altered temperature data, and it’s easy to understand why so many computer models of future climate have been wrong!Here’s another way of looking at it. Estimates of S are derived primarily from computer climate models, not from empirical data. The values of S derived by these computer models are then used in other computer models to predict future climate change! These models attempt to simulate the Earth’s climate system; however, even with the most powerful supercomputers, the models can not incorporate all of the chaotic climate processes and phenomena in a way that mirrors reality. Such models do not include natural variability and mechanisms that off-set, and greatly exceed the effects of human activities. So we end up with inaccuracies based upon imprecisions! What great science!Even the IPCC has admitted that prediction of future climate is impossible!:"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."IPCC TAR WG1, Working Group I: The Scientific BasisThus it’s quite curious that the IPCC continues to make future predictions of apocalyptic climate change! (Much of the information in the above 12 paragraphs is derived from the very informative reference: http://co2coalition.org/wp-conte...)It is also quite revealing that CO2 levels have been much higher in the ancient past when temperatures were similar or even lower than currently. Furthermore, levels of atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 years (around 280-420 ppm) are about as low as they have ever been since the earth was formed!:In fact , they are not that much above the levels below which global plant/crop death, leading to mass animal and human extinctions would occur (150 ppm)!:So should we really attempt to lower atmospheric CO2 levels to “fight global warming”???Since the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has been many times higher in the past than today, peaking at nearly 17 times current levels (over 7,000 ppm), it is self-evident that industrialization is not the primary cause of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. During many of these exceedingly high levels of CO2, global temperatures were not significantly elevated (or they were similar to current temps), and “runaway” global warming did not occur as many alarmists are now predicting.Furthermore, about 450 million years ago, when CO2 levels were at least 5 times higher, the earth was in an ice age! These findings are very strong evidence that high concentrations of atmospheric CO2 do not cause significant global warming or even any at all. In other words, the facts that extremely high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have occurred on numerous occasions absent human activity, and such levels have not caused the planet to experience significant warming, are strong evidence contradicting the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic CO2 global warming. Although not derived by experimentation, these observations are a good start in discrediting the theory.Adding to this conclusion, there is evidence that ice core samples from which CO2 is measured may contain lower CO2 concentrations than were actually present in the past. Deeper portions of the ice represent older time periods. And pressure increases significantly with depth, which likely expels CO2 disproportionately from the ice bubbles, making CO2 concentrations appear lower than they actually were. Thus it’s quite possible that past CO2 levels were much higher than 7000–8000 ppm without elevation of global temperatures. CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time (Zbigniew Jaworowski) Poland - Environmentalists For Nuclear USASome alarmists try to counter the above argument by claiming that, while CO2 levels in the past were much higher without warming, the sun’s output (Total Solar Irradiance) was also lower in the past. A skeptical science blog post (written by John Cook, author of one of the debunked 97% consensus claim articles) alleges the sun’s output was 4% lower in the past (https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm ). This level of change in output far exceeds the variance in our sun’s TSI associated with changes in sunspot activity. But according to Cook’s blog, the significantly lower output, fortuitously, just compensated for the higher CO2. (Presumably the sun’s output decreased just the right amount every time CO2 happened to increase! Maybe it was some form of quantum entanglement!)But, not unexpectedly, this claim is not based upon any actual data about the sun’s output in the past. It is another unproven claim based upon unproven theoretical models of main sequence stars, such as our sun. While Cook does not provide a reference for this claim, one was posted in a comment. - Main Sequence Stars However, it does not discuss the possibility that our sun’s output was less in the past. Instead, it contradicts that supposition: “Stars on the main sequence [such as our sun] also appear to be unchanging for long periods of time. Any model of such stars must be able to account for their stability.”In addition to the lack of correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures in the ancient past, the correlation between the two during the Industrial Age is not nearly as strong as alarmists claim, as seen in this previously depicted graph:As mentioned previously, while atmospheric CO2 levels increased in an essentially unabated and accelerating fashion, temperature anomalies went up, then down, then up, then down and then leveled off after 1998 until at least 2015. That is not very good correlation!And when actual temperatures are used rather than temperature anomalies, the correlation is non-existent:One must admit, the global temperature since the start of the Industrial Age (and long before) has actually been remarkably stable, as these 2 graphs so clearly demonstrate!:“Almost all human CO2 emissions have occurred since 1945. Note the catastrophic effect!” (Comment posted in JoNova)And here is another informative way to examine the relationship between CO2 and global warming:“Chart 8 [below] was constructed by plotting CO2 as a percent increase from when it was first measured in 1958. The Black plot, the scale is on the left, shows CO2 going up a bit over 30.0% from 1958 to July of 2019. That is a very large change as anyone would have to agree…when we look at the percentage change in temperature from 1958, using Kelvin (which does measure the change in heat), we find that the changes in global temperature (heat) are almost un-measurable. The scale on the right side had to be expanded 10 times (the range is 40 % on the left and 4% on the right) to be able to see the plot in the same chart in any detail. The red plot, starting in 1958, shows that the thermal energy in the earth’s atmosphere increased by .30%; while CO2 has increased by 30.0% which is 100 times that of the increase in temperature. So is there really a meaningful link between them that would give us a major problem? The numbers tell us no there isn’t.” (And that’s using altered NASA temp data!)“Chart 8a is the same as Chart 8 except for the scales, which are the same for both CO2 and Temperature. As you see the increase in energy, heat, is not visually observable in this chart hence the need for the previous chart 8 to show the minuscule increase in thermal energy shown by NASA in relationship to the change in CO2.” A Technical Study in the Relationships of Solar Flux, Water, Carbon Dioxide and Global Temperatures, July 2019 DataAgain, the correlation is essentially non-existent.As also noted previously, the following graph reveals that CO2 continued to increase while temperature increase essentially paused after 1998 until at least 2015. That’s NOT correlation. (The spike in 1998 was believed to be caused by an El Nino-Southern Oscillation [ENSO], which have been occurring long before the Industrial Age and elevated CO2.) Rising CO2 is not causing temperatures to rise.Initially many alarmists denied there was a pause since they had no explanation for it! Later, some of those initial “pause deniers” tried to explain it by claiming the oceans “sucked down” the increasing heat during those years (again fortuitously countering the CO2 warming by just the right amount)! Of course, they had no explanation for that process either. Furthermore, the oceans also showed no warming during most of this same period, essentially disproving their attempted apocryphal explanation:More References about the science of CO2 which discredits the theory of AGW:Former NOAA Award-Winning Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Rex Fleming joins many former UN IPCC and U.S. government scientists publicly dissenting on man-made climate change: “Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an extremely important molecule for life on Earth and has no impact on climate change! The numerical calculations of the detailed integration of the Schwarzschild equations provide the proof.” The Rise and Fall of the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change (2019)The paper below is circulated with the Oregon Petition Project, which has nearly 34,500 signatures expressing skepticism of the theory of CAGW (Global Warming Petition Project)Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide A Robinson, N Robinson, W Soon Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine 2007 ABSTRACT: A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor green house gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed. Global Warming Petition Project or 150-dpi PDFGreenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere Cool the Earth! | PSI Intl 20173 Chemists Conclude CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is ‘Unreal’, Violates Laws Of Physics, Thermodynamics 2017Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact 2011The Greenhouse Effect Fallacy 2016'To be 33C or not to be 33C' Greenhouse Gas Fallacy Exposed | PSI Intl 2017http://aoi.com.au/Extracts/XT809.htm The Greenhouse Effect Does Not ExistThe Fallacy of the Greenhouse Effect 2019The Greenhouse Effect is a Scientific Fallacy - SAVVY STREET 2017John Murphy's answer to Since temperature is an intensive thermodynamic variable, isn't it meaningless to discuss climate change in terms of global temperature change?John Murphy's answer to Who thinks climate change is a hoax?CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time (Zbigniew Jaworowski) Poland - Environmentalists For Nuclear USA - very informative essay about how the scam came about and why it violates known science. 2007http://www.co2web.info/np-m-119.pdf 1992CO2 and the "Greenhouse Effect" Doom 201817 New Scientific Papers Dispute CO2 Greenhouse Effect As Primary Explanation For Climate Change 2017https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265757926_Conduction_is_the_Primary_Mechanism_of_Heat_Transfer_at_the_Surface-_Atmosphere_Boundary 2019Radical plan to artificially cool Earth's climate could be safe, study finds 2019http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/carbon-dioxide-feeds-the-world.pdf - discusses the vital importance of CO2 to all plant and animal life 2010Here’s more on the science of CO2 written by climate scientist C.D. Idso. He is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, Association of American Geographers, and Ecological Society of America. CO2 ScienceAnd here is great information about the science of CO2 as it relates to climate change, the temperature sensitivity of the atmosphere to CO2, the basis for many of the flawed computer models, and the fact that there was a pause in global warming after 1998 even though CO2 continued to rise unabated and the computer models predicted uninterrupted warming. http://co2coalition.org/wp-conte... 2016In the Cold Light of Day: Flat Earth in Modern Physics by J Postma, M.Sc. AstrophysicsCourtesy of John Murphy, below is a quite informative Youtube by Joseph Postma, astrophysicist at the University of Calgary regarding the “greenhouse effect”:

That is a very good question. The answers are the source of much debate.The theory of catastrophic anthropogenic CO2 global warming is based to a large extent upon insufficient understanding of the role and relative magnitude/sensitivity of CO2 as a “greenhouse” gas, and the unproven (and many would say ludicrous) hypothesis that the earth’s atmosphere (with all its enormity, complexity, multiple layers, convection, layers of exceedingly cold air [as low as -70F] and even colder adjacent outer space [-455F] as well as extremely hot upper layers, huge underlying oceans with complex currents and temperature fluctuations, varying molecular compositions, stratospheric ozone [which absorbs both UV and IR radiation], variable humidity, massive heat-absorbing evaporative processes, extensive cloud formations, variably intense winds, the jet stream, varying barometric pressures, cosmic ray effects, and NO glass ceiling or walls) functions identically to a glass-enclosed greenhouse. (Yes, that does seem rather ludicrous!)But even ignoring all but one of the enormous physical differences between an actual greenhouse and the earth’s atmosphere, the process of actual greenhouse warming is derived primarily from the partial elimination of thermal conduction and essentially complete elimination of convection by the glass walls and ceiling. The atmosphere has no similar barrier to conduction or convection. In a greenhouse, solar radiation warms the interior. Back-radiation from the air within and from the covering glass is relatively minuscule. It is the inability to lose heat to the outside via conduction and convection that maintains the hot interior. Remove the glass ceiling, and convection will quickly remove the majority of the excess heat even though the sun continues to shine.Most importantly, plenty of physicists state emphatically that the so-called “greenhouse” effect of CO2 can not possibly warm the earth as that would violate the second law of thermodynamics. In short, a cooler body (the majority of atmospheric CO2 molecules) can not warm a warmer body (earth’s surface). This is discussed in more detail further below.“In the fictitious fiddled physics of climatology the incorrect assumption is made that pencils of radiation from the colder atmosphere can transfer thermal energy into a warmer surface, thus creating an independent process that would decrease entropy. Nature does not permit this…because radiation does not compound like that, and radiation from the colder atmosphere cannot be added to solar radiation in Stefan Boltzmann calculations because the Second Law [of thermodynamics] cannot be violated.” itsnotco2“The ‘greenhouse effect’ is simply the temperature difference between the actual surface temperature and theoretical value of what the temperature would be without the insulation effect from the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect can easily be calculated from geophysical data that has been provided by weather satellites since their launch in late 1978. ‘Climate change’ is entirely based on the assumption that the rapid increase in global CO2 emissions is enhancing the greenhouse effect resulting in catastrophic global warming; but somehow no one ever bothered to verify this conjecture by actually calculating the greenhouse effect! The 1980 value for the greenhouse effect is 35.56°C and the value for 2010 is 0.14°C lower at 35.42°C. This demonstrates that the 70.9% increase in global CO2 emissions since 1980 did not in any way enhance the greenhouse effect as has been falsely claimed since 1988 when this global warming debacle first began.” A Basic and Powerful Analysis of Greenhouse Effect FallaciesThe science of the effects of atmospheric CO2 has not been established to prove it is causing global warming, despite what alarmists claim. In fact, basic physics has shown that the earth’s cooler atmospheric gases, including CO2, can not possibly significantly warm the earth:“It may be deduced that none of the radiation from a cooler body (and only a portion of the radiation from a warmer body) has any thermodynamic effect on the other body. All such radiation from a cooler source is rejected in some way, and it can be deduced that resonance and scattering occurs without any conversion to thermal energy. The radiation continues in another direction until it strikes a cooler target, which could be in space.” Radiated Energy and the Second Law of ThermodynamicsThis fact is totally ignored by climate scientists who state that cooler CO2 (and H2O) molecules re-radiate some of the solar IR radiation they receive from earth back to the earth, which then makes the earth warmer. As mentioned above, that would violate the second law of thermodynamics.In addition to apparently violating this law of physics, there are other problems with the hypothesis that rising CO2 levels are responsible for rising temperatures.Ice core studies covering the past 400,000 years have revealed, in fact, that, whenever there is a correlation, increases in atmospheric CO2 follow global temperature increases as warming oceans release more CO2 into the atmosphere. The oceans contain about 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere and 19 times more than the land biosphere. As its temperature increases, the solubility of CO2 decreases so that it is expelled into the atmosphere.The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature - graphedWith each glacial cycle, atmospheric CO2 levels start decreasing after the earth begins to cool, and start increasing approx. 800–1000 years after earth begins to warm:Carbon follows Temp last 10,000 Years.JPGIn addition, as Arrhenius originally stated, the warming effect of CO2 [if any] would be logarithmic, meaning that it has less and less warming effect as its concentration increases. Many postulate that significant warming effect, if any, caused by CO2 has already occurred and that further increases will not result in any significant increase in global temperatures.Why logarithmic? A note on the dependence of radiative forcing on gas concentration - Huang - 2014 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres - Wiley Online Library“The logarithmic dependence of CO2 arises from a peculiar detail of how CO2 absorbs infrared radiation of various frequencies—a peculiarity not shared with other greenhouse gases, particularly the most important, water vapor.” IbidEven the IPCC previously admitted the logarithmic nature of CO2 warming in its older reports: “For carbon dioxide, parts of the spectrum are already so opaque that additional molecules of carbon dioxide are even less effective, the forcing is found to be logarithmic in concentration.” Countering The Fallacy Of Global Warming (This quote used to be available from the IPCC online at: https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf. But not unexpectedly, the IPCC has removed it. Linking to that site now will show: “Page not found”! No doubt this is just an honest oversight on the IPCC’s part! Unfortunately, more and more previous reports from various sources which counter alarmists’ claims are being removed from the internet, as I discovered when trying to access a number of my older references for this Quora answer.)For the past 30 years, climate scientists have been unable to significantly advance the understanding of a critical parameter: the sensitivity (S) of atmospheric temperature to changes in CO2 concentrations. In 1896 Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish physicist, claimed “If the quantity of carbonic acid [referring to atmospheric CO2] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase very nearly in arithmetic progression.” This indicates a logarithmic dependence of the temperature increase on the CO2 concentration C, calculated by T2 – T1 = S log2 (C2/C1). T1 and T2 represent the Earth’s equilibrium temperatures at CO2 concentrations, C1 and C2, respectively, and log2 (x) denotes the base-2 logarithm of x ( i.e., log2 (2) = 1).The parameter S is the doubling sensitivity, or equilibrium climate sensitivity. According to Arrhenius’ theory, which is used by the IPCC, the Earth’s average surface temperature would eventually increase by an amount S (of the atmospheric CO2 concentration) if CO2 were to double.The change in temperature is the value averaged over the Earth’s entire surface. It is a very small number compared with the constantly occurring temperature differences (between day and night, winter and summer, and during various solar and oceanic cycles) at most locations on Earth. But more CO2 also hinders incoming solar radiative (but not convective) heat transport, particularly at the equator where the overlying troposphere is thicker and contains more CO2. Thus back-radiated heat transport from atmospheric CO2 should be most important at night and near the poles, and, therefore, any surface warming from more CO2 should be relatively greater at night than during the day, and near the poles than near the equator. But this is not seen.It is crucial to realize that Arrhenius never conducted any experiments to prove his hypothesis (and neither has anyone else since!), and he omitted clouds, convection of heat upward in the atmosphere, and other essential factors in his hypothesis. Thus it is complete speculation and remains just a hypothesis, although many alarmists frequently claim that the CO2 greenhouse effect was “proved” by Arrhenius. It wasn’t and hasn’t been. Any such successful experiment would have been 24/7 news for days on end. The Nobel prize likely would have been awarded. But, alas, it hasn’t happened, even after a century of research. (Arrhenius did receive a Nobel prize, but it was in chemistry for his theory about ionic disassociation of salts. Interestingly, he helped originate the Nobel Institute and the Nobel prizes and served on the committee which selected winners!)While the French physicist, Joseph Fourier, had first raised the possibility that the earth’s atmosphere might help maintain the earth’s temperature by acting like a “hot- house”, he ultimately suggested that interstellar radiation was more likely responsible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effectNevertheless, Arrhenius chose to accept Fourier’s “hot house” hypothesis without any experimental proof: "That the atmospheric envelopes limit the heat losses from the planets had been suggested about 1800 by the great French physicist Fourier. His ideas were further developed afterwards by Pouillet and Tyndall. Their theory has been styled the hot-house theory, because they thought that the atmosphere acted after the manner of the glass panes of hot-houses."But Arrhenius also considered that decreasing and increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 might be causing glacial and interglacial periods, respectively. He was completely unaware of the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels rose after the earth started warming when emerging from ice ages.Arrhenius further believed that CO2 warming would be beneficial to the earth and its inhabitants: “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."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_ArrheniusThe numerical value of S (the sensitivity of the atmosphere to changes in CO2) is influenced by complex, poorly understood interactions between the atmosphere, the surface, the oceans, water vapor and clouds, and by extraterrestrial phenomena like numerous cyclic solar activities and the cosmic ray background, that, in turn, may affect cloud formation. Arrhenius’s limited knowledge of CO2 IR radiation absorption/emission, the chaotic structure and dynamics of the atmosphere, and the above interactions, restricted him to making only educated guesses of the doubling sensitivity.Indeed it has been proven experimentally that CO2 absorbs and radiates certain frequencies of infrared radiation, but that in no way proves that IR radiation from cooler CO2 can increase the temperature of the warmer earth’s surface.So are alarmists ignorant of the facts or are they purposely prevaricating in another fallacious attempt to convince the world of CAGW?Enter the “godfather” of CAGW, James Hansen. “There was academic debate about Arrhenius’ figures but limited interest until 1981. In that year Dr James Hansen, a NASA scientist, published his PhD thesis predicting that man-made carbon dioxide threatened the earth with damaging temperature increases. He became the leading and very articulate advocate for that prediction. He focused it to say that the ‘safe’ limit for atmospheric CO2 was 350 ppmv.” http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/carbon-dioxide-feeds-the-world.pdf But, as is seen with most climate research, he conducted no experiments to prove his thesis. It was all speculation. But it started an incredibly wasteful and completely unsuccessful $multi-billion taxpayer-funded effort to “prove” it, the cost of which continues to grow as rapidly as the increase in atmospheric CO2!So more than a century after Arrhenius and the $tens of billions spent on climate research, the value of S remains an educated guess. The IPCC states: “equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5 C–4.5 C”, again just “educated” and widely variable guesses (usually with the aid of other computer models)! But any attempt to correctly predict the magnitude of future atmospheric warming by CO2, if any, depends critically on the precise value of S.The computer models used to predict future warming are based upon this guess for the value of S. In addition, models are unable to accurately incorporate the many known, highly variable natural phenomena that significantly influence temperatures. To compensate, the models use a variety of special parameterizations, or “fudge factors”, which, again, are derived by “educated guesses”. Combine these limitations with using altered temperature data, and it’s easy to understand why so many computer models of future climate have been wrong!Here’s another way of looking at it. Estimates of S are derived primarily from computer climate models, not from empirical data. The values of S derived by these computer models are then used in other computer models to predict future climate change! These models attempt to simulate the Earth’s climate system; however, even with the most powerful supercomputers, the models can not incorporate all of the chaotic climate processes and phenomena in a way that mirrors reality. Such models do not include natural variability and mechanisms that off-set, and greatly exceed the effects of human activities. Add in the often estimated and even altered temperature data, and we end up with inaccuracies based upon imprecisions!Even the IPCC has admitted that prediction of future climate is impossible!:"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."IPCC TAR WG1, Working Group I: The Scientific BasisThus it’s quite curious that the IPCC continues to make future predictions of apocalyptic climate change! Even their conclusion that the recent increases of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the cause of most of the Earth’s warming in the last half of the 20th century appears unjustified. (Much of the information in the above 11 paragraphs is derived from the very informative reference: http://co2coalition.org/wp-conte...)It is also quite revealing that CO2 levels have been much higher in the ancient past when temperatures were similar or even lower than currently. Furthermore, levels of atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 years (around 280-420 ppm) are about as low as they have ever been since the earth was formed!:In fact , they are not that much above the levels below which global plant/crop death, leading to mass animal and human extinctions would occur (150 ppm)!:So should we really attempt to lower atmospheric CO2 levels to “fight global warming”???Since the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has been many times higher in the past than today, peaking at nearly 17 times current levels (over 7,000 ppm), it is self-evident that industrialization is not the primary cause of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. During many of these exceedingly high levels of CO2, global temperatures were not significantly elevated (or they were similar to current temps), and “runaway” global warming did not occur as many alarmists are now predicting.Furthermore, about 450 million years ago, when CO2 levels were at least 5 times higher, the earth was in an ice age! These findings are very strong evidence that high concentrations of atmospheric CO2 do not cause significant global warming or even any at all. In other words, the facts that extremely high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have occurred on numerous occasions absent human activity, and such levels have not caused the planet to experience significant warming, are strong evidence contradicting the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic CO2 global warming. Although not derived by experimentation, these observations are a good start in the falsification of the theory.Adding to this conclusion, there is evidence that ice core samples from which CO2 is measured may contain lower CO2 concentrations than were actually present in the past. Deeper portions of the ice represent older time periods. And pressure increases significantly with depth, which likely expels CO2 disproportionately from the ice bubbles, making CO2 concentrations appear lower than they actually were. Thus it’s quite possible that past CO2 levels were much higher than 7000–8000 ppm without elevation of global temperatures. CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time (Zbigniew Jaworowski) Poland - Environmentalists For Nuclear USASome alarmists try to counter the above argument by claiming that, while CO2 levels in the past were much higher without warming, the sun’s output (Total Solar Irradiance) was also lower in the past. A skeptical science blog post (written by John Cook, author of one of the debunked 97% consensus claim articles) alleges the sun’s output was 4% lower in the past (https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm ). This level of change in output far exceeds the variance in our sun’s TSI associated with changes in sunspot activity. But according to Cook’s blog, the significantly lower output, fortuitously, just compensated for the higher CO2. (Presumably the sun’s output decreased just the right amount every time CO2 happened to increase! Maybe it was some form of quantum entanglement!)But, not unexpectedly, this claim is not based upon any actual data about the sun’s output in the past. It is another unproven claim based upon unproven theoretical models of main sequence stars, such as our sun. While Cook does not provide a reference for this claim, one was posted in a comment. - Main Sequence Stars However, it does not discuss the possibility that our sun’s output was less in the past. Instead, it contradicts that supposition: “Stars on the main sequence [such as our sun] also appear to be unchanging for long periods of time. Any model of such stars must be able to account for their stability.”In addition to the lack of correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures in the ancient past, the correlation between the two during the Industrial Age is not nearly as strong as alarmists claim:While atmospheric CO2 levels increased in an essentially unabated and accelerating fashion, temperature anomalies went up, then down, then up, then down and then leveled off after 1998 until at least 2015. That is not very good correlation!When actual temperatures are used rather than temperature anomalies, the correlation is minimal at best:One must admit, the global temperature since the start of the Industrial Age (and long before) has actually been remarkably stable, as these 2 graphs so clearly demonstrate!:“Almost all human CO2 emissions have occurred since 1945. Note the catastrophic effect!” (Comment posted in JoNova)The following graph reveals that CO2 continued to increase while temperature increase essentially paused after 1998 until at least 2015. That’s NOT correlation. (The spike in 1998 was believed to be caused by an El Nino-Southern Oscillation [ENSO], which have been occurring long before the Industrial Age and elevated CO2.) Rising CO2 is not causing temperatures to rise:Initially many alarmists denied there was a pause since they had no explanation for it! Later, some of those initial “pause deniers” tried to explain it by claiming the oceans “sucked down” the increasing heat during those years (again fortuitously countering the CO2 warming by just the right amount)! Of course, they had no explanation for that process either. Furthermore, the oceans also showed no warming during most of this same period as measured by the very precise Argo buoy system (beginning around 2003), essentially disproving their attempted apocryphal explanation:Argo measurements replaced less accurate ship measurements after 2003 and showed No increase in global ocean heat content. Argo (oceanography) - WikipediaAgain, the lack of correlation between CO2 and modern global temperatures adds more evidence that CO2 is not the primary (or even a significant) driver of global warming.More fundamentally, it is known by many physicists that the extremely cold atmospheric CO2 can not significantly warm the earth as this would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. A colder body, even though it contains heat energy, can not warm a warmer body. It can emit infrared (heat) radiation, but the warmer body, in turn, will always emit more back towards the colder body (and in all other available directions), thus losing more than it gains. In essence, the re-radiated IR from “greenhouse gases” continues to be re-radiated until it strikes a cooler body. Therefore it is more likely that these so-called “greenhouse gases” actually cool the earth by blocking/absorbing some incoming solar radiation, which eventually gets re-radiated back to outer space .Some alarmists counter that CO2 is not warming the earth via back-radiation of IR; it is “inhibiting” or “slowing” the earth’s ability to cool via radiating IR energy away. They claim that, because CO2 absorbs some of the outgoing IR radiation and emits it back towards earth, the earth’s ability to cool by radiation is slowed because now it has more IR to radiate outward (the extra IR sent back by the CO2) or because the CO2’s back-radiation somehow blocks the earth’s outgoing radiation.But that is essentially the same thing. The IR radiated back to the earth’s surface is somehow causing the earth to warm. That IR radiation can not physically block any of the earth’s outgoing IR like a bunch of falling rocks blocking rocks shot upward. Since electromagnetic photons, unlike massive particles (fermions), are bosons and, therefore, do not adhere to the Pauli Exclusion Principle, they do not interact with one another and can occupy the same space at the same time. Thus the only way the IR radiation can increase the earth’s temperature would be for the warmer earth to absorb the IR radiation re-emitted from the CO2. The physicists agree that CO2 re-radiates a portion of the IR back towards the earth, but they state that the warmer body (the earth) will instantaneously reject the returned IR, which is directed to outer space. Thus the earth continues to radiate all IR unabated, there is no accumulation of excess IR, and there is no increase in the earth’s temperature by CO2 back-radiation of IR. And measurements of the troposphere show no significant increase in temperature as levels of CO2 have increased, certainly not significant enough to raise the atmospheric temperature higher than the earth’s surface. Any increase in tropospheric temps is more likely due to a slightly warming earth warming the atmosphere.Other alarmists claim it’s not IR back-radiation from CO2 that directly warms the earth or somehow blocks outgoing terrestrial IR, it’s the nebulous “blanket effect” of increasing levels of CO2. The theory posits that CO2 (and other “greenhouse gases such as methane and water vapor) creates a “blanket effect” by slowing the earth’s ability to cool just as a blanket would slow a person from cooling.But a blanket slows cooling by reducing conduction and essentially eliminating convection from the person’s surface, serving the same purpose as the glass ceiling on a greenhouse. CO2 does not eliminate conduction or convection, no matter how much is added to the atmosphere.Others will then claim that, because CO2 absorbs IR radiation from both the sun and from the earth, it becomes warmer. The absorbed IR radiation increases the kinetic energy of the CO2 molecules, which then transfer much of that kinetic energy to the rest of the atmospheric gases. Thus the atmosphere warms, which in turn transfers that extra heat to the earth via conduction.But, again, this violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Unless the atmosphere becomes warmer than the earth’s surface, it can not transfer net kinetic energy to the earth by conduction. In fact, as long as the atmosphere is cooler than the earth’s surface, the earth will transfer net kinetic energy to the atmosphere by conduction and IR radiation (from which it is eventually dissipated into outer space), thus cooling the earth, regardless of the amount of CO2, water vapor or any other so-called “green house” gas in the atmosphere.Water vapor is much more potent than CO2 as an absorber of solar radiation. It is responsible for 70% of the known absorption of incoming sunlight, particularly in the infrared region, and about 60% of the atmospheric absorption of outgoing thermal radiation re-emitted by the Earth’s surface. It has multiple molecular rotational and vibrational states suitable for EM absorption, particularly in the IR spectrum, and is present is enormously higher quantities than CO2 or other so-called “green house” gases. Tropospheric CO2 can essentially only absorb IR at 15 micrometers (1500 nm).Absorption spectrum (attenuation coefficient vs. wavelength) of liquid water (red), atmospheric water vapor (green) and ice (blue line) between 667 nm and 200 μm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_water“The ‘greenhouse effect’ assumes incorrectly that the most prolific so-called ‘greenhouse gas’ water vapour warms the Earth’s surface by most of 33 degrees on average. So, given that water vapour concentrations vary between about 1% and 4% we could deduce from the invalid ‘science’ that rain forests should be more than 50 degrees hotter than dry deserts at similar latitude and altitude. Of course they are not, and that disproves the “settled” science…In the real world, the more moist regions have lower mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures than the drier regions. Water vapour cools, and it’s just as well that it does. So does carbon dioxide, but by less than 0.1 degree.” itsnotco2In a similar fashion, the following article provides a clear and documented example contradicting the hypothesis that so-called “green house” gases significantly warm the atmosphere or the earth’s surface. Basically it compares temperatures in and above a very humid locale (Little Rock, AR) to those at a locale with a very low humidity (Las Vegas, NV) at similar latitude (34.7465, 36.0719) but with LR at 335’ altitude and LV at 2030’, confirming that humid areas do not experience increased warming due to these gases. In fact, they tend to be cooler as illustrated below. https://climateofsophistry.com/2016/11/09/weather-balloon-soundings-falsify-the-greenhouse-effect-hypothesis/https://climateofsophistry.files...Compare the average temps and precipitation:Little Rock weather averagesAnnual high temperature: 72.8°FAnnual low temperature: 52.5°FAverage temperature: 62.65°FAverage annual precipitation, rainfall: 49.57 inchDays per year with precipitation, rainfall: 102 daysLas Vegas weather averagesAnnual high temperature: 80°FAnnual low temperature: 58.6°FAverage temperature: 69.3°FAverage annual precipitation, rainfall: 4.17 inchDays per year with precipitation, rainfall: 21 daysClimate Little Rock - ArkansasSo even though the atmosphere above Little Rock contains nearly twice the most potent GHG, water vapor, (average 56.3% humidity) as Las Vegas (average 30%), its average temperatures are lower, despite the fact that Las Vegas is at higher altitude (which should be cooler!). The extra GHG over Little Rock is NOT causing its atmosphere or ground surface to be warmer, perhaps just the opposite.Suppose you could stand in a bowl made of 10 tons of 30 degree F (minus 1.1 C) ice. Although cold, ice still contains heat energy that it radiates in all directions. In fact, that much ice contains immensely more heat energy than a 175 pound (79 kg) 98.6 F/37 C human. (I calculated approximately 4.95 billion Joules for the ice vs only roughly 98 million Joules for the human.) But in spite of having roughly 50 times as much heat energy, not only will the ice never make you warmer, it will make you colder as it absorbs much more radiant heat energy from you than you absorb from it. (It will also remove net heat energy from you via conduction and convection.) Even though the ice absorbs some heat energy from you and then re-radiates a portion of that back towards you, this process will never result in an increase in your total heat energy/warmth, no matter how much ice is added to your surroundings.Even if the sun is shining down upon you and the ice, causing both you and the ice to absorb heat, the continuously added heat absorbed by the ice will never warm you as long as its temperature is less than yours; only the sun’s incoming radiation directly striking you will do so since the sun is much warmer than you. Again, if anything, the ice will always make you feel cooler by absorbing more radiant heat from you than you absorb from it.This same principle applies to cold atmospheric CO2 and H2O. The earth’s troposphere (where most of the CO2 is located) varies from an average of 59 F adjacent to the earth’s surface to minus 70 F at the top (15 C to - 56.7 C), overall averaging around minus 1.3 F (minus 18.5 C). Essentially all is less than the temperature of the earth’s surface over which it hovers. So how could it possibly warm the earth’s surface via radiative, conductive or convective heat transfer, no matter how much CO2 is present or added?More References about the science of CO2 and climate change:Former NOAA Award-Winning Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Rex Fleming joins many former UN IPCC and U.S. government scientists publicly dissenting on man-made climate change: “Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an extremely important molecule for life on Earth and has no impact on climate change! The numerical calculations of the detailed integration of the Schwarzschild equations provide the proof.” The Rise and Fall of the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change (2019)The paper below is circulated with the Oregon Petition Project, which has nearly 34,500 signatures expressing skepticism of the theory of CAGW (Global Warming Petition Project)Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide A Robinson, N Robinson, W Soon Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine 2007 ABSTRACT: A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor green house gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed. Global Warming Petition Project or 150-dpi PDFGreenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere Cool the Earth! | PSI Intl 2017https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265757926_Conduction_is_the_Primary_Mechanism_of_Heat_Transfer_at_the_Surface-_Atmosphere_Boundary - it has been demonstrated, from the strict standpoint of physics, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics, that the carbon dioxide is not physically capable of causing any global warming or climate change on Earth. 20193 Chemists Conclude CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is ‘Unreal’, Violates Laws Of Physics, Thermodynamics 2017Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact 2011The Greenhouse Effect Fallacy 2016'To be 33C or not to be 33C' Greenhouse Gas Fallacy Exposed | PSI Intl 2017http://aoi.com.au/Extracts/XT809.htm The Greenhouse Effect Does Not ExistThe Fallacy of the Greenhouse Effect 2019The Greenhouse Effect is a Scientific Fallacy - SAVVY STREET 2017John Murphy's answer to Since temperature is an intensive thermodynamic variable, isn't it meaningless to discuss climate change in terms of global temperature change?John Murphy's answer to Who thinks climate change is a hoax?John Murphy's answer to Climate change skeptics claim that the science is "unsettled" and "unproven". As a climate change skeptic, what would it take for you to believe that the current scientific consensus is "proven"?CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time (Zbigniew Jaworowski) Poland - Environmentalists For Nuclear USA - very informative essay about how the scam came about and why it violates known science. 2007http://www.co2web.info/np-m-119.pdf 1992CO2 and the "Greenhouse Effect" Doom 201817 New Scientific Papers Dispute CO2 Greenhouse Effect As Primary Explanation For Climate Change 2017Radical plan to artificially cool Earth's climate could be safe, study finds 2019http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/carbon-dioxide-feeds-the-world.pdf - discusses the vital importance of CO2 to all plant and animal life 2010Here’s more on the science of CO2 written by climate scientist C.D. Idso. He is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, Association of American Geographers, and Ecological Society of America. CO2 ScienceAnd here is great information about the science of CO2 as it relates to climate change, the temperature sensitivity of the atmosphere to CO2, the basis for many of the flawed computer models, and the fact that there was a pause in global warming after 1998 even though CO2 continued to rise unabated and the computer models predicted uninterrupted warming. http://co2coalition.org/wp-conte... 2016In the Cold Light of Day: Flat Earth in Modern Physics by J Postma, M.Sc. AstrophysicsCourtesy of John Murphy, below is a quite informative Youtube by Joseph Postma, astrophysicist at the University of Calgary regarding the “greenhouse effect”: