Aim higher, reach further.

Dialing Back the Alarm on Climate Change

A forthcoming report points lowers estimates on global warming


Dadu Shin




Still, the downward movement since 2007 is clear, especially at the bottom of the "likely" range. The most probable value (3 degrees Celsius last time) is for some reason not stated this time.

A more immediately relevant measure of likely warming has also come down: "transient climate response" (TCR)—the actual temperature change expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide about 70 years from now, without the delayed effects that come in the next century. The new report will say that this change is "likely" to be 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius and "extremely unlikely" to be greater than 3 degrees. This again is lower than when last estimated in 2007 ("very likely" warming of 1 to 3 degrees Celsius, based on models, or 1 to 3.5 degrees, based on observational studies).





Two recent papers (one in the Journal of the American Meteorological Society, the other in the journal Earth System Dynamics) estimate that TCR is probably around 1.65 degrees Celsius. That's uncannily close to the estimate of 1.67 degrees reached in 1938 by Guy Callendar, a British engineer and pioneer student of the greenhouse effect. A Canadian mathematician and blogger named Steve McIntyre has pointed out that Callendar's model does a better job of forecasting the temperature of the world between 1938 and now than do modern models that "hindcast" the same data.

The significance of this is that Callendar assumed that carbon dioxide acts alone, whereas the modern models all assume that its effect is amplified by water vapor. There is not much doubt about the amount of warming that carbon dioxide can cause. There is much more doubt about whether net amplification by water vapor happens in practice or is offset by precipitation and a cooling effect of clouds.




David Conrad
David Conrad subscriberprofilePrivate


Giovanni Galtiago
Giovanni Galtiago profilePrivateuser

My regrets for the second post but I think it is applicable.

Many years ago, I was on a lead team delivering a new technology to the telecom space. It was a pretty big deal at the time and the average telecom geek would know the event.

I was the only non-tech on the team and I was new. Therefore, my input was not initially sought after but, as anyone would be, I remained patient and looked for my moment.

Shortly, a field test was noting an anomaly where towers were fumbling the handling of the hand-off connection at the critical release point. The engineers were in high stress mode b/c we had a CEO led, live, on air demonstration in a few weeks and this was critical. As they argued about the data and mapped out potential reasons for the failure, I sat and read through the release notes of the software versions (I am not a programmer or an architect).

After a few hours I raised my hand and then pushed my way into the conversation. I posited that a certain software feature would be required for the towers to communicate a hand-off, correct? Yes, was the response. Well, according to the release notes, though the packet that should have contained that feature was released, the specific code for that hand-off function was not. Without it, the 1st tower would not know to let the call/data trans go so the second tower can take the hand-off, correct? .... Crickets.

In sum, you don't have to be an expert in science or technology to contribute value. Most of the broad concepts are quite understandable. You just need common sense and ability to reason (and good data and release notes).

The leftists cannot reason, suffer from a lack of common sense and are wedded to non-facts that support the way they wish the world was.


PS, yes, I was fully included in subsequent discussions.

Giovanni Galtiago
Giovanni Galtiago profilePrivateuser

Common sense and facts prevail again. Leftists are shown to anti-science, anti-fact, Luddites with control issues.

We have common sense ideas on how to minimize our footprint and impact on the environment and they don't require global convention driven pollution or women abusing gas bags or wealth concentrating con games.

Let's keep it simple and evolutionary; e.g. recycle more, use plastic less and drink craft beer.


PS, Drinking craft beer won't help the environment. It is just a fun thing to do while you are saving the planet.

Steven Cox
Steven Cox user

So let me get this straight....George Bush, supposedly a m*r*n, was right all along, and Barack Obama, boy genius, turns out to be wrong. As does Bill Maher, David Letterman, John Stewart, pretty much all of Hollywood (and who would have expected them to be wrong?), and the entire Democratic Party.


Mr. Ridley is not being truthful when he states that "Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage." The IPCC picked 2*C as their consensus on the temperature, above which we'll begin to see "catastrophic" effects of climate change. We're talking multiple trillions in mitigation and damages, folks. Just look at the predictions for sea level rise: 1 to 3 feet! Sorry, Miami and Pacific Islanders, you're not that important!

I'm not sure what he means by no "net" ecological damage, but we've of course already begun to see ecological and economic damage. The shrinking of Arctic sea ice is astonishing, disappearing much faster than scientists had predicted. The pace of warming is unlike anything the globe has ever seen, and most species will not be able to keep pace and migrate.

As for economic damage, ask the skiing industry how climate change is treating them. Or Mediterranean farmers seeing their crops wither in one of the worst droughts in history: Colorado flood victims, the list goes on.

The author clearly begins with a slanted perspective, and ignores other changes the IPCC has made, for instance that the certainty that warming over the last 50 years is human-caused is now up to 95%. The melting of the massive Greenland Ice Sheet is increasing, now averaging 177 billion tons a year!

Here's a look at the warming we'll experience in the US with and without dramatic changes to our emissions. How hot will it be for your grandchildren where you live?!?:

William Sheridan
William Sheridan subscriberprofilePrivate

• • • — — — • • •

This ...

'Coalition takes axe to climate programs'


September 11, 2013
The Australian
'Coalition takes axe to climate programs'

And this ...

'At last, the Green madness is being unwound. Australians should breathe a heavy sigh of relief.'
September 11, 2013
Australian Climate Madness
'Celebrate! Climate Commission to be abolished!'


Ridley, I'm usually a big fan of yours but I think you have two moderately large errors:

1. Guy Callendar did include water vapor feedback when solving for ECS (but the magnitude of the effect was assumed to be less than current models use)

2. "Most" of the warming will not occur on cold winter nights, just that is where temperature elasticty is the highest. If anything, the tropics will recieve "most" (total Joules of energy) of the warming simply as their surface area is much greater then poleward area.

It's important for skeptics to pull punches where point is a good talking point, but not always factual.

Arno Arrak
Arno Arrak user

Matt Ridley says:


Oh yes there is because carbon dioxide is not the only absorbing species. When several greenhouse gases simultaneously absorb OLR their total absorption is not an arithmetic sum of individual absorptions. Ferenc Miskolczi has shown that in such a case an optimum absorption window exists that is maintained jointly by the gases present. For us the relevant gases are water vapor and carbon dioxide. The IR optical thickness of their joint absorption window is 1.87. This corresponds to 15 percent transmittance or 85 percent absorption in the IR. If we now add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it will start to absorb and the optical thickness increases. But as soon as this happens water vapor starts to diminish or rain out until the optimum optical thickness is restored. In 2010 he found a way to prove this experimentally by using existing data. NOAA has a database of weather balloon observations that goes back to 1948. He used it to study the absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere over time and discovered that absorption had been constant for 61 years. At the same time, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air went up by 21.6 percent. This means that the addition of this substantial amount of CO2 to air had no effect whatsoever on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. It follows that forecasts of doonmsday warming based on the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide are all invalid. And emission control laws passed with their help were passed under false premises and should be voided. The reduction of water vapor that maintains the the IR transmittance of the mixed gases is equivalent to negative water vapor feedback, the exact opposite of what IPCC is trying to sell us. Your suspicions of the validity of positive water vapor feedback are well founded. The absence of the greenhouse effect required by Miskolczi explains the existence of the warming pause these bozos still refuse to accept. At present the pause has lasted fifteen years but it is neither the first nor the longest pause on record. According to satellites there was no warming from 1979 to the appearance of the super El Nino of 1998. But if you look at any ground-based temperature curve the eighties and nineties are shown as a warming period, rising at the rate of 0.1 degrees per decade. When I was doing research for my book "What Warming?" I realized that this warming was fake and said so when the book came out. It took two years but eventually GISTEMP, HadCRUT, and NCDC, all in unison, decided to stop showing this fake warming and adjusted their data to conform to satellites. The no-warming period of the eighties and nineties and the present pause in the twenty-first century leave only a narrow strip between them, just enough to accommodate the super El Nino af 1998 and its accompanying step warming. That step warming raised global temperature by a third of a degree Celsius and then stopped. This, and not an imaginary greenhouse effect is responsible for raising all twenty-first century temperatures above the twentieth, with the exception of the super El Nino. Jointly these two no-warming regions are responsible for thirty four greenhouse-free years. Knowing this, would you expect that any previous warming periods were greenhouse" I doubt it very much, its likely to be almost zero. One more detail should be noted about the lack of warming in the eighties and nineties: Hansen's presentation to the Senate falls right smack in the middle of it, in 1988. I checked it out and discovered that he was telling us that the peak of the 1988 El Nino constituted global warming. It is one of five in the eighties and nineties.

Denis Ables
Denis Ables subscriber

All the computer models authored by proponents of anthropogenic warming ASSUME that water vapor is the major culprit, providing a positive feedback which causes bring on 2 to 3 times the tempeature increase as brought on by the increase in co2 volume. However, it's long been known that co2's heating ability is limited to absorption of a few narrow sun energy bandwidths. At 20 ppmv co2 had already absorbed 50% of all the energy available to it. Now, at 400 ppmv, it's long past where co2 could provide any measurable feedback. How could these "scientists" have missed this. (? denial ?)

Keep in mind that the total co2 contribution by human activity represents 3 to 5 percent of the co2 in the atmosphere. co2 represents .04% by volume of the atmosphere. (=.0004), so 5% X .0004 = .00002 is the aggregate impact due to human activity. We also know that co2 has been 10 to 20 times higher than it is now. Plants LOVE the extra co2, and in that environment need less water.

A crowded gym with poor venting can be at 1000 ppmv. Submarine crews work in 3000 to 5000+ ppmv for months.

Mencken long ago had the proper classification for Obama's concern on climate, just another hobgoblin.

Andrew Eppink
Andrew Eppink subscriber


Shouldn't be political but, of course being a human endeavor, it will be.


This comment board reminds me of the book 'State of Fear' by Michael Crichton ... I'd note it was clearly a FICTION book, but found it to be an enjoyable read with many interesting scientific references both for and against climate change (but mostly against, since the author definitely had his own point of view)

Greg Arnot
Greg Arnot user


AlGore should be sent to prison for fraud and abuse of office.

Mary Goodson
Mary Goodson user

Climate change is Nature's equivalent of The Darwin Theory. Adapt or die.

If one is going to stand along the shore for the next 40 or 80 years and wait for the seas to rise enough to drown that person, then that person deserves to drown.

What is the worse case scenario? People die, so what. How does that differ from the past since Man started standing up and roaming the planet? We all are going to die, so adapt or move.

My husband is a scientist working at an environmental company, and there are numerous projects in his company and many companies that are working on solutions to reduce CO2, other than giving liberals the ability to tax us to death and control every minute of our lives.

Don't fall for the political rhetoric. There are science solutions and think what will be discovered in 100 years? 100 years ago, we didn't have widespread air-condition or heating, and 100 years before that, nada.

Humans are like the mammal equivalent of roaches. Humans are amazingly adaptable. And if humans can't adapt, well, so what.

margo james
margo james

Interesting that so many are opposed to an intelligent discussion of the data and their possible implications. It does run afoul of the crowd that sees environment policy as a religious exercise. Either you believe or you don't. Any attempt to use economic analysis to evaluate potential outcomes is considered heresy. Isn't economics the study of the allocation of resources?

Gene Consbruck
Gene Consbruck subscriber

The climate Nazis will never give up, even though it is like the last ten days in the bunker for them.

William Westmiller
William Westmiller

"Since "extremely" and "very" have specific and different statistical meanings here, comparison is difficult."

They have no meaning, except in the minds of scientists being paid by governments to forecast doom. The tags are not statistical, since they don't refer to any "confidence level" of a broad survey. They're just a consensus of opinion. Since ALL of the forecasts have been wrong, the "confidence level" for anything the IPCC says should be 0.0 - "ridiculously vaporous".

Michael Conn
Michael Conn

Water vapor and CO2 ... are the main greenhouse gasses." ... And so what?
Let's combine these considerations with some other realities.
- The Earth's overall absolute temperature is ~300 Kelvin. The "no big change" in TSI of ~0.1% represents a delta of +0.3 degrees Centigrade. That's a pretty good chunk of the +0.5 degrees Centigrade that has everybody in a snit.
- Multiple studies have indicated that massive amounts of CO2 is in solution (dissolved) in the Earth's oceans. And guess what, the oceans are made of WATER!
- Higher temperatures of the oceans does what? ... It vaporizes WATER and also drives CO2 OUT of solution. Interrestingly, water vapor is a STRONGER greenhouse gas than CO2, so we have a DOUBLE-WHAMMY!

So what do we deduce from these amazingly simple realities? Consider the following rationale.

Earth core samples have been taken by 32 different countries from all over the world. They include undersea samples and mountaintop samples as well. These samples clearly demonstrate a consistent 206-year Sun Cycle of warming and cooling as a subset of cycles between Earth Ice Ages. What they also clearly show is that CO2 levels increase AFTER an Earth warming, NOT before, as AGW alarmists would have you believe.

Because the CO2 dissolved in the oceans is forced OUT of solution by an increase in the water temperature. There have been many articles produced by the "alarmists" that warn of the release of CO2 from the warming oceans that will increase the rate of an Earth warming cycle (because it is a "greenhouse gas"). That reduction of dissolved CO2 will tend to REDUCE the acidity of the oceans in direct CONTRAST with the fears expressed by the alarmists. However, that release is a natural and inherent part of WHY we have these repetitive warming/cooling cycles on Earth.

WHY? (again)
Because this Earth provides a NATURAL control of the cycle limits. As the oceans warm, more water vapor is released. The water vapor ultimately increases the cloud cover over the earth. The clouds REFLECT the sunlight more efficiently than the oceans or the land masses of the continents, LIMITING further solar heating of the earth. Simultaneously, the increased CO2 in our atmosphere (released by the warming oceans) stimulates the growth of all vegetation which ABSORBS more CO2 out of the atmosphere. As the time lag necessary to increase/grow more vegetation passes, these factors of MORE reflection and MORE absorbtion combine to REVERSE the warming cycle and a cooling trend begins. GET IT???

FYI, the U.S. Dept. of the Interior released a report three years ago that clearly pointed out that the forestation in the United States had increased by over 40% during the last 50 years. GOSH, do you think that increased CO2 levels had anything to do with that?

Michael Conn
Michael Conn

A damaging (to the AGW nuts) finding was reported earlier this year....
March 2, 2013: LISTEN UP, AGW proponents: SCIENCE RULES!!! The ratio of atomic isotopes C14 to C12 is commonly used as evidence of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming; i.e., MAN-MADE Global Warming). HOWEVER, now it has been found that the extensive NUCLEAR TESTING conducted after World War II CREATED the ratio imbalance that is now observed worldwide. HOW??? Via atmospheric FALLOUT... THEREFORE, the AGW alarmists have LOST their supposedly MOST convincing argument!!!

Robert Chase
Robert Chase subscriber

The issue is poorly framed. Why are we disputing right or wrong when it only matters if the deniers are wrong. If the deniers win the debate and we do nothing and they are wrong the result could be catastrophic. On the other hand if the believers win we put lots of people to work building the energy system to power the future with all its attendant benefits.

Arthur Middleton
Arthur Middleton

Thank you for bringing honesty and clarity to the mindless madness about global warming.
It is quickly becoming debunked and exposed for the money grab that it most certainly is.
Algore has made a nice profit from the hoax.

~~John Galt Take Me With You .com ~~

john dates
john dates subscriber


"The college idealists who fill the ranks of the environmental movement seem willing to do absolutely anything to save the biosphere, except take science courses and learn something about it." - P.J. O'Rourke

Only 1222 days until Obama is recycled from office

Dwayne Keith
Dwayne Keith user

Of course there is climate change; otherwise we could be ice skating today in Atlanta. The climate continually changes. We have a living planet. I believe that the thing responsible for 100% of the warmth on the earth (the sun) is also responsible for warming or cooling periods. The thing that people need to understand is that the anti-capitalist political factions that prior to the end of the Cold War who were pro-Soviet or unabashedly socialist have all migrated to the environmentalist movement, particularly the global warming alarmaratchics. Green is simply the new Red.

John Garesche
John Garesche subscriber

The problem with your comparison story is that you actually read information and contributed positively to seeking a solution with an open mind. Denialists like Ridley are just cherry picking studies and pieces of studies that support their conclusion, and conveniently ignore the rest. Most notably cherry picked in this article is the entire fact that the moderation in surface temperature is mostly due to the ocean absorbing more heat than previously thought - but that's not a good thing. It will cause faster melting of ice packs, increase of jelly fish (unedible) and decrease to fishing stocks. All of this is already occurring. And the demonstration of negative effects from the current 0.8 degrees of warming increases on a daily basis.

One must look at the whole picture - and not loose sight of the burning forest just because a few trees are holding up.

Steven Cox
Steven Cox user

Although not clearly stated I read his 'most' comment to mean most dramatic in any one spot, not most based on land mass. I think most effect in any one spot is more significant than total heat being more in a land mass area that is greater, which is sort of obvious.

Brent Wilson
Brent Wilson subscriber

Is this founded in scientific evidence or the result of another worthless model?

JOHN MATTER subscriber

Arno - well written and researched. My only critique is one word:


John Garesche
John Garesche subscriber

Are you familiar with Venus? That is the result of higher CO2 levels. I believe the average temperature is about 460 degrees Celsius.

And current anthropogenic increase in CO2 levels is credited with increasing it from a CO2 level of about 280ppm (pre-1850's), 315ppm when precise measurements began in the 1950's, to about 400ppm today. That's an increase of 120ppm or about 40%. I'm not sure where your 3-5% figure comes from.

Also, CO2 levels have never been this high while humans have been on the planet. Algae loves the CO2. Sure, some plants do as well, but the overall benefit to agriculture will be outweighed by the changes in rainfall patterns to a greater drought-flood scenario.

Your point about CO2 levels affect directly on humans is completely irrelevant. The levels we are talking about do not affect the human body much. You exhale much higher levels of CO2 than we could ever put into the atmosphere.

Warren Hall
Warren Hall subscriber

No, Al Gore should be staked down naked in the desert, his body covered with honey and let Mother Nature have Her way with him.

Arthur Buck
Arthur Buck subscriber

But... doesn't this make the latest IPCC report... part of the "Climate Change Denier's" cabal?

Brent Wilson
Brent Wilson subscriber

Probably stuck in a depressed drunken stupor.

IPCC report will suck for sales and the Greens in Australia just got tossed out!!

Who's gonna pay for another fauxking windmill.

Kevin Fisher
Kevin Fisher user

If you are like the rest of us, you don't yet have an early copy of the upcoming IPCC report. So how do you know the presented numbers are just a consensus? The meaning of "very", "very likely" etc are provided in the glossary of the 2007 IPCC report "Climate Change 2007, Mitigation of Climate Change."

All forecasts have been wrong only according to criteria determined by deniers after-the-fact, not according to the original design and intent of the projections.

Barrie Harrop
Barrie Harrop subscriber

In your camp expect there many scientists who are best described as climate change pseudo-sceptics, most do not published refereed climate change academic journals.

Many have been financed by greenhouse gas emitting Industries and provided with moral support by anti- climate change lobby groups; with I expect you are wannabe member.


Kevin Fisher
Kevin Fisher user


For those of us who believe that AGW is a serious problem, it makes sense for representatives from various corners of the world to get together in person occasionally to address a problem that is worldwide in scope.

Most people I know don't enjoy work travel, perhaps excepting junior colleagues for whom it still seems exciting. I certainly don't. Committee work (eg industry standards committees) is especially tiresome and the local attractions usually eschewed since there is work to get done. Just my guess, but I doubt if IPCC participants, especially the senior ones, look forward to the meetings.

John Garesche
John Garesche subscriber

Wow - you need to do some reading Mr. Conn. May I recommend Wally Bruekner's The glacial world:

and NOAA:

I will say that you point out one of the most valid arguments about the uncertainties of climate change: the effect of water vapor and the equilibrium of CO2, heat and the oceans. However, the issue is anything but simple and many people far smarter than you or I have studied it extensively, and do not think it will have the moderating force you believe. The uncertainties here is what drives the range of differences between catastrophic to mild climate change.

But your comments about the increased forestation have nothing to do with CO2 - they have everything to do with the abandonment of agriculture in the northeast (so fields have converted back to forest) and better forestry practices everywhere. And despite that, CO2 levels have risen. CO2 levels will drive up algae blooms - which likely brought down the early very high CO2 levels in the past. But these blooms are not good for humans, mammals, or the fish we like to eat.

And your point about warming oceans releasing CO2 is actually one of the potential causes of a rapid climate shift that climate scientists most fear. If CO2 stopped being absorbed by the ocean, we are screwed - the atmosphere could warm much faster. If CO2 is released by the ocean, we are really screwed - the warming will likely be abrupt. Fortunately, your scenario is overly simplistic, and most climate scientists believe that the increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the amount of CO2 that water can absorb - despite the increasing water temperature. Ultimately the uncertainty lies in the way the ocean circulation will move the surface water down and deep water the surface - and on that front, we have our biggest mystery.

So your simplified thinking does not prove anything. But your use of all caps and your attitude proves that you probably do not care. You just want to be right.

John Garesche
John Garesche subscriber

And how exactly does the ratio of C14 to C12 have anything to do with climate change? I've not seen any pro AGW article that talks about C14 to C12. That ratio is used to date organic matter - not to show anything about the changes in atmospheric carbon.

Tim Dolan
Tim Dolan subscriber


I am referring to the IPCC. Please refer to their emails, many sources on the net. The AGW folks are the Science deniers and the Scientists that had their ethics purchased should be jailed and their PhD's pulled. The institutions that granted them PhD's should be forced to have ethical remediation added to their programs.

Tim Dolan
Tim Dolan subscriber

Sorry Sir. Google barrie harrop and then consider my comments in context.

Also review the references on this thread to Climate deniers should be put in jail, they are mentally defective.

Also denier was used to attempt to associate people who do not agree with the anti AGW crowd with the folks who wanted to deny the holocaust in Germany during WWII.

I am sure after you google harrop you will discover that he is just getting what he has sown. He and his ilk attempt to bully anyone who does not agree with them. They defend the IPCC even after emails surfaced where they appear to be choosing data transformation is a manner selected to keep their research funding coming. Science be damned, keep those research funds coming.

Finally there is the Republicans are "anti science" because they do not agree. Again rational people will have their BS detectors going off with such comments. This from folks like harrop who does not even have a degree according to his linked in page and the profile on this newspaper.

Review all the material and then comment. I don't have a lot of faith in someone who starts off with "denier" is a descriptive term. Their use is intended to intimidate and denigrate.

Tim Dolan
Tim Dolan subscriber

really biased comment. use of the word "deniers and believers" is judgmental. What we want is an objective Scientific assessment. We do not need the bought and paid for so called science that is being pushed by the IPPC. That in fact is the greatest crime, the corruption of the Scientific Process because it results in wasting resources or it results in the probability of us missing the opportunity of avoiding disaster.

Would like to note that use of the word "denier" in response to questions should cause every BS detector on the planet to go off.

Barrie Harrop
Barrie Harrop subscriber

Hey Bruce,
Myself quite busy although we have a team on the job dealing with these WSJ forums, its almost become a cottage industry dealing with Climate Deniers.

Barrie Harrop
Barrie Harrop subscriber

In your camp expect there are many scientists who are best described as climate change pseudo-sceptics, most do not published refereed climate change academic journals.


Arno Arrak
Arno Arrak user

Thanks, John. I am not an English major and when I get going I tend to neglect such niceties at times. Sorry.

Tim Dolan
Tim Dolan subscriber

anyone who uses the word "denier" in this context is guilty of "hate speech". How does it feel to be a bully? I am sure that you probably feel superior because you are not a "denier" but in reality you are nothing more than than an incompetent dumb A$$ desperately trying to prove that you have some self worth. Too bad you have failed.

Michael Conn
Michael Conn

Word count limits forced me to enter this last comment separately.

To put the last nail in the AGW coffin, see the conclusive Sun’s irradiance increases documented in Figure 2.17, page 190, “Reconstructions of the total solar irradiance time series starting as early as 1600.” The plot demonstrates without question the increase over time of the Sun's output radiation. Please not e that the increase started 200 years PRIOR to the Industrial Revolution during which massive amounts of CO2 have been generated by man, in addition to normal forest fires and other natural phenomena. The 11-year Sun activity sub-cycle is also very evident in the data.

To demonstrate due diligence, new tools and techniques to better understand the role of the Sun’s irradiance of the Earth were employed by IPCC contributors. Spectral analysis has been added in recent years to better separate and understand the effects of the different energy levels of the Sun’s irradiance levels during dark spots and flare activity. The result… absolutely NO surprises! WHY? Because the ratio of the Sun’s constituent matter has not changed, and the material makeup of the Sun’s flares is the same makeup of the near surface materials of the Sun; therefore the irradiance spectrum and the contribution of the radiating materials is the same. Again, confirmation of a pretty obvious deduction if one has his head screwed on right… and is not receiving billions of dollars in grant money to demonstrate the predetermined conclusion of AGW.

Michael Conn
Michael Conn

Thanks for your comments, John. However, I feel I must submit some convincing information that is documented (of all places) directly in the IPCC reports themselves that supports my basic contention that AGW contains considerable evidence of being a "witch hunt." Read on...

Reference Global Warming IPCC-ar4-chapter2.pdf.
The IPCC documents purported to support Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming (AGW), read like a crafty Lawyer’s presentation to an ignorant jury. Dozens of studies are referenced in the text (as opposed to footnotes) and disrupt one’s thoughts to help obscure the statements made in the text. Nevertheless, there are some important findings, admissions of error, and semi-buried conclusions that are unpopular with the AGW advocates… as they connote a different “truth” than the AGW advocates desired.

Radiative forcing (RF) is a concept used for quantitative comparisons of the strength of different human and natural agents in causing climate change. The primary external force that determines the Earth’s temperature is the Sun… PERIOD. There is no contention on this fact. The term used to describe that force is “Solar Radiative Forcing.”

The climate models used by the IPCC to predict global warming (GW) are of necessity based on some fundamental ASSUMPTIONS, as are all models of any phenomenon. Now, this document reveals that three of the fundamental assumptions on which the models are based are WAY overestimated… by a factor of 0.27 or FOUR TO ONE (pages 189,190). “Long-term solar irradiance changes over the past 400 years may be less by a factor of two to four than in the reconstructions employed by the TAR for climate change simulations.

Total Solar Irradiance has been mapped and recorded for decades. The cooler, “dark spots” and the flares (bright solar faculae) observed on the Sun’s surface have appropriately been taken into account in the models. The original estimates of long-term solar irradiance changes used in the TAR (e.g., Hoyt and Schatten, 1993; Lean et al., 1995) have been revised downwards, based on new studies indicating that bright solar faculae likely contributed a smaller irradiance increase since the Maunder Minimum than was originally Suggested.” The unstated meaning is simply that the Sun is behaving like it always has, and its activity cycles are clear and ongoing. Clearly of course, they are NOT in any way associated with any man-made phenomenon.

Further directly measured evidence is shown in Figure 2.16, page 189, that clearly illustrates the repeatable Sun cycles and absolute irradiance level changes that vary in time AS THEY ALWAYS HAVE. The misleading irradiance composite of Willson and Mordvinov, 2003, although incompletely understood, is now thought to be more of INSTRUMENTAL ERROR rather than true solar origin data (a bold admission of ERROR).

“Natural Forcings” and “Solar Variability,” page 188: “The estimates of long-term solar irradiance CHANGES used in the TAR … have been revised DOWNWARDS… and EMPIRICAL RESULTS (actual MEASUREMENTS!) since the TAR have strengthened the evidence for SOLAR FORCING of climate change…” NOTE: This one sentence out of the hundreds of pages of this document connotes a conclusion of “OOPS!... Errrrr… Ughhhhh… Never mind! We were wrong all along! It was indeed the SUN’s natural radiative forcing activity that has caused an increase in the Earth’s average temperature.”

Michael Conn
Michael Conn

Try reading the IPCC reports! The ratio of those two carbon isotopes is touted to be the FUNDAMENTAL EVIDENCE (to quote the IPCC) supporting the (false) "FACT" that the CO2 increase is man-made; i.e., Anthropogenic.

Laurence Voss
Laurence Voss

As it well should be. The willful and intended refusal to accept scientific fact over political opinion is astounding, not to mention sophmoric , ignorant, and idiotic. Ask the politicians from the Great Plains states whose constituents are drowning in Colorado and whose farmers are suffering record crop losses. Leave it to the corporate bootlickers to bury their heads and their integrity while accepting fat payoffs instead of serving the interests of their country. Jail is too good a place for these lying thieves.

Kevin Fisher
Kevin Fisher user

Tim, "denier" is a descriptive term that reveals the poster's bias. However, it is not as disrespectful or rude as what we are seeing from the other side in a large percentage of the posts herein; e.g., "AGW nuts", "climate Nazis", "I hope they carry cyanide capsules", "green is simply the new red", (your own) "too dumb to know he and his ilk."

Mark Cronin
Mark Cronin subscriber

Now reached the point perhaps to let the climate "dinosaur" be. Must really be so enervating to constantly cry "Denier! Denier!" every time there is suspicion of even the most minute disagreement with AGW gospel.

Bruce Frykman
Bruce Frykman user


Since you appear to have a lot of time on your hands and posses a such a keen understanding of all things mathematical, from the squares of hypotenuses to equations quadratical. I propose you submit this original and enlightening "climate change" research for "peer review" .

On Cartesian coordinates, plot the decreasing magnitude of the hyperbolic claims of climate catastrophe on the part of the IPCC on the y-axis. Likewise plot the year from the "first assessment" right through to the present year and a bit beyond on the x-axis.

Now here is where your original peer reviewed research comes in, so pay very careful attention:

Lastly extrapolate the negative slope of your plotted variables until it crosses the x-axis and then report the year that it occurs to the the IPCC and to the world. This will be the year the "climate crisis" will be completely over.

I don't know about others, but I'll nominate you for the Nobel "peace prize" for your enlightened and original "research"

Tim Dolan
Tim Dolan subscriber

your time would be better spent trying to gain some credibility as you have none. you copy and paste the same material as you used three years ago.

Who would consider your opinion? No people with substance. People who are capable of critical thinking will ignore all your noise. The more insults you pile on the opposition, the less credible you look.

harrop is unable to make a point so it resorts to name calling and ridicule. Sign of a failure.

Show More Archives

Popular on WSJ

Editors’ Picks