Dear Monica, I have the feeling that a lot of things are hiding from us ... are you the same opinion?

Dear followers, I have added a second important, and more extended youtube in the question details, which I repeat here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Following.

"We now have 100% undeniable evidence that chemtrails exist. The video below is of Rosalind Peterson, the president of Agriculture Defence Coalition. In it she address the United Nations on chemtrails, geoengineering, and weather modification."

https://youtu.be/L5is16A8pfw

In the following link, the paper is shown about the alleged manmade climate change. More than 30000 scientists signed the petition.

http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

Dear all, interesting update:

Interplanetary Climate Change NASA's Hottest Secret. A clip from David Wilcock

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqOkMaaYaAs

Thierry

You just provide an unrefereed youtube clip and a one-page leaflet?

And this against a full IPCC-report of WG1 with indeed hundreds of climatology experts

BTW ever read one of the reports yourself instead of the stuff of those second-rate pamphleteers?

@Harry ten Brink , Be serious, Harry! 4 molecules CO2 for each 10000 molecules of air! What does that do?

There is not the slightest proof of a serious manmade climate change.

Solar activity is influencing the planets many times more.

NASA and Dutch KNMI manipulated the figures of earlier heatwaves, so that it appeared that is was becoming worse now!

https://www.destaatvanhet-klimaat.nl/2019/03/07/persbericht-historische-hittegolven-ten-onrechte-geschrapt-door-het-knmi/

Listen to your Thierry Baudet, Dutch politician. A serious man!

It's all about freightening people, creating chaos, so that people are charged to "do more for the climate" on top of the high taxes they pay already.

It is the next trick of the "New World Order", the "Holy Trinity Cities" to enslave the people.

Who really financed the "Club of Rome"? What really is the "Club of Rome"? Do you think it is different now?

FAKE!

Best,

Thierry

This definitely shows that you do not have the slightest idea of the working of CO2 as a greenhouse gas

It means that you deny the existence of the NATURAL greenhouse effect

De staatvanhetklimaat: populair demagogy in the line of your admired foreman of FVD

Dear Harry, "... the working of CO2 as a greenhouse gas".

It's almost homeopathy!

There is a perfect historical correlation between the number of the sunspots count, and the temperature on Earth.

It has been proven that in the past, the raise of CO2 in air comes *after* the raise of temperature due to the sun, not before. Al Gore started a hoax!

The Mainstream Media don't report on the scam from NASA and KNMI. But Thierry Baudet reports it and no one can reply on that.

Moreover, how much influence will 4 molecules per 10000 molecules have do you think?

Where is the evidence that the temperature raise is man-made?

What is your reply on the many observed changes on the other planets?

Best,

Thierry De Mees

It is the ABSORPTIVITY of 4 molecules of CO2 versus zilch for 10000 molecules of air

like a drop of dye in a bath-tub of water

Dear Harry, how do you prove that long as it were 3 molecules CO2 per 10000 molecules of air, there was no problem, but with 4, there is?

Remember, it once was 8 molecules per 10000 molecules long time ago. Was that a catastrophe then?

You didn't reply to my other facts on the list of my last posts...

Best,

Thierry

Thierry

The difference in CO2 in the past century is 50%!

It is not about 2, 3 or 4 molecules

and those extra CO2 molecules WE produced when it were 8 we were not around yet

Dear Harry, you do as explained in this open letter, not going into a detailed debate, only showing your pamphlets.

Open letter to governments on climate change and climate policy.

https://www.climategate.nl/2019/04/open-letter-to-governments-on-climate-change-and-climate-policy/

This letter has originally been written by the Danish geologist, prof. em. dr. Johannes Krüger, and was addressed to the Danish Prime Minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen. Subsequently, the letter has been translated into Norwegian and – with slight amendments – addressed to the Norwegian Prime Minister, Erna Solberg, together with signatures of 20 Norwegian scientist, all climate realists.

Especially for you, a Dutch version: https://www.climategate.nl/2019/04/81224/

Best,

Thierry

Geologist is not a meteorologist / climatologist

I expect from scientists thorough analysis when critisising existing publications

I completely miss this in the pamphlet.

As prof Tennekes once said for the commission on Climate Change of the Dutch parliament: every meteorologist knows that increase in CO2 means increase in global temperature and adding that he did not trust the models. Still, when asked he mentioned that he could prove the simple statement at the back of an envelope

and there is a good site where the greenhouse effect (and in addition the extra greenhouse warming by manmade CO2) is nicely explained from simple to more advances stages by someone who started in 2009 with disbelief

I support an opinion Harry ten Brink

Dear Harry, you took only a few minutes to reply on my post with an extended study on the clime, and reduce your reply to the title of one of the writers. How credible and reliable are you as a serious unbiased scientist?

Moreover, saying: "every meteorologist knows that increase in CO2 means increase in global temperature" is of the same caliber as saying: "everyone knows that god exists." that is pure suggestional manipulation.

"prove the simple statement at the back of an envelope" is taking everyone for idiots.

Every serious meteorologist will agree that there exist a great number of influences to climate, hardly totally identifiable, with parameters that are not fixed.

So, your reference is just a liar and a manipulator.

The sun evidently is far the largest provider of energy and the Sun's activity fluctuations are very well documented.

Best,

Thierry De Mees

Thierry

A serious scientist answers in a split second when he is confronted with errors

Already 25 years ago the effect of the minute changes in solar insolation over past decades cannot be a reason for global warming by colleagues at KNMI against claims of such by professor de Jager our most prominent astronomer of the past decades.

Also the absorption of IR Terrestrial Radiation by CO2 is the reason for the NORMAL greenhouse effect as every textbook on meteorology shows

In case it is your opinion solar fluctuations are important then provide Scientific references instead of personal hunches

Dear Thierry De Mees

We must first agree that science is different points of view, each sees the subject from his own angle, and All of these views may be correct.

So I invite you to approach the subject of climate change quietly

First of all, we must determine what is scientifically meant by "climate change"

When will we say there is a change in climate?

I will reply later

mr Farnat

What are your credentials re Climate Change?

Dear Harry,

As far as credentials go, you can be a geoscientist, an astrophysicist, a chemist, a physicist, a climatologist, a meteorologist, an ocean expert, an engineer, a mathematician with modelling expertise and so on. Climate is the most complex and most interdisciplinary system and it is safe to say that no one has a complete understanding of climate.

It's all explained here, dear Harry...

https://www.qmap.pub/read/489

Time to wake up....

Excerpt of the open letter to governments on climate change and climate policy.

"when climate change and global warming are concerned, the media refuse to engage in in-depth journalism.

They almost exclusively rely on so–called climate experts, who pretend to represent the entire scientific community.

There are several examples of extreme pronouncements about climate change that are uncritically parroted by the media, or that journalists use the media as a platform for climate campaigning and activism.

For example, when a debate moderator categorically rejected a serious counter–argument to ‘Climate realism is shirking responsibility’ (in Kristeligt Dagblads Ethisk set, 4 February, 2019).

In doing so, the rules for good media ethics were violated.

Media attention is almost exclusively focused on those who support the claims of UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)."

Johannes Krüger

– – –

Johannes Krüger is dr. and Professor Emeritus at the Department of Geosciences and Nature Management, University of Copenhagen. Fields of research: landscape, glaciers and climate. He is author of the book: Climate myths – a critical assessment of today’s CO2–panic [Klimamyten – et opgør med tidens CO2–panik] (People’s Press 2016).

For me ResearchGate is about science and thus I do not care about popular media

Bottomline in all of the science is that CO2 is a greenhouse component that makes the world livable as it is. This is not about the ADDED CO2. As long as you categorically deny that a few CO2 molecules compared to an abundancy of air molecules do this there is just no basis for any meaningful exchange of anything

Climate change: The evented change in the rates of an any climate element during a period of not less than thirty consecutive years. The change in the rates of an any climate element, this means the change in the rates of all climates elements.

Because the climate elements linked to each other very tightly bound

To be sure, the temperatures rates have risen by nearly 1.5 degrees Celsius over the past three decades, (Higher temperatures lead to: increased evaporation, precipitation fluctuation, wind speed, increased relative humidity, changing atmospheric pressure, melting ice, sea level rise, changing sea currents…)

Now what is the reason for this:

Several factors affect global warming

But this gradual rise in temperature indicates a gradient in the effectiveness of the causative agent (means she didn't get suddenly)

We can count on statistical science; the correlation coefficient explains how much of an element (CO2, CH4, N2O…) contributes to global warming, Thus, this element explained (...%) of global warming.

We must not forget the influence of politics on science when it comes to a subject that concerns the whole world

I will attach some graphs to indicate

Dear all,

Excerpt of the open letter to governments on climate change and climate policy.

"The issue of the cause of today’s climate change and its many implications, is much more controversial than is being represented by the IPCC and the news media. Because the scientific measurements and observations show something which is quite different from the outcome of the inadequate computer–generated climate models. But politicians are incapable to understand this information and to use it as basis for rational decision–making, because they ignore relevant insights. This is due to the fact that the political environment, like the media world, is strongly biased by groupthink and self–censorship."

I agree 100% with Thierry's excerpt.

Dear all, the U.S. Democrats plan to budget 10 trillions of dollars on the alleged man-made climate change if they get the 2020 presidency. All money that will end in the pockets of the friendly corporations which will sponsor the politicians on their turn. All on the back of the U.S. taxpayer.

How do you think that the Clintons and Obama got so rich? Not by their salary!

Dems are real socialists: as soon as they get some power, they forget the people and fill their pockets.

That's why they continue the process, supported by the Fake News that the Dem's control. The Dems are familially interwoven with the CEO's and ownership of all the Mainstream Media by marriage.

Instead of a scientific debate, it has turned into a public propaganda scam.

In fact, it's a World Casino Game, all on the back of the taxpayer, and with their tacit consent because of the continuous spam-scam....

Dear Thierry De Mees

Yes, I told you that politics is using science to achieve its goals, but that doesn't mean climate change is an illusion.

Yes, politicians are taking advantage of the media to amplify or minimize any event commensurate with their interests, on internal and external issues also "Iran".

I joined this website (researchgate) about a month and a half ago, and found that the various colleagues avoid geopolitical issues, so I no longer put such things in my responses.

Dear Nasser, I agree that "that doesn't mean climate change is an illusion."

What are illusions are political, New World Order scams:

1) that the climate change is essentially man-made. In reality the man-made impact is pathetic compared with the sun's power and other natural events;

2) that the climate change is destroying the Earth/humanity due to allegedly rising oceans by more than 7 meters and by allegedly increasing the temperature with an additional 50°C over time, due to the supposed irreversability of CO2 increase.

3) that it is allegedly useful to spend billions/trillions worldwide to allegedly inverse the current evolution.

In reality, we cannot overthrow the power of the sun and the other natural forces. It suffices to just do our best as we did before, by thinking ecologically: solar/wind devices, recycle, insulate houses,... Not essentially more, and certainly not imposing additional pressure to the tax payer to finance exaggerated change.

The latter is going to happen due to these political NWO scams (not only about climate, much more), of which the UN is a part of (infiltrated) and helped causing the globalization having destroyed the jobs in the Western World, increasing the power of the Happy Few, impoverishing the not-have, helped and continue destroying the middle class, all under the cover of doing good to the less fortunate in the world.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

I just saw the video provided in Thierry's initial post and highly recommend it. Regardless of which side you're on, it is thought-provoking and highly entertaining.

Climate is one of the most complex systems known to science. The basic problem with complexity is stated by Popper as follows:

"The method of science depends on our attempts to describe the world with simple models. Theories that are complex may become untestable, even if they happen to be true. Science may be described as the art of systematic oversimplification, the art of discerning what we may with advantage omit." 

Thierry

Now you pose statements without even ONE scientific reference for your SCAM:

"What are illusions are political, New World Order scams

1) that the climate change is essentially man-made. In reality the man-made impact is pathetic compared with the sun's power and other natural events"

Where is this "knowledge" from?

This is your new insight after the "4 molecules of CO2 are negligible re 10000 air molecules was refuted?

Well, Harry, I recommend you to read my earlier posts again in which I gave several references.

Dear all, maybe it is now time to think of the low-return solar panels that, when placed on the roofs of houses, suffice for the man-made energy requirement of these houses, even in Holland. Even when accounting for the industry and cars, how much more low-return solar panels would be necessary? A factor of five? Of ten? What if the solar panels had a return of 100%? And how much would be necessary in sunny areas?

That means that the solar impact on gardens, open spaces, seas, oceans, mountains etc. are non-manmade.

What is the ratio between the roofs of houses to the total surface of the Earth?

What is the impact of the sun on the Earth?

How much does the activity of the plants and algae increase when the overall temperature increases? What does that mean for CO2 production by rotting dead biomass? What does it mean for man-made impact versus solar impact for CO2?

Isn't a little increase in solar activity giving much more CO2 impact than the actual man-made part of the CO2 production?

Isn't there a bell ringing?

Bell or do you mean soap bell?

1. Solar? What about wind-energy thinking of Holland (with its slow rivers) and constant winds

2. Algae? Algae growth and then rot does not change the CO2-concentration. It is existing and increasing deforestation like in Brazil; that is destroying natural CO2-storage whihc is included in the manmade CO2-emissions

Here as a start from Wikipedia:

Deforestation is the second largest anthropogenic source of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, after fossil fuel combustion. Deforestation and forest degradation contribute to atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions through combustion of forest biomass and decomposition of remaining plant material and soil carbon. It used to account for more than 20% of carbon dioxide emissions, but is currently around the 10% mark. By 2008, deforestation was 12% of total CO 2, or 15% if peatlands are included. These proportions are likely to have fallen since given the continued rise of fossil fuel use.[2]

Dear Harry, your point 1. shows that you didn't grasp the point that was made. It is a calculus that compares the man-made energy to the total solar energy on the planet. The man-made part is proven to be marginal compared with the total solar impact.

Hence, a small increase in solar impact gives an impact on biological activity that is far more important than the man-made part.

It is well-known that CO2 is produced by biological activity.

On the other hand, I agree that it is not suitable to continuously reduce the forests on the globe.

Equador invented the green certificates in order to maintain the forests there, but it wasn't taken seriously after some time. It isn't Brasil's responsibility either. It's everyone's responsibility. How much forests have been added in your country during the last century, Harry?

Thierry

You consistently come with "and now for something completely different"

Here is your original question

Manmade Climate Change, a Scam?

Answer: It is not a scam; and your last entry is not addressing the issue

but a vague idea of solar energy production versus total solar irradiance

What does this have to do with the current warming of the Globe by the emissions of Greenhouse Gases by Man?

Harry,

The Greenhouse Model is not a sacred cow. There are alternative theories that explain the same data equally well. Scientists have an obligation to consider those theories. Nothing has been proven yet.

Well, Harry, by saying "vague idea of solar energy production versus total solar irradiance", you still didn't grasp the essence.

It is the man-made energy production (expressed in solar energy surface) versus the total solar irradiance surface on Earth that was the calculation about.

The conclusion is that the man-made energy production is marginal in comparison, and a small percentual increase of solar activity will give a tremendous larger change in the climate than the man-made energy production, as well as a much more important CO2 production due to a biological activity increase.

Michael

ResearchGAte is a science forum

I ask you: write down for us the other scientific theories

As for global warming: this is NOT theory it is happening

CO2 is a normal natural Greenhouse Gas. This is not theory but proven physics since over 100 years (Arrhenius)

Thierry

The extra global warming is not DIRECT warming from energy use

It is the extra trapping of outgoing heat from the surface directly into space. You can compare that with an extra blanket to keep you warm.

This does not change the heat balance of the Earth:

The same amount of energy that is absorbed by the Earth is re-emitted into space

The difference with MORE greenhouse gases is that the emission is from a higher layer in the atmosphere which in turn implies a warmer atmospheric temperature at the surface. Ultrashort summary of the (extra) greenhouse effect

I recommend you to see this video,

https://youtu.be/2WaU_NJfKOE

it is made by a person who knows a lot about the subject. The data presented are quite convincing. The whole issue about climate change is definitely more complicated than we are told and we think. Scientists are obviously omitting many possible influences on our climate.

It covers very interesting issues in a short period of time. We are part of the whole set of influences on our mother Earth and its climate strongly depends on those influences.

Great stuff for my collection, thanks Jiri.

This does not at all address THE issue at hand:

the current enormous temperature increase in HALF A CENTURY

We cannot think about climate change in terms of human influence only. Definitely, we all agree that humans have a great impact on the climate of Earth. Nevertheless, we must think in the context. The context is quite thoroughly explained in the video.

The gravitational pull of Moon.

Mostly unknown cycles of solar activity.

Other cosmic influences.

Milankovitch cycle of precession of Earth axis.

And a lot more.

We must think about the climate as about complex systems. Humans are just one component, huge one but still one part of the whole. Complex systems are my field of research. I do apply complex systems approaches in medical research. We are are still lacking understanding of how bodies are working in health and disease.

Despite collecting data for decades, we are unable to see and predict the whole. We are lost.

Because the complexity of the human body and weather is comparable, it is more than probable that we are just scratching the surface of the complexity of the weather prediction. That all despite a great, decades-long, efforts.

On top of it, we are facing in preceded manipulation of research data in medicine. The reason? Money. Again, the weather research is manipulated too from the same reason.

Therefore, I always listen to both sides and look for funding resources before making any decision of reliability of given research outputs. The one who pays has a great influence on research outputs! Always.

That is not the issue

The issue is the almost 1C increase in global temperature in the past HALF a CENTURY. This is best explained by the increase in CO2 caused by burning fossil fuels in this period

Harry,

I prefer to keep an open mind. There are some top scientists who believe that CO2 does not precede but FOLLOWS the increase in temperature.

Dear all, a very well explained status about Climate Change here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDK1aCqqZkQ

That's not enough Thierry, the climate is much more complicated

Harry's view is realistic, logical and modest

Give my a scientific correlation between temperatures rise and anything, and we are going to look at

Don't play politics, dear Nasser. Harry doesn't have any "view" at all. He is just parroting the mainstream fake media.

Thierry

You go too far now accusing me of parroting media

I give you the SCIENTIFIC background of the NATURAL greenhouse effect. This is climatology 101

Without this natural greenhouse effect the Earth would not be habitable

Extra Greenhouse Gases give an extra greenhouse effect

Obviously you hate to study this for once else I would have provided you a good introduction by a scientist starting out as a denier

Michael

The warming by CO2 is basic physics and reason that we have an habitable world

It is the basis for the natural Greenhouse Effect.

The effect is the absoprtion of Infrared Radiation (also known as heat) that is emitted by the surface of the Earth. This results in so-called back-radiation. The result is that the surface cools less. This is just basic physics and known and published over 100 years now.

Google for Arrhenius

Harry,

If top scientists from MIT, Harvard, Stanford etc are disputing it, it can't be basic physics. Are these people ignorant of basic physics?

Michael Sidiropoulos

Where did you get the idea that top scientists from MIT, Harvard, Stanford are disputing the greenhouse effect? Perhaps you would like to name them.

The greenhouse effect was discovered by Horace Benedict de Saussure in the 18th Century,

Saussure, H.-B. de (2015) ‘Chapter 35 - The Cause of the Cold which Reigns on the Mountains’ (trans. A. B. McDonald), in Travels in the Alps, Neuchatel, Fauche-Borel, vol. Second, pp. 347–371 [Online]. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275330573_Travels_in_the_Alps_by_H-B_de_Saussure (Accessed 13 January 2016).

and the gases causing it - water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane, were determined in the 19th Century by John Tyndall. Tyndall, J. (1861) ‘The Bakerian Lecture: on the absorption and radiation of heat by gases and vapours, and on the physical connexion of radiation, absorption, and conduction’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, vol. 151, pp. 1–36 [Online]. Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/108724 (Accessed 15 October 2012).

Some distinguished scientists do doubt that the consequences of the increase in CO2 in the future will be catastrophic, but they are in a diminishing minority as wild fires, droughts, heatwaves, floods, and sea level rise increase.

Dear Alastair Bain MacDonald,

1. I will leave it to you to find those distinguished scientists and if you can't, I will provide the links.

2. Please read about the "underdetermination" of complex systems.

3. For now I will provide below a non-exhaustive list of major deficiencies in current climate models. The models will not be complete and meaningful until these deficiencies are addressed.

Major deficiencies in climate models

§ Aerosols. Here we argue that the magnitude and uncertainty of aerosol forcing may affect the magnitude and uncertainty of total forcing to a degree that has not been ade-quately considered in climate studies todate. Inferences about the causes of surface warming over the industrial period and about climate sensitivity may therefore be in error. (Anderson et. al, 2003).

§ CO2. Professor Murry Salby, chair of climate at Macquarie University, suggests that it’s warmth which tends to produce more CO2 rather than vice versa. Salby has worked at leading research institutions, including the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, Princeton University, and the University of Colorado. (Bolt, 2011).

§ Climate models. Notwithstanding their complexities, climate models remain deficient in many aspects of their portrayal of the climate, which reduces their ability to provide reliable simulations of future climate.Major imperfections in the models prevent proper simulation of important elements of the climate system, including pressure, wind, clouds, temperature, precipitation, ocean currents, sea ice, permafrost, etc. Large differences between model predictions and observations frequently exist when comparing these elements or features. In some cases computer models fail to simulate even the correct sign of the observed parameters. (Lupo, 2013).

§ Climate models. Stanford scientist Patrick Frank found that the 1856–2004 global surface air temperature anomaly with its 95% confidence interval is 0.8˚C ± 0.98˚C. The error bars are wider than the measured increase and we cannot reject the hypothesis that the world’s temperature has not changed at all. (Frank, 2011).

§ Climate models. Ideally, the assessment of model uncertainty should include uncertainties in model parameters (e.g., as explored by multi-model ensembles), and in the representation of physical processes in models (structural uncertainty). Such a complete assessment is not yet available, although model intercomparison studies improve the understanding of these uncertainties. The effects of forcing uncertainties, which can be considerable for some forcing agents such as solar and aerosol forcing also remain difficult to evaluate despite advances in research. (Hegerl, 2007).

§ Clouds. If we can find better ways to study the clouds in our climate models we will enhance our ability to describe the current developments of the climate and also how it is affected by us humans and our activities. Cloud-climate feedback is the greatest uncertainty in climate models and the projections made from these models. We really need to be better at describing clouds in our models. (Bender, 2018).

§ Cosmic rays. Attempts to show that certain details in the climatic record confirm the greenhouse forcing have been less than conclusive. By contrast, the hypothesis that changes in cloudiness obedient to cosmic rays help to force climate change predicts a distinctive signal that is in fact very easily observed, as an exception that proves the rule. (Svensmark, 2007).

§ Data. There are major problems with data gathered from direct observation of air temperatures. Air temperature measurements do not accurately represent global patterns because of changes in the location, number, distribution and development surrounding observation sites over the 20th century. (Legates, 2006).

§ Forcing factors. In recent years, the increase in near-surface global annual mean temperatures has emerged as considerably smaller than many had expected. We investigate whether this can be explained by contemporary climate change scenarios. In contrast to earlier analyses for a ten-year period that indicated consistency between models and observations at the 5% confidence level, we find that the continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level. Of the possible causes of the inconsistency, the underestimation of internal natural climate variability on decadal time scales is a plausible candidate, but the influence of unaccounted external forcing factors or an overestimation of the model sensitivity to elevated greenhouse gas concentrations cannot be ruled out. The first cause would have little impact of the expectations of longer term anthropogenic climate change, but the second and particularly the third would. (Storch, et. al, 2013).

§ Forcing factors. The rise in global average temperature over the last century has halted since roughly the year 2000, despite the fact that the release of CO2 into the atmosphere is still increasing. It is suggested here that this interruption has been caused by the suspension of the near linear (+ 0.5 °C/100 years or 0.05 °C/10 years) temperature increase over the last two centuries, due to recovery from the Little Ice Age, by a superposed multi-decadal oscillation of a 0.2 °C amplitude and a 50~60 year period, which reached its positive peak in about the year 2000—a halting similar to those that occurred around 1880 and 1940. Because both the near linear change and the multi-decadal oscillation are likely to be natural changes (the recovery from the Little Ice Age (LIA) and an oscillation related to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), respectively), they must be carefully subtracted from temperature data before estimating the effects of CO2. (Akasofu, 2013).

§ Forcing factors. There are many non-greenhouse factors at work on temperature, and it is very difficult to isolate the signal related to the buildup of human produced greenhouse gases. We need to understand why the trends in surface and lower tropospheric temperature differ to be able to explain the roles of the various climate system forcings. (Balling, 2003).

§ Forcing factors. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by the IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences. The climate model studies that claim to reproduce the global temperature trend since 1860 need further assessment and development. Of particular concern are the internal feedback processes, including the specification of clouds and their radiative properties. It is these feedback processes that erroneously amplify the enhanced greenhouse effect, including predictions of future climate change. (Kininmonth, 2007).

§ Forests. Rising atmospheric CO2 will make Earth warmer, and many studies have inferred that this warming will cause droughts to become more widespread and severe. However, rising atmospheric CO2 also modifies stomatal conductance and plant water use, processes that are often overlooked in impact analysis. We find that plant physiological responses to CO2 reduce predictions of future drought stress, and that this reduction is captured by using plant-centric rather than atmosphere-centric metrics from Earth system models. (Swann, 2016).

§ Greenhouse gases. The U.S. National Assessment, published in 2000, used only the HadCM2 (Hadley Centre model) and the CGCM1 (Canadian model) in analyzing the direction and impacts of climate change. It did not include other models from the United States. This is puzzling, since a majority of the models considered in the Third Assessment Report predicts much less warming from a doubling of atmospheric greenhouse gases — as little as 4.5° F. In particular, the Canadian model predicts more future warming under a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations than any other model. Thus, the results of the National Assessment are biased in that the extreme Canadian model was considered, but not the numerous models that suggest only modest warming. (Legates, 2006).

§ Greenhouse gases. The chief greenhouse gas, water vapour, is irregularly distributed, with most of it over the tropics and very little over the poles. Yet the IPCC tries to pretend it is uniformly distributed, so that its “anomalies” can be treated as “feedback” to the global temperature models. (Gray, 2008).

§ Land use. Local and regional climates respond not only to greenhouse gases, but primarily to changing land-use patterns. Civilization has a long history of dealing with unintended regional climate change caused by large-scale deforestation. The present deforestation in the Amazon basin and in Indonesia threatens to repeat the many mistakes made in the past. The incessant emphasis on CO2 and its effects on globally averaged temperatures leads many to ignore the fact that changes in the distribution of precipitation are far more threatening to agriculture and biosphere than any slight temperature changes. (Tennekes, 2008).

§ Oceans. Every 20 to 30 years, the Pacific Ocean changes sharply. The sudden shift is called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or PDO, and produces an ocean, air, and wind current shift. Fishermen will notice, for example, migrations of fish species along the West Coast. In 1976-1977 the Pacific Decadal Oscillation shifted, and is labeled the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976-1977. As a result, temperatures changed dramatically from their former average (since around 1946), and returned to warmth seen from around 1923 to 1946. So sharp is the shift that the appropriate thing to do is to look for a secular trend (which might be the human-made trend) before 1976-1977, and then after 1976-1977. But drawing a straight line through that natural event should be avoided. The PDO is natural, because proxy records--of tree growth, for example--detail the oscillation going back several centuries, which is prior to human activities that significantly increase the content of greenhouse gases in the air. (Baliunas, 2002).

§ Oceans. It has been argued that North Atlantic sea-surface temperatures were driven by volcanic and anthropogenic emissions of aerosols throughout the past century, particularly during the latter half of the twentieth century, but subsequent work casts considerable doubt on this claim because of considerable discrepancies between model results and observations. (Knudsen, 2014).

§ Oceans. Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin, was pleased that the IPCC acknowledged that natural variability may have played a part in the stall in upward temperature trends. But he said the report’s authors totally ignored groundbreaking research he presented six and four years ago that fully explained such “pauses." He attributes them to an intricate interaction of oceanic and atmospheric modes which either warm or cool the planet on a time scale of decades. (Roberts, 2015).

Oceans. I will not trust any climate model until and unless it can accurately represent the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and other slow features of the world ocean circulation. (Tennekes, 2009).

§ Solar variability. To date, the only proxy providing information about the solar variability on millennial time scales are cosmogenic radionuclides stored in natural archives such as ice cores. They clearly reveal that the Sun varies significantly on millennial time scales and most likely plays an important role in climatechange. (Beer et al, 2006).

§ Solar variability. The energy emitted from the Sun drives the climate system, and natural changes in its behaviour can have a far greater effect than human behaviour.Ιf the Sun undergoes long-term changes in activity - which it does - the amount of cosmic rays reaching the Earth will also vary over the same timescale, and so will the planet's overall cloudiness. The amount of cloud affects the amount of radiation from the Sun reaching the planet surface, which in turn affects the global temperature. (Brekke, 2000).

§ Solar variability. Long-term records of solar radiative output are vital for understanding solar variability and past climate change. Measurements of solar irradiance are available for only the last three decades, which calls for reconstructions of this quantity over longer time scales using suitable models. (Vieira et al., 2011).

§ Solar variability. Space-based observations of solar irradiance started in 1978. These measurements show that the solar constant is not constant. It varies on many time scales, including the 11-year sunspot solar cycle. When going further back in time, one has to rely on irradiance reconstructions, using sunspots for the past 400 years or cosmogenic radionuclides for going back 10,000 years. Such reconstructions have been done. These studies show that in addition to the solar irradiance variation with the solar cycle (the (Schwabe) cycle), the solar activitiy varies with longer cycles, such as the proposed 88 year (Gleisberg cycle), 208 year (DeVries cycle) and 1,000 year (Eddy cycle). (Vieira et al., 2011).

Urban heat effect. City temperatures on warm summer days can be as much as 8° F warmer than the surrounding countryside and annually average about 4.5° F warmer. Over the years, cities have grown so dramatically that many temperature stations are now significantly affected by this urban heat island effect. Cities are heat islands. (Legates, 2006).

Michael

Your first item is aerosols:

This is my specialism

Therefore the first question

Who what is a 16 year old reference to a certain Anderson (?)

Have a look in AR5 of the IPCC-report of WG-1

and you will see that over the years the effect of aerosols has been downgraded by dozens of REAL experts

In general: in science we provide full names and details on the respective the publication and at least a NUMBER of references that discuss the subject relative to what the community of hundreds of experts writing the IPCC report conclude

Michael Sidiropoulos

Like Harry I will only comment on your first article. I don't have time or inclination to find the references you can't be bothered to spell out.

You are referring to a perspective in Science mag., not a peer reviewed paper.

Anderson, T. L., Charlson, R. J., Schwartz, S. E., Knutti, R., Boucher, O., Rodhe, H. and Heintzenberg, J. (2003) ‘Climate Forcing by Aerosols--a Hazy Picture’, Science, vol. 300, no. 5622, pp. 1103–1104 [Online]. DOI: 10.1126/science.1084777 (Accessed 19 August 2019).

Their penultimate paragraph reads:

" Although even the sign of the current total forcing is in question, the sign of the forcing by the middle of the 21st century will certainly be positive. The reason is that GHGs accumulate in the atmosphere, whereas aerosols do not. Even if the most negative value of aerosol forcing shown in the figure turns out to be correct, the current range of plausible emissions scenarios (6) indicates that GHG forcing will exceed aerosol forcing somewhere between 2030 and 2050. Thus, despite current uncertainties, forward calculations lead to the unambiguous conclusion that anthropogenic activity will inevitably result in a strong, positive forcing of Earth's climate system. " [my emphasis]

That last sentence mirrors my last sentence.

" Some distinguished scientists do doubt that the consequences of the increase in CO2 in the future will be catastrophic, but they are in a diminishing minority as wild fires, droughts, heatwaves, floods, and sea level rise increase."

Dear all, real scientists give the benefit of the doubt to the subject when discussing, are sincerely looking for the full truth, and leave the predetermined beliefs outside the forum.

One of the greatest scams of this era is that papers must be peer-reviewed and published in "respectable" journals in order to be valid.

In this world, the papers that question Special Relativity, General Relativity, Dark Matter, the "Expanding Universe", the Big Bang, Dark Energy are simply dismissed.

What remains is politics, games of power, and deceptions.

Dear Michael Sidiropoulos , thank you for your valuable input. Indeed, if you may provide full references/links, that would be indeed utmost interesting.

Here is the list of references to be used with the list of model deficiencies posted above.

REFERENCES

Akasofu, S.-I. (2013). On the Present Halting of Global Warming. Climate 2013, 1, 4-11.

Anderson, T.L., Charlson, R.J., Schwartz, S.E., Knutti, R., Boucher, O., Rodhe, H., Heintzenberg, J. (2003). Climate Forcing by Aerosols—a Hazy Picture. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/29956220/Climate_Forcing_by_Aerosols-_A_hazy_picture/.

Baliunas, Sallie (2002, June 19). Warming Up to the Truth: The Real Story About Climate Change. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/2002archive.cfm/.

Balling, Robert (2003, September). "The Increase in Global Temperature: What it Does and Does Not Tell Us". Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20060222090652/http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/170.pdf/.

Beer, J., et al. (2006). Solar variability over the past several millennia. Space. Sci. Rev. 125,67–79.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11214-006-9047-4/.

Bender, Frida. (2018, November 20). New research on how clouds affect the climate. Retrieved from https://www.misu.su.se/about-us/news/new-research-on-how-clouds-affect-the-climate-1.413467/.

Bolt Andrew (2011, August 3). New research: warmth produces these carbon dioxide concentrations. Retrieved from https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/new-research-warmth-produces-these-carbon-dioxide-concentrations/news-story/1c1f63a692796478e81abe998cdd80f6/.

Brekke, Paal (2000, Novenber 16). Viewpoint: The Sun and climate change. BBC News. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1026375.stm/.

Gray, Vincent R. (2008, October). The Global Warming Scam. Retrieved from http://icecap.us/images/uploads/GLOBALSCAM.pdf/.

Hegerl, G.C., F. W. Zwiers, P. Braconnot, N.P. Gillett, Y. Luo, J.A. Marengo Orsini, N. Nicholls, J.E. Penner and P.A. Stott, 2007: Under- standing and Attributing Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Knudsen, M.F., Jacobsen, B.H., Seidenkrantz, M.S., & Olsen, J. (2014, February 25). Evidence for external forcing of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation since termination of the Little Ice Age. Nature. 5: 3323. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms4323/.

Legates, David (2006, May 15). Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts. Retrieved from http://www.ncpathinktank.org/pub/st285?pg=3/.

Lupo, Anthony, Kininmonth, William (2013). Global Climate Models and Their Limitations. Retrieved from http://weather.missouri.edu/gcc/_09-09-13_%20Chapter%201%20Models.pdf/.

Orlowski, Andrew (2007, August 14). Dyson: Climate models are rubbish. Register. Retrievd from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/14/freeman_dyson_climate_heresies/.

Roberts, John (2015). UN's massive new climate report adds little explanation for 'pause' in warming. Retrieved from https://www.foxnews.com/science/uns-massive-new-climate-report-adds-little-explanation-for-pause-in-warming/.

Stanford, Kyle (2017). Underdetermination of Scientific Theory. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/scientific-underdetermination/.

Storch, von H., Barkhordarian, A., Hasselmann, K., Zorita, E. (2013). Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming? Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/4210419/Can_climate_models_explain_the_recent_stagnation_in_global_warming/.

Svensmark, Henrik (2007). Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/48/1/1.18/220765/.

Swann, A. L., Hoffman, F. M., Koven, C. D., & Randerson, J. T. (2016). Plant responses to increasing CO2 reduce estimates of climate impacts on drought severity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(36), 10019–10024. doi:10.1073/pnas.1604581113

Tennekes, Hendrik (2008, July 14). My Position on Climate Change. Retrieved from https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/my-position-on-climate-change-by-hendrik-tennekes/.

Tennekes, Hendrik (2009, January 30). Three Essays on Climate Models. Retrieved from http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/tennekes_essays_climate_models.pdf/.

Vieira, L. E. A., Solanki, S. K., Krivova, N. A., Usoskin, I. (2011). Evolution of the solar irradiance during the Holocene. Astronomy & Astrophysics 531 A6 (2011). DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015843.

OK Michael

The references are there and here my first reactions on persons I know

Tad Anderson and many more of the co-authors are from a time when the aerosol effect was much less known and the ideas from that time thus "outdated"

Svensmark's hypothesis has been fully refuted

Tennekes was completely silenced by our national parliamentary commission on Climate Change in 1998 by an econometrist by education

Tennekes mentioned that as a meteorologist he knew extra CO2 meant global warming but he then said that the models were so complex for projecting what would happen

The econometrist said that is the same in economy models but this the only way the future of the economy can be projected and politics can work

The sad truth is that the Club of Rome started its scam around 1975 with its 1980 report, while the global temperature had decreased all along since 1940 and stabilized very well until 1975.

So, what was the reason for this alarming 1980 report? The control by the Elite of the World by a scam that is substantiated by sponsored and controlled "studies", which try to dictate enormous investments, to be paid by the taxpayer, and which benefit to the globalized large companies, banksters, and some politicians.

The main result is the empoverishment of the people and the enrichment of the richest.

This scam implies/creates other scams, such as to force people of remote areas to use exclusively solar panels and windmils, so that they have no chance to industrialize, even by little steps, for which fuel is necessary.

Another scam is to make believe that biodiesel is excellent and better than fossile fuel. Even if that can be calculated as such, the consequence is that poorer countries would produce this under pressure of the world markets and corruption of the politicians, and neglect the production of food, creating so the enrichment of the Elite and empoverishing of the people.

The result is the enforcement of a government above state governments by a factual but hidden Elite, which dictates the evolution of mankind according to their own agenda.

Yet, the numerous confirmations on the internet of the use of chemtrails, for geo-engineering and to control the human mind, confirms since 1980 the alleged man-made temperature increase.

For those who need more information on the Holy Trinity Cities: Washington DC, London, Vatican:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuIjXUceZII

The gross exploitation of little Greta Thunberg is immoral and in some countries, such as Canada and the USA, it would be a child abuse case before the law. This is perhaps the biggest scandal since "Climategate" when in 2009 scientists at the University of East Anglia falsified data that did not show increasing temperatures. If the climate activists could win the debate through science, they wouldn’t have to resort to such means.

CFC patents were running out. Dupont created the hoopla about the Ozone hole which existed way before CFCs. Thus they were banned and their production stalled. Then the HFC patents wee running out. So the hoopla about Global warming began to secure bans for world wide production. Then HCFC came along.. then HFEs, soo there will be another new form of OZONE depletion.. GWP then perhaps OCEAN poisoning... It will continue to secure the patent leadership and technology hold.. How can ants on a potato skin cause the potato to warm up?

Thierry

Climatology 101a and 101b:

101a Climate is the weather averaged over a period of 30 years

101b Climate Change is a change from ONE period of 30 years to the next

Thus the scientific question: what has 1980 to do with climate change, and, second question is 1980 the end of history?