Svensmark Closes the Loop -- The Missing Link Between GCR's, Clouds and Climate

[Jack Hays]

Uh huh. Let's look at some other climate science papers published by Nature and its affiliated journals recently, shall we?

Greater future global warming inferred from Earth’s recent energy budget
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24672

The far reach of ice-shelf thinning in Antarctica
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-017-0020-x

Industrial-age doubling of snow accumulation in the Alaska Range linked to tropical ocean warming
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-18022-5

Future loss of Arctic sea-ice cover could drive a substantial decrease in California’s rainfall
(abstract points out this is another way AGW will affect the environment)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01907-4

Intensification of terrestrial carbon cycle related to El Niño–Southern Oscillation under greenhouse warming
(i.e. how anthropogenic forcing will intensify the ENSO-related carbon cycle)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01831-7

New science of climate change impacts on agriculture implies higher social cost of carbon
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01792-x

Recently amplified arctic warming has contributed to a continual global warming trend
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-017-0009-5

So, I'm curious. Why didn't you make a post about any of these articles, published in various Nature journals... including Nature Communications? Why aren't any of these "game changers" that will cause a "paradigm shift" and will knock people's socks off?

Oh, and I'm curious. Since 1880, global average temperatures have risen about 0.94°C. Based on Svensmark's paper, what percentage of that is attributable to increased ionization in the troposphere due to cosmic ray flux? And where does he quantify that in the paper?

Svensmark's work will displace CO2 from the center of climate science.

Temperature since 1880 is not a topic addressed in the new paper. You're in luck though, because one of the co-authors, Nir Shaviv, addressed that some time ago.

". . . Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually quantify empirically the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20th century warming. This contribution comes out to be 0.5±0.2°C out of the observed 0.6±0.2°C global warming (Shaviv, 2005). . . ."

http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolarHYPERLINK

 

[longview]

Showing a chart of 14 years of data with no source, AND a typo (it's "CERES," not "CERIS")? Impressive. What denier site did you pull that from?



Or:

We know how greenhouse gases work; we know that CO2, methane and other gases produced by human activities are greenhouse gases; we have a variety of tools to estimate past CO2 amounts, and tools to measure current CO2 amounts in the atmosphere. On that basis, we can make predictions such as "as the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere rise, temperatures will also rise."

In order for Svensmark to make a solid case, he'd have to explain what we are currently seeing. However, his model predicts the opposite. There hasn't been significant change in cosmic rays over the past 50-60 years; in fact, cosmic ray flux has fallen slightly since 1970, while temperatures keep rising. Numerous studies have not found a significant correlation between cosmic ray flux and global temperatures.

And of course, none of what he's writing actually disproves the facts that a) greenhouse gases trap heat, b) the amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are steadily rising, c) human activity is responsible for most of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and d) temperatures keep rising, while his claims suggest they should have been falling since the 1970s.

I.e. Svensmark is not, in fact, providing a valid alternative to mainstream theories. Not by a long shot. While cosmic ray flux may be having a small effect on global temperatures, the reality is that he's just providing fodder to people who Desperate Deniers.

What is really fascinating is that the deniers give Svensmark a pass on completely and publicly blowing his predictions, while screaming that legitimate scientists whose predictions are on the low end of projections is "proof" that those projections are so utterly wrong that everyone should ignore them forever.

The graph is mine from the the CERES data back in February of 2017,
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/index.php
and the CO2 data came from,
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt

I am not contesting that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is, the real question is how sensitive is the atmosphere
to the added CO2, and the data shows it is not very sensitive.

As to Svensmark , Your comment "There hasn't been significant change in cosmic rays over the past 50-60 years;"
validates that you have little grasp of what he is saying.
He is not saying that there has been a change in cosmic rays, he is saying that changes in our Sun regulate
how much of the available cosmic rays enter the atmosphere.
Since you got the basic premise incorrect, anything that follows are simply wasted words.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The graph is mine from the the CERES data back in February of 2017,
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/index.php
and the CO2 data came from,
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt

I am not contesting that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is, the real question is how sensitive is the atmosphere
to the added CO2, and the data shows it is not very sensitive.

As to Svensmark , Your comment "There hasn't been significant change in cosmic rays over the past 50-60 years;"
validates that you have little grasp of what he is saying.
He is not saying that there has been a change in cosmic rays, he is saying that changes in our Sun regulate
how much of the available cosmic rays enter the atmosphere.
Since you got the basic premise incorrect, anything that follows are simply wasted words.

They think they understand these sciences by appealing to the authority of their favorite pundits.

 

[Jack Hays]

Finally! The missing link between exploding stars, clouds and climate on Earth

Blog topic:
astronomy, cosmic rays, global warming, personal research, weather & climate


Our new results published today in nature communications provide the last piece of a long studied puzzle. We finally found the actual physical mechanism linking between atmospheric ionization and the formation of cloud condensation nuclei. Thus, we now understand the complete physical picture linking solar activity and our galactic environment (which govern the flux of cosmic rays ionizing the atmosphere) to climate here on Earth though changes in the cloud characteristics. In short, as small aerosols grow to become cloud condensation nuclei, they grow faster under higher background ionization rates. Consequently, they have a higher chance of surviving the growth without being eaten by larger aerosols. This effect was calculated theoretically and measured in a specially designed experiment conducted at the Danish Space Research Institute at the Danish Technical University, together with our colleagues Martin Andreas Bødker Enghoff and Jacob Svensmark.[FONT=&quot]Background:
It has long been known that solar variations appear to have a large effect on climate. This was already suggested by William Herschel over 200 years ago. Over the past several decades, more empirical evidence have unequivocally demonstrated the existence of such a link, as exemplified in the examples in the box below. . . .
[/FONT]

 

[Jack Hays]

Continued from #104:

Box 1: Examples demonstrating the Solar/Climate link
The fact that the ocean sea level changes with solar activity (see Box 1 above) clearly demonstratesthat there is a link between solar activity climate, but it can be used to quantify the solar climate link and show that it is very large. In fact, this “calorimetric” measurement of the solar radiative forcing is about 1 to 1.5 W/m2 over the solar cycle, compared with the 0.1-0.2 W/m2 change expected from just changes in the solar irradiance. This means that a mechanism amplifying solar activity should be operating—the sun has a much larger effect on climate than can be naively expected from just changes in the solar output.
Over the years, a couple of mechanisms were suggested to explain the large solar climate link. However, one particular mechanism has accumulated a significant amount of evidence in its support. The mechanism is that of solar wind modulation of the cosmic rays, which govern the amount of atmospheric ionization, and which in turn affect the formation of cloud condensation nuclei and therefore how much light do the clouds reflect back to space, as we now explain.
Cosmic Rays are high energy particles originating from supernova remnants. These particles diffuse through the Milky Way. When they reach the solar system they can diffuse into the inner parts (where Earth is) but lose some energy along the way as they interact with the solar wind. Here on Earth they are responsible for most of the ionization in the Troposphere (the lower 10-20 km of the atmosphere where most of the “weather” takes place). We now know that this ionization plays a role in the formation of cloud condensation nuclei (CCNs). The latter are small (typically 50nm or larger) aerosols upon which water vapor can condense when saturation (i.e., 100% humidity) is reached in the atmosphere. Since the properties of clouds, such as their lifetime and reflectivity, depends on the number of CCNs, changing the CCNs formation rate will impact Earth’s energy balance.
The full link is therefore as follows: A more active sun implies a lower CR flux reaching Earth and with it, lower ionization. This in turn implies that fewer cloud condensation nuclei are produced such that the clouds that later form live shorter lives and are less white, thereby allowing more solar radiation to pass through and warm our planet.

​

Figure 5: The link between solar activity and climate: A more active sun reduces the amount of cosmic rays coming from supernovae around us in the galaxy. The cosmic rays are the dominant source of atmospheric ionization. It turns out that these ions play an important role in (a) increasing the nucleation of small condensation nuclei (a few nm) and (b) increasing the growth rate of the condensation nuclei (which is the effect just published). The larger growth rates imply that they are less likely to stick to pre-existing aerosols and thus have a larger chance of reaching the sizes of cloud condensation nuclei (CCNs, typically > 50 nm in diameter). Thus, a more active sun decreases the formation of CCNs, making the clouds less white, reflecting less sunlight and therefore warming Earth.
Until today we had just empirical results which demonstrate that this link is indeed taking place. The main results are summarized in Box 2 below. In particular, we have seen correlations between solar activity and cloud cover variations, as well as between cosmic ray flux variations arising from changes in our galactic environment and long term climate change using geological data. . . .

 

[Jack Hays]

Continued from #105:

Box 2: Examples showing the cosmic ray climate link
The first suggestion for an actual physical mechanism was that ions increase the nucleation of small (2-3 nm sized) aerosols called condensation nuclei (CNs). The idea is that small clusters of sulfuric acid and water (the main building blocks of small aerosols) are much more stable if they are charged. That is, the charge allows the aerosols to grow from a very small (few molecule) cluster to a small stable CN without breaking apart in the process. This effect was first seen in our lab (Svensmark 2006). The effect was seen again in the CLOUD experiment running at CERN (Kirkby 2011). Later experiments have shown that ions accelerate also other nucleation routes in which the small clusters are stabilized by a third molecule (such as Ammonia). That is, ions play a dominant role in accelerating almost all nucleation routes (as long as the total nucleation rate is lower than the ion formation rate).

Figure 7: The Ion induced nucleation effect measured in the lab. Left: The first demonstration in our SKY experiment showing that increased ionization increases the nucleation of small aerosols (typically 3 nm in size). Right: Corroboration of the results in the CLOUD experiment at CERN.
In the meantime, a number of research groups aimed at testing the idea that cosmic ray ionization could help the formation of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). This was done by using large global circulation models coupled with aerosol physics. The idea was to see if an added number of small aerosols would grow into more CCNs. All of the numerical models gave the result that the small aerosols were lost before they could become large enough, leading to the conclusion that the effect of cosmic rays on the number of CCN over a solar cycle was insignificant (e.g., Pirece and Adams 2009). This could also be explained analytically (Smith et al. 2016). It was therefore proclaimed that the theory was dead.
Given the empirical evidence, it was clear to us that a link must be present, even if the ion induced nucleation mechanism itself is insufficient to explain the link. Thus, our response was to address the same question without using models but instead to test it experimentally. Therefore, in 2012 we tested if small nucleated aerosols could grow into CCN in our laboratory and discovered that without ions present, the response to increased nucleation was severely damped, just like the above-mentioned models; however with ions present, all the extra nucleated particles grew to CCN sizes, in contrast to the numerical model results (Svensmark et al. 2013). So, experiments contradicted the models. The logical conclusion was that some unknown ion-mechanism is operating, helping the growth.

​

Figure 8: Left: When injecting small aerosols, the relative increase decreases with aerosol size because as aerosols grow they tend to coagulate with larger aerosols. Right: However, when increasing the ionization in the chamber, not only are more aerosols nucleated, the relative increase survives to larger sizes implying that some mechanism is increasing the survivability of the aerosols as they grow.
Following the experimental results showing that increased ionization does indeed increase the number of large CCNs, the natural question to ask was whether these results were caused by the particular experimental conditions—perhaps this mechanism does not work in the real atmosphere. It is therefore fortunate that our Sun carries out natural experiments with the whole Earth. . . .

 

[Jack Hays]

Continued from #106:

On rare occasions, “explosions” on the Sun called coronal mass ejections result in a plasma cloud passing the Earth, with the effect that the cosmic rays flux decreases suddenly and remains low for about a week. Such events, with a significant reduction in the cosmic ray flux, are called Forbush decreases, and are ideal to test the link between cosmic rays and clouds. Finding the strongest Forbush decreases and using three independent cloud satellite datasets and one dataset for aerosols, we clearly found a response to Forbush decreases. These results validated the whole chain from solar activity, to cosmic rays, to aerosols (CCN), and finally to clouds, in Earth’s atmosphere (Svensmark et al 2009, Svensmark et al. 2016).

Figure 9: The average effect of the 5 strongest Forbush decreases in the 1987-2007 period on cloud properties. Plotted in red is the reduction in the cosmic ray flux following “gusts” in the solar wind (from Coronal Mass Ejections). In black we see the reduction in aerosols over the oceans and three different cloud parameters from three different datasets (Svensmark et al 2009). These results provide an in situ demonstration of the effect of cosmic rays on aerosols and cloud properties.
With the accumulating empirical and experimental evidence, it was clear that atmospheric ionization is playing a role in the generation of the aerosols needed for cloud formation, however, the exact mechanism proved to be elusive. For this reason, we decided to setup another laboratory experiment mimicking conditions found in the real atmosphere and study how atmospheric ions may be affecting the production of CCNs. This also led us to look for alternative mechanisms which will increase the survivability of the CNs as they growth. Indeed, after several years of research, one was found.
The discovery
A little more than 2 years ago, we made the realization that charge will play a role in accelerating the growth rate of small aerosols. When more ions are present in the atmosphere, more of them end up sitting on sulfuric acid clusters of a few molecules. Moreover, the charge makes the sulfuric acid clusters stick to the growing aerosols much faster, as we explain in the box below. Since faster growing aerosols have lower chances of coagulating with larger aerosols, more of the growing aerosols can then survive to reach larger sizes. In other words, when the ionization rate is higher, more CCNs can are formed. . . .

 

[Jack Hays]

Continued from #107:

Box 3: The physics behind the new mechanism
After realizing that this effect should be taking place we did two things. First, we calculated how large it should be and found that for the typical conditions present in the pristine air above oceans, in which the typical sulfuric acid density is a few 106molecules/cm3, the ions accelerate the growth by typically 1 to 4%. However, because the number of aerosols surviving the growth is exponentially small (typically several e-folds), the relative change in the CCN density is a few times larger still (by the number of e-folds in the exponential damping to be precise). Thus, over the solar cycle (which changes the tropospheric ionization by typically 20%), we expect a several percent variation in the CCN density and with it, the cloud properties, as is observed.
The second thing we did was go to the lab and design an experiment in which we can see this effect taking place (and also validate our theoretical calculations). This is not trivial because the effect is larger for lower sulfuric acid levels (as a larger percentage of the molecules would be charged). However we cannot measure at very low sulfuric acid levels because the aerosols then grow very slowly such that they stick to the chamber walls before their growth can be reliably measured. This forced us to measure at high sulfuric acid levels for which the effect is smaller. This posed a formidable technological challenge. To overcome this, we designed an experiment which can keep relatively stable conditions over long periods (up to several weeks at a time) during which we could automatically increase or decrease the ionization rate at the chamber. This allowed us to collect a large amount of data and get high quality signals (e.g., see fig. 11 in the box below).
We found that aerosols indeed grow faster when the ionization rate is higher, totally consistent with the theoretical predictions (as can be seen in fig. 12 in the box below). This allows them to survive the growth period without coagulating with larger aerosols. . . .

 

[Threegoofs]

The graph is mine from the the CERES data back in February of 2017,
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/index.php
and the CO2 data came from,
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt

I am not contesting that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is, the real question is how sensitive is the atmosphere
to the added CO2, and the data shows it is not very sensitive.

As to Svensmark , Your comment "There hasn't been significant change in cosmic rays over the past 50-60 years;"
validates that you have little grasp of what he is saying.
He is not saying that there has been a change in cosmic rays, he is saying that changes in our Sun regulate
how much of the available cosmic rays enter the atmosphere.
Since you got the basic premise incorrect, anything that follows are simply wasted words.

moyhu: On Climate sensitivity and nonsense claims about an "IPCC model"

 

[Jack Hays]

Continued from #108:

Box 4: Sample Results
So, what do the results imply? Until now we had significant amount of empirical evidence which demonstrated that cosmic rays affect climate, but we didn't have the actual underlying physical mechanism pinned down. Now we have. It means that we not only see the existence of a link, we now understand it. Thus, if the solar activity climate link was until now ignored under the pretext that it cannot be real, this will have to change. But perhaps more interestingly, it also explains how long term variations in our galactic environment end up affecting our climate over geological time scales.


Box 5: Why is the CR/climate link ignored?
Given all the empirical evidence that has accumulated until now, the climate community should have considered it seriously, and even if the actual mechanism was until now missing, the empirical evidence showing and quantifying the solar climate link shouldn’t have been ignored by most of the community.
The reason is actually very simple and lays in the implication of the link. If the sun has a large effect on climate, then its increase activity over the 20th century should have contributed at least some of the global warming. In fact, the calorimetric sea level based measurements imply that a bit more than half of the 20th century warming should be attributed to the sun. If so, the role that humans have had is diminished. In fact, when one considers the role that the sun has had over the20th century, one finds that a) the temperature variations can actually be much better explained (with a smaller residual) and the required climate sensitivity is on the low side (about 1 to 1.5°C increase per CO2 doubling, compared with the canonical range of 1.5 to 4.5°C advocated by the IPCC, see Ziskin & Shaviv, 2012). The low climate sensitivity implies that the same emission scenarios will give rise to more modest temperature increases over the 21st century. These good news imply that we are not in as dire a situations as we often hear. But many do not like hearing this.
Now that the mechanism is actually known, there should be no excuse in ignoring it any further, but given the above implications, it would most likely still be ignored.

 

[Threegoofs]

https://gizmodo.com/no-supernovae-arent-changing-earths-climate-1821439511

 

[Jack Hays]

https://gizmodo.com/no-supernovae-arent-changing-earths-climate-1821439511

It is not surprising that the deniers will react. I'm amused that the best this guy can do is say, "No it's not!" and cover his ears.

 

[longview]

moyhu: On Climate sensitivity and nonsense claims about an "IPCC model"

Since you insist in linking something without detailing which section is relevant, we are left to assume
whatever point you thought you were making.
As to CO2 sensitivity, your linked blog used the following statement.

CS is normally expressed relative to CO₂ doubling, but it is linked to forcing in W/m² by
∆F = 5.35* ∆log([CO2])
which implies ∆F = 3.7 W/m² for CO₂ doubling.

The sensitivity number is theoretical, and have been adjusted down many times since 1896.
The only actual measurements we have are from the CERES satellite.
The 5 year average FLUX centered on 2003 was .6106 Wm-2
The 5 year average FLUX centered on 2014 was .7811 Wm-2
The delta flux was an increase of .1705 Wm-2.
The high point in CO2 in 2003 was 378.6 ppm
The high point in CO2 in 2014 was 401 ppm.
If we applied the blog authors default formula for forcing, we get,
5.35 X ln(401/378.6)= .307 Wm-2
Since this is clearly much higher than measured .1705 Wm-2 over the change in CO2,
the old default formula for forcing is in error.
Just for grins, let's push the empirical data backwards through their formula for a multiplier based on observations.
.1705/ln(401/378.6)= 2.966, this should then work the proper direction and check the work.
2.966 X ln (401/378.6)= 1.704 Wm-2.
So what would the actual 2XCO2 forcing be?
2.966 X ln(2)=2.055 Wm-2.
The IPCC says that the 3.71 Wm-2 of Flux, would force 1.2 C of warming,
so 1.2/3.71=.323, is how much warming they expect from each Wm-2 of Flux.
so .323 X the empirical base 2XCO2 flux of 2.055 Wm-2, equals, .6637 C.
Wow, I always thought Dr. Lindzen numbers were on the low side, but when the actual data
says otherwise, I am willing to admit I was wrong.

 

[Threegoofs]

Since you insist in linking something without detailing which section is relevant, we are left to assume
whatever point you thought you were making.
As to CO2 sensitivity, your linked blog used the following statement.

The sensitivity number is theoretical, and have been adjusted down many times since 1896.
The only actual measurements we have are from the CERES satellite.
The 5 year average FLUX centered on 2003 was .6106 Wm-2
The 5 year average FLUX centered on 2014 was .7811 Wm-2
The delta flux was an increase of .1705 Wm-2.
The high point in CO2 in 2003 was 378.6 ppm
The high point in CO2 in 2014 was 401 ppm.
If we applied the blog authors default formula for forcing, we get,
5.35 X ln(401/378.6)= .307 Wm-2
Since this is clearly much higher than measured .1705 Wm-2 over the change in CO2,
the old default formula for forcing is in error.
Just for grins, let's push the empirical data backwards through their formula for a multiplier based on observations.
.1705/ln(401/378.6)= 2.966, this should then work the proper direction and check the work.
2.966 X ln (401/378.6)= 1.704 Wm-2.
So what would the actual 2XCO2 forcing be?
2.966 X ln(2)=2.055 Wm-2.
The IPCC says that the 3.71 Wm-2 of Flux, would force 1.2 C of warming,
so 1.2/3.71=.323, is how much warming they expect from each Wm-2 of Flux.
so .323 X the empirical base 2XCO2 flux of 2.055 Wm-2, equals, .6637 C.
Wow, I always thought Dr. Lindzen numbers were on the low side, but when the actual data
says otherwise, I am willing to admit I was wrong.

How’s the armchair feeling today?

Comfy?

 

[longview]

How’s the armchair feeling today?

Comfy?

Slightly better than confirmation bias, and blind faith,
at least I have the support of the empirical data.

 

[Threegoofs]

Slightly better than confirmation bias, and blind faith,
at least I have the support of the empirical data.

Well, I have the support of the National Academy of Sciences, and dozens of other scientific organizations, plus a heavy majority of climate scientists, who actually SUPPLY that empirical data to you.

 

[Dittohead not!]

There was warming pause starting around 2000 and rather than revising their theory to fit the observations the scientists in question revised the data to fit their models.
Swear to God. They did that.

Right, right, that's why the first decade of the 21st. century was the warmest on record, because global warming stopped around 2000.

 

[longview]

Well, I have the support of the National Academy of Sciences, and dozens of other scientific organizations, plus a heavy majority of climate scientists, who actually SUPPLY that empirical data to you.

People have long found comfort in religion, relying on what others tell them is true, it is called faith.
If that works for, that's ok.
My empirical data came from
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/index.php
and,
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt

 

[Dittohead not!]

2017 is certain to be cooler than 2016. The apogee has been passed.

Yes, and so now the average temperatures will start down.

Or not. Seems the same prediction has been made before, and didn't come to pass. OK, then, let's give alternative science one more chance. If the Earth enters a cooling phase now, then we'll know that global warming isn't real.


But, I seriously doubt it. I predict that the Earth will continue to warm, that the voices saying it's a hoax will sweep this bit of information under the carpet and/or claim that there is some way that temperature measurements are not accurate.

 

[Jack Hays]

Right, right, that's why the first decade of the 21st. century was the warmest on record, because global warming stopped around 2000.

As you can see, warming did indeed stop. After an El Nino spike in 2016, temperature is headed back down in 2017.

University of Alabama – Huntsville (UAH) – Dr. Roy Spencer – Base Period 1981-2010 – Click the pic to view at source​

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes, and so now the average temperatures will start down.

Or not. Seems the same prediction has been made before, and didn't come to pass. OK, then, let's give alternative science one more chance. If the Earth enters a cooling phase now, then we'll know that global warming isn't real.


But, I seriously doubt it. I predict that the Earth will continue to warm, that the voices saying it's a hoax will sweep this bit of information under the carpet and/or claim that there is some way that temperature measurements are not accurate.

The AGW explanation is not a hoax, but it's 19th century science, right now being superseded by the 21st century solar/GCR explanation.

 

[Dittohead not!]

As you can see, warming did indeed stop. After an El Nino spike in 2016, temperature is headed back down in 2017.

Your graph reminds me a lot of a mountain road, lot of ups and downs, but generally trending upward. Are you ready to say definitively that the road is now on a general downward trend, and that we will wind up at a lower elevation at the end?

This despite the first decade of the 21st. century being the warmest on record?

If so, you might want to invest sixty grand in a bet with Bill Nye:

Bill Nye, popularly known as “The Science Guy,” recently offered to bet $60,000 with some of the most vocal of the so-called “climate change deniers” that 2016 will be in the top 10 hottest years on record and that this current decade will be the warmest ever recorded.

Could be easy money for you, if you're right.

source

 

[Surface Detail]

Your graph reminds me a lot of a mountain road, lot of ups and downs, but generally trending upward. Are you ready to say definitively that the road is now on a general downward trend, and that we will wind up at a lower elevation at the end?

This despite the first decade of the 21st. century being the warmest on record?

If so, you might want to invest sixty grand in a bet with Bill Nye:



Could be easy money for you, if you're right.

source

Somehow I don't think Jack's going to be putting his money where his mouth is.
Here's a couple of guys who bought the solar warming hypothesis and are about to become $10,000 poorer as a result:

From 2005:

"The Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev have agreed the wager with a British climate expert, James Annan.

The pair, based in Irkutsk, at the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics, believe that global temperatures are driven more by changes in the sun's activity than by the emission of greenhouse gases. They say the Earth warms and cools in response to changes in the number and size of sunspots. Most mainstream scientists dismiss the idea, but as the sun is expected to enter a less active phase over the next few decades the Russian duo are confident they will see a drop in global temperatures.

Dr Annan, who works on the Japanese Earth Simulator supercomputer, in Yokohama, said: "There isn't much money in climate science and I'm still looking for that gold watch at retirement. A pay-off would be a nice top-up to my pension."

To decide who wins the bet, the scientists have agreed to compare the average global surface temperature recorded by a US climate centre between 1998 and 2003, with temperatures they will record between 2012 and 2017."

Looks like Dr Annan's pension is about to be topped up nicely!

Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world

 

[Threegoofs]

People have long found comfort in religion, relying on what others tell them is true, it is called faith.
If that works for, that's ok.
My empirical data came from
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/index.php
and,
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt

You might want to invest some armchair energy into why your conclusions don’t seem to align with the experts.

Because when you insist you alone understand the concept... that pretty much sounds like religion to me.

 

[bubbabgone]

Right, right, that's why the first decade of the 21st. century was the warmest on record, because global warming stopped around 2000.

This might be a good time to ask you when the "record" began.