Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Paper on 10,000 Year Warming Trend

One of the most common claims I hear people use to 'prove' AGW isn't real is that the climate changed in the past. Contrarians will cite climate cycles and prior changes and say, 'it is all just a natural cycle'. But, this is all a big false argument.

The reason it is a false argument is because when they make this statement they do nothing to demonstrate that what is going on today is a natural cycle. The argument is, there were natural cycles in the past, therefore, this is a natural cycle. Let's take a closer look at this argument (I have discussed all of this in detail in a prior post, but it is worth covering again).

The argument contrarians make on this topic goes this way:

There were warming cycles in the past;
This is a warming cycle today;
The warming cycles in the past were naturally occurring cycles;
Therefore, today's warming cycle is naturally occurring.

Let's try it again and you can see how it is a false argument:

Pneumonia kills people;
Gunshot wounds kill people;
Pneumonia is a naturally occurring disease;
Therefore, gunshot wounds are a naturally occurring disease.

In both cases, the second does not follow from the first. The fact that there were warming cycles in the past does not, in any way, show that there is any connection between what is going on today and what went on in the past.

Well, there is a new paper with media coverage that I am sure will just stoke this fire all over. This paper discusses the general warming trend that has occurred over the last 10,000 years and some different results between different researchers. But, anyone bothering to actually read it will see that it doesn't dispute AGW. Read the paper and look at the graphs in the article. The differences between results are relatively minor and do not do anything to contradict man made global warming. They even state in the article,
Yet, the bio- and geo-thermometers used last year in a study in the journal Science suggest a period of global cooling beginning about 7,000 years ago.

It claimed that this continued until humans began to leave a mark - the so-called 'hockey stick' on the current climate model graph - which reflects a profound global warming trend.
The study does not, the authors emphasise, change the evidence of human impact on global climate beginning in the 20th century.
I hope this precludes false claims about how this shows AGW isn't real, but I also know it is a false hope. The science is there, accept it or reject it, but the science will still be there.


  1. Yes, the discussion should be interesting as long as the commenters can keep to the facts and the science behind them and stay away from the insults.
    As a former researcher in agricultural science at Adelaide University I am particularly interested in the effects on plants and animals of increasing temperatures and the increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the air.

  2. There is some really good research being done and results are coming starting to come in. One research project I found very interesting was one that simulated an atmosphere with a higher CO2 level. Doing in a lab or greenhouse did not simulate the natural environment very well, so they build these outdoor farm patches in low areas and sprayed them with CO2 to keep it at the desired level. I thought it was quite ingenuous.

  3. Yes, I think I saw that one. They were also looking at the effect of the higher CO2 on a plant community, not just on one crop.

  4. The article in the Daily Mail did not seem to be an accurate description of what the paper said.
    It will be interesting to see how this paper will be interpreted by people like Mr. Watts.

  5. Nice try, Prof. You know there is no way to prove a negative, so this is a fictitious challenge. At best it's already been shown many times that any "signal" showing anthropogenic warming has not yet emerged in the temperature record.

  6. You are completely wrong. If I tell you the door is locked and you open it, then you have proven a negative. This is just one of many false arguments contrarians like to use. But, if they want to come out and make this statement, then why are they saying they can prove AGW isn't real? To go around claiming you can prove AGW is not real but then, when someone invites you to do so, you respond with "Oh, you can't prove a negative" really puts the lie to your arguments. And, I would like to point out you just did that exact thing. You started your comment saying the challenge is 'fictitious' (what ever that means) because you can't prove a negative, but then you try to prove AGW is not real! Did you even bother to read that comment?

    And, you are also completely wrong about your claim concerning the warming and the temperature record. Stop reading denier blogs and do some homework.

  7. Professor Keating, is there any scientific evidence to support the claim made by the Sydney Morning Herald that distinct spikes above the general rising trend of Methane concentrations are being measured in four places in the northern hemisphere?

  8. DanceswithdachshundsAugust 18, 2014 at 1:42 AM

    Nonsense, I didn't "put words" into your mouth! You stated directly "A", "as the temperature rises it causes the release of CO2", no? You claimed "B", "CO2, which will cause an increase in water vapor in the air". You also admitted "C", "Eventually, the Milankovitch cycle will continue to a cooling cycle and the temperature will drop." Lastly you state "D", "leading to an increase in precipitation, which will remove the CO2 from the air"

    First of all, "B" is incorrect the way you stated it, increased CO2 does not cause higher water vapor - increased temperature alone increases atmospheric capacity for water vapor regardless of why temperature got higher. If unicorns made the temperature higher there would be more water vapor.

    Also "D" is incorrect, rain doesn't wash away CO2! (That's a scientifically ignorant thing to claim - who ever said that happens? Do you make stuff up?)

    But your "A" is correct. Temperature begins climbing without CO2. The CAGW claim however, (which you missed entirely), is that though rising temperature causes more CO2 and water vapor, the extra CO2 and water vapor then go on to amplify and sustain the warming.

    Your "C" is also correct but you missed/avoided the most revealing aspect of the record - CO2 does NOT come back down with temperature - it remains high. CO2 lags, in some instances for over 1000 years, before it comes down after temperature has already significantly come down.

    From your own words above you presented no linkage that CO2 caused the warming or that it prevented cooling. Your climate scientists have never explained how that cooling lag is possible and their climate models will not replicate it because those models are flat wrong about CO2.

  9. Keating:

    Your excuses, your lack of proper apology, and your failure to pay up are each noted.

    The "people that reject science" clearly include you because your excuse for reneging on your bet instead of paying the charity of my choice is a clear case of you rejecting the scientific method.

    You are entitled to your superstitious belief in man made global warming but please desist from pretending your superstition is a science.


  10. The above response to your challenge looks like a Gish Gallop.

  11. Do you really think for a second that this was a good submission? Did you really ever think that you had found some logical argument that thousands and thousands of scientists had missed? Did you really think that your claim was in any way scientifically sound?

    I am seriously disappointed in how you have become just the latest person to prove that I was correct about contrarians denying science.

    I was correct in my analyses before - you did not do anything to show that man made global warming is not real. I'm sorry for you if you cannot figure that out on your own, or to even accept it when someone else shows it to you.

  12. You most certainly did put words in my mouth. What I said was there are naturally occurring cycles. You have decided to reject the science about these cycles, but that does not make them any less valid. We don't need your permission for the science to be valid. Read more here:

    And, here:

    And, here:

    I really shouldn't have to do your homework for you, especially since it is so easy. This will get you started. It will be interesting to see if you're willing to continue it.

  13. DanceswithdachshundsAugust 19, 2014 at 12:43 PM

    But let me be sure that I understand you on that one point, are you refusing to acknowledge that CO2 remained elevated while temperature was going down or simply denying it?

  14. Dear Dr. Keating:

    In your attempt to refute my claim No. 6, you made the following statement: "In fact, SO2 reductions in the US and Europe were offset by increases in the rest of the world"

    Offsetting can occur only if the atmospheric loading of SO2 is reduced in one part of the world (the West), and increased in another part of the world (the East), thus resulting in essentially no change in global tempertures (the "pause").

    Therefore, you are in agreement with me that, apart from changes in solar output, SO2 aerosols play the controlling role in climate change.

    Ahem! Check, please.

  15. I sure do resent it when people put words in my mouth. I agreed with you on precious little. You most certainly did not produce any scientific evidence to prove man made global warming is not real. Your submission was accepted (twice) and refuted (twice). You can accept the science, or you can demonstrate that, as I keep saying, the only way to reject AGW is to reject science. Now, I have dealt with contrarians for a long time and one thing I have found is that they just will not change their minds, no matter how much scientific evidence there is that they are wrong. So, I am not expecting you to change your mind. But, I do expect you to accept that I have refuted your submission and shown it to be false. There will be no pay out for you.

  16. For certain values of 'interesting'.

  17. Followers of climate reanalyse know that this month will also be one of the hottest.
    SSTs have been constantly over 1C above the 1979-2000 average. Its almost as the oceans are releasing some of the latent heat we were expected to se.
    This without any atmospheric amplifier of an El NiƱo event.

  18. "In fact, SO2 reductions in the US and Europe were offset by increases in the rest of the world" is an exact quote.

    Surely you must realize that the only way that the offsetting can manifest itself is by less dimming in the West and more dimming in the East, both of which will affect the amount of insolation that occurs.

    Pointing out the implications of your statement is not putting words into your mouth. SO2 aerosols do strongly affect the climate.

    The claim that you have refuted my submission is false, since I have refuted all of your recent "refutations", and you have not responded to any of them..

    You speak of your "science", but ignore all of the empirical evidence that I have provided that contradicts much of it.

    For example, I have pointed out that the IPCC graph of "Relative Forcing Components" does not have a component for aerosol-reduction warming--which your quotation above indirectly confirms.does occur.

  19. No, where you tried to put words in my mouth was when you said "Therefore, you are in agreement with me that, apart from changes in
    solar output, SO2 aerosols play the controlling role in climate change."

    SO2 aerosols do not play the controlling role. They contribute, but there are many other factors involved, none of which you ever addressed. In your presentation you never even considered the possibility there could be any other cause and effect that could explain any observations. Very bad method.

  20. I follow it daily. The SST anomaly is somewhat startling. For those of you that do not check this website, here is what we are talking about:

  21. The article and particularly the comments at real climate were extremely interesting and informative, but there was no specific mention of the 'spikes' now being shown up in the measurements.
    These could easily only exist in the imagination of the Sydney Morning Herald journalist. (I must admit to having a low opinion of the scientific accuracy of articles in the popular press.)
    If these 'holes' and areas of the Arctic Ocean sea bed are really releasing significant amounts of methane it will quickly show up in the trend of the methane concentration in our atmosphere.

  22. The seabed releases lots of methane and that is not something new. It has been going on. Nearly all of it is absorbed by the ocean and doesn't reach the surface. The question on everyone's mind is whether or not the amount being released is changing. There is evidence to that effect, but also debate (as you saw in the comments in that article). There is some concern there are bursts, or spikes, of released gas. It is an area of intense study. As a note, Russia taps into those methane deposits and uses them for natural gas, much of which it exports to Europe (or did, before the Ukraine crisis). I did a search on the 'dragon's teeth' and 'dragon's breath' terms and couldn't find any reference. It could be, as you said, that the paper got it wrong. I agree with you about the ability of the news media to get science stories correct. But, it might be a very localized term the writer came across and isn't widely used.

  23. Dr. Keating:

    You state that "SO2 aerosols do not pllay the controlling role". Your statement is obviated by the facts.

    That they play the MAJOR role is evidenced by the climatic response to a large volcanic eruption. For Mount Pinatubo's eruption, 17 - 22 Megatons of SO2 was able to change the global climate by 0.4 - 0.5 deg. C. , because of atmospheric dimming and recovery.

    Between 1970 and 2000, the atmospheric loading of SO2 was reduced by more than 50 Megatons of SO2 (and probably an equivalent amount of particulate matter). This amount was more than double the 17 - 22 Megatons from Pinatubo that caused 0.4 - 0.5 deg C. of climate change--and yet you maintain that its removal had NO effect on global temperatures.

    You fault me for not considering other un-named factors, but the effect of SO2 is so overhwelming that any other factors that I can imagine would be 2nd or 3rd order effects.

    You commented on, but did not refute, my re-submission. If you cannot do so, then I will have met your criteria for the contest award.

  24. Check the facts. Mt. Pinatubo not only emitted an extreme amount of aerosols, but it did so with so much force it sent it all the way into the stratosphere. This is not the case with human emissions. No, SO2 is not the driver. But, if you fill the atmosphere with anything with enough force in a short enough period of time, you will have an effect. Human emissions do not fit under the same category as Mt Pinatubo.

    I don't know why you insist the Clean Air Act is responsible for global warming when the data CLEARLY shows the worldwide SO2 level continued to climb, even as the temperature continued to climb. That, alone, is enough to show the Clean Air Act did not cause global warming. Then, combine that with the fact that we would actually be cooling if nature was left to itself and you have a conclusive demonstration that your submission is in error.

  25. Dr. Keating:

    After all of our communications you still continue to miss the point.

    I have NEVER said that SO2 caused any warming. It is a DIMMING agent, whether it is in the stratosphere or in the troposphere makes no difference..

    The warming ensues when the SO2 is REMOVED from the atmosphere, reducing the dimming and allowing greater insolation.

    As I have repeatedly pointed out, the Clean Air Acts and other similar efforts abroad removed approx. 50 Megatons of SO2 and its dimming effects from the atmosphere, 1970 - 2000.

    It is a no-brainer that warming necessarily followed!

  26. I never missed the point, but apparently you are. You are claiming SO2 causes cooling and by removing SO2 from the atmosphere the global temperature is merely returning to what it would be otherwise. And, this is where you continue to make your mistake, no matter how many times I tell you. First, just because the U.S. and Europe reduced their SO2 emissions doesn't mean global emissions went down. In fact, global emissions continued to rise even while the global average temperature went higher. By your line of reasoning, the temperature during this period should have gone down with rising SO2 emissions, not up. When the total emissions did finally go down, the temperature continued to go up, even though the climate was in a naturally occurring cooling cycle. Again, by your line of reasoning, the climate should have returned to its natural temperature, which should have been a cooling period, not a warming one.

    Your line of reasoning fails completely and I am very sorry that you just can't see that. But, it is true, whether you want to accept it or not.

  27. Dr. Keating:

    In response to your last comments:

    You state that "by removing SO2 from the atmosphere the global temperature is merely returning to what it would be otherwise".

    This is true only for SO2 injected into the atmosphere by a volcanic eruption. The warming mechanism is increased insolation (warming) as the dimming SO2 settles out.

    For anthropogenic SO2, where the SO2 is constantly being replenished, as from a power plant, its only effect is to cause dimming. It reallly has no effect. when it settles out. Only when the emitting source is modified to reduce SO2 emissions, or it is shut down, is there an effect. Then its dimming emissions are gone, and increased insolation occurs.

    This is why the Clean Air Act and other similar efforts to clean the atmosphere have led to global warming, since their emphasis is on cleaning the air.

    Further, you seem to have forgotten that my submissions applied ONLY to the 1970 - 2000 time period, when temperatures rose approx. 0.5 deg. C. (and were wrongly attributed to greenhouse gasses, as I have been trying to convince you).

    In that time period, SO2 emissions from the rest of the world were only beginning to ramp up (see the graph of anthropogenic SO2 emissions that I had referenced earlier). They did not become significant until near the end of the 1970 - 2000 time period, when they began offsetting the continued reduction of SO2 in the West, and the temperature rise was stopped (the pause).

    This follwos from your earlier statement that "SO2 reductions in the US and Europe were offset by increases in the rest of the world".

    I provided data showing that Mt. Pinatubo's 17 - 22 Megatons of injected SO2 caused a temjperature rise of 0.4 - 0.5 deg. C as it settled out.

    I also provided data showing that Clean Air efforts in the USA and Europe resulted in a reduction of approx. 50 Megatons of SO2 in the atmosphere, far more than enough to account for the 0.5 deg. C temperature rise 1970 - 2000 that was attributed to CO2--and it would have gone higher, if not for the offsetting pollution from the East.

    Your attempts to use data from beyond 1970 - 2000 to refute my thesis is simplly wrong, since worldwide emissions have drastically changed since then.

    At this point you have not--and probably cannot- refute my thesis, that all of the warming to date has been due to the reduction in anthropogenic aerosols. .
    So much cost and human suffering has occurred from attempts to mitiigate climate change that it is essential that the correct cause be known--and all indications are that CO2 is not the problem!.

    ..."and I am very sosrryi that you, as a scientist, cannot see that.

  28. Mr. Henry, not to be rude, but you really are proving my point about contrarians denying science. I am fully aware you spoke of only the 1970-2000 period and I showed you that your premise was entirely wrong. You claim (and continue to claim in the face of all data) that a reduction of SO2 occurred during this time period and that reduction led to global warming. But, you have convinced yourself that only the U.S. and European emissions count and emissions from the rest of the world are irrelevant to you. The fact that the rest of the world actually increased the total amount of emissions during that period is something you refuse to accept, probably because it is a fatal flaw in your logic.

    Here is the bottom line: Your claim is that if SO2 emissions are reduced it will lead to warming and that explains global warming, but total emissions actually increased and global average temperatures went up. This is entirely counter to your claim and conclusively disproves your hypotheses wrong.

    Further, even though you wish to focus on 1970-2000, if your hypotheses was correct it would also apply to other time frames and we have seen that it doesn't.

    No matter how many times you reject the science, the conclusion will always be the same - your hypotheses is not valid.

    You can come back here and insist you are right as many times as you wish, but you will still be wrong every time.

  29. Aug. 29

    Dr. Keating:

    In your last communication you gave a number of reasons as to why my thesis is wrong.

    Let me repond to them:

    1. You state "You claim (and continue to claim in the face of all data) that a reduction of SO2 occurred during the time period and that reduction led to globbal warming".

    A reduction of approx. 50 Megatons of SO2 DID occur in the time period, per the EPA and UN data that I had cited earlier.

    I would also refer you to the graph of "Global Anthropogenic SO2 emissions 1850 - 1950", also cited earlier. It shows that between 1975 - 2000, a reduction of approx. 53,000 Gg of emissions from North America, Europe, and the former Soviet Union occurred, a reduction of about 44%

    Thus, your statement is false - SO2 reductions DID occcur.

    2. You also state "The rest of the world actually increased the total amount of emissions during that period".

    This statement is also false.

    Again, I would refer you to the same graph. Total emissions from the rest of the world during the 1975 - 2000 time period increased by approx. 23,300 Gg, while reductions amounted to approx. 53,000 Gg. So, total worldwide emissions acually decreased by appprox. 30,000 Gg, and did not increase as you had stated.

    3. I focus on the 1970 - 2000 time frame simply because that is when global average temperatures rose by about 0.5 deg. C., The "pause" began around 2000 and there has been no statistically significant warming since then, so you cannot state that it doesn't apply to other time periods.

    However, the off-setting between the West and the East that you mention most probably results from the continued removal of SO2 in the West, and the addition of SO2 in the East, per my hypothesis. But this cannot continue!

    So here is the bottom line. You have not in any way refuted my hypothesis.


  30. Your comments are so ridiculous that I have come to the conclusion that you are one of the WUWT crowd and are just here to take up my time. Our conversation is done.

  31. Hi Professor: How come you say the Monckton chart starts at 1998, when it starts at 1997.67? I mean, it's obviously cherry-picking with that weird start date, but the start date isn't 1998. I want to get into an argument about the "no warming" baloney, but I lack the confidence to use your argument since I don't know how you thought it through.

  32. I stated that it started in 1998 because that is what is used by contrarians in their literature a number of times. It is not clear from this graph just exactly what specific data they used. Just because it is on the graph doesn't mean it is used in the calculations. That is also the same reason I used 2011, it is what is cited by contrarians in their literature.

    The point being made here is that you can get very different results by selectively picking your data set, which is exactly what they do. If this particular chart uses different start or end dates from other contrarian literature is irrelevant. What you need to do is to examine the entire data set, not some small sample that fits your preconceived conclusion. This is true of any statistical analysis, not just climate science.

  33. Got it. Thanks much.

  34. This whole site is so good. Love what you're doing Dr. Keating.

  35. Sept. 20, 2014

    To continue our "one-sided" conversation:

    You accused me of writing nonsense, wasting your time, and broke off the conversation--this after I had just shown that the "data" that you used for not accepting my thesis was proveably false.

    My "nonsense" was backed up by references (which you apparently ignored), unlike the nonsense that you offered as a refutation of my submission.

    We differ in one major aspect:

    I maintain that the removal of >50 Megatons of dimming anthropogenic SO2 aerosols from the atmosphere caused the approx. 0.5 eg. C. of warming that occurred 1970-2000 (and which continues due to on-going clean air efforts, but is currently being offset by the massive pollution from the East).

    You maintain that the removal of >50 Megatons of dimming anthropogenic SO2 aerosols from the atmosphere have had NO climatic effect.

    As you well know, this is a completely untenable position, since it ignores the reality that the recovery from the 17-22 Megatons of SO2 from the Mount Pinatubo eruption resulted in a temperature rise of at least 0.4 deg. C.--and that the removal of >50 Megatons of anthropogenic SO2 aerosols would have a similar effect.

    But it understandable that you would be reluctant to acknowledge this, since it proves that greenhouse gasses could have had no discernable role in climate change--and you have built your reputation on promoting that fallacy.

    As a scientist, you need to go where the data leads, and not to simply ignore anything that contradicts current thinking.

    You profess to be concerned about the effects of climate change on the enviroment and the expense and human misery that it has caused, but the remedy that you and your ilk propose (further cleansing of the air) will only make things worse!

    You have the opportunity to redirect the conversation about limate change, and could become famous for doing so.

    You would, of course, be attacked, but simply task THEM with refuting the facts.

    A possible headline: "Climate scientist's $30,000 challenge establishes that SO2 removal, and not CO2 build-up, is responsible for climate change".

    Your challenge was for a submission that you could not scientifically refute, and so far you have not been able to definitively refute what I have written (which actually tends to confirm its truth).

  36. Mr. Henry, I say with the very best of intentions, that you need to seek professional help.

    I gave you plenty of scientifically valid sources that refute your claims. While being fixated on the amount of SO2 that the U.S. and Europe did not put into the air that you simply refuse to accept that there are other countries out there emitting SO2. There are many flaws in your submission, but that one flaw is fatal enough to completely invalidate your submission.

    As for your continued imbecilic claims that I owe you the money, I can end it completely - the decision of the judge is final.

  37. I apologize for being so persistent, but the issue is so important that I feel that I must pursue it until I am definitely proven to be wrong--and that has not happened yet, in spite of your claim that you have provided scientifically valid sources that refute my claims.

    For example, you stated that SO2 levels were increasing at the same time that temperatures were increasing, but EPA and UN data for the 1970-2000 time frame showed a DECREASE in the atmospheric loading of SO2 of >50 Megatons, in the USA and Europe, which would increase average global warming.

    Further, the graph of "Global Anthropogenic SO2 emissions 1850-1950 shows that the SO2 emissions from other countries --in that time frame-- were approx. 30,000 Gg LESS than the amount of SO2 reductions, so they did not prevent the warming from occurring.

    All of this I have explained before, but you continue to ignore these facts and make the same disproven claims.

    As to other flaws in my submission, I wonder what they might be. You offered a number of criticisms in your response to my re-submission of Aug. 5, but all were easily refuted (My Aug. 13 post, to which you never responded)..

    And, no, I do not need professional help, but.....

  38. No, this is not a serious issue. No more so than the claim the Moon landings were faked because you can't see background stars in the photographs.

    Let me recap for you:

    Global total emissions continued to rise and surface temperature also rose.

    Global total emissions continued to rise and total global heat content continued to rise.

    Each one of these is enough to prove your submission was not valid. Taken together, it is amazing you are still hanging on.

    You focus on the data you want to see and ignore anything you don't like. You say, the science that shows you to be wrong can be easily refuted, but you never do. And, you insist that you are smarter than all of the climate scientists in the world combined. Truthfully, this tells me you should seek some professional counseling.

  39. Dr. Keating:

    "No, this is not a serious issue"

    Unfortunately, continued efforts to further clean the air to mitigate the alleged greenhouse gas effect of CO2 will only cause temperatures to rise, and not fall, as intended. What could be more serious for the world of the future?

    "Global total emissions continued to rise and surface temperatures also rose"

    ?? I have already proven that total SO2 emissions actually FELL during the 1970 - 2000 time period when temperatures were rising. Why do you keep insisting that they rose?

    "Global total emissions continued to rise and total global heat content continued to rise"

    Again, total emissions FELL, and as a result, global heat content continued to rise--because of the reduced anthropogenic SO2 loading.

    "You say that the science that shows you to be wrong can easily be refuted, but you never do"

    I have REPEATEDLY refuted your science, but you continue to ignore what I have written. Very frustrating!

    Let me approach this issue with some different facts:.

    During the Great Depression of the 1930's, hundreds of polluting factories and other industrial activities around the world shut down. This, of ourse, allowed their anthropogenic SO2 emissions to settle out of the atmosphere, and, as a result, temperatures rose--to essentially the same levels as were seen 1970-2000.

    CO2 levels in the 1930's were far lower than in the 1970-2000 period, and no one claims that the warming of the 1930's was due to greenhouse gasses.

    An examination of the graph of Global Anthropogenic SO2 Emissions, 1850 - 2000+, that I had cited earlier, clearly shows the reduction in SO2 emissions during the 1930's.

    This is proof that warming due to the reduction of anthropogenic SO2 aerosols does exist. Their behavior is exactly the same as those injected into the stratosphere.

    This aerosol-reduction warming is not included in the IPCC's graph of "Radiative Forcing Components" and is so large that CO2 as a forcing component would essentially disappear.

    No wonder that none of the computer-generated climate models are correct!

  40. Cleaning the air is a serious issue. Your claims are not.

    You state, "actually FELL during the 1970 - 2000 time period when temperatures were rising." No, they were both up and down, but the temperature continued to rise even during the periods when emissions went up.

    Further, global emissions after 2000 have continued to rise, while total heat content has continued to rise.

    You have never refuted any science, you have only demonstrated your desire to ignore any facts or science that does not please you. If it is frustrating, why don't you go back the WUWT crowd. They like to reject science, too.

    Your number one problem is that you found something that, admittedly, contributes to the environment. Something no one is denying. But, you have decided it is the one and only thing and nothing else matters. As a result, you continue to ignore the massive amount of evidence that shows CO2 is the principle cause of global warming, There are so many flaws in your line of reasoning that it is not worth my time to refute them again. No matter how many times I do it, you keep going back to the same false claims.

    One more time, SO2 in the troposphere does not equate to SO2 in the stratosphere, and the pattern of SO2 rises and drops does not correlate with the continued rise in global warming that has been measured. This, alone, is more than sufficient to invalidate your claim.

  41. You state "you continue to ignore the massive amount of science that shows that CO2 is the principal cause of global warming"

    There is NO definitive, empirical evidence that CO2 has ever caused any warming--and you cannot provide any evidence to the contrary.

    It is all theoritical, based upon computer models that are unable to predict what has happened to the climate over the last 15 years or so.

    The warming that occurred 1970-2000 was strictly due to the reduction in the atmospheric loading of more 50 million tons of SO2 (and an equivalent amount of other particulate matter)

    To maintain, as you do, that this cleansing of the air had NO climatic effect is the height of idiocy. As a physicist, you know better! Cleaner air will naturally cause increased surface warming due to increased insolation.

    In order to claim that the 1970-2000 warming was due to CO2 would require you to prove that the removal of huge amounts of dimming anthropogenic aerosols from the air had no effect, and that cannot be done.

    Any continued warming since 2000 is the result of continued clean air efforts in the USA and Europe that are imperfectly offset by the massive pollution from the East.

    Further, your claim of SO2 "rises and drops" is belied by the graph of "Global Anthropogeniic SO2 emissions", in the paper with the same title, by Smith , et al., which is the synthesis of published data.

    It, along with the Self paper on Mt. Pinatubo, and the cited EPA and UN data fully supports all that I have said.

    But you unscientitically reject the science.

  42. I have decided the only reason you are here is to take up my time. So, I'm not going to waste my time on you anymore.

    Mr. Henry, if you feel so strongly that there is no scientific evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or any other topic, why don't you write a guest submission and send it in? See my invitation here:

  43. Sorry that you feel that way. The primary reaon for my submission was to see whether it could be scientifically refuted.

    My take-away is that you were unable to convince me that I am wrong--you simply ignored the facts that I provided in support of my thesis, and never scientifically refuted any of them

    But thank you for your invitation to write a guest submission. I don't have time just now to submit anything, but will probably do so later.