Solar Minumums vs. Solar Maximums

[salbers]

There seems to be some loose reasoning here that makes me seriously question Bethesda's assetions. Why would solar activity cause warming 100 million years ago when the sun was a slightly fainter then? Why would multi-millenia (Milankovic) cycles (that go up and down) help to explain a sustained warming over millions of years?

CO2 of 2000-5000ppm would have a lot of radiative forcing. That's several more doublings than what we have now. That would probably be a bigger signal than the rearrangement of the continents, particularly over a 100 million year period. Antarctica developed ice around 35 million years ago. CO2 was dropping then more than any significant continent drift.

As I had mentioned earlier, we see that GHGs do naturally warm the earth RIGHT NOW about by what is calculated. Why should CO2 (either today's increase, or what was there 100 million years ago), not also warm the Earth by something close to their respective calculated amounts? I doubt what BB says with CO2 somehow being different from the other GHGs. A doubling of CO2 warms about 1.2C increasing to about 3C with water vapor feedback (vs mainly clouds as asserted in one of his links).

This business of the anthropogenic GHG forcing being just a few percent of the total GHG forcing is true, and is irrelevant, since the numbers still come out to what I mentioned earlier.

It's just too hard for me to believe it would be a coincidence that humans come to technology right at the same time CO2 rises suddenly to its highest levels in millions of years. Of course we are responsible for 390ppm. The emissions perfectly account for the rate of increase of concentration (with about half being immediately taken up by the oceans and land with the other half remaining in the atmosphere).

[BethesdaWX]

There seems to be some loose reasoning here that makes me seriously question Bethesda's assetions. Why would solar activity cause warming 100 million years ago when the sun was a slightly fainter then? Why would multi-millenia (Milankovic) cycles (that go up and down) help to explain a sustained warming over millions of years?

CO2 of 2000-5000ppm would have a lot of radiative forcing. That's several more doublings than what we have now. That would probably be a bigger signal than the rearrangement of the continents, particularly over a 100 million year period. Antarctica developed ice around 35 million years ago. CO2 was dropping then more than any significant continent drift.

As I had mentioned earlier, we see that GHGs do naturally warm the earth RIGHT NOW about by what is calculated. Why should CO2 (either today's increase, or what was there 100 million years ago), not also warm the Earth by something close to their respective calculated amounts? I doubt what BB says with CO2 somehow being different from the other GHGs. A doubling of CO2 warms about 1.2C increasing to about 3C with water vapor feedback (vs mainly clouds as asserted in one of his links).

This business of the anthropogenic GHG forcing being just a few percent of the total GHG forcing is true, and is irrelevant, since the numbers still come out to what I mentioned earlier.

It's just too hard for me to believe it would be a coincidence that humans come to technology right at the same time CO2 rises suddenly to its highest levels in millions of years. Of course we are responsible for 390ppm. The emissions perfectly account for the rate of increase of concentration (with about half being immediately taken up by the oceans and land with the other half remaining in the atmosphere).

You missed my point...it still doesn't point to CO2 as the cause of the warming.....the Rise in CO2 was driven by something. Sequestion cannot explain the vast majority of it. We have the Sun, which, even being slightly weaker can have a huge impact, the earth is very sensitive to this.... Continental Differences, & Orbital differences can offer an explanation to the warmth, or at least the vast majoirty of it. CO2 & its logorithmic relationship cannot explain that warmth. Water Vapor was probably another instigator... again, more water vapor is not a feedback OF Co2....Co2 is a Feeback of WATER VAPOR.

Now you go off about how our hypothesis on CO2 forcing is proof of what will happen, based upon simple assumptions as posted above. Again, its like you're throwing darts trying to hit your mark with a blindfold.

[salbers]

You seem to be implying that the CO2 rise was driven by warming itself. What is the mechanism for this? What happened during the ice ages only got it up to about 280ppm. This falls short of 2000-5000ppm. Absent such a mechanism, I'd go with the simpler scenario that CO2 drove the warming. Remember Occam's razor?

The orbit wasn't different enough (on average) 100 million years ago to do this. Even the continental differences weren't that much 35-70 million years ago when it was pretty warm. CO2 is what decreased when the ice formed in Antarctica 35 million years ago (as I've mentioned).

[BethesdaWX]

You seem to be implying that the CO2 rise was driven by warming itself. What is the mechanism for this/ What happened during the ice ages only got it up to about 280ppm. This falls short of 2000-5000ppm. Absent such a mechanism, I'd go with the simpler scenario that CO2 drove the warming. Remember Occam's razor?

The orbit wasn't different enough (on average) 100 million years ago to do this.

I added to my post a bit. Temperature is only one thing btw... but I'm still not sure you understand how even a 3% chance in the magnitude of the sun would have immense impact

First, water vapor is a Driver of CO2..... Cold air holds less water vapor, so less WATER VAPOR would Create Massive Cooling, (ice ages).......water vapor would imply less Co2 staying power.

[salbers]

This should be stated more clearly. Water vapor doesn't really change by itself, since any excess vapor would simply rain out. It is more an amplifier of other changes, such as from GHGs and solar radiation.

It's the solar radiation orbital changes (with some CO2 feedback) followed by water vapor feedback that accounts for the ice ages.

I think the warming 100 million years ago can't be explained with such a solar trigger like the ice ages. We need something more, like CO2 buildup due to lack of geological sequestration (or volcanoes). This then becomes the driver.

[BethesdaWX]

This should be stated more clearly. Water vapor doesn't really change by itself, since any excess vapor would simply rain out. It is more an amplifier of other changes, such as from GHGs and solar radiation.

Water Vapor is Driven... I never argued that.

Just FYI, the reason Earths temperatures have been downward over its existance, is due to the changes in the Sun. 3% would be immense.....while 30% way back then would be just crazy......But not have the same Solar Cycle relationship, the earth being more "stagnant" GHE wise as well.

[beneficii]

Just FYI, the reason Earths temperatures have been downward over its existance, is due to the changes in the Sun. 3% would be immense.....while 30% way back then would be just crazy......But not have the same Solar Cycle relationship, the earth being more "stagnant" GHE wise as well.

Are you arguing that Earth's temperatures have trending downward over hundreds of millions of years because of declining output from the sun?

[BethesdaWX]

This should be stated more clearly. Water vapor doesn't really change by itself, since any excess vapor would simply rain out. It is more an amplifier of other changes, such as from GHGs and solar radiation.

It's the solar radiation orbital changes (with some CO2 feedback) followed by water vapor feedback that accounts for the ice ages.

I think the warming 100 million years ago can't be explained with such a solar trigger like the ice ages. We need something more, like CO2 buildup due to lack of geological sequestration (or volcanoes). This then becomes the driver.

Again, a 3-5% difference in the sun would be absolutely huge. Temperature is a driver of Water Vapor, which is then a driver of CO2, to extra-generalize it (admittedly). When the extra water vapor is rained out during ice Ages, higher global freezing rates would obviously remove alot of airborne water vapor/precip.

Warm periods are Visa Versa....CO2 is just a side effect of this. So,man pumping out CO2 will not drive the factors that actually drive it... even if there is more in the system, it doesn't change the atmospheric composite.

[BethesdaWX]

Are you arguing that Earth's temperatures have trending downward over hundreds of millions of years because of declining output from the sun?

[salbers]

Again, a 3-5% difference in the sun would be absolutely huge. Temperature is a driver of Water Vapor, which is then a driver of CO2, to extra-generalize it (admittedly). When the extra water vapor is rained out during ice Ages, higher global freezing rates would obviously remove alot of airborne water vapor/precip.

Warm periods are Visa Versa....CO2 is just a side effect of this. So,man pumping out CO2 will not drive the factors that actually drive it... even if there is more in the system, it doesn't change the atmospheric composite.

Right, however just because CO2 is an amplifier during the ice age won't preclude it from being a driver when it's introduced directly into the atmosphere. I'm saying the warming 100 million years ago is a different mechanism than the ice age changes.

The sun has been increasing over hundreds of millions (and billions) of years, so that of course doesn't explain any cooling. It's the decrease in GHGs over the same time that in fact have kept the Earth in relative balance.

[BethesdaWX]

Right, however just because CO2 is an amplifier during the ice age won't preclude it from being a driver when it's introduced directly into the atmosphere. I'm saying the warming 100 million years ago is a different mechanism than the ice age changes.

The sun has been increasing over hundreds of millions (and billions) of years, so that of course doesn't explain any cooling. It's the decrease in GHGs over the same time that in fact have kept the Earth in relative balance.

I never argued CO2 wasn't a driver, but rather a very minor driver & more of an effect rather than a cuase of climate changes. There is certainly evidence behind both sides claims. We Skeptics could be wrong, or Warmists could be wrong. The Whole point......BOTH sides are just simply hypothesis, and we do not use hypothesis to say the earth "WILL" warm etc etc etc, or the earth "WILL" cool etc etc etc.

We also cannot claim one Hypothesis better than the other, thats now how the scientific method works.

FYI, You realize that the 30% weaker sun was what allowed us to get that warm back then, right? My point wasn't the suns strength, its how the earth-sun relationship effects the GHE.

[beneficii]

I think it would be helpful if you could clarify your point. It is not clear, and the way you write is difficult to read.

[BethesdaWX]

I think it would be helpful if you could clarify your point. It is not clear, and the way you write is difficult to read.

The way you think is probably worse... I suggest you go research how the weaker sun allowed us to get 11C warmer... I don't feel like doing it for you.

[beneficii]

The way you think is probably worse... I suggest you go research how the weaker sun allowed us to get 11C warmer... I don't feel like doing it for you.

The way I think what? I'm asking you to clarify what you're saying, so I may properly respond to it; that way, you do not have to say yet again, "You're missing the point." Judging from what you say, it seems that you've dealt with people missing your point long enough, so I am making sure to get down exactly what you are thinking before responding to it. So again, please clarify, as I asked.

[salbers]

I never argued CO2 wasn't a driver, but rather a very minor driver & more of an effect rather than a cuase of climate changes. There is certainly evidence behind both sides claims. We Skeptics could be wrong, or Warmists could be wrong. The Whole point......BOTH sides are just simply hypothesis, and we do not use hypothesis to say the earth "WILL" warm etc etc etc, or the earth "WILL" cool etc etc etc.

We also cannot claim one Hypothesis better than the other, thats now how the scientific method works.

FYI, You realize that the 30% weaker sun was what allowed us to get that warm back then, right? My point wasn't the suns strength, its how the earth-sun relationship effects the GHE.

Some hypotheses have more logic and evidence than others, and can thus become the leading explanation.

Sorry, but I'm not sure either how a 30% weaker sun can cause warming. It's other factors (such as GHGs - both carbon dioxide and earlier, methane) that would have been needed as the main drivers.

[BethesdaWX]

Some hypotheses have more logic and evidence than others, and can thus become the leading explanation.

Sorry, but I'm not sure either how a 30% weaker sun can cause warming. It's other factors (such as GHGs - both carbon dioxide and earlier, methane) that would have been needed as the main drivers.

Yes, and I, and many others, feel the skeptical argument has more logic and sense than the CO2 temperature knob theory...Its a two way street buddy, there is no consensus outside of IPCC/Gov't. Its like saying "IPCC/Gov't opinions are more valid than skeptics based on HYPOTHESIS".........its a waste of time.

CO2 is a small fraction of the GHE, and is driven by water vapor...which is driven by temperature (temperature/water vapor do feed back off eachother too), which traces back to solar influence.

http://www.geocraft....house_data.html

Then add in the fact that humans only contribute a fraction of that, there is simply no way to even relate 6000ppm.......again, a 3% difference in the sun is HUGE as a MoFo!

[salbers]

There's plenty of consensus in the peer reviewed literature worldwide.

The CO2 being a small fraction is true - as I've agreed before. However the 1.2 degree change due to a doubling is also true, before feedbacks. I haven't seen anything in your link to refute this - can you please explain in a clear fashion?

CO2 is increasing right now because of human emissions, not as an amplifier like during the glacial cycles. Humans are a new element in the equation.

This 3% sun difference has no meaning to me, please explain the context more clearly.

Thanks,

Steve

[BethesdaWX]

There's plenty of consensus in the peer reviewed literature worldwide.

The CO2 being a small fraction is true - as I've agreed before. However the 1.2 degree change due to a doubling is also true, before feedbacks. I haven't seen anything in your link to refute this - can you please explain in a clear fashion?

CO2 is increasing right now because of human emissions, not as an amplifier like during the glacial cycles. Humans are a new element in the equation.

This 3% sun difference has no meaning, please explain the context more clearly.

Thanks,

Steve

More of the same... Just f**king trash this "mainstream" crap....you know those who are chosen to peer review....or who/what sights are set upon what, its all the same inter-processing!! There is no "mainstream"....read my post here

http://www.americanw...eport-pathetic/

Outside the IPCC/Gov't there is no consensus....former IPCC scientists rebelling, in the numbers of thousands....what does that tell you? You wonder why AGW is loosing the public debate?

You basically skipped over what I've attempted to repeat to you several time over. Water Vapor is Driven by temperature (yes the two feedback off eachother), which is driven by solar. CO2 is a very light contributer, & looses almost all of its WP by 400-450ppm. That estimate could be too high as well.

http://www.geocraft....house_data.html

[salbers]

Why does my response contradicting you (by showing some consensus elsewhere) seem to elicit anger? Is the global journal publishing establishment wrong everywhere? I agree science can be political and such, but the degree of consensus and the strength of the evidence by researchers worldwide seems to transcend this. The majority of worldwide research seems to support the AGW hypothesis as the simplest explanation of what is being observed.

In many parts of the world people are more attuned to AGW. Perhaps scientific illiteracy in might play a part in the challenge of explaining climate concepts to the public. Maybe the public debate would be different if everyone in the world were to read my posts (along with yours) and think a little

I agree water vapor is driven by temperature. And solar is the driver/trigger for the ice ages. However the driver is different in other occasions. Humans are present now, they weren't a factor in the ice age cycles. Somehow you gloss over this change in the equation.

Also the warming in the dinosaur era was too much to explain by the same mechanism as the ice age cycles. Again different scenarios in Earth's history. CO2 seems to be the only driver large enough to explain this, and the radiative forcing is the right amount. Occam's razor strikes again.

CO2's effect does decrease logarithmically - and I've taken that into account in my reasoning.There is still signifnicant effect above 450ppm (1.2 degree direct radiative forcing per doubling continues beyond this).

[BethesdaWX]

Why does my response contradicting you (by showing some consensus elsewhere) seem to elicit anger? Is the global journal publishing establishment wrong everywhere? I know science can be political and such, but the degree of consensus and the strength of the evidence by researchers worldwide seems to transcend this.

I agree water vapor is driven by temperature. And solar is the driver/trigger for the ice ages. However the driver is different in other occasions. Humans are present now, they weren't a factor in the ice age cycles. Somehow you gloss over this change in the equation.

Also the warming in the dinosaur era was too much to explain by the same mechanism as the ice age cycles. Again different scenarios in Earth's history. CO2 seems to be the only driver large enough to explain this, and the radiative forcing is the right amount. Occam's razor strikes again.

CO2's effect does decrease logarithmically - and I've taken that into account in my reasoning.There is still signifnicant effect above 450ppm (1.2 degree direct radiative forcing per doubling continues beyond this).

I'm not angry at you at all, its just so pathetic whats going on in climate science, thats what really pisses me off.

CO2 was driven upwards. Water Vapor does not have the same logorithmic warming effect CO2 does, thus it contributes 95% of the GHE....

http://www.geocraft....house_data.html CO2 is measly.

The CO2 itself probably had little to do with the warming, its what DROVE Co2 (Huge Water Vapor Increase, Solar/Temperature, & the large Landmass) that did the warming. This assuming our proxies are correct.

When the extra water vapor is rained out during ice Ages, higher global freezing rates would obviously remove alot of airborne water vapor/precip.

Warm periods are Visa Versa....No Matter the Length, CO2 is just a side effect of this. So, man pumping out CO2 will not drive the factors that actually drive it... even if there is more in the system, it doesn't change the atmospheric composite

[salbers]

I'm not angry at you at all, its just so pathetic whats going on in climate science, thats what really pisses me off.

CO2 was driven upwards. Water Vapor does not have the same logorithmic warming effect CO2 does, thus it contributes 95% of the GHE....

http://www.geocraft....house_data.html CO2 is measly.

The CO2 itself probably had little to do with the warming, its what DROVE Co2 (Huge Water Vapor Increase, Solar/Temperature, & the large Landmass) that did the warming. This assuming our proxies are correct.

When the extra water vapor is rained out during ice Ages, higher global freezing rates would obviously remove alot of airborne water vapor/precip.

Warm periods are Visa Versa....No Matter the Length, CO2 is just a side effect of this. So, man pumping out CO2 will not drive the factors that actually drive it... even if there is more in the system, it doesn't change the atmospheric composite

100 million years ago why was there more water vapor? Water vapor can only be a "slave" gas to amplify other changes, it isn't a driver.

I think it's the CO2 at that time that's the only large enough driver. Solar energy just doesn't change that much. The land wasn't that different either, particularly looking at 40 million years ago when it was still warm enough for no Antarctic ice. The radiative changes from CO2 (despite the logarithmic response) is much more than the solar radiation changes. And it happens to be about the right amount to explain radiatively (with some water vapor feedback and such) the warmer climate back then.

[BethesdaWX]

100 million years ago what drove the water vapor? I think it's the CO2 at that time that's the only large enough driver. Solar energy just doesn't change that much. The land wasn't that different either, particularly looking at 40 million years ago when it was still warm enough for no Antarctic ice. The radiative changes from CO2 (despite the logarithmic response) is much more than the solar radiation changes.

Did you read the link I posted? Temperature & Water Vapor Feed Back heavily, CO2 HAD to be driven upwards, sequestion cannot explain it......very likely the warmth was caused by a combination of Solar, lack of Volcanic Activity, and the VERY high water vapor levels of that time period.. that can explain warming of 4-6C or more...knowing that the RWP (very recent by earth years) may have very well been over 2C above avg globally, (again, I posted links in this).

Again, CO2 alone is very minimal, and is driven, as all trace gases are. Its percentage in the atmosphere is not enough to creat substantial warming

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

[salbers]

I've read your link a bit - and I've discussed AGW in person with the author - Fred Singer. He mentions nothing about why it was warm 100 million years ago.

I think Fred's numbers are incorrect or at least deceptive. CO2 natural greenhouse is more like 9% of the total from what I've seen. He hasn't said anything in the post (or to me directly) that is contrary to the 1.2 degree radiative sensitivity for a CO2 doubling.

[BethesdaWX]

I've read your link a bit - and I've discussed AGW in person with the author - Fred Singer. He mentions nothing about why it was warm 100 million years ago.

I think Fred's numbers are incorrect or at least deceptive. CO2 natural greenhouse is more like 9% of the total from what I've seen. He hasn't said anything in the post (or to me directly) that is contrary to the 1.2 degree radiative sensitivity for a CO2 doubling.

You didn't ask, I assume? Co2 is definitely not 9% once water Vapor is implemented, the exact # is still some what unknown. Bottom line, the AGW theory is a Hypothesis, as is the skeptical side.

talk later bro

[tacoman25]

Unless the satellite measurements at the top of the atmosphere which show CO2 is blocking more and more radiation from the earth's surface are somehow proven to be incorrect, it probably wouldn't tell us anything about CO2.

If, hypothetically, we did cool at the surface it wouldn't prove anything about CO2. That could only be proven if the satellite measurements of which I am speaking were proven erroneous, or if there were strong empirical evidence that the entire earth (oceans, ice, troposphere) cooled (not just the very lower troposphere).

If the surface cooled (without another obvious explanation like a large volcano), but the oceans continued warming, it might tell us that it will take slightly longer for the warming to occur than expected. <--- I think this is the answer to your question

I don't think that is likely however, although you can't rule a scenario like that out 100%. But we do know for a 100% fact that CO2 is causing the rapid accumulation of heat on this planet (both theoretically and empirically).

You don't seem to acknowledge another possibility: that "radiation/energy imbalance" may not manifest itself in surface warming as modeled. And that is important, because it is the surface warming that really matters and causes the climate changes people are worried about.

[WeatherRusty]

Did you read the link I posted? Temperature & Water Vapor Feed Back heavily, CO2 HAD to be driven upwards, sequestion cannot explain it......very likely the warmth was caused by a combination of Solar, lack of Volcanic Activity, and the VERY high water vapor levels of that time period.. that can explain warming of 4-6C or more...knowing that the RWP (very recent by earth years) may have very well been over 2C above avg globally, (again, I posted links in this).

Again, CO2 alone is very minimal, and is driven, as all trace gases are. Its percentage in the atmosphere is not enough to creat substantial warming

http://www.geocraft....house_data.html

Bethesda....the gig is up for you!! You are making things up on the fly as you go. This post of yours is riddled with error as are many others. This should be a place where real science is discussed. You are flooding the board with personal opinion masquerading as scientific knowledge. This what skeptics do everywhere, flood and ruin the discussion for everyone else.

The bolded above has absolutely zero scientific validity and I bet everyone here knows why except you.

[BethesdaWX]

Bethesda....the gig is up for you!! You are making things up on the fly as you go. This post of yours is riddled with error as are many others. This should be a place where real science is discussed. You are flooding the board with personal opinion masquerading as scientific knowledge. This what skeptics do everywhere, flood and ruin the discussion for everyone else.

The bolded above has absolutely zero scientific validity and I bet everyone here knows why except you.

I've posted about 50 links explaining this, which no one bothers to read.

At least i don't attemp to disprove science with hypothesis.

[WeatherRusty]

You don't seem to acknowledge another possibility: that "radiation/energy imbalance" may not manifest itself in surface warming as modeled. And that is important, because it is the surface warming that really matters and causes the climate changes people are worried about.

That's all fine and dandy, except that if the surface does not warm then it can not radiate away energy sufficient to close the imbalance and the thermal energy contained within the total ocean will continue to increase never coming to equilibrium. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics ensures us that the heat building up in the oceans must mix throughout the water column eventually. The 1st. Law ensures that the heat will not just disappear without manifesting itself. Physics thus demands that the heat will move and that none of it will be lost without being felt at the surface...the only way out is to space through the atmosphere which will absorb it before releasing it.

[BethesdaWX]

How much does the so-called 'greenhouse effect' warm the Earth?

It's estimated that the Earth's surface would be about -18 °C (0 °F, 255 K) with atmosphere and clouds but without the greenhouse effect and that the (we'll call it "natural") greenhouse effect raises the Earth's temperature by ~33 °C (59 °F).

We should note that devoid of atmosphere Earth would actually be a less-cold -1 °C (272 K) because the first calculation strangely includes 31% reflection of solar radiation by clouds (which obviously could not occur without an atmosphere) while ignoring that clouds add significantly to the greenhouse effect. Granted it's kind of a bizarre to include clouds in one half the calculation and not the other but that is the way it's commonly done, so, for simplicity, just stick with ~33 °C.

The workings: thermal equilibrium for an Earth without an atmosphere:

The sun behaves approximately like a black body of radius r_s=6.599 x 10⁵ Km, at a temperature of T_s=5,783 K. The radiative flux at the sun's surface is given by the expression σT_s⁴, where σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant (5.6704 x 10^-8 Wm²K⁴). Flux refers to radiation per unit area. Thus, at the Earth's distance from the sun, r_es=1.496 x 10⁸ Km, this flux is reduced by the factor (r_s/r_es)². The Earth's disk has a cross section, a_cs=πr_e², where r_e is the Earth's radius (6.378 x 10³ Km), and thus intercepts a_csσT_s⁴(r_s/r_es)² radiation from the sun. In order to balance this intercepted radiation, the Earth would warm to a temperature T_e, where σT_e⁴4πr_e² = a_csσT_s⁴(r_s/r_es)². This leads to a solution T_e=272 K. Clouds, which obviously require an atmosphere, and other features of the Earth reflect 31% of the incident radiation. Taking this into account reduces T_e to 255 K.

Theoretically, if the planet's surface cooled by radiation alone, then the greenhouse-induced surface temperature would be much warmer, about 350 K (77 °C). Atmospheric motion (convective towers carrying latent and sensible heat upwards and large scale circulation carrying it both upwards and polewards) circumvent much of the greenhouse effect and significantly increase the "escape" of energy to space, leaving Earth's surface more than 60 °C cooler than a static atmosphere would do.

Additionally, greenhouse gases are only able to absorb radiation in very specific electromagnetic frequencies and Earth does not radiate limitless amounts of energy in the appropriate bandwidths. This means there is 'competition' for available energy and significant greenhouse potential is unrealized (carbon dioxide could absorb more than 3 times the energy it currently does in the atmosphere were it not for competition from clouds and water vapor, clouds alone could absorb 50% of available energy but manage to capture just 14% and so on...).

So, despite there being far more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere than required to achieve the current greenhouse effect, something which has been true since before humans discovered fire, evapo-transpiration and thermals transport heat higher in the atmosphere where radiation to space is increased. This is why Earth remains about 15 °C (288 K) rather than about 77 °C (350 K).

Wait a minute! Those aren't the numbers I learned!

Ah! Someone who remembers their science classes eh? Well, you got us. Reference works frequently list the planet's mean surface temperature as 16 °C (289 K, 61 °F); sometimes 15 °C (288 K, 59 °F) is mentioned and yes, these are about the expected temperatures by calculation -- in the 1960s and 1970s numbers as high as 65 °F (18 °C, 291 K) were popular but we haven't seen those for some time. Here we run into a little bit of a problem, however -- taking the Earth's temperature is no trivial task. In fact, even defining precisely what we mean by the absolute surface air temperature is challenging. Current global temperature anomalies (the amount of warming or cooling reported) are estimated against an expected average of 14 °C (287 K, 57 °F) -- the guess-timated mean temperature over the period 1961-1990.

Sidebar:

One of the quirks of climate science is that climate models are frequently 'tuned' to reproduce the expected mean temperature of 287 K or 14 °C and, somewhat bizarrely, 14 °C is thought to be the correct figure because 'the most trusted models produce it'. While the average of model representations of global climate suggests Earth's mean temperature is about 14 °C (287 K), the 16 most trusted and 'stable' models tested in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) (see original .pdf) are not well able to reproduce this result.

This graphic represents the unforced control runs for the "ensemble" (IPCC-speak for "haven't got a clue if any of these actually represent reality -- throw 'em all together and say the errors average out"). The range starts out guessing mean Earth surface temperature as anything from 11.5 to 16.5 °C (roughly 285-290 K) and ends -- without messing with carbon dioxide levels or anything else -- with the guesses even further apart. The absolute mean surface air temperature of the Earth is actually not known and there is no specification of exactly what we are trying to measure or how to go about doing so. No one knows what Earth's optimal temperature would be or how it could be knowingly and predictably adjusted even if an optimum could be agreed.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

[beneficii]

I've posted about 50 links explaining this, which no one bothers to read.

50 crackpot links do not make up for claiming there was less volcanic activity and more solar output 100 million years ago, in absolute defiance of everything that is understood about how the sun and the earth work. That isn't even a controversy at all, because both skeptics and proponents of AGW (but not paranoid denalists like you) who work in science understand that what you said there was absolute crap.