Search This Blog

Saturday, 22 June 2013

"Cyril On Global Warming" Part 3 of 3 - Just The Facts

"ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING"


PART 3 of 3


PART 1

PART 2


April saw the introduction in the UK of the Climate Change Levy (CCL) aka the carbon tax, from April 1st 2013 power stations will be taxed per tonne of CO2 they release. This is expected to raise the price of electricity to the consumer by 20% in the first year alone. The government is fully aware that companies will pass on the cost of this tax to their customers, the government also knows  the increase in energy charges will push 100’s of thousands more people into fuel poverty, cause many more deaths from the cold every winter and result in job losses due to small companies closing as they become uncompetitive.

Drax, the largest, cleanest and most efficient coal powered power station in Britain will spend an estimated 600 million pounds converting its power station to burn biofuel (wood) in part to avoid the crippling CCL and to take advantage of the massive government (Taxpayers) subsidies for switching to biomass.

It is not only Drax converting to wood burning, across Britain and Europe dozens of power stations will be making the change from coal to wood this year.

Biomass for large scale electricity generation means woodchips or pellets, Drax group Plc will buy the woodchips/pellets from America, build or rent a woodchip/pellet processing plant then transport them the 3000 miles to UK.

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article on how Europe’s switch away from coal to biomass is already affecting forests in America.


All combustion produces CO2, so what is the difference between burning wood as opposed to coal. This all depends on the moisture content (MC) of the fuel being used, as a rule the less MC the less CO2 released. At 45% MC wood releases about 9% more CO2 than coal with the same MC, things equalise somewhat the less MC present in each fuel. However this does not take into account the CO2 emitted in the processing of trees into chips/pellets or the emissions in transporting the millions of tonnes of biomass from America to Europe. Neither do these figures account for the loss of CO2 uptake caused by the felling of hundreds of square miles of forest each year to supply the demand of ‘biomass’ power generation. A lot of which will be old growth, with resultant loss of wildlife and increased susceptibility to flooding.


You do not have to be a genius to work out there will be no saving in CO2 emissions from this utterly bonkers, environmentally destructive unsustainable policy.
 Is there even one environmentalist who thinks this to be a good idea?
Maybe Nick Palmer or Dr Mark would like to give us their view on this?

PROPAGANDA OF A POST NORMAL SCIENCE


DENIER

The go to ad hominine directed at all sceptics of AGW. The scientific method demands that scepticism, even robust scepticism, is the default thinking for any good scientist, group think and consensus are anathema to a discipline that relies on facts, measurements and observation to advance knowledge. Denier with its holocaust overtones is an example of the intellectual dishonesty displayed by many of the denizens of the cult of AGW.  

THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED

 Have you ever heard that the science has been known for over 100 years? Did anyone tell you exactly what science they are referring to? Did you think it meant AGW? It doesn’t, what this refers to is the fact that CO2 absorbs and emits long wave radiation (infrared) and this has been known for a long time, does this prove AGW, well not exactly, in fact not at all, because everything (all matter) does this, some matter better than others. It’s a scientific fact that anything with a temperature above absolute zero (-273.15 deg. C) emits long wave radiation and that includes ice. So far from CO2 being unique or even special in this regard it is the norm.

If the science is settled then why are pro AGW scientists so keen to accept lavish government research grants to try to prove their idea? Climate is one of the least understood earth sciences and until recently (35years) was a scientific backwater. It has now become one of the best funded sciences in history. The US government alone has spent over $30 Billion on climate science in the last 20 years to try to prove a link between man-made CO2 emissions and global warming in an attempt to justify massive new taxation of the people.

“We’ve looked at the sun and it can’t be the cause of the recent observed temperature rise.”
 This claim is a relic from the 1980’s and 90’s when the sun was thought to be a non-variable star, this century has seen the launch by NASA of several solar missions like Hinode, Stereo, Ulysses, SMEI, RHESSI and Trace, they have already dispelled the non-variable sun idea, and as more discoveries, observations and measurements are collected and collated the role of the sun on earths climate is becoming more apparent, few scientists now believe the ideas of the sun/climate thinking prevalent in the past which some ‘climate scientists’ cling to.


Of course AGW is itself a misnomer, what the Malthusian apocalyptics keep bleating on about without one shred of evidence or scientific reasoning is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW). It is this imagined disaster that fuels the fear factor beloved of the Main Stream Media and those who seek ever more control over people’s lives.


THE BIG OIL FUNDED DENIER MACHINE

This has to be one of the funniest oft repeated false claims made by charlatans like Dr. Michael Mann. There is no evidence of a well-funded machine working to discredit “climate science” what is remarkable is that independent self-funded bloggers and scientists are the people who on the whole have exposed the climate science hierarchy’s woeful work, sharp practices and junk science.


MSM

The role of the MSM in propagating climate scare stories has been pivotal to getting the public to accept the ‘theory’ of CAGW and the steep rise in energy costs of the last decade all in the name of ‘saving the planet’.


In particular the BBC carries a lot of the blame in the UK for this by the total disregard of their charter, to report both sides of the debate. Almost every natural history programme put out by the BBC this century has the obligatory man made CO2 is the devil meme. Look past the rhetoric and we see the age old technique of creating fear to sell unpalatable measures.

Below is the information you will not see in the MSM.
Green House Gases account for about 1% of the atmosphere.




(Typo in the above pie chart; CO2 should read 0.04%)
Of the 1% that is GHG water vapour is by far the most abundant.


Man-made CO2 emission compared to natural CO2 emissions


GHG are 1% of all atmospheric gases and CO2 is about 4% of that 1%, man-made emissions of CO2 make up just 5% of all CO2 in the atmosphere.
 
Water vapour has 7 times the radiative effect of CO2 and there is 80 times more water vapour than CO2 in the atmosphere. Water vapour is the 600lb gorilla in the room, it controls the green-house effect not the minuscule trace gas CO2.


SHOUT DOWN SCEPTICS AND STIFLE 

DEBATE

This is something all zealots can do at home, sites like skeptical science, DeSmogblog and RealClimate will give you sciencey sounding sound bites which can repeated ad nauseam on any forum until those pesky ‘Deniers’ get fed up and leave, neat eh!
Does this remind you of someone?

Most proponents of CAGW will not debate sceptics about the ‘science’, they will use all kinds of excuses, the gish gallop meme being one of the most used, this is disingenuous, the only reason CAGW scientists will not debate sceptics is they know they will lose because they have no real science backing the CAGW ‘theory’. Below is a video showing just how childish some of the CAGW crew can get.


This reluctance of proponents of CAGW to debate sceptics can be traced back to the IQ squared debate in 2007, where sceptics comprehensively trounced the CAGW crew. Below is the first video in the 10 video record of that debate (click on to the uploader’s channel for the entire series).


To get some idea of the plethora of alarmism that has been published on the supposed effects of CAGW and the enrichment of atmospheric CO2, here is a list of things CO2 induced CAGW has been blamed for, click on the subject to be taken to the source of the claims;



WHAT THE CRU EMAILS REVEALED

1. By Phil Jones and others admissions there is a ‘group’ of scientists pushing the man-made global warming theory.

2. From the released in 2009 emails it is possible to name about 40 scientists in that group.

3. This group are closely associated with the IPCC assessment reports, many of their members being lead and co-ordinating authors of various working groups.

4. Privately amongst themselves many of the group admit there are huge uncertainties with AGW theory, few of the group will publicly admit to the extent of those uncertainties.

5. Some members of the group talk of adjusting and/or losing the raw data.

6. The group became as influential so as to be able to dominate peer review in climate science.

7. The number of scientists in the group has increased in line with government funding for anthropogenic caused climate change.

8. The group have blocked sceptical papers from being published.

9. Some of the group actively obstructed freedom of information requests.

10. The ‘groups’ discussion on how to “get rid” of the inconvenient Medieval Warm Period (MWP) for which Michael Mann came up with the now discredited ‘hockey stick graph’ reconstruction.

There are hundreds of peer reviewed studies showing the MWP was global and between 1-2 deg. C. warmer than today, the IPCC ignored these papers in the Third Assessment Report favouring the single paper by Mann et al.

The below links to a website that has archived a vast number of peer reviewed papers confirming the Medieval Warm Period, click on the Continent for the abstracts and references.


The CRU emails show us the kind of practices ‘climate scientists group’ get up to, but to get an idea of the competence of these people I recommend reading the ‘Harry read me’ file, you really couldn’t make this stuff up.

All of the hacked/leaked emails and files can be found at the link below.



METHODOLOGIES OF A POST NORMAL 

SCIENCE

Adjusting the historic temperature record and raw data.

Anyone who has objectively followed the AGW subject knows that for the last 20 years James Hansen (formally of GISS) has been adjusting the pre 1950 historic surface temperature record downward and adjusting the post 1950 record upwards. There is no scientifically valid reason for these adjustments, 

the only reason for this behaviour seems to be to exaggerate the warming of the late 20th century.

Independent blogger Steven Goddard (no fossil fuel/Koch brothers funding) is one of several people who have looked at these adjustments, the following blog posting shows the adjustments and how the adjustments have affected the surface temperature record. Links to the original raw data are included in the posting.



The CO2 record

The observatory at Mauna Loa on the big island of Hawaii is the only official record of CO2 levels in the world.
Quite why a spot without any CO2 breathing plant life, 11,000 feet above sea level, in the midst of 5 active volcanoes (which expel copious amounts of CO2) should be chosen as the only official CO2 level measurement station in the world is not satisfactorily explained by the IPCC.


A little closer


Mauna Loa observatory started measuring atmospheric CO2 levels in 1958 the machinery used to make the measurements is accurate to 0.01 % which is excellent. Pre 1958 CO2 levels were measured chemically with an accuracy of 1%-3% which is pretty good. The IPCC in its divine wisdom decided to ignore the 10’s of thousands of chemical measurements of CO2 going back 200 years from all around the globe and instead extrapolated backward the Mauna Loa record using ice core measurements to the supposed pre-industrial level of 280ppm. Ice core analysis is robust for charting the rise and fall of CO2 over centennial time scales, however it is poor for determining the absolute levels of CO2 over decadal time scales.

Below is a graph of chemical CO2 measurements since 1810, notice that the chemical measurement method (red line) shows levels of Atmospheric CO2 similar or above today's levels in the 1820’s, 1850’s and 1940’s.


Below is a link to Beck’s full paper.


Models, Reconstructions and Dendroclimatology

It is often said that the peer review literature shows more papers in favour of AGW than against, this is true by a ratio of about 9:1.
It is also true that there should be no surprise in these figures given how peer review in climate science has been hijacked by the ‘group’ and the enormous amounts of money available for the study of man-made climate change. You would be hard pressed to get financing for a study to dis-prove man-made climate change.

Curiously the pro man-made climate change papers have a high percentage of modelled and reconstruction work.
Models used in climate studies have no skill at hind casting having to be adjusted to match up with past known climate conditions, if a model cannot hind cast with known conditions should we think they can forecast with unknown conditions with any accuracy?

Below is a graph comparing 73 different model forecasts with observation.


The disparity between models and actual observation is becoming an embarrassment for the climate modelling community. 

Reconstructions are compiled by taking the field work of other scientists then adjusting and homogenising the original data into a time series or chronology, the most famous/infamous reconstruction being MBH98 more commonly known as the Mann Hockey Stick Graph. IPCC reports are littered with these reconstructions and the majority of these are dendroclimatological studies.

Dendroclimatology is the reconstruction of past climate through the study of trees (usually the reconstruction of temperature by studying tree rings).
Overwhelmingly the bulk of dendroclimatology studies consist of measuring tree ring widths (TRW) and the theory is the wider the ring the higher the temperature. By using this method dendroclimatologists laughingly claim they can measure the temperature at the time of the growth to within 1/10 of a 

degree C. Obviously temperature is not the only parameter that affects a tree’s growth, it is probably not even the main cause of growth, other factors such as water, sun light, CO2, pests, disease, soil and nutrients will also affect the rate of growth.

The fact is trees do not make for good thermometers and tree ring widths are unreliable measures of temperature, we need only look at the divergence problem to see this is so.

The divergence problem in dendroclimatology refers to the observation that the tree ring width method of calculation of temperature does not match the actual measured temperatures from 1960 on. Dendroclimatologists have not been able to explain this divergence, yet insist that their methods are robust and accurate going back hundreds of years.

If proof were needed that dendroclimatology is nothing more than pseudoscience we have only to see what the leading people in the field say about their own ‘science’. In the (Keith) Briffa 2013 paper we find this gem;

“the site report (and statistical evidence) demonstrating the anomalous “signal” in the Khadytla data lead us to omit them from the new Yamal chronology constructed here (see SM5 for details)”

You what Keith? Anomalous signal? You mean data that does not fit your pre-conceived ideas so you left it out, that’s rubbish science, and in fact it doesn’t deserve to be called science.

Another member of the ‘group’ Jan Esper goes even further with this shameful quote; (my bolding)

 “However as we mentioned earlier on the subject of biological growth populations, this does not mean that one could not improve a chronology by reducing the number of series used if the purpose of removing samples is to enhance a desired signal. The ability to pick and choose which samples to use is an advantage unique to dendroclimatology.”

Jan should have said the ability to pick and choose which samples to use is an advantage unique to junk science.

This is what UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist has to say; 

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”


The role of the IPCC

There is a widespread belief that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) looks at and reviews all the available science on climate. This is not the case as we can see from the IPCC’s charter below;

INTRODUCTION
1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as the IPCC or, synonymously, the Panel) shall concentrate its activities on the tasks allotted to it by the relevant WMO Executive Council and UNEP Governing Council resolutions and decisions as well as on actions in support of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process.

ROLE
2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

3. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process. Since the IPCC is an intergovernmental body, review of IPCC documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments.


Article 2 above shows that the IPCC is concerned only with information on human-induced climate change, it does not bother itself with information that could disprove AGW.
Scientific working groups are also stacked with pro AGW scientists. For example in chapter 9 (understanding and attributing climate change) of AR4 (2007) more than half of the reviewers had co-authored papers with each other, reviewer David Karoly was a co-authored on no less than 13 of the papers reviewed. Of the 534 papers cited in chapter 9, 213 had been authored by the reviewers of the chapter.
An analysis by John McLean delves into the details of chapter 9 and can be read here;


Article 3 of the IPCC charter (above) states; “review of IPCC documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments.”

Much has been said about the quality of the documents reviewed by the IPCC usually along the lines of how much emphasis is placed on peer reviewed literature. This, not surprisingly coming from the IPCC, is another misnomer up to 30% of documents reviewed by the working groups are ‘grey literature’ i.e. not peer reviewed.
Blogger shub niggurath wrote this piece on the use of grey literature in IPCC assessment reports;


Donna Laframboise organised a citizen audit of grey literature in assessment reports with these results;


Quite clearly the IPCC has a political agenda to convince people there is a real threat of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, the funny thing is that after more than 20 years of trying it has failed to produce one single piece of evidence to back up its mission.


FOLLOW THE MONEY 

AGW scientists and followers of the cult of CAGW will plumb the depths of dishonesty to try and discredit sceptics of their new religion, oft repeated lies such as there is a big oil funded denialist machine working against science are 

spouted by the likes Michael Mann then regurgitated over the MSM and Internet as gospel, yet we never get to see the sources and proof of these claims.

The truth is the complete opposite and can be proved.

Exxon mobile donated $100 million to Stanford University for research into climate change.
In the year 2000 BP and Ford donated $20 million to Princeton for the same reason.


 Both BP and Shell have funded the CRU at East Anglia University since the 1970’s
The following is taken from the CRU website at;



Acknowledgements

This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):
British Council, British Petroleum, Broom's Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, Central Electricity Generating Board, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN), Commercial Union, Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU), Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DoE, 1970-1997), Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR, 1997-2001), Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA, 2001-present), Department of Energy and Climatic Change (DECC), Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Earth and Life Sciences Alliance, Eastern Electricity, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Greater London Authority, Greenpeace International, International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED), Irish Electricity Supply Board, KFA Germany, Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC), Leverhulme Trust, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), National Assembly for Wales, National Power, National Rivers Authority, Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC), Norwich Union, Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, Overseas Development Administration (ODA), Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, Royal Society, Scientific Consultants, Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC), Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, Shell, SQW Consulting, Stockholm Environment Agency, Sultanate of Oman, Tate and Lyle, Tyndall Centre, UK Met. Office, UK Nirex Ltd., UK Water Industry Research (UKWIR), United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP), United States Department of Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wolfson Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).

(Coloured highlights by me)

There are plenty of Companies and Organisations listed above who have a dog in the fight.
It is also true that fossil fuel Companies have funded some studies sceptical of AGW, but the level of funding is small in comparison to the figures above.
Big Oil is all for carbon credit schemes as this will create an enormous new derivative market that they would be best placed to profit from.
It’s worth googling the involvement of Al Gore and Maurice Strong in the setting up of the Chicago Carbon Exchange.

Fossil Fuel funding for either side of the debate is dwarfed by the billions of dollars governments spend on man-made climate change science. A US Government accountability Office report in 2011 showed funding for climate change science from 1993-2010 to be in excess of 31 Billion Dollars. I’m sorry I can’t paste the graph you will find it on page 48 of the PDF below.
Finding reliable information on what other governments spend funding man-made climate change science in not easy, without an accountability office it requires a department by department search, however conservative estimates on governments spending worldwide on climate change are in the region of $100 Billion.
That’s an awful lot of money to waste on a non problem, maybe a clue as to the real reason for this expenditure can be gleaned from the fact that over 30 countries including UK, Japan, Australia, Germany, France, Sweden and India have already introduced carbon taxes, the USA and China are expected to follow in the next year or two.
…………………………
So far not a single prediction/projection/forcast/consequence from the proponents of AGW has been accurate.

There is no hot spot in the equatorial troposphere.
 We did not see 50 million climate refugees by 2010.
 Sea level rise has not accelerated.
 The 17 year hiatus from warming was not predicted.
 The slight cooling since 2002 was not predicted.
 I’ll finish with a bit of Richard Feynman

Cyril




63 comments:

  1. Where do you live in Jersey?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cyril wrote, or - more likely - copied and posted from elsewhere:

    "Most proponents of CAGW will not debate sceptics about the ‘science’, they will use all kinds of excuses, the gish gallop meme being one of the most used, this is disingenuous, the only reason CAGW scientists will not debate sceptics is they know they will lose because they have no real science backing the CAGW ‘theory"

    As his whole post is one gigantic Gish Gallop of misleading deceptive, massively factually incorrect, scientifically illiterate, paranoid thinking tosh, he has a nerve to mention the Gish Gallop technique!


    As it would take 100s of thousands of words to demolish the humungous pile of garbage above, I will use the technique which works best at showing the audience who is batshit crazy and who is talking genuine rational science. Give me your best shot Cyril.

    What do you think your single best irrefutable "smoking gun" piece of evidence is, that you think clearly shows that climate science doesn't know what it is talking about?

    After I've shot it down in flames will you promise to shut up spreading your incredibly dangerous, stupid and irresponsible fuzz-brained propaganda?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh, while I'm here, I see Ian has written to TPTB about "chemtrails"

    how to debunk chemtrailers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What an interesting website, especially given the fact that a year ago the American gov finally admitted it had been spraying, then said, it was to protect us all from the big bad sun!!! LOL :)

      Delete
  4. Nick spouts his usual assumptive dung, FYI Nick anything that I’ve quoted is clearly marked, the rest is in my own words.
    You want my best shot, a single ‘smoking gun’ piece of irrefutable evidence, what are you talking about you barking fool. Your heroes of the cult of CAGW have made many claims all of which have transpired to be nothing but the wishful thinking of humanity hating nutters.
    Where is the predicted hot spot?
    More extreme weather? The graphs I posted in parts 1&2 are from organisations like NASA, NOAA, NCDC, UNEP etc. all disprove the more extreme weather meme, maybe you just didn’t read them eh Nick!
    Then again you are so blinded by ideological fervour you wouldn’t notice scientific evidence if it bit you on the nose. Accept it Nick you chose to believe a hypothesis that turned out to be wrong, admit it, be a man not a shrub. I understand how much your ego must be hurting having investing so much of yourself and your creditability in an unlikely weak hypothesis and I realise how embarrassing it is for you given your past zealotry on the subject.

    Looking at your blog- pre censorship- gives an insight into your character, savagely insulting people whose comments met your disproval shows what dipshit asshole you really are.
    Yeah I know I shouldn’t stoop to your level, but it feels good to tell you what an obnoxious prick you are here on Ian’s no holds barred blog, it’s about time someone told you that you’re a tosspot.
    So dickhead, instead of blathering on with your content free garbage why don’t you take the time to put together your own post showing the rest of us the science and proof of CO2 induced CAGW.
    Take a look at “The secret life of the sun” available on BBC I player.

    cyril

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see you didn't come up with a smoking gun Cyril. The closest I can see in your drivel is "where is the predicted hot spot?"

      This is a perfect example of how you have been fooled by the madmen, fools, liars and gullible idiots out there in the denialist blogosphere. It is a huge strawman argument. They have told you that the presence or absence of the so-called troposphere hotspot in the tropics is a smoking gun - they assert that the science depends on it - if it is there, they say AGW theory would be correct, if it is absent then AGW theory is a crock of shit. They assert it is not there so invite you to believe the second conclusion. They are lying to you, Cyril and you are so scientifically challenged that you believe them. You have been "Gish Galloped".

      BTW, for anyone else reading this, the Gish Gallop is a technique invented by creationist debater Duane Gish to overwhelm his opponents in debates by appearing to be much more knowledgable. It consists of rapidly stating dozens or hundreds of pseudo-science exagerations, plausible lies, half-truths, and straw-man arguments. The Gish Galloper plans to create an illusion that they are an authority with a vast amount of evidence, although , of course, they rarely have any quality in their arguments. Their opponents can, at best, only demolish a small fraction of their pseudo-case so the audience is left with the illusion that although a couple of the Galloper's points might have been spurious, the other hundred were probably OK. That is why scientists rarely take up the frequent challenges from denialist deceivers to have public debates. Cyril's three posts are a textbook example of misleading psuedo-science Galloping.

      It’s worth pointing out, before going further, that there are no doubts about CO2′s effect on global warming. No significant person in the climate science arena, including famous deniers and contrarian scientists like Spencer, Monckton, Christy Lindzen, Pielke, Carter, Singer, Plimer argues against the fact that increasing CO2 leads directly to ~1 degree centigrade warming per doubling. The disagreements, such as they are, deal with how large the transient natural feedbacks, primarily water vapour, are to a system warmed by additional CO2.

      See part 2

      Delete
    2. Part 2

      Get this very clear in your head, Cyril (if that's possible). Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere by combusting buried carbon faster than the natural processes can sequester it again WILL cause the planet to heat up. This is not disputed except by ignorant, supremely arrogant, numbskulls. It renders the vast majority of your three post Gish Gallop wrong or irrelevant.

      As we have been increasing atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution at an accelerating rate, we have already started to warm the planet and no significant scientist disputes that the planet has warmed already because of this. The disagreements, such as they are, deal with natural feedbacks to a system warmed by additional CO2. Basically, how much and how fast the feedbacks will amplify, or otherwise, the basic greenhouse effect due to CO2.

      The notorious "hot spot" is present and not "missing", though it might be, at present, less than originally expected. It shows up on seasonal, and also now on decadal timescales. Of course, the scientifically challenged denialati seize on this variation because they promote anything that might be twisted to support their delusions.

      There is an argument that those papers that don't find much hotspot did not correct adequately for satellite drift.

      This "drift" is the very same sort of error that darlings-of-the-deniers Spencer and Christy made when their flaw work used to claim (which launched a thousand denialist ships) that their Huntsville University of Alabama satellite data showed the planet cooling, as opposed to the ground based measurements. Their error launched another thousand denialist ships when the disinformation stooge Anthony Watts took this to mean that the ground measurements must be wrong and created his ridiculous Surface Stations Project to attempt to prove it.

      See part 3

      Delete
    3. Part 3

      Simplifying, the hotspot is merely the expectation that if the lower atmosphere warms, then the tropopause will rise - this is because of the effect of warming on the moist adiabatic lapse rate. It applies to any surface warming from any cause - it has not been, and never was, presented by climate science as a unique fingerprint of anthropogenic global warming - that is yet another lie that you have been spoonfed by those who misrepresent things for their own purposes. The original source of this lie/rank stupidity was David Evans, the partner of Jo Nova who runs a popular denialist blog. Evans is not a climate scientist nor has he published any peer-reviewed research papers on the subject of climate change.

      Satellite measurements of the increase in the height of the tropopause are also complicated by the cooling stratosphere (the true unique signature of AGW) above it. Balloon (radiosonde) measurements however have their own problems with many biases that need correcting for. Of course the denialati seize on this as some form of data "massaging". A number of teams have used different techniques to account for the biases affecting weather balloon data. The various methods find a similar result - when the biases are adjusted for, the result is closer to the expected moist adiabatic amplification (Titchner 2009, Sherwood 2008, Haimberger 2008)." It remains probably true that the tropospheric hotspot in the tropics is not quite as expected. Everywhere else on the planet, the warming is as expected apart from the Arctic, where the ice pack coverage is disappearing much faster than predicted.

      What is, and has always been held out to be so from basic theory and the models based on it, a unique "fingerprint" of anthropogenic global warming from increased CO2 is stratospheric cooling, which is definitely present and clearly measurable, despite the complications from the effects of ozone. It is THE smoking gun that AGW theory is accurate and mostly happening according to predictions.

      Cyril, you need to stop reading sources on the internet with little or no credibility who just make up stuff either because they are too stupid or arrogant to realise the holes in their own knowldge or they are spreading propaganda for political purposes.

      Delete
  5. In 2013 a team of researchers painstakingly combed through the abstracts of more than 12,000 scientific articles published between 1991 and 2011 to determine just how much scientific agreement exists on the subject of climate change, and humanity's role in driving it. The team was led by John Cook, a Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland and the founder of the climate change education web site SkepticalScience.com.

    The results, published recently in the journal Environmental Research Letters, were clear: of the more than 4,000 abstracts that had anything to say about human-driven climate change, 97 percent endorsed the notion. A little less than 3 percent either rejected the idea or remained undecided.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anon

    John Cook is a cartoonist

    His team were contributors of his alarmist blog skepticalscience

    The 'study was anything but independent

    consensus is not science

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means/

    sks is a propaganda site

    do some more research

    ReplyDelete
  7. Your report report is full of inaccuracies and half truths - for instance Exxon Mobil teamed up with Stanford University to find breakthrough technologies that would deliver more energy while reducing greenhouse gas emissions - in other words - they accepted CAGW and their funding was to try to find alternative means of energy to reduce it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi anon, good spot, my mistake.

      How about the US governments 30+ billion dollars investment into AGW any disputes there?

      cyril

      Delete
    2. Anon, Please feel free to point out any more mistakes or half truths as you put it in my post, after all apparently it is full of them.
      Thanks

      cyril

      Delete
  8. Great post, I can see the wood for the trees(rings). Is there any mention that we are passing through the Photon Belt so are getting pummeled by increased Photons. We are going from one side of the Galactic disc to the other WE WILL be subject to much change, as to how it plays out I'm sure there is a Tax for it Ha BELL ENDS : )
    Rejoice in the fact we are FREE unless you like the to be fist fu*ked.
    Phil

    ReplyDelete
  9. OK here's another - BP and Shell did help fund the research department of East Anglia University - together with about 70 over doners - but the EAU findings were as follows: -

    "This work culminated in 1995, when a team of researchers from American institutes and from CRU, using computer simulations of climatic change caused by increasing emissions of carbon dioxide - the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas - and sulphate aerosols, was able to detect the effects of these climate forcing factors in the climate observations.

    This was a significant progression beyond the consensus view expressed by the IPCC in 1990, when it was considered that the effect of increased carbon dioxide concentrations could not yet be identified in the observed temperature record. This work played a critical role in the conclusion reached by the 1995 assessment of the IPCC that "the balance of evidence suggests that there has been a discernible human influence on global climate". Subsequent IPCC reports have strengthened these statements (in 2001: "there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities" and in 2007: "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations") and led most governments, industries, multi-national companies and the majority of the public to accept that the climate is warming, and humans are part of the cause."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon, Good to see you agree that big oil has funded AGW science at CRU.

      Now please point me to any documented proof that big oil has funded sceptics.

      The 1995 IPCC assessment report, summary for policy makers, was changed by Ben Santer from no discernible human influence on global climate, this change was reported by scientists who worked on that assessment report at the time.

      cyril

      Delete
    2. Hahaha another gallop from Palmer out of stall fail.

      No detectable hot spot = models fail.

      Twice as much cooling of the stratosphere than the models predicted = models fail.

      You are so transparent thick Nick, your hot spot/stratosphere cooling is a parsed down paraphrased rip off from this page at Skepticalscience
      Yet you accuse me of copying and posting, what a tit.
      As a dyed in the wool sophist I don't suppose you would want to look at a real scientific paper on the uncertainties of stratospheric temperature trends, but here goes, this is from NOAA

      You could take a look at the remarkable recovery of sea ice in the arctic; Data from NSIDC

      The 1 deg C per doubling of CO2, did you not read my 1st post?
      You will see from the graphs in that post that there has been no increase in water vapour or humidity, so the much vaunted positive feedback theory has not been observed.

      Tell us Nick do you think a 1 deg C. temperature rise will cause catastrophe?

      cyril

      Delete
  10. "Now please point me to any documented proof that big oil has funded sceptics"

    This is typical pathological "sceptic" behaviour - constantly demanding that others do the work they should do for themselves. Look it up yourself Cyril, stuff like that is easy to find. In fact, even though it is so very easy to find, I'll give you a helpful clue, as you seem so hopeless at ascertaining what is real and what is fantasy. Google "Global climate coalition" (GCC). This was an organisation, set up in 1989, dedicated to resisting the policies that climate science suggests are needed by spreading doubt, "scepticism" and uncertainty about the science, in exactly the same way, and using the same techniques of propaganda, that the tobacco industry did previously to delay controlling action once it became scientifically clear that their products were killing many people and causing the future deaths of many more.

    Prior to 1997, prominent sponsoring members included
    The Aluminum Association
    American Highway Users Alliance
    British Petroleum
    DaimlerChrysler
    Exxon / Esso
    Ford Motor Company
    General Motors Corporation
    Shell Oil USA


    see part 2

    ReplyDelete
  11. Part 2

    I remember arguing with one of your ancestor deniers, Cyril, back then who pooh-poohed the idea that the fossil fuel industry would sponsor deceitful propagandists and spin doctors to muddy the waters. The clown accused me of being paranoid and being a conspiracy nut. I had a pretty good answer to this numbskull which was this

    "They have offices. Here's their address and phone number"

    Now, back in those days, deniers were still fairly close to being rational, probably because the Internet wasn't really around for the public yet with its unfortunate ability to link up fruitcakes and flakes so they can all reinforce their fantasies in a gigantic version of "Folie à deux". This past denier just accepted that they were wrong, faced with the evidence, but nowadays it is extremely rare for deniers to ever admit such a thing, even faced with overwhelming evidence!

    Of course as the science started getting ever stronger, the GCC started losing members - Dupont and British Petroleum left in 1997, Shell Oil (US) in 1998, Ford in 1999, and DaimlerChrysler, General Motors, and Texaco in 2000.

    A major scientific report on the severity of global warming by the IPCC in 2001 led to large-scale membership loss as the organisations started to accept that there was a problem and it was finally disbanded in 2002.

    Nowadays, Big Oil etc does not (as far as I know) directly fund pathological sceptics and deniers but they do fund the assorted think tanks and institutes such as Heartland, Competitive Enterprise Institute etc, etc. These outfits are reponsible for an awful lot of the anti-climate science deceit and propaganda deceit around. Big Oil and fellow travellers do this because these organisations have a broadly libertarian approach which causes them to think like this -

    "we don't like government telling us what to do; the less we get governed or controlled, the better we like it; what the science says means we can't go on with our businesses as usual, so we choose to disbelieve that there is a problem largely because we don't like the necessary solutions"

    So you see Cyril, yet again you have been misled by your sources and caused me to waste more time answering your flim-flam!

    ReplyDelete
  12. OK Nick you admit that big oil does not fund sceptics, that's a start, so who funds the scientists and bloggers who are sceptical of CAGW?

    You haven't answered my question, do you think a 1 deg C. temperature rise will cause catastrophe?

    cyril

    ReplyDelete
  13. Cyril, seemingly unaware that his case is rather like Wile E.Coyote running over cliff and not falling until he accepts that there isn't anything beneath him blathered:

    "Then again you are so blinded by ideological fervour you wouldn’t notice scientific evidence if it bit you on the nose. Accept it Nick you chose to believe a hypothesis that turned out to be wrong, admit it, be a man not a shrub"

    How strange. Look who else has published statements accepting the same science that I put forward:

    the IPCC’s conclusion that most of the warming since 1950 is very likely due to human emissions of greenhouse gases and has been endorsed by this great cloud of witnesses:

    the National Academy of Sciences,
    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=1

    the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
    http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

    the National Center for Atmospheric Research,
    http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html

    the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

    the American Geophysical Union,
    http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/climate_change2008.shtml

    the American Institute of Physics,
    http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/042.html
    http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html

    the American Physical Society,
    http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

    the American Meteorological Society,
    http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
    http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html
    http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html

    the American Statistical Association,
    http://www.amstat.org/news/climatechange.cfm

    the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
    http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/

    the Federation of American Scientists,
    http://www.fas.org/press/statements/_docs/08grand_challenges.html

    the American Quaternary Association,
    http://www.inqua.org/documents/QP%2016-2.pdf
    http://www.agu.org/fora/eos/pdfs/2006EO360008.pdf

    the American Society of Agronomy,
    https://www.soils.org/files/science-policy/asa-cssa-sssa-climate-change-policy-statement.pdf

    the Crop Science Society of America,
    https://www.soils.org/files/science-policy/asa-cssa-sssa-climate-change-policy-statement.pdf

    the Soil Science Society of America,
    https://www.soils.org/files/science-policy/asa-cssa-sssa-climate-change-policy-statement.pdf

    the American Astronomical Society,
    http://aas.org/governance/resolutions.php%23climate#climate

    the American Chemical Society,
    http://portal.acs.org/portal/fileFetch/C/WPCP_011538/pdf/WPCP_011538.pdf

    the Geological Society of America,
    http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm

    the American Institute of Biological Sciences,
    http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf

    see part 2
    the IPCC’s conclusion that most of the warming since 1950 is very likely due to human emissions of greenhouse gases and has been endorsed by this great cloud of witnesses:

    the National Academy of Sciences,
    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=1

    the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
    http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

    the National Center for Atmospheric Research,
    http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html

    the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

    the American Geophysical Union,
    http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/climate_change2008.shtml

    the American Institute of Physics,
    http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/042.html
    http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html

    the American Physical Society,
    http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

    the American Meteorological Society,
    http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
    http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html
    http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html

    see part 2

    ReplyDelete
  14. Part 2


    the American Statistical Association,
    http://www.amstat.org/news/climatechange.cfm

    the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
    http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/

    the Federation of American Scientists,
    http://www.fas.org/press/statements/_docs/08grand_challenges.html

    the American Quaternary Association,
    http://www.inqua.org/documents/QP%2016-2.pdf
    http://www.agu.org/fora/eos/pdfs/2006EO360008.pdf

    the American Society of Agronomy,
    https://www.soils.org/files/science-policy/asa-cssa-sssa-climate-change-policy-statement.pdf

    the Crop Science Society of America,
    https://www.soils.org/files/science-policy/asa-cssa-sssa-climate-change-policy-statement.pdf

    the Soil Science Society of America,
    https://www.soils.org/files/science-policy/asa-cssa-sssa-climate-change-policy-statement.pdf

    the American Astronomical Society,
    http://aas.org/governance/resolutions.php%23climate#climate

    the American Chemical Society,
    http://portal.acs.org/portal/fileFetch/C/WPCP_011538/pdf/WPCP_011538.pdf

    the Geological Society of America,
    http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm

    the American Institute of Biological Sciences,
    http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf

    the American Society for Microbiology,
    http://www.asm.org/images/docfilename/0000006005/globalwarming%5B1%5D.pdf

    the Society of American Foresters,
    http://www.safnet.org/fp/documents/climate_change_expires12-8-2013.pdf
    http://www.safnet.org/publications/jof/jof_cctf.pdf

    the Australian Institute of Physics,
    http://www.aip.org.au/scipolicy/Science%20Policy.pdf

    the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society,
    http://www.amos.org.au/documents/item/26

    the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO,
    http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pvfo.pdf

    the Geological Society of Australia,
    http://scentofpine.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/gsa-position-statement-and-recommendations-e28093-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-climate-change-july-2009.pdf

    the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies,
    http://www.fasts.org/images/policy-discussion/statement-climate-change.pdf

    the Australian Coral Reef Society,
    http://www.australiancoralreefsociety.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=5d093a51-a77e-4ae0-bd9f-67e459d57ac1&groupId=10136

    the Royal Society of the UK,
    http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf


    see part 3

    ReplyDelete
  15. Part 3

    the Royal Meteorological Society,
    http://www.rmets.org/news/detail.php?ID=332

    the British Antarctic Survey,
    http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/science/climate/position-statement.php

    the Geological Society of London,
    http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/views/policy_statements/page7426.html

    the Society of Biology (UK),
    http://www.societyofbiology.org/policy/policy-issues/climate-change

    the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences,
    http://www.cfcas.org/media/news-releases-media-advisories/climate-change-in-canada-eminent-canadian-scientists-issue-a-call-for-action-to-prime-minister-martin/

    the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society,
    http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html

    the Royal Society of New Zealand,
    http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/organisation/panels/climate/climate-change-statement/

    the Polish Academy of Sciences,
    http://www.aktualnosci.pan.pl/images/stories/pliki/stanowiska_opinie/2008/stanowisko_pan_131207.pdf

    the European Science Foundation,
    http://www.esf.org/index.php?eID=tx_ccdamdl_file&p%5Bfile%5D=9227&p%5Bdl%5D=1&p%5Bpid%5D=4051&p%5Bsite%5D=European+Science+Foundation&p%5Bt%5D=1320257130&hash=021516f447f3a4b0e2ebab85f133729c&l=en

    the European Geosciences Union,
    http://www.egu.eu/statements/position-statement-of-the-divisions-of-atmospheric-and-climate-sciences-7-july-2005.html
    http://www.egu.eu/statements/egu-position-statement-on-ocean-acidification.html

    the European Physical Society,
    http://nuclear.epsdivisions.org/Reports/eps-position-paper-energy-for-the-future

    the European Federation of Geologists,
    http://www.eurogeologists.de/images/content/panels_of_experts/co2_geological_storage/CCS_position_paper.pdf

    the Network of African Science Academies,
    http://www.interacademies.net/File.aspx?id=4825

    see part 4

    ReplyDelete
  16. Part 4

    the International Union for Quaternary Research,
    http://www.inqua.org/documents/iscc.pdf

    the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics,
    http://www.iugg.org/resolutions/perugia07.pdf

    the Wildlife Society (International),
    http://joomla.wildlife.org/documents/positionstatements/35-Global%20Climate%20Change%20and%20Wildlife.pdf

    and the World Meteorological Organization.
    http://www.wmo.ch/pages/mediacentre/statann/documents/SG21_2006_E.pdf

    There are no National Academies or International Scientific Societies disputing the conclusion that most of the warming since 1950 is very likely to be due to human emissions of greenhouse gases, though a few are non-committal.

    The last organization to oppose this conclusion was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists - Big Oil'ish (surprise!). They changed their position statement in 2007 to a non-committal position because they recognized that AAPG doesn’t have experience or credibility in the field of climate change and said “… as a group we have no particular claim to knowledge of global atmospheric geophysics through either our education or our daily professional work.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Non-committal_statements
    http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/statements/climatechange.pdf
    http://64.207.34.58/StaticContent/3/TPGs/2010_TPGMarApr.pdf


    There are of course many, many more. And yet no doubt Cyril will think they are all mistaken or lying or corrupted and only his mighty intellect, reinforced by endless clicking on links in the denialosphere to boost his confirmation bias, somehow has negated all those professional organisations. What a laugh!

    Cyril wrote about me: "So dickhead, instead of blathering on with your content free garbage why don’t you take the time to put together your own post showing the rest of us the science and proof of CO2 induced CAGW"


    Cyril really is amazingly arrogant, yet simultaneously hopelessly confused and wrong - wrong - wrong!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Oh dear OCD or what, name one on your list of institutions that actually poled their membership before making those statements.

    Well, will 1 deg C. temperature rise cause catastrophe?

    cyril

    ReplyDelete
  18. Cyril went nuts and said

    "No detectable hot spot = models fail.

    Twice as much cooling of the stratosphere than the models predicted = models fail"


    Just carry on making sound bite assertions and accepting the wacky conclusions that the mendacious/scientifically illiterate denialosphere spoonfeeds you with. BTW, if stratospheric cooling is truly twice as much (and not just a mistake in the new NOAA SSU data, as that paper you linked to actually says...) we are in super deep shit as it would mean that, although the models would be somewhat inaccurate in this particular area, it would also mean that the global warming due to CO2 was much more than expected and we would fry double quick. Pray the models are right and this very new paper is an outlying mistake.

    "name one on your list of institutions that actually poled their membership before making those statements"


    That's simply mad, Cyril. Your just making a public fool of yourself with your textbook pathological scepticism. Why don't you drag up that pathetically tired denialist favourite, the 32,000 "scientists" who supposedly don't support the science?

    Possibly because you know that, just in America alone, there were 10 million who didn't sign it, whose qualifications actually fit the same criteria, those proven deceivers, the Robinsons - who concocted that petition - accepted the word of their participants for.

    "OK Nick you admit that big oil does not fund sceptics"

    Are you completely incapable of comprehending English? I said it no longer does it directly. Sheesh - try reading what people write, but I suppose you wouldn't then be able to link to the sea ice page and say this piece of bizarre Alice-through-the-looking-glass crap.

    "You could take a look at the remarkable recovery of sea ice in the arctic; Data from NSIDC"

    I recommend anyone reading this to actually click on Cyril's link above to see in black and white just how much garbage he writes!

    As far as C suggesting I read

    "a real scientific paper on the uncertainties of stratospheric temperature trends, but here goes, this is from NOAA"

    Yawn........ Don't try and teach your grandmother to suck eggs, Cyril. This paper got the denialosphere in a tizz a few months ago. If they had properly read or understood it (as they rarely do) instead of just quoting from what some propagandist told them it said, then Cyril couldn't have written this

    "No detectable hot spot = models fail.

    Twice as much cooling of the stratosphere than the models predicted = models fail"


    Because, if C had understood the paper, he would have seen this near the end

    "Hence, the pronounced discrepancies between simulated and observed global-mean stratospheric temperature trends are most probably due to one of the following two possibilities.
    (1) The observations may be in error.
    The MSU channel 4 temperature record is robust from one data set to the next, so we consider it to be unlikely that uncertainties in the MSU channel 4 data can account for the discrepancies between modelled and observed lower stratospheric temperatures shown here. Uncertainties in middle and upper stratospheric temperatures derived from the SSU instrument are much larger


    see Part 2

    ReplyDelete
  19. Part 2

    also, repeated several times in different ways, this

    "Are the models missing a key aspect of stratospheric climate change? Or is there an error in the NEWLY PROCESSED (my emphasis) NOAA data? Which SSU data set is correct? Or are both in error?"


    And finally, you're just being ultra-stupid with your

    "Well, will 1 deg C. temperature rise cause catastrophe?"

    which you apparently think is some sort of hard to answer question

    and

    "The 1 deg C per doubling of CO2, did you not read my 1st post?
    You will see from the graphs in that post that there has been no increase in water vapour or humidity"


    So you can't comprehend even cherry picked graphs properly. Try Philipona et al., 2005 for info which just might burst your illusory bubble.

    Even if we hypothesise that there is no feedback at all from water vapour (ludicrous) to amplify the temperature rise just from CO2, then the 1-1.2°C from a direct doubling of CO2 (from 280ppm) means that the second doubling from 560ppm -> 1120ppm means we would hit 2-2.4°C which puts us right in the danger zone. If the psychopathically irresponsible and stupid deniers get believed by too many, no-one will try to reduce emissions and any oil shale, tar sands or coal will be hoovered up and shoved into the atmosphere and we will blow right past those levels - and this is not even counting the melting permafrost CO2/methane postive feedback emissions.

    The trouble with you and your ilk Cyril is that you are so certain you are right, and that there can be no problem, that you are willing to gamble with the future of us all on your cocksureness. Now, I don't care if you gamble with your own life - that is your right but you have no right to gamble with everybody else's by spreading the featherbrained and paranoid thinking denialist poison and thereby, if too many believe the propaganda, bring about what will be somewhere between highly inconvenient through destructive towards catastrophic effects on the planetary life support systems that underpin our civilisation for the rest of our lives and our descendants too. That is a monstrous risk to take.

    Remember the punk in Dirty Harry? Neither he nor Callaghan knew for certain whether there were any climate change bullets left in the Planet Earth Magnum. The cocksure punk took a chance and died. The trouble is, Cyril, you and your ilk don't seem to realise the consequences of your reckless attitude and your arrogant belief in baseless blog land delusions. The punk's over-confidence killed him. Do you feel lucky, Cyril? Well punk, do ya?

    ReplyDelete
  20. How to debunk chemtrails hey Farmer Palmer???

    ReplyDelete
  21. Two full pages of Gish galloping from Nick.

    I clicked onto your link to the 8 year old Philipona paper, It's behind a pay wall (did you pay to read it Nick? or did you just skim the abstract?). The abstract makes it clear the study is for Europe only, and doesn't give the time scale of the study. Haven't you always cautioned about using regional studies when talking about global warming. Your obfuscation knows no bounds,
    why would you use an 8 year old regional paper instead of the global satellite NASA water vapour trend graph that I posted, are you mad?

    Mellting perafrost CO2/Methane positive feedback, really, again from the official NOAA website;

    "NOAA Earth System Research Lab
    analyzes methane in air samples collected around the world,” says Ed Dlugokencky, Ph.D., a NOAA research chemist who leads the methane monitoring program. “The data we generate from these samples helps us understand global trends and details of the methane cycle. We do not see signs of a feedback cycle yet, but continued monitoring is very important.”

    Instead of relying on the Skepticalscience propaganda site you need to get out more.

    cyril

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cyril,

      If you read more of the NOAA website, you'll see that they say,

      "It is reasonable to expect that the Earth should warm as the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases. It is known for certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are rising dramatically due to human activity."

      Delete
  22. Typo should be permafrost.

    and here is the link to the NOAA page

    cyril

    ReplyDelete
  23. Nick Palmer has left a new comment on your post ""Cyril On Global Warming" Part 3 of 3 - Just The F...":

    Hi Ian. I watched as much of that video as I could bear (12 mins).

    The chemtrail conspiracy people make one big mistake. While it's true that there exist a large number of patents for spraying this, that and the other substances for various purposes (some going back many decades), and I am sure that occasional experiments might have been/are being carried out(particularly by the Yanks who have a long history of carrying out experiments that affect the general public without their knowledge or permission, this does not mean that there is a large scale spraying operation on a daily basis over many countries

    The mistake is that those pushing this conspiracy theory seem unaware of how the atmosphere works. People who are pilots, such as myself, are more likely to see the error that the chemtrail people make because we are familiar with how water vapour reacts to varying conditions in the sky.

    Ask me about anything you think suspicious about what you see in the sky and I'll have a go at explaining it. The main driver behind the different appearance and longevity of aircraft contrails is altitude and differing humidity levels coupled, occasionally, with resonance effects near temperature inversions

    ReplyDelete
  24. I do have one question, what type of aeroplanes do you fly Nick?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Nick, what are the resonance effects in relation to temperature inversions?

    ReplyDelete
  26. In order of frequency: Hanggliders, microlights, light aircraft. I have a CAA licence (lapsed) plus several friends who are commercial pilots, a CAA examiner and private jet pilots.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I actually have another question after the events from 8.am this morning. The sky has been completely silver all day until about an hour ago, with not a cloud in it, just this silver haze. When I was young-ish the skies (funnily enough) were "BLUE"....Why are they always a silver haze now, or at best, a very lightish blue? Where did the "BLUE" sky and the "WHITE" clouds go?

    ReplyDelete
  28. "Nick, what are the resonance effects in relation to temperature inversions?"

    Inversions form an elastic "lid" to convection. If you fly directly in them (same altitude) - they can be very shallow - you can feel a "driving on a stony track" type of turbulence which is quite different to normal turbulence. This is because rising air from beneath (convection) rises until it hits the inversion whereupon there is no longer a temperature/density difference so its motive power upwards is nullified. However, such a mass of air also has considerable inertia therefore continues upwards for a bit because of this, then stops and goes back down again a bit. This action can cause "waves" in the top of the inversion where the air goes from hazy to clear.

    Obviously I haven't flown my glider at the height that contrails form but I know a man who has.

    Such vertical waves in the air are the simplest explanation for sharply punctuated contrails although there are other larger effects.

    I don't really have time to get into explaining meteorology for pilots - there's load of books for that. Try Meteorology and flight by Tom Bradbury or ask those glider pilots who fly really high in wave lift

    ReplyDelete
  29. "Two full pages of Gish galloping from Nick"

    Cyril, it's very childish to just repeat back, regardless of the validity. You are the Gish Galloper because you keep posting enormous quantities of half truths, cherry picked graphs and phrases, untruths, fallacious logic, straw men arguments and incorrect assertions. I have not. Just about everything I have said is based on and backed up by many years of peer reviewed science, therefore I am not a Gish Galloper. You and your ilk are like small children in playgrounds - one tells a fat kid they are fat and the fat kid replies "no, YOU'RE fat".

    Re: the Philipona paper. What the hell is the matter with you? It's irrelevant whether it is Europe based or what time scale it is on. I just linked to it to ram home to you that warming increases water vapour which your previous garbage I was replying to, implied you believed at that moment . It's basic physics.

    This is the problem with so many deniers who try to be sciency. The problem is with their comprehension of what they see and the conclusions they draw from that. You just have blinkers that filter out anything that would demolish your case. You, and the majority of deniers, are like someone who takes a microscope to a photo of a supermodel, sees a couple of black spots and tells the world that she is ugly and all other supermodels must be too - any normal person would see the beauty of the whole image and wouldn't get OCD focussed on tiny imperfections, most of which in reality turn out to be imaginary pixel artefacts rather than physical skin blemishes.

    As you seem to need a recap to see why what you said is just being mindlessly obtuse, try and read this again. It starts out with your quote:

    << "The 1 deg C per doubling of CO2, did you not read my 1st post?
    You will see from the graphs in that post that there has been no increase in water vapour or humidity
    "

    So you can't comprehend even cherry picked graphs properly. Try Philipona et al., 2005 for info which just might burst your illusory bubble.

    Even if we hypothesise that there is no feedback at all from water vapour (ludicrous) to amplify the temperature rise just from CO2, then the 1-1.2°C from a direct doubling of CO2 (from 280ppm) means that the second doubling from 560ppm -> 1120ppm means we would hit 2-2.4°C which puts us right in the danger zone.">>

    When you introduced the fallacious and deceptive denier meme which tries to mislead by singling out just the direct warming due to CO2 (1-1.2°C), whilst linking it to considerations of "Well, will 1 deg C. temperature rise cause catastrophe?" you implicitly are ruling out any effects from water vapour, which is just deceitful. As I have pointed out, even with no effect from water vapour, the second doubling of CO2 "puts us right in the danger zone" (so even that part of the science that you cherry pick as acceptable to you means you should shut up and stop trying to mislead people that there is no problem).

    see part 2

    ReplyDelete
  30. Part 2

    You linked the NOAA graph because you wanted to try and show that warming has not lead to an increase in water vapour. As even "lukewarmer" deniers like you accept that we have had warming, and that warming inevitably leads to increased water vapour, it's hard to know why are so dense that you can't see through your own B.S. Come to think of it, your inability to understand that graph properly is functionally identical to the morons who chant "there's been no global warming for 16 years" - the mental block which renders them unable to see where they are being stupid, is the same as you being unable to see what the graph is saying.

    You also deceptively cherry pick a quote from the NOAA page about methane and permafrost which shows that you completely failed to comprehend the point I was making about "the melting permafrost CO2/methane positive feedback emissions". Like so many cherry picking deniers you fail to pick up the context of statements. The cherry picked quote from the NOAA article (note, not from a scientific paper) said:

    "We do not see signs of a feedback cycle yet, but continued monitoring is very important.”"

    which is clearly talking about the present, yes? Actually, due to the nature of collecting scientific data, the fairly recent past. Whereas I was clearly talking about the future time when we "blow right past those levels" (560ppm -> 1120ppm). Now do you understand why it is so frustrating arguing with you people when your comprehension of what others write (if it doesn't suit your confirmation bias) is so very poor? This inability to fully comprehend context, and information that conflicts with your ideés fixe, explains the greater part of denialism.

    While I'm here, I watched that video you linked to where Spencer and Schmidt talked to John Stossel's Fox news (ha, ha, ha!) programme. I hadn't seen Spencer in media mode before and hadn't realised how deceitful he is in those circumstances. Obviously, Matt Ridley is being highly deceitful. I knew that Lindzen speaks deceptively, not to mention Plimer, Carter, Evans etc too. Deniers make the big mistake of thinking that these somewhat respected scientists are speaking as scientists when they do these media interviews instead of their actually plugging a political viewpoint - even a religious viewpoint. I'm doing Spencer the honour of granting that he is intelligent and knowledgeable. Given that, most of his statements in that interview are lies and deceit because the only way he could say what he did would be if he is ignorant and/or stupid. He is clearly manipulating the perceptions of the typical Fox viewer. That is a very good reason to refuse to debate although I admit it did look silly but that was just because Schmidt didn't want to publicly accuse Spencer of deceitful tactics, which would undoubtedly have been necessary if they had gone ahead with a live debate.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Forgot to mention that I've flown conventional gliders a couple of times too.

    "When I was young-ish the skies (funnily enough) were "BLUE"....Why are they always a silver haze now, or at best, a very lightish blue? Where did the "BLUE" sky and the "WHITE" clouds go?"

    You only get those perfect summer skies when you have anticyclonic (high pressure) air and after a cold front goes through, which are the lines with blue triangles on them which show where there is an abrupt change in air temperature

    Click on this for the current synoptic chart which shows that we are in slack anticyclonic air with no fronts nearby. Currently there is a cold front pushing over Lithuania, Belarus and into Ukraine. West of that front they might have classic blue shies and puffy white clouds but it is all mixed up by the jet stream which is lot more wobbly these days as the polar regions are warming so fast that the temperature gradient between the poles and the equator is less than it used to be. East of it they will have hazy skies like we had. There are a couple of cold fronts East of Iceland and Greenland but they are mixed up with warm fronts - by the time they get near us they will probably be occluded (where the lines have triangles and half circles alternately) so no glorious blue skies and puffy cumulus clouds for us for a while yet.

    Incidentally, I can tell from my hang gliding log book, that goes back to 1976, that what has changed over the years is wind patterns. Although the average winds from records don't look to have changed much, what has happened is that nowadays we get much longer periods of light winds (when haze tends to build up) and also more periods of strong winds. Instead of getting frequent periods of Force 4-5 we tend to get more and longer periods of Force 2-3 or Force 6-7 - on average the same, it's just that the spread of wind speed has got more extreme.

    Are you originally from England? Because those classic blue/puffy white cloud skies form better over the interior of a larger country. rather than a small maritime island like us.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Ok....so why are the skies silver when there are no clouds?

    And what are those criss crosses in the skies?

    We know they are definitely not Con-trails as con-trail dissipate after one to two minutes, you say they are not Chem-trails, so what in the hell are they?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Ian, you might enjoy this Little Fluffy Clouds video by The Orb featuring Rickie Lee Jones

    ReplyDelete
  34. I might, but I don't think I will. Did you put that link up so you didn't have to answer my questions?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Thick Nick says satellite data from NASA is wrong because it does not fit with his simplistic understanding of the climate system. He says warming increases water vapour but doesn’t even consider that any extra water vapour is precipitated out quickly, no, such a complicated idea isn’t even considered in Nick’s world, the satellite data is wrong just as the measurements from NOAA are wrong about Methane says he, but wait it is I who have misunderstood, the positive feedbacks will now kick in after the doubling of CO2 (now at 400ppm) from the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm to 560 ppm.

    This moving of goal posts is rife in the politicised world of AGW, where Nick plucked this beauty from is anyone’s guess.
    Let’s role with it for now, CO2 is increasing at the rate of 2.1 ppm per year, so 160/2.1 = 74 and a bit therefore we can expect the first doubling by 2087 or there about.
    Let’s increase the rate of CO2 rise per annum to 3ppm for the second doubling, so 560/3=186 and a bit, the second doubling to 1120ppm in the year 2273.
    Now remember we have already had 0.6° to 0.8°C rise in temperature to get to 400ppm so we can expect another 0.4° to 0.6°C by 2087 at a doubling rate for CO2 of 1.2°C without positive feedbacks.
    Scary shit eh, well no.
    This is why Palmer and his eco fascist mates lie and spread misinformation.
    But hey, don’t believe me or Palmer anyone with a computer and broadband connection can go to the people who are taking the actual measurements, for temperature; NCDC (NOAA), GISTEMP (NASA GISS), HADCRUT (HADLEY/CRU), RSS (REMOTE SENSING SYSTEMS) and UAH (UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA IN HUNTSVILLE) the last two on the list are satellite data.
    For water vapour data NASA
    For Methane data NOAA
    Barking Palmer makes the claim that these reports are not scientific papers (as if that has any meaning here) they are both scientific institutions who have made thousands of scientifically controlled measurements, record the data and put it into the public arena.

    A couple of hours looking at this data should be enough to show people that it is Palmer who is the real denialist.
    cyril

    ReplyDelete
  36. Cyril,

    Just taking one example - NOAA - you obviously didn't read what I posted before that was taken from their website: -

    "It is reasonable to expect that the Earth should warm as the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases. It is known for certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are rising dramatically due to human activity."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi anon,
      "It is reasonable to expect that the Earth should warm as the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases. It is known for certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are rising dramatically due to human activity."
      OK anon, let’s look at what makes up greenhouse gases (GHG);
      Water vapour accounts for more than 95% of all GHG and according to NASA it is not increasing.
      CO2 is about 3-4% of all GHG or 0.04% of the atmosphere i.e 400 parts per million by volume (PPMv), CO2 is rising by about 2.1ppmv per year.
      Methane is less than 1% of all GHG it makes up 0.00017% of the atmosphere i.e. 1.7 PPMv, methane levels have both risen and fallen in the past 20 years and nobody is sure as to why this happens.
      Only CO2 can be said to have risen dramatically and no one has quantified what percentage of the rise is man-made, but even if we say that all of the increase in CO2 is down to man it works out at 120 PPMv since the supposed pre-industrial level.
      So the second sentence of the above quote contains some poetic licence.
      Is it reasonable to expect the earth should warm as the amount of GHG in the atmosphere increases? All things being equal and if there is no other mechanism acting to warm or cool the planet then yes. However all things are never equal with climate and there are most certainly other factors that affect earth’s temperature (sun, oceans and clouds to name just 3).
      The truth Anon is that science is a very long way from understanding and being able to describe our climate system, it is unlikely science will achieve this in the next few decades. This simple truth tells us that climate models cannot possibly hope to be accurate considering our present knowledge levels.
      The IPCC, in a rare moment of lucidity and honesty stated the obvious in the third assessment report in 2001;
      “In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate
      research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing
      with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the
      long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
      Go to chapter 14 of the scientific basis part of the report page 774, item 14.2.2.2 last paragraph of this LINK

      cyril

      Delete
  37. Cyril, you really are a know-nothing clown. Nowhere did I say the "satellite data from NASA is wrong". What I said was that you are so stupid that you misinterpreted what it said and made stupid assertions based on your misperceptions because you are scientifically illiterate yet full of Dunning-Kruger based B.S.

    Now, there is no disgrace in being scientifically illiterate but there is if you are so cocksure about thinking you know what you are talking about (you don't), yet simultaneously have the colossally arrogant nerve to insult people who do by.

    You just wrote "He says warming increases water vapour but doesn’t even consider that any extra water vapour is precipitated out quickly". So you don't even understand relative humidity? You really are ignorant aren't you?

    Relative humidity is the ratio of the partial pressure of water vapor in an air-water mixture to the saturated vapor pressure of water at a given temperature.

    This means that if any air mass is warmed, it can "hold" more water vapour before it reaches the dew point, forms clouds and condenses out as rain or other forms of precipitation. The ambient pressure alters things too but we won't go into that as this is probably already too complicated for Cyril's squirrel brain, judging by his ridiculous quoted statement.

    "but wait it is I who have misunderstood, the positive feedbacks will now kick in after the doubling of CO2 (now at 400ppm) from the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm to 560 ppm"

    More evidence of your ignorance. The permafrost has to get warm enough to get to the point where the carbon containing compounds can decay to form CO2 and methane. Not all permafrost is the same depth or temperature so the time when each particular bit makes the step change from frozen material to decaying is different. If you actually could comprehend what you are reading properly without being fooled by your ideological blinkers you would have seen on THE VERY SAME PAGE that you lifted your cherry picked quote from, there is a picture of decaying former permafrost captioned

    "Large chunks of soil collapse as a result of permafrost thaw and erosion, as seen in this image taken along the Sagavanirktok River on the North Slope of Alaska near Deadhorse. When permafrost thaws, microbes digest vegetation, which results in the release of methane"

    see part 2

    ReplyDelete
  38. Part 2

    I don't think even a clown like you would deny that methane is a powerful greenhouse gas and that increasing it will accelerate warming which - laws of physics certain - will increase permafrost decay in positive feedback loop.

    At this point I feel I should remind other readers that Cyril obviously considers himself more of an expert on climate science than professional climate scientists who are, according to him and too many other delusional types, faking it all and making it up and are only in it for the grant money. It's a matter of easily checkable record that no National Academy or major scientific organisation on Earth disputes the threat from anthropogenic climate change - neither do the giant oil companies.

    I ask you all - what is more likely, an arrogant old eccentric with weird ideas about the law knows more than the top climate scientists on earth? Is it possible for one individual to get more arrogantly bolshy than the squirrel? He's like the weirdo in the pub who claims to have disproved Einstein. Staggeringly, the Flat Earth society is still around.

    Here is an excerpt from their newsletter

    "We maintain that what is called 'Science' today and 'scientists' consist of the same old gang of witch doctors, sorcerers, tellers of tales, the 'Priest-Entertainers' for the common people. 'Science' consists of a weird, way-out occult concoction of gibberish theory-theology...unrelated to the real world of facts, technology and inventions, tall buildings and fast cars, airplanes and other Real and Good things in life; technology is not in any way related to the web of idiotic scientific theory"

    Although Cyril presents as using sciency sounding rhetoric, he is just as deluded as those whack jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Squirrel brain wrote

    "CO2 is increasing at the rate of 2.1 ppm per year, so 160/2.1 = 74 and a bit therefore we can expect the first doubling by 2087 or there about"

    He doesn't see the fatal error he made because his assumptions were wrong. Amateur "mathturbator" deniers like C constantly make simple-minded howlers like this!

    He then compounds his stupidity and simple-minded ignorance by going on to write

    "Let’s increase the rate of CO2 rise per annum to 3ppm for the second doubling, so 560/3=186 and a bit, the second doubling to 1120ppm in the year 2273".

    As he is so completely clueless when making assumptions, perhaps I'll help him a tiny bit. Consider that the only thing that is thought to be able to stabilise global population at 9 billion or so is if the undeveloped world achieves European type living standards which implies much greater demand for energy which, if the psychopathically irresponsible fruitloop deniers like Cyrilil get to fool too many people with their B.S., will be from fossil fuels. Stick that much increased demand into your one-dimensional assumptions Squirrel and try again.

    Again, you are just embarrassing yourself in public. Anyone who is knowledgeable about the science laughs at people like you while fearing any influence they might gain.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I didn't even mention Cyril's apparent ignorance about the difference timing of the transient climate response, the equilibrium climate response and the long term climate sensitivity.

    Cyril again shows his incapacity for understanding what other people write

    "Barking Palmer makes the claim that these reports are not scientific papers (as if that has any meaning here) they are both scientific institutions who have made thousands of scientifically controlled measurements, record the data and put it into the public arena"

    It is not a "claim" you illiterate, they are not scientific papers. That is a stone fact.

    Neither did I even suggest that NASA or NOAA are anything other than legit or cast any doubt on their measurements. Fer chrissakes, they are as mainstream climate science as you can get - it is Cyril's verging on insane ability to fail to see that it is his misperceptions of what he thinks his cherry picked figures from those organisations show him, that has been repeatedly pointed out; he is just so incorrigible that he is forced to keep inventing ever more insane strawman stories to make his kneejerk replies. What must it be like inside someone head like that?

    ReplyDelete
  41. No wonder real scientists refuse to debate these ignorant yet plausible misleaders. As Schmidt said in that Stossel video when refusing to debate Spencer "it would be a disservice to the public".

    The uncertainty and doubt that these eco-criminals spread wastes such a colossal amount of time that we cannot afford to lose any of. Fortunately, President Obama came out with a not too bad speech full of good intentions a couple of days ago. Perhaps he should have employed the mastermind Cyril as an adviser to save him the trouble. What's that Cyril? They didn't call on the service you could provide? Your excellent knowledge not requested? Now why would that be?!!! Possibly because you're a crackpot...

    ReplyDelete
  42. I really should proof read my comments before I post them. Dictation software isn't perfect.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Where does one start in addressing the diarrheatic outpourings of the most famous Gish galloper in Jersey.
    Nick I laughed out loud at your flat earth reference, did you not know that Daniel Shenton, the president of the flat earth society, is a confirmed (to the Guardian no less) true believer in the cult of CAGW.
    You have a well recorded public history of slagging off anyone who disagrees or questions your views on climate. It matters not to you if they are scientists or lay people your default setting is to spew your bile at them, always trying to rubbish their character or intelligence. Maybe there is a psychological term for those who feel the need to insult any with differing views to their own. Please don’t claim ‘saving the planet’ excuses for your anti-social ‘isms’, megalomaniacs always justify their actions with such nonsense. Coupled with this abnormal knee jerk need to insult people you have a closed minded reaction to data, measurements and observations that challenge your pet theories, preferring to accuse others of misinterpreting simple graphs and numbers rather than admit you might be fallible like the rest of us.
    More worrying still is your ardent belief in overpopulation, you seem to be passionately concerned that there are too many people in the world, well now, if you really do believe this, then you know what you should do, so go on punk show us you mean it.

    By the way weirdo you are now blocked from making any more comments on this post.
    Bye bye

    cyril

    ReplyDelete
  44. To the audience. Check everything Nick Palmer said in the peer reviewed scientific literature. Then check the "reality" of what Cyril has asserted. I guarantee you Nick will win the contest by a landslide.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anon,
    You seem to be a little confused as to how the scientific method tests theories.

    Please take a minute to listen to Richard Feynman's clear and concise explanation Here

    1st. Comes the hypothesis (guess).

    2nd. Compute the consequences (make predictions based on the hypothesis)

    Lastly. Compare to nature/experiment/experience (compare to data/measurement/observation)

    Peer review has an important place in science but it should not be mistaken as proof of a theory,there are literally thousands of examples where the published peer review literature has subsequently been proven wrong by observation.

    A recent and relevant case of the sometimes contradictory nature of peer review can be found when comparing Briffa 2008 with briffa 2013 on the Yamal chronologies, both papers deal with the same subject and both past peer review, yet the results of his 2008 paper differ significantly from his 2013 paper (from 1960 on by nearly 2°C).

    See the comparison graph Here

    Scientific theories stand or fall based on empirical observation.

    My post is simply a gathering together of the official data,measurements and observations on the subject of CAGW. It is quite clear from these that the theory of CO2 induced CAGW is falsified.

    cyril



    ReplyDelete
  46. Hello Cyril. I don't think I suggested that peer reviewed literature was final proof of anything, but it is the minimum starting point for the confirmation of hypotheses. As you say peer reviewed papers sometimes prove to be wrong after time or are improved by later work but that is how science progresses.

    I haven't looked at all your posts, but you seem to quote others opinions and their interpretations of peer reviewed literature rather than what the papers themselves say, but I could be wrong. You certainly have put a lot together.

    In my personal opinion, human created global warming could prove to be less than most climate scientists tell us but equally it could prove to be more. In such a chaotic non-linear system, with so many complex interactions, I think it almost certain that the models have got some things wrong and clearly some climate scientists are too sure of themselves but so are the sceptics and "deniers".

    Nick was definitely rude to you, but consider that with the stance you took in your posts of having a better more scientific position than the professionals, it automatically means that you are by default accusing them of being incompetent or liars or on the take or something. That would only be acceptable if it were true, otherwise, if it were wrong, you have wronged many thousands of good honest people and maybe you would deserve a tongue lashing.

    We could do with Dr Mark Forskitt chipping in here.

    All the best, phil.

    ReplyDelete