Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
turbobloke said:
UKMO et al explain away 'lack of ocean surface warming in the presence of more tax gas' using models. Although it's entirely as expected, i.e. warmistry isn't wrong as an excuse can always be found, it's curious that there's not one mention of the magical Chinese Coal Genie. And how slick are these model worshippers that an admission of dominance of natural variation over the all-powerful tax gas impact can slip from their mainframes and keyboards so easily. Desperate times, needs must etc.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/...
Also, how cool to write about 'lack of warming' and to title the link 'ocean warming' when it's really all about ocean cooling.
'lack of ocean surface warming'http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/...
Also, how cool to write about 'lack of warming' and to title the link 'ocean warming' when it's really all about ocean cooling.
So, that's 2/3 of the planet's surface not warming - contrary to the models' predictions.
Raises two points:
(1) If 2/3 of the planet's surface is not warming - then this must raise questions as to if there could be considered to be a 'global warming' at all. Maybe the measurement of global surface temperature is flawed in someway, and biased towards continental warming and even then, only certain areas of the landmasses.
(2) Since the models have not predicted the ocean temperatures correctly, and need to be 'modified' to do so, then this could seen as tacit admission that all models and and forecasts to this point are wrong - and there is still no guarantee that any models are now 'right'
Pretty damning stuff really!
kerplunk said:
seems to be about ocean heat content not surface temperature.
Maybe notFrom the link
Article said:
The independent studies from the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) and the Met Office show how natural climate variability can temporarily mask longer-term trends in upper ocean heat content and sea surface temperature.
Ali G said:
kerplunk said:
seems to be about ocean heat content not surface temperature.
Maybe notFrom the link
Article said:
The independent studies from the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) and the Met Office show how natural climate variability can temporarily mask longer-term trends in upper ocean heat content and sea surface temperature.
The surface ocean is not part of a star, a fragmenting atomic nucleus or a supercooled cluster of atoms, which would be more advanced physics anyway.
Still, and speaking generally, not having a clue about basic physics doesn't prevent firmly held views on complex climate science nor these being defended to the last joule. That's equal opportunities for ya.
No doubt the escape route is the non-possibility of discussing deep ocean layers or perhaps oceans on a planet earth in a parallel antimatter universe where time runs backwards.
Edited for clarification.
Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 17th August 19:00
turbobloke said:
Indeed and beyond that, I think somebody needs a lesson in basic physics. That's intended to be helpful not unduly critical since the person can presumably now head off and get some input on elementary science.
The surface ocean is not part of a star, a fragmenting atomic nucleus or a supercooled cluster of atoms, which would be more advanced physics anyway.
Still, and speaking generally, not having a clue about basic physics doesn't prevent firmly held views on complex climate science nor these being defended to the last joule. That's equal opportunities for ya.
No doubt the escape route is the non-possibility of discussing deep ocean layers or perhaps oceans on a planet earth in a parallel antimatter universe where time runs backwards.
Are you speaking to me? Or someone else!The surface ocean is not part of a star, a fragmenting atomic nucleus or a supercooled cluster of atoms, which would be more advanced physics anyway.
Still, and speaking generally, not having a clue about basic physics doesn't prevent firmly held views on complex climate science nor these being defended to the last joule. That's equal opportunities for ya.
No doubt the escape route is the non-possibility of discussing deep ocean layers or perhaps oceans on a planet earth in a parallel antimatter universe where time runs backwards.
I was supporting your (much) earlier post of the lack of increase in oceanic surface temperature!
Ali G said:
turbobloke said:
Indeed and beyond that, I think somebody needs a lesson in basic physics. That's intended to be helpful not unduly critical since the person can presumably now head off and get some input on elementary science.
The surface ocean is not part of a star, a fragmenting atomic nucleus or a supercooled cluster of atoms, which would be more advanced physics anyway.
Still, and speaking generally, not having a clue about basic physics doesn't prevent firmly held views on complex climate science nor these being defended to the last joule. That's equal opportunities for ya.
No doubt the escape route is the non-possibility of discussing deep ocean layers or perhaps oceans on a planet earth in a parallel antimatter universe where time runs backwards.
Are you speaking to me? Or someone else!The surface ocean is not part of a star, a fragmenting atomic nucleus or a supercooled cluster of atoms, which would be more advanced physics anyway.
Still, and speaking generally, not having a clue about basic physics doesn't prevent firmly held views on complex climate science nor these being defended to the last joule. That's equal opportunities for ya.
No doubt the escape route is the non-possibility of discussing deep ocean layers or perhaps oceans on a planet earth in a parallel antimatter universe where time runs backwards.
I was supporting your (much) earlier post of the lack of increase in oceanic surface temperature!
No worries
GWPF Briefing Paper
London, 17 August
The Global Warming Policy Foundation today publishes an outstanding briefing paper by the distinguished physicist Professor William Happer of Princeton University (USA).
In his paper The Truth About Greenhouse Gases, Professor Happer criticises the misguided scare-mongering about CO2 emissions as well as the habitual exaggeration of the likely impact and risks posed by global warming. He particularly laments the co-option of climate science by governments.
Happer discusses what he calls the "contemporary moral epidemic" of climate alarmism: the notion that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, will have disastrous consequences for mankind and for the planet and advocates a sober and balanced assessment based on empirical observations, not computer models.
"CO2 does indeed cause some warming of our planet. Other things being equal, more CO2 will cause more warming. The question is how much warming, and whether the increased CO2 and the warming it causes will be good or bad for the planet," Happer writes.
William Happer is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University. He is a member of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council.
The Truth About Greenhouse Gases is available at:
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports...
Some good stuff can be found in spite of the apologist tone of the news item.
Both the United States Navy (for submariners) and NASA (for astronauts) have performed extensive studies of human tolerance to CO2. As a result of these studies, the Navy recommends an upper limit of about 8000 ppm for cruises of ninety days, and NASA recommends an upper limit of 5000 ppm for missions of one thousand days, both assuming a total pressure of one atmosphere. Higher levels are acceptable for missions of only a few days.We conclude that atmospheric CO2 levels should be above about 150 ppm to avoid harming green plants and below about 5000 ppm to avoid harming people. That is a big range, and our atmosphere is much closer to the lower end than the upper end. We were not that far from CO2 anorexia when massive burning of fossil fuels began.
Also:
The argument starts something like this. CO2 levels have increased from about 270 ppm to 390 ppm over the past 150 years or so, and the earth has warmed by about 0.8 C during that time. Therefore the warming is due to CO2. But correlation is not causation. The local rooster crows every morning at sunrise, but that does not mean the rooster caused the sun to rise. The sun will still rise on Monday if you decide to have the rooster for Sunday dinner.
And:
There have been many warmings and coolings in the past when the CO2 levels did not change. A well known example is the medieval warming, about the year 1000, when the Vikings settled Greenland (when it was greener) and wine was exported from England. This warm period was followed by the “Little Ice Age” when the Thames would frequently freeze over during the winter. There is no evidence for significant increase of CO2 at the Medieval Warm Period, nor for a significant decrease at the time of the subsequent Little Ice Age. Documented famines with millions of deaths occurred during the Little Ice Age because of crop failures due to cold weather. The earth has been warming in fits and starts since the end of the Little Ice Age, a few centuries ago, and humanity’s quality of life has improved accordingly.
However there are aspects with which the evidence in terms of data would wish to disagree, such as the apparent unquestioning acceptance of the IPCC carbon dioxide paradigm of near static balance with missing sink against the data and sound science of Essenhigh, Salby, Spencer to a degree and others, and similar capitulation over the purely computer climate model estimate of a temperature increase supposedly resulting from a doubling of atmospheric levels of plant food gas. Apart from those issues the overall impact is reasonable and there are some good sections on Climategate and the politicisation of climate science...but that's for the other thread.
London, 17 August
The Global Warming Policy Foundation today publishes an outstanding briefing paper by the distinguished physicist Professor William Happer of Princeton University (USA).
In his paper The Truth About Greenhouse Gases, Professor Happer criticises the misguided scare-mongering about CO2 emissions as well as the habitual exaggeration of the likely impact and risks posed by global warming. He particularly laments the co-option of climate science by governments.
Happer discusses what he calls the "contemporary moral epidemic" of climate alarmism: the notion that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, will have disastrous consequences for mankind and for the planet and advocates a sober and balanced assessment based on empirical observations, not computer models.
"CO2 does indeed cause some warming of our planet. Other things being equal, more CO2 will cause more warming. The question is how much warming, and whether the increased CO2 and the warming it causes will be good or bad for the planet," Happer writes.
William Happer is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University. He is a member of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council.
The Truth About Greenhouse Gases is available at:
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports...
Some good stuff can be found in spite of the apologist tone of the news item.
Both the United States Navy (for submariners) and NASA (for astronauts) have performed extensive studies of human tolerance to CO2. As a result of these studies, the Navy recommends an upper limit of about 8000 ppm for cruises of ninety days, and NASA recommends an upper limit of 5000 ppm for missions of one thousand days, both assuming a total pressure of one atmosphere. Higher levels are acceptable for missions of only a few days.We conclude that atmospheric CO2 levels should be above about 150 ppm to avoid harming green plants and below about 5000 ppm to avoid harming people. That is a big range, and our atmosphere is much closer to the lower end than the upper end. We were not that far from CO2 anorexia when massive burning of fossil fuels began.
Also:
The argument starts something like this. CO2 levels have increased from about 270 ppm to 390 ppm over the past 150 years or so, and the earth has warmed by about 0.8 C during that time. Therefore the warming is due to CO2. But correlation is not causation. The local rooster crows every morning at sunrise, but that does not mean the rooster caused the sun to rise. The sun will still rise on Monday if you decide to have the rooster for Sunday dinner.
And:
There have been many warmings and coolings in the past when the CO2 levels did not change. A well known example is the medieval warming, about the year 1000, when the Vikings settled Greenland (when it was greener) and wine was exported from England. This warm period was followed by the “Little Ice Age” when the Thames would frequently freeze over during the winter. There is no evidence for significant increase of CO2 at the Medieval Warm Period, nor for a significant decrease at the time of the subsequent Little Ice Age. Documented famines with millions of deaths occurred during the Little Ice Age because of crop failures due to cold weather. The earth has been warming in fits and starts since the end of the Little Ice Age, a few centuries ago, and humanity’s quality of life has improved accordingly.
However there are aspects with which the evidence in terms of data would wish to disagree, such as the apparent unquestioning acceptance of the IPCC carbon dioxide paradigm of near static balance with missing sink against the data and sound science of Essenhigh, Salby, Spencer to a degree and others, and similar capitulation over the purely computer climate model estimate of a temperature increase supposedly resulting from a doubling of atmospheric levels of plant food gas. Apart from those issues the overall impact is reasonable and there are some good sections on Climategate and the politicisation of climate science...but that's for the other thread.
Spencer and Braswell get Trenberth's knickers in a twist over failure of peer review failure.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/07/31/trenberth-unbel...
Try the comments too and in particular replies to Nick Stokes.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/07/31/trenberth-unbel...
Try the comments too and in particular replies to Nick Stokes.
hmmm, I don't think they realise it but the BBC have admitted, without saying so, that the big bright ball in the sky may affect climate.
Meanwhile at Nasa's Planetary Science Division:
How did the Raving Monster Loony Party get into power unnoticed??
NASA said:
"Green" aliens might object to the environmental damage humans have caused on Earth.....
......These scenarios give us reason to limit our growth and reduce our impact on global ecosystems. ......It would be particularly important for us to limit our emissions of greenhouse gases, since atmospheric composition can be observed from other planets......"
Well the science is clearly settled then.......These scenarios give us reason to limit our growth and reduce our impact on global ecosystems. ......It would be particularly important for us to limit our emissions of greenhouse gases, since atmospheric composition can be observed from other planets......"
How did the Raving Monster Loony Party get into power unnoticed??
DieselGriff said:
hmmm, I don't think they realise it but the BBC have admitted, without saying so, that the big bright ball in the sky may affect climate.
Interesting read, they seem to be glossing over the forthcoming minimum to warn about the decades-away re-emergence! 
jshell said:
Interesting read, they seem to be glossing over the forthcoming minimum to warn about the decades-away re-emergence!
Indeed and couple this with the Earth's continually weakening magnetic field it looks like we are in for some interesting times.(I heard that the field is so weak in equatorial parts of the Atlantic that when Hubble passes through they have to shut down a heap of on board systems to protect them)
A Double Diamond works wonders, make mine a Mackeson, and Guinness is good for you. So is something else, apart from Idso's new book.
http://sppiblog.org/news/5922
http://sppiblog.org/news/5922
It turns out that all life on Earth is slowly migrating towards the poles and up the Mountains, where it's cooler.
Link...
It doesn't look good for the poor species already living there...
Link...
It doesn't look good for the poor species already living there...
Unsensationalist BBC Article said:
But what about the animals that already live at the poles, or at the top of mountains?
"They die"
And, of course, it's happening "faster than previously thought"..."They die"
nelly1 said:
It turns out that all life on Earth is slowly migrating towards the poles and up the Mountains, where it's cooler.
Link...
It doesn't look good for the poor species already living there...
Ah so id best look for a house at the north pole as im soon going to fry here in boiling hot stfling sun drenched dust bowl Cheshire.. fLink...
It doesn't look good for the poor species already living there...
Unsensationalist BBC Article said:
But what about the animals that already live at the poles, or at the top of mountains?
"They die"
And, of course, it's happening "faster than previously thought"..."They die"
king idiots they must think people are as daft as they are ....Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff