By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Now that the UAH satellite data are available, we can update the monthly Global Warming Prediction Index, a devastatingly simple measure of how well (or badly) the IPCC’s official predictions of global warming are doing.
The 2013 Fifth Assessment Report backdated the IPCC’s predictions to January 2005. The interval of predictions, equivalent to 0.5[0.3, 0.7] Cº over 30 years or 1.67 [1.0, 2.33] Cº per century, is shown in orange.
By now, as a central estimate, there should have been 0.15 Cº global warming since January 2005, a rate equivalent to 0.5 Cº in 30 years, or 1.67 Cº per century, gathering pace rapidly after 2035 to reach 3.7 Cº over the full century.
However, the trend on the mean of the monthly RSS and UAH satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomalies is, if anything, falling, leading to an over-prediction by the IPCC of 0.17 Cº – a sixth of a Celsius degree – in the 111 months January 2005 to March 2014.
The models’ overshoot over 9 years 3 months is equivalent to more than 1.8 Cº per century.
Though the IPCC has finally realized that the models are unreliable as predictors of global temperature change, and has slashed its 30-year projection from 0.7 [ 0.4, 1.0] Cº in the pre-final draft of the Fifth Assessment Report to 0.5 [0.3, 0.7] Cº in the published final version, it has not cut its centennial-scale prediction, an implausibly hefty 3.7 Cº on business as usual (4.5 Cº if you are Sir David King, 11 Cº and a 10% probability of the Earth not surviving the 21st century if you are Lord Stern).
It is also interesting to compare the IPCC’s original global-warming predictions in the 1990 First Assessment Report with what has happened since. At that time, the IPCC said:
“Based on current model results, we predict [semantic bores, please note the IPCC uses the word “predict”, and, if you don’t like it, whine to ipcc.ch, not in comments here]:
Ø “under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 C° to 0.5 C° per decade). This is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1 C° above the present value by 2025 and 3 Cº before the end of the next century. The rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors.”
The IPCC’s best-guess near-term warming prediction in 1990 was equivalent to 2.78 Cº per century.
Real-world temperature change in the 291 months since January 1990 has been spectacularly below what was predicted. There has been just 0.34 Cº global warming, equivalent to a mere 1.39 Cº per century. The IPCC’s overshoot since 1990 amounts to another 0.34 Cº, or more than a third of a degree in 24 years 3 months, equivalent to 1.39 Cº per century. It predicted double the warming that has actually occurred.
Once again, the IPCC’s interval of predictions for global temperature change since 1990 are shown as an orange region. The lower and upper bounds for its 1990 near-term warming estimate were 30% below and 50% above its central estimate, equivalent to 1.94 and 4.17 Cº per century respectively. The real-world outturn, equivalent to just 1.39 Cº per century, is appreciably below the lower bound of the IPCC’s very wide prediction interval.
In 1990 the IPCC’s “Executive Summary” raised the question “how much confidence do we have in our predictions?” It pointed out that there were many uncertainties (clouds, oceans, etc.), but concluded:
“Nevertheless, … we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad-scale features of climate change. … There are similarities between results from the coupled models using simple representations of the ocean and those using more sophisticated descriptions, and our understanding of such differences as do occur gives us some confidence in the results.”
One look at the graph of projection against outturn since 1990 reveals that the IPCC has proven startlingly incapable of predicting the “broad-scale feature” central to the debate about greenhouse gases – the change in global temperature itself.
Here is a question that the legacy media should be addressing to IPCC director Pachauri, if they can distract him from authoring fourteenth-rate bodice-ripping pot-boilers for long enough.
Given global temperature rising for almost 25 years at half the central rate predicted by the IPCC in 1990, given no global warming at all for half the RSS satellite record, and given only 64 (or 0.5%) of 11,944 scientific abstracts published since 1991 stating that most of the global warming since 1950 was manmade, on what legitimate scientific or other rational basis did the IPCC recently increase from 90% to 95-99% its “confidence” that recent warming was mostly manmade? Answer me that.
goldminor;
And you may want to ask yourself why K*rad can’t explain his ideas such that they match the ERBE data. Or the data in Glickstein’s articles.
Keep in mind that I am a SKEPTIC when it comes to this debate. But you can only wind the debate if you start on a firm foundation.
davidmhoffer says:
April 11, 2014 at 4:04 pm
“No they don’t.”
———————————
While I note a considerable improvement in the brevity of your argument, I fear it is at the expense of substance.
In terms of exposing the weakness of the argument of trolls, “no they don’t” seems a little light on.
Perhaps just a one word answer to the following question would suffice? –
Given an atmospheric pressure of 1 bar, is the net effect of our radiative atmosphere over the oceans is cooling of the oceans or warming of the oceans?
“Monckton of Brenchley says:
April 10, 2014 at 2:42 pm
“JBJ” asks about the magnitude of the measurement, coverage, and bias uncertainties on global temperature data. A suitable value is 0.15 Celsius degrees.”
OMG … time for you to do a basic stats course!!!
Given an atmospheric pressure of 1 bar, is the net effect of our radiative atmosphere over the oceans is cooling of the oceans or warming of the oceans?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://eos.atmos.washington.edu/cgi-bin/erbe/disp.pl?net.ann.
The regions with the highest levels of radiative gases absorb more energy than they radiate. What do you call that?
@David
I do not call that a clear or direct answer to my simple physics question.
The Church of Radiative Climatology has decreed that given 1bar pressure, the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is warming. They claim that in the absence of DWLWIR and atmospheric cooling, our oceans wold be at -18C.
I claim empirical experiment proves this false. I claim that in the absence of atmospheric cooling and DWLWIR, our oceans would reach 80C or beyond. I claim our atmosphere is probably cooling the oceans.
You challenged me on my claims, yet fail to provide a clear and direct answer to the simple question –
Given 1 bar pressure, is the net effect of our radiative atmosphere over the oceans warming or cooling?
“JBJ” challenges my assertion that +/- 0.15 Celsius degrees is an appropriate value for the combined measurement, coverage and bias uncertainties in the global temperature data, by suggesting (on no evidence, and without any explanation) that I should take a basic statistics course.
If “JBJ” challenges the value I gave, he should take the matter up with Professor Jones at the University of East Anglia, who publishes the uncertainties with his monthly HadCRUT4 dataset.
I find it baffling that trolls here shriek at me when I cite official data, rather than shrieking at the compilers of the data.
Konr@d;
I claim empirical experiment proves this false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Claim away. I’ve provided DATA that proves my position. You’ve claimed imperical evidence. By all means, produce it.
What is the conclusion? One can give heaps of so called scientific data that boggles most people’s minds, but the conclusion is that the planet has cooled and is not subject to CO2 excessive warming increases due to human activity ONLY. Gosh humans have made terrible mistakes in the past that have harmed us generally, but these alarmists get money to prove what is not credible and a fantasy.
Recently some joker called me a moron and should stop giving comments in a paper about the National Broadband network that uses optic fibre. I mentioned I was still attached to Wireless Network 3, that I was on before. But slightly faster. There is my computer telling me this. I have a different modem and connected to not cable but the wireless network. You can’t win them all Lord Monckton.
Why are we always shown linear trends? Surely as any engineer would tell you you use a best fit equation whether it be a straight line, a simple sine wave or a more complex function. For over half a century engineers have shown there are cycles clearly displayed in the Fourier analysis and using these gets a far better fit than linear. This site had a recent and well presented revival of that analysis.
davidmhoffer says:
April 11, 2014 at 8:37 pm
——————————————
“Claim away. I’ve provided DATA that proves my position. You’ve claimed imperical evidence. By all means, produce it.”
You were going to challenge the weakness of “trolls” arguments remember? My argument related to the primary cooling mechanism for the oceans. Your links to the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment are totally irrelevant to this. Further, as can be seen from the problems measuring incoming TSI –
https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/1366-and-all-that-the-secret-history-of-total-solar-irradiance/
– Your links cannot even reasonably support the supposed radiative imbalance you would prefer to discuss rather than the ocean cooling argument you actually attacked. (and don’t get me started on CERES)
If you want the empirical evidence to back my claims, I am more than happy to provide it. Better still I can provide simple instruction for actual empirical experiments for other readers including yourself to build and try for themselves.
But first an explanation for current and future readers. The reason a staunch AGW propagandist will never admit the truth, that given 1 bar pressure, the net effect of our radiative atmosphere over the oceans is cooling, is that the whole of the radiative GHE hypothesis depends on the inane claim that the atmosphere warms the oceans. If the atmosphere is cooling the oceans, then the atmosphere in turn needs some way to cool. Empirical experiment proves conduction back to the surface ineffective, leaving radiative gases the only effective cooling mechanism for our atmosphere. Both AGW and the radiative GHE hypothesis are both utterly wrong.
Climastrologists claim that without atmospheric cooling or DWLWIR our oceans would be at -18C (255K). To understand why this is utterly incorrect the following points need to be understood –
1. Radiative gases can both heat and cool the atmosphere.
2. DWLWIR does not slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.
3. Our oceans cannot be treated as a “blackbody” or even close, they are a “selective coating 4-5km deep over 71% of the lithosphere.
As to point 1, Tyndall empirically demonstrated this in 1859-1860. I have confirmed his results.
As to point 2 this simple experiment is all you need –
http://i42.tinypic.com/2h6rsoz.jpg
Start with water samples at 40C in both containers and you will observe no change in cooling rate under the strong and weak LWIR sources. Both will cool at the same rate. Repeat the experiment but this time float a LDPE film on the surface of each water sample to constrain evaporation. Now the sample under the strong LWIR source cools slower.
So no, DWLWIR is not stopping our oceans from freezing. But how do they heat?
As to point 3 there is considerable empirical evidence as to how hot water can be driven by solar radiation in the absence of atmospheric cooling. Freshwater evaporation constrained solar ponds can reach 90C or beyond. (I have achieved 120C in transparent materials). You can try a simple check for yourselves –
http://i40.tinypic.com/27xhuzr.jpg
If you wish to be picky about eliminating all DWLWIR try this –
http://i42.tinypic.com/315nbdl.jpg
The thinner the water sample the more it conforms to the “blackbody” calcs of climastrologists. The deeper it gets the more it heats. How deep are our oceans?
To truly understand why 97% of climate “scientists” are assclowns, you need to understand the science of “selective coatings”, after all our ocean is a deep transparent selective coating over 71% of the planets surface and cannot under any circumstance be considered a “blackbody”. For this I recommend the following recipe –
“Shredded Lukewarm Turkey in Boltzmannic Vinegar”
Take two 100 x 100 x 10mm blocks of clear acrylic. Paint one black on the base (block A), and the second black on the top surface (block B). Spray both blocks with several layers of clear-coat on their top surfaces to ensure equal reflectivity and IR emissivity. Attach thermocouples to upper and lower surfaces. Insulate the blocks on the sides and base. Enclose each in a small LDPE greenhouse to minimise conductive losses. Now expose to strong solar SW.
As little 3 hours should result in a 17C average differential between the blocks. Block A with the black base runs hotter. SB equations will not give the correct answer. (caution – experiment temperatures can exceed 115C)
What would the priests of the Church of Radiative Climatology say? Both blocks are absorbing the same amount of solar radiation, both blocks have the same ability to emit LWIR, they should reach the same equilibrium temperature.
However block A reaches a far higher average temperature, why? The SW absorbed by block A heats from the base, and non-radiative transports (conduction) govern how fast energy returns to the surface to be radiated as LWIR. The SW absorbed by block B is absorbed at the surface and some is immediately re-radiated as LWIR before conduction can carry it down into the block below. Our oceans most closely resemble block A, however two shell radiative models that consider the ocean just “surface” model the oceans more like block B.
This is how solar SW alone is quite sufficient to heat our oceans. SW heating at depth is instantaneous, however the slow speed of non-radiative transport back to the surface allows energy to accumulate over the diurnal cycle.
Image of advanced version with intermittent halogen lights and air cooled IR shields –
http://i61.tinypic.com/2z562y1.jpg
To fully understand the unbelievably stupid error in the gospel of the Church of Radiative Climatology you just need to run one further variant –
– run the experiment illuminating blocks A & B with 500 watts of SW radiation until they reach their respective equilibrium temperatures.
– Now run the experiment again using 500 watts of LWIR radiation.
Same power of radiation, yet two very different results. This is the science of selective coatings. Guess what? You don’t need any maths to explain the difference, just an actual understanding of physics.
David, if you our any other readers want further empirical experiments to try I am happy to provide them. In the meantime I reiterate and further my basic claims –
The sun heats our oceans.
The atmosphere cools our oceans.
Radiative gases cool our atmosphere.
97% of climate “scientists” are assclowns.
And, as you have chosen to challenge me David, again I challenge you –
Given 1 bar pressure, is the net effect of our radiative atmosphere over the oceans warming or cooling?
John@ur momisuglyEF says: @ur momisugly April 10, 2014 at 6:28 pm
“Again, what justifies constantly changing the data sets used by MoB from one posting topic to the next …”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The DATE! ===> Posted on April 10, 2014.
What does L.M. Say in the first sentence?
“Now that the UAH satellite data are available, we can update…”
He is talking about the dataset that has just come out and therefore has just been updated. He even says that in the first sentence.
The implicit question is “Has the new update changed anything” The answer is NO! There is STILL no warming and the IPCC is getting further off target.
It is a PROGRESS REPORT. Sheesh….
davidmhoffer says: @ur momisugly April 11, 2014 at 1:31 pm
…..So if radiatively active gasses served to cool the atmosphere, we would see the exact opposite. In terms of average temperature, sure the deserts have higher peak day time highes than do same latitudes over oceans, but the AVERAGE temperature over the oceans and in tropical jungles is not just higher than in deserts at the same latitude, it is a LOT higher…..
Observations trump theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ERRRRrrrr careful with that analogy. Sleepalot and I looked at a desert vs a tropical jungle and found that the jungle on the equator was COOLER than the desert further north. (Latent heat of evaporation coming into play)
….
Sleepalot @ur momisugly July 21, 2012 at 4:53 am @ur momisugly WUWT pointed out the actual effects of the GHG water vapor on the temperature by comparing high vs low humidity. The humid Brazilian rain forest, Barcelos, Brazil, and the dry N. African Desert, Adrar, Algeria.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/21/some-thoughts-on-radiative-transfer-and-ghgs/#comment-1038793
My further comments expanding the idea:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/21/some-thoughts-on-radiative-transfer-and-ghgs/#comment-1040071
and
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/21/some-thoughts-on-radiative-transfer-and-ghgs/#comment-1041066
And yes I do understand CO2 absorbs and re-emits and 50% of that energy is radiated down. I also understand that is a tiny corner of climate.
Given 1 bar pressure, is the net effect of our radiative atmosphere over the oceans warming or cooling?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Warming.
The examples you give of “empirical experiments” demonstrate quite conclusively that you are a victim of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.
Your very first link goes to an experiment that is irrelevant to the entire discussion. The experiment you did is entirely invalid because it ignores the sheer scale of atmospheric air column and the repeated iterative processes that occur from ground to TOA, and that these processes are skewed in order of magnitude compared to other processes that affect the same radiaitive spectrum due to water vapour being strong at the bottom and fading away to non-existence at the top. Further, your apparatus also isn’t tall enough to simulate a lapse rate, or the breakdown in a lapse rate, which is a major component of how the ghe works. Lastly, the apparatus isn’t tall enough that you can measure the change in effective radiating level to space, another major component of how the ghe works, and your experiment contains multiple points of energy transport via conduction that are larger than the radiaitve processes you are trying to measure.
In brief, your experiment measures A, B, and C from which you conclude that D doesn’t exist. You need to learn enough physics to understand how to design an experiment that actually isolates for D. Yours doesn’t hence your erroneous conclusions. The balance of the experiments you propose have similar flaws, they simply aren’t measuring what you think they are measuring.
For the record, stop lumping me in with the alarmists, I’m well known on this site as anything but.
I suggest you read carefully this rather detailed experiment which was published by arch skeptic John Daley.:
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
Once you have read the exepriment and understood its results, go back to the top of the page where there is a link to a zip file of criticisms of Hug’s experiment. Again, these were published by arch skeptic John Daley. Read them carefully. Once you understand both the experiment and the criticims of it, you’ll also understand why the experiments that you are alluding to don’t measure what you think they are measuring, and certainly don’t support your hypothesis.
Gail Combs;
And yes I do understand CO2 absorbs and re-emits and 50% of that energy is radiated down. I also understand that is a tiny corner of climate.
>>>>>>>>>
Nit, but it actually isn’t 50/50. Any direction that is horizontal compared to the surface below actually winds up at a higher altitude because the curvature of the earth below is away from it. In fact you could in theory have an emission that travels at a slightly downward angle, and if it travels far enough, it would end up at a higher altitude.
I read through those comments you linked to and there is merit there. But the first one compares two different latitudes for example. If you want to do the very simplest comparison, I think you need different areas at the same latitude. Hence I point to ERBE because it is very easy to compare tropical jungle in South America to Ocean to desert over North Africa. More importantly, these are very large areas geographically, so they tend to mask second and third order effects. When you get to comparing City A versus City B, local micro climate issues become more dominant.
Gail Combs says:
April 12, 2014 at 6:27 am
———————————–
Gail, the point you raise on evaporative cooling of forests is valid, but have a care. You have been dragged back onto land. David challenged my ocean cooling claims, then dodged and raised land ERBE examples (and even off planet examples). The AGW defender always wants to run back to land. Remember that the failed two layer radiation only models* of the “basic physics” of the “settled science” refer only to “surface”.
The primary cooling mechanism for the oceans is evaporation. A non-radiative atmosphere cannot provide this cooling for 71% of the planet’s surface as it cannot cool itself.
*As a side issue, the two layer radiation only model does work, and you can build and run the experiment for yourself –
http://i44.tinypic.com/2n0q72w.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/33dwg2g.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/2wrlris.jpg
– the target plate in chamber 1 will run hotter, but only with vacuum isolation. Introduce conductive coupling and convection and it’s game over. And evaporative cooling of the target plate? Please… 😉
davidmhoffer says:
April 12, 2014 at 7:48 am
Q- Given 1 bar pressure, is the net effect of our radiative atmosphere over the oceans warming or cooling?
A – Warming.
————————————-
Thank you for finally answering that simple question in a clear and direct manner. That only took six tries…
However, you gave the wrong answer so POP! goes your weasel.
Climastologists have claimed that in the absence of DWLWIR or atmospheric cooling our oceans would be at -18C. Empirical example and experiment indicates this figure should be 80C or beyond.
Are you claiming that climastrologists are correct and the oceans can be treated as a ”blackbody” receiving a constant 240 w/m2? This is provably wrong. Our oceans are a “selective coating” 4-5km deep over 71% of the earth’s surface. They do not respond as a “blackbody” to UV/SW/SWIR radiation. Without atmospheric cooling the sun will drive them to 80C or beyond.
Are you claiming that climastrologists included atmospheric cooling in their calculations? This is provably wrong. Many go so far as to claim their -18C figure is for the “surface in the absence of an atmosphere”.
Are you claiming that DWLWIR can heat (or slow the cooling rate) of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool? The simplest empirical experiment proves this wrong.
And this? –
“Your very first link [….] don’t support your hypothesis.”
You ignored the simple experiments showing how hot water will get without atmospheric cooling. You ignored the experiment showing LWIR doesn’t effect water that is free to evaporatively cool. You ignored the experiment showing how transparent materials have a different response to SW heating than opaque. Instead you pick and experiment up thread that was shown to Viscount Monckton, not you, and try to use it to drag debate back to where you want it, not my ocean cooling mechanism claims you challenged. That experiment was merely a confirmation of Tydnalls work nothing more, and utterly irrelevant of my ocean cooling claims.
Then you demand –
“For the record, stop lumping me in with the alarmists, I’m well known on this site as anything but.”
My answer? Stop using their tactics then.
David you have claimed that excepting pressure, the net effect of our radiative atmosphere over the oceans is warming.
Your weasel is popped.
Re Jim Hunt says: April 11, 2014 at 8:38 am
I note that I have still received no answer to that enquiry. My own records show that the event in question took place “after 5:00 am” your time at the very earliest. Perhaps a “Snr. mod.” would be so good as to check WUWT’s own records, so that we can compare notes?
[Reply: there is nothing in the queue. I have no explanation for that either way. Since I can’t resurrect something that doesn’t exist, you can either re-post it to the best of your recollection, or drop it. ~ mod.]
Just a short note of thanks to the moderators, and a request that in future they should be vigilant in trying to keep these threads on topic by keeping those who say greenhouse gases do not cause warming at bay. Mr Hoffer has very patiently tried to deal with one of these irredentists, but the thread has become derailed in consequence.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
April 14, 2014 at 4:08 am
—————————————-
Viscount Monckton,
I take it by “irredentists” you are referring to myself, one who seeks to repatriate the territories of science, reason, freedom and democracy to the people of the developed world.
You may argue that my comments on this thread were “off topic”, but given they spoke to the underlying reason for the growing credibility gap and the failure of the climate models, perhaps not as off topic as they may initially seem. I would however acknowledge that the charge of “off topic” has been legitimately levelled at me here at WUWT before.
You ask that moderators keep those who say greenhouse gases do not cause warming at bay. I must admit to being a little surprised. This is a request for censorship, more in keeping with the BBC than WUWT.
Can you argue that my claims have been successfully dismissed in the past? No. No one has ever successfully challenged without censorship. Others who have claimed radiative gases act to cool our atmosphere have been successfully challenged, but as I have noted to our host in the past, I have often been one of those challenging. For the record, I have no association with “slayers” or “PSI”, except in the minds of those who can find no counter argument to mine. All my claims are based on my own empirical experiments.
My central finding is that the figure of 255K for the planet in absence of atmosphere is in error by around 98K for 71% of the planet’s surface. My empirical evidence for this is solid. I share my work by giving instruction for others to replicate my experiments. Nothing hidden. The error arises from the use of “blackbody” calculation for the oceans. Transparent materials respond to incident SW as what is known in engineering as a “selective coating”. This science is well understood and is applied to the engineering of spacecraft thermal control and evaporation constrained solar thermal storage ponds. Essentially if you remove DWLWIR and atmospheric cooling from our oceans, incident SW will drive them to 353K or beyond.
If the figure of 255K is incorrect, then the whole edifice of the global warming madness falls. I understand however than many object to ending the madness this way, as it has consequences for both believers and lukewarmers alike.
I would ask you to consider the risk of dismissing my argument solely on the basis that there is a “consensus” that radiative gases have a net warming effect on our planet. It may be that you can end the global warming madness with the lukewarmer argument, but what do you truly gain? An end to subsidy farming and carbon trading for sure. But the pseudo science of the net radiative greenhouse effect will remain. All you have done is turn the Lysenko dial from “high” to “low”, you have not turned it off. If you don’t turn it off, all the fellow travellers escape to try again with a new scare. Is avoiding the short term embarrassment of the lukewarmers truly worth so much? I would say science, reason, freedom and democracy are worth far more.
Steve Oregon says:
John@ur momisuglyEF:
When MoB posts repeatedly answers you with an explanation:
MoB, “John@ur momisugly EF, having been comprehensively answered, wonders why I regularly feature the RSS dataset. As I have previously explained, it is the first dataset to report each month. It is also the most accurate, in that it correctly represents the great El Niño of 1998 at its full magnitude.”
Why do you repeatedly keep asking why he used RSS?
It would be normal if you objected to his answer with some explanation.
Instead you keep reacting as if he never answered you.
That kind of behavior is not normal.
You must have some sort of ailment or derangement.
If you are just being a deceitful jackass then your affliction is worse than an ailment.
Steve, I think you hit the nail on the head WRT John@ur momisuglyEF. I don’t understand some of the climate alarmist crowd’s thinking process. People like John@ur momisuglyEF are so completely afflicted with cognitive dissonance that it is impossible to get through to them. They have decided that human-caused global warming is an irrefutable fact, and no contrary information can change their tightly closed minds. John@ur momisuglyEF is a perfect example of what normal skeptics have to deal with.
========================
BTW, I am enjoying the sparring between David Hoffer, Konrad, and Lord Monckton. No one has really gotten out of line, and everyone is making good science points. Maybe some good information will be produced.
I have taken it for granted that CO2 adds some [insignificant] warming to the planet. That is still my view. But Konrad has me re-tinking that, too.
The central problem is that the effect of CO2 is so minor. That being the case, it is very difficult to identify any ‘fingerprint’ of CO2-caused global warming [and even harder to identify any putative human-caused warming]. Since the effect of CO2 is so very tiny, there is very little difference between a slight effect, and no effect. But the insignificance of CO2 warming certainly deconstructs the belief of the catastrophic AGW clique. Not that John@ur momisuglyEF could ever change his mind…
…some things are just not possible.
@mod says: April 13, 2014 at 10:05 am
I wasn’t suggesting that there are currently any words of wisdom of mine in the moderation queue.
I was instead wondering what the explanation might be for the fact that my message that entered the queue on April 11, 2014 at 12:38 am did not become visible on this page until well after 05:00. After all Konrad seems to think 2 hours is a long wait!
REPLY: Here’s some words of wisdom: from 12:38AM to 05:00AM people sleep. Get over yourself. -Anthony
Well mine always appear, but being in Australia the time line is usually one day behind and the time adjusted to US time. Keep at it Anthony.