![Redirection[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/redirection1.jpg?resize=200%2C300)
Guest essay by Viv Forbes
Governments are running huge deficits, but still spend billions on “climate research” especially trying to model the effect of the atmosphere and its trace of carbon dioxide on surface temperature. Benefits are hard to find. It may have improved weather forecasts by a day or so, but official long-term predictions have not improved in the last fifty years. This is because carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not the main driver of weather or climate.
“What is referred to reverently as “climate research” is mainly just grubby advocacy supporting the political war on carbon. Why are we still funding scientists who believe that “the science is settled”? If they believe that they know the answers, what are they are doing with their research funds?”
Around the world there are five official weather data-bases, about 14 weather satellites (some say there are 88 of them!), 73 climate computer models, at least 30 research groups and thousands of academics receiving grants and attending never-ending climate conferences. Much of this torrent of public money is now focussed on trying to torture a climate confession out of one normally un-noticed and totally innocent trace gas in the atmosphere – carbon dioxide.
The major determinants of surface weather are latitude, earth’s rotation, the seasons, the sun with its variable radiations and orbital changes; and nearness to the oceans which maintain the water cycle, moderate temperatures and house massive volcanic chains.
Earth’s mighty oceans cover 70% of the surface. Evaporation of water and convection in the atmosphere transfer large quantities of solar heat from the surface to the stratosphere. This process creates clouds, rain and snow and also forms low pressure zones which are the birthplace for cyclones and hurricanes. Wind direction and strength are related to sun-generated convection in the atmosphere, the transfer of solar heat from the equator to the poles, and the Coriolis effect of the rotation of the earth. Carbon dioxide plays no significant part in these processes.
Oceans also conceal most of the volcanic ring-of-fire and are home to huge numbers of volcanoes, many of which are active. The mighty weather-changing ENSO/El Nino starts with a pool of warm water in the eastern Pacific. Carbon dioxide plays no part in creating such hot-spots, but periodic eruption of undersea volcanoes may do it. We know less about the floor of the oceans and their volcanoes than we do about the surface of Mars.
The community is getting little benefit from much atmospheric research and most climate modelling, and that money should be redirected to more productive areas.
Half of “climate research” money should be spent on improving the ability of public infrastructure to survive natural disasters.
The remaining funds should be spent on real climate research – mapping the floor of the oceans, with particular reference to locating active volcanoes; and investigating how volcanism, solar variations and cycles of the sun, moon, planets and solar system impact long-term weather forecasts and future climate. This work should preferably be done by contracting private operators; and the climate models in public hands should be handed over to practising meteorologists to see if they are useful for short-term weather forecasting.
For those who would like to read more:
73 UN Climate models are wrong:
Where Was Climate Research Before Computer Models?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/22/where-was-climate-research-before-computer-models/
Why are there so many climate models:
http://climate.calcommons.org/article/why-so-many-climate-models
Oceans important in past Climate Changes:
Super volcanos forming beneath Pacific Ocean:
Massive Hot Spot in Iceland:
Viv is spot on as usual.
I agree, spot on!
Excellent, thank you, especially the links. For anybody battling with the basics I can recommend “Vapor Tiger” by Adrian Vance available on kindle from Amazon. Cost is less than my Sunday newspaper.
Very, very true. I would also like to add the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic and the Jet Stream in the upper atmosphere for the UK..
Like Viv says, if the science is settled, why do these clowns need more research grants? I would have thought it would be better spent on research into Thorium Reactors and Fusion Power, for the following simple reasons:
1) One day we will run out of fossil fuels
2) Renewables clearly cannot supply anything like the energy that modern global economies need and their proponents claim
3) Fusion power and to a lesser extent Thorium power will provide us with almost limitless energy, with no CO2 emissions, which will keep everyone happy.
To me this is common sense, but with snouts in troughs, the need to control humanity and an erroneous belief transcending science, common sense is very much lacking!
Why?
When is climate change research / the daily global warming climate scare going to go away? When will the IPCC close up shop? When will Green energy products quit wasting $300 billion+ of society’s resources each year?
When the money stops rolling in.
When will that happen? When voters stop voting for it and vote for the opposite instead. All of the money is coming from government and government subsidy programs. I mean there is fundraising and private donations but virtually all of the money starts with a government budget line somewhere. And the majority of the politicians don’t even know how much climate scare they are supporting because many of these budget lines are described as supporting something else.
Which areas of the world are not concerned about climate change? The areas where government is not funding it. There are some you know. The correlation between climate hype and government funding of it is not just a coincidence.
Do you mean record highs or lows? If the former, it’ll probably be when they stop adjusting past temperatures down.
Interglacials are warmer.
What records? Of what? When will the alarmists like yourself front up with actual evidence?
When will we be told what the temperature of the globe or the height of sea level is supposed to be at any one moment, such that we can compare to a previous sample, bearing in mind that at any time we are somewhere in the solar cycle that we were not a year ago, somewhere in the lunar cycle we were not a month ago, and somewhere in the tidal (sea and air) cycle we were not an hour ago?
And when it comes to records, they are all false, be they sporting or meteorological. There is a records industry that continually uses upgraded and more precise technology, in order to produce results, for the sake of sensationalist journalism. No expense is spared to arrive at a record or “near record”. Because records are a function only of sensationalism and not of real life, we hear of records getting broken, slashed, obliterated and smashed – we never hear of any being gently and quietly replaced.
Change may indeed happen, but according to the scientific method all measuring variables must stay the same so spot-the-change is the only variable. When the variables for measurement also change, we forfeit comparable events.
When we have a complete record of the entire history of ocean temperatures, from beginning to end.
And yet, even with those (supposed) record temps, the 18+-year global warming Halt continues. But keep on banging that Alarmist drum of yours. If nothing else, it provides amusement.
Climate change “science” (The IPCC conjecture that ~3% of ~400ppm/v CO2 from humans emissions and ONLY those emissions is the DRIVER of bad climate change)? I agree with that!
I’m as skeptical as one can get but even I acknowledge that all of the increase of CO2 from pre-industrial levels are from anthropological sources, until proven otherwise.
I didn’t say that. What you say is fact! Maybe in another words; there is no evidence that supports the IPCC conjecture that those emissions of CO2, from whatever point in time in modern industrial history, are the DRIVER of bad climate change. I know and accept that the increase *IS* from human industrial activities, but is it the *DRIVER* of change?
I know in English I can write that many different ways, using different words, it will still mean the same.
@ garymount
The “burden of proof” is the responsibility of the one making the “claim of fact” …… and in this case ….. it is you.
Whoa Garymount! Where did that come from. What happened to ocean outgassing of CO2? I can agree humans have put a lot of O2 into the air, but I don’t think anyone has accounted for where it all comes from or where it goes to – some would suggest that plants treat one type of CO2 preferentially to other types, it must be inferred that sequestering processes have the same preference based on some suggestions in isotope studies but I am skeptical about that along with CO2 based Global Warming. I don’t doubt there are GHG effects, but reading tells me there are too many inputs to model. Just like taking averages to measure something when the top line stays constant and the bottom line moves up. The average doesn’t tell us what is really happening, Seems like you reversed the null hypothesis or did you miss a /sarc tag? I do like some of your posts but this one is surprising?
I have raised a point similar to this before. Basically they are saying anthropogenic emissions amount to 12ppm/v (3% of 400, the amount the IPCC and NASA say is the percentage of atmospheric CO2 humans are responsible for)…and that solely is the driving force behind CAGW.
+10. We need real political leaders who know how to utilize skeptical and critical thinking skills. Every prediction of climate doom has failed. Every bit of evidence provided to prove the predictions of climate doom fails to withstand reasonable scrutiny. Yet the climate doom industry demands more money and more power.
Much of the evidence used to make climate doom claims is controlled by those who directly benefit from the belief in climate doom.
And if we are not facing climate doom, why are we funding cliamte science as if we are?
The point is simply climate research is not really science. It’s politics with a sciency overcoat. Politicians are used to picking winners and losers in business and in science because it benefits them. Picking business winners leads to big campaign contributions and re-election. Picking science winners supports policy decisions and helps keep the population willing to go along with the agenda. They just promote people as legitimate authorities regardless of their actual skill in the field as long as they sound like they know what they are talking about.
It would be nice to have real climate science, or real geoscience funded and practiced again. And it would be nice to have a free market again. I’d like schools to teach, not indoctrinate and propagandize. I’d like my kids to have better opportunities than I had. I wish we had a real space program again – and maybe SpaceX is that. Perhaps the private sector could come to the rescue, but that won’t happen while government keeps growing.
An article like this is good, but we need a way to get from here to there. And what is ‘there’? We know what the problems are. What do we do about them? How do we repeat what Australia and Canada have done, dumping the socialists? Is it just a matter of time until we all are so sick of their feckless hysteria we try the other guys one more time? Then we just have a pause until the greens (formerly reds) regain power and move us further toward our workers’ paradise. Unless we clearly define what needs to be done in the big picture, and create a compelling case to take those steps, we’ll get nowhere. We can’t do everything, so we need to pick key targets and the rest will follow.
I’d like to suggest one of the most important targets is education. Take that back. Make it local. Make it real.
+10.
The vast majority of ‘climate scientists’ are anything but scientists. They are advocates with doctorate degrees who never follow the scientific method. They are simply modern witch doctors and snake oil salesmen.
‘The major determinants of surface weather are latitude, earth’s rotation, the seasons, the sun with its variable radiations and orbital changes; and nearness to the oceans which maintain the water cycle, moderate temperatures and house massive volcanic chains.’
Not to pick nits, but altitude is an important factor. Here in Colombia, the weather is basically determined by the altitude where one lives. Bogota experiences totally different weather from that of say Villavicencio, located close by but at a much lower altitude.
I admit, weather does sometimes have attitude……….. ohhhhhhh, ‘Altitude’!
All the horrible companies that put the JK Research Centre on the map – and fund considerable useful environmental research via AMIRA.
Take a whiff of that laughing gas you were studying. Your true face is beginning to show.
Mr Viv Forbes,
Dear Sir,
I’d like to see some work done on how we can increase CO2 to 700ppm.
Oh really?
You mean something like the forecast we got that warned of perhaps up to 1 to 2 feet of snow in the most persistent of the snow band?
http://d2ioe7v385j9xr.cloudfront.net/484_0b4b225f-ae2a-4932-b48e-03350424696a/2c53ac3a-0f0f-4158-a6a2-99a61ed941d7.jpg
And after we had over two feet of snow on the ground, the forecast was adjusted to allow for perhaps 5 feet … and we ending up breaking 6 feet.
And they’re trying to forecast the climate to the end of the century?
http://d2ioe7v385j9xr.cloudfront.net/484_0b4b225f-ae2a-4932-b48e-03350424696a/2d67a1c9-5d06-41fc-b28c-88c746cb1e8d.jpg
That is a lot of mass on that roof…
Potentially deadly, numerous deaths due to collapsed roofs. Now it all starts to melt.
Looks like a dog’s face.
Love that happy dog house!
+1
+1 Except that undersea volcanos are probably as inconsequential as CO2.
Every day the Oceans of the Tropic and Sub tropic absorb 35 – 40 Megajoules of solar insolation per square meter ( over half the surface of the earth). None of the AGWer’s can figure out how how much C02 absorbs and no one can figure out how much the volcanos emit.
But it doesn’t really matter because they are all rounding errors compared to the oceans energy budget. AGW is a land based artifact.
Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
Spot on I agree 100% with the writer. But I would make one addition and that is we must stop the assault on carbon based fuels to eliminate CO2. However, this does not mean that the real pollutants and fly ash should be ignored and that is where we should be working at the global level.
Forget CO2 its a requirement for all life and levels three times where we are now would be beneficial to crop growth.
I worry a little about Viv’s certainty in stating “… carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not the main driver of weather or climate.”
It is nearly as wrrying as the alarmists saying “.. carbon dioxide in the atmosphere IS the main driver of weather or climate.”
Then go and check his blog, http://www.desmogblog.com/ , and see what you disagree with.
Why did you link to a bunch of hate-filled Bastards?
And LYING Bastards, at that. Would it have not made sense to link to Viv’s blog, or am I asking too much?
Here, I fixed it for ya! http://carbon-sense.com/
Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Mea Culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa.
I stuffed up.
I don’t normally read Viv’s Carbon Sense Coalition blog, but do read everything he sends out, and in my anger at Mr Grace’s denigration of him I did a quick search, saw his name and details featured at the foolish link I provided, and popped that in without realizing I had picked the wrong mob.
I am sorry.
Excuse my ignorant foolishness and though I was angry with Mr Grace it is my fault and I promise to check my sources with far more attention and rigour next time.
Kind regards
Well my friend in light of your other comments here it didn’t make sense, so I must also apologize *g*
If CO2 was the main driver, then why the 18 year hiatus? Obviously natural climate dynamics overpowered the projected effects of CO2. Nature supports Viv’s statement.
Maybe the driver had to “stop for gas” (sarc)
I’ll pay that one…. stop for gas…lol
Ah the “Hiatus”. A great little vehicle that had limited appeal when first introduced but the longer it stays around the more it sells.
There was hope in some circles that it would be superceded by the “Uptick” but so far it has failed to take off.
All eyes are now on the new South American model, the “El Niño”. Problems with development have hampered it’s introduction into the Pacific region.
New Chinese models aren’t expected till 2030.
Climate science research today is a WASTE of time ,money and effort. The blind leading the blind concentrating on models that have incomplete, inaccurate and missing data and worse trying to say their results are correct due to the fact that a trace gas with a trace increase is going to trump all other climatic drivers . What a joke.
The news is before the decade is over the global temperature trend will be down due to prolonged minimum solar conditions and the associated primary and secondary effects which the models ignore completely.
For some time, I have thought the term “Climate Science” is too broad and indistinct to use to describe the discipline. It is somewhat like lumping all work in biology into biological science, or physics into physical science. I would like to see some precision introduced when thinking about climate science.
In particular, I think something along the lines of how astronomy and cosmology are categorized. I think it would be useful to categorize “climate science” into three sub disciplines: Climatonomy, Climatometry, and Climatology. Climatonomy , modeled after astronomy, would be the science of understanding the climate as it is, either now, or over relatively short time frames, say the reliable instrumental record. This would try to incorporate what is and has been measured recently into a coherent theoretical picture. A possible long term application would be extensions of knowledge to subsystems where we have high confidence of theoretical understanding. I am thinking here in astronomy of notions such as the concept of main sequence star evolution, where we have fair confidence that we understand the physics and sufficient observations to enhance that confidence. Climatometry, modeled after astrometry, would be the science of measurement of climate variables. Astrometry is usually limited to positional measurements of astronomical objects, but I could see climatometry being more broadly defined to include all of the physically measureable variables such as temperatures, heat content, turbulence intensities, other flow characteristics, atmospheric and oceanic species composition, radiant intensities, etc. Climatology, modeled after cosmology, would include study of projected future and distant past climate conditions, beyond what we can predict with simple differential integrations of the present state as determined by climatonomy and climatometry. The sense would be, as in cosmology, that the result would be possible future (or distant past) states of the climate (as in the universe) but with the understanding that the results are more tests of our understanding of the fundamental equations than a bankable prediction of a distant future state. I am not sure what the time scale for climatology would be but I would think almost anything beyond a decade or so would qualify. Certainly past millennial considerations would be the analog of the origins aspects of cosmology. (Note that climatology is modeled on cosmology and not astrology as would seem a natural extension of the astro- theme. That would be a bit of a slur which some might want to make, but the idea is to figure out how to get the discipline back into science mode and avoid the astrological mode.)
I think not enough emphasis is placed on the experimental and observational efforts in climate science, and often, observations are too immediately linked to what I call climatological conclusions without sufficient attention to the underpinnings of such long term projections. My personal preference would also be to mirror somewhat the funding allocations along these lines. What I mean is that, for astronomy/cosmology, by far the most funds are allocated to astronomy and observational astronomy (the analog to my notion of -metry). These disciplines include requirements for instruments (observatories on land and in space) which need significant funding. In addition astronomy has significant practical applications. Cosmology on the other hand, recognizing the speculative nature of the results, the relatively small instrumental requirements since the discipline is largely theoretical and computational, and the relative lack of immediate application, receives far less funding. I would think this would be about the right approach to climate science: heavy funding (perhaps even where it is now at the level of the Global Change Research Program) for climatonomy and climatometry and relatively modest funding for climatology.
Unfortunately with climatology pre-eminent as it is now climate science has become corrupted through connection to political activities to coerce economic behavior and in the meantime enrich selected groups. Anyone who is familiar with the research funding process knows program managers report to directors who were chosen by political appointees. Each member of the chain has to justify his or her program build of awards up the chain and eventually the wishes of the political appointee become instituted.
I think climate science would be much more fun if there was no near term economic coercive application, somewhat like cosmology. Then one could study it for the sheer pleasure of it.
Sounds better than our current Climastrology.
The made up climate predictions.
Carbon dioxide plays no significant part in these processes…
Of course it does…..CO2 causes droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, snow storms, ends the ski industry, and earthquakes…..
…all without changing the temperature
To me as a spectator, it appears valid climate research is redirecting itself in the best way constantly. It’s the human-worshiping religion of ‘Warmalarmism’ that remains mired, caught up in justification instead of searching for truth. There’s where the need for redirection exists.
Vic’s post is good and to-the-point. The benefit received of policy-relevant funding (which is what government and university grants are these days) is about nil today. The “science” is settled and the outcome “certain”: there is only a background support value to additional research on CAGW in this view. The fate of the spotted trenchmoth is Upper Mongolia is part of the “et al” negative consequences of the narrative and does not need to be funded from taxpayers’ wallets any more.
What would be policy-relevant and not detract from the Story, would be adaptation studies and work on specific non-fossil fuel energy sources. Like 10,000-year dikes, thorium reactors or fusion. More engineering than socio-political or strict AGW. You can monitor sea-ice changes without having to “prove” its AGW connection or model its changes. Time will tell the details.
So, if this change is to happen, we should see it at the press-release stage. But that supposes the majority of taxpayer are truly warmist believers. Which I don’t think they are. As long as the Obama-Gore-Suzuki-Manns are insecure about the truth of CAGW, are insecure in the sense that it is not an observable phenomenon but an ivory-tower concept, funding for proof-of-life studies (and the distribution of alarming news) HAS to continue.
The eco-green organizations are insecure. They don’t need to do as I did recently, take a 7500 km trip down and up the western edge of the United States and ask (in a neutral fashion) every person possible whether they accepted global warming was a) happening and b) a threat, to know that the lack of concern in the non-birkenstock, suburban community reflects a lack of belief in CAGW. The populace still doesn’t see local evidence of global warming, but they certainly see the oddness of claims such as “warming brings cooling” to explain why Buffalo is buried under cold.
The CAGW narrative has been consistent for over 26 years now. One would think the new generation might start into reanalysis studies or follow-up studies. Even if the professors were worried, it would be difficult to stop an update study on the “terrible” future of some plant or animal that was predicted back in 1990. If proof of on-coming disaster were to be found, surely that is where you’d find it. And if the originating researcher tried to stop you, you might have just created another skeptic …. with a future agenda of his own, a future “prophet” of non-doom in the making.
Based on the results of the mid-term elections I think most people (at least voters) would agree with this article.
I Don’t put so much stock in the American voter’s understanding of the real world, money and how it all works.
Neither Lord Obama nor Queen Hillary were on the chopping block.
Their base knew no matter the outcome Obama was going to continue to use his pen and tell green lies then act like it mattered, just for them.
Their base stayed home and watched DWTS, Oprah, The View or whatever.
One thing I have noticed in all of the above is only 1 comment on Mr Forbes suggestion that we map the underwater terrain, find out where the volcanoes are at, and see what influence, if any, they have on climate.
Not only that, why the ‘blue blazes’ have we not tried to find out what is under 70% of the Earth’s surface.?
Why have we not mapped the undersea terrain?
As he says, we know more about the surface of Mars than we do about our own planet!
Google Earth has some pretty detailed undersea terrain images…
Earth’s mighty oceans cover 70% of the surface. Evaporation of water and convection in the atmosphere transfer large quantities of solar heat from the surface to the stratosphere. This process creates clouds, rain and snow and also forms low pressure zones which are the birthplace for cyclones and hurricanes.
I think those processes are starting to get more attention, illustrated by the recent Science article on lightning: . Romps, D. M., J. T. Seeley, D. Vollaro and J. Molinari, 2014: Projected increase in lightning strikes in the United States due to global warming. Science, 346, 851-854. Although their focus was on lightning and the threat of increased forest fire, they attempted a serious estimate of the increase in the rate of the water cycling expected to result from increasing mean surface temperature. I have always wanted to write a letter to the editor of science, and I thought that paper gave me a topic for a letter that might have some merit. Here it is:
Comment on Romps et al
by
Matthew R. Marler
According to Romps et al, (1) an increase of 1C in global mean surface temperature is calculated to increase the rate of cloud-to-ground lightning discharges by 12%, +/- 5%. They say that this amount is directly proportional to the rate of energy transfer from the surface by evapotranspiration. They get the rate by multiplying the energy available times the rainfall rate. Essentially, their causal analysis, or narration, is that increased temperature produces faster evaporation and rainfall, and the increased rate of energy transfer in that speeded up process is what raises the lightning rate by 12%. Notice the implication of the proportionality assumption: according to the energy flow diagram published by Trenberth et al (2), the average rate of transfer of energy from surface to upper troposphere by evapotranspiration is 80 W/m^2, 12% of which is 9.6(range 5.6 to 13.6) W/m^2. The effect of doubling the CO2 concentration is to increase downwelling LWIR by 4 W/m^2. (3 p. 48) It must be obvious that a doubling of CO2 concentration does not provide a sufficient increase in power both to raise the water temperature by 1C and to increase the lightning flash rate by 12%. If the entire 4 W/m^2 were invested in the evapotranspiration/cloud/rainfall process (if the increased radiation is added to the surfaces where evaporation is already occurring), the maximum rate increase would be 4/80.0 = 5%, and that would produce no temperature increase at all. These calculations work in reverse as well: if Romps et al are accurate, the increase in CO2 since 1850 has not provided a sufficient increase in the rate of radiant energy transfer to the Earth surface to have warmed it 0.9C.
I look forward to more refined calculations from others.
References
1. Romps, D. M., J. T. Seeley, D. Vollaro and J. Molinari, 2014: Projected increase in lightning strikes in the United States due to global warming. Science, 346, 851-854.
2. Trenberth, K.E., J. T. Fasullo, and J. Kiehl, 2009: Earth’s global energy budget. Bull Amer Meteor Soc, 90, 311-23.
3.Randall, D., 2012: Atmosphere, Clouds and Climate, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
If you notice any errors, please tell me. Please notice that I did not criticize the authors or any other references. I merely pointed out what looks to me like a disparity.
” … I’m as skeptical as one can get but even I acknowledge that all of the increase of CO2 from pre-industrial levels are from anthropological sources, until proven otherwise.”
This amazes me. How can a rational man just up and believe that all of the rise in CO2 is because of human activities? Science has told us that CO2 has ranged from 180 ppm to 7000 ppm all before the rise of man’s industrial activities and someone really believes that all the rise in CO2 is due to man’s activities over the last century or so? Damn.
What if warming drives the rise in CO2 concentrations and not the other way around? What if other factors are involved?
It is a trait of modern “science” that speculation trumps observation and if we don’t really know then we can’t admit it — have to make up some answer and go with it. We have come to the “science” of Mikey Mann.
Damn, damn, damn.
markstovel, sigh somewhere along the way these people missed 7-8 grade science. They extrapolated CO2 rise to predict temperature change result crash and burn. Next as you state CO2 has fluctuated in the past, this means it can fluctuate in the present. Now if you want to verify is Co2 has any effect on temperature you need to do a controlled experiment. First with a atmosphere sample with no CO2. exposed to a predetermined level of TSI equivalent. Now you have a starting point, a base line. Next add 250 PPM of CO2 repeat in increments say up to 2000 PPM. Now look for changes of heat and duration of exposure . Will this get you need? Nope but it’s 7th grade level; and there has not even been that level of experimentation done.
Sorry I know I appear silly but if they can’t hit 7th grade standards for proving AGW .. I have 16 year old and 6 year old My 16 is a TAG student, Talented and Gifted. What do I tell them??
You may have misunderstood me. My position is, it might be possible that all of the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere may be a result of natural processes, having nothing to do with mans burning of fossil fuels. But I find it more likely that most if not all of the rise is from the burning of fossil fuels (and maybe cement making). The time frame is too short for Henry’s Law to explain for the current rise. Half of the CO2 from fossil burning gets absorbed each year.
Just when I thought your mind couldn’t be any smaller….
Roy, this is odd. A Dr of philosophy working as an engineer? Now I’m Scared I work in the machine tool industry.
Some clowns amuse us easier than others. Keep up the good work!
Khwarizmi I did not assert the Scorcher was evidence of global warming.
Since that is your entire belief system, you didn’t have to.
Absolute rubbish
It may have improved weather forecasts by a day or so, but official long-term predictions have not improved in the last fifty years.
And there you have it. This is like game design and development. Meteorologists “model” from the bottom to top — because they can. It works. The climatologists think they can do this. They cannot. That sort of long-term job requires a top-down approach, starting with a pencil and the back of an old envelope, not a zillion-dollar baby.
‘suburbs’ – HOW ‘BOUT THAT UHI!
Ok, I didn’t read the first post, my bad. YES! It is warmer 10kms and more from the coast. I am sure you know why that is?
Ashfield, Sydney, NSW, Jan 1st 2006. ~10% humidity, 47c temp! Why do I post this? Because I was there!
Not sure what this “Tea Party” is, or what it means in politics. All I see in Aussie MSM is pro-ALP/Green/Left bias and complete anti-LNP support. You have only to go to the SMH website to see the muber of anti-Abbott, anti-LNP Govn’t and pro-AGW articles. Abbott does not have much time and I think an ALP/Green coalition will be returned to “power” at the next general election. States are going through their elections, Victoria, that state will be pro-left leaning. The next federal election will result in a left leaning Govn’t. I hope Abbott will lay the path to sensibility…unfortunately, far too many Aussies are dumbfu*ks and only interested in KFC/McD’s, AFL and NRL.
“The major determinants of surface weather are latitude, earth’s rotation, the seasons, the sun with its variable radiations and orbital changes; and nearness to the oceans which maintain the water cycle, moderate temperatures and house massive volcanic chains.”
argument by assertion with no scientific argument whatsoever.
C02 is not a trace gas. The problem is you have chosen the wrong demoninator.
As a percentage of the whole, it is small. But that is not the right denominator.
Since the earth cools by long wave radiation, you have to look at the value of c02 in the
correct atmospheric window and you have to look at concentrations where it matters: above the ERL
Finally, if you run a weather model without the c02 effects, the results are horribly wrong. If you include the effects of c02, your forecast accuracy improves. EVERY weather model uses a raditaive physics core. That model, developed by science funded by republicans and the military, is ESSENTIAL to getting better forecasts. Why? because the weather depends in part on the radiation entering the system and leaving the system, and together h2o and c02 modulate the radiation leaving the system.
The guesses are getting better ?
No, Faster.
Geography determines climate, not CO2.
The role of the trace gas CO2 is vastly exaggerated. The late warming trend circa 1977-97 was due to increased insolation, as observation confirms.
Dear Steven – Firstly, as a scientist (geologist), I fully support the continued funding and development of models that help us understand the weather – however your first paragraph makes it impossible to take you seriously. That is Meteorology 101 my friend (we all took it at Uni, it was an easy course) – weather is a physical system – not a chemical one.
So that might partly explain why you think that human kind can currently run a “weather model” that spits out something other than garbage.
The Earths atmosphere, when looked at in total, is probably the largest “chaotic” system that humans have ever tried to get theie collective minds around – and, to be fair, the meterological scientist population is extremely small compared to other disciplines. But it beggars belief that so many people genuinely believe that we currently have the capacity to model weather on a global scale – because we don’t, we aren’t even close.
However, the real problem with climate change is this – its a social dogma now, not a scientific debate. We are a rudely self obsessed society now – we like to believe we have the power to change things – and we love to blame others. Developed world society has never had such an extended period of peace, security & wealth – so now we have generations of people who have never been under threat from anything. We jump at shadows and we can throw money at the problem. If we believe that there is an oncoming catastrophe then it should be rapidly identified and eliminated – so this isnt a scientific issue – its a populist movement. We need to accept that the Earth is a dynamic planet that changes everyday – with or without us – and we need to understand the changes that occur naturally before we can ever hope to understand the anthropological effect. Let me put it another way – assume the simple equation x+y=z, where x is the natural climate change, y is anthropological climate change and z is the total change. How have all you climate change experts worked out what z is going to be when no one has a clue what x is?
Finally, most people have one no concept Geologic time – which is crucial when formulating a hypothesis about the earth or its atmosphere.natural science. Without that understanding of time it is ridiculously irrelevant to mention a recent weather event or data point (I’ll leave you to work out what “recent” means!) in support of your argument but ignore the last 10 million years. Let me use a “very rough” analogy to show how ridiculous this is – if this was an argument about evolution in goldfish, its like espousing that the goldfish is going to evolve the ability to walk on land in the next 30 years – based on 50 years of previous goldfish observations. I’ll give you leeway here too – you can use 1000 years of goldfish observations – its still a short period of time!
I don’t argue against anthropological climate change – I argue that it is impossible to work out how anyone with a simple understanding of scientific error, significant numbers (taught in year 10) and time, can seriously promote it with a straight face.
But I’m sick of being insulted at dinner parties by so called “progressive thinkers” – I might have to keep my thoughts to myself – like Copernicus.
(ps: I’m not comparing myself to Copernicus!!)
I’m lucky to write a coherent sentence, and wouldn’t know a “possessive pronoun” if it bit me on the ass.
So, what were you trying to say ?
I think it’s you. Prove me wrong.
Viv Forbes speaks the truth … and for the common folk out there who have never had an opportunity to get a decent understanding about what all the fuss has been about, so does this book published last year:
http://www.punchdrunkonco2.com
Mr. Grace, please check your email. Please also refrain from further comment at WUWT.