Foreword by Paul Driessen:
As the COP23 climate conference wraps up in Bonn, amid even more alarms than usual about Earth’s climate and weather, it is vital that we take a deep breath – and ponder the far less dramatic REALITY that what has been said in Bonn bears virtually no resemblance to what is actually happening on Planet Earth … or is likely to happen in the future because of mankind’s use of fossil fuels to power modern civilization.
In this article, climate experts Tim Ball and Tom Harris offer a timely, scientific assessment of what we know – and do not know – about Earth’s climate, and human influences on that climate. You will find it refreshing, reassuring and a valuable education on important aspects of climate science.
Avalanches of global warming alarmism
UN climate cataclysm predictions have no basis in fact and should not be taken seriously
Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris
Throughout the United Nations Climate Change Conference wrapping up in Bonn, Germany this week, the world has been inundated with the usual avalanche of manmade global warming alarmism. The UN expects us to believe that extreme weather, shrinking sea ice, and sea level rise will soon become much worse if we do not quickly phase out our use of fossil fuels that provide over 80% of the world’s energy.
There is essentially nothing to support these alarms, of course. We simply do not have adequate observational data required to know or understand what has happened over the past century and a half. Meaningful forecasts of future climate conditions are therefore impossible.
Nevertheless, this year’s session has been especially intense, since the meeting is being chaired by the island nation of Fiji, a government that has taken climate change fears to extremes.
COP23 (the 23rd meeting of the Conference of the Parties on climate change) conference president, Fijian Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama, has called for “an absolute dedication to meet the 1.5-degree target.” This is the arbitrary and most stringent goal suggested by the Paris Agreement. In support of Bainimarama’s position, the COP23/Fiji Website repeatedly cites frightening forecasts made by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
One prediction stated: “The IPCC recently reported that temperatures will significantly increase in the Sahel and Southern African regions, rainfall will significantly decrease, and tropical storms will become more frequent and intense, with a projected 20 per cent increase in cyclone activity.”
To make such dire forecasts, the IPCC relies on computerized models built on data and formulas to represent atmospheric conditions, and reflect the hypothesis that carbon dioxide is the principal factor driving planetary warming and climate change.
However, we still do not have a comprehensive, workable “theory of climate,” and thus do not have valid formulas to properly represent how the atmosphere functions. We also lack data to properly understand what weather was like over most of the planet even in the recent past. Without a good understanding of past weather conditions, we have no way to know the history, or the future, of average weather conditions – what we call the climate.
An important data set used by the computer models cited by the IPCC is the “HadCRUT4” global average temperature history for the past 167 years. This was produced by the Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, both based in the United Kingdom.
Until the 1960s, HadCRUT4 temperature data were collected using mercury thermometers located at weather stations situated mostly in the United States, Japan, the UK, and eastern Australia. Most of the rest of the planet had very few temperature sensing stations, and none of the Earth’s oceans (which cover 70% of the planet) had more than occasional stations separated from the next ones by thousands of kilometers of no data. Temperatures over these vast empty areas were simply “guesstimated.”
Making matters even worse, data collected at weather stations in this sparse grid had, at best, an accuracy of +/-0.5 degrees Celsius (0.9 degrees F), and oftentimes no better than +/-1.0 degree C. Averaging such poor data in an attempt to determine past or future global conditions cannot yield anything meaningful – and certainly nothing accurate or valid enough to use in making critical energy policy decisions.
Modern weather station surface temperature data are now collected using precision thermocouples. But, starting in the 1970s, less and less ground surface temperature data was used for plots such as HadCRUT4. Initially, this was done because governments believed satellite monitoring could take over from most of the ground surface data collection.
However, the satellites did not show the warming that climate activists and computer models had forecast. So, bureaucrats closed many of the colder rural surface temperature sensing stations, while many stations in the vast frigid area of Siberia were closed for economic and other reasons. The net result was that cold temperature data disappeared from more recent records – thereby creating artificial warming trends, the very warming that alarmists predicted, desired and needed for political purposes.
Today, we have virtually no data for approximately 85% of the Earth’s surface. Indeed, there are fewer weather stations in operation now than there were in 1960.
That means HadCRUT4 and other surface temperature computations after about 1980 are meaningless. Combining this with the sensitivity (accuracy) problems in the early data, and the fact that we have almost no long-term data above Earth’s surface, the conclusion is unavoidable:
It is not possible to know how or whether Earth’s climate has varied over the past century and a half. The data are therefore useless for input to the computer models that form the basis of the IPCC’s conclusions.
But the lack of adequate surface data is only the start of the problem. The computer models on which the climate scare is based are mathematical constructions that require the input of data above Earth’s surface as well. The models divide the atmosphere into cubes piled on top of each other, ideally with wind, humidity, cloud cover and temperature conditions known for different altitudes. But we currently have even less data above the surface than on it, and there is essentially no historical data at altitude.
Many people think the planet is adequately covered by satellite observations – data that is almost global 24/7 coverage and far more accurate than anything determined at weather stations. But the satellites are unable to collect data from the north and south poles, regions that are touted as critical to understanding global warming.
Moreover, space-based temperature data collection did not start until 1979, and 30 years of weather data is required to generate a single data point on a climate graph. The satellite record is far too short to allow us to come to any useful conclusions about climate change.
In fact, there is insufficient data of any kind – temperature, land and sea ice, glaciers, sea level, extreme weather, ocean pH, et cetera – to be able to determine how today’s climate differs from the past, much less predict the future. The IPCC’s climate forecasts have no connection with the real world.
Sherlock Holmes warned that “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote this famous quote for fiction, of course. But it applies perfectly to today’s global warming debate, especially where the IPCC’s scary conclusions and forecasts are involved. Of course, this will not stop Bainimarama and other conference leaders from citing IPCC “science” in support of their warnings of future climate catastrophe.
We should use these facts to spotlight and embarrass them every time.
___________
Dr. Tim Ball is an environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Manitoba. Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition.
Is it not VERY telling how everything is so good nowadays that leftists have had to resort to trying to grasp power money and control based on….THE FROCKING WEATHER…the weather! How cynical can it get?
Better yet, they enriched many oil companies and billionaires with their energy from weather. How foolish can it get?
It’s quite obvious that adding the combined heat of 8 billion people and all their various heat generating activities to the planet over the years could have caused the minute increased in regional temperatures that have been intermittently observed.
The simple solution is often the correct one.
More people=a barely measureable temperature increase.
The IPCC reiterating that it is “not able to think of anything else” other than an unproven theory about CO2 from fossil fuels causing the heat, conveniently ignores all of the above.
Forget about the CO2.
sorry – people just transfer
heat, they don’t create it
CO2 doesn’t
create
heat either
( oh how clever it is
to type like
THIS!)
Yep jim, its a very low form of writing, isn’t it.
You have to really try to DUMB yourself down to get to that level.
Maybe expected from a 5 year old?
Heating my home in winter and cooling it in summer doesn’t ‘create heat,’ Crackers345? And UHI doesn’t exist?
davefair: yes, that does — but people don’t (directly) get their energy
by consuming fossil fuels — they eat
plants,
or animals that
eat plants, and that
energy come from sunlight
(photosynthesis).
of course, the tractors and trucks
etc that harvest food
use fossil fuels, not
insubstantial,
but peoples’ heat energy comes
almost all from sunlight.
Dave Fair commented “Heating my home in winter and cooling it in summer doesn’t ‘create heat,’”
not at all
what I wrote
Crackers345, you said “sorry – people just transfer heat, they don’t create it”
When I (just a day ago, for the first time this year) fired up my gas furnace, I created heat. And please don’t play smarmy word games.
“but peoples’ heat energy comes
almost all from sunlight.”
Via CO2 !
You must have
very tasty feet,
crackers
You always
have you feet
in your mouth.
energy from sunlight
is not energy from
co2
Crackpot,
Your lack of
comprehension
is like that
of a 5 year old.
humans get their
energy from
carbohydrates.
Which are formed
in plant-life from
CO2 and H2O
using solar energy.
Do you
under-
stand ????
crackers345 November 19, 2017 at 7:24 pm
Can you possibly really be this ignorant and obtuse? It must be willful.
Do you really not know that humans get our energy and the building blocks of our bodies from food, which ultimately comes from CO2?
Most grade school kids understand the elements of this process, but I’ll keep it as simple as I can for you.
Humans, like all animals and fungi and most heterotrophic microbes ultimately rely upon photosynthesis for our food. In photosynthesis, a photon of sunlight breaks a water molecule into H ions (protons) and oxygen atoms. Then the hydrogen attaches to a CO2 moledule. This process continues until CO2 is turned into sugar. The CO2 comes from the air, through a plant’s leaves, while the water comes from the ground via its roots. The waste product of these reactions in oxygen gas (O2).
We either eat the plant directly, or other animals eat it and we eat them.
andyG – in what way
do humans create new heat?
Oh dear.
crackers has
no idea about
humans get their
energy. He is
truly and absolutely
nil-educated.
so explain to
me how humans
create heat that wasn’t
there before
in any case, 7.3 b
people each emitting
100 W comes to
only 0.001 W/m2.
Crack pot cracky Crackers you are acting as a troll You have added nothing to this debate and if I was the Mod I would ban you .You are lucky to be allowed to have your say so what about bringing some proof of your beliefs or do you believe in magic because you were told that the world is going to cook .Take time to read the the postings on WUWT and you might learn something .You are just wasting every ones time .
(What crackers say,is subjective and opinionated,but is on topic and civil. You can ignore it which is free) MOD
gwan
I’m as critical as anyone of crackers trolling, but today he’s actually contributed some comments and numbers relative to the discussion instead of just sniping. Correct or otherwise, they have stimulated co2isnotevil to go into considerable detail. And if it’s not helped crackers, it certainly has me, and I suspect many others.
gwan: do you disagree with my
number, 0.001 W/m2?
actually, this is very well know:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#Earth.27s_internal_heat_and_other_small_effects
~0.03 W/m² when spread over the whole Earth.
However, half of the population, and most of the industry, is concentrated on 1% of land, that is, 0.3% of the whole Earth surface
http://metrocosm.com/world-population-split-in-half-map/
These area hence receive 300x more human produced energy, that is, ~5~10 W/m² or more.
Add the effect of asphalt, building etc., and you get urban heat island, and urban weather stations running amok, temperature wise.
Such is the level of servile fanaticism in the mass-belief in warming catastrophe based on pseudoscience, that it is becoming more and more clear that this is going to lead to war.
The climate flag being waved by the hard left is the flag of war. Another generation will be consumed.
TBall claims:
“However, we still do not have a comprehensive, workable “theory of climate,”
why not?
“…and thus do not have valid formulas to properly represent how the atmosphere functions.”
you’re a
scientist — where are
YOUR formulas here, TBall?
Crackers once again shows what a dishonest person he is,which I show by providing the FULL contextual quote he deliberately left out:
“One prediction stated: “The IPCC recently reported that temperatures will significantly increase in the Sahel and Southern African regions, rainfall will significantly decrease, and tropical storms will become more frequent and intense, with a projected 20 per cent increase in cyclone activity.”
To make such dire forecasts, the IPCC relies on computerized models built on data and formulas to represent atmospheric conditions, and reflect the hypothesis that carbon dioxide is the principal factor driving planetary warming and climate change.
However, we still do not have a comprehensive, workable “theory of climate,” and thus do not have valid formulas to properly represent how the atmosphere functions. We also lack data to properly understand what weather was like over most of the planet even in the recent past. Without a good understanding of past weather conditions, we have no way to know the history, or the future, of average weather conditions – what we call the climate.”
Dr. Ball doesn’t have to provide anything to show to a mealy,mouthed loaded questioner joke like you. He made the point that the overt alarm-ism of the conference, is not backed up by empirical science.
“”However, we still do not have a comprehensive, workable “theory of climate,””
TBall didn’t prove this.
or even try to.
isn’t TBall a scientist?
he doensn’t write like one.
he makes only complaints,
without attempting to
explain them or
provide his own answers.
Dr. Ball correctly states:
“However, we still do not have a comprehensive, workable “theory of climate”
Unless YOU can show evidence that we now have a solid understanding of clouds/wind and humidity changes based on the Scientific Method of REPRODUCIBLE research.
Do YOU have that Crackers?
I have evidence that Dr. Ball is correct by simply showing how poor a couple of short term modeling guesses are:
Lack of the Tropical Hotspot,utter failure of the Per Decade warming predictions.
AGW conjecture as it stands is a failure.
TBall proved nothing – he
only made claims. scientists
prove things.
90% of climate changes
are due to GHGs and ENSOs.
you don’t need every last
detail to know that human co2
is warming the planet.
Ha ha ha, notice you didn’t answer my question at all and to my statement about huge AGW failures.
Why can’t you make an honest comment?
“Unless YOU can show evidence that we now have a solid understanding of clouds/wind and humidity changes based on the Scientific Method of REPRODUCIBLE research.
Do YOU have that Crackers?”
and the well known modeling failures based on the AGW conjecture:
“Lack of the Tropical Hotspot,utter failure of the Per Decade warming predictions”
It is clear you have NOTHING useful to post.
“scientists
prove things.”
Then you are no scientist
All you do is yap mindlessly
Here is your chance,.
PROVE where Tim Ball is wrong.
“90% of climate changes
are due to GHGs and ENSOs.”
Yap, yap goes crackers.
NO PROVABLE
CHANGE DUE
TO GHGs.
I expect the boy is going to ignore the massive Per Decade warming rate FAILURE,which greatly damages the 90% CO2 effect he babbles about.
Andy,you have pointed out the hard data based evidence that there is a flat trend from 1979 to the big 1998 El-Nino,then a flat/slight cooling trend to another big El-nino of 2016. There is no obvious CO2 in it from 1979 onward.
Warmists simply try hard to ignore the massive Per Decade warming rate failure, they predicted in the 1990 IPCC report.
Sunset, In reality, it looks like there was only any effective warming at the 1998 El Nino, a step of about 0.26ºC over a 3 year period, leveling out by 2001..
Ocean data seems to show that the 2015 El Nino will not produce a step change, just a great big BURP in the middle of a baroque concert. Satellite data should follow suit next month or two.
Then , we will most likely ease into a cooling trend.. for how long, and how deep, will depend on what Sol decides to do, but its not looking good for a continuation of highly beneficial warming.
Let’s all hope like crazy that it doesn’t cascade downwards into another LIA, that would be disastrous.
Warming to MWP or RWP levels would be FAR , FAR preferable for the whole planet.
“Andy,you have pointed out the hard data based evidence that there is a flat trend from 1979 to the big 1998 El-Nino”
a very big positive trend in ocean
heat content
a .16 c per decade
trend in uah’s
measurement of the
global lower
tropo, from Dec78
to Dec98
Super El Nino endpoint, crackers345? Go to SkS to exercise your ‘there are liars, damned liars and statistics.’
NO, there is
basically NO DATA
to find OHC before 2003,
even now, extremely
sparse.
You have been
SUCKED IN
by your
ignorance
and
gullibility,
yet again.
If your think there is
data, please show
where it was collected.
Your mathematical
ineptitude leads
you into erroneous
trend calculations
of cyclic data.
The trend calculated
is PURELY a
remnant of where
the cycles start
and finish.
What is the
trend of this
curve, bozo?
PS.please
keep posting,
crackhead.
You continue
to show
just how INEPT
and
NIL-educated
you really are 🙂
What is overlooked in the debate on climate change is fundamental economics. Religion and political ideology have always been the tools of the few to control the many, and empty their pockets in the process.
The people waving flags in the streets have no idea that they are puppets. They don’t know that they are tied up with strings fastened to them by other puppets, and they don’t know who is pulling the strings, or for what purpose. If they knew that their puppet-masters were captains of finance and industry, motivated purely by power and profit, they might not be so idealistic.
Despite long being criers of “follow the money,” when it comes to climate change (or political change), they do not “follow the money.” They may or may not know how much money is spent on fighting climate change, very few bother to think about where that money ends up, and who it enriches.
I know little about the climate, science, physics, or other things commonly discussed on this site. But I do know about politics and business. I know that politics IS business, that politics is the most lucrative of all businesses.
Politics is profitable at all times. But it is most profitable in times of conflict and war. Any war, from the wars on drugs or poverty, to shooting wars, are fought for economic reasons. Excuses are needed to fight such wars, and such excuses are that wars are necessary for things like religious faith, racial purity, securing resources, or preempting attacks. During wartime, the state and it’s cronies have greater reign to control and spend what their economies produce.
As people have become increasingly knowledgeable and sophisticated, the old excuses for war are less believable (though some people still do believe them). Climate change is a great enemy to fight. It doesn’t require guns or weapons, yet the cost to fight climate change is no less than the cost to fight a shooting war. The more knowledgeable and sophisticated are more easily converted because climate change is based in “science”, and not race, superstition or spirituality. But like all other wars, the fight against climate change is deemed to be for the common good.
The people protesting in the streets are likely of the socialist bent. But socialism and capitalism are irrelevant, both are mere ideologies which are universally corrupted for the gain of those at the top of the economic ladder. American is supposedly a capitalist society, but when one looks at the number of rules and regulations in the federal code, the number of pages and regulations in the federal tax code (and you must of course add state and local regulations and tax rules to these), it is hard to call America capitalist at all. But you could certainly call it “crony capitalist.” In 2017, how many large industries exist in America? How many car, airplane, motorcycle, or even bicycle manufacturers? How many banks? If we go back one century to 1917, how many of these industries existed then?
How difficult is it to create a new car, or aircraft company in 2017? How many are established each year? How easy was it to do these things in 1917? How many were established in that year?
The myriad rules and regulations are created under the guise of safety and consumer protection, or, more laughably, to discourage monopolies. But in reality, they are tools to increase the political power (and personal profit) of those politicians who create them. Also, they benefit the established industries, who grew in the years of less regulation, and who often enjoy exceptions to new rules and regulations. A handful of large industries have virtual monopolies.
The ironic thing is that the wars on drugs, the wars on poverty, the increased rules, regulations, and taxes enacted to help improve the safety and economic well-being of the people have arguably had the opposite result. Behind climate change, the next largest problem facing the world issupposedly “income inequality.” Poverty, drugs, and climate change are wonderful things to fight wars against, because such wars are unwinnable, and can be fought perpetually. How can one win the fight against climate change when change is the climate’s natural state?
I am no supporter of the fossil fuel industry. My home is 100% solar powered, I don’t own or drive a car, most of my commuting is done on foot or by bicycle. I don’t live as I do because I think of oil or gas as evil, or because I derive a perverse pride for living as I do, my motivations are economic. Big oil is fundamentally no different from “big green.” both exist to make their owners wealthy. I have no opposition to wealth, so long as people generate their own, and don’t obtain it unfairly.
What I am opposed to is the way industries of all sorts use the state to tilt the playing field in their favor, against the principles of a free market, and at the cost of personal economic and political freedom. There can be no political freedom where there is not economic freedom.
The poor fools marching in the streets don’t realize that getting their way would mean jumping from the frying pan and into the fire. That by giving their leaders more power and money to fight climate change, they would have to give up more of their personal freedom and money to do so. The corporations and political systems they detest would only become richer than they already are.
They always have the same, misguided belief that they themselves do not have to pay the costs. They believe that the rich and the corporations will pay. They believe that there is such a thing as progressive taxation, that the rich should always pay more, and they themselves should pay less, little, or no taxes at all. They never stop to think that these taxes the rich and the corporations pay are passed directly to them. When they buy a new phone, shirt, or cup of coffee, they don’t think about how of the price they pay is used to pay the taxes of the rich. When they collect their paychecks, they don’t consider how much was deducted from the value of their labor.
They fail to understand the common principle that a tax on any part of the economy is a tax on every part of the economy, and that it is absolutely impossible to isolate the effect of a tax to any income group. A non-smoker does not realize that when a smoker spends more money on increased tobacco taxes, the smoker has less to spend on food, gasoline, clothes, or other goods. This slight decrease in personal consumption is multiplied by the total numbers of smokers taxed, and the economic effect is increased. Decreased demand equals decreased economic opportunities, and lower wages. (BTW, I am not a smoker, and I detest smoking).
Yet, following the ancient principle of “divide and rule”, the people are manipulated into fear and hatred of each other. And they cede ever more of their rights and money to protect them from these things. That most of these fears are fabricated, and that the hatred is entirely unfounded is never considered.
(EDITED to create paragraphs,no words changed or added) MOD
A bit of a rant and conspiracy thinking. Although it has little to do with the global climate problems we are facing. The latter are outcomes of scientific research, debates and (tentative) conclusions. But on various other issues mentioned it would be more useful and interesting to analyze the mechanics of our democracies. The more capitalistic (mercantile) ones (in particular the US, the UK and Australia) and the more social-democratic ones (such as in Europe, New Zealand) both have inherent inequalities built into the system. All are representative democracies, but each and every one very much depending on the philosophy, quality, honesty, and intentions of those who represent us. Powerful lobbying, and vested interests (large labor- and tax-income providing industries) are other ingredients. Much greater transparency and more information at virtually every level of government, and better build-in check- and balances, would be beneficial in closing the gap between our elected representatives, their output, and the understanding by those who are represented, us, the populace. But to return to the global climate issues, they are discussed at an entirely different level, namely science, which as results/outcomes provides data and suggestions to politicians. If you don’t fully trust politicians, well, analyze their workings. In any case, the science behind the global climate warnings is transparent, peer-reviewed (constantly questioned and poked at) and open minded, and – with undoubtedly exceptions here and there – largely without political drivers.
The BBC’s alarmist-in-chief, Cardinal Roger Harrabin, is in extreme climate change alarmism this morning. He has been ramping up his propaganda level for 2 weeks now. I expect him to implode unless COP23 ends in success (whatever that is).
Sorry how poorly written my previous post was, it is hard to write on smart phone with a small screen and auto-correct when your 3-year-old daughter is yelling “Daddy, look!” every 10 seconds or so.
This all looks very complicated to the ordinary man in the street. Endless arguments about data, satellites, graphs, coloured pictures of the earth or sections of it. It goes on and on.
Surely the simpler approach is to refute the theory of anthropogenic global warming at the EARLIEST point.
Forget data entirely, Forget ANY measurements of temperature or any aspect of current OR past climate. If you can refute the theory itself then “Job done”.
One needs to get back to basics, and by this I mean basic physics and in particular the physics of heat transfer and radiation. There are too many people, even apparently clever ones in this blog, who do not correctly understand the basics. For example we have seen talk about “photons” as if they were real massless particles that immediately transferred heat to any solid object they “hit”.
This all needs clearing up properly. A book about atmospheric physics starting from the basics and going through it bit by bit should be helpful. It needs to go slowly and provide plenty of references. By building slowly upon solid already established knowledge the correct explanation about the working of the atmosphere can be taught and the theory of global warming thus refuted.
Once the basic physics errors are exposed it will be clear that AGW is founded on nonsense.
Getting bogged down in data arguments plays into their court as it looks like you have accepted the theory that CO2 makes the earth warmer and you are just arguing about the amount. (It’s the “prostitute” argument – some of you will know the joke!).
The Reverend Badger
“This all looks very complicated to the ordinary man in the street.”. Yep, and that would be me.
My understanding is, there are no credible, empirical studies which show that atmospheric CO2 causes the climate to warm. David Middleton tells me there is one and gave me a link, but I’m not qualified to comment on it. Nevertheless, assuming it’s credible (and I have no reason to doubt David) that is one study in at least 40 years of scientific debate on the subject. If the science is so settled, surely there should be numerous independent verifications of it, but there appear to be none.
We can slice and dice the climate as much as we want, but until that fundamental question is beyond reasonable doubt, climate change predicated on it remains to be demonstrated and should not be campaigned as settled science with harmful and expensive consequences.
Unless of course, there is a separate agenda, and it’s seems curiously coincidental that the whole subject has been ramped up considerably since the global financial crash in 2008.
The fundamental physics – often referred to for shorthand as ‘the greenhouse effect’ – are settled and are not in contention.
any article or comment which starts from the basis this physics is wrong can surely be discounted from the start.
We have to look at the rate of change in temperature (and the means by which that evidence is gathered). Then at the projections from the record.
Anything else, really, is irrelevant.
[Gosh, Ed, you are quite strong-headed. Here is a recent story that says the “physics” of the “greenhouse effect” as it operates in our atmosphere, is backwards. So much for “settled” science. All you are doing is parroting something Al Gore said about the science being settled. When will you learn to form your own opinions rather than parrot? – Anthony]
“The fundamental physics – often referred to for shorthand as ‘the greenhouse effect’ – are settled and are not in contention.”
Total and absolute malarkey. The only place it has settled is in that blockhead mind of your.
Reality is that the fundamental physics of the greenhouse effect is totally wrong basically from the start.
There is no proven mechanism by which CO2 can cause warming in a convective atmosphere.
CO2 warming has never been measured
There is no CO2 warming signature in the satellite temperature data
The whole thing is an anti-science MYTH !!!
Fiji is host in Bonn.
They have an excellent climate.
Mean temperature 24,2 C steady since 1900!
Max and min monthly 26-21 C
But IPCC anticipate +4 C rise to 2100
They have cyclones. 25% less than 40 Years ago.
They have volcanic activity -that can be a real problem beside IPCC prediction.
And according to a lot of evidence, a problem with rising sea level
and according to ALL evidence, NO problem with rising sea level
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/13/fiji-flooding-is-fake-news-from-cop23/
Not one scrap of evidence of any human effect on sea level rise.
You live in a fantasy land , griff.
I’m a geologist, and I agree with Sherlock. I have linked observed processes to a mechanism that explains our climate changes. And it is a new discovery.
It explains why the ozone hole began in 1983 and remains the controlling factor for Antarctic sea ice and why the SH still is cold while the NH is warming rapidly. It explains how mid-latitude ozone formation accelerates the jet streams and Rossby wave loops and extreme weather changes. It explains the Ice Age cycles.
The mechanism ties all the current observations into one theory base. You can read about it at my website, but you will need to study the graphics and the evidence to see that it is true. A desk size monitor will help.
https://www.harrytodd.org
One should not pick only their favorite evidence to “believe”.
How do you expect them to believe, then?
Another excellent essay on the data issue re climate science. However, the carping of many of the comments seems a bit overdone. I would prefer to hear how problems with the data can be overcome. And proposing that data collection efforts need to be redoubled is a non-starter. Who wants to wait 100 years for 3 more points and one or two more significant decimal points of accuracy.
The discussion should be about how to work smarter with the existing data. If global models are not feasible, scrap the global modeling efforts. Instead, focus on modeling single station data such as the Vostok ice core data and areas of closely spaced stations. The problem would become how to coalesce mini-models into a global model. Calculations would be cumbersome, but the results might lead to a better understanding of climate change.
My two cents worth.
On belief..I do love me some Isaac Asimov!
To wit:
“Don’t you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don’t you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out “Don’t you believe in anything?”
Yes”, I said. “I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I’ll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
Inspect every piece of pseudoscience and you will find a security blanket, a thumb to suck, a skirt to hold. What does the scientist have to offer in exchange? Uncertainty! Insecurity!
— Isaac Asimov
Science is a mechanism, a way of trying to improve your knowledge of nature. It’s a system for testing your thoughts against the universe, and seeing whether they match.
— Isaac Asimov
“Scientific truth is beyond loyalty and disloyalty.”
― Isaac Asimov, Foundation
“Clarke’s First Law – Corollary: When, however, the lay public rallies round an idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly scientists and supports that idea with great fervor and emotion—the distinguished but elderly scientists are then, after all, probably right.”
― Isaac Asimov, Quasar, Quasar, Burning Bright
And finally, a bit of humor:
“Tell me why the stars do shine,
Tell me why the ivy twines,
Tell me what makes skies so blue,
And I’ll tell you why I love you.
Nuclear fusion makes stars to shine,
Tropisms make the ivy twine,
Raleigh scattering make skies so blue,
Testicular hormones are why I love you. ”
― Isaac Asimov
It was a sad day when Dr. Asimov left this world.
Regards,
MCR
Is the weather worse now than it was 30 years ago? I dont feel it, but we have been told for the same 30 years that it is worse than thaught. Wonder what it is they think. Could’n they just look at the figures instead of all that thinking.