Bill Nye …the Foul Mouthed Science Guy

looks a little coked up

In reply to: Bill Nye goes off the rails with F-bombs ….

Bill is just an actor or an angry guy who is pushing the CAGW script. Reading from a script is not science.

There are more than a dozen independent observations and analysis results science that support the assertion that there is no CAGW or AGW.

The majority of the warming in the last 100 years was in high latitude regions rather than in the tropics.
This does not match the signature of CO2 forcing. If CO2 was the cause of the recent warming the majority of the observed warming would have been in the tropics rather than in high latitude regions.

This high latitude warming which abruptly stopped which is another paradox, is called polar amplification by the cult of CAGW rather than an observation that disproves AGW.

Climate models predict that the most amount of AGW warming should be in the tropics, three times as much warming in the tropics as it observed.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/02/tropical-ssts-since-1998-latest-climate-models-warm-3x-too-fast/

This makes sense as the most amount of infrared energy is admitted to space from the tropics.

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/images/rad_balance_ERBE_1987.jpg

There are more than a dozen independent observations and analysis results that support the assertion that there is no observational evidence to support CAGW or AGW.

For example, an EPA suppressed report that notes based on observations and analysis “the global temperature change cannot be attributed to increasing CO2 concentrations” in the atmosphere based on the observations for multiple independent logical reasons.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/endangermentcommentsv7b1.pdf

“Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act”

“I have become increasingly concerned that EPA has itself paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA and others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups, particularly the IPCC and the CCSP, as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclusions and documentation. ….

The failings are listed below in decreasing order of importance in my view: (See attached for details.)

1. Lack of observed upper tropospheric heating in the tropics (see Section 2.9 for a detailed discussion).
2. Lack of observed constant humidity levels, a very important assumption of all the IPCC models, as CO2levels have risen (see Section 1.7).
3. The most reliable sets of global temperature data we have, using satellite microwave sounding units, show no appreciable temperature increases during the critical period 1978-1997, just when the surface station data show a pronounced rise (see Section 2.4). Satellite data after 1998 is also inconsistent with the GHG/CO2/AGW hypothesis 2009 v
4. The models used by the IPCC do not take into account or show the most important ocean oscillations which clearly do affect global temperatures, namely, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and the ENSO (Section 2.4). Leaving out any major potential causes for global warming from the analysis results in the likely misattribution of the effects of these oscillations to the GHGs/CO2 and hence is likely to overstate their importance as a cause for climate change.