On 07/08/2019 10:50, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Martin Brown
wrote:

On 06/08/2019 13:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It has been conclusively shown that in the real world, it does not.

Prove it! There is a Nobel Prize waiting for anyone who can
demonstrate that the prevailing orthodoxy on climate change is wrong.

Would that that were the case. What is actually waiting for any such
person is the sack, oblivion, and removal of any and all status as a
researcher, including prospects for future grants.

Utter rubbish if they were actually doing real science instead of make
believe fantasy fronting for some ultra-right mostly US think tank.

That is what awaits any nay-sayer of the current orthodoxy (an
interesting word to choose to use, too, I venture to suggest).

I choose my words carefully. I wanted to expose the very specific *LIE*
made in the first sentence that you have quoted from TNP for what it is.

Science is never infallible. If there is a way to demonstrate that AGW
is not caused by CO2 then by all means do so now. Otherwise STFU.

I have previously on several occasions pointed out that I believe that
the exceptional warming seen between the 1970's to 2000 was in part
assisted by a variant of Keeling tides hypothesis (also responsible for
peaks at 1940 and 1880). I have posted this before and interestingly
predicted that around 2020 it will turn back to being steeper again (and
at least a decade ago).

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/inex$20martin$20$202010%7Csort:date/uk.sci.weather/jra4zYOf-yA/3fCsxLsTVaoJ

And

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/martin$20inex$202018/uk.sci.weather/N45CWiHr83w/Hw2zCele4gsJ

There are earlier versions of this post pre 2010, but this one will do.

It is a variant of the Keeling tides argument although them not being
astronomers they didn't pick up the significance of their 58y peak.

I suspect much of the PDO is driven by the 2x Inex periodicity at 58y.
Eclipse sequences at about the same longitude and opposite latitude.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inex

Non-linear oscillations are still the preferred orthodoxy.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 07/08/2019 08:50, dennis@home wrote:
On 07/08/2019 08:08, Graham P Davis wrote:
On 06/08/2019 13:03, dennis@home wrote:
On 06/08/2019 08:24, JGD wrote:
On 05/08/2019 22:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
We know that there can be a considerable lag (40-50 years, maybe
more) for a given CO2 level to have its FULL effect on polar ice
melt, sea-level etc.

Hoe ****ing convenient for the climate shysters


Don't you just hate it when those pesky facts get in the way!

Actually no climate scientists says that there will be a 50 year lag.

What, not apart from all of them you mean.


They didn't predict a lag in the '70s when they said things were
warming really fast.
Now there is a pause the models failed to predict they are saying
there is a lag just to hide the fact the models don't actually work.


There is no pause. There has been no significant pause since 1970.
http://www.scarlet-jade.com/science/...e-change/#data



Â*rubbish there has been little warming for the last 20 years compared
to what was predicted.

The graph in this section includes the predictions. See how the actual
temperature parallels the curve for the forecast based on a CO2
sensitivity of 3.0 (a rise of 3C for a doubling of CO2).

http://www.scarlet-jade.com/science/...ange/#analysis


don't let the idea that the last few hottest years have all been recent
fool you into thinking its significant, we are on a plateaux and you
would expect the hottest years to be on that plateaux.


Did you look at the graph?

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. Web-site: http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
“Understanding is a three-edged sword. Your side, my side, and the
truth.� [Ambassador Kosh]
Posted via Mozilla Thunderbird on openSUSE Tumbleweed.

On 07/08/19 14:13, dennis@home wrote:
On 07/08/2019 12:26, RedAcer wrote:
On 07/08/19 12:15, dennis@home wrote:
On 07/08/2019 11:46, RedAcer wrote:

No one is 'promoting' that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's is a
scientific fact.

So is ozone and methane and especially water vapour.

most of the ozone, methane and water vapour is not man-made is it?

Your point is?
Not sure which part of my post you didn't understand.



I don't know which bit of climate change you don't understand.


I do understand climate change. Do you?

On 07/08/2019 18:08, Alastair B. McDonald wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 August 2019 14:33:02 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 07/08/2019 13:11, JGD wrote:

The Greenland ice sheets are a different problem they are on land but
they don't appear to be melting very quickly at all.

Dennis,

Have you seen this?

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/im...d?src=eoa-iotd

"There are a few ground-based instruments making measurements, however,
including one at Summit Station. Because it sits at the island’s highest
altitude in the central part of the ice sheet, the station rarely sees
temperatures reach the freezing point (0°C). But on July 30, air
temperatures remained at or above freezing for more than 11 hours.
That’s almost twice the amount of time that temperatures stayed at or
above freezing during the last major melt event on July 11, 2012"

That's not enough to shift half an inch of ice from the footpath to my
front door.

--
Spike

On 07/08/2019 16:11, JGD wrote:
On 07/08/2019 11:59, Spike wrote

Look what happened to that IPCC presenter chap...

Oh dear, not another one!

Another one what? Kindly explain yourself.

Why is it that the denialist fringe are so
bankrupt of ideas and arguments that their only recourse is to ad
hominem attacks on individuals.

Like the one you just made, you mean?

You seem to be in some state of confusion. I was writing in support of
the proposition mentioned earlier that scientists who go off-message
regarding CC/GW can suffer career-changing sanctions. The case I used,
which you snipped, concerned that IPCC presenter chap, who was, and
probably still is, an expert on poplar bear populations. When one
conference to which he was invited found out that his message was that
the polar bear
populations were thriving, his invitation to speak was withdrawn, and
AFAICS he has never been invited back since. But polar bears now figure
rather less in the CC publications. Others have mentioned David Bellamy,
who disappeared from our screens for being off-message. That shows how
fragile is the case for CC/GW, that such vindictive action is seen as
necessary.

Quite apart from those scientists who
are quite unjustifiably scapegoated, like any major advance in
understanding climate change also attracts its own coterie of
politicans, self-publicists and others with ulterior motives like the
anarchist tendency who seem to be behind Extinction Rebellion. But
that's life I guess.

Please let's focus on the science, not on what particular individuals -
especially those with potentially only a sketchy understanding of the
science - may or may not have said. The individuals are irrelevant, but
the science could not be more critical.

Also, while I have pen to paper: Some more distnction between primary
and secondary effects of climate change over human timescales would be
really helpful to any discussion.

Primary effects are eg:

1. Yes, global temperature is increasingly inexorably;

It's what happens when an Ice Age ends.

2. Yes, CO2 release associated with human activity seems to be the main
driver, though other gases, reduction of polar albedo etc may become
increasingly important.

....seems to be... ...may be increasingly important....

That's not science.

3. One unarguable effect of higher temperatures (barring eg a succession
of episodes of major volcanic activity) will be melting of the polar
icecaps on a human timescale, with sea-level rise and all the
consequences that brings.

I'm not sure what your scale of 'human timescale', although timescales
seem to be somewhat of a moving feast in the CC/GW industry. And it's
unscientific.

Secondary effects are all the other things like increases in extreme
weather events, changes in weather patterns for given localities etc
etc.

Weather isn't climate.

The scientific jury is still out on some of these and evidence
swinging one way and then another on some poorly-understood secondary
effect does not 'disprove' current climate change theories. (Though we
can be pretty certain that higher temperatures will bring changes to
local weather patterns (maybe the northern UK will be cooler for a while
as the Greenland icecap melts?), there will be more moisture and energy
in the atmosphere etc.)

You want to talk about science, well, here's some for you.

The Vostok ice cores showed that CO2 levels *lag* temperature levels
rather than leading them, over a time span of some hundreds of thousands
of years. Yet we are expected to believe that the lag, about 800 years,
has disappeared at some point and we now have a *lead* of CO2 over
temperature. When was the tipping point? What was the mechanism that
flipped lag to lead? Remember that human activities have added only a
minuscule amount of CO2 to the atmosphere.


--
Spike

On 07/08/2019 16:04, Graham P Davis wrote:
On 07/08/2019 08:50, dennis@home wrote:
On 07/08/2019 08:08, Graham P Davis wrote:
On 06/08/2019 13:03, dennis@home wrote:
On 06/08/2019 08:24, JGD wrote:
On 05/08/2019 22:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
We know that there can be a considerable lag (40-50 years, maybe
more) for a given CO2 level to have its FULL effect on polar ice
melt, sea-level etc.

Hoe ****ing convenient for the climate shysters


Don't you just hate it when those pesky facts get in the way!

Actually no climate scientists says that there will be a 50 year lag.

What, not apart from all of them you mean.


They didn't predict a lag in the '70s when they said things were
warming really fast.
Now there is a pause the models failed to predict they are saying
there is a lag just to hide the fact the models don't actually work.


There is no pause. There has been no significant pause since 1970.
http://www.scarlet-jade.com/science/...e-change/#data



Â*Â*rubbish there has been little warming for the last 20 years compared
to what was predicted.

The graph in this section includes the predictions. See how the actual
temperature parallels the curve for the forecast based on a CO2
sensitivity of 3.0 (a rise of 3C for a doubling of CO2).

http://www.scarlet-jade.com/science/...ange/#analysis


don't let the idea that the last few hottest years have all been
recent fool you into thinking its significant, we are on a plateaux
and you would expect the hottest years to be on that plateaux.


Did you look at the graph?


Of course and its not the models from the '70s/'80s where they predicted
everything incorrectly.

Now if the models used to produce those graphs and predictions are
correct in ten years time you may have a point, until then they are not
a proven science. Just at the models from '7os/'80s are shown to not be
science as they didn't work!

Remember science is a process, you decide how something works and then
prove it. So far the models are unproven, the science is not settled
whatever you say.

On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 18:14:42 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Remember science is a process, you decide how something works and then
prove it. So far the models are unproven, the science is not settled
whatever you say.

Nevertheless, its getting warmer, the sea levels are rising and the
ice is melting. Observation, not theory.

On 07/08/2019 17:45, Spike wrote:


1. Yes, global temperature is increasingly inexorably;

It's what happens when an Ice Age ends.

Not at its present rate of warming.

...seems to be... ...may be increasingly important....

That's not science.

Well, not sure how much you know about science, but I'm a scientist by
trade - not in climatology certainly, but a lot of science is about
assessing data and probabilities in general. Scientists are by nature
cautious and it's difficult to kick the habit of writing with too many
qualifications. I'd never be able to turn out the concise prose demanded
of a Fleet St reporter :-( Another second career possibility bites the dust!

I'm not sure what your scale of 'human timescale', although timescales
seem to be somewhat of a moving feast in the CC/GW industry. And it's
unscientific.

Slightly odd point to raise, but no matter. UK life expectancy is
currently around 80 years, but I'd guess that for someone born today
improvements in healthcare by eg 2100 might raise that to 100 years. So
for a newborn plus a couple of generations of offspring then let's say
150 years. But the obvious point is that the human timescale is around
100-200 years including eg family memories (my grandad told me what it
was like when...), but not thousands or millions of years.

And 'unscientific'??? You'd need to explain that one.


Weather isn't climate.

Hold the front page!

You want to talk about science, well, here's some for you.

The Vostok ice cores showed that CO2 levels *lag* temperature levels
rather than leading them, over a time span of some hundreds of thousands
of years.

That's quite an old chestnut now. See eg:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHozjOYHQdE

In article , JGD wrote:
On 07/08/2019 17:45, Spike wrote:


1. Yes, global temperature is increasingly inexorably;

It's what happens when an Ice Age ends.

Not at its present rate of warming.

...seems to be... ...may be increasingly important....

That's not science.

Well, not sure how much you know about science, but I'm a scientist by
trade - not in climatology certainly, but a lot of science is about
assessing data and probabilities in general. Scientists are by nature
cautious and it's difficult to kick the habit of writing with too many
qualifications. I'd never be able to turn out the concise prose demanded
of a Fleet St reporter :-( Another second career possibility bites the
dust!

I'm not sure what your scale of 'human timescale', although timescales
seem to be somewhat of a moving feast in the CC/GW industry. And it's
unscientific.

Slightly odd point to raise, but no matter. UK life expectancy is
currently around 80 years,

Ah - I've only got a year to go!

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 07/08/2019 18:14, dennis@home wrote:
On 07/08/2019 16:04, Graham P Davis wrote:
On 07/08/2019 08:50, dennis@home wrote:
On 07/08/2019 08:08, Graham P Davis wrote:
On 06/08/2019 13:03, dennis@home wrote:
On 06/08/2019 08:24, JGD wrote:
On 05/08/2019 22:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
We know that there can be a considerable lag (40-50 years, maybe
more) for a given CO2 level to have its FULL effect on polar ice
melt, sea-level etc.

Hoe ****ing convenient for the climate shysters


Don't you just hate it when those pesky facts get in the way!

Actually no climate scientists says that there will be a 50 year
lag.

What, not apart from all of them you mean.


They didn't predict a lag in the '70s when they said things were
warming really fast.
Now there is a pause the models failed to predict they are saying
there is a lag just to hide the fact the models don't actually work.


There is no pause. There has been no significant pause since 1970.
http://www.scarlet-jade.com/science/...e-change/#data



Â*Â*rubbish there has been little warming for the last 20 years
compared to what was predicted.

The graph in this section includes the predictions. See how the actual
temperature parallels the curve for the forecast based on a CO2
sensitivity of 3.0 (a rise of 3C for a doubling of CO2).

http://www.scarlet-jade.com/science/...ange/#analysis



don't let the idea that the last few hottest years have all been
recent fool you into thinking its significant, we are on a plateaux
and you would expect the hottest years to be on that plateaux.


Did you look at the graph?


Of course and its not the models from the '70s/'80s where they predicted
everything incorrectly.

Now if the models used to produce those graphs and predictions are
correct in ten years time you may have a point, until then they are not
a proven science. Just at the models from '7os/'80s are shown to not be
science as they didn't work!

The predictions used to produce those graphs are from the 70s and
earlier. The CO2 curve with a sensitivity of 3.0 is taken from the GARP
paper of 1975, as is the data for the prediction based on climate
cycles. The CO2 curve with sensitivity of 2..0 was the calculation made
by Callendar in 1938. In fact, the 3.0 figure consists of a contribution
from CO2 giving a sensitivity of 2.0 plus other factors such as water
vapour. In other words, the contribution calculated to be from CO2
hadn't changed since 1838.It's obvious from the curves that the
predictions are still working.

Sawyer, in 1972, predicted that rising CO2 emissions would raise the
global temperature by 0.6C. It actually rose by 0.5C. In the GARP paper
of 1975, a rise by the end of the century of about 0.5C was predicted.
The rise was 0.45C (to nearest 0.05C). How can you say those models
didn't work? Or aren't those predictions accurate enough for you? Do you
prefer the prediction based on climate cycles (also from the 1975 GARP
paper) that the temperature during the last quarter of C20 would fall by
almost 0.1C to a value not seen since The Little Ice Age?

It's not only the warming of the troposphere which was correctly
predicted. So was the rapid warming of the Arctic and the cooling of the
stratosphere. The thing that hasn't been correctly predicted is the
rapid melting of the Arctic Sea-ice; that was underestimated.


Remember science is a process, you decide how something works and then
prove it. So far the models are unproven, the science is not settled
whatever you say.


The predictions of the changes in atmospheric temperatures, as I have
shown, were correct. The science has been settled.


--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. Web-site: http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
“Understanding is a three-edged sword. Your side, my side, and the
truth.� [Ambassador Kosh]
Posted via Mozilla Thunderbird on openSUSE Tumbleweed.