On 08/08/2019 15:16, Graham P Davis wrote:
On 08/08/2019 10:24, dennis@home wrote:


Climate scientists like to claim that the models work but the facts say
they don't!

The facts say they do.

http://www.scarlet-jade.com/science/...te-change/#top

TL;DR beyond "Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), man’s influence on the
climate, has been with us for millennia. Ever since Homo sapiens sapiens
started farming, there has been a consequent effect on the climate."


--
Spike

On 08/08/2019 09:12, Spike wrote:
On 07/08/2019 21:48, JGD wrote:
On 07/08/2019 17:45, Spike wrote:

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

Interesting.

The presenter said in short that the CO2/temperature issue was one of
one sometimes leading, and sometimes following, the other, the
perturbing agent being Milankovich cycles,

They did explain it in the clip. Basically in the present geological era
the south pole almost always lags the rest of the planet because it is
cut off from the rest of the land masses by the roaring forties oceans.

It was not always the case. When there were land masses spread in a
different pattern then things were different. But with the continents as
they are presently positioned on the Earth insolation at 70N is a pretty
good proxy for the global temperature from solar forcing. This page
isn't a bad introduction if you actually want to learn some physics:

http://www.atmos.albany.edu/facstaff...ariations.html

The north pole has no solid land mass at the pole but there is a *lot*
of land at high latitudes with huge forests in near permanent sunlight
during the summers. CO2 concentration has much wider variation near the
north pole than elsewhere. By comparison the south pole concentration
lags any changes by a few ppm and shows a much smaller annual variation.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_...tration_trends

Point Barrow 70N has already been above 415ppm and may touch 420 this
year. With an annual peak to peak variation of ~20ppm

Christmas Island at the equator is about 407ppm with 8ppm peak to peak.

South Pole is just below 405ppm with about 2ppm peak to peak variation.

Unfortunately, this raises more questions than it answers. One such is
that where in the Vostok record is this shown? What records do in fact
show this? What is the mechanism whereby a lead changes to a lag?

I will assume that you are asking for information here.

The ice core can be used multiple ways as can ocean sediment cores.

The gas bubbles trapped in it can be analysed as samples of the
atmosphere at the time the snow was laid down.

The isotope ratios of the oxygen and carbon in it can be used to infer
the volume of water remaining in the oceans. Precipitation is
preferentially of the lower mass isotopes (as is photosynthetic uptake).

Other slow growing long lived things that lay down calcium carbonate.
Notably deep water corals and stalactites can also be used to do stable
isotope analysis and work out how much of the oceans were liquid and how
much water was locked up as solid ice glaciers. Things with regular
growth cycles are prized because you can count the rings to date them.

And the big one: if this is all caused by the influence of Jupiter and
Saturn's gravity fields, why are we being strongly encouraged to go
vegetarian, and not to till the soil, in order to help the planet? (BBC
R4 'news' this morning). Eating soyaburgers won't perturb Jupiter at all.

The ice age cycles work on geological timescales. We are presently
wrecking the planet on a timescale that is at most centuries and could
well do irreversible damage within decades if we haven't already.

I don't see much prospect of our politicians doing anything sensible
about it. You can be sure though that they will blame the scientists for
not shouting loudly enough when the chickens come home to roost.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 07/08/2019 19:32, Graham P Davis wrote:
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 2.0Â* 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.



How can it be true when it states they are using the 2018 data?

On 08/08/2019 13:27, dennis@home wrote:
On 07/08/2019 19:32, Graham P Davis wrote:
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 2.0Â* 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.



How can it be true when it states they are using the 2018 data?


I've no idea how you managed to come to that bizarre conclusion. The
predictions were published in 1972 and 1975. Are you saying they
borrowed a TARDIS , travelled to 2019, looked at the 2018 data, then
travelled back to their original era before making their forecasts?


--
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 07/08/2019 08:13, Graham P Davis wrote:

And the model predictions made during the mid-70s regarding the expected
temperature rise by the year 2000 proved to be correct.

In the mid 1970s they were predicting an ice age.


--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

On 07/08/2019 09:06, Martin Brown wrote:


That pretty much sums you up.
Incoherent ranting and raving by a deranged right whinger.

*plonk*

I dont care any more about Climate Beleivers. Its coming off te
political agenda, no one is subsidising windmills nay more, electric
cars will be next, scientists know its bunk,. and the Guradianm reading
chatterati can continue to discuss it as they sip their Islington
Chardonnay as the real world passes them by.


--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

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.

Exactly.

The models assume some reasosnbly linear coupling between CO2 and
warming., Even the most 'adjusted' warming curves do not show a smooth
and steady rise.

Ergo something else at least as powerful as CO2 is going on,.

But the assumption of the models is that CO2 is THE dominant cause of
warming

Can't have yer cake and eat it.




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



--
The New Left are the people they warned you about.

On 07/08/2019 11:46, RedAcer wrote:
On 07/08/19 11:03, Brian Reay wrote:
On 07/08/19 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.

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


Anyone remember David Bellamy? He dared to question those promoting man
made global warming etc and was promptly sidelined by the BBC etc. Prior
to that, he was extremely popular. Unlike Attenborough, Bellamy is a
real scientist, not a jumped up presenter.

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


Ther is no such thing as a scientific fact. CO2 acts as a mild
insulator. That is just a fact. It is possible to calculate its effect.
It is negligible.

In order to make it scary it has to be multiplied bu 'positive feedback'
no evidence of this has ever been found, in fact it seems more likely
that the climate has large negative feedback in it.


It's nor even clear taht there hgas been any 'global warming' - just
warming in and outside te cities where people have buildt weather
stations...





--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

On 07/08/2019 11:59, Spike wrote:
On 07/08/2019 13:50, 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.

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

Look what happened to 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 nears now figure
rather less in the CC publications.


Her. Wasn't that Susan Crockford?

https://polarbearscience.com/about-2/

--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

On 07/08/2019 13:11, JGD wrote:
On 07/08/2019 11:59, Spike wrote:

Primary effects are eg:

1. Yes, global temperature is increasingly inexorably;

No, it isn't.

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.

No, it almost certainly is NOT.

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.


Polar ice is incerasing
You dont melt greenlands kilometers thick icecap in less than a thousand
years.


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

All shown to be false

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.)


Go and study the real evidence, not the BS you have been fed by the media


--
“A leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader,
who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say,
“We did this ourselves.�

― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching