All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

Sunday, 23 February 2014

IPCC Failure.

Climate4You
Professor Ole Humlum, in his January Climate4You report writes:
Most climate models assume the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide CO2 to influence significantly upon global temperature. It is therefore relevant to compare different temperature records with measurements of atmospheric CO2, as shown in the diagrams above. Any comparison, however, should not be made on a monthly or annual basis, but for a longer time period, as other effects (oceanographic, etc.) may well override the potential influence of CO2 on short time scales such as just a few years. It is of cause equally inappropriate to present new meteorological record values, whether daily, monthly or annual, as support for the hypothesis ascribing high importance of atmospheric CO2 for global temperatures. Any such meteorological record value may well be the result of other phenomena.  
After about 10 years of concurrent global temperature- and CO2-increase, IPCC was established in 1988. For obtaining public and political support for the CO2-hypothesis the 10 year warming period leading up to 1988 in all likelihood was important. Had the global temperature instead been decreasing, politic support for the hypothesis would have been difficult to obtain.  
Based on the previous 10 years of concurrent temperature- and CO2-increase, many climate scientists in 1988 presumably felt that their understanding of climate dynamics was sufficient to conclude about the importance of CO2 for global temperature changes. From this it may safely be concluded that 10 years was considered a period long enough to demonstrate the effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 on global temperatures. 
The IPCC was formed after 10 years of apparent correlation between global temperature and CO2 increases. This apparent correlation lasted for another ten years. Then the wheels fell off the global warming Nazi's wagon, busting their hypothesis and we have had no significant warming since although the rise in atmospheric CO2 continues unabated.

Despite this, the recently released IPCC's AR5 report states that they have increased their certainty that man's CO2 emissions are causing warming from 90 to 95%.

How much longer do we have to prop up the false science of the global warming Nazis?




11 comments:

  1. There is an "amount" of warming of the Earth we should see from the "amount" of CO2 we have introduced into the atmosphere. If that heat goes into the oceans or is seen on land, it does not matter, the only thing you need to understand Geoff Brown is that when scientists added up all the extra global warming found on the Earth, it correlates with the increased CO2 greenhouse effect.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Are you adding the "missing heat" hiding in the deep ocean, the heat that skipped the surface and is waiting to come out one day and say "BOO?"

    ReplyDelete
  3. "HOW COULD THE WARMERS BE SO NAÏVE AS TO
    BELIEVE THAT CHANGES IN CO2 ARE THE DOMINANT
    CLIMATE FORCING MECHANISM? "

    http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Due to all the lies and twisted information that we see from Hearthland and your blog, its ridicules for you to reference anything that is not a peer reviewed document. It is well documented that CO2 has been driving the temperature of the Earth for as far back as we can gather records.

      Delete
    2. "It is well documented that CO2 has been driving the temperature of the Earth for as far back as we can gather records."

      Really? Where is your peer-reviewed paper? And, pretending your statement to be true, when did it solely become due to man's fossil fuel driven CO2?

      Delete
    3. Again, you claim that CO2 never drove temperatures on the Earth, but have not researched it or anything! All you need to do is google it. I think what ever funding you are getting I should get a cut because at the moment I am basically tutoring. Not to forget we have already had this discussion this where I explained it to you and linked you the peer reviewed paper. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356 http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/

      Delete
    4. Hey, Funding? I don't get any but perhaps you should share your funding with me as I am rebutting all your points. Incidentally, who does fund you?

      Delete
  4. Yes Geoff all heat that is building up on the Earth has to be added up! When the heat is not going into the oceans we will see more in the on the surface. I am a little lost why you sound so immature when discussing this matter, and you are intentional deny the heat going into the ocean? Do you think no heat goes into the ocean?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really? Where is your peer-reviewed paper supporting the ridiculous proposition that the heat is hiding in the bottom of the ocean. Missed the surface and submerged? Peer-reviewed paper? No, I didn't think so!

      Delete
  5. Again, have you not looked into this, done some research on the topic? Where do you get your information from? I feel like a school teacher. Over 93% of ALL global warming goes into the Ocean, http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051106.shtml

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/04/22/comment-on-ocean-heat-content-world-ocean-heat-content-and-thermosteric-sea-level-change-0-2000-1955-2010-by-levitus-et-al-2012/

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/31/open-letter-to-kevin-trenberth-ncar/

      Delete





All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!