|
SS 'Myth’
|
What the science REALLY says
|
1
|
Climate has changed before
|
Although SS claims humans are the
dominant force behind change, this is not so. See - LINK
|
2
|
It's the sun
|
|
3
|
It's not bad
|
|
4
|
There is no consensus
|
SS claims there is a 97% consensus but
as has been shown above, this is from a flawed study by SS's Cook.
|
5
|
It's cooling
|
SS explanation is wrong. It is cooling
|
6
|
Models are unreliable
|
|
7
|
Temperature record is unreliable
|
|
8
|
Animals/plants can adapt
|
SS says mass extinctions of species
will happen
|
9
|
It hasn't warmed since 1998
|
|
10
|
Antarctica is gaining ice
|
Antarctica IS gaining ice. Sure is. Land or sheet ice has to be distinguished from
sea ice which no one disputes is increasing.
|
11
|
Ice age predicted in the 70s
|
|
12
|
CO2 lags temperature
|
CO2 lags temperature but
amplifies warming. Nope.
|
13
|
Climate sensitivity is low
|
|
14
|
We're heading into an ice age
|
We’re heading into an ice
age. Sure are. We’re currently in an
|
15
|
Ocean acidification isn't serious
|
|
16
|
"Hockey stick is broken"
|
Hockey stick IS broken. In
fact it never existed. See items 16, 27,85,
Hockey Stick was a product of
dud statistics. Here is a full discussion of
McShane and Wyner with the alarmists
doing their worst and being shot
down in flames. See especially McShane
and Wyner’s rejoinder
|
17
|
"Climategate emails -
conspiracy"
|
The CRU emails show a
conspiracy by pro-AGW scientists to censor and lie about
AGW. They revealed fraud and unscientific process. The best review of
all the emails is by Dr John Costella and
the Montford review of the
whitewash enquiries shows the
support from within the ranks
of academia to this conspiracy
|
18
|
"Hurricanes aren't linked to
GW"
|
Hurricanes aren’t linked to global
warming. This
is as good a statement of alarmists believing something which
their own ‘science’ disproves as you’ll get. See Nature; see the IPCC and see Richard Muller. The evidence is clear: if AGW is real,
hurricane frequency and intensity will DECREASE.
|
19
|
Al Gore got it wrong
|
Al Gore got it wrong. This
point more than any other shows that Skeptical Science (SS) is
a bad joke site. The Gore law case shows 9 fundamental errors in Gore’s
film. These ‘errors’ were about things which did not exist or
were exaggerated. Lord Monckton takes it even further by
noting 35 errors. But make no mistake the Gore trial
established that Gore got it wrong.
|
20
|
Glaciers are growing
|
Glaciers are growing. Glaciers
declined during the 20thC because it got warmer, naturally. That decline
was strongest in the first part of the 20thC which contradicts AGW. The rate
of decline is now slowing, because it is not getting warmer. It’s all
here in this comprehensive peer reviewed paper.
|
21
|
It's cosmic rays
|
It’s cosmic rays. This
is a smug objection. Svensmark’s great work about cosmic rays and their
potential effect on clouds is a work in progress with new papers supporting it coming out all the time.
Saying cosmic rays do not effect climate is like saying clouds do not
effect climate (see items 67, 123).
|
22
|
1934 - hottest year
|
1934 – hottest year on record; in
the US. Actually 1936 in
the US despite attempts by GISS to remove this fact from the record. Can
you extrapolate from the US to the world? Here’s one reason, the number of temperature recording
sites, why you can. The point is we
know alarmists have manipulated temperature records and been prepared to
lie as the email scandal shows so maybe it was a hotter world-wide than
the alarmists are prepared to say.
|
23
|
It's freaking cold!
|
It’s freaking cold. The point being
made here is that weather, short term events, is different from
climate. The alarmists have determined what is a climatically valid
period; 17 years. On
that basis the pause in temperature is climatically real
|
24
|
Extreme weather isn't caused by GW
|
Extreme weather ISN'T caused by
global warming. Again the alarmists will go against their own IPCC
‘science’ to suit the narrative.
|
25
|
Sea level rise is exaggerated
|
Sea level rise IS exaggerated. See items
68, 157. Plenty of papers show this is the case. Houston and Dean is as good as any. Ablain et al 2009 and Cazenave et al 2008 confirm the slowdown in rate of sea level
rise, consistent with the pause in temperature. The 2008 Cazenave paper looks at the period from 2003-2008
and finds a decomposed (into the steric or heat and eustatic or volume
components) sea level rate of increase of ~2.3mm pa. The 2009 Ablain
paper looks at the period from 2005-2008 and finds a rate of increase of
~1.3mm pa. During the 20thC the rate of sea level increase was ~ 1.8mm
pa. But there were periods when the rate was more and when it was less,
even negative, arguably in correlation with PDO phase shifts. This is
exactly what we are seeing since 1992. From 1992-2003 we saw a rate
of increase greater than average; from 2003 we have seen a rapidly
decreasing rate of increase, again arguably in correlation with PDO
phase shift. See also HERE
|
26
|
It's Urban Heat Island effect
|
It’s the Urban Heat Island effect. AGW ‘science’ now asserts the artificial heating
of urbanisation causes no exceptional heating. This is garbage and Kauffman’s 2007 paper is still the best rebuttal of this
nonsense. Figure 6 tells it all. See item 142.
|
27
|
Medieval Warm Period was warmer
|
Medieval Warm Period WAS warmer. It was certainly warm hence the name. Was it warmer than today? Depends on who you talk to
and when. The IPCC thought so in 1990, see Figure 7.1. The IPCC also thought so in 2007, Figure 9.10. There are also plenty of peer reviewed
papers which say not only was the MWP warmer than today but
global; see here, here, here. The thing about the alarmists is the MWP,
like all their evidence, is subject to suspect revision as the Huang et al
controversy shows.
|
28
|
Mars is warming
|
Mars IS warming. Alarmist Andy Pitman says Mars warming is not relevant to
Earth. But the Sun has increased its output during the period of
Martian warming. So if the Sun was warming Mars during the
20thC surely it was warming Earth as well? Maybe it was Mars CO2?
Mars atmosphere is 95% CO2, Earth has 0.04%. But Mars CO2 is not
relevant to its warming because Mars atmosphere is too thin. Alarmist
logic: more Sun warms Mars but not Earth; but more CO2 doesn’t warm Mars
but less CO2 warms Earth.
|
29
|
Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
|
Arctic ice melt is a natural
cycle. Sure is. See items
44, 95. First of all
That was wrong. Peer reviewed papers
show the Arctic had less ice in the
|
30
|
Increasing CO2 has little/no effect
|
Increasing CO2 has little to no
effect. Correct. It’s the log decline in extra CO2. This means
more CO2 has LESS effect on temperature. It’s a diminishing return. This
has been known for a long time. Even the
IPCC concedes this noting that for CO2,
|
31
|
"Oceans are cooling"
|
Oceans are cooling. See item 90. They sure aren’t warming
according to
|
32
|
It's a 1500 year cycle
|
|
33
|
Human CO2 is tiny %
of CO2 emissions
|
See
|
34
|
IPCC is alarmist
|
Yes,
The IPCC IS Alarmist - See
|
35
|
Water vapour is the most powerful GHG
|
Water vapour IS the most powerful greenhouse gas. No question. Ramanathan, one of the great climate scientists showed that
Water Vapour has 2.5 times the radiative forcing of CO2. Ferguson
and Veizer show CO2 is secondary to water
vapour and the primary climate control ‘knob’ (see item 174), the Sun. 2 other interesting
papers on condensation by Makareiva and Gibson show that water vapour processes dwarf any
forcing by CO2.
|
36
|
Polar bear numbers are increasing
|
Polar bear numbers are
increasing. They are.
And
|
37
|
CO2 limits will harm the economy
|
CO2 limits will harm the economy. Any cost on CO2, not carbon, is a straight tax on endeavour and profit.
Every cost benefit analysis from Lomborg in Cool It, to Nordhaus, to Monckton all say that if AGW is real then adapting to
it would be vastly cheaper than attempting to control temperature by reducing
CO2 emissions in King Canute fashion by fiddling with a knob. But the real cost of controlling CO2 is not with
the grants, the bureaucrats and the overpaid academics wailing about the end
of the world. The real cost is renewables. Peter Lang and
Martin Nicholson critiqued the alarmists’ plan to
replace all other energy sources in Australia with renewables and concluded
it could work if energy use declined by over 60% and Australia was prepared
to cop the cost of over $4 trillion. World-wide this idiocy would cost
about $76
trillion! After that there would be no economy
left to harm. Maybe that is the alarmists plan.
|
38
|
It's not happening
|
It’s not happening. The temperature
pause says it all: it’s not happening.
See item 49
|
39
|
Greenland was green
|
|
40
|
Greenland is gaining ice
|
Greenland IS gaining ice. It is, on an historical basis, according to ice
expert Dr Box. As above (#39)
|
41
|
CO2 is not a pollutant
|
SS explanation is wrong, CO2 is NOT a pollutant. The EPA over nearly a decade sought legal vindication for its claim
CO2 is a pollutant despite relying on discredited IPCC
‘science’. The final Supreme
Court verdict in 2014 gave the EPA
the right to regulate existing large scale emitters of CO2 but not the vast
number of small ones. More importantly the Supreme Court specifically
resisted the EPA’s intention to interpret statute according to its
bureaucratic criteria. The Supreme Court strongly advocated the EPA was bound
by Congress. The upshot of this is if a Republican sceptic gets into the
Whitehouse when Obama’s term ends with republican majorities in both houses
this decision will change if new legislation that CO2 is not a pollutant is
introduced. In short currently CO2 is a pollutant by virtue of the EPA’s
ideological position and political fiat not the science.
|
42
|
CO2 is plant food
|
|
43
|
Other planets are warming
|
SS explanation is wrong Other planets are warming. The sun has not cooled, it warmed to
2000 and has slightly cooled since. Temperature is strongly correlated with
this. It makes sense that other planets have also warmed and they
have. The alarmists have no answer for the
warming on other planets and simply dismiss the idea that the sun has warmed
Earth. My money is with Abdussamatov
|
44
|
Arctic sea ice has recovered
|
Arctic sea ice has recovered. It has. The IPCC
in Far, Figure 7.20, page 224, shows the low point for Arctic sea ice was in 1974 which was
before the weather satellites began in 1979 (Figure 7.19 here). The Arctic had much less ice 6000 years ago. In the modern era Arctic sea ice peaked before 1950 and declined. The decline continued until 2013
when it increased. 2013 is important
because it was predicted by Gore and other alarmists that the Arctic would be ice free in Summer by 2013 (See more HERE)
|
45
|
There's no empirical evidence
|
There is no empirical evidence to
support AGW. True. For 2 main reasons. Temperature
and CO2 are not correlated; example the modern era. From 1959. 20thC. 1659. Longer. Secondly there is growing evidence CO2
increase is not caused by human emissions. See Pettersson’s work, one, two, three and overview. Salby’s work. (see item 139). Quirk’s paper. Knoor and Gloor’s work is summarised here. So even if CO2 causes temperature, for which there
is no empirical evidence, there is cogent evidence that the increase in
CO2 is not caused by humans. So, not is there no empirical evidence to
support AGW, there is empirical evidence against it. (LINK)
|
46
|
No correlation between CO2 and temp
|
here’s no correlation between CO2 and
temperature. As above. Plus an interesting post by David
Stockwell following on from Beenstock’s 2 papers. Basically temperature and CO2 are different
statistically which means there is limited correlation between
them. When you combine that with the log decline of the effect of CO2 on
temperature (see no. 30 above) you can comfortably say at the very most
the correlation between CO2 and temperature is effectively finished at
concentrations well below the current level of CO2. See More HERE.
|
47
|
We're coming out of the LIA
|
We’re coming out of a
little ice age. Yep and the same factor which
caused the LIA caused the
coming out: the Sun. TSI
from 1611, says it all
|
48
|
It cooled mid-century
|
|
49
|
Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995,
2002,
|
|
50
|
CO2 was higher in the past
|
SS explanation is wrong. CO2 was higher in the past but
the Sun was cooler. No doubt. This is known as the Snowball Earth/
faint-Sun paradox. The alarmists get into a tizzy about this because
temperature was freezing with high CO2 levels so it must have been the faint
Sun. This paradox occurred during the Archean, about 4000-2500 million years
ago. The Sun at this time was about 75-82.5% of its current glorious self
(for those interested in this sort of thing the formula for calculating this
is 1/(1 - 0.38*t/4.55), where ‘t’ is
the number of billions of years from now, negative for in the past. From
James Kasting). The alarmists say not even huge CO2 levels, up to
550 times today’s value, could have compensated for the reduced Sun so
this does not impact on AGW today where a piddling amount of CO2 can dominate
the Sun which is much hotter than it was. But really CO2 was just as
irrelevant back then as it is today. Theories abound to
explain how Earth could be so cold with high CO2 levels and more importantly
what mechanism, if not CO2, could get the Earth out from a snowball
condition. The main reasons offered are clouds and albedo.
And if you look at graphs comparing
CO2 and temperature from 600 million years ago ( another snowball
Earth scenario is suggested for 543
million years ago. See item 153) it is plain that faint Sun or not,
and at this time, the Sun had grown to about 96% of its current level, CO2
and temperature have no correlation regardless of what the Sun is
doing.
|
51
|
It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was
low
|
SS explanation is wrong. It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low. It
was a positive PDO. See items 32 and 40 above
|
52
|
Satellites show no warming in the
troposphere
|
SS explanation is wrong. Satellites
show no warming in the Troposphere. True.
RSS has shown none for at least since
1998, and UAH
for longer
|
53
|
It's aerosols
|
|
54
|
It's El Niño
|
SS explanation is wrong. It’s
El Nino. Correct. To
say El Nino or more correctly ENSO, has no trend is
ridiculous. ENSO and its agglomerate
form, the PDO (see items 32 and 48), is a crucial part of natural
variability (see item 1) and can generate a trend. The alarmists would have
the public believe that without AGW nature would stay the same. This is
ridiculous. A more pertinent issue is how much natural variability, including
PDO, has contributed to trend. There are many papers on this: see here, here, here, and here.
The alarmists position was enunciated by Foster
et al which disputed McLean
et al’s findings that natural variability in the form of the
Southern Oscillation Index (which is associated with ENSO) could produce most
of the temperature trend.
McLean et al were vindicated and the process of peer review by which
Foster et al got their paper published but McLean
et al were refused a right of reply in itself revealed the evidentiary
sham of AGW. If AGW is correct why does it stoop to censorship
|
55
|
2009-2010 winter saw record cold spells
|
|
56
|
It's not us
|
SS explanation is wrong. It’s
not us. Alarmists
want to blame humans. There is a strong
strain of misanthropy in AGW
alarmism . See item 135. Pollution used to be what harmed humans but
under the misanthropy of AGW alarmism it has become what interferes with
pristine nature. Given everything humans do interferes with nature, from
building schools to building power plants humans automatically pollute under
alarmism’s definition. As well as misanthropy alarmism is informed by
tremendous arrogance: believing that humans can control the climate on this
planet is an act of tremendous egoism. The alarmist position is hopelessly
contradictory; on the one hand alarmists think humans are like a disease or a
virus infecting the Earth, on the other alarmism regards humans as like gods
who control the climate. This cognitive dissonance was wittily depicted
in Kingsman.
It’s not us, it’s the alarmists. As for “fingerprints”; 2 fingerprints are
claimed by alarmism and are essential for it: firstly a tropical hot spot
(THS), which is
not happening; secondly, Stratospheric cooling, again not happening
since 1995 after the Pinatubo eruption
|
57
|
It's a natural cycle
|
SS explanation is wrong, It’s
natural; yep;
see items 1 and 54. As for “fingerprints”, item 56. One of the really strange
things about the primary alarmist “fingerprint”, the THS, apart from the fact
that it is not happening, is that alarmists even dispute the THS is a
“fingerprint”: see here and
comments here.
|
58
|
Kilimanjaro's ice loss is due to land
use
|
|
59
|
There's no tropospheric hot spot
|
SS explanation is wrong. There’s
no tropospheric hot spot.
No, there’s not, see items 56, 57 and part 6 here. Like all alarmist evidence the THS is shrouded
with junk science, particularly by Sherwood (see section 7 here for his first effort, and here for his second). But the evolution of the
alarmist position on the THS is also amusing. The THS is an essential element of AGW theory; AGW
says more CO2 in the atmosphere will cause more evaporation and since water
is a powerful green-house gas the extra water will cause greater warming.
This will be most pronounced in the Tropical atmosphere since the Tropics
have the most water. In email 1939 Peter Thorne, a prominent AGW scientist
says: Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the
tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and
discount a wealth of others. Despite Thorne's reservations the IPCC
published a major diagram, Figure 9.1, in its 2007 AR4 report purporting to show a THS
caused by greenhouse gases. As is plainly visible the pattern of a THS from
greenhouse gases is very different from Tropical heating caused by other
factors. There is no justification for this. Thorne has contributed to two
other major studies on the THS done after AR4. In the first study in 2008 Thorne et al concluded that the model
predictions and observations about a THS were in good agreement and that pre
1979 radiosonde temperature data, which is from weather balloons, had been
responsible for any disagreement. In his second 2011 study Thorne et al concluded that the observations
since 1979 disagreed with the model predictions but when the observations
from the radiosondes from 1958 were added the models and observations were in
reasonable agreement. Everyone is allowed to change their minds. However,
Thorne's latest paper disagrees, in varying ways, with studies by Paltridge 2009, Christy et al 2010, McKitrick et al 2010, McKitrick et al 2011, McKitrick et al 2011 and Fu et al 2011. So, there is no THS “unless you accept one single
study” which is Thorne’s.
|
60
|
It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
|
|
61
|
Scientists can't even predict weather
|
|
62
|
IPCC were wrong about Himalayan
glaciers
|
SS explanation is wrong. IPCC
was wrong about the Himalayan glaciers.
They were; see item 58.
|
63
|
Greenhouse effect has been falsified
|
SS explanation is disingenuous. See LINK
|
64
|
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts GH
theory
|
SS explanation is wrong. 2nd Law
of Thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse effect. See
above. The argument has its adherents (see above, the Slayers). A good
discussion of the main principles is here.
Basically the adherents say a cooler atmosphere cannot warm an already warmer
surface thus refuting backradiation, the deus ex machine of
alarmism. It is a pity that alarmism, a theory, which like greenhouse, is
contradictory and so full of holes it makes Swiss cheese look like a brick
fence, should denigrate an interesting discussion. For those who are
interested in the nitty gritty here is Nahle’s paper, Postma’s
response to Spencer, and Robitaille’s papers are
of interest
|
65
|
CO2 limits will hurt the poor
|
|
66
|
The science isn't settled
|
|
67
|
Clouds provide negative feedback
|
|
68
|
Sea level rise predictions are
exaggerated
|
|
69
|
It's the ocean
|
|
70
|
IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
|
|
71
|
Corals are resilient to bleaching
|
|
72
|
Volcanoes emit more CO2 than
humans
|
Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans. We don’t know; we haven’t discovered all the
submarine volcanoes; about 80% of volcanoes on
Earth are in the deep ocean.
The main source of opposition to the idea that volcanoes are the main source
of CO2 is Gerlach. Gerlach’s 1991 paper is here. A critique of Gerlach is here. A fuller exposition is here which details the gross underestimation of CO2
emissions from subaerial volcanoes while detailing the lack of knowledge
about submarine volcanoes. Plimer’s books deal with this issue but the alarmists hate
him because he has their measure. Newsflash: new study finds large increase in heating from ocean
floor via submarine volcanoes.
|
73
|
CO2 effect is saturated
|
See items 30, 46 and 145. Adding more
CO2 does not have the same response as previous additions of CO2. After a
certain level further CO2 has imperceptible effects on temperature. Its
effect is said to be saturated:
no more IR can get through or be absorbed. CO2 absorbs radiation from one
main wavelength, 15μ but also at 4.3μ. The alarmist argument is that
when the 15 band is saturated pressure broadening will see the 4.3 band begin
to absorb. As well, as the lower levels of CO2 saturate the final release of
the absorbed IR will occur higher which will cause the Stratosphere to cool
as energy is released there. We have seen the Stratosphere is not cooling
(see item 56). In regard to pressure broadening stopping CO2 from being
saturated, see here, here, here. Basically CO2 does all of its absorbing at very low heights, less than
10 meters; pressure broadening whereby the other CO2 absorption wavelength of
4.3 starts absorbing does not undo the saturation at 15 and it too becomes
saturated at a lower level. Adding more CO2 does not make the atmosphere
higher merely feeds more trees. There is no evidence that more heat is being
trapped on Earth by more CO2; in fact the energy is leaving the planet
|
74
|
Greenland ice sheet won't
collapse
|
See
item 39. The Greenland ice sheet has been smaller in warmer
conditions in the past, 3-5000 years for
instance.
Much further in the past during the Eemian Greenland had hardly any ice
sheet. There was no collapse, just a reduction but collapse sounds
much more dramatic. In fact over the last 3 million
years the
Greenland ice sheet has survived much warmer periods and shown itself to be
very stable. It’s not just the distant past; Greenland has shown little
warming from the 1800s as Jones and Briffa show, and it had a higher rate of
warming in the 1930s
|
75
|
CO2 is just a trace gas
|
See
item 33. CO2 is a trace gas but it is compared by alarmists with poisons.
This reflects on the alarmists since humans are carbon lifeforms and inhale
air with about 400PPM of CO2 while exhaling up to 6000PPM. In fact CO2
production by exhaling is about 9% of all human
emissions.
By saying CO2 is a poison alarmists are not only insulting trees, which eat CO2,
but demonstrating their misanthropy (see item 56
|
76
|
It's methane
|
|
77
|
CO2 has a short residence time
|
Yep,
but alarmism needs along residency time for CO2 to explain their predicted
warming centuries into the future. Lots of studies say
short. Essenhigh is a good one. The alarmists
wheeled out Cawley to refute Essenhigh and the merits or lack thereof, of
Cawley’s paper are discussed here. Residency can be based on one molecule
of CO2 or on a bulk basis, lots of CO2 molecules. But really, calculating the
approximate residency time of a molecule of CO2 is pretty straightforward and
can be done using ‘official’ IPCC data [sic]. On page 515 of AR4, at Fig 7.3, the annual fluxes of CO2 are listed;
the total of these fluxes is 218.2 Gt; of this 8 Gt is from human activity,
or 3.67% of the total. The other relevant data is from the US Department of
Energy at Table 3. This
shows the total emissions and absorptions; of that 218.2 CO2 flux from Fig
7.3 98.5% is reabsorbed leaving about 1.5% of emitted CO2 from all sources to
remain at the end of the year. How much of that 1.5% is from human sources
can be simply calculated by 1.5/100×3.67/100=0.000552. Put another way, after
1 year 1 CO2 molecule has a 1 in 1811.594203 chance of still being in the
atmosphere; in the second year a 1 in 120772.9469 and so on. Like every other
aspect of AGW the notion of long residency periods for CO2 is nonsense
|
78
|
CO2 measurements are suspect
|
Not
in the modern era. The
historical measurements to which the modern ones are compared are however
very suspect. Plant stomata is a more reasonable method of
measuring historical levels of CO2. The usual method of ice cores is subject
to preferential fractionation of the CO2 in the air pockets in the ice. This
simply means as pressure compacts the ice the CO2 contained in the air
trapped in the ice is the first to go. This leads to false low levels of historical CO2. Once it is recognised that past levels
of CO2 were neither much less than today or at a constant level than the
claim that the high levels of CO2 today must be due to humans falls over
|
79
|
Humidity is falling
|
It
is and this confirms Miskolczi who the alarmists love to hate (see section 4). See also Miskolczi’s 2014 paper. Basically Miskolczi theorises that as
CO2 increases humidity drops and in that way the greenhouse effect as
measured by the optical depth (OD) of the atmosphere does not change. The OD
is the number of times infra-red radiation leaving the surface is absorbed
and emitted by the atmosphere before it leaves the top of the atmosphere. Has
humidity declined and the OD remained constant. Yes and yes. Alarmism really needs more humidity
and the lengths alarmism will stoop to prove that humidity
is increasing is shown by the Paltridge-Dessler debate.
|
80
|
500 scientists refute the consensus
|
s
per item 4. The consensus is a dreadful idea. John Cook has made it
popular. Tol and Legates et al deal with the Cook paper and I
have an interesting exchange with Mr Cook here. But when it comes to numbers the
alarmists have not bettered the Oregon Petition.
|
81
|
Neptune is warming
|
|
82
|
Springs aren't advancing
|
Springs aren’t advancing. Or season creep. Apparently they are creeping
with some creepy papers alarming about
it; fleeing species and dodgy data. However, its all part of the tropical
expansion which is apparently due to PDO.
|
83
|
Jupiter is warming
|
Jupiter is warming. (see
81). Good, why should the alarmist elites living on Neptune get all the
benefit from rising real estate prices caused by warming.
|
84
|
It's land use
|
|
Interesting - formatting is off and typeset goes off the chart to the right, making reading difficult.
ReplyDeleteNo. 45 is self-contradictory. CO2 and warming are not correlated, then CO2 and warming have only a weak correlation. My understanding is that temp drives CO2 increase, so the correlation is very strong in the longer record - tens of thousands of years, but the warmists have got the causality reversed. Warmth causes CO2, not the CO2 > warming.
good chart.
The fact of the matter is that the entire Green House Gas Scam is nothing less nor more than removing the compression from gas mechanics and replacing the 30+ degrees' warming with bullshoot tales about magic making the law of thermodynamics for solving temperature of gas, not work.
ReplyDeleteOf course it does.
Green House Gas Effect mathematics ALL REMOVE the COMPRESSION from ATMOSPHERIC energy MECHANICS.
See Harry Huffman ''No Green House On Venus''
See Steven Goddard ''Hyperventilating on Venus/Venus Envy''
See Harvard Physicist LUBOS MOTL troll Goddard's ''Hyperventilating'' comments column with the promise ''I'm going to check your work on my blog (the reference frame). I'm going to debunk you:) ''
Note on Motl's own blog
(the reference frame: hyperventilating on Venus) that he admits: Goddard's right He also says what Goddard says: "I always assumed somebody checked.''
I was noticing the big red warnoff from Web of Trust in Facebook comments - yet picked up nothing on the way in. Anyway, Paul Claeyssens was making the point that if climate science was settled, there was nothing to research. Funny about that. http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=3282
ReplyDelete