[PLEASE NOTE. THERE IS NOW A LATER REVISION]
Thanks for those who have contributed. I’ve tried to include the comments and improve the wording. The intention is to put this on scef.org.uk as the introduction to the sceptic view on climate. Indeed, there may be a spread of views, which I’m happy to reflect.
I’ve tried to take account of some comments and shortened the list (for previous see: here)
Revision 0.4
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) has been increasing: in 1960 it was 0.032% of the atmosphere, today it is 0.039%.
- There has very probably been warming of average global temperatures (about 0.8 C in the past 150 years).
- There is a greenhouse effect, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
- Increasing CO2 alone should cause warming of about 1C for a doubling of CO2.
- People think there are mechanisms that could increase warming further than the direct effect of CO2. This is not supported by the evidence.
- Man-made sources have increased global levels of CO2, howecer scientific analysis shows part of the increase is natural and no one is certain how much or little of this rise is man-made.
- The harmful effects of warming have been exaggerated as shown by the absence of substantial evidence for increasing weather extremes.
- Known benefits have been hidden. It is estimated there are more than 20,000 extra winter deaths each year in the UK and increasing fuel costs will make this worse. CO2 is essential for plant growth and increasing levels are beneficial to plants.
- Even under the worst case scenario warming, when the usual method of comparing the cost and benefit of policy is used, it is more cost effective to deal with any problems that occur rather than pay to try to stop them.
- Climate proxies are not reliable. If we consider all the evidence including historical records, the evidence suggests the world was warmer during the “medieval warm period” ( and before 5,000BC) as well as being cooler during the “little ice age”.
- Climate varies naturally. Most of the CO2 rise occurred in the latter half of the 20th century. If this change were man-made the global temperature change for the early and latter 20th century should be very different. They are not. This suggests a natural cause for much of the 20th century warming.
- In 2001 the IPCC stated with a high degree of confidence that global temperature would warm. It has not. In science a theory is not valid unless the data supports it. Climate scientists must accept this theory is not validated and acknowledge that the IPCC confidence in warming was greatly overstated.
- We condemn the many instances of malpractice seen in climate science and those who condone them.
Explanatory note
Sceptics value diversity of views and there are many strands. Some sceptics reject any interpretation of the data beyond a minimal assertion of the facts. Others question the validity of isolated surface stations as representing a global temperature. There is a group of sceptics who look to other planets as a model of the earth’s climate and argue that these contradict the basis of the global warming theory. Sceptics encourage debate based on scientific evidence. We think such ideas and theories deserve consideration and require effort to substantiate or refute them based on the evidence. We particularly abhor any dismissal of potentially good science based on the preconceived prejudice that has dominated climate science and prevented debate.
ScottishSceptic 
There is NO greenhouse effect at all, of increasing temperature with increasing carbon dioxide.
Not only is the basic consensus theory fundamentally wrong, but the temperature data is highly suspect. Note that my Venus/Earth comparison confirms the Standard Atmosphere model as the equilibrium state of our atmosphere, and in that model the surface temperature is 288.15K, or 15°C, which is HIGHER, by a few tenths of a degree, than the temperatures in the official climate science datasets; this of course calls into question the whole idea of global warming over the last 150 years. There is no competent climate science, with such fundamental errors so easily uncovered as I have done. And the “skeptics’ position” here simply papers over those fundamental errors.
Harry this is very useful, because there isn’t just one sceptic view and I was getting worried that there was too much of a consensus developing.
I think we will probably agree that this isn’t a model that has a lot of support. On the other hand it is well argued from scientific principles and deserves proper consideration, although I’m not the one to do it.
Have you any suggestions how to add this? Perhaps one way is to add a statement that:
“sceptics value diversity of views and seek to encourage debate based on scientific evidence. For example, some sceptic looking to other planets as a model of the earth’s climate argue that these contradict the basis of the global warming theory. Such theories deserve consideration and require effort to substantiate or refute them based on the evidence. We particularly abhor their dismissal based on the preconceived prejudice that has dominated climate science and prevented debate.”
Warmist believe 90% possibility in GLOBAL warming, in 100y. ”Skeptics” believe 101% in GLOBAL warming…? Those ”Skeptics” are not Skeptics, but giving oxygen to the Warmist propaganda, and doing the Warmist dirty job. ”Skeptic” believing 101% in the phony GLOBAL warmings are the best Warmist tool; deserve a medal from Al Gore. How much more evidences the Fakes need, before their ego melts down and they admit that: they have being duped by Hansen and by Plimer & Lord Monckton ?!?!?!
Warmist are not stupid to admit that they have being lying all the time, as long as the Fakes promote those lies; Warmist will not fall on their sword. CO2 + H2O are NOT a GLOBAL warming gases; scared of real proofs?
Harry, looks like Warmist & fake Skeptics didn’t succeed to pull wool over your eyes. Good on ya mate!!! Warmist are admitting that is no GLOBAL warming showing – CO2 is increasing beyond anybody’s prediction – only the fake Skeptics are still obsessed about CO2 producing the phony global warmings. Please go to my website; get all the real proofs. It’s only 8-9 pages; all that’s necessary, to prove to all secular Warmist and Skeptics ( which is 80% of the population on the street) ”that: for the last 150y, all the EXTRA warming accumulated, wouldn’t be enough to boil one chicken egg!!!
Just from arguments I have seen between WUWT / Tallbloke / Climate Realists, I believe there is a whole range of views (‘beliefs’ is an extremely Bad word!).
I have been left with the impression that there are those who think there is NO greenhouse / CO2 effect (Huffman, SlayTheSkyDragon); that there are those who think there is Some effect (WUWT, Dr. Spencer), and upwards from there… though I think most Skeptics cap any ‘man-made’ effect at 30%.
I think you need to ask the creators of each Skeptic blog, just where they stand on the issue.
And if you do, please tell them for me, STOP ARGUING. It might prove we’re Not ‘big oil’ monolithic, but I am sure there are those quite willing to take advantage of that fact to try and split up our efforts.
I would also note that there was a Roman Warm Period and a Minoan Warm Period…? in between the MWP and the HCO.
Otter, thanks.
I assume you broadly agree?
I can see the list of warm periods could become quite extensive. If you don’t mind, rather than adding, it would be safer to cut it back to “medieval warm period” and “little ice age”
One of the good things about sceptics is that we do argue. It is also important that we challenge each other’s views, because that open honest debate is healthy and ensures our arguments stand up to scrutiny.
‘Argue’ was the wrong word. ‘Snark’ at each other, might be a LOT better 😛
Otter says:I would also note that there was a Roman Warm Period and a Minoan Warm Period…? in between the MWP and the HCO
Otter!!! The precursor of all evil is from ”believers” like you! Now is lots of scrutiny about Warmist literature. For 100y, before 1990, there was no scrutiny whatsoever of the shonky ”climatologists” They were presenting LOCALIZED warmings / coolings as GLOBAL = they were much bigger liars – 90% of them are in the Warmist camp; they know that was all lie. Unfortunately, the fake Skeptics don’t – Warmist are exploiting their ignorance. Roman / Minoan GLOBAL warming periods… you believe…? At that time the earth was flat / 70% of the planet didn’t exist / people were scared to sail for more than 50km west of Portugal, not to fall off the planet / it was centuries before the thermometer was invented. Who was monitoring the temperature for you at that time in Oceania, Patagonia, Australia, Antarctic, WHO?! People with ”your beliefs” that have being wasting time to study the lies about the past phony GLOBAL warmings; are keeping the Warmist propaganda alive, and slowing the exposing of the scam. Shame, shame…
In the past was hard to get funds / grants for ”climatologist” When they discover some imprint of warmer than normal some place – they declare it as GLOBAL; to get the headlines / funds. If they were presenting it as localized / the truth = no cash. Laws of physics and my formulas don’t permit the WHOLE planet to get warmer – because oxygen + nitrogen regulate the temperature – they are the most sensitive in change of temp. Expand INSTANTLY when warmed extra -> volume of the troposphere increases – takes 7minutes max, to release the extra heat and redirect extra coldness, to equalize.
Otter, start using your own brains, the ”Pagan beliefs” you have being studied; will not bring you a happy ending, but lots of shame.
Mike, thanks, this is a nice summary which I would happily sign up to.
Climate scepticism isn’t necessarily about what we agree upon, it’s based upon how many questions go unanswered. More, it’s about how many lies that have been told, whether directly or by omission. The greatest liberator of mankind so far – fossil fuel – has been tried, found guilty and condemned without ever being allowed to publicly mount a defence (a bit like the parents in child protection court cases). If it gets sent down, mankind goes with it. Freedoms we take for granted are under real threat – freedom to travel; freedom to aspire to a better standard of living (larger home); freedom to breed (forced sterilisations); freedom to be a bit careless (who wants to live in a perfect world?); and most important, freedom to progress, for a low energy world is a low innovation world because things don’t get invented if nobody can have them. I for one would like to see a real debate before I surrender to poverty.
So maybe put the sceptic case this way –
Climate is complicated – In laboratory conditions a doubling of CO2 will give rise to 1.2°C but the planetary atmosphere is not a laboratory and is more than the sum of its parts. It has ocean currents, clouds, trade winds, solar winds, warming gases, cooling gases and much, much more. Mankind does affect climate, both locally and globally but the contributions from man, from our sun and even distant stars is so convoluted that it might be impossible to calculate future climate. Climate scientists are grossly premature to condemn CO2 and predict an inevitable catastrophic future.
Nothing is obvious – It is difficult to encompass sceptic opinions because there are so many areas of the science under question. Just as one theory seems cast iron, new data emerges and things become even more confused. Computer models are black boxes into which the climate scientists program their theories. The answers are only as good as the theories and so far the real World is saying those theories aren’t right. [this needs expanding but you get the idea]
Measurements are inadequate – The planet has natural cycles, many of them lasting far longer than we have been measuring temperature or climate influencing factors (eg SO2). Longer records are gleaned from clumsy and conflicting sources like tree rings, ice cores and lake sediments. Even the lamentably short instrument record has huge faults with less than 10% of the US surface stations being of a quality to measure within 1°C of accurate. Compilers of global temperature averages continually tamper with original data values. The net effect of changes has systematically cooled the past and warmed the late 20th Century and while these may be necessary, we’ll never know because they keep no record of the justification for those changes. Satellite measurement only started in 1979 and even today does not come close to measuring all the variables that might impact on global temperature and climate.
Standards are poor –
Accountability non-existent –
Solutions are poor to hazardous –
etc
TinyCO2. That is a superb piece. You echo many of my own views which is good. I know at some point I’ve got to translate “Our views” into a persuasive argument based on those views and I think I’ve just read the first draft.
Grin.
It works both ways, I like your views too and get your frustration trying to solidify them into something persuasive to the green washed.
It occurred to me that you might want to put a section in called ‘sceptic voices’ where people can write about why they’re a sceptic or a luke warmer or an agnostic. Most sceptics are quite passionate about AGW or the solutions and aren’t shy about it. The genuine emotions are part of what has made us such a force in warmist strongholds like the Guardian.
I’ll try to work on the other headings tomorrow.
Adding people’s own views. Yes that is a good idea – fortunately, I can say that after putting your quote in!
In 1981, Hansen et al claimed wrongly that present GHG warming is 33 K. This was in my view unprofessional because it concatenated ~24 K lapse rate warming which occurs independently of whether the molecules absorb IR.
So, the real GHG warming is ~9 K. Now we look at Tyndall’s experiment supposed to prove it, also the modern PET bottle version. Both have been badly misinterpreted as shown by the significant reduction of temperature rise if you slacken the PET bottle cap – adiabatic heating from pressure rise ceases, also the extra warming because the IR absorptivity of CO2 rises significantly with temperature in the range 273-373 K..
Finally, replace the PET with a Mylar balloon and the warming becomes undetectable. So there has apparently been a dreadful mistake in assuming direct thermalisation but there is GHG warming, how?
I’m working on an idea based on my extensive knowledge of classical statistical thermodynamics, which present day science has clearly forgotten. All that is needed to avoid local thermalisation, a slow process, is to maintain Local Thermal Equilibrium. This is easy – all that happens is that immediately an IR quantum is absorbed, an identical quantum is emitted randomly by an already thermally excited GHG molecule. This is repeated for all the volumes in the atmosphere as that extra energy quantum propagates at near the speed of light until is is thermalised at a heterogeneous interface, or heads off to space.
So, thermalisation is mainly at cloud droplets which because they emit as a grey body, quench the IR specific signal. The result of this is that the GHG warming from CO2 may well be near net zero.
The lesson from the dumb climate scientists, specifically the meteorologists, is that they assume wrongly that pyrgeometers measure a real energy flow when in reality it’s a pyrometer for which the signal is an artefact of the shielding behind the detector. Without that shielding, the signal would be annulled by radiation in the opposite direction.
I am applying 40 years’ post PhD experience here; these people have seriously cocked up their junk science by making basic mistakes no professional should ever have made.
Mydogsgotnonose, although what you have written is difficult to understand, on the third reading I was beginning to see some very pertinent points.I have a horrible suspicion that IR emission from clouds isn’t dealt with properly.
Before you spend another 40 years ”researching” have in mind that: CO2 does absorb more heat / but also absorbs MORE COLDNESS at night, than oxygen + nitrogen can. Reason CO2 is used to make dry ice. Unless you believe that is sunlight 24h on every place on the planet (flat earth believer) you have to understand that: CO2 absorbs more heat during the day / more coldness during the night = those two factors ”CANCEL” each other. To shorten your experiment from 40y to 24h: put two lumps of wood and a metal bar on the sunlight (metal represents CO2 / wood represent O+N. See which one of them will get warmer, under SAME sunlight. Then monitor what happens to them at night; which one gets EXTRA coldness?? I can see that you like to complicate things, it’s nothing wrong, it’s only inferiority complex (many suffer from it). Cheers!
Stefan … you probably will not read this, but I did try to find some way to encapsulate your view in a short succinct paragraph. At least I have it has a note, but I have no idea how I explain it to someone who has no idea of science let alone thermodynamics.
PS The real warming process, accounting for the end of ice ages, also much of what has been interpreted as GHG-AGW, is reduction of cloud albedo by biofeedback. This will be published: basically Sagan’s aerosol optical physics is wrong. Fix it [a second optical process] and the sign of the net AIE reverses.
I suggest a more minimal statement might better represent the “skeptic view”. For example, the statement “There has very probably been warming of average global temperatures. This is about 0.8 C in the past 150 years.” is objectionable on the three grounds:
1) 150 years ago there was no global network of gauges by which the global temperature could be known; Even 100 years ago, the dearth of sensors in the southern hemisphere, the Arctic and the Antarctic, not to mention the ocean, would make a global claim absurd.
2) The processing and documentation thereof for land temperature gauge measurements used to calculate global temperatures (land) are not sufficient to even justify saying that the global temperatures have risen in the last 50 years. Only satellite measurements have the promise of consistency and global extent that would allow a global temperature to be measured;
3) There are no error limits associated with the 0.8 deg. C rise estimated. Part of the problem is that the processing involved in making a global temperature has not allowed the calculations (#2) to be replicated and the errors estimated. This is more than a statistical estimation problem. There is also the errors that could arise from geographic interpolation, sensor movements and replacements and the adjustment process. So, 0.8 +/- 0.1 deg. C means one thing, 0.8 +/- 1.0 deg. C means another.
While this undertaking is useful, I suggest a minimalist approach of what we know might be more useful.
Phillip, thanks for contributing. I have to say something because I personally do not think it is honest to say that sceptics have no view on how much the climate warmed. Yes as someone who put up met stations and designed precision ovens, I just want to scream out that the temperature measurements are lousy. However, when we on WUWT discussed the likely attribution, yes a majority (100%?) thought it had been up-justed, but the difference was not that large perhaps 0.2 to 0.3 degrees.
Obviously the bias in those readings and the constant upjusting is symptomatic of corruption from the group which makes it impossible to trust any interpretation they give, but is our best guess figure of “about 0.6”, so different from “about 0.8” that it prevents us saying anything? I do not think so.
Unfortunately, we have been using this minimalist approach and saying nothing and the result has been to force the media to look to others to state it for us. The result is that the media just regurgitate the nonsense the warmist say we believe.
I would prefer to say: “our best guess is that the temperatures rose around 0.5-0.6C”, but that would be an expression of an opinion not a fact. Which leaves me having to use a figure which I know to have been corrupted, but which is the only one I can base primarily on the evidence.
The defect, I’m afraid, is that you’ve advocated a political choice, not one based in science. Take away the adjustment issue, there is a clear case for having a global net of gauges to deserve a “global” appellation. And, there is also a clear case for satellite sensors over surface ones (with their celebration issues). Each issue (and I’ve picked at one only to illustrate in time available) that you are not rock solid about will reduce skeptic support and increase skeptic division. That being so, your efforts will not br helpful.
Philip Lee… you are supporting my arguments; but very short on one of them: satellite takes ”two dimensional infrared photos” it’s even more deceiving than other crappy data. Could be a layer of 5cm of 15C and 800m layer of 20C; or can be 5cm of 20C and 700m of .15C temperatures… for two dimensional photo looks the same. BUT, in the second example is tremendous amount of EXTRA heat = satellite is the most unreliable, but the most deceiving… it’s satellite… it’s NASA…WOW! It’s only another expansive wool over the people’s eyes
” We therefore call for an impartial inquiry”
The hands you are in are your very own. I fear it is a waste of time asking for/expecting anything impartial from interested parties. It’s up to us to untangle the complexity of the political pressure our science institutions have been under and put the show back on the right road.
Your attempt to draw together different views from the interested public is a good start. There will always be disagreements over the science, that’s how science progresses, but we can all agree that the institutions have been too secretive about their agendas, both internally and externally governed. We pay for a lot of it, and we have the right to demand some openness and accountability. If it isn’t forthcoming, we should with-hold our financial contributions.
Good luck with the project, and if you want the view from the talkshop on any particular issue, feel free to drop by and stick something on the suggestions page.
Cheers
Rog TB
Thanks. Yes on reflection you are right about the inquiries.
I’m very pleased at the response. It is always difficult to tell how much the views on blogs are a vocal minority and how much are shared (especially if you are the vocal minority) I’m now much clearer in my mind what views sceptics support.
But I still would like to hear more from the silent majority rather than just assume they agree.
Pingback: Scottish Climate and Energy Forum – update | ScottishSceptic
Revision 0.3
I’ve had a thought about the comments. A number of (emails) have suggested the list should be shortened. I’ve reduced the prominence of the 0.8C. I’ve taken out “catastrophic” when talking about the warming (fair point!). The para on CO2 sources has been reworded. The economic case now concentrates on cost-benefit analysis – removing the argument about dealing with knowns when they happen rather than what is unknown before hand.
The para on effects has been split and one combined with CO2 being a plant food. And I’ve taken out the whole chunk about calling for an investigation into investigations.
I also think there should be an added explanatory para along the lines of this:
sceptics value diversity of views and there are many strands. Some sceptics reject any interpretation of the data beyond minimal assertion of the facts. There is one group of sceptics who look to other planets as a model of the earth’s climate and argue that these contradict the basis of the global warming theory. Sceptics encourage debate based on scientific evidence and so think such theories deserve consideration and require effort to substantiate or refute them based on the evidence. We particularly abhor any dismissal of potentially good science based on the preconceived prejudice that has dominated climate science and prevented debate.
BOTTOM LINE:
ALL THE HEAT IN THE TROPOSPHERE OVERALL; IS ‘’the EARTH’S GLOBAL TEMPERATURE’’ Forget about USA temp, or Arctic, or Antarctic, or Mediterranean, or heat in the sea, in your oven, in the fossil fuel, or heat stored in the atoms. Unless is ALL heat combined in the troposphere ONLY, it’s = misleading / smokescreen.
1] Forget about the temperature in the sea; submarine volcanoes /hot vents increase the temp. B] winds, ruff sea cools the surface water. C] below if is 10cm of 20C and 55m of 23C; or is the opposite, nobody notices the difference; even though tremendous difference in the amount of stored heat. D] yesterday’s rain brought coldness from high up and cooled the ‘’surface’’ water; below hasn’t changed – but record will show: the Whole ocean to the bottom as colder by 2C. It’s stupid data for immature people. Designed exclusively for fundamentalist and for the Urban Sheep.
2]Forget about Arctic temperature, or surface temperature, or Antarctic temp; they are all for confusing the ‘’already confused’’ The whole temp of the troposphere is earth’s temperature!!! If one is taken on Arctic in July, was warmer than normal, England was warmer than normal in May, Brazil in December was warmer than normal, Australia was warmer than normal in January… it’s all meaningless crap. Smokescreen / puling wool over ignorant eyes. To get from 10 light years away from the truth, down to only 9 light years: they should take the on every monitoring place temperature simultaneously, on the whole planet. For example, at 12 pm Greenwich time; then to take it at 8am Greenwich time ‘’on the whole planet’’ and compare those two. Lets call it: ‘’People’s request, model for monitoring’’
3]Forget about the temperature in the stratosphere. That temp doesn’t fluctuate. B] in the stratosphere are gases as aerosol, helium, ozone. Those gases just seat / spin there and never come to the ground to bring any coldness = they are irrelevant for the planet’s temperature regulation. Are used occasionally for confusion There is no methane in the stratosphere, it’s a lie. Methane sinks in the ground, because is produced together with other compounds. If some goes up in the atmosphere at night – as soon as reaches altitude where is sunlight, UV, infrared; zaps it instantly and turns every molecule of methane into 2 molecules of water and one CO2.
4] Forget about cherry picking, always is someplace warmer than normal; unless the Swindler finds out and report the other place where is colder than normal; he is lying to you; or fundamentalist is usually lying to himself also / reassurance – fear of reality.
5]Forget about the heat in the smelters, converting ores into metals / my oven was yesterday 240C, making roast; does that means that GLOBAL temp is gone up by 225c? Idiots! Energy that came from the sun yesterday and was locked in the trees or crops – then released in 6months or 25y (the word: ‘’energy budget’’ is crap). Red soil absorbs more heat than rock – irrelevant if released in the air at 12pm or 11am. It’s not difference than them talking about the energy locked into the fossil fuel, or into the atoms = con job. Those ‘’energy budgets, positive / negative signals and albedos’’ should all go into Hansen’s & Plimer’s ass. Sand exchanges heat different than red clay. Fundamentalists from both camps: Q: what’s the difference if CO2 in the air releases the heat 2minutes before, or after?! It’s the O2+N2, stupid!!!
Rocks and clay don’t go up towards the stratosphere, to release / waste heat and exchange it for coldness. It’s the oxygen + nitrogen, they are 998999ppm, stupid! The amount of wool the Warmist pulled over the Fake Sceptic’s eyes; to keep the Fakes warm and cook their brains, is bigger than Mt Ararat. They will start ‘’researching’’ if the stew, goulash, soup, or french-fries have bigger energy budget and which of them is releasing heat faster ‘’and producing GLOBAL warming… As long as the Fakes are Warmist’ roles of toilet paper. There is money to be made on shonky researches. There is no money into acknowledging that: ‘’overall global temp is always the same; that’s what the laws of physics and my formulas say!!!
6]Forget if the sealevel goes up or down, that has noting to do with any phony GLOBAL warming. There are real reasons for it.
7]Forget about the ice on the polar caps + glaciers. They don’t depend on temperature, average temp there is minus -30C. on the land ice is melted from below, by the geothermal heat / on the sea is melted by the salty water. More ice / less ice; 100% depends on the availability of raw material for renewal of the ice every winter. That raw material / water vapour in the air, is treated as ‘’ bad for the climate’’ by the fanatics from both camps.
As soon as heat is released from wood, coal, volcanoes, smelter, plutonium, from your oven, into the air; ‘’then it becomes /belongs as GLIOBAL temperature’’. No matter if its in your room, backyard, Arctic, equator, 2-40-700m in the air, or 1-5-20km altitude. That is GLOBAL temperature. All other crappy staff is for creating zombies / fanatics / rip-off and destruction of the democratic west. If not with red Kalashnikovs / oppress them with green. CO2 is increasing, not a hint of GLOBAL warming; fake Skeptics are looking for reasons why. Because isn’t such a thing, idiots, stop helping the Warmist. The fake Skeptics are the biggest Sadomasochists.
When any extra heat is released, or produced in the air / troposphere; on the place / places released -> that O+N expands upwards, accordingly, to the extra amount of heat released. Intercepts EXTRA coldness, to equalize, and instantly shrink; not to redirect too much extra coldness. That’s what regulates the global temperature. Any other heat than the heat in the troposphere; is a smokescreen. No matter if is Arctic’s, Antarctic’s heat, or heat in the sea, or heat stored in the atoms, in the fossil fuel, or in your oven; becomes GLOBAL temp is, WHEN IS IN THE TROPOSPHERE, NO MATTER AT WHICH ALTITUDE! Cherry picking, taking in consideration irrelevant temperatures as the sea temp, but not taking ”the WHOLE warmth in the WHOLE troposphere; Warmist turned the Skeptics into roles of toiled paper – to do the Warmist dirty job. That’s the bottom line. I have proven it, but the Fakes still see CO2 as GLOBAL warming gas. BECAUSE THE WARMIST TOLD THEM SO…
Can I summarise that you think the definition of global temperature should be the “average” of the troposphere … although I presume you mean energy average and not just a simple arithmetic mean.
I prefer to call it ”warmth units” in the troposphere, ALL of it. B] if including ANY warmth that isn’t in the troposphere, is helping only the extreme Warmist – smokescreen. Troposphere cannot get read of any extra heat in the seawater – until is released in the air. .Same as; cannot get read of the warmth into the plutonium isotopes, before is released.
When is released, no matter what amount; oxygen + nitrogen register it => expand accordingly, INSTANTLY; takes 3,5 seconds the extra heat to be exchanged for coldness on the edge of the troposphere – and few minutes to drop down / spread down. Everything else is part of the mountain of Warmist produced deceit.
stephan. First I should explain that all your posts are getting caught for moderation because I’ve got one rule: “no use of the den…” word which is awkward if it is your name.
My real concern is that I’m going to have to focus on what I can make readily understandable … and perhaps more relevant … interesting for the ordinary member of the public, journalist and politician. Highly complex, and dare I say pedantic arguments, are just going to turn people off. There are plenty of sceptic sites which are full of very well argued science, critical analysis and ruthless adherence to the facts, which leave most people totally cold.
How do I counter the assertion:
“in a few years time children just won’t know what snow is”
with:-
“tropospheric warmth units may (or may not) be showing a statistically significant rise”
… indeed, it is so confusing I got that statement the wrong way around.
There is however no site which explains why sceptics are so passionate about the subject. Which is why the myth of oil funding has been so prevalent. In the absence of any explanation … the only explanation on offer however absurd, is the one everyone accepts.
In the end, I have to find a way to take what is possibly the most complex scientific thing on earth and make it sound simple and fun. Please help me!
Scotty, populist doesn’t mean correct / reliable. Laws of physics are the most reliable. They were same 5000BC, same 1234AD, same laws of physics will be in 100y as they are today. That reliability allows you to, like traveling in time. It’s easy for the people on the street to understand. It depends on those people what politicians and media respond. They don’t want to be seen as: people on the street know the truth / but politicians / media persist with lying. Those people think: if it can happen – it will happen; better play safe than sorry. The thing is that CANNOT happen.
Knowing that, the truth is on your side; but you need to elaborate on it – no matter if is not popular – it will get popular. I do get in a crossfire; same as Copernicus and Galileo did from Christians and Muslims; about the universe spinning about the earth. I was the only one, now lots of people started making similar comments. Many Skeptics are realizing that they have being duped by Plimer. Past phony GLOBAL warmings deceived lots of Skeptical people; people that supposed to stand up for the truth, that is tragic; will prolong getting the truth public – but on the end, the truth always win – time is on our side
Warmist are only scared from my proofs – avoid to argue; it’s difficult to argue against real proofs. There are lots of Warmist in the blogosphere, pretending to be ”Skeptics” but are promoting the Warmist mythology to the letter. Warmist are brilliantly organized. Plus, they know that: if the real proofs get on the street – many leading Warmist will end up in jail. The more people present the real proofs – many Warmist will start spiting the dummy. B] less money they get = will start jumping ship. As long as most of the Skeptics are into solar, galactic influences; Warmist feel safe – when GLOBAL warming doesn’t show up – they can blame the sunspots… Because Skeptics cannot connect that: same ”sunspots are for Sahara and Brazil”. Big / small climatic changes can happen; but has NOTHING to do with any phony GLOBAL warming!!! That is the sentence that Warmist are scared from. Warmist are complicating, to confuse (smokescreen)- Skeptics should simplify; the truth is not complicated. Unfortunately, most of the Skeptics are tangled into the Warmist smokescreen.
UNLESS THE ”SENSITIVITY OF OXYGEN + NITROGEN” IN CHANGE OF TEMP IS ADDRESSED; EVERYTHING ELSE IS WASTE OF TIME!!! Do those two gases expand INSTANTLY, when warmed up / shrink instantly when cooled; because they have nothing better to do – or they are like enlarging the radiator on your car, when the engine gets warmer than normal. Where those two gases expand when warmed, the temp is minus -90C. Same as when you get warmer – to deep your arm into a bucket of ice. Simplify Scotty, in the beginning you will give to many Warmist lots of insomnia – I hope you have a savage dog in your backyard. Slowly they will start adopting to the truth. If you stick to ”proxy GLOBAL warmings” Warmist will love you. Truth: the laws of physics don’t permit warmings / coolings to be global. Those laws are controlling the temperature – those laws don’t work ”only sometimes” Keep on the good work.
ANOTHER BOTTOM LINE:
To calibrate the variation in Global temperature; needs a solid / RELIABLE starting point. As: water freezes on zero centigrade / boils on 100C.
1] If you exclude part of the planet – that is not GLOBAL temperature. If you exclude 95%, as it is the case with the Conspirator’s GLOBAL temperature – it’s brainwashing business, nothing to do with the reality. If is monitored on 6000 places for IPCC, that says about the temperature on 6000m3, not GLOBAL temperature. On one small hill there are 1000 different temperature; AND THEY CONSTANTLY CHANGE for every 10 minutes in 24h. There are even days when between 10-11AM is warmer than at 12, doesn’t that matter? Temperature changes every 10 minutes – unless is data collected for every 10 minutes – is only fodder for the Urban Sheep. If upper troposphere is warmer than normal (because of dimming affect) – lower troposphere / just above the ground is always cooler / if upper atmosphere is colder – on the ground is hotter. Excluding one or the other – is not earth’s temperature; because on the earth, temperature distribution is 3 dimensional. Thermometer is for monitoring the temp in a room; not one thermometer for a million cubic kilometres. With 6000 thermometers officially monitoring for IPCC; can collect temperature for 6000 rooms; Hilton hotels have 12000 rooms – not enough thermometers to monitor those rooms; what about for the rest of the planet???
Therefore: must be included the warmth in the WHOLE troposphere / for every 10 minutes / on the WHOLE planet. Only if that is done, can be calibrated. But if that is done – no need for calibration, because OVERALL the warmth units in the Whole troposphere are ALWAYS THE SAME. Because the laws of physics and my formulas say so. They use the word ”sensitivity” to confuse the ignorant. If they use ”sensitivity” in oxygen + nitrogen in expanding when warmed / shrinking Instantly when cooled… the conspiracy would have fallen a part in days. When gets warmer than normal close to the ground, VERTICAL WINDS speed up! As soon as it cools – they slow down; why the real laws of physics are discarded? Using the word ”thermodynamics” but not using it, WHY?! Which people don’t want to see the end of the propaganda? The Warmist believe in 90% possibility in GLOBAL warming + most of the brainwashed Skeptics – they believe 101% in GLOBAL warming. They are the Devil’s advocates – doing the Warmist dirty job (the Fake Skeptics that are Warmist’ roles of toilet paper)
Horizontal winds take the heat away from solid objects / vertical winds are taking the heat up and exchange it for extra coldness / as soon as it gets warmer > the vertical winds increase in speed / strength. 2] Warmed troposphere expands accordingly / increases in volume INSTANTLY; that is the second and most important factor; taboo for both camps… Look at it on the bright side: the brainwashing propaganda will make the psychiatrist rich.
Revision 0.4
I have included a narrative to include the viewpoints which although worthwhile and useful contributions, are not ones I have seen widely accepted by sceptics.
My personal view on these is this: they do make sense. They are not irrational. I just wish some one could pay me the money to spend the time and effort or better still pay some people who really understands these subject to investigate and think about them. As it stands, I have no trust in climate science. These theories may be entirely correct but just not investigated because of their prejudice. But how can I know? It is a crime potentially good science is treated this way by those in authority.
All the ”investigation needs is: in the morning, stop the children going to school and ask them: 1] what is the atmosphere made of? (998999ppm is oxygen and nitrogen) 2] do O+N expand when warmed up? 3]where they expand upwards, on the edge of the troposphere / stratosphere, is it same temp as on the ground? 4] do those two gases wait for 10years to start expanding after warmed up; or they expand instantly? (if the children don’t want to tell you – blow some raspberry at them)
Scotty, everything I state; has being investigated / proven. All I’m doing is, connecting the
dots. It’s nightmare for the Warmist, when simplifying things.. They thrive / flourish on confusion. Don’t fall for their tricks.
Dear Mike,
Thank you for your interest in my post at BH. Some of the details of your “sceptic view” probably do not exactly reflect my own thoughts that’s true. I do not mean that as a criticism. It’s hardly surprising because within the sceptic community (if there is such a thing) there’s a wide spectrum of views and areas of disagreement. Probably many sceptics would be critical of my position and others even think it extreme. As I’m probably not a “mainstream” sceptic it would be difficult to reflect my view as part of a described consensus (that word!).
As far as I’m concerned I see absolutely no unambiguous empirical evidence that CO2 has any discernible effect on climate whatsoever (as I wrote). It may possibly have an influence but I’m damned if I see it anywhere. As for their computer models, they have never been validated in the real world, in fact the very opposite is true. They are nothing more than a pathetic sick joke, a sick joke which is being used to turn the industrialised world upside down and harm many people in the process while crooks, charlatans and politicians live it up en masse.
I will see if I can go into a bit more detail in the future but as far as I can see it’s a blindingly obvious conclusion if you look at the totality of the data..
Cererus. Perhaps: “The harmful effects of warming have been exaggerated as shown by the absence of substantial evidence for increasing weather extremes.” isn’t strong enough. I can add extra detail in the commentary on the point, but I can’t state “no evidence” because trenberth did find that highest rate of rain in the worst rainstorms had increased. It’s also difficult to say there is no harmful effects of warming (note I’ve not said harmful effects of CO2 warming).
On the model, I thought this was covered by this:
“In 2001 the IPCC stated with a high degree of confidence that global temperature would warm. It has not. In science a theory is not valid unless the data supports it. Climate scientists must accept this theory is not validated and acknowledge that the IPCC confidence in warming was greatly overstated.”
Scotty, weather extremes have nothing to do with any GLOBAL warming. 1] winds increase when is one place warmer than normal / other place colder than normal. Where is colder than normal – air shrinks -> to prevent vacuum, from warmer areas winds go to colder; that is more extreme, not GLOBAL warming. If warming is GLOBAL, no need for stronger winds. 2] tectonic plates walk same as you; left foot / right foot. When is more earthquakes, submarine volcanoes + hot vents open more in that area – all that heat is absorbed by the water – you have La Nina. Or if movement is on the other side – El Nino. It’s difficult for the sun to increase the ocean’s temp; but all submarine heat released, 100% is absorbed distributed by the water = extra evaporation = more rain. Extreme cyclones / Hurricanes coincide with big earthquakes.
Oceans are cooling themselves by increasing evaporation – evaporation is a cooling process. That creates more clouds – clouds are sun-umbrellas – intercept some of the sunlight up, where cooling is much more effective. It’s called: ”self adjusting”, no panic!!!
( I have extensive work on; why evaporation decreased since the WW2. Just a hint: more population = more olive oil, canola, pork / chicken fat, industrial oils end up in the sea -> spread on the top of the water and ”decrease evaporation” That makes warmer oceans… less rain to cool the sea – less oxygen in the water – big part of the sea cannot sustain fish for big part of the year, they blame the fishermen. Pigs / chicken production in Asia has quadrupled for the last 10y. Where do you think all that fat goes? 6 guesses)
I don’t much like the concept of “THE sceptic position”, because there isn’t just one. This encourages stereotyping of people across the spectrum who may frequently agree and disagree with friends and enemies alike.
Neither do a like the phrase “Increasing CO2 alone SHOULD cause warming of about 1C”. It smacks too much of “the science is settled” mentality. For example, if the dominance of convection in the troposphere is underestimated [as I suspect it probably is] then CO2 may have vanishingly small net effects until you look far higher in the atmosphere.
There is no mention of how CO2 cools by radiative effects. The principle of microscopic reversibility requires that if a so called greenhouse gas can cause heating, then it can also cause cooling by the same mechanism in reverse. I suspect that statement might still be greeted with howls of utter disbelief in many “green” circles, but it is not scientifically controversial.
Michael, thanks for the contribution. Perhaps I should highlight more that sceptics value diversity and see debate as positive.
There are caveats of “should” and “about” for direct CO2 warming and this uncertainty will be explained in the commentary of each point. That will make it clear that even the 1C is uncertain. E.g. Hermann Harde derived a figure of 0.45 based on the latest version of the Hitran Database.
And on CO2 being a cooling gas … you are the only other person other than me who has raised this behaviour.
”you are the only other person other than me who has raised this behaviour.”
Make it 3. For the last 4y. I have being pointing out that: CO2 is used to make DRY ICE. Because CO2 absorbs much more heat during the day than O+N (up where cooling is much more efficient) Than at night CO2 absorbs much more COLDNESS than O+N; those two factors CANCEL EACH OTHER!!! If you cannot experiment with gases; use two lumps of wood, to represent O+N, and a metal bar, to represent CO2.
The metal bar will get hotter on the same sunlight than wood, daytime – but at night metal will absorb much more coldness than wood. Unless one is flat earther, and believes that is sunlight 24h on every place, like the Warmist. Warmist promoted one factor and ignored the other – CO2 was supposed to produce dimming,same as nuclear bomb dust = so we had Nuclear Winter for year 2000. Before you even defrosted – they started using the other factor, CO2 absorbs more heat – but discarded that CO2 absorbs more coldness at night. Cherry picking is still used by both camps… they are all part of the same circus.
Added email from Neil: (my comments to him in italic)
For my benefit (to check I have something) I’ll highlight the phrase that should cover these (but do tell me if you disagree or would prefer alternative wording):
On 05/05/2012 12:23, Neil wrote:
> Hi Mike
> Thank you for the chance to contribute to your quest.
> I started out as a global warming believer. But I realised that we were not being fed true science.
In 2001 the IPCC stated with a high degree of confidence that global temperature would warm. It has not. In science a theory is not valid unless the data supports it.
&
We condemn the many instances of malpractice seen in climate science and those who condone them.
> A very narrow view was being taken. For example water vapour was being totally ignored. Yet it is a far more important green house gas than CO2. The role of the sun is obviously being down played.
NO THAT IS NOT COVERED!!!
> Gradually I have come to realise that there is very little ‘science’ in some (much) of the so called climate science.
> I think TinyCO2 gives a very good summary of the sceptics postion.
>
> I believe the climate is changing. It has always changed. It has been warmer before. The attempts by the likes of Michael Mann to remove these warm periods further strengthens my belief about the lack of science in the AGW believers camp.
I think the original had something on the climate has always varied. But this conflicts with this statement:
Climate proxies are not reliable. If we consider all the evidence including historical records, the evidence suggests the world was warmer during the “medieval warm period” as well as being cooler during the “little ice age”.
We can’t most say the climate varies, and say the proxies are unreliable. I had to choose one or the other, although I can go into this in more detail in the commentary.
> Humans do have an effect on the climate, but it is only minor, on a global scale. Local effects can be very significant. For example the Urban Heat Island effect around major cities. Mass deforestation must affect the local climate as does planting crops of different albedo. But none of this has anything to do with CO2 or greenhouse gases.
Urban heating. Again, I would love to highlight this, but whilst the lack of admission of this is symptomatic of the corruption of the subject, the scale is likely to be around 0.1-0.2C which means in my judgement it is better to cover this in the commentary (which gets bigger by the second)
> The real problem I believe we have is that these days so much science funding comes from Government, rather than philanthropists.
> Because it suits global policy to have a crisis to manage scientists are funded to produce ‘evidence’ of this crisis. It suits the purposes of those who wish to exert greater control on the lives of all humanity and return us to something like the feudal system Britain ‘enjoyed’ in its past.
> I am convinced that should some government suddenly decide to provide funding to science to find evidence that AGW does not occur that masses of evidence in against AGW will be found. Indeed much is being found already ‘on the smell of an oily rag’.
> But in the meantime, because scientists are ordinary people with families to feed and mortgages to pay just like the rest of humanity, most are forced to play the tune of those that pay their way. Under such situations open debate is well nigh impossible. In the meantime those of us who can speak out should continue to do so in the hope that the electorate at large will wake up and demand change from those in power. The best hope of that happening, but the cruellest from the point of view of humanity at large, due to the mass starvation and hardships caused by the cold, would be a collapse of the climate back to a Mini Ice Age that some are predicting.
>
> I hope this is of some use to you.
Yes,
thanks.
Mike
> I wish you success in your attempts to awaken people to this scam in your part of the world.
> I have never been to Scotland, though some of my ancestors harken from there. It is sad to see pictures of wind farms despoiling your rugged landscape all in the name of ‘saving the planet’.
> We have the same problem here. The question I ask our government, that wishes to encourage tourism, is what tourist wants to come here to see a windmill on every high hill?
>
> Regards
> Neil
(Reply from Neil to above)
Hi Mike
I am more than happy for you to use my name. I am always suspicious of Mr A Nonymous, unless of course it is someone speaking out against the mainstream whose very life may be endangered. I am not there so have no reason to withhold my name.
I take your point about climate proxies and the climate always varying. We can however say that the climate has always varied in historical times.
I admit to having trouble believing a good deal of the climate proxies even when used to refute AGW. We must be consistent in rejecting anything of dubious value irrespective of which side it supports. When ice is subject to pressure each gas will crystallize out at its own specific pressure thus altering the composition of the original trapped atmosphere. I also have difficulties with the aging of the ice. At times of rapid warming, with more melt over each summer than ice deposits the previous winter, entire layers of ice must have disappeared, erasing chunks of data.
On Urban Heat Island, I would say that the effect may only be 0.1 or 0.2, but this is still a significant chunk of the so called warming. But I know some would contend it is higher. Ian Wishart, in his book Air Con cites an E Jauregui who claims Mexico City may have a UHI effect of 6 degrees.
The UHI effect has been amplified in the global temperature record of recent years by the reduction in the number of stations used to compile the record. Again in Air Con a graph from Ross McKitrick shows a jump in global temperature in 1990 just as the number of temperature stations slumps by over 50%. Many of the deleted stations were rural or sparsely habitated places.
Regards
Neil
Pingback: The Sceptic View (Rev. 0.5) | ScottishSceptic
At last some open debate that helps folk like me to understand the continuing distortion and the principles that have lead us into this mire. It is the green religion that worries me and the zealots that prop up the biggest global hype for control and taxation, brushing aside any dissent at research and development level, using humiliation to those who dare question and offer fists of money to those who accepts their mantras, re-writing the planet’s unfolding truth, hiding the decline, the tapes, the evidence. Excellent posts.
CO2 coverage is good. Maybe a couple of points about the doomsday sea-level changes. The UK itself is a great example of rising sea levels due to natural events over the past 8000 years. My personal favourite is the Archimedes principle : (Ice supported by water doesn’t displace the water level when it melts)
Lleuad Ci , The sea doesn’t raise or sink. parts of the tectonic plates rise / others sink. If it wasn’t for the tectonic plates squashing sinking / rising, to compensate for erosion – after 2 million years, all land would have eroded and be covered by 1,9km of water. My conservative estimate is: there is enough water on the earth, to cover the highest grain of sand by nearly 2km of water. Warmist are using the most positive phenomenas for fear mongering. BOO!!!
Please note, a new revision has been produced. Revision 0.5
Comments are now closed on this post.