Biscuit Fridays [bis-kit frahy-deyz, -deez] n. One day a week which is dedicated to eating biscuits on the sofa with warm milk, before the last day of the working week starts. A celebration of love, comfort and looking forward to family time at the weekend.
the change in Tory Leadership was a certainty after Brexit, the identity of the new Prime Minister came as a surprise to me. The immediate scrapping of DECC (also a complete surprise to me, who knew her views on Global Warming?) still seems to me like a fairly conclusive statement of intent, even if a fresh budget was not announced.
The UK's Global Warming budget has stripped proper sciences of research money, and misappropriated Overseas Aid for local misappropriation. I don't know how many other programmes have suffered due to Global Warming wastage, but how many people have had to mention Global Warming in order to obtain research funding in UK Universities?
I am not anticipating "Carbon Taxes" to be scrapped. Chancellors do not look at gift horses in the mouth, that was, after all, one of the selling points of global warming to financiers, increased tax revenue.
Al Capone was not jailed for killing people, but tax evasion. Climate Science is not being banned or declared illegal. The US is just going to stop funding it. The Guardian has been campaigning for people and companies to "divest" from fossil fuels, perhaps The Guardian campaign inspired Trump?
The climaterati are well established behind sandbags full of other people's money. Where will they go to hide next financial year, let alone fire from?
Obviously Skeptical Skience will carry on the fight because they rely on private finance. Allegedly. Many from Skeptical Skience also write for The Guardian. Is money changing hands, if so, which way? How much of Climate Science's publicity machine, and mercenary army of attack dogs will be celebrating Christmas 2017?
2016 has been the best year evah (!) for political banana skins, and I certainly did not anticipate any of it. No complaints at all.
I still don't know whether Climate Science made one or more errors when they decided (behind closed doors, in secret, without telling anyone else) that CO2 was guilty of everything that had ever gone wrong since the industrial revolution. No minutes have ever been produced of the clandestine meetings, however Hillary Clinton may yet have more EMail correspondence locked away on a Sinclair ZX 81 in an unmarked offshore bank vault.
Whilst Climate Science remains in complete DENIAL of ever making a single mistake about anything, I can only agree that everything about climate science should be treated as suspect. Climate Science is guilty, it now needs to prove the innocence of it's mistakes.
golfCharlie. You should be careful about using "fairy 'nuff", it's very powerful stuff. Sho'nuff is more common but not so potent, but all should stand well clear of the Arabian mobster and climateer Nuff Said.
This is what Wikipedia says, and it quotes the IPCC. So on the assumption that both were written by the same experts:
The climate sensitivity (ECS) refers to the equilibrium change in global mean near-surface air temperature that would result from a sustained doubling of the atmospheric (equivalent) carbon dioxide concentration (ΔTx2). As estimated by the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) "there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely less than 1°C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C."[4] This is a change from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), which said it was likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5 °C with a best estimate of about 3 °C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5 °C. Values substantially higher than 4.5 °C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values.[5] The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) said it was "likely to be in the range of 1.5 to 4.5 °C".[6] Other estimates of climate sensitivity are discussed later on."
It refers to "ESTIMATES" for ECS. It is presumed/assumed that ECS is greater than 1.5. Is the missing X factor, phantom multiplier, or whatever you want to call it, the reason why climate science has got it all wrong?
I am not a mathematician, but if it is assumed ECS is between 1.5 and 4.5, that is a fair margin of error, but why can't it be less than 1.5? Or nothing at all?
Climate Science is very sensitive about low sensitivity, and tends to get hot under the collar. Their attacks on Lewis and Curry would be legendary, but they are true. On the basis of hostile reception, this seems to me, to be a good place to start looking for where climate science evolved into a disaster. What percentage of climate science papers could be scrapped, without further wasted money, by throwing out all papers, authors, co-authors, that have relied on ECS being greater than 1?
Translating EM to plain honest talk: "I can't discuss my faith with the faithless if they keep relying on facts, so I will stomp off, praying to the internet god's for the internet censorship the denialists so richly deserve."
ACK, the fairies inhabiting the bottom of most gardens believe in Climate Science, but their magic dust has failed to reveal the cause of the pause, so they had to wish it away with computer aided pixel power.
Assuming a linear warming effect, a doubling of CO2 would therefore be expected to produce an increase of 100/40 * 1 = 2.5C.
If that is so, why is the temperature on Venus where the pressure 1 at. not 27°C warmer than it is now? Why does it remain 66°C when, by your figures, it should be at least 93°C?
You really don’t get it, do you, Entropic man? You continue to claim that you are a scientist, yet you continue to cleave to the myth that the warming is only because of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere – where is the empirical evidence? Answer: there is none.
Can you not consider that there could be something else, other than changing CO2 levels, that might have an effect upon global warming/climate change? “Human generated CO2”, by its very definition, has only been since the start of the Industrial Revolution, yet the global temperatures and climates have been changing upwards and downwards since the birth of the planet. What caused the decline from the Mediaeval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age? What cause the rise from the Dark Ages to the Mediaeval Warm Period? What caused the decline from the Roman Warm period to the Dark Ages?
This could go on and on and on, and you would not be able to answer one of them – because WE HAVE NO IDEA! We have theories and suppositions and possibilities, but that is all they are, and all they will ever be – no actual, verifiable, definitive cause will ever be found. It is the same for the present – we have NO REAL IDEA what is happening; the best we can do is monitor it, and devise methods to improve that monitoring, so that we might – just might – be able to determine what is causing these changes. Whether we will ever be able to devise methods to actually affect the changes, or even to effect changes to our benefit are dreams for you in La-La-Land.
Faieries need their full quota of vowels and should not be confused with pixies (dusty types) who, as you suggest, might well use their charms creating climate models. Garden bottoms are more likely to be the territories of next door Toms who would welcome a drier climate.
Congratulations. You have found a soulmate in Senator Roberts. You share a similar cognitive dissonance.
Can you not consider that there could be something else, other than changing CO2 levels, that might have an effect upon global warming/climate change?
To the contrary, there are many variables which have changed climate at one time or another; industry, land use volcanoes, solar intensity, Milankovich cycles, position of continents etc. The problem is tha when you measure them the sum of all the natural variations is neutral.. That leavies humanity as the only significant warming driver at present.
I've been a bit out of sorts with regard to commenting on climate issues lately, but this from EM shook me up:
"The problem is tha[t] when you measure them the sum of all the natural variations is neutral.. That leaves humanity as the only significant warming driver at present."
That first sentence is one heck of a claim. It might be obvious to the climate alarmism community, but it certainly isn't obvious to me, and I'd love to see it expanded upon. Any takers?
You only have to look at the Earth's geological history when some of the climate-determining factors (some mentioned by EM) varied, and over time produced very different global climates. These varied to perhaps their greatest degree at the end of the Palaeozoic and during the early Mesozoic. During the Upper Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian in N. America) there was rapid climate and sea-level changes, in part caused by Gondwana glaciations, which resulted in widespread coal deposits across N. America and Eurasia. This contrasts with the later Upper Permian and Triassic where the huge supercontinent promoted global aridity and the formation of red sediments (many wind blown) and salt deposits. In the UK this enormous global climatic change is embarked by the change from the grey sediments of the Coal Measures to overlying red sandstones and marls, some contaiining salts (as in the Cheshire Basin).
These changes clearly indicate that the non-human climate factors do not cancel each out, producing neutrality. As I've already written that is "bilge".
ACK, if Climate Science is to get a full quota of fairiy vowels, a bit more "ou" is required. This could be an ou to rhyme and mean the same as ooh, or où as in where is French Climate Science.
Mark Hodgson, if CO2 is the only driver "AT PRESENT", then what drove the Climate in the past? Nobody knows, so Mann deleted the past with the shaft of his Hockey Stick, so Climate Science could pretend that the only explanation was man made CO2. History was wiped from the memories of climate science, historians, archaeologists, geologists etc.
"Bad Law" results from rushed legislation (Dangerous Dogs Act?) or gradual evolution with case law. Rapid advances in Medical Science have been keeping ahead of the legal concept of "life" and "death".
Science has major advances with a single discovery, and then lots of smaller advances. Climate Science hinges on a few big assumptions. One of those is ECS. The accepted theory is as EM describes above, I presume, because I would not know better. ECS is an "X" factor, that multiplies everything else, that can not be clearly defined or calculated. As someone with a background in troubleshooting technical issues, it does seem worthy of further investigation.
Data is adjusted to make theoretical models match reality. I have no idea what happens when you leave the data alone but adjust the ECS. I expect Climate Scientists will say they have tried that, and it didn't work. What it may mean is that they no longer got the scary stories they had been banking on (very nicely) for 20+ years. There are only about 100 days left to save climate science, and climate science remains in Denial about making a mistake. Evah!
You can’t even keep up to date with yourself, can you, Entropic man? Remember the figure 66°C? This is the temperature that the Earth’s surface would be, were it the same distance from the Sun as Venus; this is a figure that you have agreed with many times past, as well as a figure arrived at by a range of people you have not disagreed with. Coincidentally, it is also the temperature of the Venusian atmosphere at altitudes where the pressure is 1 at. Remarkable, no?
Now, according to you (Nov 20, 2016 at 3:02 PM), environmental climate sensitivity is 2.5°C per doubling; the atmosphere of Venus is nearly 97% CO2, or more than 11 “doublings” of Earth’s present concentration – hence the ECS dictates that the temperature of the atmosphere of Venus should be about (11 x 2.5)°C warmer than it is – i.e. about +27°C, giving the supposed temperature on Venus at altitudes where the pressure is 1 at. (66 + 27)°C, or 93°C, at least. However, it isn’t; it remains at 66°C (remember that number?) – surely – surely – even to you, that means that there has to be something else involved in this planetary warming thingy that you are either unaware of or just ignoring.
But, no, you are, in your petty, pedantic, ignorant arrogance utterly convinced that YOU are right, and everyone else is wrong. I know that others have been in similar situations before, but even Einstein admitted that it would only take one fact to prove him wrong; with you, however, every fact proves you wrong, yet you still maintain that you are right! That is taking stupid to completely new levels.
If only Neanderthals had worked out how to use a QWERTY keyboard and MS-DOS, with a wooden club and spear, sabre-toothed tigers might still roam the earth, and climate scientists would now have more accurate historic weather records, that they could adjust to suit their selfish modern needs.
I shall repeat the question I asked earlier, when I gave you a link to one who has also asked that question of one of the world’s leading climate science organisations, the CSIRO, and which, bizarrely, you then use to attempt to disparage me (or him – who knows?) by saying that we are soul-mates. A very odd ad hominem attack, as I would rather be soul-mate to one who seeks Truth, than one who seeks to ignore it, or, even worse, to conceal it. So, the question: what empirical evidence is there that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is causing the atmosphere to warm? Answer: CSIRO could provide none. Perhaps, if you have such evidence, you could get yourself a bit of international recognition and provide CSIRO with that evidence that they will now crave and would no doubt be willing to pay absolutely anything to have.
(note: it does have to be empirical evidence, and replicable; just saying, “It is so, trust me,” does not count.)
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever... "You will not apply my precept," he said, shaking his head. "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? We know that he did not come through the door, the window, or the chimney. We also know that he could not have been concealed in the room, as there is no concealment possible. When, then, did he come?"
Climate Scientists claim to have eliminated all possible reasons why they might be wrong. Clearly they have made a mistake somewhere, no matter how impossible or improbable that sounds, but they are hardly going to admit it now, even if they have known for a while .....
The 33 degC greenhouse effect is a gravitational by-product when a planet has a radiative atmosphere. Anyone theorising trapped energy by any mechanism is barking (up the wrong tree). A temperature increase in a gas does not require an energy increase - only a decrese in volume. Gravity on Earth decreases the volume that is radiating to space near the surface but has no effect on energy radiation to space. The source of all energy in Earth's atmosphere (the background temperature of space and radioactive decay in its core being insignificant) is the Sun. CO2 does not add to that.
ssat. Small correction (does not affect your argument, because geothermal heat only constitutes 0.03% of the Earth's heat budget). Heat from radioactive decay comes from the crust and mantle, not the core.
ACK, as Climate Scientists threw away all knowledge of science and history that disagreed with their faith, I wonder whether leaving out that teeny weeny 00.03% geothermal heat has caused all their models to overheat.
When they get frightfully excited about CO2 rising from 00.03% - 00.04%, there does seem to be some symmetry in the number of zeroes that make up Climate Science, and them not amounting to very much.
The Earth's temperature seems to have been overall increasing (but with significant ups and downs) since the end of the little ice age. And on a longer time scale, with bigger ups and downs, since the end of the last real ice age.
To say "The 40% increase in CO2 since 1880 has produced a temperature increase of 1C" is an assertion by faith. There is a plausibility argument that CO2 has had something to do with it, but nothing better than that. Based on extrapolating what went on from 1600 to 1880, it's equally plausible to assert that CO2 had nothing much to do with it at all.
The theoretical calculations of so-called "radiative forcing" give results which roughly fit a logarithmic curve. So "assuming a linear warming effect", even for someone who has bought into the rest of the CO2 mumbo jumbo, is a dodgy assumption to say the least.
Yes it would - if all the other unverified assumptions and hypotheses of climate science were known to be valid.
But if no attention is paid to unverified assumptions, then ECS = 0 is by no means an impossible value.
golfCharlie. "there does seem to be some symmetry in the number of zeroes that make up Climate Science". Just WHO are you refering to - the "usual suspects"?
So desperate to show a significant effect of delta CO2 that the obvious has to be ignored in favour of the speculative, even with no agreement on the latter.