OT: The best summary of the skeptics position ever.

[The Natural Philosopher]

(By UKIPS climate change advisor of course)

And for the 'epic failure of EU energy policy'

Yet another UKIP Oxbridge graduate...

[Chris Hogg]

I've recently finished reading Spencer's 'The Great Global Warming Blunder'*. I need to read it again fully to understand him, but a key point in all the arguments, whether pro or anti global warming, is that feedback is the all-important factor. It's universally agreed by both sides that CO2 on it's own is only sufficient to produce a relatively small warming. As Spencer points out, there are at present

40 molecules of CO2 for every 100,000 molecules of 'air' (N2+O2), and that burning fossil fuels at the current rate for five years would increase the number of CO2 molecules to 41 (I've updated his numbers to match current figures, as his numbers refer to data about five years old). If the warming experienced at the end of the last century is due to CO2, some form of amplification has to be invoked, referred to by all sides as 'feedback'.

As many here will know, feedback can be either positive, leading to an amplification of the effect, or negative, leading to its diminution. The global warming protagonists claim that a small amount of heating (due to absorption of solar IR radiation by CO2) coupled with strong positive feedback, results in a large temperature rise.

Feedback, both positive and negative, originates from many sources. See

But reading the Wiki article leads you to the conclusion that feedback of whatever sign is extraordinarily difficult to quantify. In that case, I don't see how anyone can keep a straight face and claim to be able to calculate the effects on global temperatures of miniscule increases in atmospheric CO2, bearing in mind the uncertainties in a whole range of feedbacks, both positive and negative. It beggars belief!

Another point: warming of any sort increases CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (probably due to exsolution from the oceans as their temperature rises). This was seen clearly in the Vostok Antartic ice cores, where warming cycles, initiated by Milankovitch cycles (variations in the eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit) resulted in increases in CO2 concentrations

. If man's current output of CO2 has caused the recent warming, and that warming in turn will release CO2 from the oceans, then it seems to me we're in for thermal runaway! As this doesn't seem to be happening, it suggests a strong negative feedback process is holding the temperatures down. A strong negative feedback is something the protagonists of global warming seem unable to accept.

AIUI, Spencer suggests that clouds are the key factor. Global warming protagonists insist that clouds exert a positive feedback on temperatures, because cloud cover decreases allowing more sunshine to reach the surface. Spencer claims the opposite is the effect, and that more clouds form which reflect the sunlight and decrease the amount of sunshine reaching the surface. BIMBW, as I do need to read him again.

The more I read about global warming, the more highly qualified meteorologists and climatologists I find coming out against it. Spencer is Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center**. Another one I've just discovered is Judith Curry. She is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee#. They are serious Big Guns in the climate debate, and their opinions cannot be lightly dismissed.

I've also recently bought 'Red Hot Lies' by Christopher Horner. Not read it yet, and not even sure that I will, but the blurb says "How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed".

**

#

[The Natural Philosopher]

Well the way it is done, since you have taken the trouble to understnd this far, is this

1/. Calculate the direct effect without feedback on radiative losses of the extra CO2 . This leades to to a figure for climate sensiitivity of about 1 degrees C for every doubling of CO2 or maybe even less. Its fairly small anyway. 2/. *Assume* there will be unknown feedback of some multiplying factor - less than one is negative, more than one is positive. 3/. *Assume* that all the increase in atmospheric CO2 is because of burning fossil fuels. It isn't and it cant be because it shows massive seasonal variations,. but lets skip over that we have paymasters to satisfy, 4/. *Assume* that all the (long term) temperature rise post say 1970 is on account of CO2 increase. In the absence of any other explanation (of which there are many). 5/. That gives scary figures for climate sensitivity and implies the existence of positive feedback (or something else you didn't take into account). ***roll forward top the Great Pause in which satellites show no warming for 20 years or whatever***

This is a serious problem., It shows that one (or more) of the assumptions has to be wrong.

Or the data is simply wrong! so let's fix the data! tamperature as its now called.

Remember trillions are now riding on this. None of the usual suspects will ever get another job in science or indeed in journalism or politics ever again if AGW falls flat on its face.

Its not that the underely8ing science is wrong, its the assumption about it thst are built into the models that predict stuff that simply hasn't happened that is wrong,and the the disgraceful behaviour of government funded institutions in actually altering data to fir te political prejudices of the time - that is obscene.

Well yes, judith is a luke warmist, diplomatically she says 'carbon does in fact do a bit just not as much'

But its becoming easier to say 'the emperor has no clothes' and not lose your job.

[Chris Hogg]

'tamperature' - I like it!

It worries me that when AGW is shown to be a massive error of judgement, not only will the science of climatology be severely curtailed, but that the public's trust in science in general will be undermined, and this will be reflected in massive cuts in all science budgets funded by governments.

[newshound]

Agreed, but I am at least as worried that the mis-spending affects economic growth directly, and that this has knock-on effects on global economic stability.

[The Natural Philosopher]

MM. As long as that is reflected in massive tax cuts to individuals, what's the problem? I intend to leave a sizeable chunk to my university.

[RJH]

I'm not sure that's the case. CO2 is considered to be a significant climate variable.

And I'd have thought you'd have to ask why he's producing books, and not rigorous science in the journals.

As Spencer points out, there are at present

Again, I think that 'smallness' line is a red herring, propagated by the tabloids because it seems to make sense. It's the notion that CO2 has increased 40-odd %, and the knock ons that produces. Not the small but significant proportion by itself.

If the warming experienced at the end of the last century

I haven't come across one that doesn't have dodgy connections of some sort.

They most certainly are not 'big guns', but yes, their concerns need to be fielded.

Seriously?! Give it wide berth :-)

[RJH]

Wealth will remain maldistributed much as it is. Stability is precarious enough as nations are controlled by financiers.

[Tim Streater]

Nothing wrong with producing books for the layman or whoever. There's plenty of popular science books, written by people who are experts in their fields. Suggest you look at some by John Gribbin, Nick Lane, etc.

[RJH]

If they're written by decent scientists with a regarded track record in the field of the book - yes, of course. Not Spencer, though.

There's

Indeed - they're decent authors I think.

I do believe in balance, but I'm not going to waste too much time on populist science. Likes of Nick Lane and David Icke have their place, but really it is fantasy/fiction.

[Chris Hogg]

No you're wrong. It produces a little warming, but not enough to be concerned about. On its own, if CO2 levels doubled from the pre-industrial figure of about 270ppm, to say 540ppm, that would result in a global temperature increase of somewhere between 0.5 and 1 deg.C, depending on which layer of the atmosphere is being considered. As the atmospheric CO2 concentration is currently increasing by about

2.25ppm per annum, and as we are at about 400ppm now, it will take another 62 years to achieve that doubling figure of 540ppm.

It requires positive feedback, i.e. amplification, to make the warming significant.

He does the science in journals bit as well, see the list of publications in the Wikipedia link:

Your comment has the whiff of an 'ad hominem' argument. Would you say the same about Carl Sagan, or Richard Feynman? I doubt it.

40% of something very small is still...well...very small!

Ah, definitely 'ad hominem'! "I can't criticise what they say, so I'll cast aspersions on their integrity by highlighting their sources of funding". Pah!

I probably will, but given that a lot of the criticism leveled at the critics of global warming is 'ad hominem' (see above), there are probably elements of truth in it.

[Tim Streater]

What are you complaining about then? "decent scientists with a regarded track record in the field of the book" are the people I'm talking about.

They are, and they write interesting, thoughtful books, based on actual science.

Nick Lane (a biochemist at UCL) doesn't write fantasy/fiction. Stop talking like a twerp.

[Tim Streater]

Well he said he's a social scientist. QED.

[The Natural Philosopher]

.

He is a concern troll, that's all.

'I sort of agree with you, BUT I have this concern...'

IN this case its vague undefined aspersions cleverly done - he puts Nick Lane - a responsible scientist of some stature - in the same sentence as David Icke who is a tinfoil hatted fruit and nutcake of the first order, hoping that what the casual reader will take away is the impression they share similar views or are similarly deranged.,

Its standard marketing techniques, done very very nastily to destroy the credibility of a decent honest human being.

In short it is professional greentrolling.

I wonder why he has turned up here.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Professional troll by the way he behaves. Probably hard left or hard green or both.

[michael adams]

Ooops!

Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,[30][31] which states that "We believe Earth and its ecosystems-created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence -are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception.

And no. It isn't a hoax. Unless his opponents - all funded by this worldwide consortium of windmill, solar panel, muesli, and sandal manufacturers are also spoofing websites in his name

michael adams

...

[Chris Hogg]

You're not serious! 70%!? Tell me that's a typo. I've heard of CO2 concentrations in limestone caves deep underground, where there's no air movement, reaching 6%, for example

, but to suggest that 70% is achievable anywhere in the open atmosphere is frankly quite absurd.

If you seriously believe that atmospheric CO2 concentrations can reach

70% anywhere, then YOU are David Icke, Son of God, AICMFP!

So I see!

[The Natural Philosopher]

No, he's merely sowing vague distracting doubts. "I thought I heard someone say" etc. etc. Concern troll is all,.

Probably works for RenewableUK. Most of em do. He's a bit too educated for a greenpeace troll...

[Chris Hogg]

Ooops nothing! Another typical 'ad hominem' attack! His religious views are well known. AIUI he's a creationist or whatever they're called. If you disagree with his scientific views on global warming, then criticise them with reasoned logical argument, but him being a creationist doesn't invalidate them.

From the Wiki article -

"Roy Warren Spencer is a meteorologist, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.

He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award.

He ... joined NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center as a visiting scientist in 1984, where he later became Senior Scientist for Climate Studies. After leaving NASA in 2001, Spencer has been Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). As well as his position at UAH, Spencer is currently the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite, a position he has held since 1994."

You don't achieve all that if you aren't very capable and a respected expert in your field!

[michael adams]

Merely pointing out some of the rather unscientific statements made by this person isn't an "ad-hominem" attack. An "ad-hominem" attack would be calling him "stupid" or "a moron" for making such statements. Which I haven't done. I merely stated a fact. It's for others to make of that fact, what they will.

But unfortunately, he abandoned all that, his "scientific views" on global warming, once he'd signed up for the Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming

"Namely that the Earth and its ecosystems-created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence - are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory."

In other words nothing can possibly go wrong as God is in charge.

So any experiments or data which indicate things are going wrong are obviously flawed. As God wouldn't allow such a thing to happen.

Hadn't that point occurred to you ? AGW couldn't possibly be correct as God won't allow it.

To say nothing of the fact that his entire career has obviously been a complete waste of time. Apart from the paycheques at the end of each month, at least.

Climate research ? What's the point ? All that stuff can safely be left in God's hands

michael adams

...