OT: The best summary of the skeptics position ever.

(By UKIPS climate change advisor of course)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/10/the-profiteers-of-climate-doom/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/10/the-profiteers-of-climate-doom/
And for the 'epic failure of EU energy policy'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjvBAPkkRNc

Yet another UKIP Oxbridge graduate...
--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 10:35:14 +0000, The Natural Philosopher

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 http://tinyurl.com/gn2p9es 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 http://tinyurl.com/har2c5c . 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". http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4561951-red-hot-lies
* http://tinyurl.com/2a3kwn6
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_%28scientist%29
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry
--

Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/02/16 14:20, Chris Hogg wrote:

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.
--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 15:19:58 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
'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.
--

Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/11/2016 5:39 PM, Chris Hogg wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/02/2016 18:39, newshound wrote:

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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 18:39:21 UTC, newshound wrote:

Perhaps the public will become a bit less naive about anything calling itself science, and start to follow the money. Corrupted science has far too much influence on the nation's decisions today.

I wonder how many have died as a result of ill advised use of funds
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 13/02/16 10:30, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Social science. Psychology. Economics. Political science.
http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2012/05/30/what_separates_science_from_non-science_106278.html

Billions. Look at Lysenkoism.
'Climate Change'' looks set to beat that. The deaths wont be from actual climate change, but from policies implemented to allegedly prevent it.

--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

At least that was confined to the Soviet Union and fellow travellers.
--
HAL 9000: Dave. Put down those Windows disks. Dave. DAVE!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, 13 February 2016 11:24:47 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It would be a very different world if the huge waste of resources stopped.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18/02/16 12:43, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

What huge waste of resources?

--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, 18 February 2016 12:44:19 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Where does one begin! In most areas of resource use in the world it seems there's huge waste. What could our species achieve if the waste stopped?
A few random examples: Pseudosciences The mass manufacture & purchase of items of no real value The culture of many organisations spending their annual allotted budget on things they have no need whatever for so they don't get allotted less next year Cars that consume much more fuel than others without delivering any form of improvement Lysenkoism Fashion and so on and on and on and on.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18/02/16 13:04, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Well start anywhere. What huyge wste of resourecs?

keeps pseudoscientists off the streets.
Postively beneficial.

Keeps millions employed and makes people into happy debt slaves.,

Oils the wheels of commerce.

If they didnt deliver something, why would anyone buy one?

All part of lifes rich tapestry.
Everybody gotta do something.

--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, 18 February 2016 13:22:22 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

30% of food gets thrown out even though it's perfectly edible. Stop the buy one get one free. The fake goods such as clothiing gets destroyed. The labels should be ripped out and the clothes sent to 3rd world countries or to refugee camps or oher places where they can be used. Stop building those bloody cycle highways, astop putting so much effort into minor drug offences that don't hurt anyone and legalise it in a similar way to other presecription drugs.

Put them on the cycle highways were they belong.

but where does it keep them employed ? I'm thinking of plastic water bottles....

yes it makes commerce very slippy and you fall in all sorts of diorections you don;t want to fall in.

yes why did VW sell so many cars......

Which is why we need more stuff to buy :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[Snip]

I certainly grew up without the need for plastic water.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, 18 February 2016 13:22:22 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I see your brain's switched off
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That any of the items in your list constitute a "waste of resources", is merely your opinion.

You mean like "organic" food, homeopathy, etc?

Somewhat subjective

A favourite trick of any governmental organisation.
I have a long list but I can't be arsed to type it.
--
"People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility
with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/02/16 17:39, Chris Hogg wrote:

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.
--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/02/2016 14:20, Chris Hogg wrote:

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 :-)
--
Cheers, Rob

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.