The day it rained forever.

I remember in the 80s, My Mother and I thought it would be good to get a coach to the Isle of Wight. The weather was set fair in Surrey and we did not in those days have mobiles to check the weather elsewhere. However, When we got to the coast to catch the ferry across, the sky was obscured and the famous 'missle' set in. When we got off at the other side, it was raining in bucket loads, and so it continued through all the various places. Never even got to see Alum Bay, it was too misty and wet. After all of this when it was time to come back, when we got mid way from the Ferry to home the sky cleared and it was pleasantly warm, indeed our neighbour had just had a Bar BQ, and told us it had been a warm and pleasant day all the time we were away. What does this prove? Well you can just forget going on Coach tours, I think as the same thing happened in Blackpool in September. And now i am on my own, people say why not go on a coach trip. Bah Humbug. Brian

That remains the crux of your argument that most climate scientists disagree with - at least AIUI.

Nothing is explained there to my untrained eye - it's simply a table listing the relationship between various gases and radiative forcing. The explanations lie in the references. And even if I could access those, I wouldn't be able to understand them.

I take it you can understand - for example, Wigley, Tom (1987) Relative contributions of different trace gases to the greenhouse effect. Climate Monitor, 16. pp. 14-28. You can critique that paper in context, and in relation to subsequent related work?

Well yes, but the paper goes on the make the point that CO2 is a significant variable:

"The most recent decadal increase in radiative forcing is attributable to CO2 (56%) . . . considering anthropogenic emissions of all gases in 1990, and integrating their effect over 100 years, shows that 60%> of the greenhouse forcing from these emissions comes from CO2" (p.45)

At least AIUI. I'm sure you'll correct me :-)

Are you? And peer reviewed climate scientists don't, then?

Yes, I agree.

Anyways, I think there's coincidence and cause going on here. I don't think you're supposed to read that CO2 is the only anthropological variable - at least I don't.

OK fine, but why cite a paper that appears to refute your argument?

Reminds me of being a kid on family holiday on IoW. What to do on a rainy day, a coach tour of the island. Getting on the coach in Newport it seemed odd the driver was wearing a sou-wester and oilskin cape. Not a full coach and soon after setting off , frantic movement for some passengers to other seats. First uphill and another sudden passenger movement from the back seat. Then going down the hill , the waterproof apparell came apparent. Water had been collecting in the luggage rack from holes in the roof and cascaded over the driver. Similar had happened to those at the back. People near the wheel arches had road spray spraying over them from holes in the chassis . Makes you wonder what the state of the ex London underground trains were like in the wet.

If the relationship is non-linear, you can't even say 'so many degrees for so much CO2'.

But are they actually using the results in the global temperature averages? And why not use satellites for land temperatures as well? They would give a much better average, not overly influenced by UHI's.

So why not use satellites for all the temperature measurements, land and sea, or even better, simply measure the temperature of the troposphere (the lowest part of the atmosphere, i.e. the bit we occupy and the part most relevant to the global warming argument)? Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama (Huntsville) issues regular updates on the temperature of the troposphere, measured by satellite.

All, I think, "underground" lines have above ground sections at the ends of the line, so I suspect any leaks would have shown up when in service in London

Well, Mr/Dr/Prof Wigley came up with a relationship which has been used to calculate the change in one from the change in the other…

What I have used is their own science!

If you don’t like it or agree with it, you’ll need to find another reason on which to base your belief .

The claimed logarithmic relationship for CO2 is mentioned there.

Probably…there won’t be anything unsurprising in it.

That’s why we’re discussing it.

It’s a way of saying that deltaT=constant*ln(C/C0)

Heavens…what I quoted was from the climate scientists own work!

I cited their work to refute their argument!

Yes, and you said that was logarithmic. In which case it's non-linear and therefore see my previous comment in my previous post. It means that no-one can say 'so many degrees for so much CO2'.

That’s exactly what it does!

A relationship might be y=mx+c which is linear, or y=mx^2+c which is exponential, or y=c*(ln(x)) which is logarithmic, but none stop you calculating y from x.

what a spoilt lot you are, woolies, logburners, god help us when Putin starts on us !

that's not exponential.

Of course not. But only with linear can you take any old amount of CO2

It’s got an exponent…

The equation the IPCC uses calculates the temperature delta from the ln of the CO2 ratio, it doesn’t deal with absolute CO2 or temperature levels as a linear graph would. That’s probably because according to the IPCC hypothesis adding CO2 *adds* to whatever temperature the planet has; and according to Wigley that relationship is logarithmic.

Exponential would have x as the exponent. Winky is your friend here:

is a power function.

I thought 'parabolic' was the usual term 'cos they plot as parabolas.

Presumably Wigley was basing his analysis on Beer-Lambert.

In essence that is what the *science* says. Ex of any other factors a doubling of CO2 is just under a degree centigrade warming, which cannot account for any of the major climate swings of the last 4 billion years.

I must say I thought there was a theoretical cases for that figure in terms of absorption spectra, but yes, that is the figure that is down to CO2, and that is the figure that upset climate scientists when in the

At that point they had two choices. The sane one would have been to say 'so obviously something else is causing it' but you don't get quoted in the Guardian or appear on BBC news for that, so they chose a different hypothesis, that something was *amplifying* temperature change.

Fitting that into the model gave excellent hind-casting and predicted all the disaster that we are so familiar with - none of which has actually happened. The alternative hypothesis, that they simply didn't understand climate properly at all, and had no reason to introduce, and, as it turned out, no evidence whatsoever to support any 'amplification' - in fact quite the reverse - was the null hypothesis that would spell the end of the climate doom gravy train.

So it was buried in the small print of the actual IPCC reports, and ignored totally by the doom laden executive summary, which is all anyone read, anyway.

Climate science is bunk, it's a teeny kernel of actual science, surrounded by a turd sized lump of unwarranted assumptions, given credibility by being run through dozens of supercomputers, that give the same politically convenient but wrong, answer.

The climate is changing. The climate always *has* changed. *Most* of the reasons why it changes are simply not known, and carbon dioxide is, at its current levels, simply almost completely irrelevant. Except in terms of promoting plant growth in arid reasons, where it is doing sterling service.

That is the real state of the science. Almost complete ignorance. We still dont know what caused the Holocene optimum, the Roman warm period, the Mediaeval Warm Period or the little ice age, and that's in the last

Other periods in earths history can be vaguely aligned with asteroid strikes, prolonged volcanic eruptions or plate tectonics allowing (or obstructing) ocean currents transporting tropical heat to the poles.

As far as we can tell, periods of global warning are *followed* by periods of increased carbon dioxide, presumably from ocean outgassing of dissolved material. No examples as far as I recall of geological periods of warming being *preceded* by CO2 rise, exist. In fact when volcanoes spew it out, the general effect is to generate cold, on account of them also spewing out aerosols.

The real situation is not as is popularly portrayed, it is that climate changes and we are powerless to stop it, but might do well to prepare for it with e,g, things like tidal barriers etc and be prepared to adapt agriculture to it.

CO2 is simply a distraction, and the whole industry based on the assumption that CO2 is evil is in fact a monumental fraud.

TPTB know this, but once you start a lie, it's really hard to admit you lied, and knew you lied. Especially if your status career and income depend upon it.

Well yes, it sort of has, because buried in the mire of the models that are run to predict climate change is the base assumption that, compared with CO2, they can be safely ignored.

This is why so much effort has gone into erasing or minimizing the significance of all the pretty drastic warm and cold periods in the last 10,000 years as 'merely local effects' while one bristlecone pine on the Yamal peninsula tree (

That is not the scientific consensus. That is the *political* consensus,

The overwhelming *scientific* consensus is that CO2 makes a difference, but not enough to worry about.

Read that carefully. " 60% of the greenhouse forcing from these emissions comes from CO2"

First of all, it refers to green house forcing *only*, and secondly it refers to greenhouse forcings from "these emissions".

It implicitly * ignores every other factor* that can influence climate.

The earths climate is not controlled, only slightly affected, by 'greenhouse forcings'

And human emissions may account for 60% of all *emissions*, but not 60% of all *greenhouse gases*.

So the wording is carefully chosen to give a far bigger impression than it actually states as fact.

Why would a concerned responsible scientists do that?