jennifermarohasy.com/blog - The Politics and Environment Blog

Main menu:

Subscribe

December 2008
M T W T F S S
« Nov   Jan »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Tags

Archives

Authors

Site search

Please visit

Categories

Nature Photographs

Links

Disclaimer: The inclusion of a blog or website in this list should not be taken as an endorsement of its contents by me.

Trading Carbon as a Belief

“Australia’s Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has failed to see through the vested interests that promote anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the theory that human emissions of carbon cause global warming. Though masquerading as “science based”, the promoters of AGW have a medieval outlook and are in fact anti-science. Meanwhile carbon is innocent, and the political class is plunging ahead with making us poorer because they do not understand what science really is or what the real science is.”

This is the message from David Evans, former consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office, in an opinion piece first published by ABC Unleashed.  It continues:

“The Renaissance began when the absolute authority of the church and ancient texts was overthrown. Science then evolved as our most reliable method for acquiring knowledge, free of superstition and political authority. Suppose you wanted to know whether big cannonballs or small cannonballs fell faster. In medieval times you argued theoretically with what could be gleaned from the Bible, the works of Aristotle, or maybe a Papal announcement. In the Renaissance you ignored the authorities and simply dropped cannon balls from a tower and observed what happened – this was science, where empirical evidence trumps theory.

From 1975 to 2001 the global temperature trended up. How do you empirically determine the cause of this global warming? It turns out we can learn a lot simply by observing where the warming occurred: each possible cause of global warming heats the atmosphere differently, heating some parts before others. The pattern of warming is the cause’s “signature”.

The signature of an increased greenhouse effect consists of two features: a hotspot about 10 km up in the atmosphere over the tropics, and a combination of broad stratospheric cooling and broad tropospheric warming. The signature of ozone depletion consists just of the second feature. These signatures are theoretically derived by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and are integral to our understanding of how the atmosphere works. [1]

We have been observing temperatures in the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes – weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. The radiosonde measurements for 1979-1999 show broad stratospheric cooling and broad tropospheric warming, but they show no tropical hotspot. Not even a small one. [2]

Empirically, we therefore know that an increased greenhouse effect was not a significant cause of the recent global warming. (Either that or the signatures from the IPCC are wrong, so its climate models and predictions are rubbish anyway.)

Human carbon emissions were occurring at the time but the greenhouse effect did not increase. Therefore human carbon emissions did not increase the greenhouse effect, and did not cause global warming. So AGW is wrong, and carbon is innocent. Suspect exonerated – wrong signature.

Alarmist scientists (supporters of AGW) objected that the radiosonde thermometers were not accurate and maybe the hotspot was there but went undetected. But there were hundreds of radiosondes, so statistically this is unlikely. They have also suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, and use the radiosonde wind measurements instead. When combined with a theory about wind shear they estimated the temperatures on their computers – and say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hotspot. But thermometers are designed to measure temperature, so it’s a bit of a stretch to claim that wind gauges are accidentally better at it. Serious alarmist scientists do not claim that the hotspot was found, only that we might have missed it. The obvious conclusion is that the hotspot was too weak to be easily detected. We cannot collect any more data from the past warming, and there is no sign of the hotspot in the data that was collected – so the occasional claims that appear on the Internet that the hotspot has been found are simply wrong. [3]

So can we tell from the observed warming pattern what did cause the global warming? Unfortunately we have little idea of the signatures of some of the suspects, such as cosmic rays or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, so we cannot say except to note that ozone depletion was one of the causes.

Is there any observational evidence in favor of AGW? As of 2003, none at all.

The only supporting evidence for AGW was the old ice core data. The old ice core data, gathered from 1985, showed that in the past half million years, through several global warmings and coolings, the earth’s temperature and atmospheric carbon levels rose and fell in lockstep. AGW was coming into vogue in the 1980s, so it was widely assumed that it was the carbon changes causing the temperature changes.

By the late 1990s ice core techniques had improved. In the old ice cores the data points were a few thousand years apart, but in the new ice core data they were only a few hundred years apart. In the early 1990s, New Scientist magazine anticipated that the higher-resolution data would seal the case for AGW.

But the opposite occurred. By 2003 it had been established to everyone’s satisfaction that temperature changes preceded corresponding carbon changes by an average of 800 years: so temperature changes caused carbon changes – a warmer ocean supports more carbon in the atmosphere, after delays due to mixing. [4] So the ice core data no longer supported AGW. The alarmists failed to effectively notify the public.

After several prominent public claims by skeptics in 2008 that there is no evidence left for AGW, alarmist scientists offered only two points.

First, laboratory tests prove that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. But that observation tells us nothing about how much the global temperature changes if extra carbon enters the real, complicated atmosphere. Every emitted carbon atom raises the global temperature, but the missing hotspot shows that the effect is negligible.

Second, computer models. Computer models are just huge concatenations of calculations that, individually, could have been performed on a handheld calculator. They are theory, not evidence.

Governments have spent over $50 billion on climate research since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence for AGW. [5]

So if there is no evidence to support AGW, and the missing hotspot shows that AGW is wrong, why does most of the world still believe in AGW?

Part of the answer is that science changed direction after a large constituency of vested interests had invested in AGW. The old ice core data provided support from 1985, the IPCC was established by the UN in 1988 to look into human changes to climate, and the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in 1997 to limit carbon emissions. By 1999 the western political class were doing something, the western media were rallying behind “saving the planet”, and scientists were being paid by governments to research the effects of human-caused global warming.

But then the evidence took science off in a different direction: the new ice core data in 2003, the missing hotspot in 2007, and the global temperature has stopped trending up since 2001 [6]. Governments, the media, and many scientists did not notice.

The remainder of the answer for the current belief in AGW is darker and more political. An offbeat theory in the 1970s, AGW was adopted by a group of about 45 atmospheric modelers and physicists. That group dominated climate science journals, peer reviewed each others papers, and hindered competing ideas by underhand methods [7]. AGW gained political support from proponents of nuclear power, and vice-president Gore appointed AGW supporters to science positions in the USA.

AGW grabbed control of climate funding in key western countries. Lack of diversity in science funding has been a major problem since government took over funding science in WWII. Science is like a courtroom – protagonists put forward their best cases, and out of the argument some truth emerges. But if only one side is funded and heard, then truth tends not to emerge. This happened in climate science, which is almost completely government funded and has been dominated by AGW for two decades. Skeptics are mainly scientists who are retired or who have moved on to other areas – their funding no longer depends on allegiance to AGW. The alarmists are full time, well funded, and hog the megaphone.

AGW was always promoted as being supported by nearly all scientists (though polls and history do not support this). Counting numbers of supporters and creating a bandwagon effect by announcing you are in the majority is a political tactic.

AGW always advanced principally by political means; as a scientific theory it was always weak, and now the evidence contradicts it. It’s like a return to medieval times, where authority rules and evidence is ignored. Notice how the proponents of AGW don’t want to talk about evidence of the causes? Anything but evidence of cause – attack people’s motives, someone else “has the evidence”, theoretical models, evidence that global warming is occurring, how important they are, what credentials they have, how worthy they are, the dog ate my evidence, “the science is settled”, polar bears, anything. Talking about the evidence of the cause of global warming does not advance their cause. Politics says AGW is correct; science says it is wrong.

Science demands evidence. Evidence trumps theory, no matter what the political authority of those promoting the theory, even if they dress up in lab coats and have job titles that say “scientist”. The hotspot is missing and there is no evidence for AGW. The alarmists cannot ignore this and continue to play political games forever. They are entitled to argue the case for AGW, but they should also acknowledge the evidence and inform the political class that AGW appears to be wrong – even if it means risking their status and their jobs (and yes, we scientists are also people who have kids and mortgages).

There are two central lies in the political promotion of AGW.

The first appears in Gore’s movie. He gave the old ice core data as the sole reason for believing AGW (the rest of the movie presents evidence that global warming occurred, a separate issue). He said that increases in carbon caused increases in temperature in the past warming events. But Gore made his movie in 2005, two years after the new ice core data had established the opposite! Gore’s weasel words when he introduced that segment show he knew what he was about to say was false. Who would have believed his pitch if he added “and each temperature rise occurred 800 years before the corresponding rise in carbon that caused it”? [8]

The second lie is the hockey stick graph, which presented the last thousand years of global temperature as the flat handle of a hockey stick and the next hundred as the sharply rising blade [9]. The hockey stick graph was heavily promoted by the IPCC in 2001, and the IPCC even adopted it as its logo before it got discredited. It is significant because most non-scientist AGW supporters seem to believe some version of the hockey stick. When the IPCC “scientists” who produced the graph were asked to show their data for past temperatures, they refused (true scientists share data). But one of those scientists was a British academic and subject to the British Freedom of Information Act, and after two years of stonewalling all was revealed. It showed they had grossly skewed the data (even omitting inconvenient data to a folder labeled “Censored”), and that the computer program used to process the data had the hockey stick shape built into it – you could feed it stock market data instead of tree ring data and you would still get a hockey stick! In reality it was warmer in the Middle Ages than today, and there was a mini ice age around 1700 from which we have since been warming ever since. [10] Finally, the sharply rising blade of the hockey stick is contradicted so far by actual temperatures, which from 2001 to 2008 have been flat – something all of the climate models got wrong.

Among non-scientists, AGW appeals strongly to two groups. Those who support big government love the idea of carbon regulations – if you control carbon emissions then you control most human activity. And those who like to feel morally superior to the bulk of their fellow citizens by virtue of a belief (the “warm inner glow” and moral vanity of the politically correct) are firmly attached to AGW. These groups are politically adept, are planning to spend your money and tell you how to eat, travel and how to live, and they are strenuously avoiding the evidence.

The media has avoided presenting information that undermines AGW, until recently. Instead they promoted alarmism, and discredited skeptics as being in the pay of big oil – while giving a free pass to Gore, who made a movie based on an obvious lie then made millions selling carbon offsets. The media is very keen to present evidence that global warming is occurring, but have you noticed how quiet it is on evidence that carbon emissions caused it?

In 2007 almost no one in the west knew that the hotspot was missing, that there was no evidence for AGW, that temperatures had been flat for six years, that the hockey stick was a fraud, or that Al Gore lied when he gave the old ice core data as a reason for blaming carbon. But due to the Internet the public is gradually finding out anyway, which risks further discrediting many media outlets. Why buy a newspaper if it’s not going to tell you the actual news?

And as the public become generally aware, what politician is going to risk being so ideologically stupid as to unnecessarily wreck the economy by slashing carbon emissions? Hmmm, Kevin Rudd?”

Republished from ABC Unleashed, December 19, 2008, with permission from Dr Evans.    Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.

Endnotes

[1] The IPCC published several signatures in IPCC Assessment Report 4, 2007, Chapter 9, Figure 9.1, page 675: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf

[2] The US CCSP published the observed changes in atmospheric temperatures for 1979 � 1999 in part E of Figure 5.7 on page 116 in 2006: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap5.pdf

[3] See http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf for links to debates, further commentary, and arguments from alarmist scientists.

[4] Callion’s 2003 paper is at http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf, and a colorful but informative and link-filled presentation is at http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/carbon-dioxide-and-temperatures-ice.html.

[5] The US has spent about $30b (http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/file-uploads/USGCRP-CCSP_Budget_History_Table_2.pdf) and other western countries combined have presumably spent about as much again. The UK will not release its sending figures. See also http://joannenova.com.au/2008/12/02/big-government-outspends-big-oil-1000-to-1.

[6] Look at the data from the four bodies that produce global temperature records. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but only goes back to 1979; satellites operate 24/7, measuring everywhere except the poles. Land based thermometer readings are corrupted by the urban heat island effect-and they show temperatures rising faster in areas with higher populations (see http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm and http://wattsupwiththat.com/test/).
1. Remote Sensing Systems in California. Uses only satellite data: www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSglobe.html.
2. University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). Uses only satellite data: www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.html.
3. The Hadley Centre in the UK uses a mix of satellite data and land-based thermometers: www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/HadCRUG.html.
4. The Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at NASA uses land-based thermometers (plus a few ocean thermometers), but no satellite data: www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/GISSglobal.html.

[7] For many examples from an impeccable scientist in the trenches, see http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf.

[8] A British judge ruled that when Gore presented the ice core graphs of temperature and carbon in his movie, “the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts”. The nine errors found by the judge in Gore’s movie are summarized in the graphic at http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23416151-details/Judge+attacks+nine+errors+in+Al+Gore%27s+%27alarmist%27+climate+change+film/article.do.

[9] The Australian Department of Climate Change still sports the hockey stick on its website in 2008: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/science/faq/question2.html. Hear from the scientist who uncovered the fraud: http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf.

[10] What the combined mass of independent researchers say about the historical past in 2007 is in Figure 3 at http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm (the last blue downtick seems to be due to using 30 year averages with the last period ending in about 1975, the end of the last cooling).

Advertisement

174 Responses to “Trading Carbon as a Belief”

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] Show All

  1. Comment from: Graeme Bird


    If the IPCC were to summarise a whole lot of evidence in favour of this fraud then you could go to any one part of their summary and find actual evidence. But Luke cannot do that. So Luke is lying.

  2. Comment from: Eyrie


    So Sod,

    You agree we haven’t found the hotspot but there has been measured warming (and cooling) and the hotspot might still exist . Why do you care about the existence or otherwise of the hotspot? Seems the only way the hotspot might exist is by extreme statistical manipulation to claim that its existence isn’t ruled out.

    When the data has to be so severely tortured to get anything, likely nothing much is happening. Which seems to sum up the state of the global climate nicely. There are regional droughts, regional floods, the arctic warms and the arctic cools and glaciers shrink and glaciers grow on multiple superimposed time scales ranging from the annual to the millenial and longer. Ho hum.
    Nice unimportant stuff to work on for second rate would be scientists of which there are far too many. Its the funding that attracts them.

  3. Comment from: Michael


    “time scales ranging from the annual….” – Eyrie

    Oh Lordy.

    Why can’t the irrational denialists distinguish between the seasons and the climate???………oh, sorry, I just answered my own question.

  4. Comment from: Graeme Bird


    No you are just lying Michael. Now make yourself useful and shake sod down for his explanation as to why he lied about David Evans. Lets have his idea that the warming signature would be exactly the same no matter what type of warming it is.

  5. Comment from: Michael


    What’s the Bird twittering about now?

  6. Comment from: Eyrie


    Michael,

    I got taught about the difference between weather and the climate in the first couple of days on my meteorology course. Solar cycles and the observation that there are some years where the hemispherical flow is meridional and some where it is zonal and that this pattern may persist for some years at a time were also taught.

    Do you actually know anything about meteorology? And BTW not every year is the same which is why I said annual to millenial and longer. Climatology was regarded as a retirement job for burned out meteorologists to compile statistics of past weather averages and was looked down upon as not having any predictive worth. It seems the field has tried to get above its station lately.

  7. Comment from: Michael


    There will be regional droughts and regional floods even if there was global cooling. And the sun will continue to rise and set as well.

    All of which has nothing to do with long term climate trends.

  8. Comment from: Graeme Bird


    So what was your point Michael? You were just lying about the other fellow’s position. Stop bogging down the conversation with such baseless lying, you anonymous jerk, and make good with the evidence.

    Every so often we have to interrupt your filibuster to remind you what it is you are supposed to be seeking evidence for. And so I’ll remind you now. You need evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming. Evidence for the proposition that a little bit of warming during a brutal and pulverising ice age is a BAD THING. And evidence that industrial CO2 release warms the global climate by any non-negligible amount.

    Now if you had it you’d simply hand the evidence over. But since you won’t do that you ought to admit to yourself and everyone else that you have been pushing a science fraud.

  9. Comment from: Michael


    Oh, I’ve been Birdied.

    Evidence – stratospheric cooling, tropospheric warming. That’s a hole in one.

  10. Comment from: cohenite


    The AGW model states that increased CO2 will cause more water vapor in the atmosphere; this H2O will +ve feedback and cause much more heating; there is more H2O in the tropics so it is assumed that the water effect will be pronounced there; the height at which the THS will occur is at the CEL; that height where the convectively transported CO2 rich parcel of air ceases to be warmer than the surrounding air and the LTE within the parcel breaks down; if increased water causes heating in the atmosphere this CEL will rise until the release point for the CO2 is at atmospheric heights where there is less water, that is in the stratosphere; this is why AGW theory predicts a THS and Stratosphere cooling. The theory is wrong because Specific Humidity and relative humidity levels are falling; there is no THS as conceded by such luminaries as Lambert and Smith; in fact there isn’t even unusual troposphere warming;

    http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe-m.html

    As for AGW caused Stratosphere cooling which, if there is a THS and a higher release point for the CO2, should be occurring in the lower stratosphere;

    http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Stratosphere1278-1204.gif

    The graph shows the expected volcanic warming spike; if AGW was correct the periods following the volcano spike should be trending down; they aren’t.

  11. Comment from: Michael


    Good ‘ol cohenite chips in with his goobledegook.

    Sadly, he gets it wrong. Humidity levels are rising as predicted, in most places.

  12. Comment from: cohenite


    Michael; trollish behaviour; Relative Humidity;

    http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/GlobalRelativeHumidity.jpg

    Specific Humidity;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/21/a-window-on-water-vapor-and-planetary-temperature-part-2/

  13. Comment from: Michael


    Oh, fun with graphs!

    Watt’s famously wrong-headed take on the humidity levels is our sophists choice of tact.

    Try again.

  14. Comment from: cohenite


    The graphs come direct from NOAA;

    http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/Timeseries/timeseries.pl?ntype=1&var=Specific+Humidity+%28up+to+300mb+only%29&level=300&lat1=90&lat2=-90&lon1=-180&lon2=180&iseas=1&mon1=0&mon2=11&iarea=0&typeout=2&Submit=Create+Timeseries

    Please present some contrary evidence, or be branded a troll, not that that should concern you.

  15. Comment from: Michael


    An airswing from cohenite!

    The provenience of the graphs has not been questioned, just Watt’s inability to understand what they are and what they show.

  16. Comment from: cohenite


    Favour us with your god-like understanding o great wise one; start with the 300mb chart above since that is a crucial height, being the tropical CEL; if CO2 was weaving its pungent magic that is the height at which naughty water would be increasing and aiding the CO2; is it not passing strange that water is decreasing at that level; most certainly a great mind like yours will explain this mystical contradiction.

  17. Comment from: Michael


    The first problem for Watts is that he mis-understood the graph – it’s only a reading at, not up to, 300mb. Then, it’s a very unreliable data set. The early values should have been ringing alarm bells, even without the following warning about the quality of this data,

    “Major problems are found in the means, variability and trends from 1988 to 2001 for both reanalyses from National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) and the ERA-40 reanalysis over the oceans, and for the NASA water vapor project (NVAP) dataset more generally. NCEP and ERA-40 values are reasonable over land where constrained by radiosondes. Accordingly, users of these data should take great care in accepting results as real.” – National Centre for Atmosphereic Research

    And which data set does the NOAA graph come from? NCEP.

    RSS is considered to be the best data, and as luck would have it Soden et al (2005) looked at this data and found a trend of increasing moisture between ’82 – 2004.

    In summary, Watts looked at an unreliable data set from one slice of the troposphere and drew insupportably strident conclusions despite a warning against “accepting [the] results as real”.

  18. Comment from: cohenite


    Lame and suspect Michael; Watt’s graphs are not just readings at 300mb but at every level up to 300mb; clear the Hansen fairy dust out of your [one]eye. Secondly, Soden uses NOAA ESRL data (see his latest effort with co-authors Buehler, Kuvatov, John, Milz and Jackson, 2008); RSS data is only from 1979; the NOAA data is from 1948; in any event the whole soden mess is summed up beautifully by Stockwell here;

    http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-thermodynamics-of-water-vapor-and-the-ipcc/

    You’ve also forgotten Relative Humidity; I included a graph above, but Minschwaner and Dessler had a look at that in 2003;

    http://mls.jpl.nasa.gov/library/Minschwaner_2004.pdf

    Then there is the problem of where the water is coming from; Dessler’s recent paper where he posits an increase in SH, ‘q’, based on temperature ignores the decline in Pan Evaporation over the last 30 years as found by Gifford’s team; that means the water must be coming from the ocean [if SH was increasing] which means Spencer and Braswell’s stochastic -ve feedbacks would come into play through increased cloud cover; has cloud cover been increasing, and if not, if Soden and Dessler are right, why doesn’t the increase in oceanic evaporation, which must be the source of their assumed increase in SH, produce an increase in cloud cover?

  19. Comment from: Michael


    Beautiful example of artless sophistry here from cohenite. More of his ‘scienciness’, ie. the use of scientific words and phrases with which he attempts to bludgeon science over the head.

    First he counters the published scientific literaure with a blog post. I’m sure Stockwell is a fine statistician, but a climate researcher he ain’t.

    Then he links to a paper that doesn’t do what he thinks it does. He grabs a straw and ignores the haystack. Yes they point to a small decrease in relative humidity, but confirm an increase in tropospheric moisture and the existence of a positive water vapour feedback, while also dismissing any possibility of a negative feedback.

    Ignoring this paper he linked to, cohenite then asks why there is no increase in cloud cover if there is increasing evaporation. Well, duh! (slaps forehead) The Minschwaner paper!! (hint – clouds will increase with increasing relative humidity)

  20. Comment from: cohenite


    Michael, the only thing I approve in your typically condescending comment is the slapping [slapping? quiche-man] of the forehead; keep it up, harder.

  21. Comment from: Graeme Bird.


    Right thats enough. You are not coming up with the evidence you filthy dog sod. So its time to put this thing to rest.

    Sods defamatory idiocy in this matter comes from a single realclimate thread so dishonest that not one of these pigs would put their name to it. But since it involves the failed Goddard computer model I’m blaming it on that compulsive liar Gavin Schmidt. It is on the basis of this dishonest thread that Australias useful idiots have based their critique.

    Here’s what these IDIOTS AND LIARS say:

    “The basis of the issue is that models produce an enhanced warming in the tropical troposphere when there is warming at the surface. This is true enough. Whether the warming is from greenhouse gases, El Nino’s, or solar forcing, trends aloft are enhanced. For instance, the GISS model equilibrium runs with 2xCO2 or a 2% increase in solar forcing both show a maximum around 20N to 20S around 300mb (10 km):

    The first thing to note about the two pictures is how similar they are. They both have the same enhancement in the tropics and similar amplification in the Arctic. They differ most clearly in the stratosphere (the part above 100mb) where CO2 causes cooling while solar causes warming. It’s important to note however, that these are long-term equilibrium results and therefore don’t tell you anything about the signal-to-noise ratio for any particular time period or with any particular forcings.”

    Did you catch it? These idiots, proving David Evans absolutely right, had to increase the suns power by TWO PERCENTAGE POINTS in order to get their model to produce an equivalent equilibrium hotspot.

    One of the arguments this same belly-crawling slime had for denying the role of the sun was that if you averaged each years solar output for solar cycle 23 the averaged variation was only 0.1 of 1 percent. So they had to crank up the sun twenty times that variation in order to make the two hotspots look the same. Further disproving their model and absolutely vindicating David Evans’ take on the matter.

    How much is 2%? Two percent would be a disaster. Since the planet ACCUMULATES joules and doesn’t work on this instantaneous flat earth model that the idiot side of the argument works with. And that unfortunately the rational side of the argument seems to be stuck with to some extent as well. Gavin well knows that under contemporary mainstream solar theory, right or wrong, that our sun is held to be on the MAIN SEQUENCE. What this means is that our sun is supposed to increase its average energy output 4% every billion years. Hence it would be at least about 400 million years for a solar output increase of 2% average, under Gavins own understanding of the issue.

    Now it remains the case that all these models, flawed as they were, predicted that if there were CO2-warming that it would show up disproportionately at certain heights and areas. Thats what they said and thats what David Evans said. And Gavin is NEVER willing to let go of his crap model. So he here reinforces the Evans thesis. Since he shows that to get that same hotspot he needs to crank the solar input into his stupid, yet representative model, by a whopping 2%.

    Now bloody bloody bloody bloody and I wish I could use stronger language but bloody bloody apologise SOD!!!!!!!!!!

    Its not alright for you to get about defaming people anonymously like this. On the basis of crap that Gavin will not even sign his name to. Gavin wouldn’t even refute Evans, cowardly dog that Gavin is. He knew Evans was right on the basis of Gavins own model. So that when you search for David Evans in realclimate you get a wiki page and you get a list of people who have allegedly refuted David. But they have done so on the basis of a filthy dishonest article that came from realclimate itself.

    So that filth at realclimate weren’t going to go up against David Evans. They just manipulated matters so that their useful idiots would bury the issue. This was a difficult situation for this filth because they never abandon their model. But they had to bury David Evans’ refutation of it.

    Apologise SOD.

  22. Comment from: cohenite


    Well done Bird; you’ll get nothing from sod who is nothing but a Deltoid interloper; do you have a link to that Schmidt quote; says it all really; say a few swear words for me.

  23. Comment from: Graeme Bird.


    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/

    Yeah here it is. And notice that Lambert lifted his inane argument and the diagrams straight from this hateful article that Gavin would not put his name to, like some sleezy commie spy picking up his orders from one of Stalins reps in a basement in Washington. NEVER LEAVE THE BOAT. Its like what Marlowe says when it comes to their fixation with the Goddard model. NEVER LEAVE THE MODEL. So Evans shook these guys up much more than he probably realises. They did not dare take him on directly. So look what they did:

    http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=David_Evans

    So they listed the comebacks of every dirty commie and science-grant-whore that took the bait. You go to one of these links and its got a different diagram. One that said that we did get the hotspot. But the hotspot had to be a comparative deal with what was seen on the ground. Not an absolute but a comparative deal. And a bit of solar warming wouldn’t comparatively lift temperatures in those altitudes (longitudes/latitudes) to the extent that purely greenhouse based warming would. But when you check to see the diagrams that the follicly and morally challenged pervert put up there they aren’t labelled. They tell you jack shit. And they say “see post 179 for more detail” or some such legend. Its in no way readily apparent where the hell to go to find this here more detail. So of course you know he’s lying. And that we will find that these diagrams do not represent a falsification of David Evans’ take on the matter but rather a falsification of the standard models that never work and never will.

    I wanted to lay it out right from the start but I thought I could shame that little bitch SOD into making some sort of explanation for himself.

  24. Comment from: Jennifer Marohasy » High Profile Meteorologist Declares Himself a Sceptic and Slams Climate Models


    [...] 2.  David Evans, Trading Carbon as a Belief. December 22, 2008. “Lack of diversity in science funding has been a major problem since government took over funding science in WWII. Science is like a courtroom – protagonists put forward their best cases, and out of the argument some truth emerges. But if only one side is funded and heard, then truth tends not to emerge. This happened in climate science, which is almost completely government funded and has been dominated by AGW for two decades.” http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/12/trading-carbon-as-a-belief/ [...]

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] Show All