Comments on: Leading Climate Scientists Don’t Really Believe Their Climate Theory (Part 1)

By: Ann Novek

Ann Novek — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 01:31:06 +0000

Icecap melting at breakneck pace :

” Alarming new data finds that Greenland’s icecap continues to retreat faster than ever”

News from Greenland :

http://sermitsiaq.gl/klima/article60011.ece?lang=EN

By: Bickers

Bickers — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:01:41 +0000

People – pleased find the time (you’ll need it) to read what I believe is a seminal ‘paper’ addressed to John McCain that is quite brilliant in it’s demolition of the AGW scam:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/an_open_letter_from_the_viscou_1.html

By: Bob Tisdale

Bob Tisdale — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:27:21 +0000

SJT: Read that paragraph you quoted again. You missed the point.

By: TheWord

TheWord — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:00:39 +0000

SJT said:-”Yet after each jump, up or down, the gradual rise in temperature is there.”

So, if the temperature moves up, it’s rising, and if it moves down, don’t worry – it’s still rising!”

Anybody seen any volcanoes around recently? There’s a distinct and unexplained decline in temparature going on, at the moment. (Oh, that’s right: it’s “weather”, not “climate”. In climate terms, the temperature always goes up.)

By: Bickers

Bickers — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:18:38 +0000

No doubt the AGW nutters will have noted the early onset of Winter in many areas of North America or that the Artic Sea Ice melt did not match or exceed last year’s melt.
Here in Northern Europe we have had a miserable ‘cold’ summer – no heatwave in UK since July ‘06.
We know water covers most of our planet and besides the Sun has the biggest impact on climate, e.g. Gulf Stream stops Western Europe from freezing over.
Surely, if AGW alarmists bothered to ‘engage brain’ they might just work out that the behaviour of the Sun (its impact on our magnetic field and cloud formation) and Ocean circulation (+ the outgassing/ingestion of CO2) has the largest impact on climate.
CO2 plays a very minor role in warming, and our share of that bit part role is pathetically small.
So AGW nutters, please all move to a small island where you can continue to create scare stories whilst the rest of us carry on living in the real observable, measurable world where evidence subject to proper peer review rules the roost not hokum pokum!

By: SJT

SJT — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:45:43 +0000

“Large ENSO events create step changes in global temperature, a point that is clearly visible in the global temperature record after the 97/98 El Nino. The running total of NINO3.4 values being discussed that mimics global temperature anomaly COULD illustrate that each change in the NINO3.4 temperature creates a step change in global temperature, one that’s proportional to the magnitude of the ENSO event. As I’ve said before, it’s something that needs to be evaluated.”

A gradual change, at the rate AGW is happening, is always going to be overshadowed by the immediate jumps caused by El Nino and volcanoes.

Yet after each jump, up or down, the gradual rise in temperature is there.

By: Louis Hissink

Louis Hissink — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:09:34 +0000

Dear all

The clue is to work out the energy source for the El Ninos.

One thing debating the effects of these anomalies, another working out their physical cause.

By: Bob Tisdale

Bob Tisdale — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 09:11:14 +0000

Bill Ellis: I similarly created a series of spreadsheets that compared global temperature anomaly data to the effects of known natural forcings, and I also added the impacts of oceanic oscillations.
http://i34.tinypic.com/o8yoeg.jpg

I had completely opposite results. Anthropogenic greenhouse gases were not needed to duplicate the global temperature anomaly curve from the 1960s to present. Discussed here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/07/ocean-cycles-volcanic-aerosols-and.html

Funny how people can go though similar processes but come up with totally different results.

By: kuhnkat

kuhnkat — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 01:49:30 +0000

NT Drooled:

“What a load of rubbish. Models don’t predict the future. They make approximations as to what to expect.”

Actually, the modellers themselves tell us that the models “PROJECT CLIMATE BASED ON SCENARIOS.”

If real life does not match the scenario the model run is probably pointless. Of course, they have never been validated for any of these imaginary scenarios either.

Basically, pointless and useless other than to keep a bunch of mostly healthy people employed who could be digging up areas, that have been polluted, for reclamation!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

By: TheWord

TheWord — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:11:29 +0000

Richard Mackey: Thank you. The points I have been trying to make here are well articulated in your post. The AGWers, however, will probably ignore it. [Incidentally, those convinced that a coming global cooling can be predicted {unless they argue simple mean reversion} will probably ingore it, as well.]

Bob Illis: Nice, simple model, with tolerances down to 0.08C per decade – wow! That’s impressive accuracy. Who needs a supercomputer and a billion dollars worth of grant money? So, what happens next? How does one decide which inputs to your model occur, the order, frequency and magnitude?

The AGWers would have us believe they’ve got it nailed for the next 100 years, to accuracy approaching your 0.08C. They know all of the inputs and all of the effects. After modelling for them all, the one variable which overwhelms everything else is the one which is: (a) tiny in amount; (b) argued to be increasing in a more or less linear and predictable fashion; and (c) being calamitously increased by humans.

I’m feeling doomed, already!