Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« The decline and fall of the university | Main | Oz Met Office hacked »

Quote of the day, epic noodle edition

Ridley and Peiser claim that research is increasingly showing climate sensitivity to be low. This is entirely the opposite of what has been happening. The most likely range of values of climate sensitivity (the amount of increase in surface temperature that eventually occurs as a result of the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) was established over a century ago. Recently revealed documents show that Exxon Mobil Corporation itself studied climate science as early as the late 70’s, and its findings were in clear agreement with the National Academy of Science 1979 report, which estimated a climate sensitivity of 3°C, plus or minus 1.5° C. Tables in Exxon’s 1982 Climate Change “Primer” for executives show predictions for 2015 markedly similar to contemporary estimates by NASA, and NOAA.

Greg Laden explains that a stream of evidence for low climate sensitivity cannot exist, because in the 1970s people agreed that climate sensitivity was high.

I gather that our friend ATTP found this a powerful and persuasive argument.


PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (59)

The rate of sea level rise over the last couple of decades is around 3.2mm/yr.

So, there's been a pathetic rate of sea level rise for nearly a quarter of a century.
Forgive while I don't cr*p my pants.

C'mon AndThenThere'sPsychosis, I'd have to wait for a whole century to pass before the sea level would have risen by any noticeable amount. It's not scary, you'll have to try harder.

Dec 4, 2015 at 8:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Smith

What you do in your pants is your business. You claimed it had not accelerated. Do you at least accept now that the rate of sea level rise today is faster than the 20th century average?

Dec 4, 2015 at 8:27 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

ATTP, I thought that in the latest IPCC report, the bottom bound for sensitivity had dropped a little. Is this yet another part of the consensus which you are denying? And it is odd that Greg Laden seems unaware of the recent papers suggesting that sensitivity might not be as high as concocted in somewhat bizarre fashion for the Charney report. Is climate science allowed to advance since the 1970s, or do you want it to ossify in the same way as Islam?

Dec 4, 2015 at 10:18 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Go on then Ken, the rate of sea level rise was absolutely next to nothing at all to worry about in the last century and now this century it is still nothing to worry about.
Ken, if you told a member of the public that your 'dangerous sea level rise' amounted to roughly 3mm a year, they would laugh into their pint. Can't you see that you and all the other green zealots are worrying about really enjoying the prospect of a potential thermageddon and nobody else cares less?
Go and do something more useful in your life Ken, like gardening or stamp collecting.

Dec 4, 2015 at 11:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Smith

Oooh, now you're making stuff up and failing to acknowledge your initial error. I said nothing about dangerous. I was simply pointing out that your claim that it had not accelerated was wrong. Any reason why you seem unwilling to simply acknowledge this?

Dec 5, 2015 at 9:24 AM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

Sure, I was wrong. You were right: the rate of change of sea level has changed from absolutely nothing to worry about, to yet again absolutely nothing to worry about.

What have I made up? That your vision of an apocalypse is laughed at by the man on the street? Well, it is:
I stood by Green Park station in the centre of London last weekend and watched naive and misinformed youth, washed up old hippies, and far left radical zealots parade past on their 'Peoples Climate March'. I also saw bystanders (normal people) watch the march go past, laughing at the thermageddonists. Funnily enough, it was an overcast, windy , and damp day, so the hippies were all clothed in waterproof clothing to protect themselves from the elements. Plastic clothing, - you know the stuff, it's made from fossil fuels.

Meanwhile, just a few streets away shoppers thronged Oxford Street, walking in and out of massive heated and brightly lit shops with carbon footprints the size of Texas. Those crowds of shoppers vastly outnumbered the idiots on the climate march and those same crowds of shoppers will be on Oxford Street the day after that and for the rest of the year. They are the general public and they couldn't give a sh#t about gorebull warming or unbelievably tiny rates of sea level change.

Face it Ken, no one cares about your daft cause, but some of us who are aware of the scam hate being hit in the pocket to pay for the ridiculous subsidies and grants that the Green Blob receives.

Dec 5, 2015 at 12:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Smith


Sure, I was wrong. You were right


Face it Ken, no one cares about your daft cause, but some of us who are aware of the scam hate being hit in the pocket to pay for the ridiculous subsidies and grants that the Green Blob receives.

Oh well, it couldn't last. I don't really have a cause, especially not the one you've constructed.

Dec 5, 2015 at 12:28 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

I find it's refreshing to admit when I'm wrong. Being able to admit when you're wrong is the sign of a true scientific sceptic. You should try it sometime.

I don't really have a cause

Dec 5, 2015 at 12:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Smith

Popped into to realise the clueless ATTP has agreed with me.

Dec 6, 2015 at 12:16 PM | Registered Commentershub

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>