Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Best evidence: The story so far.

And if you just wanted to curve fit as well as you could you could take a collection of say GCR's/PDO/NAO and other cycles add some appropriate lags (which you could probably come up with a good physical explanation for) and come up with a curve that matches brilliantly. It wouldn't prove anything but could in fact be the perfect predictor for future climate if you were lucky.

The thing to really look out for is the data that really contradicts the hypothesis. I think that data exists for the CO2 theory.

Aug 2, 2012 at 9:10 AM | Unregistered CommenterRob Burton

GHG theory =

CO2 ----> warming ----> more water vapour -----> more warming

However some of the water vapour is clouds at many different levels in the troposphere. The effect of clouds is not fully understood.

If clouds affect the warming then the GHG theory is not complete until it includes an explanation of how cloud formation is affected by CO2, temperature and water vapour. In the absence of a complete explanation there is no GHG theory.

Aug 2, 2012 at 1:31 PM | Registered CommenterDung

If clouds affect the warming then the GHG theory is not complete until it includes an explanation of how cloud formation is affected by CO2, temperature and water vapour. In the absence of a complete explanation there is no GHG theory.

Aug 2, 2012 at 1:31 PM | Dung>>>>>

The underlying surface temperature of Venus, with a CO2 concentration of 98%, is determined by lower atmosphere kinetic energy due to gravity induced atmospheric pressure [Nikolov & Keller].

Temperature variations, as on Earth, will occur due to both external effects and orbital shifts.

Research, using empirical data, for virtually ALL atmospheric solar system bodies confirms the above far more accurately than ANY research into the so called Greenhouse gasses.

Continual discussion of GHG's is a complete waste of time and intellectual effort when conflated with global climate, especially the obsessive compulsive study of temperature sets ad nauseum.

Aug 2, 2012 at 2:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

I'm not sure if this is an already known position of the Hadley Centre. From the Rougier thread and seeing that Doug is in Richard's team I also noticed that the team has done work for network rail. Seeing as I had just mentioned the railways found a climate change report for network rail by in association with the Hadley Centre.

http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/climate/documents/adapt-reports/01benchmark/bench-network-rail.pdf

From this Richard's team view is:

"All the predicted incremental changes in the climate (e.g. longer, hotter, dryer summers and warmer, wetter winters) as well as increased frequency of extreme weather events (e.g. flooding and storms) will impact on the components of the rail system..."

I don't think I was aware that the Met Office categorically stated hotter dryer summers and warmer wetter winters. To get back to rhoda's initial point it would be good to see the best evidence for these summer/winter predictions.

Aug 3, 2012 at 10:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterRob Burton

I don't think I was aware that the Met Office categorically stated hotter dryer summers and warmer wetter winters. To get back to rhoda's initial point it would be good to see the best evidence for these summer/winter predictions.

Aug 3, 2012 at 10:45 AM | Rob Burton>>>>

The planet stopped warming 15 years ago so what's the problem?

Aug 4, 2012 at 2:42 AM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

RKS
It may well turn out that the halt in the warming is the problem. The next few years will tell.

Aug 4, 2012 at 3:14 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

RKS
It may well turn out that the halt in the warming is the problem. The next few years will tell.

Aug 4, 2012 at 3:14 PM | Mike Jackson>>>>

With the level of fuel poverty the 'progressives' and their activist scientist willing dupes has forced on us the expected cooling trend could well be a very serious problem.

The southerly movement of the jet stream is considered to be not just a one off event by some studying extra terrestrial influences on the climate.

I can't quote from any one particular source but they are highlighted on several blogs.

Aug 4, 2012 at 5:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

How far into the ice age do you think we'll get before they stop saying 'it's just weather' or blaming any event on AGW? Do you think they'll seamlessly switch to blaming humanity for the cold? Do you think that CRU or the met office can ever say they were wrong, or will they just drag out some model run which predicted it all the time, within the margin of error, of course.

Aug 4, 2012 at 7:02 PM | Registered Commenterrhoda

Rhoda,
When that happens they will probably just dust off their scare stories from the 1970s when we were all doomed to freeze. Of course huge grants will be needed to support further research into how to blame mankind. They are beginning to remind me of the comment about those economic experts who successfully predicted 15 of the last 6 recessions.

Aug 6, 2012 at 11:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterMikeH

Only 'real' scientists could admit they were wrong.

Aug 6, 2012 at 11:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterDave_G

Only 'real' scientists could admit they were wrong.

Aug 6, 2012 at 11:57 PM | Dave_G>>>>>

Is there such a thing as a climate scientist?

Exactly which exams do you have to pass to become accredited as one?

Or is it just a 'soft' science like psychology or economics, where you can torture the rules to suit your latest publication?

Aug 7, 2012 at 12:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

Is there such a thing as a climate scientist?
Aug 7, 2012 at 12:58 AM RKS

As I have commented several times (although it is not my original observation):

If a subject has "science" in its title, then you'll generally find it is not science.

Aug 7, 2012 at 10:15 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

More observation evidence:

A recent paper published in the Journal of Climate finds that climate models grossly underestimate cooling of the Earth's surface due to clouds. According to the authors, "Coupled model intercomparison project (CMIP3) simulations of the climate of the 20th century show 40±20 W m−2 too little net cloud radiative cooling at the surface. Simulated clouds have correct radiative forcing when present, but models have ~50% too few clouds."

By way of comparison, the 40 W m-2 underestimate of cooling from clouds is more than 10 times the alleged warming from a doubling of CO2 concentrations [3.7 W m-2].

This paper and a host of others demonstrate that many of the key assumptions in climate models have been falsified by observations, therefore, the model predictions are also false.

http://thegwpf.org/the-climate-record/6343-new-paper-climate-models-underestimate-cooling-from-clouds.html

Aug 8, 2012 at 1:07 PM | Registered Commentermatthu

It just keeps on getting better and better!
My hypothesis that assuming there is a positive feedback effect with increased water vapour this will eventually turn negative (in layman's language) because of increase cloud cover was rapidly pooh-poohed by BBD who asked what evidence I had that the net effect of clouds was a cooling one.
And here we have real scientists with real data telling us that our common-sense approach all these years has been the right one.
No conspiracy perhaps but the eco-activist scientists have not exactly been over-fussy about making sure the facts fitted the faith, have they?

Aug 8, 2012 at 1:51 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson