Have we done the imminent Ice Age yet?

[pjclarke]

Except the Bible has many internal contradictions, the body of climate science is broadly self-consistent. My remarks on water vapour are 100% consistent.

As I invited EO, if you can find a paper that contradicts Dessler, I'd love to see it …

[EternalOptimist]

the body of science IS consistent. Climate modelling is NOT science.


for anybody out there who has not made up their mind on this yet, let me explain something.

These so-called scientists write computer programmes, models.
they do a computer run and call it an 'experiment'
they take the output and call it 'measurements'
they adjust the parameters to make these 'measurements' match the history then they pronounce it as a successful 'prediction'


I sh1t you not

these people are as scientific as my cat

frauds and charletans, one and all

[MicrosoftBob]

these people are as scientific as my cat

I'm sure my cats have been running an experiment, does bouncing on the humans bladder get them to bring us breakfast quicker

[BlasterBates]

Except the Bible has many internal contradictions, the body of climate science is broadly self-consistent. My remarks on water vapour are 100% consistent.

As I invited EO, if you can find a paper that contradicts Dessler, I'd love to see it …

voila

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...diagnos_11.pdf

[pjclarke]

the body of science IS consistent. Climate modelling is NOT science.


for anybody out there who has not made up their mind on this yet, let me explain something.

These so-called scientists write computer programmes, models.
they do a computer run and call it an 'experiment'
they take the output and call it 'measurements'
they adjust the parameters to make these 'measurements' match the history then they pronounce it as a successful 'prediction'


I sh1t you not

these people are as scientific as my cat

frauds and charletans, one and all

Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence .

Many independent lines of evidence, and over a hundred years of science indicate the reality of AGW. This is based on paeloclimate studies, observations and lastly, theory and modelling.

There's really not much controversy in the science community, nobody denies the greenhouse effect, no-one denies that human activity have increased concentrations of GHGs 30-40% above historic levels and that this has thrown the planet into a radiative imbalance, the size of which we have good estimates for, and observations of which match the theory.

The only real controversy is the amount and rate of warming the imbalance will cause, a metric called 'climate sensitivity', the standard measure being what rise in temperature will ultimately result from a doubling of CO2. The IPCC's estimate from paleoclimatic evidence and modelling is *2 to*4.5 °C with a most likely value of about 3 °C*

A low sensitivity means we have less to be concerned about. If I were motivated by a desire for the problem to go away, I would focus my 'scepticism' on the evidence for a low number - there is some - rather than wasting my time trying to deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas …

[EternalOptimist]

what are you on about, you gorp.

no one said that CO2 was not a GHG , and no one said it was not a problem.
We are saying that water vapour is a more potent ghg and the dandelions in my back garden are a bigger problem

[BrilloPad]

these people are as scientific as my cat

You are Schrodinger.

[MicrosoftBob]

[pjclarke]

voila

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...diagnos_11.pdf

Ooops. That paper …

1. Does not mention water vapour once. It is about feedbacks in general.
2. Was published in a journal not usually given over to climate science issue, and contains several fundamental flaws, eg

To help interpret the results, Spencer uses a simple model. But the simple model used by Spencer is too simple . The model has no realistic ocean, no El Niño, and no hydrological cycle, and it was tuned to give the result it gave.

3. Was thoroughly refuted in a subsequent paper in the same journal. This is how science advances.


But don't take my word for it, here is the opinion of the journal editor:

Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published.

After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/pdf


So we still await the rebuttal of Dessler's water vapour feedback findings.

[pjclarke]

what are you on about, you gorp.

no one said that CO2 was not a GHG , and no one said it was not a problem.
We are saying that water vapour is a more potent ghg and the dandelions in my back garden are a bigger problem

So, what was the implication of this?

there are 21 molecules of CO2 near the surface of mars for every one on the earth.
yet mars is at -63c

?