BBC News – Global warming slowdown ‘could last another decade’

Posted: August 21, 2014 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, Forecasting, Uncertainty

Ocean currents [image credit: BBC]

Ocean currents
[image credit: BBC]


Bad news for fans of global warming theory dreaming of ‘strong’ El Ninos or indeed anything that might point global temperature stats in an upward direction.

Even the BBC is having to come to terms with climate reality, to some limited extent at least.

BBC News – Global warming slowdown 'could last another decade'.

The cluelessness is clear when they say:
‘The latest theory says that a naturally occurring 30-year cycle in the Atlantic Ocean is behind the slowdown.’

But surely the BBC believes CO2 is more potent than natural causes? We’ve had to listen to such claims from BBC pundits and others for years – now they are forced by reality to backtrack and admit they were hopelessly wrong.

Of course they still pretend to know that warming will take off at some future date – perhaps 2025 they say – but this is little more than conjecture masquerading as expertise.

The whole notion of a ‘slowdown’ is itself an assumption based on a discredited theory. The climbdown from the warming high horse is well under way now.

Comments
  1. Joe Public says:

    McGrath at his eloquent best:

    “Scientists have struggled to explain the so-called pause that began in 1999 …….”

    After 15 years, he has the temerity to describe it as ‘so called’.

  2. johnbuk says:

    What do they mean by “slowdown”? It’s not warming as fast? Or is this another euphemism for “stopped”?

  3. Andrew says:

    KK Tung is still desperately holding on to AGW causing all the warming before the pause.

    ” The anthropogenic warming I think is what causes the staircase to rise, because of Global warming the current stair step is higher than the previous step. It is not from coming out of the LIA or the Sun..”

    This is a reply to J.Curry about why is this hiatus is warmer than the last two.

  4. John Silver says:

    He is absolutely right to describe it as a “so called pause” since it is a peak, not a pause.
    A neutral word that can be used by both sides is “plateau”.

  5. hunter says:

    The main thing this pause/halt/hiatus/plateau is, is it is a failure of the climate obsessed consensus: There is no climate crisis as predicted by the consensus.
    They lost, skeptics won..

  6. wayne says:

    That is exactly what I think will happen as to the “pause”.

    Adjustments will keep be piled on which makes this global cooling period we are currently in (anyone else noticed the cooling lately?) look flat instead of a downward slide and come the end of this ~30 year down cycle you can bet they will finally be showing, yep, the long awaited “Global Warming is back” routing fresh for the next generation. Of course, by that time the 1930-40’s Dust Bowl Days temperature “station records” will have been pushed down to the point they look like the years without summers and they better get busy destroying the documentaries by PBS on the horrid heat that fried all fields into dust.

    Tony over at Real Science has his finger planted firmly on those adjustments … thank goodness!

  7. doug Proctor says:

    We haven’t seen any witches lately, due perhaps to a surfeit of traveling priests , but once local piousness disappears and is replaced by the former level of debauchery, the agents of the devil will reappear. Then we may return to the burning, hanging, stoning and pressing of witch comforters and fellow- travellers.

    It will be good to get back to the evil that defines our self-worth.

  8. Earlier this year I came across papers that made me ask: What are the magnitudes of natural variations in the climate system compared to the variations in net radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere (TOA)?

    I have been working with four papers published since 2005 by leading NASA scientists that explore the interface between theory and measurement of radiative flux at the TOA.

    I used two papers by Hansen et al (2005, 2011) to derive heat sequestered by the oceans to 700 meters on the back of an envelope. Using Hansen’s 2011 estimate of energy flux imbalance (+0.58 Wm-2) I got an estimate of temperature rise of 1.3 deg;K to an average depth of 350 meters over 100 years (700 divided by 2).

    This crude estimate is comparable to the figure Roy Spencer derived from his physical model (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/06/) and comparable to the lowest recent estimates of climate sensitivity.

    In this context, the figure derived by Hansen in 2011 does NOT seem alarming. In effect it supports Hansen’s earlier PNAS paper in which he and his team of NASA scientists claimed that CO2 was not the real problem.

    The PNAS paper does not seem worth discussing as it just moves the goalposts by identifying methane as the real climate hazard. (Global warming in the twenty-first century, PNAS, August 29, 2000, vol. 97 no. 18). However, the inconsistency in their claims signal that there is something amiss in the way Hansen and his associates approached the study of climate.

    Two papers by other NASA scientists are relevant to the differences in estimates derived from (1) the standard theoretical model (Goody and Yung) as taught in most university atmospheric physics courses,.and (2) the quantitative estimates of the radiation budget as calculated by Kevin Trenberth and others. .

    I found that some NASA scientists have been successful in identifying errors and uncertainties in satellite measurements that affect the balance of the radiation budget.

    In 2009 a team led by NASA’s Dr Norman Loeb and seven other scientists (five from NASA, the National Institute of Aerospace and two from the private sector) published corrected values for all three parameters used by Goody and Yung (1989): (1. TSI at TOA; 2. albedo; and 3. ratio of surface area to area of Earth’s disc.)

    Dr. Loeb’s team demonstrated that the errors in these estimates plus other errors in calibration of the satellites were substantial in comparison to the energy imbalance upon which rests alarmist claims of global warming.

    Reference: Toward Optimal Closure of the Earth’s Top-of-Atmosphere Radiation Budget based on satellite observations. J.of Climate, AMS, V.22, p.748.

    URL:

    Click to access 2008_JC_Loeb.pdf

    The authors summarized the combined effect of all errors found. When estimates of solar irradiance, SW and LW TOA fluxes are combined, taking account of +0.85+/-0.15 Wm-2 heat storage by the oceans (Hansen’s 2005 estimate), the possible range of TOA flux becomes MINUS 2.1 to PLUS 6.7 Wm-2,

    The same team produced a paper in 2012 that showed the interannual variability in TOA flux has a much higher standard deviation than has been recognized.

    My conclusion about the work of Loeb and his team is that it is solid science unbiased by any activist agenda. The use of Hansens 2005 result can be regarded as an institutional constraint placed on their results. The errors and variations they found in the estimates of radiative flux at TOA appear to be greater than the best estimates of net radiative flux at TOA and greater than Hansen’s estimate of net flux between atmosphere and ocean..

    As the science stands now, the results are too uncertain to draw the conclusion that the pause in global warming will be short and that disastrous warming will recommence in ten years or so. I believe that the best estimates of the best scientists show that a lot of progress has been made in climate theory and measurement, but the net flux at TOA and the net flux between atmosphere and oceans is so small we cannot be certain about what the longer term magnitude of imbalance is and in which direction.

    I am not attempting to remake classical and quantum physics but focusing on how the physics is being applied in climate studies and how the results of physical measurements are being reported to other scientists, to policymakers and the public.

    I will follow up comments to this post which is closely related to my ongoing work..

    [reply] Thanks Frederick. Climate science needs to stop over-reaching itself perhaps 😉

  9. p.g.sharrow says:

    Just an observation of an old refrigeration man.

    There has been an increase in total earth ice, therefor a decrease in total energy. pg

  10. ren says:

    Clearly the Gulf Stream turns south. This winter sea ice in the Arctic will quickly was incremental.
    http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp/orthographic=-46.10,50.00,837

  11. ren says:

    Let’s see how fast you could change the ice in the Arctic. Please compare the September 2012 and 2013.

  12. Cameron says:

    The Arctic Sea Ice anomoly has plateaued and is at the same level as 1990.

    The oldest and thickest sea ice has contracted and pushed into the islands around the nth of Greenland.

    This will be the nucleus of a sustained growth of Arctic sea ice this winter that will break records this time next year.

    Coupled with a record slow sea ice melt in Antarctic, a weak El Niño and a move towards a slow down of the AMO.

    Remember this year, as the year when the climate changed “again”.

  13. oldbrew says:

    Bob Tisdale’s rebuttal of KK Tung paper claiming ‘the missing heat’ is at the bottom of the Atlantic:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/21/will-the-next-el-nino-bring-an-end-to-the-slowdown-in-global-surface-warming/

    Tisdale: ‘Unfortunately, the Southern Ocean is one of the key regions in Chen and Tung (2014). There is so little long-term subsurface temperature and salinity data that far south that any reanalysis of the Southern Ocean before the ARGO floats were deployed (around 2003) has to be viewed as fantasy.’

  14. John Silver said
    “A neutral word that can be used by both sides is “plateau”.”

    YES.. OK

    and what WORD will be used by AGW side when the global temperature DECLINES from now until at least 2030

    It will NOT be a pause/plateau/stopped

    It will be a DECLINE

    GLOBAL COOLING..

    Will AGW proponents ever be able to say. GC.. Global cooling..
    Natural variation is the dominant driver

    Cycle researchers have forecast.. COOLING
    AGW a sustained plateau

    Lets put the cards on the table and see the merits of cycle research and 100% natural variation

  15. Sparks says:

    In 2006 the bbc were reporting that this solar cycle (cycle 24) would be one of the most active ever experienced exacerbating man made global warming, now that it’s confirmed as the weakest solar cycle in over 100 years or more, and now that the planets temperature anomaly has been stunted by weaker solar activity (despite all the biased adjustments), they are reporting that man made global warming has paused due to a “naturally occurring 30-year cycle in the Atlantic Ocean” Oh and over “30 more excuses” have been put forward with one common theme, there has been no (meaning zero) global warming for the last 18+ years and counting.

    The only people in this debate who have been consistent with their various forecasts and cautious approach to global warming are those of us who reject for the most part the “Co2 hypothesis” driving earths temperatures.

    Solar and planetary enthusiasts such as the excellent group of people you find on this site and elsewhere have been reasonably accurate and have shown that they have the ability to use their various methods and techniques to gain an understanding where both solar activity and temperatures are expected to be heading.

    The basic idea has been known about for centuries, possibly even millennia as archeologists become more objectively realistic, and less mystically orientated toward humans being stupid sun worshipers, and discover more accurate information about ancient cultures and what they observed and what they’ve studied and the reasons behind their observations.

    It’s odd that the bbc still turns to the ‘whack a doodle’ climate scientists who has been consistently wrong for the past 40 years since the 70’s global cooling scare, now the global warming scare has flopped, they still refuse to give a voice and listen to those of us who have been consistent and correct.

    It’s checkmate for the alarmist side and they have actually underestimated how snookered they really are now.

    a) The sun warms the earth, oceans etc.. with its energy.
    b) The sun does not cool the earth, oceans etc.. the earth cools at a rate according to the space weather environment and conditions inhibiting or allowing the release of stored solar energy into space.
    c) Scientist’s playing ‘pea in a cup’ with aerosols and CO2 in the form of Global models have little to no basis in reality compared to the scale and influence of the main players that drive this planet.

    If solar activity and orbital parameters being explored, debated and implemented by us are more accurate than current best guess from the so called “bbc experts”, Why are the possibilities and our views being ignored? and over ruled by 40 years of failure.

    For what it’s worth, they are wrong about there being another decade of stunted “global warming” that ship has sailed, they had their chance a decade ago half way through the current “pause” in global warming to have any say on the issue, in my opinion.

    We currently have a Dalton minimum type solar cycle and according to the records these cycles occur more than one at a time, so we are left with three reasonable possibilities, and due to the fact that the current solar trend of this weak cycle is heading toward solar minimum, the conditions of the space environment will have favorable conditions for planetary cooling for at least another decade and a half, without knowing how active the next solar cycle (cycle 25) will be.

    1) Two Dalton type cycles in a row, which will extend the space environment favorable for planetary cooling lasting at least 30 years. More than two Dalton type cycles will extend this period further.

    2) One Dalton type cycle followed by an extended maunder minimum type cycle with no polar field reversal lasting decades, which will extend the space environment favorable for planetary cooling lasting at least 50 years more resulting widespread glaciation.

    3) One Dalton type cycle followed by a consecutive incremental and regular increase in solar activity over the next 50 years, which will extend the space environment favorable for a peak of planetary warming in 50 years.

  16. tom0mason says:

    doug Proctor says:
    August 22, 2014 at 3:57 am
    “We haven’t seen any witches lately, due perhaps to a surfeit of traveling priests , …”
    I think the word you are looking for is “Warlocks”
    The Warlock are flying around talking lots of warlocks…

  17. Richard111 says:

    Well said Sparks. Can anyone explain the physics of ‘heat hiding in the oceans’? I can understand energy being stored in the ocean but how do you convert that ‘energy’ to heat?

  18. oldbrew says:

    They’ve also discovered that if surface temperatures go down, winters may get colder.
    What next for these geniuses 😉

    * ‘Hiatus’ in surface warming is upping the odds of UK cold winters, say scientists *
    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/08/hiatus-in-surface-warming-is-upping-the-odds-of-uk-cold-winters-say-scientists/

  19. catweazle666 says:

    Heh!

    That’s 38 – or is it 39, I can’t keep up! – separate explanations for the pause now, all of which appear equally implausible.

    If they can’t explain the pause, they can’t explain the cause!

  20. craigm350 says:

    Every alrmist explanation nudges us towards the overwhelming conclusion of a ‘natural’ fingerprint and towards a questioning of the psychology of those who see the correlation only when it warms. So we warmed 1976-98 (hale cycle anyone?) and we have now cooled (adjustments by the fanatics in charge withstanding) with a likely further drop ahead as the amo eventually nose dives. Every excuse brings us closer to th3 overwhelming conclusion CO2 is no more than a fart downwind of a manure pile.

    “It’s checkmate for the alarmist side and they have actually underestimated how snookered they really are now”

    But the sneaky b******s have manouvered themselves to the extreme weather meme so that as we experience an increasing meridional flow (with associated and we’ll documented extremes) they can claim ‘CO2 dun it’ and run around like Chicken Lickens declaring the sky is falling down…or showing how dumb they are the ‘unprecedented’ meme which any halfwit who can read anything prior to the digital age can work out is a steaming pile of manure.

    I call them Ambulance Chasing Climate Vultures for a reason.

    [reply] Their credibility fades more every year

  21. craigm350 says: August 22, 2014 at 9:19 pm

    “But the sneaky b******s have manouvered themselves to the extreme weather meme so that as we experience an increasing meridional flow (with associated and we’ll documented extremes) they can claim ‘CO2 dun it’ and run around like Chicken Lickens declaring the sky is falling down…or showing how dumb they are the ‘unprecedented’ meme which any halfwit who can read anything prior to the digital age can work out is a steaming pile of manure.”

    Your “steaming pile of manure.” Has value on my farm. Show any value in the excrement of ClimAstrologists?

  22. tom0mason says:

    If CO2 is still rising (and it is), and atmospheric temperatures are not, then the UN-IPCC whole raison d’être has gone. Without CO2 causing continuous warming they have nothing.
    Maybe that is the only reason for this ‘story’ – it keeps the sheeple’s eyes focused on something (anything?) warming.

  23. markstoval says:

    If the alarmists and other order-following minions of the government were not “adjusting” the data sets to cool the past and warm the present to justify the alarmist cult religion; how much might the downward trend really be? There are reports from around the globe of cool summers and very cold winters as the fraudulent data sets say that there has been no decline. But there clearly has been a decline; I wonder how much.

  24. oldbrew says:

    The Real Science site has highlighted a number of blatant data manipulations recently.

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/

    Looks like the Australians are at it too.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/the-heat-is-on-bureau-of-meteorology-altering-climate-figures-the-australian/

  25. AlecM says:

    There is no missing heat. To make its outrageous claims, the IPCC uses fake physics. This originated from Carl Sagan and those he influenced: Hansen, Trenberth, Lacis, Ramanathan**.

    Thus it was Sagan who, nearly 50 years ago, poisoned the well of atmospheric science, We now face the political consequences of the carbon traders like Gore and associated billionaires, pushing the scam for personal profit.

    Ramanathan is a good experimentalist and when atmospheric science does eject the the other misguided technicians, he will remain respected even though he spectacularly failed in his understanding of IR physics.

  26. ren says:

    Us see blocking polar vortex over the south magnetic pole.

  27. Paul Vaughan says:

    Climate science corruption is unstoppable.

    Judy Curry recently stated very confidently that the Atlantic’s the master and the Pacific’s the slave.

    THE SUN is the master and the Atlantic’s the slave.

  28. Chaeremon says:

    @Paul Vaughan
    +1000
    (well, it’s rather non-linear, like: exponential).

  29. oldbrew says:

    All this diverts from the story they don’t want to talk about: the Antarctic.
    Sea ice can’t expand unless the waters around it are cool enough to allow that.

    http://notrickszone.com/2014/08/23/dramatic-antarctic-freeze-up-iciest-decade-ever-on-record-every-decade-icier-than-the-previous/

    Pierre Gosselin summarises: ‘While scientists who have invested careers in tying climate change to CO2 are scrambling to explain the lack of cooperation by the sea ice at the South Pole, other experts think the anomaly is all part of longer term natural cycles which man is powerless to stop.’

  30. Precisely what part of the physics is fake? Just asserting that the physics is fake is just a statement of faith.

    Are the basic physical principles in error or are there errors in applying physical theories which are in themselves correct?

    For example, is the error in failing to represent clouds adequately? Or is the error in classical and quantum theories of the radiative transfers relating to water vapour?

    Or the failure to include other potentially negative feedbacks?

    Or is it the measurement of the components of the radiation budget?

    I do agree that something is wrong or missing in the theory of AGW and that available data may be insufficient to support the theory of AGW..

    But precisely what is wrong or missing?

    Faith doesn’t help much either in supporting AGW or falsifying it.

    [mod note] this appears to be a reply to AlecM August 23, 2014 at 10:51 am

  31. Chaeremon says:

    @Frederick Colbourne: the physical “model” that doubling of CO2 is cause of CAGW, is based on faith expressed as parameter in computation, and not on evidence by observation in reality.

    Someone with better writing skills than me, commenter Keith Martin, put it all together here:
    http://warrenbusinessconsulting.com/articles/forgotten-sun-climate-catastrophe-called/#comment-4564

  32. ren says:

    This is the forecast of the southern polar vortex on September 2. Height of about 27 km.

    The level of neutrons at the South Pole.

  33. ren says:

    “Earth’s atmosphere contains an unexpectedly large amount of an ozone-depleting compound from an unknown source decades after the compound was banned worldwide.
    The compound, carbon tetrachloride, was used in applications such as dry cleaning and as a fire-extinguishing agent, until its regulation in 1987 under the Montreal Protocol along with other chlorofluorocarbons that destroy ozone and contribute to the ozone hole over Antarctica. Parties to the Montreal Protocol reported zero new emissions between 2007-2012.
    http://www.redorbit.com/news/video/science_2/1113216897/carbon-tetrachloride-ozone-atmosphere-082114/
    Carbon-14 is produced in the upper layers of the troposphere and the stratosphere by thermal neutrons absorbed by nitrogen atoms. When cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, they undergo various transformations, including the production of neutrons. The resulting neutrons (1n) participate in the following reaction:
    1n + 14N → 14C + 1p
    The highest rate of carbon-14 production takes place at altitudes of 9 to 15 km (30,000 to 50,000 ft) and at high geomagnetic latitudes.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14

  34. ren says:

    Unexpected increase in CCl4? Unexpected by whom?

  35. ren says:

    Us see the temperature of ozone over Antarctica.

  36. Jaime Jessop says:

    Great post and replies. Reblogged on climatecontrarian.

    One wonders how much longer climate scientists can keep juggling their balls before they all come crashing down. Manipulating temperature records, insisting on the ‘fact’ there is a net positive TOA energy imbalance, hence warming ‘must’ resume some time soon, laying claim to every typhoon, hurricane, flood, drought, etc. as ‘proof’ of an anthropogenic footprint in patterns of global extreme weather – and all based on the ‘simple physics’ of the demonstrable radiative properties of carbon dioxide. Except it’s not that simple and never has been. AGW – ‘dangerous AGW’ relies almost exclusively upon modeled positive water vapour feedbacks in combination with a downplaying of the role of natural variability on a decadal scale. That tactic is unraveling at a rate of knots. natural variability is increasingly evident and high end estimates of climate sensitivity are looking increasingly fantastical. The coup de grace may come as AMO turns negative and the Arctic continues a sustained recovery; I believe that’s when the money will really start draining away from AGW university research. it won’t be a quick death though; it will be slow and nasty.

    Just on the offhand, with CO2 apparently showing no sign of continuing its linear increase, I do wonder whether future cooling will start to impact upon global atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. If it does not, then we may reasonably assume that fossil fuel burning, in combination with tropical deforestation and perhaps increasing volcanic activity, is maintaining the trend upwards.

  37. Jaime says:

    Reblogged this on climatecontrarian and commented:
    Excellent posts and replies on the humbling BBC report that the pause may last another decade.

  38. Jaime Jessop says:

    ren, the video on that link shows the levels of carbon tetrachloride uniformly decreasing since the global ban on production, with no uptick, so this ‘unexpectedly’ large amount appears to be a result of just a miscalculation of the half-life, estimated to be 26 years, but now more likely to be around 35 years. It’s a non-story, unless, of course, you are looking around for excuses to ‘explain’ how man-made ozone depletion over the Antarctic has contributed to the ‘unexpectedly’ large accumulations of sea-ice?

  39. Frederick Colbourne says: August 24, 2014 at 6:29 am

    “Precisely what part of the physics is fake? Just asserting that the physics is fake is just a statement of faith.

    Are the basic physical principles in error or are there errors in applying physical theories which are in themselves correct?”

    The whole of ClimAstrology is that it uses post modern non-science that insists that no physical verification of theory is necessary. AlexM pointed out the these folk have no idea of how electromagnetic radiative flux is produced and how it is limited. It is all in Maxwell’s equations, but that seems to be missing in their comprehension. Dr. Feynman did not include that in his lectures, although he does hint at it.
    EMR flux does not emit in a direction of higher field strength or the normalization for distance “radiance”. The Clowns insist that radiation and “radiance” are synonymous, so flux is claimed to go in opposing directions. Once this is corrected, all other claims are in the toilet. Basic physical principles are indeed in error.

  40. ren says:

    Jaime Jessop
    I showed that a high level of netronów the pole, it causes the production of large amounts of C14. These are the years 2007-2012, the high radiation GCR.
    http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=01&startyear=2000&starttime=00%3A00&endday=01&endmonth=01&endyear=2013&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
    C14 is a very active chemically, like ozone.

  41. ren says:

    Jaime Jessop cosmic radiation produces in ozone layer not only 14CCl4, but also 14C02, which drops to a troposphere. This results in reduction of the ozone.
    Changes in solar activity cause other changes in atmospheric chemistry, we do not know.

  42. ren says:

    If, before the winter comes to the volcanic eruption in Iceland they reach the stratosphere still chemical compounds freed by the volcano.

  43. Will Janoschka: “AlexM pointed out the these folk have no idea of how electromagnetic radiative flux is produced and how it is limited. It is all in Maxwell’s equations, but that seems to be missing in their comprehension.”

    Either you are misquoting AlexM of he does not know either the physics literature or the radiative transfer literature as it is applied to climate. You will find that the basis for modern radiation theory is not Maxwell’s classical physics but Planck and at least a dozen others who laid the foundations of modern physics. Quantum theory underpins the physics of radiative transfer.

    I suggest you refer to any text on atmospheric physics. Goody and Yung is the standard used by all physics textbook writers. you can get a reasonably good idea of the theory on Googlebooks.

    http://books.google.com.tw/books?id=Ji0vfj4MMH0C&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Alternatively, try Murray Salby’s Physics of the Atmosphere (2012) chapter 8, Radiative transfer. You can see snippets of the text on Googlebooks. Read his textbook and decide for yourself if Dr Salby understands modern physics.

    The problem is not with the physics, but with the way it’s applied to the climate system.

    In my first comment, I cited a paper by NASA’s Norman Loeb and others that shows the errors in the estimates that arise from calibration of the satellite instruments and other errors in the parameters for calculating net radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere. The errors and uncertainties in the observations are well known.

    Reference: Toward Optimal Closure of the Earth’s Top-of-Atmosphere Radiation Budget based on satellite observations. J.of Climate, AMS, V.22, p.748.

    URL:

    Click to access 2008_JC_Loeb.pdf

    There is a big difference between disputing modern physics since Planck and Einstein and disputing the results of climate models.

    We deprecate the alarmist output of the IPCC because we know and they know that climate data paints a picture of uncertainty not 95% certainty.

    Here is a new video produced by leading sceptical scientists that dispute the alarmist views.

    http://vimeopro.com/southhouse/theglobalwarmingwar (password: 4festival)

    None of the sceptical scientists in this movie disputes the modern physics that defines radiative transfer in and by the atmosphere. But they all dispute the conclusions of the climate modelers that AGW is a threat to the Earth and mankind.

    Rather than basing your scepticism on faith, wouldn’t it be a good idea to spend some time learning some of the science that make scientists sceptical?

  44. oldbrew says:

    Jaime: yes, we’ll probably have to wait for the current generation of ‘climateers’ to retire or move to other branches of science before the shouting dies down.

  45. craigm350 says:

    Will Janoschka on August 22, 2014 at 10:52 pm

    I agree manure is very useful so probably not the best analogy although I may have been influenced by recent muck spreading ahead of winter crop planting…I have yet to find general usefulness with climate scientists besides an uncanny ability to siphon public funds to go on jollies or ‘discover’ what is already known (albeit repackaged as ‘new’ – climate science is quite good at recycling )

    😊

  46. ren says:

    Question how much sulfuric acid will be after the explosion in the atmosphere, if more than a volcano is 150 to 400 m of ice.

  47. Frederick Colbourne says: August 24, 2014 at 12:16 pm

    Will Janoschka: (“AlexM pointed out the these folk have no idea of how electromagnetic radiative flux is produced and how it is limited. It is all in Maxwell’s equations, but that seems to be missing in their comprehension.”)

    “Either you are misquoting AlexM of he does not know either the physics literature or the radiative transfer literature as it is applied to climate. You will find that the basis for modern radiation theory is not Maxwell’s classical physics but Planck and at least a dozen others who laid the foundations of modern physics. Quantum theory underpins the physics of radiative transfer.”

    A true alarmist quoting all of the post modern false radiation theory! You claim “laid the foundations” , I claim “screwed up royally” Your question of the 24 was clearly in response to

    AlecM says: August 23, 2014 at 10:51 am
    (“There is no missing heat. To make its outrageous claims, the IPCC uses fake physics. This originated from Carl Sagan and those he influenced: Hansen, Trenberth, Lacis, Ramanathan**.”)

    You asked, I answered, and I have 40 years measuring the interaction of thermal EMR with the atmosphere. AlecM is correct, all of your post modern physics is BS when it comes to wideband EMR. It is all in Maxwell’s equations, but that seems to be missing in their comprehension. Dr. Feynman did not include that in his lectures, although he does hint at it. All of your fake science claims electromagnetic radiative flux can emit id opposing directions. That is false theory and has never been demonstrated. There is no discrepancy between Maxwell’s equations and the Planck integral That curve is one of spectral radiance (spectral brightness at the time) a potential for flux not flux itself. This is the gross error that AlecM was writing about. He included himself as one of those fooled by Sagan, Feynman, and the rest of the Quantum theory fools of the 60’s.
    What have you measured in this atmosphere?

    “I suggest you refer to any text on atmospheric physics. Goody and Yung is the standard used by all physics textbook writers.”

    I suggest you learn something of this physical, then go try io measure what you thought you learned. You will be very surprised. EMR flux does not emit in a direction of higher field strength or the normalization for distance “radiance”. The Clowns insist that radiation and “radiance” are synonymous, so flux is claimed to go in opposing directions. Once this is corrected, all other claims are in the toilet.

    “The problem is not with the physics, but with the way it’s applied to the climate system.”

    Basic physical principles are indeed in error.

  48. oldbrew says:

    BBC report: ‘The latest theory says that a naturally occurring 30-year cycle in the Atlantic Ocean is behind the slowdown.’

    Does that mean the whole idea of heat ‘hiding in the deep ocean’ is dead in the, er, water?

    It was always a puzzle how heat that couldn’t be detected in the atmosphere found its way to the bottom of the ocean. ‘Unphysical’ springs to mind.

  49. oldbrew says: August 24, 2014 at 10:35 pm

    “BBC report: ‘The latest theory says that a naturally occurring 30-year cycle in the Atlantic Ocean is behind the slowdown.’
    Does that mean the whole idea of heat ‘hiding in the deep ocean’ is dead in the, er, water?
    It was always a puzzle how heat that couldn’t be detected in the atmosphere found its way to the bottom of the ocean. ‘Unphysical’ springs to mind.”

    Indeed the latest from the the ClimAstrologists like Tim Folkerts is that “heat” is never a “thing” but only a process”. Some heat process is hiding in the deep ocean. You figure it out! I need another beer!

  50. Will Janoschka says (August 24, 2014 at 9:45 pm): “A true alarmist quoting all of the post modern false radiation theory! You claim “laid the foundations” , I claim “screwed up royally”

    This is an abusive ad hominem post. I won’t answer it.

    [mod] you just did

  51. oldbrew says: August 25, 2014 at 11:26 am

    Not a dead parrot…

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/25/climate-scientists-explain-that-global-warming-is-not-dead-it-is-just-resting/

    Perhaps a tired Macaw, having partied to much! You know those girls!