I’ve got a little list

This is just a list of where the science now contradicts climate alarmism. I’m sure there’s more, but I just thought it would be interesting to see what I could remember. But first let’s outline the real scientific (not hearsay) evidence for manmade global warming

General evidence of CO2 warming

  1. Even though we know the temperature record has been tampered with there was an apparent temperature increase large enough to turn a predominate cooling scare into a warming scare. So, whilst we can’t ignore instrumentational errors and outright fraud, underneath was an apparent trend large enough to persuade those who then believed in global cooling.
  2. CO2 levels have risen. There’s debate about how much of this rise is due to mankind, but the fact it has risen is not in dispute.
  3. There is a scientific basis for the CO2 blanket. This is only large enough for a fraction of the predicted warming, but the fundamental, but small direct increase due to CO2 is based on reasonably sound science (although the scale may have to change in light of the German research)
  4. There are indicators that the temperature may have changed. E.g. a small change in Arctic ice (3%?) and Himalaya glaciers (not checked!!!) But these indicators are all dubious. E.g. in the case of Arctic ice there is a comparable but anecdotal changes in the early 20th century but the change appears to be real even if it isn’t unique.
  5. I’m going to add in sea level rise – even though the evidence points to a deacceleration of sea level rather than the necessary acceleration, the fact is that the absolute rise is evidence of warming and is often quoted (and I’m struggling to find anything else to put in)

Evidence supporting the massive positive feedbacks necessary for doomsday warming.

  1. ???

Other stuff that they say is evidence.

  1. Models predict … not science just equations and a computer. Global warming could be responsible …. not science just speculation. Lesser spotted goat toad numbers dropping:  global warming thought to be responsible  …. not science. Assigning a cause which is not testable. To make it science, you need to check e.g. if changes in numbers correlate with climate variability … and even then it could only support the assertion that: “it got warmer”, which is not really in dispute whereas the real question is how much was due to CO2 on which topic the numbers of lesser spotted goat toads** have nothing to offer.

And that about sums it up: I can’t think of a single bit of research that actually links the apparent warming to CO2.

And now for the scientific evidence against:-

General evidence against warming

  1. Global temperatures are not rising. There is no significant warming in the last ten years. This is entirely at odds with the IPCC report in 2001 which only spoke about warming.
  2. Coldest June/July in Ireland (and cold here). Coldest winter in a similar period last winter, and cold the winter before and a lack of BBQ summer – individually they can be dismissed, but collectively it’s difficult to square this with “the hottest decade ever”.

Evidence contrary to massive feedbacks in climate models.

  1. Natural climate variability is around 0.1C/decade with a profile near to 1/f noise. At this level, something like 10-20% of randomly produced signals from 1/f noise would appear with the same basic trends as the current temperature record. Given that half the trends would be the other way (cooling), it is very difficult to say anything other than: “the global temperature is not incompatible with natural climate variability”. It is not necessary to explain the temperature signal with weird unproven positive feedbacks.
  2. Most Met Office global temperature forecasts were high (until embarrassment stopped them doing them). In essence this is the flip side of one because they kept forecasting warming for an entire decade when it didn’t warm and only about one year did they even the sign right as most years it was well the lowest expected temperature. The point is this shows that climate forecasts don’t work. I.e. the models don’t work. I think I worked out the odds of that happening by chance as 1 in 512 if the models were wright. But as you might expect, all the predictions have mysteriously disappeared so I can’t recheck that statistic.
  3. This is just a list … and there’s that cold zone above equator which all the models say should be hot. It seems to be a concrete prediction which is contradicted by the evidence.
  4. CERN physicists conducted a cosmic ray climate experiment that appears to make credible the link between solar activity (sunspots) and global temperature.
  5. A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science found evidence that coal burning plants may actually be cooling the planet. This claim that recent pollution was the cause of colder temperatures, is very much at odds with the claim that the reduction in pollution after the introduction of clean air acts in the 1970s on a global scale had nothing to do with the coincidental apparent rise in temperatures. It may be possible to argue that different types of pollution act in different ways, but as most of it is coal burning I’m entirely sceptical of the selective interpretations of the effects which just happen to match the required groupthink.
  6. I’m going to add the paper that suggested the radiative forcing was too high (2x), even though I never saw the English version. This paper wasn’t strong on the climate modelling, but it was strong on the spectral data and it clearly suggested a dramatically lower rate of heat capture than previous models based on earlier spectral data.
  7. CO2 the cooling gas. The simple fact is that CO2 is a cooling gas. It tends to cool the atmosphere where the CO2 is warmer than the surrounding environment … which high in the atmosphere is the cold of space.
  8. Something like 50% of surface heat bypasses the bulk of  possible CO2 blanketing by being taken straight to the edge of the stratosphere by convection (it’s in the climate data!) …. which means that the cooling effect of CO2 is not just an “interesting” aside but it does have a significant effect on the rate of cooling of the atmosphere.

Evidence that warmists aren’t exactly scientific (not inclusive)

  1. unRealclimate.com – real scientists are impartial. They do not run propagandists sites that refuse to print any articles or comments contrary to their religion.
  2. Buddy review. The climategate emails revealed a corrupt system whereby peer review was used to prevent contrary work getting published.
  3. Manipulation of conference delegates. The climategate emails revealed that “sceptic” scientists were prevented from attending conferences. This is akin to overt racism or religious bigotry. The quality of work wasn’t the issue, just the delegates view on manmade global warming.
  4. Preventing publication by sceptics. Again the climategate emails showed that sceptics were actively prevented from being published.
  5. Wikipedia. Real scientists do not spend their time editing trash like the wikipedia  content on the climate and certainly do not spend their time attempting to remove all evidence against their religion. E.g. try looking for  anything mentioning that the climate is not currently warming. That is a straight forward fact, it’s not deniable, it is open to interpretation, but the fact it is not currently warming is a fact which is very pertinent to an understanding of the current position on global warming and the failure to mention this simply undermines all credibility of Wikipedia on this subject.
  6. The gulf stream “turning off” hoax. There is a small Arctic current which could turn off, but the suggestion the main current in the Atlantic which most people know as the “Gulf stream” could turn off is laughable because it is in fact a current driven by trade winds and as likely to turn off as … I was going to say Niagara falls but isn’t that turned off at night for hydro? (I thought it was funny!)
  7. There’s that lovely paper that said something like: “surprising all the three main indicators of trends in extreme weather show no increase”, which in one simple sentence trashed all the claims of increase in climate extremes. To be fair I’ve since learnt that there is a discernible increase in hurricanes – which may be due to long term ocean cycles. So, except for hurricanes, all claims of increasing extremes are either cherry picking or simply groundless.
  8. A biologist who claimed that polar bears were drowning because of melting ice has been suspended and is being investigated for scientific misconduct. Get ready for Polarbeargate (although in Wikipedia it will be reported as: illegal information release concerning esteemed polar scientist)
  9. Climategate – hiding the decline.
  10. Refusals to publish data even though compelled by FOI law.
  11. The bogus inquiries which cherry picked the papers to examine to ensure they found no evidence that the authors cherry picked the data.

N.B. I’m not even going to mention all the “global warming could … ” be leading to the loss of this or that species or the even less scientific: “models predict” … which is just another way of saying: “my opinion is that ….”

(I reserve the right to make changes if or when I get good suggestions to add.)

**lesser spotted goat toads … a name I made up to represent all the odd species where a change in population levels get linked to global temperatures.

Moved to permanent spot on menu!!

(Link to page on top menu)

I feel I’m going to want to come back to this list as new evidence comes to light, so rather than seeing it dissappear into the compost heap of old posts I’ve put it at the top.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to I’ve got a little list

  1. 9.I’m going to add the paper that suggested the radiative forcing was too high (2x), even though I never saw the English version.

    Yes, keep adding stuff you haven’t even checked out. Keep adding anything you can google that might suggest your pov is correct and listing it with no review. That’s the way you guys do it, but it ain’t science I’m afraid.

    • Dave Johnson says:

      Pot and Kettle methinks SR

    • Now Scots Renewables, you’ve let me down, because I was relying on you to add a few things to the warmist case.

      On the radiative forcing, the simple fact is that using the latest radiative spectral data (finer detail), the analysis appeared to show a significant reduction in radiative forcing. I’ve no doubt this person understood how to use the spectral data, but I suspect their paper may have run into problems because the author wasn’t familiar enough to climate models to create their own model into which to put the scientific facts about forcing.

      I.e. they were an expert on CO2 spectral data and not on climate models and what they were saying about the spectral data not leading to so much capture of heat was compelling … but let down by their wobbly climate model used to illustrate the effect.

    • TinyCO2 says:

      Yeah, have you got that list of weather events that are increasing in frequency yet?

  2. barn E. rubble says:

    RE: “This is just a list of where the science now contradicts climate alarmism.”

    Some of the biggest contradictions from our Climate Alarmists (CA’s) pits there goals up against reality. The biggest being fossil fuels. While on one hand screaming the end is nigh because we’ve reached the peak oil piont, IE: there will be none left to burn. Wouldn’t it better then to let the deniers (and those warmists who really don’t like taking the bus) burn it all and then the problem’s solved? Well, no we need to shut the whole shebang down – RIGHT NOW. That of course brings us to the fight against recent natural gas extraction, IE: frakking. If cheap energy is still available how then do we stop growth and prosperity?

    Another bit of con(tradiction) is the recent scare of DDT and other long banned pollutants ‘about to be’ released from melting Arctic ice . . . which, according to our CA’s has been melting (in scary fast measure) for some time.

    There does need to be a real list of the the stated contradictions from the AGW proponents. I can think of quite a few more but I’m called away at the moment. Someone pick up on this thread. It should be quite entertaining.


    • drewski says:

      peak oil is when demand outstrips supply and many feel that we have already reached that point. Finding more oil is taking us to more extreme and dangerous areas where accidents become increasingly difficult to fix. The expense is making fuel prices rise and is a drag on the economy.

  3. 11 – The theory requires upper atmospheric air temperature to lead and be greater than surface warming, since the atmosphere is where the CO2 is. This has never been observed. It is fairly technical which is why it doesn’t impinge on the public but why Professor Fred Singer, an atmosphere scientist, first concluded it was nonsense.

    12 – I find the fact that the Medieval Warming and Climate Optimim (5-9,000 BC) had to be airbrushed out of existence to be conclusive proof of fraud. Both were warmer than now, the Climate Optimum as much as 4 C warmer and non catastrophic, indeed cave paintings in middle of the Shahra show hippos during the CO which seems a more benign environment than now. If warming of 4 C is beneficial, catastrophe claims are clearly fraudulent.

    • drewski says:

      completly wrong. A cool upper atmosphere indicates that the sun is not the culprit in the observed warming. Where the extra CO2 has been accumulating is precisely the areas where we see the greatest warming (Arctic).

      Medieval warming has been part of climate science from the earliest days – there is no proof of it being a global phenomenon and truly accurate measurements are impossible to come by. Be that as it may, most climate scientist believe temperatures today are higher although we have been in the midst of a record solar minimum.

  4. Paul H says:

    Is our climate becoming more extreme?

    There has been much discussion recently about “Climate Disruption” or “Global Weirding”. John Holdren has talked about “increases in floods, wildfires, droughts, heat waves and hurricanes” while Rajendra Pachauri says “Based on observation, we know that there will be more floods, more drought, more heat waves and more extreme precipitation events. These things are happening”.

    Al Gore of course is quick to blame any extreme weather event on climate change. Even reputable climate scientists such as Katharine Hayhoe talk about Global Weirding:-

    “Heavy rains, deep snowfalls, monster floods and killing droughts are signs of a new normal of extreme U.S. weather events fueled by climate change” scientists and government planners said on Wednesday.

    “It’s a new normal and I really do think that global weirding is the best way to describe what we’re seeing,” climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech University told reporters.”

    But are we really seeing more extreme weather nowadays?

    [Snip … it was a long comment, but worth including so I’ve created it as an article in its own right and to see the full comment go to this post]

    • There are 150 countries, assuming you have say hot/cold/flood/drought/wind and 12 months, then there are 150x12x5 possible “extremes” each year. That is 9000 possible extremes. Just by pure chance you are going to get some 90 country-months with “once a century” extremes each year. Or 7.5 country-years.

      The more things you include in your list of “extremes” the more likely you are to get an extreme, indeed by country you should get nine country-months with “once in millennium” events each year.

      That is why your list isn’t very impressive and why you are wasting your time pasting it.

      And then I start reading the detail and I realise you are not using the 150 (or is it 180) countries but subdividing it into states. Which makes me wonder why your list is so short as there ought to be 45,000 possible extremes each month and 375 yearly extremes and even 37.5 “once in a millennium extreme years”. Of course, they are not independent events, but I think you will get the idea that you’ve got to analyse the trend in extreme events rather than just making a stupid list of extremes which have happened.

    • TinyCO2 says:

      Very nicely done.

      My fear is that one of the mega events of the distant past is due and it will send the media into a frenzy.

      In any one 100 year stretch there’s probably some weather event that’s getting worse and I assume that changing global temperature might affect things. Good and bad. However we don’t even have a base line for global weather because we spent so little time at our ‘normal’ temperature that we can only compare weather during years where temperature was colder than ‘normal’ with those of today. Ironically many of the main weather catastrophes are during the warmer months of the years where warming is at it’s lowest or even none existant.

  5. Pingback: Is our climate becoming more extreme? (Guest post) | ScottishSceptic

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>