Member postings for Robin

I couldn't get passed, "Most of the excess atmospheric heat is passed back to the ocean"

IU just found the bit of the "Skeptical Science" web page where they try to plaster over, "Mike's Nature trick" and Phil Jones, "Hide the decline"

Now that is a very good question. Where does the el-Nino heat come from?

A link to show the oceans are warming. My point exactly, greenhouse warming should be in the troposphere not the oceans.

Is that the best you've got?

I don't have to. The data is there for anyone who wants to see it.

There are beautiful colour images from the satellite data showing the el Nini Pacific lighting up as if a 3 bar electric fire had been switched on underneath it.

The warming is in the ocean when the theory says it should be in the atmosphere.

With no explanation, I remain unconvinced.

Eventually, some politician will need to disprove CAGW. The climate scientists will be asked to explain why the heat is in the wrong place and the whole, unscientific construction will collapse like the house of cards it is.

Nothing to do with me, you can think whatever you like that makes you happy.

I just had a 200mm, dial caliper in stainless steel, featuring a full 360 degree sweep for each millimeter of travel. Fifty quid delivered, seems to work a treat, that is my fun for today.

None? Seems a bit of a sweeping generalisation.

If you go back to 1970/80ish, whenever satellites started pointing thermometers down and we got real data to work with...

The temperature is rising. It goes up in fits and starts with flat plateaus between.

The rises coincide with el Nino events, warm water upwelling on the Pacific coastline of the Americas.

We are currently on a temperature plateau, the last el Nino temperature peak from 7 years ago has yet to be beaten.

Some think we are still climbing out of the Little Ice Age.

No climate scientist cares to explain how the heat gets into the Pacific depths to become an el Nino upwelling.

No climate scientist cares to explain why the CO2 warming, that must happen in the troposphere, has not been detected by weather balloons.

I think it was the heat, I get pretty bloody-minded as soon as it passes 27degC.

Robin

How about Historian David Starkey?

Is he an "armchair Google researcher"?

Yes, you should mention that he appeared in the Channel 4 production called, "The Great Global Warming Swindle".

If I had to go questing I'd prefer to follow Parsival

If you really want the answer to that you cannot be advised because the world has divided into factions and all you will get is propaganda.

To find the truth you have to go on a personal quest

280ppm = .028%

421ppm = 0.0421%

An increase of 0.0141%

So .0016% was actually closer than 50% but no prizes

Albert Einstein said, "It doesn't take 100 scientists to prove me wrong, all it takes is one fact".

The interglacial warming of the oceans is causing them to soak up carbon dioxide faster than limestone subduction can put it back. That is how levels became so dangerously low.

If we hadn't started burning coal and making cement we might have been heading for real trouble.

The effect is logarithmic so an increased concentration from 200ppm to 400ppm will have the same effect as 400ppm to 800ppm. That's a lot of CO2.

Of course, an increase from 100ppm to 200ppm would have no appreciable effect on us at all, because we would all be dead

The end has been nigh since I was a nipper with the Cuban missile crisis. Then it was Strontium 90 in our instant coffee, asteroid impact, floods, combustible nuclear reactors, pesticides, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, stagnation of the gulf stream, toasty UV rays pouring down through holes in the ozone layer, the list goes on.

Surely there must be a limit to our credibility? We can't go on believing every unproven crack pot idea the media choose to throw at us.

Can we?

Climate science isn't really science, it is all about making models that wildly overestimate the effect of CO2.

There is actually very little energy left to be had for CO2 in its absorption wavelength, so they have created a positive feedback loop based on water vapour. A runaway scenario that has never happened in the past.

To explain why it has never happened in the past, they say it is currently warmer than it has ever been before.

That seems rather unlikely.

They are digging a hole for themselves that keeps getting deeper and deeper but they can't seem to stop.

It is in the nature of all creatures to breed and exceed their food supply, you can't expect people not to breed just because you don't like it. These are the days of miracle and wonder, I strongly suggest you have fun and stop worrying about stuff that will is best fixed by future technology should it ever turn out to be an actual problem

Saying it might have happened a bit more than we thought it should, is not exactly the "prediction come true" scientific clincher you seem to think it is.

However, we don't need to argue. Science can be mistaken temporarily but it always sorts itself out in the end.

Robin

Climate science isn't Simples, it is bogus. What is Simples is a Richard Feynman explanation when he comes down to your level.

Okay, all the climate predictions are true and I missed the poles being ice-free, tropical islands disappearing under the sea, numerous extinctions, crop failures etc. There is a list if you want it.

Obviously switching from BBC to GB News means I am being fed the wrong propaganda