"For half a century we have been measuring the temperature in the upper atmosphere - and it has been changing no faster than at the surface. The IPCC knows this, too. So it merely declares that its computer predictions are right and the real-world measurements are wrong. Next time you hear some scientifically-illiterate bureaucrat say, "The science is settled", remember this vital failure of real-world observations to confirm the IPCC's computer predictions. The IPCC's entire case is built on a guess that the absent hot-spot might exist." Link.
Excerpt from C.M's proof anthropogenic GHGs play no significant role in the alleged dilemma. The whole document is best read in a comfortable position with a bottle of good Riocha.
The IPCC models predict there must exist a GHG signature in the tropics. They got it wrong. As is now traditional.
(a) natural radiative forcing from changes in solar activity;(b) natural radiative forcing from changes in volcanic activity;
(c) anthropogenic radiative forcing from emissions of CO2 and other well-mixed greenhouse gases;
(d) anthropogenic radiative forcing from changes in tropospheric and stratospheric ozone;
(e) anthropogenic radiative forcing from pollutant sulphate aerosol particles emitted to the atmosphere; and
(f) all natural and anthropogenic forcings combined.
These six plots, from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa barometric pressure (left scale), equivalent to 0-30 km (right scale), demonstrate that anthropogenic emission of well-mixed greenhouse gases, whether on its own (c) or combined with all other natural and anthropogenic forcings (f), is predicted to produce a signature distinct from that of other forcings alone. The reason why the combined-forcings plot (f) appears so similar to the greenhouse-gas forcing plot (c) is that the UN’s computer models predict that the impact of greenhouse-gas emissions on temperature is greater than that of all other forcings.
No “greenhouse warming” signature is observed in reality
hPa - Left hand sidekm - Right hand side
The observational and experimental graphs reproduced here contain between them a dozen different observed-temperature datasets, not one of which exhibits the “hot-spot” signature of anthropogenic “greenhouse warming” that is predicted by the computer models upon which the UN so heavily relies. In every one of these datasets, the trend in the troposphere is no greater, and generally smaller, than the trend near the surface. According to Spencer et al. (2007), the tropospheric temperature trend is now 0.05 ± 0.07 degrees Celsius per decade. Therefore, the contribution of the anthropogenic enhancement of the greenhouse effect to surface warming is somewhere between -0.02 and 0.12 degrees Celsius per decade, with a central estimate of 0.5 degrees Celsius, or approximately one-sixth of the UN’s central estimate of 3 degrees Celsius for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration./excerpt [that last mentioned decimal of 0.5 was "for a doubling" , in case it isn't clear]
How wrong do the models have to be before we discount the IPCC? They have yet to be right, except where the lines of virtual and real crossed. Like a stopped watch is right twice a day.
In so many words, our gas emissions are insignificant, well we've always known co2 was innocent, haven't we?
A vision of the future just hit me, government owned gas blast booths where you pay to get your normalizing level of co2. Good stuff this Riocha.
From Spiked, Tony Gilland, Digging up the roots of the IPCC.
An interesting, if lengthy article about the hijack of science.
Excerpt;
This rather sinister notion of science giving people ‘the final push they need to take action’ shares the same assumptions that informed the activities of Hansen and others in the 1980s – that politicians and the public are not to be trusted to hear all views about the complexities and uncertainties of climate science because it will only lead them, selfishly and short-sightedly, to choose not to act in the way ‘they should’.
Hans von Storch, director of the Institute for Coastal Research of the GKSS Research Centre in Germany and professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg, has written persuasively about his concern that science is being misused in the public debate about climate change to the detriment of science itself. Writing in Der Spiegel in January 2005, von Storch argued that while ‘climate change caused by human activity is an important issue’ we have arrived at a situation where ‘each new claim about the future of our climate and of the planet must be just a little more dramatic than the last’. According to von Storch, public expression of reservations by scientists about ‘climate catastrophe’ are ‘viewed as unfortunate within the scientific community, since they harm the “worthy cause"’. This, he argues, threatens to undermine science in an important way:
‘This self-censorship in the minds of scientists ultimately leads to a sort of deafness toward new, surprising insights that compete with or even contradict the conventional explanatory models. Science is deteriorating into a repair shop for conventional, politically opportune scientific claims. Not only does science become impotent; it also loses its ability to objectively inform the public.’/excerpt
As the Bali feather wavers dance around the phantasmagorical totem in absentia, global warming, the junketeers complaining of the heat, Chris Monckton, a hero, gave it to them straight as it should have been done long ago.
Lord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants on Monday.
“Climate change is a non problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing,” Monckton told participants. “The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,)” Monckton added.
His list of IPCC errors in last spin document is available as pdf from ff.org.
