Guided Missile

I'll ignore your patronizing tone and focus on a couple of details. One is the main one from the study you referenced from Imperial in which it is admitted that: It appears the way this long standing discrepancy is dealt with, is to alter the data, as usual: What this study hasn't done is removed "the long-standing discrepancy (that) exists between general circulation models (GCMs) and satellite observations". I know the difference between "tropical tropospheric warming with observed GMST". Compared to the difficulty I had with quantum mechanics, it's not that hard. Are you trying to say there is no connection between tropical tropospheric warming and observed GMST? As far as 0.8C warming in the last 30 years, it may be a large increase to you, but it isn't to me. Sorry about that. As you are obviously a genius in this field, can you provide proof that this is down to the increase in CO2 concentrations from 0.03% to 0.04%, an increase I also happen to think is not much. No one has been able to prove to me this increase is causation, not correlation. I'd appreciate the patronizing tone to be dialled down a bit, mate. You're nowhere near as clever as you think you are and some humility may help you to learn, as would a more open mind to studies that may not agree with your mindset.

Obviously the publication I cited is not a peer reviewed paper, it's a literature review. Reserve your comments to the data and papers cited, please. I am particularly interested in why you think the actual balloon and satellite data in the graph is unrepresentative and the IPCC models are representative, of the degree of observed global warming.

Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is an estimate of the eventual steady-state global warming at double CO2.

Mind you, sometimes you need an ad hominem attack, when it calls for it:

Obviously I copied and pasted a lot of it. Rather like your misleading graph, numb nuts. I'm surprised that there is anyone that who wanted a more detailed document, but if you insist, here it is, references and all. I am willing to bet a pound to a pinch of shit that rather than discussing the content of the paper and it's references, posters replying to this thread will concentrate on ad-hominem attacks. They have nothing else besides that and blocking a motorway somewhere.

In its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the IPCC used the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) models to project future warming and the associated climate impacts. In the interests of science, I thought it may worthwhile for the curious to take a look at the accuracy of these models versus digital measurements via weather balloons and satellites, taken in the period since Saints won the FA cup, i.e. a long time ago: Solid red line—average of all the CMIP-5 climate models; Thin colored lines—individual CMIP-5 models; solid figures—weather balloon, satellite, and reanalysis data for the tropical troposphere. A careful look at the figure above reveals that only one of the 102 model runs correctly simulates what has been observed. This is the Russian climate model INM-CM4, which also has the least prospective warming of all of them, with an ECS of 2.05°C, compared to the CMIP5 average of 3.4°C. The literature drawing attention to an upward bias in climate model warming responses in the tropical troposphere extends back at least 15 years now (Karl et al., 2006). Rather than being resolved, the problem has become worse, since now every member of the CMIP6 generation of climate models exhibits an upward bias in the entire global troposphere as well as in the tropics. The IPCC is nearing completion of an upcoming (2022) Sixth Assessment Report, and a new suite of models, designated CMIP6, is being released. Will those be an improvement? No. As shown by McKitrick and Christy (2020), the CMIP6 models are even worse. Of the two models that work, the Russian INM-CM4.8 has even less warming than its predecessor, with an ECS of 1.8°C, compared to the CMIP6 community value of around four degrees. The other one is also a very low ECS model from the same group, INM-CM5. The model mean warming rate exceeds observation by more than four times at altitude in the tropics. As far as a climate emergency, caused by any extreme weather events allegedly due to the increase in CO2 concentrations, it is worth looking back further. Since the 1920s, global CO2 concentrations increased from about 305 parts per million to more than 410 ppm, and average global temperatures increased by about 1°C. Yet, globally, the individual risk of dying from weather-related disasters such as hurricanes, floods, and drought decreased by 99 percent. There is an increasing body of evidence that global warming and increases in atmospheric CO2 levels are actually beneficial. In a recent paper by Dayaratna et al. (2020) three forms of evidence indicate that the CO2 fertilization effects are significant: First, rice yields have been shown to exhibit strong positive responses to enhanced ambient CO2 levels. Kimball (2016) surveyed results from Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) experiments, and drew particular attention to the large yield responses (about 34 percent) of hybrid rice in CO2 doubling experiments, describing these as the most exciting and important advances in the field. Experiments in both Japan and China showed that available cultivars respond very favourably to elevated ambient CO2. Furthermore, Challinor et al. (2014), Zhu et al. (2015) and Wu et al. (2018) all report evidence that hybrid rice varietals exist that are more heat-tolerant and therefore able to take advantage of CO2 enrichment even under warming conditions (2013). Second, satellite-based studies have yielded compelling evidence of stronger general growth effects than were anticipated in the 1990s. Zhu et al (2016) published a comprehensive study on greening and human activity from 1982 to 2009. The ratio of land areas that became greener, as opposed to browner, was approximately 9 to 1. The increase in atmospheric CO2 was just under 15 percent over the interval but was found to be responsible for approximately 70 percent of the observed greening, followed by the deposition of airborne nitrogen compounds (9 percent) from the combustion of coal and deflation of nitrate-containing agricultural fertilizers, lengthening growing seasons (8 percent) and land cover changes (4 percent), mainly reforestation of regions such as southeastern North America … Third, there has been an extensive amount of research since Tsingas et al. (1997) on adaptive agricultural practices under simultaneous warming and CO2 enrichment. Challinor et al. (2014) surveyed a large number of studies that examined responses to combinations of increased temperature, CO2 and precipitation, with and without adaptation. In their metanalysis, average yield gains increased 0.06 percent per ppm increase in CO2 and 0.5 percent per percentage point increase in precipitation, and adaptation added a further 7.2 percent yield gain, but warming decreased it by 4.9 percent per degree C. Based on Challinor et al.’s (2014) regression analysis, doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 pm, while allowing temperatures to rise by 3°C and precipitation to increase by 2 percent, would imply an average percent yield increase ranging from 2.1 to 12.1 percent increase. For those that have read this far, I hope that a presentation of real science, rather than climate science, will provide a counter-balance to the hysterical utterings of politicians, pseudo scientists and untrained politicians.

The 1998–2012 hiatus shows a rise of 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade, compared with a longer term rise of 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade over the period from 1951 to 2012. The appearance of hiatus is sensitive to the start and end years chosen: a 15-year period starting in 1996 shows a rate of increase of 0.14 [0.03 to 0.24] °C per decade, but taking 15 years from 1997 the rate reduces to 0.07 [–0.02 to 0.18] °C per decade.

I call a 0.8C increase in the last 30 years, "not much".

Tree rings combined with digital measurements, so completely unscientific and not a clue about how any small increase has been caused by an increase in CO2. Must try harder.

I'd rather get my facts from scientific papers, like the one's I quoted above and draw my own conclusions. Obviously you didn't read the two I linked. My original view on climate change and the role of CO2 in any observed global warming, was based on the original IPCC report published in 1990. Two of the chapters are worth reading, if your mind is open enough. Chapter 7 here and Chapter 11 here. I will make it easy for you and post the most salient extract below: What has changed since this fairly benign IPCC summary of the role of CO2 in climate change? Well, millions of research dollars has spawned a climate science industry doing nothing but playing with data and torturing it to make it say what they want. What hasn't changed much is the global temperature, but then apparently, the last 30 years of not much changing was just an "anomaly". Surprisingly the original global temperature graph I remember so well from this first report has changed beyond all recognition, to a version that so frightens autistic children:

Interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal from Matt Ridley, which pretty much sums up my feeling about the dismal state of much of the current scientific profession, in their approach to both the origin of covid 19 and climate change: "Mob pile-ons"? I love it. A theory is correct if most people ascribe to it, apparently.

Cast your minds back to 2009 when an unknown individual(s) released more than 1,000 emails (many dealing with proxy studies) from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Now, we all know that the major oil companies are "corrupt as hell", but read one of the emails below, from a senior climate scientist and advisor to the IPCC, Dr. Edward R. Cook, Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory: And people wonder how I have the temerity to challenge a junior climate "scientist" and his professional credibility?

Okay, ladies, village idiot here. In the absence of a clear answer to my question regarding whether CO2 is the cart or the horse in regard to global warming, I dived into one to the papers that our jolly swagman quoted above. It seems he is sensitive to professional criticism unlike me, so please don't quote me, as he wants me on ignore. I have dived into the rabbit hole of a paper in Nature, as the proof that anthropogenic warming is caused by an increase in CO2 concentrations from 0.03 % to 0.04% since 1850, the start of the industrial revolution. This CO2 increase has caused an alarming rise of 0.1C per decade since 1951-2012, according to the paper, ("On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature" by Adolf Stips, Diego Macias, Clare Coughlan, ElisaGarcia-Gorriz & X. San Liang) I also dived into the critical paper cited by this one, "Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature" by Andrew A. Lacis,* Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind, Reto A. Ruedy. (SCIENCE 15 OCTOBER 2010 VOL 330) These papers confirm one thing to me. They are, in common with every other published paper on climate change, forced to deal with an extremely complicated topic by using a combination of modelling and proxy measurements of temperature and CO2 concentrations, certainly for periods prior to the 20th century. The papers are written in a language that I am not familiar with and to justify the $35 trillion governments are planning to spend, they don't convince me. A couple of extracts from these papers: ...and: I love the calls for additional research, highlighted. So, I tried, but have not been able to find a scientific answer to my question, nor find any science in climate science. I am left being reminded of Michael Fish.

Keep up, mate. I was replying to a poster who claimed to have 10 years of climate science experience and was prepared to answer our questions. After another poster and myself made the suggestion that his job and the funding supporting it may rely on the concept of anthropogenic climate change, rather than answer my genuine scientific question, he made a rambling and non-scientific post about major oil companies, finally stating: "Don't get me wrong, those companies are corrupt as hell, but the idea that everyone is suddenly going to bend over for them is insanity". That is when I challenged his scientific impartiality. FFS He's not going to "bend over for them"? By the way, congratulations on achieving your PhD. I know how hard that achievement is, from the number of PhD's that have worked for me.

And that is where you lost your professional and scientific credibility.

Apparently medieval warming and the mini ice age in the 1600's (and the Roman warming period) do not form part of the global climate history of this planet, because they are purely regional climate effects. You see, with climate science, tree rings are the gold standard.

So your job is not reliant on the proof of anthropogenic climate change for its funding. I'm sorry it appeared I questioned your professional credibility. You would help that by citing a single paper that proves that the increase in CO2 from 300 to 400 ppm caused global temperatures to rise by 1oC in the last century and not that the global temperature increased by approximately 1oC in the last century which caused the CO2 levels to increase from 300 to 400ppm. I don't want a debate, just some science I can understand. Oh and just to be clear on what has driven my research over the past 40 years. Correlation doesn't imply causation. It's an easy trap to fall into, especially with such a complicated dataset as climate "science".

That is exactly what you did in your post as a means of "proving" anthropogenic climate change. Your response is typical of someone whose job and the means funding it are reliant on the proof of anthropogenic climate change and given that, it is not surprising that the thousands of grant chasers are singing from the same hymn sheet. I would like you to cite a single paper that proves that the increase in CO2 from 300 to 400 ppm caused global temperatures to rise by 1oC in the last century and not that the global temperature increased by approximately 1oC in the last century which caused the CO2 levels to increase from 300 to 400ppm. Any measurement made before this time are all proxy measurements and those, as any scientist worth his salt would acknowledge, are inherently unreliable. So, a single citation would be appreciated.

Many thanks for your contribution. A couple of questions. Exactly how was the temperature and CO2 concentration measured in 1900 and where? Around 300ppm in 1900 and just over 400 ppm now as concentrations doesn't do it for me, as I doubt the assay methods are the same, nor the location. I have no doubt the concentration of CO2 is linked to the global atmospheric temperature, but my burning question is whether the increase in the concentration of CO2 observed precedes or follows any increase in global temperature. That's the $35 trillion question.

Two rapists in the Met's Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection Command at the same time? I doubt that Dick will continue to enjoy the confidence of Priti Patel and other female MP's much longer.

She should have taken responsibility for the terrible state the Met is in, a long time ago and resigned to allow someone new to re-vet the whole police force, reorganise the command structure and rebuild trust in the police. Instead, she thinks one of the answers is for lone women to flag down a bus if approached by a lone copper. for one, or run into the nearest house. This problem all started with Theresa May and her time as Home Secretary. A 20% cut in police funding and experienced coppers replaced by clueless graduates. Priti Patel is no better, just a apologist for Dick.

You couldn't make it up:

I would like to know who will pay for zero carbon? Are the cost estimates shown below going to be accurate or like HS2? Exactly what will we achieve if and when the UK reach net zero? My guess is that public support will evaporate if the public finally work out that they are going to have to pay, just as the high minded MLG admitted in the post above. Everyone like to think that an electric car means cheaper fuel bills, but what will replace fuel duty? These are all very large amounts of money and I still resent paying the fucking toll charge on the Itchen Bridge. I'll be just as pissed off if the fuel duty I am paying goes to some smug twat driving a Tesla, telling me how much money he is saving on petrol.

I'm familiar with the report, but I don't think you are. It is simply a report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. I am sure that there will be an impact if global temperatures increase by this amount. My question was where the evidence is for any increase in CO2 causing this. I must have missed the scientific explanation in the report. Still, I've had a fucking electric car for a couple of years and never again and there is nothing driving me do have one again, whatever the IPCC says. I am assuming that as you are worried about global warming, you have one. Do tell....