http://youtu.be/FjxR0cnvapA

A well written article (as we would expect, of course). He provides a good summary of the basic modelling calculations in the first half. However, when he tries to discredit the calculations he is obviously out of his field of expertise. For example, he starts with a comparison with the moon! The moon is (approximately) a simple rock with a rotation 28 times slower than earth's, with no surface water/atmosphere for thermal transfer or buffering. The night side is exposed to almost absolute zero for 14 days, and the day side gets the sun's full radiation from the moment the sun "rises", because there is no atmosphere to reflect any of it. Honestly, I'm a little surprised he mentioned the moon first in his article, I thought it would have been a footnote.
Then unfortunately the comments on heat flow between atmosphere and surface misses the whole idea. The surface is not being heated by the atmosphere at all, but by the sun. The surface cools at a certain rate, and the rate is effected by the properties of the atmosphere.
Unfortunately, the whole premise of the article was to show that we cannot model the climate very well. That's not really a surprise. Long term models are a waste of time, which is why politicians love them. Of course, the fact we cannot model it does not mean the concept is incorrect. Anything complex, like the economy, cannot be modelled long term, which does not mean all ideas about the economy are incorrect.

Must be something different going on in Antarctica: ...https://youtu.be/FjxR0cnvapA

Please, I wasn't comparing Gore with a scientist!
I was saying any single opinion has no value, no matter whose.
At the same time, any majority opinion has no value... Just because most people agree that fossil carbon is effecting climate does not mean that they are correct. The logic and simplicity of the concept makes it correct in my mind, because it has not yet been refuted.

Astonishing! I have not seen that quote before. But I've always seen the IPCC as primarily political anyway, never scientific. Any part of the UN is bound to have a hidden collectivist agenda.

From DHallings blog https://hallingblog.com/2017/02/05/th...

Ignoring one scientist who has devoted his career on studying sea levels and comparing him with a liberal elitist collectivist is so liberal like.

”We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

”No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment

”It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
Paul Watson,
Co-founder of Greenpeace

”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
Lead author of many IPCC reports

and zealotry. I have no doubt that if funding wasn't the major factor that passionate conviction to the cause combined with desire to be an authority to your peers was.

Thats true, its the funding that creates the motive to publish false data. Politics poisons everything.

Quoting one scientist's opinion is about as valuable as our common opponents quoting Al Gore. As I have said elsewhere, none of these opinions or modern data or 50yr snapshots of sea levels does anything to refute (a) the simple linkage of processes involved in warming or (b) the strong paleo correlation with sea levels and CO2. If you find anything which does, please let me know.

Except that many governments and "experts" picked up that falsehood and promoted it widely and viciously; even starting an industry where some got very wealthy and passing legislation to take control away from the individual for the "greater good". While I agree that each need be looked at independently, those organizations, particularly the scientific community, should have responsibly, dutifully, and frequently scrutinized all information before arriving at a conclusion (consensus opinion), Why didn't they? Easy, governments want power and scientists need funding. One hand washes the other.

Sorry, there are too many villains in this story to trust any of them for the truth. Why trust any of those who were/are so eager to believe anything that supported their notion?

It causes lack of faith in those responsible. People who try to extrapolate that to the narrative, do so for another agenda. Think about it. If you have a strong belief in some idea, would you drop that idea just because one in a million "experts" in the field was found to be fraudulent? Of course not, you should rightly re-evaluate that person or organisation instead.

The arresting of progress is happening because of socialist policies, NOT because of climate change. Maybe CC will arrest progress in 100 or 200 years. Nobody knows. But instead of fighting against the progress of socialism, the people who matter are just fighting the idea that CC could become a problem!
The "liars" have been very successful in diverting their opponents (including most of us).

Tuesday, 18 February 2014
Obama Ludicrously Links California Drought to Climate Change

You claim Drawbacks I'm sure you are worried about rising sea levels . it has been a scare tactic used for 30 years.

But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.


Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.


The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".

"The falsified data is irrelevant". Bullshit it cause a lack of faith in the narrative.
Denier is a typical leftist label meant to form an opinion with prejudice.

There are many potential problems. But to arrest human progress, and even devolve, based on proven intentional lies is beyond words. How can one have a discussion with people that intentionally lie?

Yes, politics is always only about the money. There are two different discussions. People grabbing money does not disprove the idea.
The link I posted here is not about the article, which knowing the publication is probably exaggerated and designed to scare readers anyway. The link was a reply to the question about the maximum potential sea level if we had no ice left at all. They have a good map of the theoretical coastline. I'm not suggesting it will happen, as I said that before.

No, I don't care about temperature or weather, in fact I get -30C in winter I would welcome some warmer weather. We can easily adapt to any weather anyway. The only problem (for me) is the expected sea level rise, which will probably be long after I'm gone.
As far as the evil socializing money transfer issue, I think you will find everyone in this forum in agreement with you. These are two different discussions. My concern is that the very people who could work out a constructive undamaging (free market) solution are simply denying there is even potentially a problem.

No single incident proves anything. Thats not logical. It sounds more like you are getting your core principles from news headlines :)
No higher crop yield would not be a drawback, but it is unlikely that is really due to CO2. Other technologies will always dwarf any small CO2 yield benefit.

Yes, of course when the sun cycle is in decline we are cooling, because the sun is our source of energy. Yes, of course the weather will fluctuate continuously and always will. These things are obvious to anyone, and they hardly need stating. With the same obvious logic when the sun cycle is increasing we are warming.
But for each equivalent position in the sun's cycle (equivalent energy input) the higher CO2 levels result in higher temp. Does anybody in the denier camp seriously think that the decline in temperature in the years before the sun's minimum "disproves" the concept of CO2 capturing heat? Thats like saying "the sky is getting darker these days" by monitoring only the evening light.
The falsified data is irrelevant. You can find that on both sides of the debate. False or exaggerated data does not disprove a concept it just destroys the reputation of its producer. Modern readings of temperature are not relevant anyway because we have no paleo satelite data to compare with. The paleo correlation of CO2 and sea level needs to be disproved to break the concept.

It is the continental ice, not the ice cubes floating in the sea, that may have an effect on ocean levels. I haven't read the article nor looked at the authors credentials to accept the premise. When I do this I find most authors are biased by their funding.
The underlying driving force of the "climate change" crowd is the political agenda of redistribution of wealth via carbon taxes and credits. Look at Al Gores latest agenda and tell me its not about the money.

Oh I agree that it is mainly one sided debate at present just the point that the complexity of the the factors shows it is not just one thing but a multitude of factors. I did not even list volcanic activity which through earth's history has had major impacts on cooling and heating of the earth etc