Climate dodgems

23 May 2016

One example was forwarded by Bill Thompson - go to www.yahoo.com/news/climate-feedback-allows-scientists-correct-media-erro... ... but at http://notrickszone.com/2016/05/22/1959-paper-shows-most-warming-before-... ... wherein the title says it all. The first piece shows climate scientists have the ability to contradict press stories if they become too outlandish but at the same time they are altering the data themselves to make the story more grisly. The second one is unfashionable as it treats the data as genuine without any fiddling around with it. Most of this appears to be similar to what HH Lamb had to say in his various articles and books over a long period of the mid 20th century so there are no actual surprises as such apart from the one pointed out by Pierre Gosselin. In the first half of the 20th century co2 levels were fairly static and did not vary greatly. There was no exponential line going upwards into eternity. So, we have a situation where co2 levels didn't budge but we had sea levels rising 8mm a year between 1930 and 1948, double what it is doing nowadays with increasing levels of co2. Further, the greatest temperature rise was in the 1930s. After 1945 temperatures cooled significantly as co2 levels began to climb and temperatures then took off again in the 1980s (and are in the process of cooling down as we  shall see over the next few years).

At https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/05/22/ken-gregory-the-economic-impa... ... uses information derived from Nicholas Lewis, a sort of lukewarm climate scientist. Gregory uses his data as a prompt for his own output and adds a few caveats of his own. The full Lewis paper is at http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=2205 and the data used can be viewed at http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/SCC_Lewis_CS_2.xls ... but see also the comments which follow as not everyone agrees with Gregory and the role of co2 in the process as water and water vapour are much bigger beasts to contend with. Another area of contention is the author's assumption that the Sun was responsible for the Little Ice Age - which is hypothetical yet accepted as a truth. So, three different takes on climate in one day - and the money hat is still being passed around.