Greenhouse Science

16 Aug 2020

Coming back down to earth we have the August newsletter from www.sepp.org ... which is a review of what happened in July on the climate war frontier. This begins with another dose of Lindzen's paper concerning what we know, what we might suspect, and what is known as incorrect about climate change. The greenhouse effect, temperature trends, climate models, ocean chemistry, and sea level rise. Later, the newsletter turns to a review of the work of William van Wjyngaarden and William Happer which also concerns the greenhouse effect. Then, just a cople of weeks ago, there was the Japanese climate scientist Mototaka Nakamura putting in his sixpennyworth of critique of the models and greenhouse theory. Finally, Ross McKitrick of Canada and John Christy of the US, on the same subject, dismantled the climate change 'unstoppable' science of the greenhouse effect. Basically, all these leading lights are tired and fed up with the constant pumping of climate change. Basically, it is all huff and puff with no substance. That is the common theme of all the published articles above. Basically, they appear to suggest most climate scientists were using such things as ocean dynamics, ice albedo, and water vapour in order to fudge results that were  then syphoned off and fed to a gullible Joe Public. Nakamura went so far as to say that it is impossible to predict, currently or nearly currently, the source of direction of the earth system while the tool, or climate model, is grossly distorting important linear processes. They are arguing from ignorance, one might say. Ignorant of feedback science. Ignorance might not be quite the correct word - but it is a polite way of saying it for what it is. Nakamura goes on to say there are major problems in the models. Ocean circulation does water the stratosphere. This is quite similar to what Lindzen was saying. We live in a water world. Water dominates planet earth. Not co2. EM Smith pointed this out several years ago.

McKitrick and Christy tested the values calculated from 38 CMIP6 models (constructed between 1979 and 2014) and found those models could not calculate atmospheric temperature trends as published by the IPCC. The SEPP author says, they have departed from the scientific method into the world of wild speculation. The latest CMIP6 models produce significantly more warming than the earlier CMIP6 models and over estimate the HadCrut 4 surface warming trend by over 50%. Models tested demonstrate no ability to predict surface warming trends now or in the future. They are dud. A waste of space.