climate change and me: revenge of the data


a chimp eating snow in Berlin zoo

No, I’m still not a climate scientist, don’t worry, but I’ve been told repeatedly that I need to look at the data, and that it wasn’t good enough to just trust some bunch of scientists, and that nearly all scientists are corruptible/lazy/sheeplike, just look at the data, look at the data, look at the data!

(To make things clear at this point, I don’t receive any income from any scientific or political organization. My employers have no interest in my views on this matter, and my work has no connection with this issue. Basically, I’m more independent than a copy of The Independent at an independent gathering on Independence Day while watching Independence Day, independently. On the other hand, I do come to this with a slight bias that I must admit. I’d like to find evidence that AGW is not happening, or at least not to the degree that is presented by most media outlets. I’d like to find this because it would mean that there is no crisis, we can all go about our business without worrying about rising seas, mass extinctions and U.V. rays, and I can jet around the world without the slightest twinge of guilt.)

So, after some consideration, and not forgetting that I’m not actually a climate scientist (did I already mention that?), I thought I’d better actually look at the data. The plan here is to try and get to the heart of the main question about AGW without distraction, opinion, or a debate about who says what.

warning: if you’re familiar with the all the basics of climate change science, you may be quite bored by this rather simplistic approach, but it works for me, because, well, I’m not a climate scientist (I’m thinking of getting a t-shirt made up). So, here goes:

What data? Whose data? Where data?

What I want here, is the purest form I can take, the crystal meth of climate data. So raw it’s actually crunchy.
Where do I start?
Well, temperature seems to be as good a start as any.
So I’d need stuff from weather stations, weather balloons and weather robots (do we have weather robots? is a satellite a robot?) around the globe. We’re talking stuff that glaciologists have been gathering over the years. We’re talking datasets of temperatures that the oceans have been, spanning decades and decades. All that business.
Could it be possible that such data is falsified? Yes, I suppose, but in my view we’re entering into the realms of conspiracy paranoia if we start believing that shadowy powers are actually altering the datasets from individual weather stations, hacking into satellites, bribing all the glaciologists, blackmailing all the oceanographers, all the while stopping any whistleblower from busting the whole dirty business wide open.
(If you do believe this conspiracy, I refer you to the well established Blowjob in the Whitehouse principle. If Clinton couldn’t even keep that quiet, well, I guess those shadowy powers are not looking that all-powerful after all.)

Bouncing off the satellites

Satellite measurements of the earth’s microwave emissions that run from 1979 right up to February last year. Nice.
The dataset’s here.
You can see the globally averaged trends for the troposphere. (They show the measured changes in K, which stands for Kelvin, which is just the way scientists like to measure temperature because it starts at absolute zero, but in this case it works the same as Celsius as far as I can tell.) This is interesting data, but then comes the claim from the scientists:

All microwave sounding instruments were developed for day to day operational use in weather forecasting and thus are typically not calibrated to the precision needed for climate studies. A climate quality dataset can be extracted from their measurements only by careful intercalibration of the data from the MSU, AMSU and ATMS instruments.

Disappointing, so I’ll leave it there for the time being, as I don’t know what they’re up to when they’re doing their “careful intercalibration”.

Dirty dataset

This may look a little extreme at first glance, but I wanted to see if I could find a clear trend myself without looking at a nicely coloured graph pointing one way or another, so I looked at the global mean temperatures from 1880 to the present day (I didn’t want to just focus on the recent past), and I wondered what I’d make of the data if I just scrolled through the numbers. So here it is. Wow. Now that’s quite something.

Change of plan

Around this point in my investigations, it became clear that, along with the oceanographic data I found, and the glacier data I found, there was no doubt. Some time around 1980, stuff quite suddenly started to get considerably warmer, and there’s little evidence that the trend is slowing dramatically. This was so obvious to me, that the idea of describing each dataset in detail became just silly.
If you look at the data and deny that fact, or if you chose not to look at the data and deny that fact, people may call you a climate change denier, and frankly, if they do, I’ll not be there to defend you on this one. You may have some good points to make, you may have interesting arguments, but you are in denial. (Please note: I’m not labeling any groups of people with nuanced views on this subject as deniers. If you think I am, please read those last four sentences again, carefully.)

So let’s move on to some possible reasons for the temperature increase that is actually happening.

It’s a gas gas gas

So what has caused this sudden, dramatic increase in global temperatures? Could it be connected with gases that we’ve been releasing? Well, first of all, has there actually been an increase in greenhouse gases? Let’s look at the data.
Could these increases that correspond fairly closely with the heating of the planet (according to the data that I’ve been looking at, and not to do with anyone else’s opinions) be connected in any way?
This is a tricky one. I’ve found plenty of scientific information about this, but I’m trying to evaluate this without taking the word of a single scientist. The arguments appear to be plausible to me, that these gas increases are partially responsible for the heating of the planet, but the data involved stretches my scientific skills a little to far. The interactions of these gases are no doubt complex, subtle, and extremely difficult to predict with any certainty.
So what are we left with?
A correlation, which doesn’t automatically imply causation, and a plausible theory.

What other theories are there for such a sudden and dramatic rise in temperatures?

Solar activity?

I looked into this hypothesis, and it wasn’t easy for me to get to the raw data on this one without it appearing to go through someone else’s interpretation first. Still, I found this.

Looking at the data that I could find I ended up agreeing with the quote:

When you look at the climate models that seek to show the human influence past 1970, you do see a good correlation of the temperature with the projected CO2 influence included, while the correlation with solar cycle length weakens.

I don’t find this as plausible as the gases hypothesis, but if there were a whole bunch of scientists agreeing upon it, then yes, perhaps it would deserve a reappraisal. Currently though, we’re left with the gases hypothesis as the front runner, in my opinion.

And there it is. Now for my tentative, provisional conclusions. (if you’re just skipping to the end, this is the end)

Global warming, happening to a planet very near you right now!

Are we causing it?


Is it happening at the rate that is presented in the media?

I don’t know.

Can we make certain predictions about the state of the climate over the next decade or so?

Probably not.

Are there some clear, general trends from which we can extrapolate an approximate idea of what may happen?


Are they anything to worry about?

Well, that’s a political question, but there do appear to be some pretty dramatic possible consequences, so yes, I think so.


For what I consider an equally interesting discussion of the methodology of how we go about making up our minds on such a topic, please take a look at my previous post.



  1. adaminberlinio

    Show me your smoking gun, point me towards the actual data, and we’ll discuss it.
    Seriously, I’m doing everything in my powers to follow your argument, but you have to come up with the actual evidence at some time.
    I’m getting a little tired of this now.

  2. adaminberlinio

    Also, nobody seems to have any kind of dispute about the data that I show in the above post that I wrote. You know, that actual data that I link to. What am I meant to conclude from this? Am I not being fair in some way?

    • adaminberlinio

      I don’t wish to be rude, but your second link is to a PDF containing a document written by someone called Ken Gregory. This is not a published, peer reviewed paper. This is not in any way a piece of science. I don’t mean to be casually dismissive, but I don’t see how I should take a document typed by someone I don’t know about, that hasn’t been accepted by any kind of scientific journal, seriously. I’m only just learning a little about the science of climate change, but I do know what science is, and how it works. So far I’ve only been offered completely obscure scientific references that don’t support your claims, or totally non-scientific stuff like that. Now I don’t wish to be harsh here, and you seem like a genuinely intellectually curious person, but your science doesn’t stand up to even a casual bit of scientific analysis.
      The third link is also unconvincing, for what should be by now pretty obvious reasons, namely the lack of real science.
      Go to the “about” page of that site and read what their agenda is. They’ve already decided! They’re trying to promote a viewpoint, which is fine, but friends of science?
      They’re no friends of science.

      I hope this doesn’t sound too harsh JM, and your efforts to explain your viewpoint have been heroic.
      Many thanks, once again.

  3. adaminberlinio

    Thank you JM, I’m enjoying reading the NASA article. Very nice. You made me breathe a sigh of relief, as I was getting a little worn down there. I’m really very appreciative of your continued reasonable discussion.
    I’ll get back to you with my thoughts once I’ve read all your links. First impressions, I don’t know if the 2009 article from NASA strongly suggests that the influence of the sun has such a dramatic effect, or that it in any way counteracts the evidence for greenhouse gas effects, but I’ll give it some honest consideration and some real thought.

    I think it may be just you and me left, JM. I have a lot of respect for the way you’ve engaged with me, so thanks.

  4. A C Osborn

    I am still here Adam.
    That was a very cute trick you used.
    I supply links to genuine Scientific papers by genuine Scientist that happen to be conveniently listed for me on a site that has some material
    you do not like.
    You then cite that material to avoid looking at all of the papers.
    The one paper you do look at you can’t see any relevance to it or the paper it refers to.
    So the fact that solar dimming and brightening just happen to coincide with temperature increases attributed solely to CO2 does not bother you.
    And before you say that paper does not support the dimming/brightening hypothesis it still does, it only says that by using a later and longer period
    and a different method they find that the brightening was actually Underestimated by 2-4 W m−2 and probably so was the dimming.
    But that does not affect the Rate of Change of the overall brightness and thus the energy changes going in to the atmosphere/earth surface.

    The interesting thing about your defense of the current theory and yes it is now defense, is that you will only believe evidence from a Peer Reviewed Scientific paper, nothing else will do.

    So that excludes about 40% of the papers cited and referenced in the IPCC AR4 then, but of course you don’t believe that because it is not in a
    peer reviewed paper do you?
    It also excludes the summaries made in AR4 that were changed form the original submitted papers, but you don’t believe that either, even though contributors resigned from the process.

    The data that you presented for the global surface temperature and “wowed” about is not peer reviewed and has been shown to have modified the original data to make it almost unrecognizable from the original data, but you won’t believe that either because it is not in a peer reviewed paper, but you do believe the data you showed because it comes from a source you approve of.

    So you have all these people all over the world analyzing the data, other scientists, engineers, mathematicians, statisticians, ordinary lay persons
    and you don’t believe any of their work because it is not peer reviewed, which is very convenient.

    So if I or anyone else was to point out to you an error in someone’s Climate work that you do believe in you are not going to believe us are you and further more you won’t bother to look at the data presented will you?

    So answer me this, do you have complete faith in the peer review process with regards to Climate Science?
    Do you have complete faith in the Climate Scientists?

    • adaminberlinio

      Firstly, “I supply links to genuine Scientific papers by genuine Scientist that happen to be conveniently listed for me on a site that has some material you do not like.”
      That’s it? That’s you dealing with the fact that footage of naked, skeletal Jewish corpses is used to characterize what you see as the opposition in a video that’s attempting to argue exactly your point in the front of a website that you obviously rely upon for your own version of the truth?
      That’s it?
      You have nothing else to say about that?
      You think I’m faking a sense of outrage?
      My visceral sense of revulsion is boring and irrelevant to you?
      You don’t even want to make the slightest step to distancing yourself from that website and their chosen form on discourse?
      Fuck me.
      You may have made some valid points that are worth discussing after your attempt at waving away my disgust at that video.

  5. A C Osborn

    You weren’t even slightly bothered when we all pointed out to you what connotations the Denier word had for those opposing AGW, but now you are disgusted at a website that displays a video showing some film clip of death camps.
    You said “It opens with an analogy between modern climate science consensus and *eugenics*”, the point that was being made was that policies have been adopted in error by previous Governments based on incorrect or even in that case disgusting science.

    Do you deny that fact?

    Thank you for bringing those Videos to my attention.

    I have just sat and watched the video, “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, which is located above the one you highlighted.
    If you had bothered to watch that one first (did you?) You would have noticed the Climate Scientists, including IPCC Lead Authors, all disagreeing with the Consensus. All disagreeing that the main cause of warming is CO2.
    They said it much better than I can.

    I could go to the trouble of finding other sites that have convenient lists of papers and find papers that disagree with AGW, but I am no longer inclined to bother.

    • adaminberlinio

      Ha, you’re writing like you don’t know what Godwin’s law is!
      That’s funny.
      Of course you’re no longer inclined to bother revealing your smoking gun science paper. You have it, sure. You’re sitting on the rock solid evidence that proves the co2 hypothesis is wrong and that it’s the sun wot done it. You’ve just decided that I don’t deserve to be a party to such info because I got offended by footage of NAZI death camps being used as part of your team’s PR campaign.
      Seems legit.

      I still haven’t called anyone a denier, or even defended the use of the word, so that’s a bit of a weak analogy. If you skim though the wiki page for the term
      you’ll see that it puts you in with the young earth creationists and the AIDS deniers too. The word is not reserved for holocaust deniers by any means, but if your gang chose to casually use footage of the holocaust to make a totally bullshit analogy about eugenics then I could see how someone might be tempted to lump you in with them.
      According to the page, denialism is characterized by conspiracy theories, cherry picking, false experts, moving the goalposts, and other logical fallacies.
      If the cap fits…

    • adaminberlinio

      Is it actually necessary to point out just how fellacious it is to associate climate consensus with visual images of the holocaust?
      If your next post is not something along the lines of “I fully distance myself from any such characterization and I share your dismay as such a revolting tactic”, then your argument comes crashing to a gory halt right here.
      I live in Berlin, in the very street that was once the center of Eastern European Jewish life before the nazis. The pavements around here are heavily marked by little brass squares that list the names of the former residents, when they were born, and the year they were murdered. Also the name of the death camp.
      “Rosa Goldberg, 1923 – 1943, ermordet Auschwitz”
      “Lionel Rosenburg, 1902 – 1943, ermordet Auschwitz”
      …and on and on they go.
      I pass too many for me to count on my walk to the bakery.
      You can’t just brush this off.
      Don’t just casually support such a comparison.
      Get back here and apologize.

  6. adaminberlinio

    Btw, I can’t help coming across a shed-load of links that all seem to be backed up by, well, science, and they all dismiss the whole “it’s the sun!” story.
    Is there an actual conspiracy going on here?
    Are all the scientists connected to all those publications somehow in the pocket of the all powerful green lobby?
    If I were to believe that, I’d be spending all my time finding evidence for it.
    Is there any?

  7. J Martin

    Realclimate, a site that never allows sceptic comments.

    The hot spot cold spot was a peer reviewed paper that also appeared in the International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) report AR4.

    Maybe you shouldn’t be so emotionally committed to just one point of view. You come across as wanting someone in authority to tell you it’ll all be all right, and there really aren’t any people in jail, and Bernie Madoff never committed fraud, and in fact no one ever committed fraud or went with the herd or the crowd, and that no bad things ever happened in history and that everybody stands up for right against wrong no matter what.

    The climate models say temperatures should be much higher than they are. What will it take for you to open your mind, falling temperatures ? and if so how far ? Falling temperatures are not in the climate models either

    If you take sides too strongly then the embarrassment if eventually you find that the side you chose was wrong after all will be all the greater.

    The gold standard for climate data that the IPCC use is the Hadley centre, the director of which has admitted the climate models failed to predict the temperature standstill. James Hansen head of GISS (a NASA department) has admitted the temperature standstill, as has Pachuari the head of the IPCC also.

    So you seem to be a more extreme alarmist than even they are.

    You know, you said it yourself, “correlation is not causation”. Remember that.

    • adaminberlinio

      There are some interesting points here.
      RealClimate does in fact contain some variations in viewpoints as you can see if you read some of the comments. They appear to me to attempt to remain on the topic of the science. Apparently the writers are all working climate scientists, so that makes sense to me in a way. There seem to me a large number of contributors there.
      If you think it’s legitimate to dismiss everything that any part of the website links to, could you give me a link to a page where RealClimate is being cruelly partisan and unfair? Perhaps a video or something?
      TallBloke kicked me off his site, and I think that’s fair enough, he can do what he wants, but will you also be such a harsh judge of the TalkShop?
      In my view, good starting point when discussing complex scientific matters is to find out what the consensus of scientists in that area think to be the case, perhaps within a broad spectrum. This certainly works in the areas I know more about, such as Darwinian evolution.
      If, as you suggest, in the case of GW, this is completely wrong, all I’d need is a smoking gun.
      A link to some paper that doesn’t categorically fall into the general pattern is not a smoking gun, it’s cherry picking. I mean a leaked document that shows the suppression of data. Some actual experts coming out on your side. Did you see the Bellamy/Monbiot debate? If you guys want to be listened to, you need to get someone who is not only well known, but who is able to think about science rationally. I felt very sorry for him, tbh.
      You should also distance yourselves from Delingpole, as he admits on film that he doesn’t actually ever look at papers, he’s an “interpreter of interpreters”, whatever that is.
      So there’s some kind of conspiracy, that’s your claim, right?
      Have you considered other conspiracies?
      For example, tabacco companies systematically tried to suppress the dangers of smoking. This is perhaps a good analogy, but I feel that the roles are reversed. Have the big energy companies invested any money in attempting to discredit current climate science?
      Is that not true?
      If not, why not? It seems like a logical step, just as it was for the tobacco companies.
      Your Hansen claim needs to be backed up with a link to a website that doesn’t call him an Eco-fascist and alarmist, because I can’t find one. If he actually admitted that, link me to the full quote from a non-bias source (I get a feeling you don’t often visit any of them).
      I said correlation is not necessarily causation, it does not by itself prove causation. Not quite the same thing.

    • adaminberlinio

      I’m not actually an alarmist at all. It seems to me that there’s a looming problem, and to address that correctly we should be listening to the scientists, not the lobbiests of either side, and focusing on the best technology to deal with it. I agree that there is plenty of simplistic, alarmist journalism, resulting in Merkel’s nuclear power blunder, but the lobby to discredit the scientific climate consensus appears equally tainted by a political agenda.
      To get me (and perhaps many more) on board, you’d need to come up with some evidence. Cherry picked data doesn’t cut it. Rumours won’t do. Something more substantial.
      What I’m doing here is hearing you guys out. I’m barely arguing against you, I’m just asking questions.
      Why are all the really good, highly independent scientists I know opposed to your position?
      Where’s the smoking gun?
      Give me the goods on either of these questions without vague accusations of conspiracy, and you’ve got me on side!
      That simple!
      You’ve given me nothing.

  8. A C Osborn

    I do not apologize for that film, but I do agree that the inclusion of that film clip was totally unnecessary and crude, it added nothing to the film’s real message or overall credibility, in fact it detracted from it.

    You say “I’m not actually an alarmist at all.”

    No you are a wannabe warmist.

    I do not believe for one minute that you
    “know” either Stephen Novella or Phil Plait, in fact from your responses you are much more likely to be a Gaurdian reader.

    To come up with the old “Tobacco Industry” and “Big Oil” analogy is an obvious tell.

    You do not believe that there could possibly be a Conspiracy, how about from the horse’s mouth, OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL, “But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the
    illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost
    nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

    Perhaps you should look to your own country for some more answers, how about this for conspiracy theory
    Or that same warmist playing the Auschwitz card

    Or this nice tolerant attitude

    Perhaps you should look at the work of and listen to some of your more sceptical German Scientists instead, try
    Fritz Vahrenholt
    Sebastian Lüning
    Hans von Storch
    Werner Krauss
    Josef Kowatsch
    Frank Bosse
    Klaus_Eckart Puls
    or German meteorologists
    Dominik Jung
    Horst Malberg
    Dr Karsten Brandt
    Dr. Wolfgang Thüne

    More sceptical European Scientists
    Switzerland’s Peter Ziegler
    Or Dutch Arthur Rörsch
    Or Sweden’s
    Lennart Bengtsson
    Göran Ahlgren
    Jonny Fagerström
    Per Welander
    Tage Andersson
    Sten Kaijser
    Wibjörn Karlén
    Ingemar Nordin
    Åke Ortmark
    Carl-Gustaf Ribbing
    Peter Stilbs
    Maggie Thauersköld
    Fred Goldberg

    You also mentioned Bill Nye, do you actually think he knows what he is talking about regarding Climate?
    Take a look at this

    You said “Your Hansen claim needs to be backed up with a link to a website that doesn’t call him an Eco-fascist and alarmist, because I can’t find one.”
    I will leave it to you to look at Wiki on that where you can see his activism and Arrests for it for yourself.
    But let me quote from his own web site and in his own words from 2007 “If we cannot stop the building of more coal fired power plants,
    those coal trains will be death trains – no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species.

    Just in case YOU don’t get the inference, here is the response from the CEO of the company he made this statement about.
    “The suggestion that coal utilization for electricity generation can be equated with the systematic extermination of European Jewry is both repellant
    and preposterous” Mr. Naasz wrote. “Your advocacy on behalf of global warming is ill served by an invidious comparison that manages not only to
    trivialize the suffering of millions but undermines your credibility as a rational observer of a complex phenomenon.”

    Adam, you come across as a Hypocrite, with double standards, you can quote from political and fanatical web sites and people, but sceptics can’t.

    I could not give a toss whether we persuade you or not, as the Climate is going to do it for us.

  9. J Martin

    “one scientist at the Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg sees it completely differently: He sees the next ice age approaching soon!”

    Astrophysicist Habibullo Abdussamatov claims that the sun will radiate significantly less warmth in the coming years. “Consequently a ‘little ice age’ lies ahead.”

    Bild adds that Abdussamatov says the Earth has had a negative energy budget since 1990, but that the oceans have been able to compensate with its stored energy. But the Russian scientist now says that’s over. Bild writes:

    Beginning around 2014 the average annual temperature will begin to drop, and by 2050 it will be about 1.5°C cooler than today when the low point is reached.

  10. J Martin

    Jasper Kirkby the scientist in leading the team at CERN which is investigating the effect og Galactic Cosmic Rays on cloud formation.

    10 minutes of your life. As you can hear he comes across as very neutral un-emotive just interested in pure science.

    Some nice clear graphs of pure solar science.

  11. adaminberlinio

    AC and JM, the argumentum ad nauseam is getting a little extreme now.
    Would you like to point out your answer to either of my questions among all that babble?
    Shall I ask them once more?

    1. Why do all the highly regarded scientists I know of with no direct connection to climate science, who get all their funding from other areas, who have well documented track records of challenging authority, why do they all support the scientific consensus of anthropogenic global warming?

    2. Where is the smoking gun that is evidence that either
    a. shows there’s a global conspiracy to suppress the real data, or
    b. falsifies the co2 hypothesis?

    Either question, in your own time, but please keep it concise, I’ve other more interesting blogs to read 😉

    Many thanks

  12. J Martin

    1. “Why” is indeed a very good question and one that should certainly be re-visited once temperatures start falling, thus completely utterly and irrevocably invalidating the co2 groupthink. Many once reputable scientific careers will end in ignominy.

    2. You have been provided with plenty of evidence that blows big holes in the supposition that co2 is capable of causing dangerous warming.

    I fear you are as yet too young, naive and idealistic to be able to open your mind to the idea that some authoritative organisation or father figure may have got it badly wrong, or may have indulged in, lets not call it fraud, perhaps it’s more a case of peer pressure, social pressure, the need to provide for ones family, groupthink. It’s a reality of life, one you perhaps haven’t yet faced.

    Go turn your attention to other subjects. In ten to thirty years time I am sure you will want to re-visit this subject, and I think it is likely that you will have had more experience of the world by then, you’ll be just a tad less inclined to have that knee jerk assumption that authoritative figures and organisations are above making mistakes or other failings.

    Scepticism is the very foundation of science and advancement of knowledge.

    Agreeing with prevailing consensus stagnates the development of science and knowledge.

    I am done here. Have a good life. Have a fulfilling life. Have a happy life.

    • adaminberlinio

      Thank you J, I appreciate your sincere and thoughtful engagement.
      It appears that you have misunderstood the meaning of scientific consensus, very nicely explained on this wiki page
      Both the Popper position and the Kuhn position could be seen to validate some serious consideration of the scientific consensus.
      I agree that those who question consensus are of great value within science, but to simply oppose it in the face of such overwhelming agreement, at some point, tips over into denialism.

      Anyway, I’ll leave it for people to judge whether you’ve answered either of my questions to any degree of satisfaction.

      Please feel free to return and comment on any part of my little blog, whenever the mood takes you. I welcome all perspectives, although of course I reserve the right to challenge them!

      Farewell J!

  13. A C Osborn

    You say “Anyway, I’ll leave it for people to judge whether you’ve answered either of my questions to any degree of satisfaction.”

    What people, as you said it is a little blog, I hope you and Robert F don’t get too lonely?

    You would do well to remove all those links we put on here, just in case anyone does find there way here and follow them. After all you wouldn’t want to be shown up for the Alarmist Warmer Wannabe you are would you?

    You are one of the most condescending Forum owners I have come across, well I can do condescension as well.
    You state you are a “qualified software engineer”, well let me tell you Sonny I was programming PC computers before you were even born.
    When the only Software on the Computer was DOS. I programmed a Word Processing program and Databases in BASIC and I became an NCC accredited Systems Analyst all before you learned to walk.
    I learned Visicalc & Datamaster before you went to school.
    I learned Dataease, Excel & Access before you went to Uni.
    I did all that while holding down a full time job just to help the International Motor Company company that I worked for.
    According to ISO2000 representatives I co-wrote a world class Problem Feedback database in Access for that Company assisting it in getting their Q1 certification

    You have had a privileged background to have the chance to go to University, it may have “Educated” you but it seems to have taught you sod all about how the world actually works.

    You also like to play the Righteous Indignation card about Nazis as well, I can also show righteous indignation about that and it is a lot more personal and up close than yours.
    I spent my first 6 years of life with the 4 other members of my family in a 1 room Nissen Hut, let me tell you why.
    It might have something to do with the Land Mine exploding near to and demolishing our House, dropped of course by a German Bomber,.
    But that did not put us in the Nissen Hut, no it put us in a Council owned House until it was also destroyed with my Family still in it by the nice Nazi Terror weapon the V2 rocket.
    To say that my family was terrorized and truamatised just about covers it. Add to that the fact that my Father survived being torpedoed by a Nazi U Boat and I feel I have some right to Righteous Indignation about what the Nazis did.
    I am glad to say that our country was instrumental in putingt a stop to it.

    Goodbye (naughty word that I edited out).

    • adaminberlinio

      I’m sorry you feel that way.
      You’re making some enormous assumptions about me. I’m much older than I look in that silly photo, I became a mature student after some time working as a train guard and then in a call center. I do actually see myself as fairly privileged in many ways, although I think your attempt at using that here can only reflect very badly on your argument.
      You’re whole post is screaming


      so I’ll leave it as it is.
      Thanks then.
      *slow wave*

  14. J Martin

    I do think I am wasting my time here and will go at some point, but nonetheless…

    Google Harry Dale Huffman. He shows with calculations comparing Earth’s atmosphere and temperature to Venus that co2 plays no part in temperatures on Earth.

    In outline, Venus has an atmosphere which is over 96% co2 and about 100 times as dense.

    The Russians have sent more than ten probes to Venus and the Americans and one or two others have sent a couple of probes to Venus so we have a good profile of atmospheric composition, pressure, temperature.

    As the probe descends through the atmosphere of Venus, when it gets to the point where the atmospheric pressure is the same as Earth at sea level, we find that the temperature is the same as Earth !

    This implies that no matter how much co2 you add to the atmosphere it has no more effect than any other gas.

    Of course due allowance for the fact that Venus is nearer to the sun than Earth is taken into consideration when making these calculations and measurements.

    Also on planetary matters, at the same time that Earth has experienced warming, NASA has measured increasing temperatures on other planets and moons.

    I don’t have a link, but I’m sure NASA don’t lie, so I expect you can find one if you search Google or NASA’s website.

    I guess the use of SUVs polluting other planets and moons atmosphere’s are more widespread than people thought ! Either that, or the Sun did it.

    The simple fact of the mater is that temperatures on Earth are governed by the Sun and co2 is irrelevant, no matter how many NGOs and other useful idiots, cry otherwise.

    Another great piece of work just published this morning by a commentator called Wayne on that blog you got banned from shows the same thing. He calculates the mass of the atmosphere of Venus and of Earth and shows that temperature is related to mass of the atmosphere, and that co2 plays no part, co2 is irrelevant.

      • J Martin

        “goalposts” is an Ostrich response. The work I have pointed to and outlined, completely blows the warmists hypothesis that co2 causes warming out of the water.

        co2 warming as an hypothesis is dead and buried. Venus is 96% co2, yet no warmer than Earth. Fossil fuel use is not causing warming.

  15. adaminberlinio

    Thanks J, and welcome back. If you wish to have a go at answering my questions, a simple link would do. One link, smoking gun, game over.
    Each of your myths appear to be addressed by climate scientists on RealClimate, so I’d either need some evidence that RealClimate is a fake front for the green lobby, or…well, I think you know by now what I’m asking for. Still. Just a link please. I would like to see the smoking gun.
    If it’s only your word against theirs, I may look at what their word is based on, and they seem to be quite keen on supplying the data to back up their position. I’m just doing some basic skeptical inquiry.

  16. J Martin

    The assumption that co2 is a greenhouse gas has never been fully established.

    We feel heat or warmth by two mechanisms, thermal radiation and conduction. So if the the sun warms the air we can feel that warmth, and if the sun is shining we can also feel that warmth. We can also measure both effects separately.

    The bulk of the atmosphere is Nitrogen and Oxygen, both are considered transparent to long wave radiation, the warmth that we can feel when we stand in the sun. co2 on the other hand absorbs LWR and also re-transmits that radiation.

    Nitrogen and Oxygen once warm are reluctant to radiate that warmth away, whereas co2 does that readily. And it of course radiates equally in all directions, including up into outer space. And so it is argued that in fact co2 is a coolant not a greenhouse gas, and that the real greenhouse gasses are Oxygen and Nitrogen.

    You can many pages of argument over this on the internet and a lot of it involving high levels of mathematics and other sciences.

    Dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.

    But of course the atmosphere is not dry and contains a large amount of water vapour which is by far and away the dominant greenhouse gas, 7 times more powerful in it’s affect than co2 and vastly more of it in the atmosphere than co2.

    But at the end of the day, co2 is a trivial proportion of our atmosphere and therefore cannot play the magical role that current climate models ascribe to it.

    The works of Huffman and Wayne and others, very clearly demolish the idea that co2 has a greenhouse effect.

  17. J Martin

    You never did answer my question I put to you. What drop in temperatures and for how long would make you accept that the so called consensus that co2 causes warming is in fact wrong.

    I am confident that temperatures are going to fall, bottoming out somewhere between 2030 and 2100.

    Still, I have my fingers crossed that there is still plenty of warming in ocean currents some of which are known to take 800 years to circulate. Ideally for me I would like to have Mediterranean temperatures in the UK.

  18. adaminberlinio

    One link, but to another opinion piece. I’m not reading through any more of those.
    Regarding your question, present me with evidence, and then we can discuss it. I don’t think it would be helpful to set some kind of limit. Just give me your best evidence. The smoking gun. It shouldn’t have to match up to some arbitrary limit from me, it should stand alone as evidence, persuasive by its own clarity and directness. I’ve been told “just look at the evidence!”, “it’s easy!” And then I get links to people arguing points.
    Please show me one link with the smoking gun.

    • J Martin

      It’s not an opinion piece. It’s very simple mathematics that clearly demonstrate that co2 plays no part in temperature.

      How is simple mathematics an opinion piece ?

      It’s a tad more complex than 1 + 1 = 2

      But it’s basically straight forward school level mathematics. Show me the error in his calculations.

      Venus is 96% co2 yet at the same atmospheric pressure is the same temperature as Earth with .04% co2. Game over.

      Both Huffman and Wayne’s straight forward arithmetic clearly demonstrate that.

  19. J Martin


    replace ????????? with the name of the blog you are blocking and read how some simple mathematics demonstrates that the temperature on a planet is governed by the amount of energy coming in and and the physical amount of atmosphere it has. The composition of the atmosphere being irrelevant.

    In other words co2 plays ZERO part in temperatures on planet Earth.

    In other words co2 is not in fact a greenhouse gas after all.

    Correlation is most definitely not causation.

    • adaminberlinio

      No. Get me the evidence from that site. I’m not going there, because I’m not welcome there. I’ll give them no more of my Internet traffic.
      Please just post me the smoking gun.

  20. adaminberlinio

    Regarding links to tb’s site, they shouldn’t be blocked anymore, but like I say, get the link to the actual evidence from there and post it here! Surely that’s not the hurdle that’s stopping you show me your smoking gun is it?

  21. A C Osborn

    Adam you printed my list of possible reasons why there is a so called Consensus on CAGW
    1. Cash, in the form of Grant money and expenses.
    2. Job security, do not question the orthodoxy if you value your job.
    3. Herd mentality, they must go with the Consensus.
    4. Peer Pressure.
    5. Fame.

    There is of course one that I forgot because there are no ulterior motives involved and that probably applies to most scientists, especially those in other disciplines.
    6. Scientists with Integrity assuming that all Climate Scientists (and other disciplines) also have integrity. They see attacks on the Climate Data and Scientists as attacks on all Science and all Scientists. They are either too gullible, too busy, too lazy, too supportive or too offended to actually look at and question the data.

    I only came back to post this because it was an original error on my part and I owe it to all those Scientists with integrity to include it in the original list.

    Typical of your double standards to remove my rude word and leave your own offensive language.

    This time I really will not be back.

    • adaminberlinio

      A C (welcome back, you’ve got some nerve!)
      Do you know nothing about the skeptics movement? SitP? Skeptics guide to the universe? The conferences that are happening all over the world? These people are searching out other scientists who are being lazy, who are being corrupt, or fraudulent. It’s a worldwide movement! I went to the World Skeptics’ Congress here in Berlin last year. Scientists and skeptics work together to flush out exactly that behavior. Your position exhibits none of the elements that true scientific skepticism need.
      How can you try and come back after using personal attacks on me?
      I try to keep personal details about myself off of the Internet, so I won’t go in to the many reasons why your assumptions about me are false, but even if they weren’t, how does any of that effect this discussion?
      A little strange, and actually quite unpleasant.

  22. J Martin

    Following the marathon thread about Willis Eschenbah’s ‘steel greenhouse’ concept, Wayne takes the discussion of real planets and the way their energy balance points are considered in a new and promising direction.

    Earth TSI, 1362 W/m² / 4 = 340.5 * (1-0.3022 Bond albedo) = 237.6 OLR & also solar input

    Venus TSI 2614 W/m² / 4 = 653.5 * (1-0.9000 Bond albedo) = 65.35 OLR & also solar input

    Earth surface temperature 289.1 K per TFK2009

    Venus surface temperature 735.4 K, 0.3°C greater than the VIRA (Venus Int’l Ref. Atm.) data

    289.1 K equivalent to 396.1 W/m² at surface

    735.4 K equivalent to 16584 W/m² at surface

    Mean radius of Earth = 6371008 m, surf. area = 4·π·6371008² = 5.101E+14 m²

    Mean radius of Venus = 6051800 m, surf. area = 4·π·6051800² = 4.602E+14 m²

    Mass of Earth atmosphere = 5.1 x 10^18 kg, same / 5.101E+14 m² = 9,998 kg/m² atm column mass

    Mass of Venus atmosphere = 4.8 x 10^20 kg, same / 4.602E+14 m² = 1,043,025 kg/m²

    So, Venus’s atm column mass is 1,043,025 / 9,998 = 104.32 more massive.

    Compute the hypothetical altitude where 1/2 must logically go up and 1/2 must bear downward (the ‘shell’) to give a up-down flux here:

    396.1 – 237.6 = 158.5 up and 158.5 down, take the up + (237.6 − 158.5 = 79.1 W/m² total window loss) equals the 237.6 OLR.

    Take the Earth’s non-window up/down portion excluding the direct window loss and multiply by the mass ratio of Venus’s atm. column mass to Earth’s atm. column mass and you get 158.5 × 104.32 = 16535 W/m².

    The point here is that both atmosphere’s are totally opaque to all non-window frequencies for these dense portions of each atmosphere’s, we’ve excluded the window flux, so they are for all purposes equivalent but for the mass that each carry.

    Add Venus’s actual columnar OLR of 65.35 W/m² to get 16600 W/m². Convert back to the equivalent temperature to give 735.6 K. Well, this sequence is off just a bit by 0.2°Con Venus’s surface temperature, somewhere, round errors, but seems you would be foolish to not at least to look into this relation deeper. The two show the same in every aspect when looked as shell layers of the Earth’s atm. column mass in intervals. The altitude of each layer is irrelevant, just that they do exist.

    I also think this may just help answer why Miskolczi could never explain the 17 W/m² deviance in the ERBE OLR readings that he attributed to an unexplained error (see his papers). He is dealing with surface temperature and radiosonde readings, not window radiations that are created within the atmosphere itself as GHG cross radiate and frequencies change. All IR radiation is rovibrational in nature from what I have read and further re-emissions are rarely at the same frequencies. Some hit on the far edge of wings and 1/2 of these have very high probability of escaping directly upward, becoming classed as window radiation. Take his ~59 W/m² he uses to compute his τ = 1.87 (tau) and add back in the 17 W/m² unexplained ERBE error and you land close to the 79.1 W/m² window radiation I calculated above by a simple subtraction dictated by a pure and simple ‘shell’ viewpoint. Trenberth has 40+30 as this figure but just picked those to balance the budget as I understand, said it could actually be higher didn’t he?

    I know this is critical to Willis’s shelled steel planet thought experiment and has really opened my eyes at least to what you can infer from the AGWers (properly) pointing at the downward radiation. What they do not see is that this proves two things, they won’t like either one.

    One as Tim Folkerts pointed out, pointed downward, altitude is irrelevant in downward radiation when speaking in layers. Great insight there, I shouldn’t have missed it.

    Two is that this very factor of the surface temperature being two times the ‘hinge point’ (maybe call it the ERL) plus the window radiation is the equivalent of the surface temperature (158.5 × 2 + 79.1 = 396.1 W/m² (289.1 K)), we see that in this post, it doubles, I’ll be, it does. That disproves everything they are all claiming through layers upon layers of complexity. All physics is simple locally. Some good mind said that in the past, can’t remember who would have ever said that, but it is true.

  23. J Martin

    A crystal clear graph of warmist temperature predictions, and actual temperature.

    co2 is not shown on the graph but is running higher than even the highest line shown on the graph, the purple upper limit line.

    The red line is the warmists prediction based on the assumption that co2 stopped climbing.

    So this graph graphically demonstrates how far apart warmist climate models are from reality. Namely that they said that temperatures would follow co2, if they did then the line depicting temperature should be higher than the purple line at the top of the graph, but as we can see, temperature is in fact the lowest line on the graph.

    In short, alarmist climate models have visibly failed to come anywhere near predicting actual temperatures and so they must reduce the proportion of co2 they build into their models and look elsewhere fro other factors to explain the difference.

    So if co2 doesn’t govern temperature on this planet, what does ?


    Can you imagine the disarray and and confusion and soul searching that will take place in the simpleton warmist world if that blue line should head downwards for the next ten years, or even just stay level for ten more years. Well, barring unforeseen ocean currents turning up, that temperature stagnation or fall is already in the bank.

    Since for the last 4 + years we have climbed to the regular-ish 11 year solar high, but this high is lower than any since the 1800s and may even match the Dalton minimum in 1810, the next high, might even go lower still, and so we cannot preclude something approaching a near repeat of the Maunder minimum.

    Problem is, someone forgot to tell the warmists that this was happening and so they haven’t included any of it in their alarmist climate computer models. Oops.

    • adaminberlinio

      Thanks. So, your first two links are the same, to a chart that has no reference for the data shown. The third link is to an article written by Bob Irvine. I can’t find anything out about him. He appears to be a Guest Blogger at Watts Up With That, another site that I think you’ll agree has taken a particular position on this. Nothing wrong with that, but I do need links to the actual evidence, not another opinion piece. D you notice the difference in the RealClimate articles? You can quite easily drill down and access the studies, the names of the scientists involved, and the methodology. Some of this may be flawed, I agree, but that approach itself is not.

      • J Martin

        I am not a climate scientist and so I do not have links to the source of such graphs within NASA and NOAA or the Hadley Centre or the IPCC.

        If you want to see and verify such links you will nee to go and post on WUWT and TB’s blog and there will no doubt be people there who do have such links and can even give you links to the data itself so that you can plot your own graphs.

        Sceptics don’t make these graphs up or invent fake graphs, there is no need to, thee are plenty of US and UK organisations that produce them, GISS, NOAA, Hadley, etc etc.

      • adaminberlinio

        J, I’m not implying that anyone is making anything up, I’m simply applying scientific methodology to this question. I’ve looked on WUWT and other such sites, and I see a lot of cherry picking of data, a lot of unsubstantiated argument, a lot of innuendo, quote mining, straw men, and every other logical fallacy there is (if you don’t know about this central element of thinking scientifically, please read this). When I engage them in discussion, they move the goalposts. I don’t know what the answers are, but I know a system that will take me towards the most likely hypotheses. I’ve applied this system to the people at WUWT and the like, and they come up short. Too much obfuscation.

  24. J Martin

    From the Realclimate article you linked to.

    “but the amount of CO2 we could add to the atmosphere by burning all available fossil fuel reserves would not move us significantly closer to the runaway greenhouse threshold. There are plenty of nightmares lurking in anthropogenic global warming, but the runaway greenhouse is not among them. “

    • adaminberlinio

      Even within your own quote mining, you’re making points against yourself. It says there “There are plenty of nightmares lurking in anthropogenic global warming…”
      Do you agree with that statement?
      I have no problem with any part of the quote, but you?

      • J Martin


        The chart or graph is the same that the IPCC have inadvertently published and is also to be found at the US government organisation NOAA. It is entirely valid. Where possible sceptics use the warmists own graphs as in this case.

        The IPCC themselves have published a very similar graph using data from the Hadley Centre. It shows exactly the same thing, the failed temperature predictions and the actual temperature. Given the IPCCs warmist positn tit is surprising that they have had the courage to publish this graph. The IPCC also state that this shows that they may need to consider factors other than co2, and they then suggest that the most likely one will be the Svensmark theory about cloud formation currently being tested at CERN by Jasper Kirkby and his team.

        Did you watch the Jasper Kirkby youtube video ? It is well worthwhile, because it shows where the bulk of the future evidence that the IPCC will be looking at next in order to improve their climate models which they themselves admit have some problems.

        That graph is genuine, you can find it at NOAA, Hadley, IPCC, and no doubt in many other places.

  25. J Martin

    That Venus probe has yet to get there, so whatever measurements of albedo it may or may not make will add useful information to the Earth Venus comparison.

    And so for now realclimate live in hope that the new probe on it’s way will re-establish co2 as a force to be reckoned with. It may not do.

    Dependant on what data it generates, we may then need another probe to visit a third planet or moon to eliminate any apparent conflicts. It may so happen that the albedo of Earth and Venus may balance in such a way as to not enable us to fully separate the effects of albedo and atmospheric mass.

    I don’t what other moon or planet may be a suitable candidate.

    I am all for real science such as space probes, because these produce numbers and measurements to help in understanding reality.

    Computer Climate models are just someone’s best guess. And yes, GUESS, is the operative word.

    Yet despite their models being a guess and visibly wrong, we are destroying our economy and people’s livelihoods based on visibly failed models and wild speculation about the possible consequences of temperature rises even though history shows us that similar temperature rises were in fact benign and mankind and societies flourished at times of warm temperatures.

    But in any case the Sun clearly has other plans and is going into a rest phase. Do I feel sorry for the alarmists ? No.

  26. J Martin

    Theodore Landscheidt predicted in 2003 that the current cooling would continue until 2030 []:

    “Analysis of the sun’s varying activity in the last two millennia indicates that contrary to the IPCC’s speculation about man-made global warming as high as 5.8°C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected. It is shown that minima in the secular Gleissberg cycle of solar activity, coinciding with periods of cool climate on Earth, are consistently linked to an 83-year cycle in the change of the rotary force driving the sun’s oscillatory motion about the centre of mass of the solar system. As the future course of this cycle and its amplitudes can be computed, it can be seen that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on Earth. This forecast should prove ‘skilful’ as other long-range forecasts of climate phenomena, based on cycles in the sun’s orbital motion, have turned out correct, as for instance the prediction of the last three El Niños years before the respective event.”

  27. Pingback: the site with no reply | things temporarily hidden

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s