Advances In Climate Science Over The last Five Years

I enjoyed this.

Real Science

The definition of global warming used to be :

Fifteen year trends of rapid mid-troposphere warming.

Now it is :

Isolated out of context weather events and imaginary heat disappearing into the deep ocean.

View original post

Advertisements

About Bob Tisdale

Research interest: the long-term aftereffects of El Niño and La Nina events on global sea surface temperature and ocean heat content. Author of the ebook Who Turned on the Heat? and regular contributor at WattsUpWithThat.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Advances In Climate Science Over The last Five Years

  1. Myrrh says:

    A Message to All AGW/CAGWs – What Greenhouse Effect?

    From real physics:

    Temperature of Earth with voluminous real gas atmosphere with mass therefore weight under gravity, mainly condensable nitrogen and oxygen: 15°C

    Temperature of Earth without atmosphere: -18°C

    Compare with the Moon without atmosphere: -23°C

    Temperature of the Earth with real gas atmosphere of mainly condensable nitrogen and oxygen, but, without water, think deserts: 67°C

    Which is the real “thermal blanket” around the Earth?

    Where is the physical process of the Greenhouse Effect claim that “greenhouse gases warm the Earth 33°C from the -18°C it would be without them?

    At best this is mass delusion, at worst, this is “scientists” without even an elementary grasp of the physical properties and processes of matter and energy:

    who cannot tell the difference between real gases and the fictional ideal;

    who have not noticed the whole of the Water Cycle is missing from their models;

    who have not noticed they have no rain in their Carbon Cycle;

    who have zilch capacity for sense of scale and cannot tell the difference between their claimed trace gas carbon dioxide which is practically 100% hole in the atmosphere “thermal blanket” and the real gas air nitrogen and oxygen with mass therefore weight under gravity which weighs down on us around 14lbs per square inch, a ton on our shoulders;

    who think our Sun is a cold star of 6000°C, which is around the temp of the Earth’s innards;

    who think our real millions of degree hot Star the Sun therefore radiates insignificant amounts of longwave infrared heat, which they have, it has to be said, idiotically calculated by some ‘planckian’ method based on the thin 300 mile wide visible light atmosphere around our millions of degree hot Sun;

    or, who claim there is some “invisible barrier like the glass of a greenhouse at TOA preventing direct thermal infrared from the Sun entering”, unknown to real physics;

    who have not noticed the Solar Constant, which is the measurement of how much direct longwave infared heat energy from the Sun arrives at the surface by the amount it heats matter at the surface, has been moved in their GHE energy budget to TOA and misattributed to visible light from the Sun;

    who claim it is visible light from the Sun which heats matter, which is a physically impossibility, etc., etc.,

    Do the rest of us in the world who rely on you for accuracy as you claim to be scientists a favour – stop your posturing. You have no knowledge of physics basics.

    The Greenhouse Effect is an Illusion, it is not physically possible, it does not exist, it is hoax to promote AGW.

    It is the biggest science fraud to date and the longer you continue to promote it the longer the fraud will continue to the detriment of real science, and real scientists.

    There is no physical process to get the “33°C warming by greenhouse gases”, its an illusion created by the science fraud of misappropriating the minus 18°C and applying it where it does not belong..

  2. Myrrh says:

    This is a direct science challenge from traditional physics to all AGWs and CAGWs against their claim the AGW Greenhouse Effect and its energy budget’s “shortwave in longwave out”, in which I show how their “backradiation by greenhouse gases from the atmosphere under TOA” is a deliberate science fraud.

    It begins, and taking it one step at a time, with providing evidence that this, my science challenge on the physics claims made in the GHE, comes from a recognised science body, NASA, which directly contradicts the AGW Greenhouse Effect claim that “we get no longwave infrared direct from the Sun”.

    NASA, when giving traditional teaching of up to date physics, clearly states that the heat we get at the surface direct from the Sun is longwave infrared, that this is what we feel as heat, and, that we cannot feel shortwave infrared because it is not thermal, it is not hot, that in fact, we cannot feel it at all.

    In real physics as NASA states in the quote I have posted earlier, the direct heat we receive from the Sun which is longwave infrared is called thermal infrared, because it is the electromagnetic wavelength of heat energy. The Sun’s thermal energy, its heat energy, directly transferred by radiation. Basic, bog standard traditional physics.

    The Greenhouse Effect is a science fraud.

    Defend it or stop claiming it is real physics.

  3. Myrrh says:

    what concerns me here is that the physics knowledge which we have now is built on the work of scientists for centuries dedicated to the pursuit of accurate information about the properties of matter and energy and their interactions. We have come a long way from the brilliant, but still crude, work of those like Herschel, because, education has become available for the mass population regardless of wealth and position and speed of communication improved far beyond what the earlier explorers into science of our natural world could ever had imagined.

    We have lost that. The AGW Greenhouse Effect has changed physics and substituted nonsense in its place in order to promote AGW, there are few teaching traditional physics basics outside of specialised applied science in various fields.

    This used to be standard junior level physics basics a few decades ago as this traditional page from NASA shows:

    “Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat! The heat that we feel from sunlight, a fire, a radiator or a warm sidewalk is infrared. The temperature-sensitive nerve endings in our skin can detect the difference between inside body temperature and outside skin temperature

    “Shorter, near infrared waves are not hot at all – in fact you cannot even feel them. These shorter wavelengths are the ones used by your TV’s remote control.”

    http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/infrared.html

    This directly contradicts the GHE “shortwave in longwave out, longwave infrared heat from the Sun absent”. We cannot feel shortwaves, they are not thermal energies.

    AGWSF claims that “thermal” refers to the source, but in traditional physics it refers to the electromagnetic wavelength itself. Our more accurate measurements since Herschel have divided the invisible infrared into shortwave infrared as non-thermal and longwave as thermal. Shortwave infrared is classed in with Light and not Heat, with Reflective and not Thermal.

    Which do you think is correct?

    I have gone into a bit more detail in another discussion which I post here for ease of reference:

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/who-are-the-97/#comment-13784

    Trenberth’s missing heat is hidden in his comic cartoon Greenhouse Effect energy budget – several things at play here.

    Firstly, AGWScienceFiction has taken out the direct radiant heat from the Sun, which is the Sun’s thermal energy transferred by radiation, longwave infrared aka thermal infrared, and given this to “shortwave in at TOA”, mainly visible light, (a bit of uv and near infrared either side, infrared 1% of the total).

    Visible light from the Sun interacts with matter on the electronic transition level, not on the molecular vibrational level, it cannot heat matter.

    Traditional up to date physics has known since Herschel’s time that the great heat energy we receive from the Sun, which we feel as heat and which is physically capable of heating up matter on the whole molecular vibrational level, and has since divided that invisible infrared into thermal and non-thermal. Shortwave infrared is not thermal, it is not heat energy, it is not hot, we cannot feel it at all. Ditto visible and uv in “shortwave in”.

    The AGW Greenhouse Effect has no heat at all from the Sun.

    They give two reasons why “no longwave infrared heat from the Sun reaches the surface”.

    The original, which I have been told is the CAGW view, that there is “an invisible barrier at TOA like the glass of a greenhouse which prevents longwave infrared from from the Sun entering. This “invisible barrier at TOA” is unknown to traditional physics.

    The AGW version is that the Sun radiates “insignificant longwave infrared and insignificant of insignificant reaches us”.

    They have clearly been so brainwashed by the impossible physics of the meme “visible light from the Sun is the heat we feel and heats the Earth’s surface”, that they have no idea they have taken out all the direct heat from the Sun..

    This second version is even more absurd than their classic greenhouse barrier, they have calculated the Sun’s temperature by some weird planckian manipulation to be 6000°C on the thin, 300 mile wide atmosphere of visible light around the Sun, from which they say they get their heat. They do not have the physics nous to see just how absurd that is and not even common sense to see they are claiming our millions of degree hot Sun is a cold star..

    AGWSF has put this fictional fisics in place for one reason only, so they can use the real world measurements of downwelling direct from the Sun longwave infrared heat and attribute it to their “backradiation by greenhouse gases from the atmosphere under TOA”.

    Secondly, they have taken the Solar Constant which is in real world physics is calculated on the amount the Sun’s thermal energy heats the surface, and given it to their “shortwave in at TOA” .

    So we have as in Trenberth’s cartoon, the amount of shortwave finally being absorbed by the surface and thereby claimed to be heating it, producing upwelling heat from the surface three times more than is absorbed.

    http://www.rmets.org/weather-and-climate/climate/energy-and-climate-dr-kevin-e-trenberth

  4. Myrrh says:

    Hmm. Posted to http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/08/after-climategate-never-the-same/#comment-362393

    For scientific knowledge to earn credibility as public knowledge scientists have to work as hard outside the laboratory as they do inside, through repeated demonstrations of their integrity, accessibility and trustworthiness. Only then will they be judged as reliable witnesses and their knowledge deemed credible. This is not easy to do, as the events surrounding Climategate showed.

    But beyond these reasons for climate change scepticism, in the years following Climategate it has become more important to distinguish between at least four different aspects of the conventional climate change narrative where scepticism may emerge.

    I see a distinct lack of integrity still as the basic premises of AGW’s Greenhouse Effect are never allowed to be examined, mostly this is avoided by direct censorship and accompanied often by the deceit that they do not censor. This happens across the board, MSM such as the Grauniad and CAGW blogs like Skeptical Science have been roundly attacked for this by AGWs calling themselves skeptics, but when it comes to discussion of the basic physics on which both these build their theories the AGWs also do all they can to avoid examination of it.

    Singer began, or perhaps was just one of the leaders, of this separation to changing ‘skepticism’ to mean only arguments about nuances of doctrine among those sharing the same basic dogma. He had no compunction when loudly proclaiming this novel meaning of skepticism to distance himself and his camp from those he called deniers of the Greenhouse Effect dogma.

    All the while this was happening there were countless posts on blogs such as WUWT claiming they were being victimised as deniers when they were not denying the basic dogma, many posts full of angst at this choice of word to describe those arguing about the science of AGW by CAGWs, and many puzzled CAGWs wondering what the heck was going on as they had used that word only to describe those denying the Greenhouse Effect Dogma.

    This new version of skepticism was accompanied by exactly the same disgraceful behaviour they condemned when coming from CAGWs – and seemingly unable to see the hypocricy in refusing to produce evidence for their Dogma while claiming it existed by ‘consensus’. Here, ‘it was very well known’ and ‘proved by countless experiments’ and the general ‘handwave to the past authority of Arrhenius/Tyndall/Fourier’, enough to ‘prove they were right’, while refusing to fetch any of these claimed empirical studies – those denying the Dogma were being successfully marginalised further by this wave of supercilious blocking of arguments from AGWs all the while they were hypocrically proclaiming their repulsion to the blocking of discussion on the science and objecting to the malpractices such as hiding open access of data.

    So will this post make the light of day into this discussion?

    If I leave it at that as a general comment, there is a chance it will appear…

    If I go into more detail to give example that their common Dogma of the Greenhouse Effect has no validity in real world physics, then it will not.

    You have all, CAGWs and AGWs alike, censored traditional physics by refusing to discuss it. It is your utter contemptuous hypocricy which rankles, you are not scientists, you are political pawns.

  5. Myrrh says:

    Interesting.., I’ll try this one..

    So, let us go for integrity from the scientists.. Let’s begin by getting rid of deflections from the real argument which both AGW and CAGWs continue to rebrand ad hoc and take a look at what real physics has to say about the Greenhouse Effect.

    It is an illusion created out of manipulating the properties and processes of matter and energy to create a fantasy world which does not exist, which is not a problem if you are writing a fantasy science fiction novel, but is science fraud when you pass this off as being the physics of our real world.

    AGW, and so CAGW also, is built on the science fraud of the Greenhouse Effect.

    http://www.rmets.org/weather-and-climate/climate/energy-and-climate-dr-kevin-e-trenberth

    This energy budget of “shortwave in longwave out” is science fraud.

    Trenberth’s missing heat is hidden in his comic cartoon Greenhouse Effect energy budget – several things at play here.

    Firstly, AGWScienceFiction has taken out the direct radiant heat from the Sun, which is the Sun’s thermal energy transferred by radiation, longwave infrared aka thermal infrared, and given this to “shortwave in at TOA”, mainly visible light, (a bit of uv and near infrared either side, infrared 1% of the total).

    Visible light from the Sun interacts with matter on the electronic transition level, not on the molecular vibrational level, it cannot heat matter.

    Traditional up to date physics has known since Herschel’s time that the great heat energy we receive from the Sun is invisible, which we feel as heat and which is physically capable of heating up matter on the whole molecular vibrational level, and has since divided that invisible infrared into thermal and non-thermal. Shortwave infrared is not thermal, it is not heat energy, it is not hot, we cannot feel it at all. Ditto visible and uv in “shortwave in”, these are not thermal energies, we cannot feel them.

    The AGW Greenhouse Effect has no heat at all from the Sun.

    They give two reasons why “no longwave infrared heat from the Sun reaches the surface”.

    The original, which I have been told is the CAGW view, that there is “an invisible barrier at TOA like the glass of a greenhouse which prevents longwave infrared from from the Sun entering. This “invisible barrier at TOA” is unknown to traditional physics.

    The AGW version is that the Sun radiates “insignificant longwave infrared and insignificant of insignificant reaches us”.

    They have clearly been so brainwashed by the impossible physics of the meme “visible light from the Sun is the heat we feel and heats the Earth’s surface”, that they have no idea they have taken out all the direct heat from the Sun..

    This second version is even more absurd than their classic greenhouse barrier, they have calculated the Sun’s temperature by some weird planckian manipulation to be 6000°C on the thin, 300 mile wide atmosphere of visible light around the Sun, from which they say they get their heat. They do not have the physics nous to see just how absurd that is and not even common sense to see they are claiming our millions of degree hot Sun is a cold star..

    AGWSF has put this fictional fisics in place for one reason only, so they can use the real world measurements of downwelling direct from the Sun longwave infrared heat and attribute it to their “backradiation by greenhouse gases from the atmosphere under TOA”.

    Secondly, they have taken the Solar Constant which is in real world physics is calculated on the amount the Sun’s thermal energy heats the surface, and given it to their “shortwave in at TOA” .

    So we have as in Trenberth’s cartoon, the amount of shortwave finally being absorbed by the surface and thereby claimed to be heating it, producing upwelling heat from the surface three times more than is absorbed.

    The AGW Greenhouse Effect has changed physics and substituted nonsense in its place in order to promote AGW, there are few teaching traditional physics basics outside of specialised applied science in various fields.

    That the heat we receive from the Sun is longwave infrared used to be standard junior level physics basics a few decades ago as this traditional page from NASA shows:

    “Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat! The heat that we feel from sunlight, a fire, a radiator or a warm sidewalk is infrared. The temperature-sensitive nerve endings in our skin can detect the difference between inside body temperature and outside skin temperature

    “Shorter, near infrared waves are not hot at all – in fact you cannot even feel them. These shorter wavelengths are the ones used by your TV’s remote control.”

    http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/infrared.html

    We cannot feel shortwaves, they are not thermal energies.

    This tradition teaching from NASA directly contradicts the GHE “shortwave in longwave out, longwave infrared heat from the Sun absent”.

    Read that again, if you AGWs and CAGWs have any spark of scientific integrity left you cannot ignore that traditional real world physics directly contradicts your Greenhouse Effect energy budget.

    AGWSF claims that “thermal” refers to the source, but in traditional physics it refers to the electromagnetic wavelength itself. Our more accurate measurements since Herschel have divided the invisible infrared into shortwave infrared as non-thermal and longwave as thermal. Shortwave infrared is classed in with Light and not Heat, with Reflective and not Thermal.

    C.O.D. physics Science dealing with properties and interactions of matter and energy.

    I can only suggest that you change your ‘consensus’ to real physics as traditionally taught..

    Because, I am tired of your games. This following is an example of what you have produced by promoting this science fraud throughout the general education system:

    http://www.inquisitr.com/tag/earths-core-hot-as-sun-surface/

    Can you see how absurd that is?

    Sleight of hand trickery, by calling the Sun’s thin atmosphere of visible light its surface and justifying it by nonsensical ‘planckian’ maths, we end up with our millions of degrees hot Sun no hotter than the Earth’s innards.

    And all this skullduggery fantasy fisics Greenhouse Effect Illusion built on the corner stone science fraud of misattributing the -18°C ..

  6. Myrrh says:

    Ah well, back to generalisations, but naming names:

    RoyFOMR | August 9, 2013 at 8:27 pm | I come here for edification not frustration.

    Ask them to show AGW with empirical real physics.

    They can’t. They do not have the faintest idea of the real properties and processes of the natural world around us.

    And those that do are keeping shtum.

    Why? Because:
    Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name
    By S. Fred Singer
    “Gallia omnia est divisa in partes tres. This phrase from Julius Gaius Caesar about the division of Gaul nicely illustrates the universe of climate scientists — also divided into three parts. On the one side are the “warmistas,” with fixed views about apocalyptic man-made global warming; at the other extreme are the “deniers.” Somewhere in the middle are climate skeptics.”

    They repositioned themselves, as SS notes here:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/singer-criticises-deniers.html

    “It’s not the first time we’ve seen someone trying to re-jig the debate, with a number of leading political anti-science activists now saying that they accept that the greenhouse effect exists and that temperatures are increased by Mankind’s industrial emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases (but only by a teeny-weeny little bit). In doing so, they are putting ground between themselves and the rank-and-file who daily appear on comment threads to insist that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist, is a hoax and blah blah blah. It’s as if they have realised that there is no longer any mileage in promoting that particular bunch of myths to policymakers and public alike, so that instead they are going for climate sensitivity as an alternative target. “Calling all think-tanks. Calling all think-tanks. Go to Plan B, repeat, go to Plan B.””

    This repositioning was to marginalise those Singer calls climate deniers, who turn out to be those not denying climate, a rather idiotic description coming from an atmospheric physicist, but those denying the Greenhouse Effect itself. As he goes on to give some examples. http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giving_us_skeptics_a_bad_name.html

    All this to reposition himself and his AGW ilk, by theft of the term “skeptic”, from those who are the real sceptics in science. He devotes a whole paragraph to lauding the concept while lying about the deniers by including them in with CAGWs who do refuse to debate.

    “In principle, every true scientist must be a skeptic. That’s how we’re trained; we question experiments, and we question theories. We try to repeat or independently derive what we read in publications — just to make sure that no mistakes have been made.

    “In my view, warmistas and deniers are very similar in some respects — at least their extremists are. They have fixed ideas about climate, its change, and its cause. They both ignore “inconvenient truths” and select data and facts that support their preconceived views. Many of them are also quite intolerant and unwilling to discuss or debate these views — and quite willing to think the worst of their opponents.”

    All to hide that he and his middle ground have no empirical physics for their claims of the Greenhouse Effect and shut down all real sceptical science analysis of the concept.

    So we have what we have now, both CAGWs and AGWs believing, because they have no science to back up their belief, in this Dogma, and both determined to shut off any actual discussion of the claims made. Instead we get the ludicrous scenario of these so calling themselves sceptical scientists doing everything they can to distract us from that inconvenient truth.

    What we generally get is a wave in the direction of Arrhenius/Fourier/Tyndall claiming they have proved the Greenhouse Effect exists, but try to get them to fetch this into open discussion to “make sure that no mistakes have been made”, and they can’t. We either get a full blown diabribe against us, any questioning the physics of the claims, or silence.

    So hypocritically, as they have positioned themselves into this false description of themselves as the open inquiring skeptics in science when all they really are is another sect arguing nuances of doctrine of the same Dogma, they do all they can to shut down open science debate and refuse to be drawn into actual scientific analysis of this Dogma’s claims, and find any excuse for doing so..

    The funniest, well perhaps it takes second place to shutting down all arguments that mention gravity, is Monckton’s bluster in a piece where he is castigating CAGWs for arguing from authority..

    Monckton of Brenchley says:

    “Finally, I think the moderators are going to have to do something about the tiresome clique that, time and time again, hijack the comment threads at WattsUpWithThat by asserting that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect, when it has been repeatedly measured both in the laboratory and in the atmosphere, and its physics – even down to the quantum level – are quite well understood.”

    And my objection is still the same now:

    “I asked you in another discussion for this ‘claimed to be in existence’, “it has been repeatedly measured both in the laboratory and in the atmosphere, and its physics – even down to the quantum level – are quite well understood.”, perhaps you missed it?

    “It is something I continue to ask for, it is never produced. Do you want to have a go here at providing it?”

    So RoyFOMR, what edification are you looking for here? If it is asking for show and tell for such dogmatic unproven statements as “However despite skepticism AGW is a fact”, as has been said here, then you have come to the wrong place, as this AGW cynically contrived skeptics middle ground as per Springer has drawn around itself in hypocrical defence of not being able to provide it, mere bluster that it exists.

    They cannot show that even one of their claims in their Dogma has any reference to empirical physics, they all come from borrowed imagination, there is no science here only the wreck of their struggle to pretend credibility..

    move along, there is nothing to see.

    =========
    Another AGW blog site claiming not to censor, but posts containing detail of traditional physics contradicting the physics claims of the Greenhouse Effect do not appear. Let’s see if this one makes it..

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/in-the-next-37-years-labor-will-spend-60000-per-australian-to-change-the-weather/#comment-1306012

    I think it is possible for a “Berlin moment” if AGWs stop being sidetracked into the arguments contrived to divert them, such as warming, and re-examined the actual physics claims of the Greenhouse Effect.

    I have yet to see any physical reality in the claims made for the properties and processes. Rather, traditional physics, simple junior level, contradicts all of them.

    AGWs have repositioned themselves as the ‘true sceptics’ in order to continue avoiding forensic examination – here is Singer shutting out debate on the physics of their shared with CAGWs Dogma:

    http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=3263

    Here SkepticalScience noting the change of tack:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/singer-criticises-deniers.html

    Here an interview with Jo Nova from 2000 with Singer: http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=1938

    Jo:
    Let’s go back to the basic physical principles. People like John Tyndall did experiments in the nineteenth century, where he filled tubes with different gases and found that certain trace gases—CO2 and also gases like water vapor—had the ability to block infrared radiation. And that basic physics suggests the natural greenhouse effect takes advantage of this, suggests that part of the reason we have the climate we have is because of that, and that if you added to it continually and for long enough, you would increase the optical thickness of these gases and, therefore, would trap more heat in the system. From that standpoint, you don’t deviate, do you?

    Singer:
    There’s nothing wrong with the basic physics. There’s nothing wrong with laboratory physics, with measurements taken in the laboratory. They can be made very precisely, and under controlled conditions. Unfortunately, the atmosphere is not a laboratory that you can put into a building and control. The atmosphere is much more complicated.

    So why is this laboratory physics never fetched when requested? Though he never actually says that laboratory tests prove anything of the claims made by AGWs. Why has he taken the argument away from the physics to the distraction of looking for proof ‘in the atmosphere’?

    Because as he says further down:

    Aerosols have a very short lifetime in the atmosphere, measured typically in a matter of a week, two weeks, something like that. And then they rain out, or they fall out. Carbon dioxide has a lifetime measured in decades. Some of it survives even beyond 100 years. So if carbon dioxide effects were important, then they would eventually predominate.

    He gives a false physics about carbon dioxide.

    Carbon dioxide cannot physically accumulate in the atmosphere, it is heavier than air under gravity, and, note particularly, carbon dioxide in the real world is continually washed out of the atmosphere in the Water Cycle, rain.

    He is by clever manipulation of wording giving the impression that there is no rain in the Carbon Cycle, and this is their official teaching – you cannot find rain in their descriptions of the Carbon Cycle, [it is simply not mentioned]. This is fake physics. Carbon dioxide is fully part of the Water Cycle, all natural unpolluted rain has a pH of 5.6-8 because of the carbon dioxide it attracts to itself in the atmosphere. Water has a 8-10 day residence time in the atmosphere.

    How can a atmospheric physicist not know this? Of course he knows it. He is being disingenuous.

    And that is real problem here. The AGW claims have changed the real physical properties and processes of matter and energy to create their Dogma.

  7. Bob Tisdale says:

    Myrrh says: “RoyFOMR | August 9, 2013 at 8:27 pm | I come here for edification not frustration.”

    You’re confusing me, Myrrh. The only person to comment on this thread is you. So who is RoyFOMR and why are you referring to him here?

  8. Myrrh says:

    Oh, sorry, not making it clear – showing you examples of why nothing has progressed in ‘climate science’ in all this time.

    It is not designed to, instead the arguments from traditional physics has been marginalised and the narrative changed to being an argument between warmists and lukewarmers.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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