The bare-faced cheek

Now, I’m a sceptic about man-made climate change and though I frequently reproach those, such as the Royal Society of New Zealand, who give some inaccurate account of climate science, I have no particular position to defend but that of dispassion. To tell you the truth, I don’t know what position to adopt.

Because, quite simply, I have questions, which of course are unanswered, which explains my uncertainty. If my questions were answered, they wouldn’t survive, because answers destroy questions — it’s either that, or you go back to sleep. Credible answers will certainly decide the matter, then perhaps I too, like King Canute before me, will turn and contest the climate. Or not.

Until then, the case for man-made warming is not made to my satisfaction (which you may note is rather the definition of scepticism).

Bath, meet hair dryer

Prominent among these questions is: how do our accumulated airborne emissions of CO2 (by now about 17 ppmv, or 4.3% of total atmospheric CO2), by thermal radiation, significantly heat the oceans (from above, naturally)?

The physical process seems highly implausible, especially if you’ve read basic texts that describe air temperature being dependent on the ocean, and the enormous difference between the heat capacities of the oceans and the atmosphere. The idea seems much like warming a cold bath with a hair dryer. Or melting an igloo by breathing on it — impossible.

I can find no paper on this topic. The AR5 speaks vaguely of “air-sea flux” and avoids quantifying it but in five or six years of my asking nobody has described a likely mechanism. Can you (if not, please stop whining about what you think I believe)?

We cannot avoid what we do not cause

This is remarkable, for it means the alleged heating effect doesn’t in fact exist, which in turn means mankind can’t be held responsible for rising sea levels. The rises predicted by the (oddly unverified) computer models are truly sensational, but sea level rise is proceeding calmly, and every year that passes without the ocean accelerating its ascent amplifies its risk of being late for its own apocalypse.

It seems nobody can explain how we are actually causing what is arguably the most significant peril we face from what is supposed to be the greatest challenge of our generation — dangerous anthropogenic global warming.

RSNZ is Denier in Chief

We in the NZ Climate Science Coalition asked leading New Zealand scientists in the Royal Society of New Zealand for evidence of dangerous anthropogenic global warming and they gave us nothing. Yet it’s inconceivable that after more than four decades they have no evidence for man-made climate change!

They openly deny this essential climate inquiry, yet they have the cheek to call us the climate deniers?

4 Thoughts on “The bare-faced cheek

  1. Stephanie Hawking on June 17, 2018 at 7:37 pm said:

    Oxford professor Myles Allen has a straight forward and comprehensive lecture here:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/04/the-alsup-aftermath/

    While “settled” is a contentious word, climate science is well understood in principle. It’s mature or normal science; in the textbooks.

    It’s up to you to learn it. Nobody else can learn it for you.

    You have a bee in your bonnet about the greenhouse effect warming the oceans. Well, it warms the ocean surface just as it warms any other surface – by slowing cooling. There’s nothing mystical or complex about it.

    To manifest disbelieve and demand the Royal Society of London or anyone to explain simple science to you isn’t the way science works.

    You start gaining an undergraduate degree, next a postgraduate degree. To become a scientist you need to do an apprenticeship – post-doc.

    Bon Voyage…

  2. Brett Keane on June 17, 2018 at 9:50 pm said:

    During my apprenticeship, I learnt How quantum oscillators would not respond to frequencies at or below their energy levels. That in itself wipes out the whole CAGW fracas. Plenty more after that, or there would have been an ‘infrared catastrophe’. Though Maxwell had that all sorted, with acknowledgement to Poisson.

  3. Richard Treadgold on June 18, 2018 at 8:53 am said:

    SH,
    Redirect, turn aside, deflect. Repeat. Avoid my questions, exhaust my heart, waste my strength. Repeat.

  4. Stephanie Hawking on June 23, 2018 at 2:44 pm said:

    During my apprenticeship, I learnt How quantum oscillators would not respond to frequencies at or below their energy levels. That in itself wipes out the whole CAGW fracas. Plenty more after that, or there would have been an ‘infrared catastrophe’. Though Maxwell had that all sorted, with acknowledgement to Poisson.

    The greenhouse effect is real. Whether you understand it or not.

    To all intents and purposes climate scientists are unanimous: more GHG means more warming. Whether you understand it or not.

    Something over 40% increase in CO2 has already caused >1C rise in global mean surface – and that’s with >90% of the additional energy going into the oceans, which are warming. Ice melting.

    So global warming is happening. Whether you understand it or not.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation