Zero emissions trial

quill pen

Letter to the Editor
17 March 2020

Planes parked up, cruise ships anchored, airports deserted, tourists not touring, supermarket shelves bare, Disneyland shut, borders closing, motor races cancelled, no fans in the stands, smelters and factories closing, travel banned, oil and coal prices crashing, stock markets plunging, businesses closing, bankruptcies rising, hotels and motels unoccupied, politicians panicking, barbies cold — looks like zero emissions is almost here.

Viv Forbes
Washpool Qld Australia

60 Thoughts on “Zero emissions trial

  1. Pyat on 17/03/2020 at 2:46 pm said:

    Incredibly poor taste to promote this at a time when thousands are dying.

    • Richard Treadgold on 17/03/2020 at 4:22 pm said:

      No, these are facts. It promotes nothing but watchfulness.

    • Pyat on 18/03/2020 at 8:45 am said:

      Rubbish. It’s contemptible. Exploiting a global tragedy to try to make a puerile political point. Where’s your humanity and common decency?

    • Andy on 18/03/2020 at 9:34 am said:

      Contemptible? These kind of policies are exactly what the more extreme end of the climate activists are asking for.

      Meanwhile, our government is voting for the most extreme abortion laws in the world. A new born child who ‘failed’ to die during an abortion attempt will be just left to die. This is what “caring” progressive policies look like.

      So take a hike with your sanctimonious hand-wringing Mr Pyat

    • Pyat on 18/03/2020 at 10:15 am said:

      It’s a strange planet you live on, Andy. It’s certainly not this one.

      Thank you for your health advice. Hiking is consistent with self-isolation, and a good use of any spare time. But I will be hand washing, not wringing.

    • Andy on 18/03/2020 at 10:35 am said:

      Yes it is a strange planet I live on

    • Richard Treadgold on 18/03/2020 at 12:08 pm said:


      What you call a peurile political point, though strong in alliteration, is weak in climate belief, as it substantially devalues the IPCC climate project. You’re actually saying that the zero carbon policy isn’t worth the paper it’s written on and I agree with you on that. However, the accident of coronavirus provides a perfectly valid real-world experiment to test the cost, trouble and effectiveness of the stupid idea of zero carbon. People are dying, which is regrettable, but they die from influenza and road accidents all the time. You’re only sentimental about it when it suits you.

      Andy mentions our abortion law reforms. Now they’re contemptible; they lack humanity and common decency. Exercise your high moral standards on them.

    • Pyat on 18/03/2020 at 6:09 pm said:

      What a load of long-winded bollocks. Your correspondent makes no points worth responding to, and your interpretation of my comment is risibly wrong.

      You long ago lost the argument on the need for action on climate. All you have left is this attempt to make light of a global tragedy. Shut your site down and start campaigning for abortion reform. You’ll lose that argument too, based on past performance.

    • Richard Treadgold on 18/03/2020 at 7:16 pm said:

      But Pyat, I give you a platform, and you would undeniably not give me one. I win.

    • Pyat on 18/03/2020 at 11:01 pm said:

      You are entitled to your own opinion, but that doesn’t mean that anyone has to take you seriously.

      Respect is something you earn, and any last vestiges you may have possessed disappeared with this post and your comments under it.

    • Andy on 19/03/2020 at 7:13 am said:

      I have zero respect for leftists and climate activists and we know they hate us, so what’s the problem?

    • Mack on 19/03/2020 at 10:53 am said:

      So, has your respect likewise disappeared for these two AGW deluded academic clowns … Renwick and Hendy..and all the AGW believing wackos who’ve printed this…. still pushing your “climate change” crap, without one ounce of your “humanity and common decency” for the unfolding “global tragedy”. ?

    • Andy on 19/03/2020 at 1:38 pm said:

      I’m still struggling to see how this post is poor taste. Climate Change, after all, is “humanity’s biggest crisis” and our “nuclear free moment”. “Entire ecosystems” are collapsing, yet we worry about a mere virus.

  2. Richard Treadgold on 20/03/2020 at 11:26 am said:


    We do our best to answer your questions and criticisms politely and accurately. But as with most climate alarmists, you ignore our questions and spout ridicule. It’s quite sad to see a bloke so persistently resist the call to reason, and yet it gives me hope, since you have clearly emptied your scientific cupboard of intellectual ammo, and its bare shelves distress you, filling you with shame. Never mind, you can join us any time you wish and we will forgive you every slight, every barb, every needless slander. The light is always the light.

    Should warn you, though (carrot and stick): keep up the abuse and I’ll rip up your licence to speak.

    • Yes, it needs to be said, repeated even ad nauseam, but really, there are now growing bands of true believers who cannot be reasoned with. It is evidence of vast and seemingly inexorably growing schisms in thought and belief in western society. This looks to be leading to unbridgeable differences which only events beyond the ken and control of any one belief system or coagulation of partisan interests could overcome.
      Modern science has been infected by a virus which is on the verge of causing a pandemic. The virus has come from the Left field and has affected not only science, but everything else as well. Religion, education, politics, commerce, even international high finance is not immune to this vile viral contamination. There is a challenge here.

    • Pyat on 21/03/2020 at 5:22 pm said:

      What a lot of words, that say so little.

      Richard, our recent exchanges show that arguing science with you is fruitless, because you don’t accept and/or believe some of the fundamentals.

      Your position is purely political. Nothing wrong with that – you are entitled to your views. But there is no scientific argument underpinning your position.

    • Rick on 22/03/2020 at 7:04 am said:

      “….our recent exchanges show that arguing science with you is fruitless, because you don’t accept and/or believe some of the fundamentals.

      Your position is purely political. Nothing wrong with that – you are entitled to your views. But there is no scientific argument underpinning your position.”

      I recommend that you repeat those words over and over again while standing in front of a mirror, Pyat. After a sufficient number of iterations have occurred, I think you might, perhaps, be able to put aside your prejudices for long enough to gain some real grasp of where Richard is coming from and what his viewpoint on these matters actually is.

    • Richard Treadgold on 22/03/2020 at 9:26 am said:

      Yes, thanks, Rick.

      Pyat, perhaps you just don’t see how you haven’t been discussing science, but ridiculing us.

      Still, you’re right about one thing. I don’t accept some of the fundamental aspects of alarmist climate theory.

      • I don’t accept that we’re causing sea level rise, because there’s no explanation of how our airborne emissions warm the ocean. If you know how this happens, then tell me.
      • I don’t believe our emissions are causing the great glaciers and icecaps to melt and if they were, it will take many thousands of years at the current rate of (summer) melting.
      • I don’t accept that the entirety of airborne carbon dioxide possesses sufficient thermal capacity to warm even the airborne water vapour, much less the oceans, and of course that means that the job is completely out of the question for the human 5% of CO2. Methane, nitrous oxide, ozone? Don’t make me laugh, they’re nothing.
      • I don’t believe the climate models know what day it is, and they don’t give credible information from RCP8.5 except to slavering loons eager for Armageddon.
      • I don’t believe climate models will ever give good projections until we figure out whether clouds give a net cooling or warming. It’s completely unknown, yet could easily be responsible for several degrees of temperature change. It’s a farce the IPCC still cite the stupid models.
      • I don’t accept that we’re in the middle of a great extinction event (I forget what number it’s supposed to be) caused by our emissions, there’s no evidence for it.
      • I don’t believe there has been so far a single climate change-caused refugee anywhere. I live in New Zealand, so I know damned well nobody’s been evacuated here to escape the climate.
      • I don’t believe NZ sea levels are uniformly rising; some are falling. The major influence on RSL (relative sea level) are the tectonic plates we ride on.
      • I don’t believe the Great Barrier Reef is being destroyed by climate change.
      • I don’t believe polar bears are being harmed by climate change. They’re doing rather well, actually.
      • I don’t believe there’s a climate emergency.

      Bring evidence for these things and naturally I’ll change my mind. But I will not agree, no matter how many of you good contrary people go along with it, to view all of this through the bewildering visions of insanity that fill our news and our politicians.

    • Simon on 22/03/2020 at 3:19 pm said:

      Your refusal to believe basic scientific principles are the problem. Evidence has been demonstrated time and time again which you steadfastly ignore.

    • Pyat on 22/03/2020 at 4:31 pm said:

      Thank you for that catechism of climate confusion. It nicely proves my point.

      One example: the last time (here) I attempted to discuss climate science with you, I pointed out that amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that can be attributed to human activity is now over 40%. You appear to have forgotten that, and continue to cling to an erroneous 5% figure.

      You fail to acknowledge your errors and/or learn from them, and that shows that your position is far from “scientific”.

      By all means make a case for doing less, or for reducing emissions by means other than those currently proposed, but if you deny the existence of the problem you will simply be ignored by the rest of the world.

      Let me put it another way (and I’m not being rude – just trying to explain how you are seen by the rest of the world): your points above have as much credibility as the positions adopted by anti-vax, 5G or chemtrails nutcases. I’m sure you’re not one of those, are you?

    • Gwan on 22/03/2020 at 9:51 pm said:

      Pyat No one is arguing that we are not emitting CO2 by extracting and combusting fossil fuels.
      What you ,Simon and Nick don’t get is that there is no proof that the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the earths temperature by more than .6 Celsius ,that is 6 tenths of one degree Celsius .
      That is a scientific fact and has been known for over 100 years.
      This is a scientific fact that the only way that the doubling of CO2 could raise the temperature above that level is by positive water vapour feedback and the tropical hotspot .
      These two factors are unproven at this time and climate scientists can not model clouds to put the correct parameters into their climate models .
      Clouds have many effects on temperature as you probably have observed .
      On a cold night heading for a frost clouds block heat from rising and the temperature remains above frost level .
      Clouds block the sun and extensive clouds hold down the temperature at the earths surface .
      All climate models run hot except the Russian one and their is no way that any one can make rational decisions on faulty models .
      Climate change has become a weapon to attack capitalism and impose socialism on the world and then communism .
      I know that this whole global warming climate change is a scam because biogenic methane from farmed livestock was introduced and adopted at the Kyoto climate meeting and not one climate scientist attending objected .
      The undeniable facts are that all fodder consumed by farmed livestock has absorbed CO2 from the air to grow .
      A small amount of methane is emitted as the animals digest their fodder and this breaks down in the upper atmosphere in 6 to 10 years into CO2 and water vapour and the cycle continues and not one additional atom of carbon or molecule containing carbon is added to the atmosphere .
      Our government is being pushed by the Greens to tax farmers for their livestock’s methane emissions when not one single atom of carbon is added to the atmosphere over any time span.
      This is blatantly wrong but climate scientists here and overseas will not speak up as it is not in their purview .
      Proud to be farming in New Zealand .
      Earning the overseas exchange that New Zealand needs more than ever as Tourism has been side swiped by Covid19.

    • Pyat on 23/03/2020 at 9:44 am said:

      Graham: there is ample scientific evidence that a doubling of CO2 will increase temperature by a lot more than 0.6C. The water vapour feedback is governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship, a rock solid piece of physics. Increases in water vapour have been measured, and are in line with expectations. The “tropical hotspot” thing is ten years out of date (ie, we now know it’s there). Modelling clouds is hard, but model representations are getting better (I posted a couple of relevant links last time I posted here). But there’s a very good reason for suggesting that clouds are on balance a positive feedback: if they were strongly negative, the world would find it very hard to warm out of an ice age. We’d be living on a snowball.

      Your point on methane is reasonable, and several NZ academics have suggested we treat biogenic methane differently to fossil methane. Unfortunately NZ doesn’t set the international rules.

      The rest of your post is politics. You may choose to believe those things, but dealing with climate change is far from a scam. The point I made to Richard applies here: if you want a seat at the table where decisions are made, and if you want to be taken seriously, it helps to accept the evidence.


    • Mack on 24/03/2020 at 3:39 pm said:

      Just unsubstantiated , speculative blah, blah ,blah……ending with the crowning glory…
      “We’d be living on a snowball”
      “We’d be living on a snowball” !! …. riiight…living on a snowball… nobody could live on an Earth snowball. …so at that point your rant has become totally irrational.. despite all the sciency blab preceding. That reveals the true, unreal lunacy, going round in your head as a result of being indoctrinated by a quack “greenhouse” hypothesis, whose pseudoscience tells you Earth would be a frozen ball at an average temperature of -18deg C, without some wacko “greenhouse effect” of the ATMOSPHERE ! , the ATMOSPHERE !….which somehow magically elevates the global average temperature to the reality of +15 deg C .
      Got news for you, Pyat. It’s the Sun, stupid.

    • Brett Keane on 24/03/2020 at 1:56 pm said:

      Graham, I note a continued lack of actual Physics backing for these pseudonymous warmists’ claims. A sign of teenage drug-induced lack of Adult reasoning abilities, we have found. “I believe magic is real, so there!!!”
      We put the Papers etc up for their debate, but they ignore them and carry on with insults.

      Do I see any comment on the NIWA Group’s finding that we are net negative for ghgs?
      Brett Keane

    • Richard Treadgold on 25/03/2020 at 9:52 am said:

      Really — “nutcases”? Yet you’re not being rude? You can’t resist it. Control yourself. I’m putting together further responses for you, but life has just thrown us a curve ball so I have other important things to do as well.

    • Brett Keane on 25/03/2020 at 2:23 pm said:

      Good Luck RT, and all here.
      I would like to see a “Crowd Analysis” of the above Paper so we can get some idea of what has been happening with our CO2 Flux.
      I hazard a guess that the southern hemisphere may have been cooling, but just a guess so far….. Brett Keane

    • Richard Treadgold on 26/03/2020 at 11:04 am said:

      Thanks, Brett. You too.

    • Brett Keane on 27/03/2020 at 8:33 pm said:
      The Paper sent to my last Post is one of several that quantify our real position as carbon-negative.
      This one, above herein, discusses the seminal Paper(s) by Maxwell, the Physicist par excellence. These show how the Ideal Gas Laws make CAGW impossible, for thos with eyes to see. For others there is a precipice ahead….. Brett Keane, Ruawai

    • Brett Keane on 28/03/2020 at 2:19 pm said:

      However, the Paper being discussed here, tries to re-use Jennifer Francis’ strange ideas of cooling causing heating in the Northern Hemisphere. She has now changed her Job, Hmmmm – like Renwick.
      The false idea (ask Earl Happ) of a human cause for the annual SH blockage of Ozone transport southward by the Antarctic Vortex, is being used now to explain SH multidecadal cooling. Which is yet another huge embarassment for the warmistas from wayback.
      In fact, I have a challenge for our trolls – slag our prediction, based on Heliophysics (Tayler Instability, Nasa LWS etc.), of increasing unseasonal cold spells and floods. One is supposed to be hitting Europe soon. We can expect the same here. The vital growing season is expected to continue to be nibbled at. But the lefties wish to harm our Farming efforts….. go figure. Organics were the norm the previous similar times, and millions starved and died of disease that accompanies starvation.
      By the way, March record cold at Vostock Station, -75.3 IIRC. It is in line between the South Pole and NZ, near Mawson’s “Place where the winds are born” where he lost two mates while exploring.
      Cheers from Brett, happily catching up on all those jobs left undone, or trying.

    • Richard Treadgold on 30/03/2020 at 11:37 am said:


      The paper (A pause in Southern Hemisphere circulation trends due to the Montreal Protocol) suggests that cooling since 2000 from the recovery of the Ozone Layer over Antarctica has been balancing the warming from man-made CO2.

      Eric Worrall says the easiest way to explain two powerful independent opposed forcings which just happen to perfectly balance each other, without the uncomfortable coincidence of perfect balance, is to assume neither forcing actually exists.

      This fits well with the reasonable view that understands carbon dioxide lacks the thermal magnitude necessary to be “the control knob for global temperature,” and if that’s true, then there was never anything but a seasonal fluctuation in the ozone layer driven by the lack of sunlight in the austral winter. To the extent that the ozone fluctuation was entirely natural, we never needed the enormous expense of the Montreal Protocol.

  3. Richard Treadgold on 28/03/2020 at 3:39 pm said:


    You made this comment on rate of warming and I followed your link:

    The current rate of global warming (the “global” is important, because regional changes can be rapid) is more than ten times faster than the warming out of the last ice age (see here for references).

    It leads to a Guardian article full of errors and with no scientific support for the statement you made. I find The Guardian consistently unworthy of credible scholarship.

    The heading, “Earth is warming 50x faster than when it comes out of an ice age” is false, but you have to read a long way down to discover this. The article says:

    We’re already warming the Earth about 20 times faster than during the ice age transition, and over the next century that rate could increase to 50 times faster or more.

    The headline should have said 20× faster, not 50. The higher rate is predicted from “model simulations of the future”, not drawn from observations (it has never been seen). In sum, the article is wholly misleading, as the alarming warming rate will not occur if any of the numerous assumptions in the models fail for any reason, yet the article presents it as reality, saying “Earth IS warming 50× faster”.

    In AR5 (2013), the IPCC estimate that man-made warming from 1951 to 2010 was probably “more than half” the total warming, which they give as “approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C.” So humanity, they guess, is responsible for about 0.3°C over 60 years, or 0.5°C/100 yr. Not much warming.

    The article states:

    The authors looked at past climate change events and model simulations of the future. They found a clear, strong relationship between the total amount of carbon pollution humans emit, and how far global sea levels will rise. The issue is that ice sheets melt quite slowly, but because carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for a long time, the eventual melting and associated sea level rise are effectively locked in.

    A relationship between two things does not mean that one causes the other. No physical connection between our emissions of carbon dioxide (wrongly termed ‘carbon’ in the article) and global mean sea level (GMSL) has been shown, much less quantified. The statements on future sea level rise are unsupported.

    The phrase “locked in” is vague, melodramatic and adds nothing to scientific understanding. The article refers to “eventual” sea level rise of 1.7 metres but regrettably fails to indicate when. It is, beyond anything else, an exercise in propaganda.

    • Pyat on 29/03/2020 at 1:36 pm said:

      Thank you Richard. It appears you are avoiding my questioning of your 5% figure for human influence on atmospheric CO2. I wonder why that might be?

      So you don’t like the Guardian. I’m not surprised. But the underlying research – and the paleoclimate record – is sound. The warming out of the most recent ice age was between 4 and 5 degrees Celsius over a period of 10,000 years. This site has a fully sourced and referenced graph you can play with to show that.

      Over that period, the planet was warming at an average rate of 0.04 to 0.05C per century. This was enough to melt enormous ice sheets and cause sea level to rise 130 m. Using your figure for recent warming (which is wrong, but I’ll let that pass for now), your rate of 0.5C per century is ten times faster than the last entirely natural rapid warming.

      In other words: you prove my point.

      On sea level rise: if you visit the site under my link above you can track sea level over the last few ice ages, as well as temperature and atmospheric CO2 level. They march in lock step, and the reason is straightforward: atmospheric CO2 is the control knob for global temperature, and that determines the size of ice sheets.

      You claim “no physical connection” has been shown. That simply isn’t true. We’ve understood the basic physics for 150 years.

    • Richard Treadgold on 30/03/2020 at 1:32 pm said:


      It appears you are avoiding my questioning of your 5% figure for human influence on atmospheric CO2.

      I’ll get to that.

      You say: “In other words: you prove my point,” but not so fast. Yes, you claim modern SLR temperature rise seems about ten times faster for a short period. But, first, the “reference” you gave claimed modern SLR rates of temperature rise were 20 and even 50 times faster and was totally unscientific, which means you have no support for your claim of ten times faster in modern times. Second, not all warming was anthropogenic.

      From 1850 to 1951 the globe warmed probably 0.5°C from natural causes as it came out of the Little Ice Age and possibly more than that earlier. It’s inevitable that natural factors were at work because human emissions had barely begun. The IPCC give us no reason to think those natural forcings somehow ceased in 1951, and in fact they specifically refer to “natural forcings” and “natural internal variability” in the period 1951 to 2010, ibid. So we assume they continue, which means the human contribution was not 100% and never will be. Bear in mind, too, the well-established lag of centuries between temperature changes before CO2 concentrations and subsequent CO2 level changes.

      SEA LEVEL RISE. Correlation is not causation, Pyat. Atmospheric CO2 is not the “control knob” for surface temperature, and global mean surface temperature is not the only factor influencing the size of ice sheets. Look at them now — it’s pretty warm, according to you, yet they’re enormous.

      You claim “no physical connection” has been shown.

      Quote me correctly. What I said was:

      No physical connection between our emissions of carbon dioxide … and global mean sea level (GMSL) has been shown, much less quantified.

      Describe a connection with SLR, please, which most certainly hasn’t been understood for 150 years. Do your best to overcome the absence of scientific confirmation of plausible mechanisms.

    • Pyat on 31/03/2020 at 1:42 pm said:

      I’ll get to that.

      I hope your answer to the CO2 question makes more sense than the above. I made no claim that “modern SLR seems about ten times faster for a short period”. I was talking about global temperature.

      You seem to be having some difficulty understanding what the IPCC is actually saying. Take a look at fig 8.18 from AR5 WG1 report here. The graph summarises all the factors affecting global temperature, from warming factors – increasing greenhouse gas levels – to negative effects such as volcanic cooling or anthropogenic aerosols. As you can see, the impact of GHGs in the atmosphere begins to rise slowly at first, but becomes the dominant influence over the last century. The anthropogenic components now far outweigh “natural” factors, but they’ve been warming the planet since they started rising 150 years ago.

      Correlation does not prove causation, but if there is a correlation (and the data I linked to certainly show that), and you do have sound physical reasons to explain the linkage, then you have a good explanation of what’s going on.

      Unfortunately, you baldly state “Atmospheric CO2 is not the “control knob” for surface temperature“. This puts you in conflict with well-understood atmospheric physics. This is stuff we understand in detail, and at the quantum level. If we were wrong, heat-seeking missiles and lasers wouldn’t work (they do). It’s not remotely controversial. There is no scientific debate about this. Scientists do not argue about it. It is established fact.

      This is why I say you are not making a scientific argument to support your position. Denying basic science isn’t a good way to establish a credible position in any high stakes argument.

    • Mack on 01/04/2020 at 4:24 am said:

      ” You seem to be having some difficulty understanding what the IPCC is actually saying”

      I’m sure RT understands exactly what the IPCC is saying. It’s saying a lot of modelled pseudo-scientific crap based entirely on the false premise that CO2 is the….wait for it…”control knob of the climate” !

      “Take a look at fig 8.18 from the AR5 WG1 report….blah, blah….. The anthropogenic components now far out weigh “natural” factors, but they’ve been warming the planet since they started rising 150 years ago”

      Well, looking at the fig 8.18, your 150 years is hand-waving bullshit from the start….your IPCC graph goes back to 1750….it goes from 1750 to 2011…from this year,that’s 270 years ago.
      That fig 8.18 is derived from those lying little deceptive modelled speculative wacko charts, that sit along side of fig 8.18….namely, fig 8.15 , fig 8.17 and fig 8.20.
      All these colourful charts show this massive amount of “anthropogenic forcings” and a piddly little bit of natural forcing…you know, the Sun, stupid. (note, you put quote marks around “natural”… whereas me…”anthropogenic forcing”)
      All of these deluded colourful charts show a Natural Solar Forcing of about 0.3 watts/sq.m. What marvellous scientific precision. ..0.3 watts/sq.m…especially since Trenberth can vary his Solar Radiation at the Earth’s surface from 161 to 163 to 168 watts/sq.m, in his looney Earth Energy Budget Diagrams.
      On those IPCC charts, sometimes it’s +0.3watts/sq.m…. sometimes it’s -0.3watts/sq.m….it doesn’t matter whether it’s + or – …as long as it confuses and deceives.
      But the 0.3 watts/sq.m figure for Solar Forcing exposes the whole lot to be pure pseudo-scientific garbage….. it’s unreal, unmeasured, minuscule nonsense… made to look insignificant and irrelevant compared to the “anthropogenic forcings”.
      The “scientists” are just unthinkingly lying with this solar forcing variance of roughly 0.3 watts/sq.m.
      The TSI was only measured since 1901.. and now up to date with these satellites with this REAL data
      You can see ,from 1980 to about 2015, the TSI has dropped from about 1375 watts/sq.m to 1360watts/sq/m….. that’s a drop of about 15watts/sq.m. If you divide that by 4 to roughly get the real actual wattage change at Earth’s surface, you get 3.8watts/sq.m… it’s now evident that the bastards have just shifted the decimal place back one notch to get their 0.3 watts/sq.m …to fit in better with the rest of the disproportionate pseudo-scientific “anthropogenic forcings” on those colourful charts.
      And what is so that these deceiving troughing “scientists” can delude you into thinking, ..with that fig 8.18,… they’ve got solar watts/sq.m data, going back to 1750 !!

      “This puts you in conflict with well-understood atmospheric physics. This is stuff we understand in detail, and at quantum level”

      If it’s so well understood, why has there been raging debate about the science for 40+ years? Why are there so many scientists who disagree there is any “Radiative Greenhouse Effect” at all ? Here’s a whole swag of them at this site.

      “Scientists do not argue about it”

      Of course they don’t… they just quietly disagree… have you ever got two scientists to agree on anything?

      “It’s established fact”


    • Pyat on 01/04/2020 at 11:18 am said:

      Oh dear. Your last link is a bit of a giveaway. I stand by my response to Richard. There may be cranks disputing the physics, but no serious scientist does.

    • Mack on 01/04/2020 at 1:40 pm said:

      Yes, well we get this from you…
      “This stuff we understand in detail, and at the quantum level ”

      It’s pretty obvious you don’t know shit from clay about physics. At a quantum level ?
      Here’s some atmospheric physics at a quantum level …. see if it can rectify your blind ignorance.

    • Pyat on 01/04/2020 at 2:35 pm said:

      Oh dear. Your link is a bit of a giveaway. I stand by my response to Richard. There may be cranks disputing the physics, but no serious scientist does.

    • Mack on 01/04/2020 at 4:37 pm said:

      Do you do ventriloquism as a side hobby, or has someone from the IPCC got their hand up your ass. ?

      Mack, thanks for your more thoughtful comments, but this is tasteless. – RT

    • Mack on 02/04/2020 at 12:11 pm said:

      Yes sorry RT, I do tend to lapse into tastelessness or sometimes a state of “off-colour”.
      such as what Andy objected to here…

    • Richard Treadgold on 01/04/2020 at 2:44 pm said:


      I was talking about global temperature.

      I’ve corrected my comments to reflect the fact that I was talking about temperature, not SLR, and thank you for pointing that out.

      You talk about the effects of GHGs, where I wasn’t asking, thanks. But reflecting on what you say, I had a look at AR5 Figure 8.18 and I find it hard to accept. For instance, it doesn’t give a figure for solar forcing at all, while Figure 8.17 gives 0.005 W/m2 (Solar Irradiance, at the bottom). This is entirely fictitious when compared to TOA solar irradiance measured at about 1360 W/m2, or about 1000 W/m2 at sea level “on a clear day”. It shows stratospheric H2O as 0.1 W/m2, yet tropospheric H2O as zero, though it’s the most important GHG, as they acknowledge elsewhere in AR4, cited next.

      Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide (CO2) is the second-most important one. Methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and several other gases present in the atmosphere in small amounts also contribute to the greenhouse effect. – AR4, Frequently Asked Question 1.3, What is the Greenhouse Effect?

      Water vapour in the middle and upper troposphere accounts for a large part of the atmospheric greenhouse effect and is believed to be an important amplifier of climate change (Held and Soden, 2000). Changes in upper-tropospheric water vapour in response to a warming climate have been the subject of significant debate. – AR4, Upper-Tropospheric Water Vapour

      In all the discussions of WMGHG I’ve managed to find in AR5, the IPCC no longer acknowledge tropospheric water vapour as the most important greenhouse gas, as they did in AR4 and earlier. Not only that, they don’t even list water vapour as a greenhouse gas in the various tables, charts and figures listing the WMGHG.

      Incredibly, Figure 8.20, p.700, listing natural and anthropogenic forcing agents for the period 1980–2011, as well as omitting water vapour, claims solar irradiance was negative. Can anyone explain this?

      It’s clear that they use the extreme variability of water vapour to call it “unmixed” and thus avoid acknowledging the enormous warming and cooling it causes, for they know full well its effects are greater than all the other GHG, as their earlier admission of “most important” GHG bears witness. Without acknowledging its effects, the climate models cannot reflect reality and thus all climate policy is expensively unbalanced.

      You refuse to address my questions and observations about this, claiming all scientists agree, yet scientists have expressed to me and many others their disagreement and disappointment with the IPCC over this and other egregious omissions and deficiencies in their science.

      You claim I make a “bald statement” about the CO2 control knob, but I don’t, it’s the IPCC that makes a bald claim without evidence. You go on at length about scientists and science without mentioning any science. No dispute? Of course there is. John Christy, Roy Spencer, Bob Carter, Chris de Freitas, Vincent Gray, David Evans, Christopher Monckton, Judith Curry, Craig and Sherwood Idso, William Happer and thousands more show dispute is old and deep. Don’t be blind.

      Now tell me the connection between human emissions and SLR. Forgotten?

    • Pyat on 02/04/2020 at 1:35 pm said:

      OK: it really isn’t my job to teach you basic science – but you appear to be confused again. In the IPCC’s terms (and that of climate science in general) a forcing is something that causes change. It can be positive or negative, depending on whether it acts to warm or cool. Changes in the amount of solar energy arriving at the planet caused by the solar cycle are relatively small, peak to trough, and so the forcing is small.

      Water vapour is of course a greenhouse gas, but it is not a forcing. The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is set by the global temperature (see the Clausius-Clapeyron relation I referred to in another comment), so water vapour is a feedback to changes caused by other things.

      Climate models are basically souped-up weather forecasting models (the core code is often identical), and of course they take full account of the role of water vapour in the atmosphere.

      Your list of “scientists” does not impress. If you want a true picture of the balance of expertise on this issue, I would direct you to this list of scholarly organisations supporting action on climate change. I would particularly point you to the end of that section:

      Since 2007, […] no national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.

      I have already explained the relationship between human emissions and sea level rise, but will spell it out once more. It is simple in principle: we’ve added 40%+ to the CO2 in the atmosphere. This is causing the planet to warm and ice sheets to shrink. The water released goes into the sea, and we see it rising. We can also look back over ice age cycles and trace a relationship between CO2 levels and ice sheet size, as I said above.

      This is not controversial. There is no “debate” about this in the real world.

    • BobbyJ on 10/04/2020 at 5:55 pm said:

      Never forget that climate alarmists are flat Earthers, who deny that the Sun heats the earth.

    • Simon on 29/03/2020 at 3:57 pm said:

      Wrong again Richard. According to AR5,

      It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.

      You really must learn to stop misquoting the scientific literature.

    • Richard Treadgold on 30/03/2020 at 12:10 pm said:


      Let’s review what I actually said:

      In AR5 (2013), the IPCC estimate that man-made warming from 1951 to 2010 was probably “more than half” the total warming, which they give as “approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C.”

      Which is precisely what you say the SPM says. Where am I wrong?

      Now, can you reconcile the contradiction in the first paragraph? First they claim that it’s “extremely likely” that the human-induced contribution to warming was responsible for “more than half” of the warming in that period. Then they announce that the “best estimate” of “the human-induced contribution to warming” is more or less “the observed warming.” It’s clear they don’t consider the first statement to be the best estimate, and they give no more precise figure for the anthropogenic contribution than “more than half”.

      But, consistent with its internal contradiction, I have quoted the scientific literature correctly.

    • Brett Keane on 30/03/2020 at 10:43 am said:

      RT, of course “extreme likelihood” has no Scientific validity. It is a political ie SPM type handwaving. It is used because there is no basis, no hotspot or WV increase except in the imaginations of Zeke H et al for their failed hypothesis.
      Scientists never use such terms of probability. 98% is a bare minimum for reasons trolls have no understanding of. My Statistics Prof would have excoriated me for such an assumption and suggested I use that Paper for Personal Hygiene.
      In order to destroy Western Civilisation, as greenies plan, over 99 percent certainty would be needed, but they gave up trying at 95 and now use failed Models only……
      Plus propaganda as we see. Ad Nauseam. Brett

    • Richard Treadgold on 01/04/2020 at 3:22 pm said:


      RT, of course “extreme likelihood” has no Scientific validity.

      OK, although AR5 (p.121) gives two groups of definitions:

      1 In this Report, the following summary terms are used to describe the available evidence: limited, medium, or robust; and for the degree of agreement: low, medium, or high. A level of confidence is expressed using five qualifiers: very low, low, medium, high, and very high, and typeset in italics, e.g., medium confidence. For a given evidence and agreement statement, different confidence levels can be assigned, but increasing levels of evidence and degrees of agreement are correlated with increasing confidence (see Section 1.4 and Box TS.1 for more details).

      2 In this Report, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result: Virtually certain 99–100% probability, Very likely 90–100%, Likely 66–100%, About as likely as not 33–66%, Unlikely 0–33%, Very unlikely 0–10%, Exceptionally unlikely 0–1%. Additional terms (Extremely likely: 95–100%, More likely than not >50–100%, and Extremely unlikely 0–5%) may also be used when appropriate. Assessed likelihood is typeset in italics, e.g., very likely (see Section 1.4 and Box TS.1 for more details).

      Having said that for the sake of completeness and avoidance of criticism from the wings, I hasten to add that, from the perspective of an ordinarily reasonable man with an ordinary grasp of English, those ranges make so little sense that their very design might have been intended to prevent sense being made of them. In other words, I agree that scientific validity for them is either exceptionally unlikely or extremely unlikely — take your pick, since either one would be virtually certain, or very likely, or likely, to be true.

    • Brett Keane on 01/04/2020 at 9:22 pm said:

      Yes RT. So IPCCand trolls are practising mimicry – of real Science – for the parvenues and our trolls who wish to sound as if they have real knowledge and understanding. A sort of parallel universe that Lewis Carroll might have invented…… Yay, they might have a future in standup Comedy. I’d even pay to watch and listen, rolling in the aisles.. Brett Keane

    • Brett Keane on 02/04/2020 at 6:00 am said:

      Yup, I think it begins, but we shall see. Can windmills save us, or was Cervantes /Quixote prescient?
      Poor Nth Italy, as if they had not enough……… Brett Keane

    • Nick on 08/04/2020 at 4:03 pm said:

      Good riddance to a scoundrel.

    • Andy on 08/04/2020 at 4:24 pm said:

      Singer was a good scientist

      You are nothing

    • Brett Keane on 09/04/2020 at 5:12 am said:

      In homage to the Late Dr Singer, truly a fine human being (unlike all trolls) – an overdue analysis of my most recent wintertime set of experiments: All data failed to show any CO2 effect different to that of Air when irradiated by 240volt “Pigtail-type” fluorescents.

      Container effects were allowed-for (BoPet ziplock bags) and calculated. A simple Methodology was finally arrived-at after some years of trial and error.

      These results emulated similar “Berthold Klein” results which used very fine Mylar bags which had no detectable container-effect. Maxwell’s work on gas kinetics, informed by Poisson’s Ideal Gas Laws, predicted these results because he determined that all Gas Specie in handling Kinetic Energy input, expand or contract the same regardless of Molecular Mass. Lighter ones vibrate faster to equilibrate with heavier molecules in ocupying their relatively considerable space as gases. Radiation is a weaker after-effect of kinetic vibrations in the molecular electro-magnetic Fields. It cannot dominate within any Atmosphere denser than 0.1bar as already proven. But if it could not dominate in the thinner zones, cooling would need atmospheres to bleed gas molecules to cool, resulting in lost atmospheres.

      Ultimately, loss seems always likely of course, but that is another story…. Brett Keane, Farewell for now, Fred, true hero for the truth.

    • Richard Treadgold on 09/04/2020 at 11:22 am said:


      Where would we find a description and methodology of this and the other experiments? You say radiation is a weaker result of kinetic vibrations within EM fields; what does that mean? More importantly, of the various ways the gases transfer energy, what are their magnitudes and how much energy do they transfer? I’d like to point to CO2, CH4 and the other minor GHG and say “what you claim for these gases is impossible.”

    • Brett Keane on 10/04/2020 at 5:31 am said:

      RT, these are fantastic questions which I will be glad to discuss starting later today.
      For Reading, I suggest downloading Maxwell’s “Kinetics of Gases” and his other works too. They form the basis of modern Gas etc. Physics. As acknowledged by Einstein in his 1917 Paper on Quantum Physics.
      It is a world where Speed is King compared to our Macro existance, but it makes up our world nonetheless….. Speed it is that makes Momentum, and THAT governs power along with Mass. So, a speeding bullet and a motorcar at 80kph, can have the same Power. So it is with Gas Specie in an atmospheric mix. More later, Brett

    • Richard Treadgold on 10/04/2020 at 11:28 am said:

      Ah, good. I look forward to that. When you can.

    • Brett Keane on 12/04/2020 at 5:26 pm said:

      Blast! Just lost an involved reply, full of answers hopefully. All gone……..Happy Easter All. Brett

    • Brett Keane on 11/04/2020 at 3:32 am said:

      Yep, feed trolls and that is what we get. Never any respect for common humanity…. Brett

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation