Daily Blog, 5/28/09: Coleman's Comments
May 28th
This is my final blog entry before vacation. I will not be able to write again until late next week.
Despite all the advances in computer models and all our experience and extensive understanding of he processes that lead to May Gray and June Gloom conditions, I still have difficulty sometimes catching the extend and duration of the coastal cloud events. So it was Wednesday when I expected more sunshine on the coast but almost none occured. I am studying how I went astray and will be concentrating a bit better in the future. I admit sometimes I spend more time than I ought to writing my blogs on global warming to the detrement of time on forecasting. I will try to be more balanced.
Lord Christopher Monckton is now writing extensive papers for the SPPI website. This are wonderfully crafted, detailed, thoughtful, analytically both complex and clear disertations. Here are a couple of excerpts from one of the most recent:
In midMay, 2009, David Fahrenthold, a staff writer for the Washington Post, wrote: “Climate skeptics might well feel like polar bears on a shrinking ice floe. Scientists around the globe have rejected their main arguments which the climate isn't clearly warming, that humans aren't responsible for it, or that the whole thing doesn't amount to a problem. Public opinion has also shifted and even Exxon Mobil talks about greenhouse gases.” Mr. Fahrenhold concludes that scepticism is “at the margins, but trying to get back in the fight”, even though “most scientists now say there is a consensus about climate change: It is ‘unequivocal,’ concluded a United Nations report in 2007.
Monckton then rebutes these claims one by one leaving the the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and those who rely on its conclusions on life support. Here are a couple of points:
Science is not, repeat not, done by “consensus”, though politics is. The IPCC process, which aims at and then falsely claims “consensus”, is an explicitly political process, and not a scientific one.
...the rate of “global warming” that occurred from 19751998, a period during which humankind might in theory have had some influence over global temperature, was identical to the warming rates from 18601880 and again from 19101940, two periods during which our influence was negligible in comparison. Since the warming rate in the most recent period was no greater than that in the two previous periods, it cannot be said with any certainty – let alone 90% certainty – that there is any anthropogenic influence on global temperature whatsoever. Furthermore, for almost one and a half decades since 1995 there has been no statisticallysignificant “global warming”; and for seven and a half years since late 2001 there has been statisticallysignificant global cooling, even though atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has been rising inexorably throughout. Frankly, the excerpts do a dis-service to entirity of his fine work. So I recomend you read the entire piece at this link:
John Coleman To send me an email, click here
|
