These replies are very interesting, in that they follow through on many of the reasons that this so-called science is incorrect. You need to remember the scientific method: if a theory is disproved by a single detail, one needs to start again, not bring up excuses why the detail may not be correct.
You mention tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling. This is a result from climate models, and it has been shown to be incorrect by physical measurement. No one has published a paper that shows the warming in the tropical stratosphere is present and many measurements have been made, none of which produce warming data matching the models. All of the Climate models over the last 40 years have produced results that do not reflect the measurements made (which are very many). You criticise the NASA overall satellite temperature results and Muna Loa as needing much more time to show effects, but atmospheric CO2 cannot have a lag period. Would you care to offer a mechanism? Because the satellite has a constant view area as it measures the average temperatures, it must produce a consistently fair estimation of temperature data. The NASA satellite is the only continuous measurement system that has zero external influences, the continuous "adjustment" and wild interpolation of Earth-based temperatures for unknown reasons and unavailability of raw data for competing analysis can only point to one thing, that is the money follows only bad news. You know that temperature is a local phenomenon, that cities dissipate a lot of energy, yet these are the places where temperatures tend to be measured, and are then interpolated across vast areas. You keep mentioning "Greenhouse Gases" and cite CO2. This is not the major controlling influence of atmospheric temperatures, water is. It has much wider absorption bands than CO2, is about 1000 times as prevalent, and the behaviour changes with the abundant source and sink, the oceans. None of the climate models has been at all successful in modelling water behaviour, the closest being a Russian one that says that temperatures are substantially stable, and uses a CO2 "feedback" factor of exactly 1, This matches the factor obtained by the Moncton Group from proper numerical analysis of the data of the last 100 years or so, and is likely to be accurate as it is derived from both a model and real data. This is the most important thing about models, including Engineering ones, they must match data and should not make predictions outside the know accurate range.
I suggest that some serious study (the original papers, not the MSM, who cannot understand them) from all the areas of publication on the subject. The political push from the IPCC and others has nothing to do with the science, and even the IPCC summary for policymakers is not really supported by the reports that accompany it
wattsupwiththat.com has many very excellent scientists behind it, and represents a cross-section of views and a great deal of simple background material to start. It is a good place to start the study, without much political bias.
These replies are very interesting, in that they follow through on many of the reasons that this so-called science is incorrect. You need to remember the scientific method: if a theory is disproved by a single detail, one needs to start again, not bring up excuses why the detail may not be correct.
You mention tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling. This is a result from climate models, and it has been shown to be incorrect by physical measurement. No one has published a paper that shows the warming in the tropical stratosphere is present and many measurements have been made, none of which produce warming data matching the models. All of the Climate models over the last 40 years have produced results that do not reflect the measurements made (which are very many). You criticise the NASA overall satellite temperature results and Muna Loa as needing much more time to show effects, but atmospheric CO2 cannot have a lag period. Would you care to offer a mechanism? Because the satellite has a constant view area as it measures the average temperatures, it must produce a consistently fair estimation of temperature data. The NASA satellite is the only continuous measurement system that has zero external influences, the continuous "adjustment" and wild interpolation of Earth-based temperatures for unknown reasons and unavailability of raw data for competing analysis can only point to one thing, that is the money follows only bad news. You know that temperature is a local phenomenon, that cities dissipate a lot of energy, yet these are the places where temperatures tend to be measured, and are then interpolated across vast areas. You keep mentioning "Greenhouse Gases" and cite CO2. This is not the major controlling influence of atmospheric temperatures, water is. It has much wider absorption bands than CO2, is about 1000 times as prevalent, and the behaviour changes with the abundant source and sink, the oceans. None of the climate models has been at all successful in modelling water behaviour, the closest being a Russian one that says that temperatures are substantially stable, and uses a CO2 "feedback" factor of exactly 1, This matches the factor obtained by the Moncton Group from proper numerical analysis of the data of the last 100 years or so, and is likely to be accurate as it is derived from both a model and real data. This is the most important thing about models, including Engineering ones, they must match data and should not make predictions outside the know accurate range.
I suggest that some serious study (the original papers, not the MSM, who cannot understand them) from all the areas of publication on the subject. The political push from the IPCC and others has nothing to do with the science, and even the IPCC summary for policymakers is not really supported by the reports that accompany it
wattsupwiththat.com has many very excellent scientists behind it, and represents a cross-section of views and a great deal of simple background material to start. It is a good place to start the study, without much political bias.
