The Global Warming Policy Foundation has published an article based on a previous post here: This all refers to the 2013 IPCC report and not the most recent version (since it arose from my work on the BBC documentary “Climate Change by Numbers in 2015”). However, the claim of 95% certainty that humans caused most of the recent warming is one that has continued to be widely accepted and even unchallengable. But it was always a misinterpretation of what the computer modelling data were saying.
in January 2022 that rivalled Krakatoa which caused a rise in global temperatures over all of 2022 – to last five years – ignored by the UN IPCC models and MSM
Clouds of the far more important GHG have been circulating for years and are noy in any version of any IPCC model - neither has there been any attempt by the IPCC to quantify the impact.
I will just post a link to other rebuttals of the entire bogus/booger green scam
I love the flipping the coin analysis - it's simplicity and how looking through the correct lens of Bayes shows how silly the 95% confidence conclusion is. I'm 54yrs old and would have loved to have been taught maths and stats by the Prof. Whilst at Uni. WM Briggs (Statistician to the Stars) also does some great, easy to follow work in this field. Prof you are a hero! (To me and I suspect 1000s of other people).
Claiming that 0.04% CO2 in the gas atmosphere is the control knob of the earth's climate is absurd.
It is the oceans, water vapor and cloud formation covering 51% of the surface that mitigate the diurnal and seasonal temperature highs and lows. Without CO2, photosynthesis would not be possible and all plant life would die off. Then what would animals eat ?
Norman, your piece comes in a most timely fashion as I am crafting a critique of the IPCC's methodology that purportedly proves that our present CO2 levels, taken as 420 ppm, will lead to significant global warming. The response of temperature to CO2 is given as "Climate Sensitivity", defined as the rise in temperature given a doubling of CO2. This number is critical to their hypotheses and is based on modeling alone. The IPCC defines this number as 3 and it is taken as established fact.
It seems their modeling is based on observations of rises in CO2 at times where it was positively correlated with rises in global temperature. There are at least three main problems with this approach (and I would appreciate if you could weigh in on this)
First, what are the time periods that are under consideration? There are periods when CO2 was rising and temperature was falling.
Second, the models do not seem to account for the decreased solubility of CO2 in water as temperature rises, at least as far as I could tell.
Third, it is very clear from the antarctic ice core data that temperature leads CO2, not the other way around. We have a pretty good explanation for why temperature, at least over hundreds of thousands of years, acts independently of CO2 based on the Milankovitch cycles of orbital control. CO2 levels respond based on its solubility in the oceans.
It seems that the IPCC position is based on this AGU article. AGU is a "nonprofit, international scientific association".
It seems that all their models suffer from the same shortcomings yet they believe their position is valid because they all agree to some extent. I would welcome any thoughts and insights from you or your readers.
It boggles my mind to know that despite what an English Presbyterian minister understood 250 years ago, governments and the health industry will still tell you that a positive PCR or LFT for a symptomless person drawn at random from the population means they’ve definitely 100% got Covid.
There are many facts hardly mentioned. The Ice core data shows that there is a 800 year lag for natural CO2 level increase. The Medieval Warm period peaked 800 years ago, so most of the increase must have been natural CO2, from the deep Ocean which has a 275 to 1 ratio mixing with the Atmosphere over a period of 800 years. The upper Ocean has a 50 to 1 ratio mixing with the Atmosphere over a seven year period. So if the evidence for man-made emisions is 3 percent of 420ppm, or 13ppm, and the evidence reveals an 140ppm increase in 200 years, then 127ppm is a natural increase in CO2. So this 127ppm out-gassing is the main cause of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. My understanding of the Carbon Cycle was resolved by “Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2, (1997) by Tom Segalstad” http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.pdf which shows up the scientific fraud in the Carbon Cycle. The IPCC “Cancelled” Henrys law.
Hunga tonga, Hunga Tonga, Oi Oi Oi!
https://peterhalligan.substack.com/p/some-notes-on-the-underwater-eruption
in January 2022 that rivalled Krakatoa which caused a rise in global temperatures over all of 2022 – to last five years – ignored by the UN IPCC models and MSM
Clouds of the far more important GHG have been circulating for years and are noy in any version of any IPCC model - neither has there been any attempt by the IPCC to quantify the impact.
I will just post a link to other rebuttals of the entire bogus/booger green scam
https://peterhalligan.substack.com/p/a-compilation-of-a-few-key-articles
that Completely Debunk the Myth of a “Climate Emergency”
https://peterhalligan.substack.com/p/ice-core-samples-reveal-that-un-ipcc
climate models picked the 8,000 year low of global temperatures on which to base their absurd “anthropogenic global warming” (AGW) cult
I better stfu now, haha
I have updated the article with comments and links to clips from the BBC documentary Climate Change by Numbers
Norman, where can we watch “Climate change by numbers”? It seems to have been “Cancelled!!!!” Can’t find it anywhere!!
I love the flipping the coin analysis - it's simplicity and how looking through the correct lens of Bayes shows how silly the 95% confidence conclusion is. I'm 54yrs old and would have loved to have been taught maths and stats by the Prof. Whilst at Uni. WM Briggs (Statistician to the Stars) also does some great, easy to follow work in this field. Prof you are a hero! (To me and I suspect 1000s of other people).
Claiming that 0.04% CO2 in the gas atmosphere is the control knob of the earth's climate is absurd.
It is the oceans, water vapor and cloud formation covering 51% of the surface that mitigate the diurnal and seasonal temperature highs and lows. Without CO2, photosynthesis would not be possible and all plant life would die off. Then what would animals eat ?
Norman, your piece comes in a most timely fashion as I am crafting a critique of the IPCC's methodology that purportedly proves that our present CO2 levels, taken as 420 ppm, will lead to significant global warming. The response of temperature to CO2 is given as "Climate Sensitivity", defined as the rise in temperature given a doubling of CO2. This number is critical to their hypotheses and is based on modeling alone. The IPCC defines this number as 3 and it is taken as established fact.
It seems their modeling is based on observations of rises in CO2 at times where it was positively correlated with rises in global temperature. There are at least three main problems with this approach (and I would appreciate if you could weigh in on this)
First, what are the time periods that are under consideration? There are periods when CO2 was rising and temperature was falling.
Second, the models do not seem to account for the decreased solubility of CO2 in water as temperature rises, at least as far as I could tell.
Third, it is very clear from the antarctic ice core data that temperature leads CO2, not the other way around. We have a pretty good explanation for why temperature, at least over hundreds of thousands of years, acts independently of CO2 based on the Milankovitch cycles of orbital control. CO2 levels respond based on its solubility in the oceans.
It seems that the IPCC position is based on this AGU article. AGU is a "nonprofit, international scientific association".
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL075742
It seems that all their models suffer from the same shortcomings yet they believe their position is valid because they all agree to some extent. I would welcome any thoughts and insights from you or your readers.
It boggles my mind to know that despite what an English Presbyterian minister understood 250 years ago, governments and the health industry will still tell you that a positive PCR or LFT for a symptomless person drawn at random from the population means they’ve definitely 100% got Covid.
There are many facts hardly mentioned. The Ice core data shows that there is a 800 year lag for natural CO2 level increase. The Medieval Warm period peaked 800 years ago, so most of the increase must have been natural CO2, from the deep Ocean which has a 275 to 1 ratio mixing with the Atmosphere over a period of 800 years. The upper Ocean has a 50 to 1 ratio mixing with the Atmosphere over a seven year period. So if the evidence for man-made emisions is 3 percent of 420ppm, or 13ppm, and the evidence reveals an 140ppm increase in 200 years, then 127ppm is a natural increase in CO2. So this 127ppm out-gassing is the main cause of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. My understanding of the Carbon Cycle was resolved by “Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2, (1997) by Tom Segalstad” http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.pdf which shows up the scientific fraud in the Carbon Cycle. The IPCC “Cancelled” Henrys law.