[championoftruth (OP)]

I find the remark about "rent an expert" offensive. Not everyone can be bought, by a long shot. I consider myself relatively expert in lv and mv grid protection systems having worked in this area for 20 years up to my recent retirement, though others may disagree. I will not be bought short of someone putting a gun to my head, for any amount. I do not claim to be a particularly virtuous person, just a person with integrity, along with many shortcomings.

Dr John Christy’s research has consistently shown that the atmosphere is warming at a much slower rate than what the climate models predict. This is due to the fact that the climate models are overly sensitive to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and do not take into account other factors that strongly influence the climate. Christy believes that the current focus on carbon dioxide is a distraction from the more important issues of air pollution mitigation and energy efficiency.

Dr Christy also argues that the climate change narrative is too often presented in a way that is designed to evoke fear and that fails to present alternative solutions or paths to progress. He believes that if we are to make any meaningful progress on climate change, it is essential to focus on the “real” science and to look for solutions that are based in data and evidence. Christy is a strong proponent of the idea that a mix of energy sources and technological innovation are the keys to a sustainable future.

[alancalverd]

Data shows there’s no climate catastrophe looming – climatologist Dr J Christy debunks the narrative

That's a pity, as there has been one every 150,000 years and the next one is due right about now. Assuming, of course, that we are talking about a "hot catastrophe". The more spectacular ones are the ice ages, which occur about 100,000 years later.

The current consensus "anthropogenic CO2" narrative is obviously bunk but the facts all point to a repeat of previous climate cycles - and why not?

[championoftruth (OP)]

Data shows there’s no climate catastrophe looming – climatologist Dr J Christy debunks the narrative

That's a pity, as there has been one every 150,000 years and the next one is due right about now. Assuming, of course, that we are talking about a "hot catastrophe". The more spectacular ones are the ice ages, which occur about 100,000 years later.

The current consensus "anthropogenic CO2" narrative is obviously bunk but the facts all point to a repeat of previous climate cycles - and why not?

150000 +/- how much or is it exactly 150000?
how accurate is this 150000?

 is it 140000 or 160000 or 120000 or 170000 ?

[alancalverd]

Depends on how you define a catastrophe. It would be surprising if a system as chaotic as the earth's atmosphere was precisely periodic. Have a look at the Vostok ice core records and make your own decision.

[Kryptid]

Dr John Christy’s research has consistently shown that the atmosphere is warming at a much slower rate than what the climate models predict.

If I'm not mistaken, the original argument you created this thread for is to claim that there isn't evidence that the atmosphere is warming at all. So which is it? Is it warming, albeit it slower than predicted by climate models, or is it not warming at all?

[alancalverd]

Far too many people get excited by the failure of a predictive model. Far too few people do anything about what is actually happening.

[Bored chemist]

Far too few people do anything about what is actually happening.

Not least because some people are desperately pretending that it isn't happening because the models are wrong.

[alancalverd]

All the more reason to stop spending public money on worthless models and start addressing the inevitable.

[Bored chemist]

All the more reason to stop spending public money on worthless models and start addressing the inevitable.

The value of the models is, among other things, that they can persuade people to believe they should act.

[alancalverd]

So far, they seem to have had no effect beyond increasing CO2 levels whilst traffic remains stationary due to morons gluing themselves to the road and politicians jetting around the world to attend ever-larger conferences that decide less each time they meet. 

There has been a gradual trend towards eating less meat in the West, but much of that derives from a paper written by a dyed-in-the -wool "model skeptic". And a substantial decline in passenger transport (of humans, not politicians) due to COVID and Zoom.

But as long as "growth" remains an objective, whatever influence humans may have on the environment can only make it less habitable. 

[Bored chemist]

So far, they seem to have had no effect beyond increasing CO2 levels

Please show how climate models have increased CO2 levels beyond those which would have been released in the absence of those models.

(Please note that, in general, the  people who fly to conferences will do that regardless of the topic and that those who want to play with computers will model something as a test case.)

[alancalverd]

In the absence of climate models there would be nothing to talk about at COP pissups.

Nobody can argue with the facts, only about how to interpret them and who to blame, and you need a model for that.

So that's at least 80,000 additional passenger flights per year for the delegates, plus whatever fuel is expended on armed presidential motorcades, whatever it takes to get the protestors and TV crews there and back again, and the entire spurious industry behind it all.

The net output directly attributable to COP and the activities of IPCC (more travel, and a fair bit of diesel, gasoline  and JETA1 expended in Arctic "research") since 1988 has been hot air.

At your expense.

[Bored chemist]

In the absence of climate models there would be nothing to talk about at COP pissups.

Nobody can argue with the facts, only about how to interpret them and who to blame, and you need a model for that.

So that's at least 80,000 additional passenger flights per year for the delegates, plus whatever fuel is expended on armed presidential motorcades, whatever it takes to get the protestors and TV crews there and back again, and the entire spurious industry behind it all.

The net output directly attributable to COP and the activities of IPCC (more travel, and a fair bit of diesel, gasoline  and JETA1 expended in Arctic "research") since 1988 has been hot air.

At your expense.

(Please note that, in general, the  people who fly to conferences will do that regardless of the topic and that those who want to play with computers will model something as a test case.)

[alancalverd]

But if the pointless conference (and associated equally pointless riots) didn't take place., they might spend their precious time and your money on something useful.

Here's a good test of value. Thinking about your carbon footprint (never mind the climate) complete the sentence:
"Because Rishi Sunak flew to Cairo and back again, I have...... and I will......"

[Bored chemist]

, they might spend their precious time and your money on something useful.

Maybe; but your claim was about reducing CO2 and I don't see a mechanism, or evidence.

Since Sunak just authorised a new coal mine, you can't really say he's "low carbon".

He's just some lying waster who got in because some people were conned into thinking brexit could actually work.

The thing is that, if Sunak hadn't flown to wherever to lie about whatever, he would very probably flown to somewhere else and lied about something else.  That's what politicians do.
They generate hot air by wasting resources.

[championoftruth (OP)]

Dr John Christy’s research has consistently shown that the atmosphere is warming at a much slower rate than what the climate models predict.

If I'm not mistaken, the original argument you created this thread for is to claim that there isn't evidence that the atmosphere is warming at all. So which is it? Is it warming, albeit it slower than predicted by climate models, or is it not warming at all?

my main argument is temperature measurements are untrustworthy up or down...

[alancalverd]

It's likely that actual measurements have been reported honestly, and it is bloody obvious that the earth's atmosphere has warmed in the last 200 years. However there is plenty of room for doubt about the meaning of much 20th century data, and the validity of extrapolation from earlier measurements. A lot also depends on the timescale you choose.

We are currently in a major upswing that began about 15,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age. Geological precedent suggests this will turn over within the next 500 years and slide slowly down for the next 100,000 years. The total excursion is around 12°C.

Witin that broad sawtooth are all sorts of short-term fluctuations. As far as the British Isles are concerned, and probably much of the northern quarter of the globe, the present annual mean temperature is about the same as in the Roman period, say 1500 years ago. The sudden appearance of chimneys and structured fireplaces in 12-13th century European architecture indicates a rapid decline and slow recovery until the 19th century, by which time we were acquiring credible instrumental temperature records.

Problem is that most of the records are from the inhabited areas, which still only account for about 5% of the total, or from a few shipping routes, mostly in the north Atlantic. Any statement about the surface temperature of the middle of the Pacific in, say, January 1800, is pure guesswork, and nobody had taken a thermometer to the poles before 1914.

There was a rapid expansion of very accurate data from 1910 to 1950 because surface temperature is critical to aviation. Airports measure and broadcast surface temperature to ± 0.5°C every 20 minutes and report to a central meteorological service every 4 hours. But from 1950 onwards the number of active airfields decreased and the remainder tended to be concrete or tarmac and close to cities, so inevitably hotter than the surrounding countryside.

Satellite surveillance gives us credibly comparable data for the entire globe, but much historic surface data was "adjusted" after 1970 to coincide with satellite measurements, which raised a number of skeptical eyebrows.

[championoftruth (OP)]

It's likely that actual measurements have been reported honestly, and it is bloody obvious that the earth's atmosphere has warmed in the last 200 years. However there is plenty of room for doubt about the meaning of much 20th century data, and the validity of extrapolation from earlier measurements. A lot also depends on the timescale you choose.

We are currently in a major upswing that began about 15,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age. Geological precedent suggests this will turn over within the next 500 years and slide slowly down for the next 100,000 years. The total excursion is around 12°C.

Witin that broad sawtooth are all sorts of short-term fluctuations. As far as the British Isles are concerned, and probably much of the northern quarter of the globe, the present annual mean temperature is about the same as in the Roman period, say 1500 years ago. The sudden appearance of chimneys and structured fireplaces in 12-13th century European architecture indicates a rapid decline and slow recovery until the 19th century, by which time we were acquiring credible instrumental temperature records.

Problem is that most of the records are from the inhabited areas, which still only account for about 5% of the total, or from a few shipping routes, mostly in the north Atlantic. Any statement about the surface temperature of the middle of the Pacific in, say, January 1800, is pure guesswork, and nobody had taken a thermometer to the poles before 1914.

There was a rapid expansion of very accurate data from 1910 to 1950 because surface temperature is critical to aviation. Airports measure and broadcast surface temperature to ± 0.5°C every 20 minutes and report to a central meteorological service every 4 hours. But from 1950 onwards the number of active airfields decreased and the remainder tended to be concrete or tarmac and close to cities, so inevitably hotter than the surrounding countryside.

Satellite surveillance gives us credibly comparable data for the entire globe, but much historic surface data was "adjusted" after 1970 to coincide with satellite measurements, which raised a number of skeptical eyebrows.

That is what i am trying to say.
197,060,800 square miles times 100 kilometres upwards = huge.

each cubic kilometre being dynamic.

[Kryptid]

my main argument is temperature measurements are untrustworthy up or down...

Which is the same as saying that you don't think there is evidence that the Earth is warming.

[Bored chemist]

It's likely that actual measurements have been reported honestly, and it is bloody obvious that the earth's atmosphere has warmed in the last 200 years. However there is plenty of room for doubt about the meaning of much 20th century data, and the validity of extrapolation from earlier measurements. A lot also depends on the timescale you choose.

We are currently in a major upswing that began about 15,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age. Geological precedent suggests this will turn over within the next 500 years and slide slowly down for the next 100,000 years. The total excursion is around 12°C.

Witin that broad sawtooth are all sorts of short-term fluctuations. As far as the British Isles are concerned, and probably much of the northern quarter of the globe, the present annual mean temperature is about the same as in the Roman period, say 1500 years ago. The sudden appearance of chimneys and structured fireplaces in 12-13th century European architecture indicates a rapid decline and slow recovery until the 19th century, by which time we were acquiring credible instrumental temperature records.

Problem is that most of the records are from the inhabited areas, which still only account for about 5% of the total, or from a few shipping routes, mostly in the north Atlantic. Any statement about the surface temperature of the middle of the Pacific in, say, January 1800, is pure guesswork, and nobody had taken a thermometer to the poles before 1914.

There was a rapid expansion of very accurate data from 1910 to 1950 because surface temperature is critical to aviation. Airports measure and broadcast surface temperature to ± 0.5°C every 20 minutes and report to a central meteorological service every 4 hours. But from 1950 onwards the number of active airfields decreased and the remainder tended to be concrete or tarmac and close to cities, so inevitably hotter than the surrounding countryside.

Satellite surveillance gives us credibly comparable data for the entire globe, but much historic surface data was "adjusted" after 1970 to coincide with satellite measurements, which raised a number of skeptical eyebrows.

Have you given up on your claim that

So far, they seem to have had no effect beyond increasing CO2 levels