Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Richard Courtney's comment
#1
From HERE

Quote: richardscourtney says:
October 16, 2012 at 6:10 am

Nick Stokes:

I see that at October 16, 2012 at 5:34 am you attempt the same misdirection from both this thread’s subject and its importance as Dave Britton tried on behalf of the Met. Office at
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/...ober-2012/

So, I copy the answer I there gave to him.

Richard

Dave Britton:

You say,

With regards to when the world stopped warming, this comes back to the issue of which year you start from. Even over the last 15 years you can find periods over short timescales, or similarly periods of cooling. So again, we have to stress that meaningful assessments can only be made over longer timescales.

What is “meaningful” depends on the meaning of interest.

The 1997 UN IPCC AR4 Report predicted (n.b. predicted not projected) that global temperature would rise over the first two decades after 2000 at an average rate of 0.2deg.C/decade +/-20%. This rise was certain because it was “committed warming” which the models said must occur as a result of anthropogenic GHG emissions already in the system.

The IPCC prediction can be seen at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data...-10-4.html
In the graph the orange line represents the “committed” temperature increase the IPCC said would occur after 2000 if there were no additional CO2. Clearly, actual temps from 2000 until now are lower than the projected “committed” warming while CO2 levels have continued to rise.

There are only four possible meanings of the flat-line in global temperatures over the last 15 years; i.e.
1. The models are wrong.
Or
2. The global temperature estimates are wrong.
Or
3. Natural climate variation is sufficient to overwhelm anthropogenic warming.
Or
4. Some or all of the possibilities 1 to 3.

Richard
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#2
The following links to Richard Courtneys responses are worth the read as he explodes the warmist absurd goal post moving tripes:

Answers Barry

Answers Nick Stokes

Answers Nick Stokes again
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#3
Another 3 knock outs for Dr. Richard S Courtney.

WHEN will the media give this man the coverage he has earned so many times over already?
I am not aware that he has ever been given any air time anywhere, nor has he ever been interviewed to my knowledge, not even by Alan Titchmarsh.

I genuinely hope he is writing the book so many are waiting for him to write.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#4
From HERE

Quote: richardscourtney says:
October 18, 2012 at 7:04 am

luval:

WUWT really does have a bad troll infestation today.

Your post at October 18, 2012 at 3:02 am says in total

Earth has gone through cycles of cooling and warming throughout its history but this does not imply that what we are experiencing the same situation. The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is a fact and studies show that this increase represents the best fit to the increase in temperatures as it correspond in terms of trend and magnitude. Prediction for climate changes in the next 30 years are quite accurate and the intensifying of events as storms and drought should encourage not only further studies but also adaptation measures as, even if naturally caused, climate changes are going to affect food production, water availability etc. Moreover fossil fuels production is not sustainable anymore since not only pollution levels are increasing and so health is endangered, but also as resources are becoming scarcer and scarcer the price is increasing and so it is becoming not economically feasible to continue this sort of production.

That is so wrong it is astonishing. Every statement in it is plain wrong.

“Earth has gone through cycles of cooling and warming throughout its history but this does not imply that what we are experiencing the same situation.”
It does according to science. Read up on the Null Hypothesis which is a fundamental scientific principle.

“The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is a fact and studies show that this increase represents the best fit to the increase in temperatures as it correspond in terms of trend and magnitude.”
The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere has no relationship to the increase in temperatures. Indeed, the global temperature stopped rising 16 years ago but the increase to CO2 in the atmosphere has not stopped.

“Prediction for climate changes in the next 30 years are quite accurate”
No! They are completely wrong!
The IPCC AR4 predicted (n.b. predicted and not projected) that global temperature would rise at an average rate of 0.2 deg.C/decade +/-20% over the period from 2000 to 2020. This was “committed warming” which was certain because of GHGs already in the system. And the rise would be double that if emissions continued as they have. To date there has been negligible rise in global temperature since 2000. Therefore, for the minimum temperature rise of this prediction to be true then a rise of 0.64 deg.C must occur over the next nine years. This is extremely implausible: the entire rise over the last century was only about 0.8 deg.C. And if this jump in temperature were to occur then it would not explain where the “committed warming” has been hiding since 2000.

Those are only the first three statements in your post. I could refute the rest of the statements in your post, too. But it is not worth the bother spending time on such bunkum.

Richard
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#5
From HERE

Quote:richardscourtney says:
October 18, 2012 at 12:11 pm

Matt:

At October 18, 2012 at 11:31 am you say to me

Actually, the Null Hypothesis is a creature of statistics, not science. It comes into play in science only because so much of modern science is dependent on statistical testing.

That is so wrong it is gobsmacking!
Where did you get such a wrong idea; some anti-science warmist web site such as SkS?

The Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed a system has not experienced a change unless there is evidence of a change.

The Null Hypothesis is a fundamental scientific principle and forms the basis of all scientific understanding, investigation and interpretation. Indeed, it is the basic principle of experimental procedure where an input to a system is altered to discern a change: if the system is not observed to respond to the alteration then it has to be assumed the system did not respond to the alteration.

In the case of climate science there is a hypothesis that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs, notably CO2) in the air will increase global temperature. There are good reasons to suppose this hypothesis may be true, but the Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed the GHG changes have no effect unless and until increased GHGs are observed to increase global temperature. That is what the scientific method decrees. It does not matter how certain some people may be that the hypothesis is right because observation of reality (i.e. empiricism) trumps all opinions.

Please note that the Null Hypothesis is a hypothesis which exists to be refuted by empirical observation. It is a rejection of the scientific method to assert that one can “choose” any subjective Null Hypothesis one likes. There is only one Null Hypothesis: i.e. it has to be assumed a system has not changed unless it is observed that the system has changed.

In the case of global climate no unprecedented climate behaviours are observed so the Null Hypothesis decrees that the climate system has not changed.

Importantly, an effect may be real but not overcome the Null Hypothesis because it is too trivial for the effect to be observable. Human activities have some effect on global temperature for several reasons. An example of an anthropogenic effect on global temperature is the urban heat island (UHI). Cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas.

Clearly, the Null Hypothesis decrees that UHI is not affecting global temperature although there are good reasons to think UHI has some effect. Similarly, it is very probable that AGW from GHG emissions are too trivial to have observable effects.

The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be probably too small to discern because natural climate sensitivity is much, much larger. This concurs with the empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity.

Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of Idso from surface measurements
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satelite data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-...L-2009.pdf
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/d...ne2011.pdf
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-...L-2009.pdf

Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1.0 deg.C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected (just as the global warming from UHI is too small to be detected). If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).

To date there are no discernible effects of AGW. Hence, the Null Hypothesis decrees that AGW does not affect global climate to a discernible degree. That is the ONLY scientific conclusion possible at present.

Richard
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#6
From HERE

Quote:richardscourtney says:
October 18, 2012 at 4:00 pm

icarus62:

Your post at October 18, 2012 at 1:53 pm is such a total load of baloney that I copy all of it to ensure that nobody thinks I am addressing anything out of context. It says to me

Richard: We know that anthropogenic global warming is accelerating, as are many of its consequences such as disappearing Arctic sea ice and melting glaciers and ice caps worldwide, validating many decades of predictions by climate scientists. The big question is not so much whether this rapid warming will continue – that’s inevitable barring an immediate and enormous rise in volcanism – but what the impacts are going to be and how we will cope with them. We cannot expect human civilisation to suddenly give up fossil fuel use without massive loss of life, so the big money needs to go on adaption to the growing climate chaos, disaster management, population control and so on.

We do NOT “know that anthropogenic global warming is accelerating”. Indeed, nobody has managed to detect any AGW let alone measure its rate.

There are NO observed effects of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) “accelerating”. The recent reduction in Arctic ice certainly is NOT an indication of AGW “accelerating”. Indeed, polar caps are NOT “reducing worldwide”. Antarctic ice is growing and very recently achieved a record amount. If Arctic ice decline is evidence that AGW is “accelerating” then the growth in Antarctic ice to its recent record level is evidence that AGW is NOT happening.

The changes to glaciers et al. only indicate that the Earth has been recovering from the Little Ice Age (LIA) back towards the temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). The glaciers started to recede centuries prior to any significant AGW.

Global warming cannot “continue” because it stopped 16 years ago. Indeed, very recently there has been global cooling. At issue is whether the present flat-line of global temperature will end with resumption of warming towards the temperatures of the MWP or is a transition to cooling towards temperatures of the LIA. I suggest you pray for the benefits of warming and not the horrors of cooling because prayer is the only thing we can do to affect either.

Importantly, all your suggested activities are outrageous and horrific. For example, if you think “population control” is desirable then there is only one way you can reduce the size of the population without harming others and that would only reduce it by one. Perhaps you will work out what it is and do what you say is required.

Richard
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#7
In reading the comments that Richard Courtney replies to I get the impression that these people are living in windowless caves because they seem to think the temperature is accelerating upward when actually there NEVER has been any sign of it at all using any of the temperature data centers.

Really I wonder if these people forgot to pick up their brain when they wake up in the morning.

Rolleyes
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Richard S, Courtney's comment Sunsettommy 0 184 08-12-2015, 07:04 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Richard S. Courtney's comment Sunsettommy 3 480 07-26-2015, 11:09 AM
Last Post: Richard111
  Richard C. Courtney's comment Sunsettommy 0 782 05-10-2015, 02:56 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Richard S Courtney's comment Sunsettommy 0 1,485 05-04-2013, 07:48 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Richard C Courtney's comment Sunsettommy 0 1,989 04-17-2013, 07:20 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Richard S. Courtney's comment Sunsettommy 0 1,756 12-15-2012, 11:16 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Richard S Courtney's comment Sunsettommy 0 1,761 12-08-2012, 01:54 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Richards S Courtney's comment Sunsettommy 0 1,494 11-24-2012, 09:38 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Richard 111's comment Sunsettommy 0 1,206 09-12-2012, 05:24 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Richard C's comment Sunsettommy 0 1,336 08-30-2012, 05:01 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)