Converging on the Truth
Atmospheric and space physicist Fred Singer published an article in October of 2014 where he concluded that his position is becoming so skeptical of climate sensitivity claims that he is no longer in agreement with the bulk of the skeptical majority.
What Singer originally said in his summary in his article where he discussed the possibility of climate sensitivity to CO2 being close to zero was:
“I should note that I am somewhat out of step here with my fellow skeptics. Few of them would agree with me that the climate sensitivity (CS) is indeed close to zero. I will have to publish the analyses to prove my point and try to convince them. Of course, nothing, no set of facts, will ever convince the confirmed climate alarmists.”
A climate sensitivity (CS) close to zero flies in the face of not only the alarmist movement, but the generally accepted theory underlying CO2 climate alarm as well – the radiative greenhouse effect. And so this is a difficult position to be in because some scientists, such as Singer, are discovering results which are inconsistent with the general expectations.
However, if the radiative greenhouse effect is itself flawed or based on a false underlying ontology, then a result of CS close to zero is exactly what one would expect as a possible consequence. A CS close to zero falls right into the lap of what the “Slayers” and Principia Scientific International have been saying about the radiative greenhouse effect for years.
The radiative greenhouse effect is indeed based on a false, non-ontological model of the physical and energetic properties of the terrestrial system. Climate sensitivity is close to zero because it is zero, within the context of the radiative greenhouse effect which originates this concept of climate sensitivity to CO2 in the first place.
My last post is a good starting point, and you can also read the “Fraud of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect” series (scroll down to the first post if you like), to learn more.
Climate of Sophistry 
Then 2+2 is close to 4.
As a “greenhouse effect” and “global temperature” guy Singer seems to be digging a rat hole, nothing more.
Fred posted a curious article at American Thinker last week….
“Saving Humanity from Catastrophic Global Cooling, A Task for Geo-engineering”
Fred acknowledges the know forcings of the Milankovitch “Astronomical Theory of Ice Ages” and agrees with solar variations in the Little Ice Age, Dalton and Maurader Coolings, but then suggests that dumping water in the Troposphere to ’cause warming ice crystals’ is patently absurd. Water is a COOLING agent as described in “Greenhouse Gas Ptolemaic Model” and CO2 is also a cooling agent as described in….
“Four Known Scientific Ways Carbon Dioxide Cools Earth’s Climate”
This is a three sided, rigged debate and two sides are wrong. The Alarmists and the Luke LITTLE Warmists are WRONG, scientifically speaking.
Joseph A Olson says: “Four Known Scientific Ways Carbon Dioxide Cools Earth’s Climate”
=========================
Joseph, how does adding CO2 to the air change its specific heat? Is it in the “warm” or “cold” direction? Humble me thought it would be the former, which contradicted the cooling theory.
“A climate sensitivity (CS) close to zero flies in the face of not only the alarmist movement, but the generally accepted theory underlying CO2 climate alarm as well – the radiative greenhouse effect. And so this is a difficult position to be in because some scientists, such as Singer, are discovering results which are inconsistent with the general expectations.”
Which is exactly what Dr. Miskolczi found when he plugged in real figures to the simplified climate model he had been taken to NASA by Hansen to produce.
This raises an interesting question. WHY did Hansen take Dr. Miskolczi to NASA? Did Hansen not know what the models where actually based upon? That sounds mad, I know, but, it fits the facts, and explains why Hansen got rid of Dr. Miskolczi asap, when he realised what Dr. Miskolczi had, beyond any reasonable doubt, showed.
Plugging real figures into the simplified model and calling the result a constant, saturated greenhouse effect, was really Dr. Miskolczi’s only option. Not that many to date have understood what was being described to them, by the results.. Dr. Miskolczi as Fred Singer is now, had to be very careful how he described his results and conclusions. Possibly he was too careful…..
I wrote a comment on a previous Prof Singer article in American Thinker 3 years ago. The saddest part is that no science has yet come to clarify my questions with real experiments.
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/americanthinker/articles_climate_deniers_are_giving_us_skeptics_a_bad_name/#comment-465506220
Dr Singer has made it repeatedly clear that he recognizes that there is of course a greenhouse effect. This posting has been reported to the prosecuting authorities, since it appears to form part of a systematic campaign of fraud by misrepresentation on the part of a small group determined (and perhaps paid) to discredit eminent and reputable scientists by suggesting, falsely and after the position had been made explicitly clear to the perpetrators, that the scientists believe there is no greenhouse effect.
This group wilfully and maliciously fails to recognize that it is perfectly possible to accept the fact of the greenhouse effect and also to maintain that the effect of our current enhancement of it is likely to prove to be small, harmless, and beneficial.
Yes Chris you already sent me this via email, and I already responded to you:
So, you’ve continued on with your harassment and accusations against my intent and character, and now on a public forum in addition to the multi-member email distribution we’ve been on, thus, I’ll have to compile all of this into a report to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
You seem to think you are some form of a gatekeeper or bulldog for how science proceeds. You are mistaken. It comes to my attention that your professional training consists of a B.A. in Classics from 1974, and a diploma in journalism studies. And so you in fact have no established scientific merit or competency. You are thus out of your depth. So, your only recourse is to try to create some new inquisition where people who question the radiative greenhouse effect and reference other scientist’s work are to face legal threat and censure. Quite a sad day for science. You WILL lose in this endeavor.
Of course we recognize that; we simply disagree with it for various scientific reason which we can clearly state. Calling this malicious is irrational, and anti-scientific.
Monckton of Brenchley says: “… it is perfectly possible to accept the fact of the greenhouse effect”
=====================
Of course it is! As well as perpetuum mobile or 2+2=5. Everyone has the right to be an idiot. Or play an idiot, whatever.
Hey Christopher,
what we have been missing here on this blog is a nasty talkative “greenhouse effect” guy. It is getting really boring sometimes. Maybe you could take the position? If you have some spare time beyond your possibly busy House of Lords schedule, curing HIV and voluntary reading IPCC reports, of course. Please.
“This group (Lukers) wilfully and maliciously fails to recognize that it is perfectly possible to accept the fact that there is NO greenhouse effect (as defined by the IPCC) from Earth’s atmosphere”
Fixed it for you Christopher!
Exactly Geran! What is it with these people’s inability to comprehend that, then turn around and accuse us of it…lol.
“This group wilfully and maliciously fails to recognize that it is perfectly possible to accept the fact of the greenhouse effect and also to maintain that the effect of our current enhancement of it is likely to prove to be small, harmless, and beneficial.” ~ CM
But Dr. Singer wrote, “Few of them would agree with me that the climate sensitivity (CS) is indeed close to zero“. And he was writing about a radiative greenhouse effect which is most often called “back radiation”. He did not write “small” in reference to climate sensitivity but rather “close to zero”. Please be honest when describing his words.
DR. Singer, has changed his position over time to the point where he now says CS is near zero.
““I should note that I am somewhat out of step here with my fellow skeptics. Few of them would agree with me that the climate sensitivity (CS) is indeed close to zero…. ”
He make a point that is often not considered:
“Finally, another puzzle: If indeed the climate sensitivity is close to zero from 1978-to 2000, and again from 2002 to present, why do surface thermometers indicate a warming trend only in the first interval, but not in the second interval? What accounts for the reported warming during the period 1978-2000?”
Indeed, why does CO2 warm it up so well in the first interval, but go missing in the second interval,despite a significant increase in CO2 by ppm. It is something that should have awakened people to the possibility that CO2 doesn’t really have the capability to drive temperatures upward.
I have accepted that CO2 absorbs IR,that it releases IR almost immediately,that it can’t cause actual warming since the total energy outflow INCREASE from the planet is always greater than the increased postulated warm forcing given to CO2.
Greenhouse effect can’t work, if it is always in negative flow of energy territory…..
It is the Sun/Ocean set up is what drives the changes over time. Every time we get EL-NINO it warms up,when it goes to LA-NINA is cools down. Neutral it can warm,flat,or cool a little
If CO2 was really driving up the temperature above the zero outflow line,it should have been obvious during Neutral phase,between El and LA phases, but we never see it at all.
CO2 is a trace gas with a minor IR absorption range,what an overrated molecule it is when it comes to the energy budget of a planet!
sunsettommy says: “I have accepted that CO2 absorbs IR,that it releases IR almost immediately,”
============================
Maybe it was not necessary to accept, because all we know is that CO2 does not let some portion IR through. We don’t say that a mirror absorbs some light and then releases it almost immediately, do we? There is no need to go beyond what is relevant, it only leads to speculations and sometimes to mistakes. We know also the specific heat heat value of CO2 and other gases, but we do not know if it has anything to do with absorption of IR, argon is a good example.
Since Christopher won’t reply, I assume the Royal Canadian Mounted Police took him. Good work!
Pingback: Fred Singer’s Position Consistent with no Radiative GHE | ajmarciniak
Reblogged this on ajmarciniak.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
2015/05/19 at 10:18 AM
Hey Chris, you have to take that position I suppose, seeing as it was you, along with Crispin Tickle, while working in the peadopjhile network formally known as the Thatcher Government that were responsible for re-animation of the Zombie “GHG” hypothesis back from the grave of debunked 19th century pseudoscience.
All roads of the 20th century AGW fraud, lead directly back to you lot, as far as I can see!
Oh so it’s his zombie baby is it? No wonder he’s in such a fluster over its 2nd death! Dispicable.
Please guys, you do not fall for that “Thatcher’s advisor” tale, do you? Christopher did maybe some typing for some staff assistants, not to be taken seriously. Just look at his qualifications. I will not believe otherwise until I see the evidence.
Look at the clues!
Personally I’ve never been reported, nor threatened to be so, to any “authorities” by any “warmists”, for pointing out that the so called “GHE” hypothesis is pure 19th century debunked pseudoscience.
Yet here we have, supposedly, the worlds most notorious “sceptic”, reporting anyone who questions the hypothesis, which is the basis of AGW fraud, (read this line twice please) “to the prosecuting authorities”.
It certainly looks to me that he has something to fear from the 2nd debunk of the so called “GHE” hypothesis.
“Dr Singer has made it repeatedly clear that he recognizes that there is of course a greenhouse effect”
and…
“This group wilfully and maliciously fails to recognize that it is perfectly possible to accept the fact of the greenhouse effect and also to maintain that the effect of our current enhancement of it is likely to prove to be small, harmless, and beneficial.”
I have one simple question for you Chris:
Since when the hell did a 150 year old hypothesis constitute a “fact”?
It is fraud to claim credentials and experience you don’t actually have and never actually did, isn’t it?! lol
Exactly Will. Talk about a concerted effort with typical LOW-BROW bullying tactics of a beast to keep something covered up that you had a hand in perverting.
Pingback: Monckton Capitulates to Slayer Science | Climate of Sophistry
Reblogged this on Climate- Science.press.