tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post4232627594763105650..comments2024-03-24T09:28:42.755+01:00Comments on CJ on Mathematics and Science: Presentation at Stockholm Initiative: The IPCC TrickClaes Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07411413338950388898noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-22611162993185758752011-05-07T12:56:59.644+02:002011-05-07T12:56:59.644+02:00Climate dogma arbitrarily puts the burden of proof...Climate dogma arbitrarily puts the burden of proof on anyone who would dare claim a small sensitivity. The scientific burden of proof, however, is on those who claim the sensitivity is not zero, since the clear Venus/Earth data<br /><br /><a href="http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html" rel="nofollow">Venus: No Greenhouse Effect</a><br /><br />shows it MUST be zero. A substantial portion of the population now knows the climate "consensus" is fundamentally just the cover for a tyrannous political movement. The academic promulgators of it are in denial and think they can bluster their way through, by ignoring the incontrovertible evidence against them. The stage is set for unavoidable revolution, and only the magnitude of the destruction, to all of science, is still in doubt.Harry Dale Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-3633409116714524602011-05-07T04:12:11.534+02:002011-05-07T04:12:11.534+02:00Generally, I agree with Anders. If the science/tec...Generally, I agree with Anders. If the science/technology is wrong why give any concessions. The AGW believers (eg IPCC) are saying their hypothesis of human cause of temperature increase by release of CO2 is 95% certain. They do not concede that the climate sensivity of CO2 close to zero. Further in the face of huge amount of evidence they promote that a small change of temperature will cause irreversible and increasing difficulties for human living. They do not concede that an increase in temperature and CO2 may in fact be beneficial such allowing crops to once again be grown in Greenland.<br />Keep well cementafriendAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-5309905003108309692011-05-06T16:59:22.301+02:002011-05-06T16:59:22.301+02:00Well, 0.3 C is practically speaking the same as 0....Well, 0.3 C is practically speaking the same as 0.0 C. To prove that climate sensitivity is identically zero is much more difficult than showing that it is less than 0.3 C. Why kill a fly with a bomb?Claes Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07411413338950388898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-48526476050465074452011-05-06T16:31:10.749+02:002011-05-06T16:31:10.749+02:00Interesting invitation.. Just make sure you don...Interesting invitation.. Just make sure you don't make things complicated now. In my view there are two things to notice:<br /><br />The radiative properties of CO2 should have a slight cooling effect. If it was a warming effect then EITHER it must be a runaway effect OR a flagrant violation of the second law since it demands a cooling of the upper atmosphere at the same time as the lower part warms.<br /><br />ON THE OTHER HAND<br /><br />It should have a slight warming effect since an increased atmospheric mass leads to higher pressure and heat capacity.<br /><br />I thus estimate a climate sensitivity of around 0.0 degrees C upon a doubling of CO2.Andershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15294862989593516422noreply@blogger.com