Comments for Real Climategate http://www.realclimategate.org We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. Sun, 18 Sep 2011 09:48:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 Comment on It is good to have a debate by BWoods http://www.realclimategate.org/2011/03/it-is-good-to-have-a-debate/#comment-4296 BWoods Sun, 18 Sep 2011 09:48:23 +0000 http://www.realclimategate.org/?p=503#comment-4296 Hengist they chnaged the title of the motion, at the pro participants request.. which sadly nobbled the debate somewhat. Yesterday we had the FT, saying climate Change panic is over.. the politicians reactions, China, USA, etc would indicate this is correct as well.. Even Al Gore's Climate Reality event, got so little media attention, even the sceptics were surprised!! Will he issue fade away.. or one big counter productive 'push' for Rio 20? who knows.. Currently, the possible impending implosion of the EU seems to be focusiing most political attention, in the EU.. and recession, bills, mortgages, worries about job security.. the public is totally disinterested now. IF they ever were at anything but the most superficial level Anyway thanks for the comment. I must start bloging again.. It's been so long I had to send myself a past word reminder request, to log back on to wordpress. !! So, you have inspired my next WUWT article (subject to acceptance) thanks. Hengist they chnaged the title of the motion, at the pro participants request.. which sadly nobbled the debate somewhat.

Yesterday we had the FT, saying climate Change panic is over.. the politicians reactions, China, USA, etc would indicate this is correct as well..
Even Al Gore’s Climate Reality event, got so little media attention, even the sceptics were surprised!!

Will he issue fade away..
or one big counter productive ‘push’ for Rio 20? who knows..

Currently, the possible impending implosion of the EU seems to be focusiing most political attention, in the EU.. and recession, bills, mortgages, worries about job security.. the public is totally disinterested now. IF they ever were at anything but the most superficial level

Anyway thanks for the comment. I must start bloging again.. It’s been so long I had to send myself a past word reminder request, to log back on to wordpress. !!
So, you have inspired my next WUWT article (subject to acceptance) thanks.

]]>
Comment on It is good to have a debate by Hengist McStone http://www.realclimategate.org/2011/03/it-is-good-to-have-a-debate/#comment-4273 Hengist McStone Sat, 17 Sep 2011 15:29:04 +0000 http://www.realclimategate.org/?p=503#comment-4273 I'm still surprised the Speccy got any proponents to turn up and debate a loaded motion like that, especially with Murdoch's lapdog in the chair. I’m still surprised the Speccy got any proponents to turn up and debate a loaded motion like that, especially with Murdoch’s lapdog in the chair.

]]>
Comment on The Ice age really was coming by Hengist McStone http://www.realclimategate.org/2011/06/the-ice-age-really-was-coming/#comment-4119 Hengist McStone Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:02:51 +0000 http://www.realclimategate.org/?p=562#comment-4119 At 4:40 it's made clear that CO2 causes the world to warm is what is being postulated. The take out messages from this film should be 1. CO2 causes warming 2. Scientists have always said that 3. That warming will have other effects that require further analysis. To simplify it to "The Ice age really was coming" and "CO2 was to blame!!" is to misrepresent the science as it was then. At 4:40 it’s made clear that CO2 causes the world to warm is what is being postulated. The take out messages from this film should be 1. CO2 causes warming 2. Scientists have always said that 3. That warming will have other effects that require further analysis.
To simplify it to “The Ice age really was coming” and “CO2 was to blame!!” is to misrepresent the science as it was then.

]]>
Comment on BBC Horizon – Attack On Science by N Cox http://www.realclimategate.org/2011/01/bbc-horizon-attack-on-science/#comment-3349 N Cox Fri, 12 Aug 2011 01:38:26 +0000 http://www.realclimategate.org/?p=332#comment-3349 This programme featured on SBS One on Australian TV 9 August 2011. I was anticipating an informative unbiased assessment of Global Warming / Climate Change with new facts and involvement of knowledgeable scientists in the field. What was on offer was something else - a lacklustre and flimsy superficial coverage simply bolstering the personal view of Professor Paul Nurse. The lack of any in-depth discussion or involvement by more than just a few select 'representatives' in some coffee shop, ice cream parlour of cluttered office diminished the professionalism and scientific approach. Indeed some of the programme was wasted in perusing original works of Newton and Darwin - totally irrelevant to the matter at hand. Curiously Professor Nurse made sweeping statements about "the general consensus of scientists" without any factual support. His proposition that the Global Warming sceptics "cherry-pick" the data to suit their needs is the opposite of the truth. What I have seen through a period of time is the selective use of data by the Global Warming Alarmists and dismissal of anything else that doesn't suit their 'theorising'. Moreover the modelling they use is simply a fabrication based on arbitrary 'feedback' pertaining to Carbon Dioxide and warming which is not evidenced in real data over the last 10 years. Why is it that Carbon Dioxide levels have risen over the past 10 years, but there ahs been some global cooling over thge period? Prof. Paul Nurse chose to avoid such very pertinent questions. Also does NASA truly believe that Solar activity is not a key player in Climate Change on the Earth? Really? Personally I have always been interested in true Science and making scientific connections between causation and effect based on factual evidence. Science is about testing of hypothesis, not just consensus of a select few or superficial speculation. Prof. Paul Nurse would do well to remember that. Fortunately - for all of us - the real truth lies in the future to unfold. Maybe then we (incl Prof Nurse) can move forward with real science and real scientific study and discussion. This programme featured on SBS One on Australian TV 9 August 2011. I was anticipating an informative unbiased assessment of Global Warming / Climate Change with new facts and involvement of knowledgeable scientists in the field. What was on offer was something else – a lacklustre and flimsy superficial coverage simply bolstering the personal view of Professor Paul Nurse.

The lack of any in-depth discussion or involvement by more than just a few select ‘representatives’ in some coffee shop, ice cream parlour of cluttered office diminished the professionalism and scientific approach. Indeed some of the programme was wasted in perusing original works of Newton and Darwin – totally irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Curiously Professor Nurse made sweeping statements about “the general consensus of scientists” without any factual support. His proposition that the Global Warming sceptics “cherry-pick” the data to suit their needs is the opposite of the truth. What I have seen through a period of time is the selective use of data by the Global Warming Alarmists and dismissal of anything else that doesn’t suit their ‘theorising’. Moreover the modelling they use is simply a fabrication based on arbitrary ‘feedback’ pertaining to Carbon Dioxide and warming which is not evidenced in real data over the last 10 years.

Why is it that Carbon Dioxide levels have risen over the past 10 years, but there ahs been some global cooling over thge period? Prof. Paul Nurse chose to avoid such very pertinent questions. Also does NASA truly believe that Solar activity is not a key player in Climate Change on the Earth? Really?

Personally I have always been interested in true Science and making scientific connections between causation and effect based on factual evidence. Science is about testing of hypothesis, not just consensus of a select few or superficial speculation. Prof. Paul Nurse would do well to remember that.

Fortunately – for all of us – the real truth lies in the future to unfold. Maybe then we (incl Prof Nurse) can move forward with real science and real scientific study and discussion.

]]>
Comment on The Ice age really was coming by hunter http://www.realclimategate.org/2011/06/the-ice-age-really-was-coming/#comment-2963 hunter Thu, 21 Jul 2011 14:47:41 +0000 http://www.realclimategate.org/?p=562#comment-2963 It is this maleable self-serving view of history that was one of the aspects of the AGW movement taht informed my skepticism. Keep up the good work. It is this maleable self-serving view of history that was one of the aspects of the AGW movement taht informed my skepticism.
Keep up the good work.

]]>
Comment on The Ice age really was coming by Mailman http://www.realclimategate.org/2011/06/the-ice-age-really-was-coming/#comment-2791 Mailman Sat, 09 Jul 2011 12:24:16 +0000 http://www.realclimategate.org/?p=562#comment-2791 I guess what all these Mann Made Global Warming (tm) nuts totally and utterly ignore is that the countries that recover the quickest from disasters are the wealthy ones. The same would go for any so called Mann Made Global Warming (tm), you want your country to be wealthy so that it can withstand temperature changes but instead all we get is wealth redistribution (to corrupt government officials pockets) and the attempt at destroying Western industry! You know...I almost want us to be plunged in to a ice age just so we can tell all the Mann Made Global Warming (tm) cultists to shut the f9ck up! :) Regards Mailman I guess what all these Mann Made Global Warming ™ nuts totally and utterly ignore is that the countries that recover the quickest from disasters are the wealthy ones. The same would go for any so called Mann Made Global Warming ™, you want your country to be wealthy so that it can withstand temperature changes but instead all we get is wealth redistribution (to corrupt government officials pockets) and the attempt at destroying Western industry!

You know…I almost want us to be plunged in to a ice age just so we can tell all the Mann Made Global Warming ™ cultists to shut the f9ck up! :)

Regards

Mailman

]]>
Comment on The Ice age really was coming by Peter Whale http://www.realclimategate.org/2011/06/the-ice-age-really-was-coming/#comment-2552 Peter Whale Sat, 25 Jun 2011 10:35:30 +0000 http://www.realclimategate.org/?p=562#comment-2552 I remember it well, just a few years before it was blamed on nuclear weapons testing. I remember it well, just a few years before it was blamed on nuclear weapons testing.

]]>
Comment on Official – Alarmist warnings of 2m sea level rises are wrong – Met Office Study by Beatriz Vivion http://www.realclimategate.org/2010/12/official-alarmist-warnings-of-2m-sea-level-rises-are-wrong-met-office-study/#comment-2477 Beatriz Vivion Sat, 18 Jun 2011 14:46:28 +0000 http://www.realclimategate.org/?p=118#comment-2477 Thank you for the sensible critique. Me and my neighbor were just preparing to do some research on this. We got a grab a book from our area library but I think I learned more from this post. I am very glad to see such excellent info being shared freely out there. Thank you for the sensible critique. Me and my neighbor were just preparing to do some research on this. We got a grab a book from our area library but I think I learned more from this post. I am very glad to see such excellent info being shared freely out there.

]]>
Comment on Simple Physics – In reality my feather blew up into a tree by Diogenes http://www.realclimategate.org/2010/12/simple-physics-in-reality-my-feather-blew-up-into-a-tree/#comment-2441 Diogenes Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:57:11 +0000 http://www.realclimategate.org/?p=201#comment-2441 It's not easy to be honest in a dishonest world. Keep up the good work! It’s not easy to be honest in a dishonest world.

Keep up the good work!

]]>
Comment on The Ice age really was coming by dinosaur http://www.realclimategate.org/2011/06/the-ice-age-really-was-coming/#comment-2355 dinosaur Wed, 08 Jun 2011 01:41:40 +0000 http://www.realclimategate.org/?p=562#comment-2355 How about Van Der Graaf Generator's After The Flood, 1970 ? Continuing the story, humanity stumbles-- gone is the glory, there's a far distant rumble. The clouds have gathered and exploded now: axes shattered, there is no North or South! Far off, the ice is foundering slowly... the ice is turning to water, the ice is turning to water. The water rushes over all, cities crash in the mighty wave; the final man is very small, plunging in for his final bathe. This is the ending of the beginning... this is the beginning of the end, middle of the middle, mid-point, end and start: the first peak rises, forces the waves apart. Far off, the ice is now re-forming: poles are fixed once more, water's receding, like death-blood. And when the water falls again, all is dead and nobody lives. And then he said: 'Every step appears to be the unavoidable consequence of the preceding one, and in the end there beckons more and more clearly total annihilation!' This is the ending of the beginning... this, the beginning of the end. And when the water falls again all is dead and nobody lives.... How about Van Der Graaf Generator’s After The Flood, 1970 ?

Continuing the story, humanity stumbles–
gone is the glory, there’s a far distant rumble.
The clouds have gathered and exploded now:
axes shattered, there is no North or South!
Far off, the ice is foundering slowly…
the ice is turning to water,
the ice is turning to water.
The water rushes over all,
cities crash in the mighty wave;
the final man is very small,
plunging in for his final bathe.
This is the ending of the beginning…
this is the beginning of the end,
middle of the middle, mid-point, end and start:
the first peak rises, forces the waves apart.
Far off, the ice is now re-forming:
poles are fixed once more,
water’s receding, like death-blood.
And when the water falls again,
all is dead and nobody lives.
And then he said:
‘Every step appears to be the unavoidable consequence of the
preceding one, and in the end there beckons more and more
clearly total annihilation!’
This is the ending of the beginning…
this, the beginning of the end.
And when the water falls again
all is dead and nobody lives….

]]>
Comment on About by Diogenes http://www.realclimategate.org/about/#comment-2046 Diogenes Tue, 17 May 2011 13:06:43 +0000 http://realclimategate.org/?page_id=2#comment-2046 Barry, Keep up the good work! I've very much enjoyed and have benefited from your various thoughts and comments. Barry,
Keep up the good work! I’ve very much enjoyed and have benefited from your various thoughts and comments.

]]>
Comment on It is good to have a debate by BWoods http://www.realclimategate.org/2011/03/it-is-good-to-have-a-debate/#comment-1873 BWoods Sun, 01 May 2011 21:28:40 +0000 http://www.realclimategate.org/?p=503#comment-1873 I've been on holiday and taking a break and having a re-think. There is more to live than blogging, let it go, we disagree. Endless debates about the science are irrelevant now.. It is all about politics and policies now.. nobody will look at the science until the energy policies come tumbling down. I’ve been on holiday and taking a break and having a re-think. There is more to live than blogging, let it go, we disagree.

Endless debates about the science are irrelevant now..

It is all about politics and policies now.. nobody will look at the science until the energy policies come tumbling down.

]]>
Comment on It is good to have a debate by Pete Ridley http://www.realclimategate.org/2011/03/it-is-good-to-have-a-debate/#comment-1588 Pete Ridley Sun, 10 Apr 2011 09:32:21 +0000 http://www.realclimategate.org/?p=503#comment-1588 Barry, I'm repeating my las comment with some changes to try to bypass moderation. Tere are still two others sitting awaiting approval. Hi again Barry. I see that you made the time to comment on Andrew Montford’s “Light Blogging” thread (Apr 10th @ 9:15 AM - Note 1). Your “James Delingpole beats a Press Complaint from UEA” article is excellent and must have taken a while to put together – congrats. Now can you find a little time to consider whether or not you owe me an apology for your comment about my P&C E-mail to Jo Abbess. It shouldn’t take you more than a couple of minutes. Meanwhile, keep up the good work and while you’re at it, since you have “BSc Applied Chemistry, MSc Cybernetics” (October 18th, 2010 @ 15:22 - Note 2) - have you any understanding of the CO2 fractionation issue that I raised on Andrew’s earlier “Light Blogging” thread (Mar 28th @ 22:07 – Note 3)? I’ll repeat it here in case you missed it QUOTE: Andrew .. How do you feel about writing another CACC "slayer" covering "Another Hockey Stick Illusion"? I'm referring to the CO2 "hockey stick" derived from air allegedly "trapped" (virtually unchanged) in ice for millennia. I have been researching this for over a year now and conclude that the claims about past global atmospheric CO2 content are no more valid that the claims made by Michael Mann and his hockey team are about past global temperatures. You can get a fair idea of my hypothesis by reading my recent comments on Judith Curry’s “Agreeing(?)” thread (Note 4), on the New Zealand sceptics Climate Conversations threads (Note 5 & 6 and on the New Zealand CACC supporters Hot Topic thread (Noe 7). .. I have put this same challenge to numerous recognised ice-core “experts” but not one has justified this choice. In a nutshell my hypothesis is that they are using the wrong measure and consequently ignore the preferential fractionation of CO2 out of the air “trapped” in those air pockets which depletes the amount of CO2 in deep ice and enriches it at higher levels, hence the false “hockey stick”. I’d be delighted if someone could clearly present the flaws in my hypothesis (but not simply claim that I’m talking nonsense without any supporting evidence, as they have done with Professor Zbiniew Jaworowski). No-one has done so yet. Who’s going to be the first? UNQUOTE. Maybe with your knowledge of chemistry you could be that first to explain why kinetic diameter is irrelevant when considering all of those different-sized molecules in atmospheric air trying to squeeze their way through pore and channels that are just large enough for the smallest (0.33nm or less diameter) to get through. Now there’s an interesting debate that it would be good to have! NOTES: NB: http://www. from 2), 5) and 6), with http:// removed from the rest. 1) see bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/4/9/light-blogging.html?lastPage=true#comment12555869 2) see joabbess.com/2010/10/12/dearth-of-the-oceans/ 3) see bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/3/28/light-blogging.html#comments 4) see judithcurry.com/2011/02/26/agreeing/#comment-57880 5) see climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/03/its-not-warming-you-nitwit-its-cooling/#comment-45360 6) see climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/03/fallen-snow/#comment-46211 7) see hot-topic.co.nz/the-twilight-zone/comment-page-1/#comment-25285 Best regards, Pete Ridley. Barry, I’m repeating my las comment with some changes to try to bypass moderation. Tere are still two others sitting awaiting approval.

Hi again Barry. I see that you made the time to comment on Andrew Montford’s “Light Blogging” thread (Apr 10th @ 9:15 AM – Note 1). Your “James Delingpole beats a Press Complaint from UEA” article is excellent and must have taken a while to put together – congrats. Now can you find a little time to consider whether or not you owe me an apology for your comment about my P&C E-mail to Jo Abbess. It shouldn’t take you more than a couple of minutes.

Meanwhile, keep up the good work and while you’re at it, since you have “BSc Applied Chemistry, MSc Cybernetics” (October 18th, 2010 @ 15:22 – Note 2) – have you any understanding of the CO2 fractionation issue that I raised on Andrew’s earlier “Light Blogging” thread (Mar 28th @ 22:07 – Note 3)?

I’ll repeat it here in case you missed it QUOTE: Andrew .. How do you feel about writing another CACC “slayer” covering “Another Hockey Stick Illusion”? I’m referring to the CO2 “hockey stick” derived from air allegedly “trapped” (virtually unchanged) in ice for millennia. I have been researching this for over a year now and conclude that the claims about past global atmospheric CO2 content are no more valid that the claims made by Michael Mann and his hockey team are about past global temperatures.

You can get a fair idea of my hypothesis by reading my recent comments on Judith Curry’s “Agreeing(?)” thread (Note 4), on the New Zealand sceptics Climate Conversations threads (Note 5 & 6 and on the New Zealand CACC supporters Hot Topic thread (Noe 7). ..

I have put this same challenge to numerous recognised ice-core “experts” but not one has justified this choice. In a nutshell my hypothesis is that they are using the wrong measure and consequently ignore the preferential fractionation of CO2 out of the air “trapped” in those air pockets which depletes the amount of CO2 in deep ice and enriches it at higher levels, hence the false “hockey stick”.

I’d be delighted if someone could clearly present the flaws in my hypothesis (but not simply claim that I’m talking nonsense without any supporting evidence, as they have done with Professor Zbiniew Jaworowski). No-one has done so yet. Who’s going to be the first?

UNQUOTE.

Maybe with your knowledge of chemistry you could be that first to explain why kinetic diameter is irrelevant when considering all of those different-sized molecules in atmospheric air trying to squeeze their way through pore and channels that are just large enough for the smallest (0.33nm or less diameter) to get through.

Now there’s an interesting debate that it would be good to have!

NOTES:
NB: http://www. from 2), 5) and 6), with http:// removed from the rest.
1) see bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/4/9/light-blogging.html?lastPage=true#comment12555869
2) see joabbess.com/2010/10/12/dearth-of-the-oceans/
3) see bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/3/28/light-blogging.html#comments
4) see judithcurry.com/2011/02/26/agreeing/#comment-57880
5) see climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/03/its-not-warming-you-nitwit-its-cooling/#comment-45360
6) see climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/03/fallen-snow/#comment-46211
7) see hot-topic.co.nz/the-twilight-zone/comment-page-1/#comment-25285

Best regards, Pete Ridley.

]]>
Comment on It is good to have a debate by Pete Ridley http://www.realclimategate.org/2011/03/it-is-good-to-have-a-debate/#comment-1587 Pete Ridley Sun, 10 Apr 2011 09:18:14 +0000 http://www.realclimategate.org/?p=503#comment-1587 Hi again Barry. I see that you made the time to comment on Andrew Montford’s “Light Blogging” thread (Apr 10th @ 9:15 AM on http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/4/9/light-blogging.html?lastPage=true#comment12555869). Your “James Delingpole beats a Press Complaint from UEA” article is excellent and must have taken a while to put together – congrats. Now can you find a little time to consider whether or not you owe me an apology for your comment about my P&C E-mail to Jo Abbess. It shouldn’t take you more than a couple of minutes. Meanwhile, keep up the good work and while you’re at it, since you have “BSc Applied Chemistry, MSc Cybernetics” (October 18th, 2010 @ 15:22 http://www.joabbess.com/2010/10/12/dearth-of-the-oceans/) - have you any understanding of the CO2 fractionation issue that I raised on Andrew’s earlier “Light Blogging” thread (Mar 28th @ 22:07 - http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/3/28/light-blogging.html#comments)? I’ll repeat it here in case you missed it QUOTE: Andrew .. How do you feel about writing another CACC "slayer" covering "Another Hockey Stick Illusion"? I'm referring to the CO2 "hockey stick" derived from air allegedly "trapped" (virtually unchanged) in ice for millennia. I have been researching this for over a year now and conclude that the claims about past global atmospheric CO2 content are no more valid that the claims made by Michael Mann and his hockey team are about past global temperatures. You can get a fair idea of my hypothesis by reading my recent comments on Judith Curry’s “Agreeing(?)” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/26/agreeing/#comment-57880), on the New Zealand sceptics Climate Conversations threads (http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/03/its-not-warming-you-nitwit-its-cooling/#comment-45360 & http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/03/fallen-snow/#comment-46211 and on the New Zealand CACC supporters Hot Topic thread (http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-twilight-zone/comment-page-1/#comment-25285 ). .. I have put this same challenge to numerous recognised ice-core “experts” but not one has justified this choice. In a nutshell my hypothesis is that they are using the wrong measure and consequently ignore the preferential fractionation of CO2 out of the air “trapped” in those air pockets which depletes the amount of CO2 in deep ice and enriches it at higher levels, hence the false “hockey stick”. I’d be delighted if someone could clearly present the flaws in my hypothesis (but not simply claim that I’m talking nonsense without any supporting evidence, as they have done with Professor Zbiniew Jaworowski). No-one has done so yet. Who’s going to be the first? UNQUOTE. Maybe with your knowledge of chemistry you could be that first to explain why kinetic diameter is irrelevant when considering all of those different-sized molecules in atmospheric air trying to squeeze their way through pore and channels that are just large enough for the smallest (0.33nm or less diameter) to get through. Now there’s an interesting debate that it would be good to have! Best regards, Pete Ridley. Hi again Barry. I see that you made the time to comment on Andrew Montford’s “Light Blogging” thread (Apr 10th @ 9:15 AM on http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/4/9/light-blogging.html?lastPage=true#comment12555869). Your “James Delingpole beats a Press Complaint from UEA” article is excellent and must have taken a while to put together – congrats. Now can you find a little time to consider whether or not you owe me an apology for your comment about my P&C E-mail to Jo Abbess. It shouldn’t take you more than a couple of minutes.

Meanwhile, keep up the good work and while you’re at it, since you have “BSc Applied Chemistry, MSc Cybernetics” (October 18th, 2010 @ 15:22 http://www.joabbess.com/2010/10/12/dearth-of-the-oceans/) – have you any understanding of the CO2 fractionation issue that I raised on Andrew’s earlier “Light Blogging” thread (Mar 28th @ 22:07 – http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/3/28/light-blogging.html#comments)?

I’ll repeat it here in case you missed it QUOTE: Andrew .. How do you feel about writing another CACC “slayer” covering “Another Hockey Stick Illusion”? I’m referring to the CO2 “hockey stick” derived from air allegedly “trapped” (virtually unchanged) in ice for millennia. I have been researching this for over a year now and conclude that the claims about past global atmospheric CO2 content are no more valid that the claims made by Michael Mann and his hockey team are about past global temperatures.

You can get a fair idea of my hypothesis by reading my recent comments on Judith Curry’s “Agreeing(?)” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/26/agreeing/#comment-57880), on the New Zealand sceptics Climate Conversations threads (http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/03/its-not-warming-you-nitwit-its-cooling/#comment-45360 & http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/03/fallen-snow/#comment-46211 and on the New Zealand CACC supporters Hot Topic thread (http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-twilight-zone/comment-page-1/#comment-25285 ). ..

I have put this same challenge to numerous recognised ice-core “experts” but not one has justified this choice. In a nutshell my hypothesis is that they are using the wrong measure and consequently ignore the preferential fractionation of CO2 out of the air “trapped” in those air pockets which depletes the amount of CO2 in deep ice and enriches it at higher levels, hence the false “hockey stick”.

I’d be delighted if someone could clearly present the flaws in my hypothesis (but not simply claim that I’m talking nonsense without any supporting evidence, as they have done with Professor Zbiniew Jaworowski). No-one has done so yet. Who’s going to be the first?

UNQUOTE.

Maybe with your knowledge of chemistry you could be that first to explain why kinetic diameter is irrelevant when considering all of those different-sized molecules in atmospheric air trying to squeeze their way through pore and channels that are just large enough for the smallest (0.33nm or less diameter) to get through.

Now there’s an interesting debate that it would be good to have!

Best regards, Pete Ridley.

]]>
Comment on It is good to have a debate by Pete Ridley http://www.realclimategate.org/2011/03/it-is-good-to-have-a-debate/#comment-1580 Pete Ridley Sat, 09 Apr 2011 19:47:33 +0000 http://www.realclimategate.org/?p=503#comment-1580 Hi Barry, it’s such a shame that you are so busy that you can’t think. Take a break and join in the exchanges at Andrew’s latest “Light Blogging” thread (http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/4/9/light-blogging.html). I’d love to hear your latest thoughts on my P&C E-mail exchange wit Jo Abbess. Best regards, Pete Ridley Hi Barry, it’s such a shame that you are so busy that you can’t think. Take a break and join in the exchanges at Andrew’s latest “Light Blogging” thread (http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/4/9/light-blogging.html). I’d love to hear your latest thoughts on my P&C E-mail exchange wit Jo Abbess.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

]]>