Dear mhaze,

Oh come on mate, even you are better than that.

You have said in the past:

“Its not a case of thinking CO2 is unimportant or thinking the "greenhouse effect is a myth" (no one thinks that anyway).”

Well these blokes think it's a myth. Ned Nikolov even asserts it on the page of the original link Hasbeen provided. I quote:

“What Roy Spencer wrote in 2010 about the role of clouds is conceptually correct. However, he seems to have abandoned this line of thought recently. Roy has increasingly been pushing the false “greenhouse” theory...”

And peer reviewed? Well they do claim it has been subjected to an “open peer review” whatever they think that means. Who did the reviewing, which scientific journal was it published in, and why is there no reference list at the end of their paper?

Also the cheeky buggers even quote themselves:

“However, as demonstrated by Nikolov & Zeller (2017), the real climate system has no measurable sensitivity to ambient CO2 due to a minute contribution of this trace gas to the total pressure of Earth’s atmosphere.”

Not a pretty look is it.

And finally Steve Sherwood in not anyone is he? Rather he is a Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW Sydney and not some part timer with an obscure Phd in forestry like these blokes.

SR.

You'll note I haven't expressed an opinion about the papers merely the process whereby data and views are rejected, not because they're wrong but because don't sit well with pre-judged biases.

I've read the paper. It looks interesting but I'm open-minded about it. We'll see over the next few years if it stands scrutiny and additional research. That's how science used to work.

PS...I'm pleased to see that you are scrolling back through my earlier posts. The more you read them, the better you'll understand the issue.

CO2 increases probably do influence temperature, but imagining that you can accurately make predictions about 20 years hence is bonkers.

What narks me is the ideological solutions proposed. No nuclear, because it's bad. No geoengineering, because it's bad too. I believe that both of these things can deliver economic and environmental benefit whether or not global warming is a problem. The favoured solutions, renewable energy and green hydrogen, would be economically harmful and unlikely to have much impact in reducing CO2 emissions.

My interest is in fertilising oceans to increase marine production and possibly increase Australia's rainfall. Developing an understanding of the subject through research could provide insight into what might be achieved, yet research into ocean fertilisation is banned, and vilified by greenie nutters about as much as nuclear power.

Of interest, the bushfires of 2020 caused a huge algal bloom in the Southern Ocean.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-09-16/black-summer-bushfires-smoke-iron-algae-bloom-phytoplankton/100460218

What effect might this event have had on Australia's rainfall? Sadly, a dogmatic ideology prevents us from finding out.

In the UK, headlines about the rising cost of electricity are overwhelming the usual headlines about climate change. UK politics has shifted its focus from climate change to energy security. This is a turning point for the UK, as the real cost of modelling and ideology "crash on the reality of families having to provide food and warmth".

Australians are going to have to realise that we are going the same way; and our politicians have to be made to act.

("Net Zero: the puritan Trojan horse", Ben Beatie, 3/5/22).

Hasbeen, I suggest you install Tinyurl, it makes it easy to copy
long urls off web pages.

ttbn; in one state, Victoria I think it is an offense to park an ic
car in an EV charging location. It is known as being Iced !
What no one outside the ev field does not realise the vast majority
of evs are charged at home during the night time off peak times.
As the ratio of ev in personal use and business use changes so that
the majority as now will be parked at home each night the night time
load will increase and perhaps "off peak" will disappear.
Also new laws for strata type buildings are now being required to
install 15 amp GPOs in each car position in car parks.
This will enable 3.5Kw chargers to be installed for each car.

The electricity system cannot be supplied from the current renewables
and that is slowly sinking in. The talk I mention below showed quite
clearly that the lifetime of solar & turbines is so short and use so
much material that we will go broke and live in caves amongst the
debris of our society.

All that aside I heard a talk yesterday on hydrogen, green, blue,
yellow and black varieties.
It seems that all of them have significant disadvantages.
The most important use of hydrogen is fertilizer manufacture.
The rest of the uses are wasteful in energy and materials compared to
nuclear energy. The most wasteful use of materials is to use solar
and wind with electrolysis to make "green hydrogen".
Re the use of cobalt in batteries, that may well end soon if these
new type of cells work out

Who here would be prepared, [silly enough], to live in a highrise with 5 amp GPOs in each car position in car parks & 3.5Kw chargers installed for each car, charging cars over night?