When 'the data doesn’t matter', what can you 'believe in'?

Steve O March 6, 2019 at 6:35 am :

I’m trying to get my arms around what this group believes regarding the MWP.

Chris Folland:

“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”

They 'believe in' their GHGE models.

I'm interested in why they 'believe in' GHGE equations/models, derived from Arrhenius' 19th century model^[1]. Why is so little in their models is verified against the real world?^[5] Why do they scorn modern work done on carbon dioxide absorption and emittance spectra (studies: 1985, 2005, 2013, 2014)^[2,3,6,7]? Why has no one done an experiment since 1900 (Knut Angstrom, who failed to show it) to verify this GHGE 'warming the surface'? Why they think downwelling LWIR (due to more CO2 warms oceans, when, they otherwise agree, that such D-LWIR penetrates mere micrometres into the ocean to have a tiny effect warming the surface skin?

"yes there are measurements specifically of the cool skin layer."

I've asked for measurements of *CO2's* real-world effect on water body temps when increased in ppm volumes.

The skin layer temp. gradient has been measured as 0.002 K. How could that possibly *drive* OHC change? pic.twitter.com/eHVK8pnLDx

— Kenneth Richard (@Kenneth72712993) March 7, 2019

"Net result is warmer ocean with more CO2."

So then why has the ocean heat content plummeted and sea levels fallen as CO2 has risen during the last 8,000 years? Will you ever address this gaping hole in your belief system? pic.twitter.com/Jz8087oamV

— Kenneth Richard (@Kenneth72712993) March 7, 2019

When I tell them their GHGE hypothesis says earth warms because less OLR is emitted to space, they rationalize away real world data showing a 2W/m² increase (4 complete data sets) in OLR emitted to space since 1985^[4]. Real world doing the opposite of their models.

It's nearly always the same pattern with bad science: cherry pick, model, twist statistics. Actual data fraud is rare. The driving mechanism is groupthink, not conscious fraud. They even think changing past temperatures to delete 1910 - 1940 warming is 'science'. Much like they think Mann-derived MWP-elimination studies are science. Alarmists are just hacks doing the UN's bidding; not good scientists. If politicians want anti-scientist alarmists in charge of climate science; all we can do is change the politicians.

1. Arrhenius, S 1896, ‘On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground’, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 237-276.
2. Barrett, J 1985, ‘Paper on Spectra of Carbon Dioxide’, Villach Conference, Austria, October 6-19.
3. Barrett, J 2005, ‘Greenhouse molecules, their spectra and function in the atmosphere’, Energy & Environment, vol. 16, no. 6. DOI: 10.1260/095830505775221542
4. Dewitte, S. & Clerbaux, N. Decadal Changes of Earth’s Outgoing Longwave Radiation, 25 Sept 2018. Remote Sensing 2018, 10(10), 1539; DOI: 10.3390/rs10101539
5. Kawamura, Y 2016, ‘Measurement system for the radiative forcing of greenhouse gases in a laboratory scale’, Review of Scientific Instruments, vol. 87, no. 1. DOI: 10.1063/1.4939483
6. Laubereau, A & Iglev H 2013, ‘On the direct impact of the CO₂ concentration rise to the global warming’, EPL, vol. 104, no. 2. DOI: 10.1209/0295-5075/104/29001
7. Lightfoot, HD & Mamer, OA 2014, ‘Calculation of Atmospheric Radiative Forcing (Warming Effect) Of Carbon Dioxide at any Concentration Energy & Environment’, Energy & Environment, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 1439-1454. DOI: 10.1260/0958-305X.25.8.1439