That is good to know

Richard writes:

My thanks for everyone’s good wishes.These are much appreciated, and readers need have no fears. I am told that the operation does not confer a sunny disposition.

On the other hand out in the climate wastelands, people are wishing that the skeptics were simply gone. Once more.

Well, that is how children think – they wish their troubles (i.e., the skeptics) just disappeared. Grownups go to the hospital for a xenotransplant, … and carry their laptop with them.



  1. andyscrase

    Richard says he will be on “light” blogging duties due to his open heart surgery.

    This man is a legend.

  2. newclimatechangetheory

    The physics referred to in Section 2.2 at shows why the original “physics” on which greenhouse theory was based was not even in line with new theories that were already put forward at the time. It was certainly not in line with what Fourier said about heat transfer.

    Yet this fault-ridden “physics” is in fact the very basis of the supposed greenhouse effect and has simply been assumed correct by climatologists who are not really experts in the field at all. Not only was this “physics” debunked by Prof Wood in 1909, but it is also totally at variance with modern-day (peer-reviewed) theory. I’m surprised that people can’t see that.

    Regarding trends, I refer you to Dr Roy Spencer’s trend based on all available satellite data from 1979 up to and including October 2011. This polynomial (Excel) trend has now passed its maximum. Take a close look …

    You might also look at the downward trend in sea levels since 2007 …

    Note that there is a propensity for sea levels to rise anyway, even when temperatures are falling. This is the case because there are still land ice glaciers which will continue to melt and raise sea levels while ever temperatures are anything above freezing point. We are still coming out of the last ice age after all, so more ice will melt than will be reformed. Hence, when sea levels do actually fall, the contraction due to cooling is exceeding the effect of this melting ice. So the cooling is very real.

    By the way, though, I do not accept the weak NASA argument that all the extra water has ended up on land in Australia and elsewhere, due to heavy rains. We do have rivers to take away the flood waters, and our (previously) flooded land surface is a very small proportion of the total surface of the oceans. Other land areas have had offsetting droughts anyway. So, sorry NASA, but your argument doesn’t wear.

    Finally, I would add that the trend shown since 1979 on Spencer’s site has absolutely no correlation with the fairly linear ever-increasing trend in carbon dioxide levels. As Trenberth himself said, the fact that they can’t explain this is a travesty. And the trend has become distinctly downward since he said that, making IPCC projections now look a real joke.

    I wonder if the NASA sea surface measurements have really suffered a technical fault, or whether perhaps they were just too cool to publish. Look at the fall in recent months at 14000 feet for example. You can’t just blame this on ENSO because ENSO is a result of changing climate, not the cause – see

    So the link between carbon dioxide levels is not established empirically in the temperature data and the theory on which it was based is not in line with modern physics. Heat is transferred in all media – solid, liquid or gas – by a combination of kinetic energy transfer in molecular collisions, as well as some “internal” radiation. It is not all about radiative transfer theory alone, and in fact radiation plays only a small part when there is close equilibrium established by physical diffusion, such as at the surface/atmosphere interface.

    Doug Cotton

  3. andyscrase

    Word has it (via Pete North) that the old man is out of theatre and doing well.

    I am hoping that they didn’t disengage the grumpy or splice a monbiot onto him whilst under sedation.