690 replies to this topic

[jethro]

Recording warmth says nothing of the origin GW.

[Yorkshiresnows]

jethro, on 20 July 2010 - 17:43 , said:

Recording warmth says nothing of the origin GW.

Yes, a good read Jethro.

Lets hope that the overall thrust of the paper is wrong, otherwise we could be in trouble !

Have you seen the latest from Roy Spencer ..... good discussions on his blog reagrding satellite derived temp measurements and on a critical paper in press:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Y.S

[Thundery wintry showers]

Interesting article from GISS, and ironically it casts doubts on Sunny Starry Skies's prior assertions that GISS can be trusted over the other two because it includes the Arctic. NCDC includes the Arctic as well these days whereas HadCRUT to a large extent still does not, with the tradeoff being between having modelling of the Arctic that may be flawed due to sparse coverage (GISS, NCDC) vs having very little coverage and thus most likely underestimating global temperature anomalies in most months (HadCRUT).

Note that all three datasets have 2005 as the warmest year on record in the Northern Hemisphere, but with 1998 still coming out on top globally in HadCRUT.

[Gray-Wolf]

I know for it to be us ,J', would make for a horrid future but why ,when we have so much evidence that we are on the right track blaming human pollution, must you shy away from the possibility?

Were it to be us the loss of the Arctic will speed up all the impacts we fear (in a horrid car crash of a domino effect) in a logarithmic kinda way so they will manifest whilst we are around to witness them.

When do you satisfy yourself that 'we done it'? (an honest question to help me make sense of it all!)

You see I do really struggle to get into the mindset of the folk who struggle to find other 'possibilities' for the changes (when not only to play devils advocate) rather than accept the 'mainstream science' (that we would readily adhere to if it was our doctor explaining a failing in our bodies)?

I know we've covered the ground before but when you look at the weight of the papers 'confirming' our fears over that period (against papers 'refuting' our impacts) don't you ask why you favour those above mainstream?

[Yorkshiresnows]

Gray-Wolf, on 21 July 2010 - 11:34 , said:

I know for it to be us ,J', would make for a horrid future but why ,when we have so much evidence that we are on the right track blaming human pollution, must you shy away from the possibility?

Were it to be us the loss of the Arctic will speed up all the impacts we fear (in a horrid car crash of a domino effect) in a logarithmic kinda way so they will manifest whilst we are around to witness them.

When do you satisfy yourself that 'we done it'? (an honest question to help me make sense of it all!)

You see I do really struggle to get into the mindset of the folk who struggle to find other 'possibilities' for the changes (when not only to play devils advocate) rather than accept the 'mainstream science' (that we would readily adhere to if it was our doctor explaining a failing in our bodies)?

I know we've covered the ground before but when you look at the weight of the papers 'confirming' our fears over that period (against papers 'refuting' our impacts) don't you ask why you favour those above mainstream?

Hi GW,

Its not a question of advocation of responsibilities. I will vote for a cleaner future by whatever means necessary (its a sensible way forward for such polluting humans as we undoubtly are).

However, i simply cannot understand your statement in bold above. There are a lot of learned scientists and others who are dissenting voices and have put forward possible mechanisms by which most of the 20th century warming could have occurred without involving green house gas emissions.

Its not about getting into anybody's mindset ...... more about reading around the subject. Even the IPCC are vastly uncertain as to how much warming will occure and by when and have to use a mathematically calculated amplification factor to get the figures they produce. The uncertainty over the effects of cloud cover (cloud generation where the atmosphere holds additional moisture through a warming climate leading to a possible negative rather than positive effect) is pretty well accepted.

I was also a firm believer in the green-house gas theory, ...... I've changed my mind in recent months ......... if further data becomes available disproving many of the alternative theories and we resume warming .... I may well change it back.

Its the next few years that hold the key and it will be very ineterseting to see what actually occurs (Arctic as well). In the meantime, I agree, as a population we should take the precautionary approach.

Y.S

[Gray-Wolf]

Sorry if I'm becoming increasingly inscrutable Y.S.!

Sadly ,though we all know we should be 'cleaner' in our living (and use of the planet) I struggle to see it happening until we have a radical change to the way the world operates presently.

We, and the powers that be, will all sing from the same hymn sheet but whilst we do our best they will lag behind (with a plethora of reasons for doing so) until we are in the worst possible of places (where you flip back to knowing our outputs have really driven change.....and modified the very 'natural cycles' you hope to blame).

Oh! what a happy chappie I am!

[Solar Sausage]

What worries me about those 'alternative theories' YS, is that (rather like comparing real medicine to homoeopathy or mesmerism?) most - if not all of them - seem to be even more flakey than the ones that suggest GHGs contribute to global atmospheric warming...

IMO, just because, according to hypthesis-x, the warming of the last few decades could have occurred without any contribution from CO₂ by no means means that it has...

In fact, I'd (as I do with homoeopathy and mesmerism) think it far more likely, though not impossible, that it is 'hypothesis-x' that is wrong??

[Gray-Wolf]

Over 30% of patients attending their G.P. recover purely through the 'placebo effect'..........maybe if we all believe in 'natural cycles' then AGW will just go away?

[Solar Sausage]

Gray-Wolf, on 21 July 2010 - 13:41 , said:

Over 30% of patients attending their G.P. recover purely through the 'placebo effect'..........maybe if we all believe in 'natural cycles' then AGW will just go away?

I think it will go away, Ian. Unfortunately, I also think that we'll have to go first???

Anyhoo, I'm wandering OT...

[Thundery wintry showers]

Pete Tattum, on 21 July 2010 - 13:27 , said:

What worries me about those 'alternative theories' YS, is that (rather like comparing real medicine to homoeopathy or mesmerism?) most - if not all of them - seem to be even more flakey than the ones that suggest GHGs contribute to global atmospheric warming...

IMO, just because, according to hypthesis-x, the warming of the last few decades could have occurred without any contribution from CO₂ by no means means that it has...

In fact, I'd (as I do with homoeopathy and mesmerism) think it far more likely, though not impossible, that it is 'hypothesis-x' that is wrong??

Aye, that's the problem that I find as well.

I have seen some papers which have placed doubt on the extent to which anthropogenic forcing has been behind late 20th century warming. I recall reading one paper about a year ago (peer-reviewed and all) which suggested that various modes of natural variability went largely into positive phases in recent years (NAO, PDO, ENSO, solar) and that this could have contributed to the late twentieth century warming, and could lead to a temporary cooling over the next few decades. It did, however, warn that this would most likely be followed by an abrupt warming once they switched back positive and added to any anthropogenic contributions.

But there are other papers which have pointed to possible sources of underestimation of anthropogenic contributions. The most glaring of these are the rate of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and Arctic ice melt which so far have exceeded expectations. That's one of the scariest things about the uncertainty- we have the basic equations for 2xCO2 scenarios but then we have to gauge how the climate system will react and it could take us either way.

[Gray-Wolf]

I'd Agree TWS, some folk need 100% 'certainty' before they'll entertain AGW yet will readily adhere to 'natural cycles', that we have only identified over the past 50yrs and no way 'understand', as a favoured reason for our warming.

At the mo. a lot of folk are pinning their hopes on PDO-ve being some type of majik bullet. As we saw this winter the A.A. drove fantastic A.O. values which seemed to 'stall' the PDO and drive it positive again. If we have a PDO already 'weakened' in it's -Ve phase and 'augmented' in it's positive phase the 'cooling' will not be much to speak of (though if A.A. drives A.O. so low again over winter we'll hear the same old from the 'snow/cold impacted N.America/NW Europe'.

Check out the PDO values for the A.O. impacted months of Dec/Jan/ Feb, strange eh?

Edited by Gray-Wolf, 21 July 2010 - 13:59 .

[jethro]

GW - it's not a question of refusing to accept or shying away from anything, it's purely and simply looking at the science and seeing that the verdict is still well and truly out on the magnitude which is attributable to humans. That's the mainstream science, not blogoland but bona fide, peer reviewed stuff. Facts are, that some of the warming can be laid at our feet, some due to natural causes.

Why am I not panicking? Well, we can only be who we are and it's just not in my character to panic. Last week I collapsed at work, an ambulance was called and the paramedics had me down for having a heart attack, whilst waiting for it to arrive I was smiling at the dogs licking me and joking with the medics when they got there - I'm a pragmatic optimist through and through.

When it comes to cleaner living, I don't feel guilty about my level of consumption; farmers daughter brought up with the ethics of "we don't own the land, we're custodians for the next generation with a duty to leave it in finer fettle than we inherited it". If the government wants to legislate for a cleaner, greener world, I'll be right behind them but I'm doing my bit already, I've always done my bit and at the end of the day, I'm responsible for me and mine, I'll willingly hold my hand up for the choices I make but I won't judge others for the choices they make.

[Gray-Wolf]

Latest news from E.S.A. and Cryosat2 (which seems to now be "exceeding expectations";

http://www.esa.int/e...BG_index_0.html

"ESA's CryoSat2-2 Project Manager, Richard Francis, commented, "We have been very excited by the level of detail we find in the data. We are seeing things beyond what we had expected. "

Maybe by Sept we'll no longer need to debate the 'state of the Arctic' as we'll posses the complete picture of the place to use a a base for any future comparisons.

As for the detail from Greenland and Antarctica it will certainly end the debate over mass loss/gain and the rates of such. Exciting times indeed!

[Yorkshiresnows]

Pete Tattum, on 21 July 2010 - 13:27 , said:

What worries me about those 'alternative theories' YS, is that (rather like comparing real medicine to homoeopathy or mesmerism?) most - if not all of them - seem to be even more flakey than the ones that suggest GHGs contribute to global atmospheric warming...

IMO, just because, according to hypthesis-x, the warming of the last few decades could have occurred without any contribution from CO₂ by no means means that it has...

In fact, I'd (as I do with homoeopathy and mesmerism) think it far more likely, though not impossible, that it is 'hypothesis-x' that is wrong??

Hi Pete,

Which is the more flakey ..... the supposed effects of CO2 which require a mathematical formulae to estimate supposed positive feedback effects (estimated to be around 300% to get the sort of projections the IPCC are suggesting), or that certain natural cycles that we know impact our climate now (e.g. La Nina / El Nino ENSO / PDO / AMO) could provide an alternative explanation ?

It would take a global change in low cloud cover of less than 1% to change the radiation budget of the Earth to account for all of the warming from pre-industrial to now. We have only just got the technology to start to measure these kinds of relevant changes, but there is at least a suggestion that oceanic cycles can impact on these conditions.

Sure there are theories and theories, .... and of course we have warmed (though pretty constant for the past 10 years), so AGW may be correct. But, an aweful lot just does not stack up to my mind.

Cheers

Y.S

[sunny starry skies]

It doesn't take a mathematical formula to determine that a dark ocean absorbs much more incoming radiation than white ice. Or that a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapour (a powerful greenhouse gas) than a cold one. Or that warming Arctic permafrost will lead to methane release which leads to more warming, not less. Quantifying them, yes, you need to do your sums [see refs below]. The exact values are of course up for debate, which is why the climate sensitivity appears to be between 2 and 4.5C (best estimate ~3.1C) per CO2 doubling. Palaeoclimate supports this very well (Knutti and Hegerl, 2008).

It might, however, take a bizarre mathematical formula to create a century-scale rising trend, the size and rate of which is unseen in the Late Holocene out of otherwise energy-neutral ocean oscillations. Surely if such heat-trapping processes operate now they would have operated before? Why is it that the PDO, supposedly in a neutral/negative phase since ~2000, occurs in a body of water that has been warmer since 1996 than at any other time, including the previous PDO positive stages? What's the total effect of this body of water on global temperatures? The PDO is a measure of the spatial redistribution of heat, not the total heat content, therefore contributing nothing much to the total global heat content anomaly. Rather like our cold and snowy winter this year compared to the globe, which was unusually warm between December and February. That was a similar, though atmospheric, spatial redistribution of heat/air masses between the Arctic and the mid-latitudes. ENSO also has wide-ranging temporary and spatial effects, but they are short-lived and ultimately energy neutral. There's no observational evidence for these effects to be cumulative.

So we have a lot of evidence for not only the feedbacks themselves, but the fact that they must operate in order to reconstruct palaeoclimate. We do not have evidence for PDO, ENSO or any other ocean oscillation providing anything more than noise to the trend of global temperatures.

http://www.iac.ethz....tti08natgeo.pdf [Knutti and Hegerl]

Warren and Eastman, 2007: A Survey of Changes in Cloud Cover and Cloud Types over Land from Surface Observations, 1971–96. Journal of Climate, 20, 717-738.
http://www.atmos.was...CloudSurvey.pdf
“The global average trend of total cloud cover over land is small, -0.7% decade^-1, offsetting the small positive trend that had been found for the ocean, and resulting in no significant trend for the land–ocean average.”

Trenberth et al 2005. Trends and variability in column-integrated atmospheric water vapor. Climate Dynamics, 24, 741-758.

Soden et al, 2002. Global Cooling After the Eruption of Mount Pinatubo: A Test of Climate Feedback by Water Vapor. Science, 296, 727-730.

Austin and Coleman, 2007: Lake Superior summer water temperatures are increasing more rapidly than regional air temperatures: A positive ice-albedo feedback. GRL, 34.
http://tomix.homelin...ke_superior.pdf

Some other relevant refs on feedbacks here:
http://agwobserver.w...d-cover-trends/
http://agwobserver.w...lbedo-feedback/
http://agwobserver.w...k-observations/
Many of these papers rely on observations, therefore they are rather more than "supposed".
sss

[Yorkshiresnows]

sunny starry skies, on 22 July 2010 - 13:41 , said:

It doesn't take a mathematical formula to determine that a dark ocean absorbs much more incoming radiation than white ice. Or that a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapour (a powerful greenhouse gas) than a cold one. Or that warming Arctic permafrost will lead to methane release which leads to more warming, not less. Quantifying them, yes, you need to do your sums [see refs below]. The exact values are of course up for debate, which is why the climate sensitivity appears to be between 2 and 4.5C (best estimate ~3.1C) per CO2 doubling. Palaeoclimate supports this very well (Knutti and Hegerl, 2008).

It might, however, take a bizarre mathematical formula to create a century-scale rising trend, the size and rate of which is unseen in the Late Holocene out of otherwise energy-neutral ocean oscillations. Surely if such heat-trapping processes operate now they would have operated before? Why is it that the PDO, supposedly in a neutral/negative phase since ~2000, occurs in a body of water that has been warmer since 1996 than at any other time, including the previous PDO positive stages? What's the total effect of this body of water on global temperatures? The PDO is a measure of the spatial redistribution of heat, not the total heat content, therefore contributing nothing much to the total global heat content anomaly. Rather like our cold and snowy winter this year compared to the globe, which was unusually warm between December and February. That was a similar, though atmospheric, spatial redistribution of heat/air masses between the Arctic and the mid-latitudes. ENSO also has wide-ranging temporary and spatial effects, but they are short-lived and ultimately energy neutral. There's no observational evidence for these effects to be cumulative.

So we have a lot of evidence for not only the feedbacks themselves, but the fact that they must operate in order to reconstruct palaeoclimate. We do not have evidence for PDO, ENSO or any other ocean oscillation providing anything more than noise to the trend of global temperatures.

http://www.iac.ethz....tti08natgeo.pdf [Knutti and Hegerl]

Warren and Eastman, 2007: A Survey of Changes in Cloud Cover and Cloud Types over Land from Surface Observations, 1971–96. Journal of Climate, 20, 717-738.
http://www.atmos.was...CloudSurvey.pdf
“The global average trend of total cloud cover over land is small, -0.7% decade^-1, offsetting the small positive trend that had been found for the ocean, and resulting in no significant trend for the land–ocean average.”

Trenberth et al 2005. Trends and variability in column-integrated atmospheric water vapor. Climate Dynamics, 24, 741-758.

Soden et al, 2002. Global Cooling After the Eruption of Mount Pinatubo: A Test of Climate Feedback by Water Vapor. Science, 296, 727-730.

Austin and Coleman, 2007: Lake Superior summer water temperatures are increasing more rapidly than regional air temperatures: A positive ice-albedo feedback. GRL, 34.
http://tomix.homelin...ke_superior.pdf

Some other relevant refs on feedbacks here:
http://agwobserver.w...d-cover-trends/
http://agwobserver.w...lbedo-feedback/
http://agwobserver.w...k-observations/
Many of these papers rely on observations, therefore they are rather more than "supposed".
sss

Hi Starry skies,

Read up on some of what Peter Taylor has been looking at. It will test your faith. It certainly did mine.

How come we have flattened on Global temps. Since the 1998 El-Nino we have roughly 5-6% more CO2 in the atmosphere, yet we have never reached that peak. We're dropping right now. Arctic summer temps have been consistently lower than normal this year with the ice melt flattening off. We have a possible record year for Antarctic ice. Overall sea ice cover is .... bang on the normal (based on 30 year trend).

The PDO is turning and La Nina coming on. The predictions are for a cooling trend to develop this year and persist throughout next. If this transpires to be correct, ... what of the all conquering Co2, flattening all natural cycles in its mighty wake !!

Lets see what happens ...

Y.S

[Solar Sausage]

I don't quite see how natural cycles make the whole AGW (as a result of CO₂) theory any less robust; natural cycles exist and CO2 IS a greenhouse gas...

Of course short-term climate cooling, within a long-term upward trend, is possible...Arguably, this is what we are seeing - AGW theory does not rule-out natural oscillation. How could it??

What I would like to see, though, is evidence (any evidence) that genuinely suggests that anthropogenic CO₂ is any different (its isotopic ratio notwithstanding) from its natural counterpart. Then, and only then, will I entertain the idea that our emissions do not/have not cause(d) warming...

[sunny starry skies]

Is this the same Peter Taylor that thinks plutonium has health benefits (Shiva's Rainbow), amongst other outlandish claims? It is. I'd rather get my scientifc understanding from someone with a more reliable grasp of science, and preferrably someone who has studied and published in climate science, specifically. As I've said a great many times, you can say almost whatever you like in a book, but it does not make it factual. Ask historians about the guy who wrote a best-seller claiming that the Chinese reaching America and circumnavigated the globe years before Columbus. Or Mike Baillie, who while being a decent dendrochronologist, wrote a book on a hypothesis that the Black death was caused by a comet. These things might make good stories, indeed they might even sell very well, but there is a key parallel through all of them. They are not supported by the evidence. They are essentially fiction. Or 'pseudoscience'.

Peter Taylor in his own words: "In truth, in the scientific realms in which I worked, and gained by now, some standing, I was an imposter. I am not a scientist. Apart from my brief survey of tree-hole communities when I successfully correlated insect larvae diversity with circumference and aspect of the hole to the sun, which, in any case, had been done many times before, I have never `done' science." From Shiva's Rainbow
http://www.amazon.co...ostRecentReview

His claims are dogmatic and unsupported by the evidence, so why do you keep referring to him as if his is the silver bullet that demolishes the science. He does nothing of the sort. If he had, he would have done more than publish a popular work of fiction through a publishing house that does not deal properly with science

Peter Taylor on global warming: "We fight so strongly against the global emissions of carbon dioxide, yet the quietest of questions surfaces: is Gaia, after all, a sentient mother protecting us from the next cooling?". Y.S., do you believe that the Earth is sentient, as Taylor does? Taylor has as much credibility as astrology or homeopathy, yet you say you believe in science?

PDO - a measure of spatial pattern, not total heat content so irrelevant to Earth's total heat content - how can an ocean that is warmer now than all times before the mid-1990s, including all previous 'warm' episodes' be cyclically absorbing and releasing heat to/from the atmosphere? Arctic ice - bang on normal according to steven goddard at WUWT.... and pretty much nobody else. Currently at the second-lowest ever recorded extent, and at the lowest ever volume, not what I would call anywhere near a 30-year average.
sss

[Yorkshiresnows]

sunny starry skies, on 23 July 2010 - 12:00 , said:

Is this the same Peter Taylor that thinks plutonium has health benefits (Shiva's Rainbow), amongst other outlandish claims? It is. I'd rather get my scientifc understanding from someone with a more reliable grasp of science, and preferrably someone who has studied and published in climate science, specifically. As I've said a great many times, you can say almost whatever you like in a book, but it does not make it factual. Ask historians about the guy who wrote a best-seller claiming that the Chinese reaching America and circumnavigated the globe years before Columbus. Or Mike Baillie, who while being a decent dendrochronologist, wrote a book on a hypothesis that the Black death was caused by a comet. These things might make good stories, indeed they might even sell very well, but there is a key parallel through all of them. They are not supported by the evidence. They are essentially fiction. Or 'pseudoscience'.

Peter Taylor in his own words: "In truth, in the scientific realms in which I worked, and gained by now, some standing, I was an imposter. I am not a scientist. Apart from my brief survey of tree-hole communities when I successfully correlated insect larvae diversity with circumference and aspect of the hole to the sun, which, in any case, had been done many times before, I have never `done' science." From Shiva's Rainbow
http://www.amazon.co...ostRecentReview

His claims are dogmatic and unsupported by the evidence, so why do you keep referring to him as if his is the silver bullet that demolishes the science. He does nothing of the sort. If he had, he would have done more than publish a popular work of fiction through a publishing house that does not deal properly with science

Peter Taylor on global warming: "We fight so strongly against the global emissions of carbon dioxide, yet the quietest of questions surfaces: is Gaia, after all, a sentient mother protecting us from the next cooling?". Y.S., do you believe that the Earth is sentient, as Taylor does? Taylor has as much credibility as astrology or homeopathy, yet you say you believe in science?

PDO - a measure of spatial pattern, not total heat content so irrelevant to Earth's total heat content - how can an ocean that is warmer now than all times before the mid-1990s, including all previous 'warm' episodes' be cyclically absorbing and releasing heat to/from the atmosphere? Arctic ice - bang on normal according to steven goddard at WUWT.... and pretty much nobody else. Currently at the second-lowest ever recorded extent, and at the lowest ever volume, not what I would call anywhere near a 30-year average.
sss

Starry Skies

Your beliefs and dogmatic dismissal of anybody who is not towing the party-line is quite amazing and also very unfair:

http://video.google....938246449800148

Your might want to check out his background and who he has worked for before.

Peter Taylor is a science analyst and policy advisor with over 30 years experience as a consultant to environmental NGO's, government departments and agencies, intergovernmental bodies, the European Commission, the European parliament and the UN.

His range of expertise stretches from pollution and accident risk, from nuclear operations, chemical polution of the oceans and atmosphere (good knowledge of computer modelling), wildlife ecology and conservation, to renewable energy strategies and climate change.

He has lectured widely in universities ann institutes in Britain, Germany, Sweden, the USA and Japan.

After graduating at Oxford University he set up and directed the Oxford based Political Ecology Research Group and pionerred the development of critical scientific review on environmental issues, both in the examination of official policy and its use as a campaigning tool for legal reforms such as the precautionary principal (he was a leading advocate of this at UN conventions).

He has sat on several government commissions and research bodies. From 2003 to 2003 he was a member of the UK Government's National Advisory Group for Community Renewable Energy.

In 2000 he set up the web-site Ethos to develop cutting edge computer techniques for visualizing change in the rural landscape. He published 'Beyond Conservation: a wildlife strategy' in the spring of 2005 and helped found and organize the wildland network for conservationists, foresters and land managers.

He is a leading advocate or rewilding policies in nature conservation involving minimal human intervention and the reintroduction of exterminated large mammals and sits on an advisory group for the management of National Trust and Forestry Commission land in the Lake District.

He has been a member of the following professional institutes:

The Institute of Biology / The British Ecological Society, The Society for Radiological Protection and The International Union of Radio-ecologists (at times he was on the editorial board of the Journal of Radioecology).

During his work on marine pollution and hazardous industries he both critically assessed and utilized computer models of complex marine and atmospheric pathways and is ideally qualified to review and synthesize climate science across many disciplines, taking a broad and independant view with a brilliant insight into the workings of science.

This is the Peter Taylor you are so keen to dismiss. In fact you seem want to dismiss anybody and everybody that does not hold you own viewpoint which is very sad.

Peter Taylor is clearly not a nut, maverick nor is he unqualified. He has critically assessed and presented his findings / observations and I personally find what he says very compelling.

I am a scientist myself so please cut the patronising remarks about what my beliefs are based on. This has no basis nor adds any merit to your arguments.

Y.S

Edited by Yorkshiresnows, 23 July 2010 - 12:38 .

[sunny starry skies]

Sounds like you're arguing from authority Y.S. I can assure you, authority is not on your (or Taylor's) side:
http://www.logicalsc...consensusD1.htm

I'm not concerned whether Peter Taylor has done good work in other fields, but I am concerned that as he is a self-confessed non-scientist, and with no evident expertise in climate science, he wishes to write a book full of disinformation on the subject. He's sold lots of copies of it, which is unfortunate, but the central point is that he's had to go through no scientific assessment of his claims in order to publish the book. He's in fact able to say any old thing, and he does. It's a pity you find it compelling, but the balance of evidence is not on his side.

Your underlined, un-referenced quote does not show that he has any of the qualifications required to make him 'qualified' on climate science. He's done some complex computer modelling - so have many others, including myself. That doesn't make him an expert in the fundamentals of the theory, for example atmospheric physics, oceanic physics or palaeoclimate reconstruction. Climate science is a great deal more than just models, and the key evidence that supports the AGW consensus is not model-based.

It's not a 'party line' either (the very idea in science is comical), it's a balance of evidence - and that is not in your favour either.
sss