Did I catch a reference to “fossil fuels,” or “AGW” or anything like that? Can’t recall. Most here seem to believe we can turn the sea back from the shore by waving a wand and making AGW go away. Do you agree?
Victorsays
My response to today’s NY Times article on “drastically” rising sea levels due to collapse of the W. Antarctic ice sheet:
What the article does not tell you is that a major part of the warming affecting the West Antarctic ice sheet is due to underlying geothermal activity centered in that location. In other words, there’s an undersea volcano that’s been more or less active over thousands of years, gradually undermining that ice sheet, which could possibly cause it to collapse, though certainly not for at least 1000 years. Is there anything we can do? Well yes. We can destroy the world’s economy by abruptly curtailing the use of fossil fuels. And we can dramatically increase the risk of a more acute, devastating Fukishima-style accident by rapidly increasing our use of nuclear power. Or we can admit to ourselves for a change, that there is really nothing of any significance we can do to alter the course of nature, any more than we can forestall volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. All sorts of disasters are bound to occur over the next 100 years and that’s simply a fact of life on planet Earth. To assume we can alter the course of such natural events is the height of arrogance and hubris.
Victorsays
I realize this is likely to wind up in the Bore Hole, but nevertheless, there are some things that have been bothering me lately, and I’d like to get them off my chest, regardless of who might be offended.
1. There is in fact NO evidence of a long term warming trend during the 20th Century. Rather than quote any of the so-called “denier” sites in this regard, I’ll quote from the well known “warmist” site, Skeptical Science, at https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century.htm:
“Although temperatures increased overall during the 20th century, three distinct periods can be observed. Global warming occurred both at the beginning and at the end of the 20th century, but a cooling trend is seen from about 1940 to 1975. As a result, changes in 20th century trends offer a good framework through which to understand climate change and the role of numerous factors in determining the climate at any one time.”
Note the implicit distinction between a temperature increase and a trend. Yes, temperatures were significantly higher at the end of the 20th century than at the beginning, but a continuously cooling period of ca. 35 years out of 100 is inconsistent with a long-term trend. And since CO2 levels were steadily increasing during the entire 100 years (now THAT was a trend for sure), it’s impossible to see a correlation there either. And speaking of correlations, how is the early warming trend from ca. 1910 to ca. 1940 to be accounted for on the basis of AGW, since the release of CO2 during that period was just a fraction of what it is today?
Unfazed by this inconvenient evidence, our author attempts to account for the cooling period by invoking “an increase in sulphate aerosols” due to increased industrial activities after WWII, and aerosols released by volcanic activity. And yes, an increase in aerosols might possibly be responsible for the 35 year cooling period. On a different page of the same Skeptical Science blog John Cook helpfully offers a very different explanation, due to a carefully chosen array of mostly natural “forcings.” (http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-CO2-Temperature-correlation-over-the-20th-Century.html) And he could be right as well. Maybe both are right, who knows?
But the fact that someone has offered a possible explanation (or two) for the absence of a long-term trend does NOT by any means produce an actual trend where none is apparent from the evidence. One can come up with ad hoc explanations for all sorts of things, and they can certainly be taken into consideration. However, it is misleading in the extreme to claim a long term trend exists where what we actually see is not a long term trend at all, but simply a hypothesis or two that’s been offered in lieu of such a trend.
2. I must say I’m impressed at the mileage the GW community has managed to get out of the so-called “pause-buster” adjustment provided in the paper by Karl et al., and a subsequent adjustment of the satellite evidence neatly calibrated to fit. Unfortunately this development took place after the release of my book, but I already took this sort of thing into account, noting that there have been well over 50 such attempts offered in recent years. (see http:// wattsupwiththat.com/ 2014/ 09/ 11/ list-of-excuses-for-the-pause-in-global-warming-is-now-up-to-52/ ). It’s therefor rather amusing that, having given up on the older strategies, focusing either on the invocation of various explanatory “forcings” or else, as in a blatantly misleading post by Tamino, questioning the logic behind the evidence for a pause, the latest efforts have taken the form of attempts to actually alter the data itself.
Good try. Unfortunately, no sooner does one begin “adjusting” the evidence then one calls into question not only certain previous findings, but also the entire basis for climate science itself. If we can’t rely on the raw data then what CAN we rely on? If the data can be changed today then there’s no longer any reason to assume it can’t be changed tomorrow. So what exactly are we talking about here?
As I wrote in the book, prior to the Karl findings,
“There has been no lack of similar efforts to account for the hiatus by considering, or reconsidering, certain factors (and conveniently ignoring others), or adjusting the data in such a way as to produce the desired result. Each new publication offers a different explanation. Few attempt to replicate any of the earlier ones. As time goes by, and carefully contrived models fail to mesh with the most recent data, new factors and adjustments are retroactively stirred into the mix, so the most up-to-date findings can be represented to the world as definitive.”
Victorsays
#60 Thanks for the thoughtful analysis, Joe P. However, as I see things, it’s always possible to come up with some sort of ad hoc explanation for just about any “inconvenient” turn of events. That’s what we’ve been seeing over the years, one attempt after another to explain away both the current hiatus and the older one, dating from the 1940’s. The latest paper by Fyffe et al. is a refreshing corrective in that the thrust is not to explain away the evidence but to reassert its validity.
Now, even if we accept the sort of explanation you’ve offered, the reality of the “pause” (or whatever you prefer to call it) makes one wonder at all the many reports we are seeing, from both “legitimate” scientific sources and the media, where a supposedly “out of control” warming trend is producing a long string of extreme weather events that can only get worse. In the words of the earlier Fyffe paper you cited, “Despite a steady increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases(GHGs), global-mean surface temperature (T) has shown no discernible warming since about 2000, in sharp contrast to model simulations, which on average project strong warming.”
How is it possible for a significant period of “no discernable warming,” regardless of the cause, to produce extreme weather events supposedly prompted by the dramatic increase in global warming we hear so much about — warming that has, in fact, not taken place? And if earlier model simulations have been proven wrong, why should we take seriously all the dire predictions currently being offered, on the basis of similarly contrived models?
Victor Grauersays
Looks to me as though the climate “consensus” has suffered two grievous blows in the last few months, yet I see no signs of distress among the cli. sci. mavens posting here. From Fyfe et al.:
“It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. . .
The recent decadal slowdown . . . is unique in having occurred during a time of strongly increasing anthropogenic radiative forcing of the climate system. This raises interesting science questions: are we living in a world less sensitive to GHG forcing, or are negative forcings playing a larger role than expected? Or is the recent slowdown a natural decadal modulation of the long-term GMST trend? . . .
“Climate records back to Viking times show the 20th century was unexceptional for rainfall and droughts despite assumptions that global warming would trigger more wet and dry extremes, a study showed on Wednesday.
Stretching back 1,200 years, written accounts of climate and data from tree rings, ice cores and marine sediments in the northern hemisphere indicated that variations in the extremes in the 20th century were less than in some past centuries. . .
Ljungqvist said many existing scientific models of climate change over-estimated assumptions that rising temperatures would make dry areas drier and wet areas wetter, with more extreme heatwaves, droughts, downpours and droughts.
The 10th century, when the Vikings were carrying out raids across Europe and the Song dynasty took power in China, was the wettest in the records ahead of the 20th, according to the researchers in Sweden, Germany, Greece and Switzerland.”
So, within a period of a month or so, we learn, first, that the much debated global warming “pause” is real after all (regardless of what the cause might be, which remains uncertain), and second, that widely held assumptions regarding extreme weather events caused by AGW, such as droughts and flooding, are unfounded.
These are scientific reports, by the way, published in one of the most prestigious scientific journals, Nature. Obviously Professor Mann, who very recently attacked the whole notion of a warming slowdown, had second thoughts. So what about the rest of you? While no findings can be regarded as 100% definitive, these findings should give rise to some nagging doubts, no?
Climate Researchersays
A location on the Moon’s surface can cool by over 200 degrees in about two weeks, getting down to around -150°C on the dark side. Now, Antarctica is on the dark side of Earth for over three months in winter, but its temperature remains fairly steady in the vicinity of -50°C to -60°C. But there must be at least some loss of energy via radiation through the atmospheric window to Space. So what replenishes that energy? Clearly the difference between the Moon and the Earth has something to do with the atmosphere. Hence the energy must come from the atmosphere, but wherever the atmosphere is colder than the Antarctic surface, there can be no heat transfer by radiation. There can however be a process which increases entropy in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and you can read about that process at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com because that is where this mystery energy does in fact come from. When you understand this process and note the overwhelming evidence supporting its existence then, and only then, will you have a correct understanding as to why the radiative greenhouse is nothing but fiction.
Victorsays
#331 BPL: “The point is that you cherry-pick statements by a non-scientist to show that scientists are wrong.”
It was the non-scientist (Gore) who was doing the cherry picking. What I found is what readily popped up during some Google searches. No need to cherry pick, it was all up front. And all of it was from legit. scientific sources. My aim in this post was not to show that climate scientists are wrong (though many certainly are) but to provide some examples of how easy it is to cherry pick supposedly extreme events or precarious situations, taken out of context, to cow the public into accepting an extremist ideology. I won’t claim Gore was being deliberately deceptive. But he is certainly naive. As are many of those posting here.
#333 Hank Roberts. Same goes for your objection, Hank. My comment wasn’t aimed at scientists, but at politicians who naively accept certain speculations as gospel truth and use them in a completely unscientific manner to incite unnecessary and in fact very dangerous alarm.
#341 Kevin. “Dermot Antoniadesa said: ‘At this point, it doesn’t appear that the shelf ice around Ellesmere Island is any smaller now than it was during the previous period of warming, but because it’s still shrinking, it’s possible it could become, an ‘unprecedented’ event.’”
Excellent example of precisely the distinction I’ve been making, i.e., the difference between scientific findings regarding past events and speculation about some future event that might or might not occur. The FACT is that the ice shelf cracked up in the past, so its present condition is NOT unprecedented. What might happen to it in future is pure speculation, NOT science.
Victorsays
#346 “. . . nonsense Victor has trolled out here over the years.”
Every bit of “nonsense” I’ve presented has either been a specific reference to or a direct quote from perfectly legitimate scientific sources or logical inferences drawn from same. I’ve never posted personal opinions. If you’re looking for trolls, look around you at some of the pointless and redundant ad hominems regularly posted here, including your own.
“All in all, I’d rate Gore’s 10-year-old thesis that AGW is dangerous a lot higher than Victor’s ten-years-later attempt at a rebuttal (assuming that is what Victor was intending to do with his little rain dance).”
You’ve completely missed the point. I was deliberately looking backward at some of Gore’s patently alarmist predictions to expose them for the unscientific nonsense they were — and are. He predicted an alarming increase in extreme weather events. I offered evidence that these predictions were unfounded. Regarding the ice shelf my point had nothing to do with its present condition, but with the implication that this was an unprecedented event. Ten years ago that might have seemed to have been the case. But in the light of current research it turns out that it was not. It’s all too easy to extrapolate all sorts of things on the basis of incomplete evidence, cherry picked to support a dubious theory. Only after the passage of time can such claims be properly evaluated.
Victorsays
#435 “So what? Nothing. . . . “It snowed in Spain in April, so much for global warming.””
We’re not just talking snow, we’re talking record breaking snowfall AND record breaking cold over extensive regions of the world in two consecutive years. And by the way, if increased temperatures can make snowfall more likely that doesn’t apply to these snowfalls which took place in record breaking cold. And how about this, from February of this year: “[New York] city is facing some of the coldest temperatures and wind chills we’ve seen in the last 20 years,” de Blasio said. “Extremely cold weather can be life-threatening — especially for seniors, infants and people with medical conditions.” http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/us/winter-weather/
“Many extreme temperature conditions are becoming more common. Since the 1970s, unusually hot summer temperatures have become more common in the United States, and heat waves have become more frequent—although the most severe heat waves in U.S. history remain those that occurred during the “Dust Bowl” in the 1930s. Record-setting daily high temperatures have become more common than record lows. The decade from 2000 to 2009 had twice as many record highs as record lows.”
Reading between the lines, what we see is what would be expected with rising temperatures generally. As the world gets warmer (which no one is denying) you are going to see more instances of high temperatures, including more record-setting highs and less record-setting lows. I see no references to the “dramatic” increase mentioned by Martin Bernstein in his response to my earlier comment. The truly dramatic record-setter occurred back in the 1930’s, as referenced in the EPA report.
If you examine Figure 1 on p. 30 of the same report, you’ll see the “U.S. Annual Heat Wave Index, 1895–2013.” I see no evidence of any trend in the direction of more heat waves during this period. The only dramatic swing upward is during the 30’s. Otherwise it’s pretty flat.
Victorsays
#74 Thomas, the paper you cite won’t do you any good as it could just as easily be applied to you and your fellow “warmists.”
As far as the debate is concerned, there is in fact a very active debate being carried on among scientists, as I’m sure you are aware. And there is a considerable scientific literature pertaining to many of the issues raised here that I’ve become aware of and have been quoting. As a citizen I have a perfect right to debate this issue, since very important public policy decisions are involved. As I argue in my book, the key to evaluating the meaning of any scientific claim is, ultimately, critical thinking, not necessarily technical expertise. You can know everything there is to know about a particular topic, but if you lack critical thinking skills you will not be able to properly evaluate the meaning of your work — or anyone else’s. In the field that most interests me, anthropology, where I have a fair amount of training and experience, I see dubious claims being made all the time, based on some combination of wishful thinking, unsubstantiated assumptions and confirmation bias, so I’m used to picking through such claims to separate the wheat from the chaff.
To respond to Mr. Rodger’s demand for me to “name names,” I could name a long long list of scientists, including climate scientists, who have raised objections to the “consensus” view similar to the ones I’ve raised here and elsewhere. He knows these names as well as I do, so I was surprised to see such a silly demand — which is why I ignored it. To save space (there are LOTS of names), I’ll direct you to the following wikipedia site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Victorsays
I’m seeing complaints from people who accuse me of ignoring the “perfectly reasonable” explanations they’ve offered in response to certain of my objections. Not so. I usually ignore the all too typical ad hominem attacks, but when provided with an actual argument, or with evidence that appears to contradict one of my assertions, I’ve consistently responded — usually by citing hard evidence, not just offering an opinion. Problem is: many of my posts have been consigned to the bore hole, so unless you’re in the habit of regularly checking there you’ve missed a considerable portion of what I’ve had to say.
Victorsays
#188 MARodger: “I appreciate you are a very foolish person, but at least try to respond here without making a complete hash of everything you say!!!”
LOL. This is starting to sound like a Saturday Night Live skit. (“Victor, you shameless slut.”)
“So how can ENSO be considered a climate forcing?”
My fervent disciple MA, who posts here solely to amuse me, continues to needlessly stick his foot in his mouth. In an orgy of pointless nit-picking he’s denied that ENSO can be characterized as a “forcing,” which of course means I’m a hopeless fool for making such an outrageous assumption. Frankly, I could care less if you call it a “forcing,” a “factor” or a “cause.” However, just out of curiosity, I did a quick search and lo and behold, I found a peer reviewed paper by bonafide climate scientists titled, “Mechanisms of ENSO-forcing of hemispherically symmetric precipitation variability” (http://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/seager/qj_pcp.pdf )
Mr. Rodger, your continual reliance on insults and your juvenile behavior generally, not to mention your blatant errors and misreadings give you away as a hopeless amateur. I seriously doubt that you know anything more about climate science than I, or understand scientific principles on anything more than an 8th grade level, but you think you can make up for it in sheer bluster and bluff.
Since the other objections you raise are equally misinformed, and little more than pedantic nit-picks in any case, I won’t bother to respond. But I would like, for my own reasons, to respond to your final point:
“And given you are seemingly happy with the climate modelling of Hansen et al (2011), what is the fundamental difference between the finding of that paper and all the ones you rejected @142 & @170? Indeed, does not Hansen et al (2011) only make sense if the fundamental driver of global temperature since 1880 has been anthropogenic?”
The difference is obvious but not surprisingly you don’t get it. The treatments I rejected exhibited clear signs of confirmation bias. They wanted to make a point, to convince their readers that the hiatus could be ignored, and they made sure their results fit their premise. Hansen and his colleagues were not (at least in that particular paper) attempting to convince us of anything more than that their approach held promise in the development of future models — and they freely admitted both the complexity of their undertaking and the drawbacks of their methodology.
Victorsays
#258 “You’ve been shown evidence repeatedly.”
And I’ve shown you evidence repeatedly, evidence indicating that there has been no long-term warming trend, evidence that the current spate of extreme weather events is nothing new. Just the other day I posted evidence that the recent runup in US heat waves, seen in the context of the last 100 years or so, is hardly unprecedented, a local effect paralleled by similar run-ups in the past. My source was the EPA, NOT some “denialist” blog.
If you read my book you’ll see evidence that the devastating 21st century heat waves in Russia and Europe cannot be attributed to climate change, but are due to well understood natural forces that have produced even worse heat waves in the past. You’ll find similar evidence regarding flooding, extreme downpours, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, Antarctic ice loss, Arctic ice loss, etc. Much of this evidence has been posted on this blog by me already.
But no, the evidence I’ve uncovered doesn’t count. You want me to accept YOUR evidence, which is in fact open to question — to say the least. Science is not, in any case, about evidence alone, but the sifting of the evidence, to determine what is plausible and what is not, and on that basis understand what all that evidence actually means. This is what I’ve been trying to do.
As far as the greenhouse effect is concerned, as I’m sure you are aware, the effect of CO2 per se is relatively small. It’s meaningful ONLY on the basis of an unproven theory regarding feedbacks and amplifications, a theory which is very far from being settled science, a theory that’s been questioned not only by critical thinkers like myself, but highly qualified physicists. This too is discussed at length in my book.
Gerald Browningsays
Numerical models do not prove anything. They can be tuned to provide the result one desires.
By the way, of Earth’s current 400 ppm CO2, 280 ppm has been produced naturally, presumably from volcanoes, and Man has produced 120 ppm – and rising.
However, it’s irrelevant what level of CO2 is in the atmosphere, it’s the atmosphere’s density that counts. All gases are greenhouse gases – they all absorb heat. It has been forgotten all gases absorb heat energy by conduction and/or convection.
A greenhouse is a structure that traps heat within. A planet’s gaseous atmosphere is the real greenhouse; a planet’s warmth is trapped in proportion to the thickness of its atmosphere, almost regardless of its composition. For example, Mars has a small greenhouse effect despite its high % CO2.
More detailed explanations are in Chapter 1b at my website, Planet Earth Climate Topics on pjcarson2015.wordpress.com. Chapter 2 has the qualitative and quantitative explanation of what is causing climate changes, ie varying lava releases, chiefly undersea.
Victorsays
#292 Chris, considering the very wide range of temperatures experienced on Earth during a single day, an increase of even 4 or 5 degrees over a period of 100 years strikes me as no big deal.
In any case, the projections of future warming you uncritically accept are based on little more than what happened during the 20 year period from ca. 1979 through 1998, when, yes, there did seem to be an alarming trend. If it hadn’t been for that relatively short-term trend, no one would even be talking about global warming today, because there is nothing alarming about the very modest warming we’ve experienced since.
Back in the 70’s, as I’m sure you know, there was a similar panic over “global cooling,” thanks to a roughly 40 year trend in the opposite direction. Realistically, just as back in the 70’s, we have no way of knowing what future temperatures will be like, much less what causes such shifts. But one thing we do know: if CO2 emissions drove temperature change, then the earlier cooling period could not have happened.
Thomassays
If I may suggest – the message, as it were, is greatly tarnished when leading climate change “activists” prescribe a reduced carbon footprint for the masses while they own strings of palatial vacation homes and hop-scotch between them in private aircraft and titanic yachts. It’s like a drunk lecturing you to put that second glass of wine down.
Tom Billingssays
What the paper does not address is the root cause of skepticism. Skepticism is part of science. It is also part of the political process this article discusses. What is being addressed in this paper is how best to use the prestige of science to get people to give in on a political point. That is not going to work when people believe the work in climate science was bought over the past 40 years by the side advocating political control of their personal and political behaviors.
What you are running into is not just skepticism about trying to model chaotic phenomena, but skepticism of the monopsony of governments in funding science. Monopsony, as a single buyer, is the mirror image of monopoly, and has as many or more opportunities for its agents to express agency costs as does monopoly. This opinion is not new. It extends back at least 55 years to part of Eisenhower’s farewell address of 1961:
“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
Until just before the speech, the last words quoted here were “scientific-technological-congressional elite”, which would have insulted the new Vice President, Lyndon Johnson, who, as majority leader in the Senate, had pushed for NASA as part of his campaign to become president. Eisenhower had collapsed any resistance to that, in order to take away the leverage a battle over it would give LBJ’s campaign.
So, this is *not* just about oil companies, or a few skeptics who do not know enough. This is about the basics of how funding science gets done. It will change nothing for SecularAnimist to denounce oil companies, because this goes farther back. You cannot get people to believe that monopsony funding will produce neutral results. Scientists are not secular saints, and all the nasty sneers at your political opponents are not going to get people to believe they are.
Titussays
IMO there is a very simple answer to why there are differing views by political party.
‘Climate Change’ is a perfect vehicle for promoting the liberal, progressive, left agenda (distribution of wealth, central control etc.). Obviously the right wing do not agree on that agenda and campaign against because of the attached agenda.
It has nothing to do with the science so pushing the science in any form is a waste of time. And as this article states it can have the opposite effect.
The sad thing is that science is getting a very bad reputation. I believe it should dissociate from politics and get back to its roots and leave it to the politicians to fight over.
Dan DaSilvasays
One problem is new important information about global warming is being discovered and the rate of discovery does not seen to be decreasing. Yet to say that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations”, science must “very likely” know everything important about the subject. The deniers are at least a little skeptical about that.
Dan DaSilvasays
titus, borehole #1719
You are correct, I think Mann knows it too.
RodBsays
Mr. Zhou’s article does an excellent job of putting the issue in the proper context. He does not offer a solution mainly because this intractable issue has no
apparent solution. I have an idea of what the essence of the problem is but, as you will see, also have no fix.
There will always be some motivational bias. The hope is that it can be mitigated somewhat to allow some opposing views in. Currently, with few exceptions,
the polarization has become impenetrable.
On a simplistic basis I see two characteristics that are predominant on both sides and that also only add to the polarization:
1) Neither side allows for any deviation from their litany. Never admitting or expressing doubt or uncertainty, even though they are plentiful, and having
quick pat answers for every anomaly is viewed by the other side as less than truthful. Any hint of untruth or not being candid taints the entire response. “If
he lied (or better, greatly fudged) about that, he probably is being less than candid about a bunch of other stuff.” Or changing the names to make it sound
better (even if the name change actually is more accurate) detracts from the veracity.
But, the other side of that coin is that if the pro-AGW scientist admits that he doesn’t know this or that for certain, or is not sure of this scenario, or admits
there is no solid explanation of the warming pause, e.g., the sceptic community, instead of reacting objectively and recognizing the normalcy of that, will see
a chink in the armor large enough to drive an 18-wheeler through and beat the crap out of you. So, one cannot win for losing with this. At least I don’t know
how.
2) The standard ad hominum demonization of the other side tells the other side that science has no answer or explanation. It is very unhelpful but none the
less often dominates the discussion — all to no end. An example is SecularAnimist (I’m not singling him out. He just happened to provide me an example with
the first comment on this thread, and probably not the best example — sorry.) He says, “…… that is precisely the intentional result of a generation-long
campaign of brainwashing, funded by the fossil fuel corporations, carefully crafted by the most insidious minds of Madison Avenue and delivered by the most
powerful media of mass communication ever devised, which has specifically targeted the so-called “conservative” a.k.a. grassroots Republican infotainment
demographic.” This goes nowhere. It is like following an early good testimony before Congress Hansen closes by stating that oil company execs should be
prosecuted for crimes against humanity. The previous serious testimony could have been tossed out the window.
Or when the sceptics, rather than saying that this or that piece of the science seems wrong, says it is all a scam and a hoax and there is nothing correct about
the professed science, the sceptics arguments can now be discarded.
This I think can be improved. It’s not that hard to refrain from calling the other side a bunch of child-beating idiots in a scientific discussion.
There is one more thing. It is not helpful when your own protagonists hijack the science for other agendas, like destruction of 1st world societies. Christiana
Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world
from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally,
within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she
said, adding, “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for
the first time in human history.” With allies like that you guys do not need any enemies. Somebody should tell her to shut the f***k up.
This site obviously believes we are all going to be hotter and hotter and then die. Well, ‘climate change’ is very real and history shows very clearly that the gravest danger we face collectively is another Ice Age. This interglacial period is winding down. The future is dire: sudden, like falling off a cliff, colder climate conditions.
ALL Ice Ages start exactly the same way and end the same way: very suddenly, it gets much warmer. The theory that CO2 controls this is not backed up by science and is a presumption, not a fact. People who propose that the sun goes through major cycles that generate less energy and then suddenly more energy is a more likely explanation about ‘climate change’.
Victorsays
#129 Jim Eager: “Victor wrote: ‘According to the satellite data, 2015 was NOT warmer than 1998.’
Of course it wasn’t, for the reasons I pointed out. It is simply not a legitimate comparison to make.
Are you really that dense, Victor?”
Jim, let me offer you a brief lesson on how science works. You have data. And then you have the interpretation of data. OK? Two different things.
According to the data, as gleaned from the satellite research, 2015 was not warmer than 1998. That’s evident from the graphs I pointed you to, which not only calculate trends, but also present the data on which the trends are based. That was Taylor’s claim and it looks as though he was correct.
Your comment on relevance reflects your interpretation of the data, and has nothing to do with the data per se. All sorts of interpretations are possible and yours might possibly be meaningful. But that does not change the satellite datas itself, which tells us (one more time): ‘2015 was NOT warmer than 1998.’
Zane Pattersonsays
“Climate science from client scientists.”. Oh really? The focus on politics, and on one political parity in particular viewed as adversarial to your point of view, is just another dead giveaway as to your true motivations and goals. Hint: good, defensible science that stands up to scrutiny isn’t one of them.
Who’s going to tell this poor author he just wasted years of his prime academic life and over $100K in tuition and perhaps extensive debt carrying the water for a popular movement whose premise grows weaker with the passage of time. Quick, stop the debate before it gets worse !! Such a joke have climate “scientists” become. After attempting to play “god” by saying “trust us,” “we know better” and “we’re the experts,” climate scientists have become just another distrusted profession and institution among many in the U.S. and worldwide. Congratulations for over playing your hand, then doubling down ever since. Your fate is well deserved, and quite just actually.
Please Mr. Author, change your focus and career before wasting more of your precious time as another useful idiot of the progressive movement currently masquerading as the “97 percent consensus.” I still get such a hoot from this exaggeration by “scientists.” Marketing isn’t your strong suit, as hard as you may try (per the subject of this article). Return to science, if you haven’t already drifted too far away to remember what that once respectable label entailed!
Victorsays
#164 Yet another attempt by Mr. Rodger to amuse me with his outlandish gibes. Sorry, MA, but I find Mr. Trump far more amusing than you, though I must say I laughed out loud at several points in your diatribe.
If you actually read what Mr. Wolfe has to say, you’ll see that there is no possibility of confirmation bias, cherry picking, the devious influence of Mr. WATTS, nothing like that at all, because the scattergram he’s produced is absolutely transparent. (If you doubt my word, see his full presentation at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/12/a-look-at-carbon-dioxide-vs-global-temperature/ ) The guidelines he’s provided are there for our convenience and can easily be removed without changing anything essential.
It’s a very simple cross-plot based on two reliable data sources:
Sorry, but this looks absolutely bulletproof to me. And I’m wondering why it hasn’t gained much attention from climate scientists. Probably because it is NOT the sort of thing they want to see. So much for “the science,” I’m afraid.
FakeRealitysays
Wow, it must be so hard to be a climateterrorist these days. The planet refuses to obey computer models. Over and over again the planet tries to tell climatescientists that they are the scientists with “special” needs. I´m a bit more straightforward. Climate science is retarded. It´s the downs syndrom of science. No other branch of science has ever been more wrong in it´s predictions and people should get off the wagon, it will only get more embarassing the longer you stay on it.
Ice cold air doesn´t heat up warm surfaces. It is basic heat transfer physics. Greenhouse theory gets around this by pretending that the surface receives only 240W/m^2 when it in reality gets between 1300 and 500 W/m^2.
In the equations for ghe the suns heat transfer is disconnected from earths radiative cooling and that is not allowed in heat transfer. The sun is the only heat source and if the atmosphere would heat up the surface backwards it would have to heat up the sun.
The equation must be written like this:
(Sun)W/m^2 = (surface of earth)W/m^2 = (atmosphere)W/m^2——>space@3K
If you tell fairytales about how the icecold air heats the surface, you have to follow all the way back to the source. GHE throws away the solar irradiation after it has reached the earth surface and thinks that it´s ok to play around with Watts/m^2 in the system enough times to fulfill the disgusting theory where cold heats hot. There is NO support for such a thing in any kind of heat transfer physics. The only way gasses interact in radiative heat transfer, or any kind of heat transfer, back to the source of heat, is in closed systems like furnaces. Earth is NOT a closed system.
Climatology needs to include maxwell-boltzmann distribution in their education. This is the foundation of temperature and fluxdensity. It clearly says that a higher temperature is populated with a higher density of excited states in the molecules and atoms of matter, and a lower temperature is populated with a lower density of higher states of excitation in molecules and atoms.
The atmosphere is populated with a MUCH lower density of excited states in relation to the surface. When they are combined, what happens?
The total maxwell-boltzmann distribution will be diluted from the low density of excitation in the atmosphere, which means that the atmosphere cools the surface, not heats it.
Maxwell-boltzmann distribution of excitation in matter is THE hammer that crush all the BS about the atmospheric heating of earth surface. Only people who doesn´t understand it or doesn´t know about it say that cold air has any heating effect on a warm surface.
It is clearly showing that: to heat something up, there HAS to be a higher density of excited states in the molecules and atoms that heats, than the object that gets heated. If the molecules and atoms of a fluid or a solid has a lower density population of excitation than another fluid or solid, NOTHING HAPPENS TO THE TEMPERATURE OF THE MATTER WITH HIGHER STATES OF EXCITATION.
The atmosphere HAS to be hotter than the surface to have an effect that raises it´s temperature. But it is icecold. -18C mean tropospheric temperature does NOTHING to raise surface temp. 0C mean tropospheric temperature would not do anything to raise surface temperature either. This is basic heat transfer physics and the whole ghe-theory is based on lack of knowledge about radiation and heat transfer.
But that is not all, the ghe-theory is based on the assumption that earth does not obey the laws of nature. It says that earth surface only receives 240W and has a temperature of 288K. A temperature of 288K DEMANDS an input of 780W/m^2 over the irradiatiated hemisphere. At least, if it would be a perfect blackbody. The earth emits 390W/m^2@the surface but only gets input from the sun on 1/2 the surface.
Ghe-theory says that earth only gets 240W/m^2 but gets a magical 150W from santa claus in the icecold atmosphere. Ridicolous.
The foundation for ghe-theory is the claim that the surface is hotter “than it should be”, which is equal to saying that the laws of nature doesn´t apply for surface temperature. That is pure down´s syndrom science.
There is only one source of energy, the sun. The earth surface has a temperature of 288K which means that it emits 390W/m^2. THEREFORE it gets 390W/m^2(780W/m^2 during day), AT LEAST, from the sun. To say something else is stupid, ignorant, unscientific and ridicolous. To say that ICECOLD AIR heats the surface instead of the heat of the sun is beyond stupid, it´s downs syndrom science.
Measurements show that the sun gets enough radiation to have a mean T of 288K. It also shows that it almost NEVER gets so low as 240W.
There is almost NO truth in the GHE-theory at all, and it contradicts everything we know about radiation and heat transfer. ONLY in ghe-theory cold gases raise the temperature of hot solids. Nowhere else.
Earth doesn´t have the thing that is needed for backradiation, an outer solid surface barrier that gets heated by radiation or convection and radiatiates according to it´s own temperature. In heat transfer where gasses radiate in contact with heatsources and contribute to temperature of the source, it ONLY happens in closed systems with internal heat sources and walls that radiate the heat through the gas to the source. The gas serves ONLY as a transport medium of energy AWAY from surfaces and sources. If there is no opposing surface or heat source, heat will only move FROM the surface/source INTO the gas. There is nothing going from the gas to the surface that raise temperature.
When will you get through your thick skulls that it is NOT ABOUT THE NUMBER OF PHOTONS going in any direction, it is ONLY about populated states of excitation in matter according to maxwell-boltzmann distribution. Because that is the ROOT OF TEMPERATURE AND PHOTONS.
Only a higher density in flux can raise temperature, a lower density flux will dilute.
Gh-theory claims that surface only gets 240W/m^2. If that is true, nothing in the system can emit more than that, because temperature is instantaneous.
This is what your claim boils down to:
240W/m^2 = 390W/m^2
This is so stupid that i must throw up.
Read up on heat transfer physics and learn.
I dare anyone to give an example in the litterature which describes how a cold gas raise temperature of a hot surface outside of climatebullshit. It would also be nice to have an example of how the strongest gh-gas, water vapor, raises temperature oustide of ghe-bullshit.
I guess that I don´t have to give the long list of examples where water vapor and/or cold air cools hot surfaces.
Einstein and the boys are turning over so fast in their graves that you should hook them up to generators and get more free energy like you do with your atmospheric “science”. Downs-science.
Victorsays
#100 Peter Carson: “Anybody like to try helping out?”
Yes, I’ll be happy to help out. All the graphs in the world showing “record breaking” temperatures will tell you nothing whatsoever about the effects of AGW. That doesn’t make Roberts sound any less foolish, because he is clearly out of his depth in this exchange.
What we need to pay attention to is not all those “record breaking” years, which tell us only about the temperature, but the problem of determining whether or not a correlation exists between warming and CO2 — and if so, since correlation does not imply causation, what the evidence for causation might be, assuming a correlation can be established.
I’ve already held forth on this issue, to the consternation of many on this blog. All I’ll say at this point is that the raw data, on its face, reveals no long term correlation, as so often claimed. And efforts to establish some sort of long term warming trend hidden away due to other factors have required a great many very complex and convoluted statistical calesthenics — all of which have been rendered irrelevant thanks to the recent data “corrections” by Karl et al.
Victorsays
If no one minds (heh!), I’d like to hold forth a bit on this matter of “consensus” we hear so much about whenever “climate change” is being discussed.
I recently had the opportunity to view, for the second time, the very amusing and instructive film, “The Big Short,” which I feel sure many of you have seen. And, by sheer coincidence, I just completed the fascinating book, “No One Would Listen,” by would-be whistle blower Harry Markopolos. And I could not help but notice a theme common to both works: the potential dangers involved in uncritically accepting a widely held consensus view.
The protagonists of “The Big Short” see very clearly that the US housing market is unstable, and that the huge financial industry produced by the questionable packaging of mortgage-backed securities is about to collapse, taking the world economy with it. Seeing an opportunity to profit from their insights, they decide to short the market for such securities, but when they explain their strategy to the bankers, they are met with derision and laughter. (Reminds me of the laughter we hear in the above video.) After all, the consensus of literally everyone in the financial world is that the housing market is and always will be solid. And after all, the financial organizations dealing in such securities are among the most successful and highly regarded in the world. A powerful consensus indeed!
Harry Markopolos is a financial expert who, many years ago, figured out, on the basis of a critical analysis of the data, that Bernie Madoff was a fraud. Yet no matter how many times he tried (as I recall it was 8 times in all, dating back to 1999), he was never able to convince the Securities and Exchange Commission to properly investigate. Nor was he able to convince almost anyone investing with Madoff to look more closely into his operation. Why? Once again, the consensus of just about everyone in the financial world was that Madoff was honest, forthright, solid, reliable and completely trustworthy. After all, he had produced impressive returns year after year for a very long time, he’d been “investigated” by the “experts” at the SEC (in a half-hearted effort that turned out to be a sham), and passed with flying colors. Markopolos was routinely ignored, mocked, and dismissed as some sort of crackpot. After all, he was bucking an overwhelming consensus in the world of finance that Madoff could do no wrong. Ironically it was not Markopolos, who had him figured out from the start, but Madoff himself, who finally blew the whistle. There was literally too much at stake for anyone else to do so.
The financial crisis anticipated by the protagonists of The Big Short shook the entire world and is still having dire repercussions everywhere. And if Bernie Madoff’s scam had been allowed to progress for another few years, his collapse might have had equally disastrous repercussions.
I’ll leave it for readers of this blog to draw their own conclusions regarding any possible parallels with the consensus on climate change. My own opinion is well known.
Reply to # 104 Digby.
My #100 comment was supposed to provoke comment, but like Cox, has nobody here have evidence to support AGW?
Reply to #105 Barton. There is no such evidence – because there can be none. Your reference simply says that Man is producing lots of CO2 – hardly evidence that Man is causing that warming, but that is what Cox and most others give.
The problem with AGW is that somebody, sometime, somewhere has managed to subtly change the definition of “greenhouse gas” and thereby changed the whole playing field – and is WRONG!
Now, the Greenhouse effect is stated to be warming of Earth because its radiated heat is absorbed/trapped by the “greenhouse gases” (eg CO2 and methane).
I imagine “97%” of scientists use a definition like this. What is wrong with this definition and why does it give the wrong results?
[It may help your thoughts if you ask why Earth has a “greenhouse effect” of 33K vs Mars’ 6K yet Mars CO2 density is 14x that of Earth?]
Reply to # 104 Digby.
My #100 comment was supposed to provoke comment, but like Cox, has nobody here have evidence to support AGW?
Reply to #105 Barton. There is no such evidence – because there can be none. Your reference simply says that Man is producing lots of CO2 – hardly evidence that Man is causing that warming, but that is what Cox and most others give.
The problem with AGW is that somebody, sometime, somewhere has managed to subtly change the definition of “greenhouse gas” and thereby changed the whole playing field – and is WRONG!
Now, the Greenhouse effect is stated to be warming of Earth because its radiated heat is absorbed/trapped by the “greenhouse gases” (eg CO2 and methane).
I imagine “97%” of scientists use a definition like this. What is wrong with this definition and why does it give the wrong results?
[It may help your thoughts if you ask why Earth has a “greenhouse effect” of 33K vs Mars’ 6K yet Mars CO2 density is 14x that of Earth?]
#145 BPL
1. AGW relies on the incorrect version of “Greenhouse Effect”; in that sense, the terms are interchangeable.
2. The 2 aspects about AGW are
a. CO2, etc IR effect on heating the atmosphere (Chapter 1B) &
b. CO2 effect on ocean acidity (Chapter 5).
These are both physical chemistry topics; I’ve used my research degree in physical chemistry for decades. Anyway, you are quibbling; it’s what’s written that counts. See anything incorrect?
(I know I’m boring, but I only deal with science fact; I don’t have the imagination for science fiction. I suggest people deal with that which they know.)
As shown in my site, both topics depend on thermodynamics. Everything works well.
3. Conduction does not require IR as you state. The atmosphere simply collides with the planet surface, and convection does it from there. Radiation also works, of course, but the equilibrium with the planet temperature is reached either way. It’s irrelevant that the IR gases have an extra method.
As you say, the “major energy input to the climate system is radiation,” ie from the Sun – but you will concede, that input is unaffected by IR.
4. You keep asking me to crack open a textbook or two; have you examined my site? I don’t mean simply clicking on it a couple of times. All my conclusions are quantitative – including the rocky planets. You seem to say you had a different result. I’d like to know how you accounted for Mars which has a 14x greater CO2 density than Earth, but still has a smaller greenhouse effect – exactly in line with its low total pressure (0.007 bar).
5. You only gave a partial reference to your Space Research paper. I’d like to read it. (Its Abstract doesn’t support what you’ve written above.)
#144 Alfred Jones
The rate of change of greenhouse effect is only 5K/atm. That will not be detected with weather changes.
Note this implies that Earth has a constant GE of only 5K, a long way smaller than the 33K assumed by AGW. This is because AGW conveniently “forgets” other inputs to global warming such as magma release, tidal effects (Earth, Moon, Sun) – and do vary with time – compression, radioactive decay, which are the major Earth contributors.
On a picky note: Burning carbon does not change the number of molecules in the atmosphere as each CO2 substitutes for an oxygen.
GE depends on the number of (whatever) molecules multiplied by their specific heat. (I usually neglect the specific heat.) The specific heat of CO2 is only 80% of air, so that, ironically, the more CO2, the smaller the GE (but as CO2 is only about 0.04%, this effect is immeasurably small.)
#148 Chris O’Neill
(Chapter 1B). Thermodynamics shows “It can be shown that AGW via CO2 is not possible.”
It’s the totality of the atmosphere’s molecules that have the greenhouse effect.
Tell us, do you really think the atmosphere would not be warmed by Earth’s heat if the IR molecules were missing!? Would the temperature of the contents of flasks containing CO2, air, CH4, Ar, etc, differ after standing sufficient time for equilibrium – in the sun, in the dark, or wherever. No. The contents all reach the flasks’ temperature by colliding with the flask walls. It’d be difficult to do scientific experiments if this was not so.
Alfred Jonessays
We’ve wrapped up a month where it seems that the majority of discussion was way off topic. I tried to start some pertinent conversations, but not much stuck. Maybe this month…
Moderators, perhaps a solution would be to add an unmoderated OffTopicRomperRoom thread. You could move any comment which is even partially off topic there. As folks no longer “had” to defend their beliefs, things everywhere else would get topical fast, and the OffTopicRomperRoom would be what it is and so would not take up any of your time.
You could also double-post good comments – first in an Honor Role right at the top of the comment thread, and then again in the sequence received. Folks would be able to read the couple-six comments you think add greatly to the discussion, along with your responses, and/or read the whole unwashed discussion. This would be a more useful version of the “with inline responses” pointer. Plus, getting a comment up in the Honor Role would become coveted, so folks would work harder to produce quality material.
I’d like to know what folks think about arctic sea ice melt. So far, to me, it seems that perhaps 85% of the ice has been melted over the last 50 years. Assuming a linear trend, that doesn’t leave much time before we see blue water creeping earlier and earlier into the summer. Thoughts?
———— End of On Topic stuff
Thomas: Barton P Levenson, if I was you, I’d be seeking some help.
Crickets: If you were me, you’d be smarter, saner, and better-looking.
AJ: Assuming Crickets has improved his batting to one-for-three, my condolences, Thomas. Given the baseline photo (shudder), you must be one fugly dude…
Thomas, You’re correct that winning isn’t required to make a difference. Bernie is a grand example. I like your optimistic hope that the Greens can either replace one of the Big Two or even possibly change it to a Big Three. If the GOP finishes imploding, we might end up with the MightMakesRights (Libertarians), the Democrats, the AmericaShouldBeWhiteChristians, and the Greens.
Your (IIRC it was you) thoughts on a Senate made up of Philosopher Kings are grand, but instead of Kings, how about we make it a lifetime appointment that comes with a vow of poverty? A less extreme possibility: how about we limit the net income of Congress and the President to the median for the country – during and for a decade after they leave office? How about we make it illegal for anybody who holds an office to run for any office? (For this to work seamlessly, make all terms six years with three incumbents, so a politician would disserve six, run for two, and then disserve six more. If he loses, he can simply keep running every two years.)
Alfred Jonessays
Piotr, well done! I was waiting for you to do the honorable and logical thing by asking.
To answer, it’s complicated. I was abused and developed differences which opened myself to shame and isolation. I also happen to be beyond brilliant, though I have a deficient memory, especially when it comes to personal things such as names and faces. In my career as a programmer, I would solve perhaps four or five problems every day which were considered intractable by teams of programmers over months. I’d alienate folks with my fire-and-forget style, which was mandatory given my memory issues. I remember a guy knocking on my office door to give me a compliment, asking how I solved X that morning, which, from his tone, was obviously something that had degraded his life for a long time. I had no clue what he was talking about. He left thinking that I was an asshole who dismissed him. “Obviously”, somebody who was brilliant enough to solve X was just being a dick as opposed to innocently clueless. I think of John Nash as a peer. That is NOT a fun crowd to belong to.
Basically, through genetics and random chance I’m way unique in ways both grand and sad. As one would easily predict, it has not resulted in a decent, let alone good life. I remember Nash exclaiming in disbelief when he was allowed to enter to a faculty dining hall for lunch. Folks like us expect to be shunned.
I consider myself to be a resource. Anybody wanting a solution can use me. I’m not better than others, but in a world chock-full of pristine hammers, a bent screwdriver is way valuable.
Given that I’m aware of my flaws, I’m constantly trying to improve myself. It’s been a long hard road. One of my names was/is “Only KindnessMatt”, which I got from the song. But when one is constantly being attacked with hammers, such goals are hard. Humans are a social species, and when the primary socializations are negative, it’s tough to not retaliate. But that’s what Jesus recommended, and he was one smart dude. Feuds generally start with stupid trivialities, but can evolve into millennia of murders. They end “easily” – one party has to not hit “back”. I ponder my feud with Crickets often. It’s obvious that I should just ignore him, and he’s expressed the same, but here we are swapping spit in the kiss of death when either of us could simply just walk away… so I’ll try. I declare September to be “Be nice to BPL month”. We’ll see where it leads.
Folks generally tend to ignore truth and instead focus on who. Well, with those rules of engagement, I lose every time. So far. Heck, the Powerwall “controversy” is clear. Not a single person here has confirmed that a Powerwall is inadequate as a substitute for the grid. Supporting their friend trumps reality. Why? It’s obvious that one should support one’s enemies and be harshest on one’s friends and allies. Even Jesus said so with his mote quote. (which was about the relative importance of issues, not their actual size)
But I’m entering my prime years, and I’m friggin’ good at what I do. (which is to see things that others miss ) Once I break out, (if ever, but I’ve got a plan so the odds are good) I’m going to change the world. In any case, I have no illusions that I don’t have the skills at evil that “normal” people seem to have in spades. I simply can’t lie and withholding truth is seriously hard for me. My story, from grand to sad to stupid and wrong, will either snuff out as my life ends without impact, (and given my hard life, that could be any day) or it will become a subject of debate.
From there, I’ll let you ponder as to why I occasionally try to turn over a new leaf. My writing is distinct, and as I said, I don’t withhold well, so hiding or denying ain’t the rationale. If you want to figure me out, you’ve got to dump all your axioms and expectations.
1. Firstly, like Cox, no-one here or elsewhere can show that changing levels of carbon dioxide, or any other IR gases, can affect global warming. It’s simply become an unthinking act of faith. My challenge stands. Go on! Try!
2. And like most zealots, you won’t be diverted by looking at alternative reasoning. Few of you have even looked at my site, let alone extensively. Apparently, from the comments here, the sight of science was beyond you.
3. IR and convection, conduction and diffusion all work inside a dark stainless steel cylinder to produce a uniform temperature. Earth has the extra, faster distributor in winds.
4. 0.04% is tiny. (1/300: I don’t know what Vendicar is referring to.) But what I wrote additionally was the GE was constant – because the global pressure was held constant by gravity – so that CO2 effect remains tiny regardless of its actual percentage. (Anyway, one CO2 from fuel burning replaces one O2 molecule; total’s the same. OK, there’s usually extra water formed, but the oceans are big.)
5. #173 Chris. My site shows instances of being difficult to get anti-AGW published. Try ready it!
6. And what causes El Nino global temperature “bumps”? You are “explaining” one mystery by invoking another! It’s effectively explaining that changes in the climate are caused by changes in the climate (El Nino)! (Actually, EN and climate changes are manifestations of the same cause.)
Accuracy in ”predicting” the climate in a year in advance by tarot cards has improved by 31%, ”predicting by tee-leaf reading has improved up to 37%, BUT ”predicting by crystal ball reading has deteriorated; because now crystal bals are made in China, from inferior quality. Also, the ”predictors” are too lazy to wash their crystal balls when they pull them out of their butts, so they ”PREDICT” LOTS OF CRAP… God bless them; they need to be made to pay all the loot money back; probably they can do that by ”predicting” the wining numbers on lottery, because is much easier to predict those numbers than weather / climate a year in advance…
Macksays
Jim Eager @85,86
BPL @87
Well, I prefer to accept the constant and real readings of what the satellites actually tell us is the amount of solar radiation arriving at the TOA ie. a YEARLY global AVERAGE of about 1360w/sq.m. The satellite that sits stationary in space, constantly interposed between us and the sun….measuring the variations of the flickering fireball..and coming up with a reading of about 1360w/sq.m. averaged PER YEAR. A bulk load, not to be divided down..like a 1 YEAR thickness of a coat of paint covering the whole globe at the TOA.
You guys prefer to go to blackboard, draw a one dimensional MODEL of the sun and earth ie.straight lines coming from the sun to earth, and then GEOMETRICALLY CALCULATE what you, think??, is the solar radiation arriving at the TOA. You’ve just picked one instant in time, not a yearly global average. You’ve got Fourier’s, Trenberth’s,and the all the science academie’s figure of about 340w/sq.m. yearly global average arriving at the TOA. AT THE TOA.!! AT THE TOA.!!
No, the 340w/sq.m. yearly solar global average arrives at the earth’s SURFACE. At the surface of the EARTH. You can see how it averages out over one year at earth’s surface..here.. http://www.roebuckclasses.com/maps/physicmap/earthsun/insolationchart.GIF
Just eyeballing this chart you can see that the yearly global average at the EARTH’S SURFACE is about 340w/sq.m.
NOT 168w/sq.m., as in Trenberth’s looney Earth energy budget cartoons.
Carbomontanussays
Hr. Rahmstorf &al:
Be aware of what I have in my tiny Catechism from Oslo, Universitetsforlaget 1962 “Størrelser enheter og symboler i fysikken” :
“Varme, Symbol Q, Unit J, Definition and commens: Varmemengde (Heat, quantity of heat) …Heat is energy that is transported from one system to another, when the transport is due to a temperature gradient or difference of temperature.”
That rather fameous definition has been quite orthodox and conventional learning for a lot of people.Today we see it again.
I have often red from deniers side: “Atmospheric back- radiation is physically impossible because T1 < T2." Examples: Heinz Thieme Dipl.Ing from Upstairs at the railroads in old Leipzig, Technischer Assessor (That must be eastern line..)
and
Joseph Postma at Psi- Scientific International
and
Siv.ing Petter Tuvnes. Klimarealistene.com.no
My ideas of the same are obviously given by the fact that I am rather a modern chemist, aquainted to processes that may go or diffuse both ways at the same time, and dynamic eqvilibria of that. Thermal diffusion is very central for adequate practical chemical design and thinking.
Further very well aquainted to processes that may add up and superpose. And further because i am very well aquainted to the nature of heat and temperature in practical laboratory work, like baking and blacksmithing, casting and welding, heating and burning of stonewate and terracotta, and how to manage and administer heat and temperature in my house, in the engine, and on the electronic printchard.
Knowledge and and aquaintedness with this has been quite compulsary for humanity all through the stoneage…. that was very long,….One should rather have learnt.
If your soldering iron or your peak- flame is not "hot" enough, then you can "help- heat it" from beside in a large workpiece, with a larger but "softer" flame, and heat the hottest spot a bit further up from beside, by a larger source from a lower temperature. It will fuse and solder perfectly. Simsalabim, and that is not magics at all. Any plumber or coppersmith has to know.
If your heating element in the lab is not strong enough in watts so you don`t get it properly red hot, then isolate the situation. In that way you save fuel in the pottery and bakery also, and get your proper temperature.
Dipl. Ings and Siv Ings who are mentally strangers and foreighners to that, do rather display that they had their diplomæ from The Party with no proper Mittlere Reife. That must be the Arbeiter und Bauernfakultät. Tell people of that behind their back, else it will not be grasped.
I have invented and thought out practical experiments to show it.
1, mount a small incadescent lamp on stabilized nominal voltage, with a precise digital amperemeter in series. Solder it on 2 brass nails with leads on a wooden plate. Then try and isolate that lightbulb with aluminium foil, with rockwool, and with a piece of charcoal with a hole in it.
The current in the lamp will drop slightly, wich means that white hot tungsten wire is heated up still a few degrees by "back radiation" from a quite cooler place and because that metal wire is a NTC- resistor or "Ein Kalt- leiter". (Thus you need no extra thermometer, just that very precise amperemeter.
Take away the isolation, and the current grows back again to where it was.
It heats up even under less drained heating electric energy in Volts times Ampere from that power supply.
2, A next experiment may be just as fabulous.
Take a proper iron rod, 8mm x 25Cm concrete reinforcement steel may be good, and paint it classically engine-green with Tran or Sunflower oil with Cr2O3. That will make your classical engineering temperature control and supervision system. (When that system smells hot frying pan, it is technical alarm and you can see at once where it is too hot.)
Place it horizontally on 2 knives so no heat is lost to the necessary mounts, let it be naturally air- cooled.
Then heat it to red hot with a bunsen burner at the end A. Try with fingers after a while if it has also heated up at the other end B, and look how far the paint has been burnt onwards from A to B. Draw the plausible temperature curve along the rod on the blackboard and explain.
Then take another bunsen burner and heat up the end B also to red hot. Wait til eqvilibrium. Look after if the paint in the middle has been burnt. If so, take a longer rod.
Then try and deny that the temperature in B is now slightly higher than it was in A (because B was allready heated a bit from A) and since the experiment is quite symmetric, try and deny that A is also a little higher red hot now. But that little extra heat in A cannot have come from the burner A, because A was kept constant.
Wich gives us 4 alternatives:
1, the Heat from B to A must have gone all around the universe in a relativistic way.
2, or it must have jumped from B to A in an unseen, quantum- mechanical way, that only the experts can understand.
3, or You have invented the free energy Psi-, because it is quite real and can be tapped or drained and sold on the free Market. Not even Nicola Tesla managed that.
4, or You have to confess that the heat from B crept downhill to the middle where the paint is hardly burnt, and then uphill against the remperature gradient up to A. The paint on side A will clearly be burnt even a bit more than from A alone, creeping up from the green cool temperature bottom in the middle, against the temperature gradient, when you also start heating the rod at B.
3, For a next experiment you need a large copper plate, a very good conductor, mount 2 large high watt transistors at some distance from each other near the middle. The collectors are heat sink to the plate, and they have common emitter voltage from the same power. . Then you can regulate the heat in T1 & T2 by the basis currents.
Heat up T1 till you burn your fingers on it. Then heat up T2 just half as much and try and deny that it simply superposes, and the field temperature gradient does not matter at all for how heat in joule pr second or watt from a heat source is conducted further in the field.
That experiment can possibly be examined by fingers or you may paint it black and examine it with a thermocamera. Stearin has a very distinct melting point so maybe drops of stearin on the transistors and on the plate can show enough.
But theese things are a "MUST!" if you are to arrange with heat and temperature the cunning way in the machinery, on the printchard, in the bakery, or in the pottery.
Taking on a thick pullover and an anurak when it is cold simply warms you up in watts. You will shiver less and have to run less and eat less butter and bred to keep your proper body temperature.
That is how an isolator, also an electric isolator, works.
Heat is not a solid or a liquid material substance that "pushes" smaller and lower and "weaker" heats out of its way as it mooves on in the given field.
Field conductivity alone decides, and the heats do superpose. We can exel in experiments showing this.
Thus that definition of heat from 1962 is inferiour , false, and misleading.
J Knollsays
We’re doomed.
Repent now.
Send money.
roger murphysays
Of course I screen saved my latest attempt at posting here, it seems all far-left alarmist sites practice censorship as policy, now that a new administration is coming in good people pray that these alarmist sites find their activities watched more closely. Remember it is your arrogance and intolerance that will ultimately be your ruin, and when people find out about how corrupt the alarmist activists are there will be consequences.
YOU SHOULD BRUSH UP ON WHAT CLIMATE IS: -”there is no such a thing as ‘’earth’s global climate’’ – there are many INDEPENDENT different MICRO CLIMATES 1] Alpine climate 2] Mediterranean climate, 3] sea- level climate 4] high altitude climate 5] temperate climates 6] subtropical climate, 7] tropical climate 8] desert climate 9] rainforest climates 10] wet climate 11] dry climate, as in desert AND THEY KEEP CHANGING; wet climate gets dry occasionally b] even rains in the desert sometimes and improves. In the tropics is wet and dry -/- in subtropics and temperate climates changes four time a year, WITH EVERY season= migratory birds can tell you that; because they know much more about climate than all the Warmist foot-solders and all climate skeptics combined – on the polar caps climates change twice a year. Leading Warmist know that is no ”global warming” so they encompassed ”climatic changes” to confuse and con the ignorant – so that when is some extreme weather for few days on some corner of the planet, to use it as proof of their phony global warming and ignore that the weather is good simultaneously on the other 97% of the planet, even though is same amount of co2. In other words, they used the trick as: -”if you want to sell that the sun is orbiting around the earth -> you encompass the moon – present proofs that the moon is orbiting around the earth and occasionally insert that: the sun and moon rise from same place and set to the west, proof that the ”sun is orbiting around the earth” AND the trick works, because the Flat-Earthers called ”climate skeptics” are fanatically supporting 90% of the Warmist lies. Bottom line: if somebody doesn’t believe that on the earth climate exist and constantly changes, but is no global warming -> ”climate skeptic” shouldn’t be allowed on the street, unless accompanied by an adult. b] many micro-climates and they keep changing, but no such a thing as ”global climate”
Michael Flynnsays
Hi,
From the Benestad paper –
“The rate of heat loss ( 4a2πσT4e) must equal the rate of energy received from the sun (πa2S0(1−A)) for a planet (here a is its radius) to be in energetic equilibrium (Hulburt 1931).”
There is no requirement for a planet to be in energetic equilibrium. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years. The surface is no longer molten.
The rest of the paper is similarly flawed. Incorrect assumptions lead to nonsensical conclusions.
There is no GHE. No one has ever managed to demonstrate such a silly thing. Placing CO2 between a thermometer and a source of energy will not cause the thermometer to become hotter.
There is not even a falsifiable GHE hypothesis involving CO2. No science at all.
Cheers.
Dan DaSilvasays
I deny that scientists can accurately model the future earth climate.
I deny the use of proxies that do not correlate with measured data
I deny that all scientist are unbiased
I deny that there is an explanation for how the first cell was formed.
I deny that all effects of increased carbon dioxide are negative.
I deny that the review process is totally nonbiased.
I deny that I am ignorant.
I deny that mankind is basically good.
I deny that atheists are smarter than other people.
I deny Santa but not for children.
I deny that I am superior to my “lefty sisters and brothers”
I am a denier.
roger murphysays
Obviously censorship is business as usual here but is this the best way to advance scientific inquiry? It is notable that while the climate alarmist movement is funded by billions of public funds and the skeptic side is funded by a few million at best and the alarmists are losing badly, the explanation is found in credibility. The alarmists have always tried for a rush to judgement..that looks bad, the alarmists refuse public debate…that looks bad, the alarmists predictions are routinely failures…that looks bad, the alarmists use their influence to deny publication of contrary science…that looks bad, the alarmists do whatever they can to destroy the careers of scientists that research alternate explanations for climatic temp changes..that looks bad. Obviously this comment will never see light of day at RC but just maybe it will be read by one young scientist that moderates and begins him/her thinking…here’s hoping.
Trump2020says
Best line Ive heard to sum it all up: One of the most massive scientific lies (CLIMATE CHANGE) ever recorded is about to break off from a vast accumulation of propaganda and melt away. LOL!!
Trump2020says
And just like that “Global Warming Vanished” No mention of it on the white house.gov page. Praise God. This is the biggest leftist agenda being shoved down the American peoples throats and they try to make it believable or threaten us deniers. But that it the LIE, there is nothing to deny cause it was all made up by a bunch of power hungry people who thought they could fool the ignorant of America.. Haha.. I am one happy women and am so glad we will tap into OIL & GAS since it is so abundant and lowers the cost of energy on ALL Americans. AND JUST LIKE THAT, THERE WAS NO MORE CLIMATE CHANGE, WHICH THERE NEVER WAS. The earth has cycles and just cause it warms and cools at different times does not mean you can shove you money grubbing agenda down our throats. THANK GOD FOR TRUMP.. THE SILENT MAJORITY SPOKE AND IT ISN’T FOR DAMN CLIMATE CHANGE. Just that name is ridiculous. Duh of course the climate changes. Hello wake up, its a new day in America. Note to all extreme greenies, better get another job the next 8 years as this Bulls$it is being de-funded and shut down cause its the biggest fraud to the American people and we spoke!!! Oh happy day!!!
Dr. Jsays
I live a few miles outside Santa Fe (aka Fanta Se to those who know the extreme left wing politics of the city, and why I live outside it) and will be there. Looking forward to another great dialogue about the fallacies of the AGW dogma.
Welcome, Sally, on behalf of the “deniers” guild: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vei4kacCdsI
Did I catch a reference to “fossil fuels,” or “AGW” or anything like that? Can’t recall. Most here seem to believe we can turn the sea back from the shore by waving a wand and making AGW go away. Do you agree?
My response to today’s NY Times article on “drastically” rising sea levels due to collapse of the W. Antarctic ice sheet:
What the article does not tell you is that a major part of the warming affecting the West Antarctic ice sheet is due to underlying geothermal activity centered in that location. In other words, there’s an undersea volcano that’s been more or less active over thousands of years, gradually undermining that ice sheet, which could possibly cause it to collapse, though certainly not for at least 1000 years. Is there anything we can do? Well yes. We can destroy the world’s economy by abruptly curtailing the use of fossil fuels. And we can dramatically increase the risk of a more acute, devastating Fukishima-style accident by rapidly increasing our use of nuclear power. Or we can admit to ourselves for a change, that there is really nothing of any significance we can do to alter the course of nature, any more than we can forestall volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. All sorts of disasters are bound to occur over the next 100 years and that’s simply a fact of life on planet Earth. To assume we can alter the course of such natural events is the height of arrogance and hubris.
I realize this is likely to wind up in the Bore Hole, but nevertheless, there are some things that have been bothering me lately, and I’d like to get them off my chest, regardless of who might be offended.
1. There is in fact NO evidence of a long term warming trend during the 20th Century. Rather than quote any of the so-called “denier” sites in this regard, I’ll quote from the well known “warmist” site, Skeptical Science, at https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century.htm:
“Although temperatures increased overall during the 20th century, three distinct periods can be observed. Global warming occurred both at the beginning and at the end of the 20th century, but a cooling trend is seen from about 1940 to 1975. As a result, changes in 20th century trends offer a good framework through which to understand climate change and the role of numerous factors in determining the climate at any one time.”
Note the implicit distinction between a temperature increase and a trend. Yes, temperatures were significantly higher at the end of the 20th century than at the beginning, but a continuously cooling period of ca. 35 years out of 100 is inconsistent with a long-term trend. And since CO2 levels were steadily increasing during the entire 100 years (now THAT was a trend for sure), it’s impossible to see a correlation there either. And speaking of correlations, how is the early warming trend from ca. 1910 to ca. 1940 to be accounted for on the basis of AGW, since the release of CO2 during that period was just a fraction of what it is today?
Unfazed by this inconvenient evidence, our author attempts to account for the cooling period by invoking “an increase in sulphate aerosols” due to increased industrial activities after WWII, and aerosols released by volcanic activity. And yes, an increase in aerosols might possibly be responsible for the 35 year cooling period. On a different page of the same Skeptical Science blog John Cook helpfully offers a very different explanation, due to a carefully chosen array of mostly natural “forcings.” (http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-CO2-Temperature-correlation-over-the-20th-Century.html) And he could be right as well. Maybe both are right, who knows?
But the fact that someone has offered a possible explanation (or two) for the absence of a long-term trend does NOT by any means produce an actual trend where none is apparent from the evidence. One can come up with ad hoc explanations for all sorts of things, and they can certainly be taken into consideration. However, it is misleading in the extreme to claim a long term trend exists where what we actually see is not a long term trend at all, but simply a hypothesis or two that’s been offered in lieu of such a trend.
2. I must say I’m impressed at the mileage the GW community has managed to get out of the so-called “pause-buster” adjustment provided in the paper by Karl et al., and a subsequent adjustment of the satellite evidence neatly calibrated to fit. Unfortunately this development took place after the release of my book, but I already took this sort of thing into account, noting that there have been well over 50 such attempts offered in recent years. (see http:// wattsupwiththat.com/ 2014/ 09/ 11/ list-of-excuses-for-the-pause-in-global-warming-is-now-up-to-52/ ). It’s therefor rather amusing that, having given up on the older strategies, focusing either on the invocation of various explanatory “forcings” or else, as in a blatantly misleading post by Tamino, questioning the logic behind the evidence for a pause, the latest efforts have taken the form of attempts to actually alter the data itself.
Good try. Unfortunately, no sooner does one begin “adjusting” the evidence then one calls into question not only certain previous findings, but also the entire basis for climate science itself. If we can’t rely on the raw data then what CAN we rely on? If the data can be changed today then there’s no longer any reason to assume it can’t be changed tomorrow. So what exactly are we talking about here?
As I wrote in the book, prior to the Karl findings,
“There has been no lack of similar efforts to account for the hiatus by considering, or reconsidering, certain factors (and conveniently ignoring others), or adjusting the data in such a way as to produce the desired result. Each new publication offers a different explanation. Few attempt to replicate any of the earlier ones. As time goes by, and carefully contrived models fail to mesh with the most recent data, new factors and adjustments are retroactively stirred into the mix, so the most up-to-date findings can be represented to the world as definitive.”
#60 Thanks for the thoughtful analysis, Joe P. However, as I see things, it’s always possible to come up with some sort of ad hoc explanation for just about any “inconvenient” turn of events. That’s what we’ve been seeing over the years, one attempt after another to explain away both the current hiatus and the older one, dating from the 1940’s. The latest paper by Fyffe et al. is a refreshing corrective in that the thrust is not to explain away the evidence but to reassert its validity.
Now, even if we accept the sort of explanation you’ve offered, the reality of the “pause” (or whatever you prefer to call it) makes one wonder at all the many reports we are seeing, from both “legitimate” scientific sources and the media, where a supposedly “out of control” warming trend is producing a long string of extreme weather events that can only get worse. In the words of the earlier Fyffe paper you cited, “Despite a steady increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases(GHGs), global-mean surface temperature (T) has shown no discernible warming since about 2000, in sharp contrast to model simulations, which on average project strong warming.”
How is it possible for a significant period of “no discernable warming,” regardless of the cause, to produce extreme weather events supposedly prompted by the dramatic increase in global warming we hear so much about — warming that has, in fact, not taken place? And if earlier model simulations have been proven wrong, why should we take seriously all the dire predictions currently being offered, on the basis of similarly contrived models?
Looks to me as though the climate “consensus” has suffered two grievous blows in the last few months, yet I see no signs of distress among the cli. sci. mavens posting here. From Fyfe et al.:
“It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. . .
The recent decadal slowdown . . . is unique in having occurred during a time of strongly increasing anthropogenic radiative forcing of the climate system. This raises interesting science questions: are we living in a world less sensitive to GHG forcing, or are negative forcings playing a larger role than expected? Or is the recent slowdown a natural decadal modulation of the long-term GMST trend? . . .
Our results support previous findings of a reduced rate of surface warming over the 2001–2014 period — a period in which anthropogenic forcing increased at a relatively constant rate.” (http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2938.epdf?referrer_access_token=rO_LAj7Squh3f_qt6natqdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OqExA1EwYluYLwiaayT9ble9FcNagQ1ss5L1V0KiWd-xzbFQjp8p3e-nUsgU7jNuUykRRWZpgMltUfROWf3xSKeGSSY7TvMiWdaeBCmNzlbQKCodQ3ivWje8eZYAs8Dr1uu8L-i3CHt8f_jYiil5eUpRpdxdWDCSCvqts_NYB_l8yUG-b6Qu0dtrZLMnaUyec%3D&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com)
On Ljungqvist et al., as reported in Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-extremes-idUSKCN0X325Y):
“Climate records back to Viking times show the 20th century was unexceptional for rainfall and droughts despite assumptions that global warming would trigger more wet and dry extremes, a study showed on Wednesday.
Stretching back 1,200 years, written accounts of climate and data from tree rings, ice cores and marine sediments in the northern hemisphere indicated that variations in the extremes in the 20th century were less than in some past centuries. . .
Ljungqvist said many existing scientific models of climate change over-estimated assumptions that rising temperatures would make dry areas drier and wet areas wetter, with more extreme heatwaves, droughts, downpours and droughts.
The 10th century, when the Vikings were carrying out raids across Europe and the Song dynasty took power in China, was the wettest in the records ahead of the 20th, according to the researchers in Sweden, Germany, Greece and Switzerland.”
So, within a period of a month or so, we learn, first, that the much debated global warming “pause” is real after all (regardless of what the cause might be, which remains uncertain), and second, that widely held assumptions regarding extreme weather events caused by AGW, such as droughts and flooding, are unfounded.
These are scientific reports, by the way, published in one of the most prestigious scientific journals, Nature. Obviously Professor Mann, who very recently attacked the whole notion of a warming slowdown, had second thoughts. So what about the rest of you? While no findings can be regarded as 100% definitive, these findings should give rise to some nagging doubts, no?
A location on the Moon’s surface can cool by over 200 degrees in about two weeks, getting down to around -150°C on the dark side. Now, Antarctica is on the dark side of Earth for over three months in winter, but its temperature remains fairly steady in the vicinity of -50°C to -60°C. But there must be at least some loss of energy via radiation through the atmospheric window to Space. So what replenishes that energy? Clearly the difference between the Moon and the Earth has something to do with the atmosphere. Hence the energy must come from the atmosphere, but wherever the atmosphere is colder than the Antarctic surface, there can be no heat transfer by radiation. There can however be a process which increases entropy in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and you can read about that process at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com because that is where this mystery energy does in fact come from. When you understand this process and note the overwhelming evidence supporting its existence then, and only then, will you have a correct understanding as to why the radiative greenhouse is nothing but fiction.
#331 BPL: “The point is that you cherry-pick statements by a non-scientist to show that scientists are wrong.”
It was the non-scientist (Gore) who was doing the cherry picking. What I found is what readily popped up during some Google searches. No need to cherry pick, it was all up front. And all of it was from legit. scientific sources. My aim in this post was not to show that climate scientists are wrong (though many certainly are) but to provide some examples of how easy it is to cherry pick supposedly extreme events or precarious situations, taken out of context, to cow the public into accepting an extremist ideology. I won’t claim Gore was being deliberately deceptive. But he is certainly naive. As are many of those posting here.
#333 Hank Roberts. Same goes for your objection, Hank. My comment wasn’t aimed at scientists, but at politicians who naively accept certain speculations as gospel truth and use them in a completely unscientific manner to incite unnecessary and in fact very dangerous alarm.
#341 Kevin. “Dermot Antoniadesa said: ‘At this point, it doesn’t appear that the shelf ice around Ellesmere Island is any smaller now than it was during the previous period of warming, but because it’s still shrinking, it’s possible it could become, an ‘unprecedented’ event.’”
Excellent example of precisely the distinction I’ve been making, i.e., the difference between scientific findings regarding past events and speculation about some future event that might or might not occur. The FACT is that the ice shelf cracked up in the past, so its present condition is NOT unprecedented. What might happen to it in future is pure speculation, NOT science.
#346 “. . . nonsense Victor has trolled out here over the years.”
Every bit of “nonsense” I’ve presented has either been a specific reference to or a direct quote from perfectly legitimate scientific sources or logical inferences drawn from same. I’ve never posted personal opinions. If you’re looking for trolls, look around you at some of the pointless and redundant ad hominems regularly posted here, including your own.
“All in all, I’d rate Gore’s 10-year-old thesis that AGW is dangerous a lot higher than Victor’s ten-years-later attempt at a rebuttal (assuming that is what Victor was intending to do with his little rain dance).”
You’ve completely missed the point. I was deliberately looking backward at some of Gore’s patently alarmist predictions to expose them for the unscientific nonsense they were — and are. He predicted an alarming increase in extreme weather events. I offered evidence that these predictions were unfounded. Regarding the ice shelf my point had nothing to do with its present condition, but with the implication that this was an unprecedented event. Ten years ago that might have seemed to have been the case. But in the light of current research it turns out that it was not. It’s all too easy to extrapolate all sorts of things on the basis of incomplete evidence, cherry picked to support a dubious theory. Only after the passage of time can such claims be properly evaluated.
#435 “So what? Nothing. . . . “It snowed in Spain in April, so much for global warming.””
We’re not just talking snow, we’re talking record breaking snowfall AND record breaking cold over extensive regions of the world in two consecutive years. And by the way, if increased temperatures can make snowfall more likely that doesn’t apply to these snowfalls which took place in record breaking cold. And how about this, from February of this year: “[New York] city is facing some of the coldest temperatures and wind chills we’ve seen in the last 20 years,” de Blasio said. “Extremely cold weather can be life-threatening — especially for seniors, infants and people with medical conditions.” http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/us/winter-weather/
See also from 2015: https://weather.com/storms/winter/news/record-cold-early-march
and this, from 2014: http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/record-breaking-cold-winter-we/24831365
#429. Thanks for those links, Hank. I checked out the one from the EPA (https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/pdfs/climateindicators-full-2014.pdf) and found this:
“Many extreme temperature conditions are becoming more common. Since the 1970s, unusually hot summer temperatures have become more common in the United States, and heat waves have become more frequent—although the most severe heat waves in U.S. history remain those that occurred during the “Dust Bowl” in the 1930s. Record-setting daily high temperatures have become more common than record lows. The decade from 2000 to 2009 had twice as many record highs as record lows.”
Reading between the lines, what we see is what would be expected with rising temperatures generally. As the world gets warmer (which no one is denying) you are going to see more instances of high temperatures, including more record-setting highs and less record-setting lows. I see no references to the “dramatic” increase mentioned by Martin Bernstein in his response to my earlier comment. The truly dramatic record-setter occurred back in the 1930’s, as referenced in the EPA report.
If you examine Figure 1 on p. 30 of the same report, you’ll see the “U.S. Annual Heat Wave Index, 1895–2013.” I see no evidence of any trend in the direction of more heat waves during this period. The only dramatic swing upward is during the 30’s. Otherwise it’s pretty flat.
#74 Thomas, the paper you cite won’t do you any good as it could just as easily be applied to you and your fellow “warmists.”
As far as the debate is concerned, there is in fact a very active debate being carried on among scientists, as I’m sure you are aware. And there is a considerable scientific literature pertaining to many of the issues raised here that I’ve become aware of and have been quoting. As a citizen I have a perfect right to debate this issue, since very important public policy decisions are involved. As I argue in my book, the key to evaluating the meaning of any scientific claim is, ultimately, critical thinking, not necessarily technical expertise. You can know everything there is to know about a particular topic, but if you lack critical thinking skills you will not be able to properly evaluate the meaning of your work — or anyone else’s. In the field that most interests me, anthropology, where I have a fair amount of training and experience, I see dubious claims being made all the time, based on some combination of wishful thinking, unsubstantiated assumptions and confirmation bias, so I’m used to picking through such claims to separate the wheat from the chaff.
To respond to Mr. Rodger’s demand for me to “name names,” I could name a long long list of scientists, including climate scientists, who have raised objections to the “consensus” view similar to the ones I’ve raised here and elsewhere. He knows these names as well as I do, so I was surprised to see such a silly demand — which is why I ignored it. To save space (there are LOTS of names), I’ll direct you to the following wikipedia site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
I’m seeing complaints from people who accuse me of ignoring the “perfectly reasonable” explanations they’ve offered in response to certain of my objections. Not so. I usually ignore the all too typical ad hominem attacks, but when provided with an actual argument, or with evidence that appears to contradict one of my assertions, I’ve consistently responded — usually by citing hard evidence, not just offering an opinion. Problem is: many of my posts have been consigned to the bore hole, so unless you’re in the habit of regularly checking there you’ve missed a considerable portion of what I’ve had to say.
#188 MARodger: “I appreciate you are a very foolish person, but at least try to respond here without making a complete hash of everything you say!!!”
LOL. This is starting to sound like a Saturday Night Live skit. (“Victor, you shameless slut.”)
“So how can ENSO be considered a climate forcing?”
My fervent disciple MA, who posts here solely to amuse me, continues to needlessly stick his foot in his mouth. In an orgy of pointless nit-picking he’s denied that ENSO can be characterized as a “forcing,” which of course means I’m a hopeless fool for making such an outrageous assumption. Frankly, I could care less if you call it a “forcing,” a “factor” or a “cause.” However, just out of curiosity, I did a quick search and lo and behold, I found a peer reviewed paper by bonafide climate scientists titled, “Mechanisms of ENSO-forcing of hemispherically symmetric precipitation variability” (http://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/seager/qj_pcp.pdf )
Here’s another: “Seasonality and Predictability of the Indian Ocean Dipole Mode: ENSO Forcing and Internal Variability.” (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0078.1)
Mr. Rodger, your continual reliance on insults and your juvenile behavior generally, not to mention your blatant errors and misreadings give you away as a hopeless amateur. I seriously doubt that you know anything more about climate science than I, or understand scientific principles on anything more than an 8th grade level, but you think you can make up for it in sheer bluster and bluff.
Since the other objections you raise are equally misinformed, and little more than pedantic nit-picks in any case, I won’t bother to respond. But I would like, for my own reasons, to respond to your final point:
“And given you are seemingly happy with the climate modelling of Hansen et al (2011), what is the fundamental difference between the finding of that paper and all the ones you rejected @142 & @170? Indeed, does not Hansen et al (2011) only make sense if the fundamental driver of global temperature since 1880 has been anthropogenic?”
The difference is obvious but not surprisingly you don’t get it. The treatments I rejected exhibited clear signs of confirmation bias. They wanted to make a point, to convince their readers that the hiatus could be ignored, and they made sure their results fit their premise. Hansen and his colleagues were not (at least in that particular paper) attempting to convince us of anything more than that their approach held promise in the development of future models — and they freely admitted both the complexity of their undertaking and the drawbacks of their methodology.
#258 “You’ve been shown evidence repeatedly.”
And I’ve shown you evidence repeatedly, evidence indicating that there has been no long-term warming trend, evidence that the current spate of extreme weather events is nothing new. Just the other day I posted evidence that the recent runup in US heat waves, seen in the context of the last 100 years or so, is hardly unprecedented, a local effect paralleled by similar run-ups in the past. My source was the EPA, NOT some “denialist” blog.
If you read my book you’ll see evidence that the devastating 21st century heat waves in Russia and Europe cannot be attributed to climate change, but are due to well understood natural forces that have produced even worse heat waves in the past. You’ll find similar evidence regarding flooding, extreme downpours, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, Antarctic ice loss, Arctic ice loss, etc. Much of this evidence has been posted on this blog by me already.
But no, the evidence I’ve uncovered doesn’t count. You want me to accept YOUR evidence, which is in fact open to question — to say the least. Science is not, in any case, about evidence alone, but the sifting of the evidence, to determine what is plausible and what is not, and on that basis understand what all that evidence actually means. This is what I’ve been trying to do.
As far as the greenhouse effect is concerned, as I’m sure you are aware, the effect of CO2 per se is relatively small. It’s meaningful ONLY on the basis of an unproven theory regarding feedbacks and amplifications, a theory which is very far from being settled science, a theory that’s been questioned not only by critical thinkers like myself, but highly qualified physicists. This too is discussed at length in my book.
Numerical models do not prove anything. They can be tuned to provide the result one desires.
Jerry
By the way, of Earth’s current 400 ppm CO2, 280 ppm has been produced naturally, presumably from volcanoes, and Man has produced 120 ppm – and rising.
However, it’s irrelevant what level of CO2 is in the atmosphere, it’s the atmosphere’s density that counts. All gases are greenhouse gases – they all absorb heat. It has been forgotten all gases absorb heat energy by conduction and/or convection.
A greenhouse is a structure that traps heat within. A planet’s gaseous atmosphere is the real greenhouse; a planet’s warmth is trapped in proportion to the thickness of its atmosphere, almost regardless of its composition. For example, Mars has a small greenhouse effect despite its high % CO2.
More detailed explanations are in Chapter 1b at my website, Planet Earth Climate Topics on pjcarson2015.wordpress.com. Chapter 2 has the qualitative and quantitative explanation of what is causing climate changes, ie varying lava releases, chiefly undersea.
#292 Chris, considering the very wide range of temperatures experienced on Earth during a single day, an increase of even 4 or 5 degrees over a period of 100 years strikes me as no big deal.
In any case, the projections of future warming you uncritically accept are based on little more than what happened during the 20 year period from ca. 1979 through 1998, when, yes, there did seem to be an alarming trend. If it hadn’t been for that relatively short-term trend, no one would even be talking about global warming today, because there is nothing alarming about the very modest warming we’ve experienced since.
Back in the 70’s, as I’m sure you know, there was a similar panic over “global cooling,” thanks to a roughly 40 year trend in the opposite direction. Realistically, just as back in the 70’s, we have no way of knowing what future temperatures will be like, much less what causes such shifts. But one thing we do know: if CO2 emissions drove temperature change, then the earlier cooling period could not have happened.
If I may suggest – the message, as it were, is greatly tarnished when leading climate change “activists” prescribe a reduced carbon footprint for the masses while they own strings of palatial vacation homes and hop-scotch between them in private aircraft and titanic yachts. It’s like a drunk lecturing you to put that second glass of wine down.
What the paper does not address is the root cause of skepticism. Skepticism is part of science. It is also part of the political process this article discusses. What is being addressed in this paper is how best to use the prestige of science to get people to give in on a political point. That is not going to work when people believe the work in climate science was bought over the past 40 years by the side advocating political control of their personal and political behaviors.
What you are running into is not just skepticism about trying to model chaotic phenomena, but skepticism of the monopsony of governments in funding science. Monopsony, as a single buyer, is the mirror image of monopoly, and has as many or more opportunities for its agents to express agency costs as does monopoly. This opinion is not new. It extends back at least 55 years to part of Eisenhower’s farewell address of 1961:
“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
Until just before the speech, the last words quoted here were “scientific-technological-congressional elite”, which would have insulted the new Vice President, Lyndon Johnson, who, as majority leader in the Senate, had pushed for NASA as part of his campaign to become president. Eisenhower had collapsed any resistance to that, in order to take away the leverage a battle over it would give LBJ’s campaign.
So, this is *not* just about oil companies, or a few skeptics who do not know enough. This is about the basics of how funding science gets done. It will change nothing for SecularAnimist to denounce oil companies, because this goes farther back. You cannot get people to believe that monopsony funding will produce neutral results. Scientists are not secular saints, and all the nasty sneers at your political opponents are not going to get people to believe they are.
IMO there is a very simple answer to why there are differing views by political party.
‘Climate Change’ is a perfect vehicle for promoting the liberal, progressive, left agenda (distribution of wealth, central control etc.). Obviously the right wing do not agree on that agenda and campaign against because of the attached agenda.
It has nothing to do with the science so pushing the science in any form is a waste of time. And as this article states it can have the opposite effect.
The sad thing is that science is getting a very bad reputation. I believe it should dissociate from politics and get back to its roots and leave it to the politicians to fight over.
One problem is new important information about global warming is being discovered and the rate of discovery does not seen to be decreasing. Yet to say that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations”, science must “very likely” know everything important about the subject. The deniers are at least a little skeptical about that.
titus, borehole #1719
You are correct, I think Mann knows it too.
Mr. Zhou’s article does an excellent job of putting the issue in the proper context. He does not offer a solution mainly because this intractable issue has no
apparent solution. I have an idea of what the essence of the problem is but, as you will see, also have no fix.
There will always be some motivational bias. The hope is that it can be mitigated somewhat to allow some opposing views in. Currently, with few exceptions,
the polarization has become impenetrable.
On a simplistic basis I see two characteristics that are predominant on both sides and that also only add to the polarization:
1) Neither side allows for any deviation from their litany. Never admitting or expressing doubt or uncertainty, even though they are plentiful, and having
quick pat answers for every anomaly is viewed by the other side as less than truthful. Any hint of untruth or not being candid taints the entire response. “If
he lied (or better, greatly fudged) about that, he probably is being less than candid about a bunch of other stuff.” Or changing the names to make it sound
better (even if the name change actually is more accurate) detracts from the veracity.
But, the other side of that coin is that if the pro-AGW scientist admits that he doesn’t know this or that for certain, or is not sure of this scenario, or admits
there is no solid explanation of the warming pause, e.g., the sceptic community, instead of reacting objectively and recognizing the normalcy of that, will see
a chink in the armor large enough to drive an 18-wheeler through and beat the crap out of you. So, one cannot win for losing with this. At least I don’t know
how.
2) The standard ad hominum demonization of the other side tells the other side that science has no answer or explanation. It is very unhelpful but none the
less often dominates the discussion — all to no end. An example is SecularAnimist (I’m not singling him out. He just happened to provide me an example with
the first comment on this thread, and probably not the best example — sorry.) He says, “…… that is precisely the intentional result of a generation-long
campaign of brainwashing, funded by the fossil fuel corporations, carefully crafted by the most insidious minds of Madison Avenue and delivered by the most
powerful media of mass communication ever devised, which has specifically targeted the so-called “conservative” a.k.a. grassroots Republican infotainment
demographic.” This goes nowhere. It is like following an early good testimony before Congress Hansen closes by stating that oil company execs should be
prosecuted for crimes against humanity. The previous serious testimony could have been tossed out the window.
Or when the sceptics, rather than saying that this or that piece of the science seems wrong, says it is all a scam and a hoax and there is nothing correct about
the professed science, the sceptics arguments can now be discarded.
This I think can be improved. It’s not that hard to refrain from calling the other side a bunch of child-beating idiots in a scientific discussion.
There is one more thing. It is not helpful when your own protagonists hijack the science for other agendas, like destruction of 1st world societies. Christiana
Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world
from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally,
within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she
said, adding, “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for
the first time in human history.” With allies like that you guys do not need any enemies. Somebody should tell her to shut the f***k up.
This site obviously believes we are all going to be hotter and hotter and then die. Well, ‘climate change’ is very real and history shows very clearly that the gravest danger we face collectively is another Ice Age. This interglacial period is winding down. The future is dire: sudden, like falling off a cliff, colder climate conditions.
ALL Ice Ages start exactly the same way and end the same way: very suddenly, it gets much warmer. The theory that CO2 controls this is not backed up by science and is a presumption, not a fact. People who propose that the sun goes through major cycles that generate less energy and then suddenly more energy is a more likely explanation about ‘climate change’.
#129 Jim Eager: “Victor wrote: ‘According to the satellite data, 2015 was NOT warmer than 1998.’
Of course it wasn’t, for the reasons I pointed out. It is simply not a legitimate comparison to make.
Are you really that dense, Victor?”
Jim, let me offer you a brief lesson on how science works. You have data. And then you have the interpretation of data. OK? Two different things.
According to the data, as gleaned from the satellite research, 2015 was not warmer than 1998. That’s evident from the graphs I pointed you to, which not only calculate trends, but also present the data on which the trends are based. That was Taylor’s claim and it looks as though he was correct.
Your comment on relevance reflects your interpretation of the data, and has nothing to do with the data per se. All sorts of interpretations are possible and yours might possibly be meaningful. But that does not change the satellite datas itself, which tells us (one more time): ‘2015 was NOT warmer than 1998.’
“Climate science from client scientists.”. Oh really? The focus on politics, and on one political parity in particular viewed as adversarial to your point of view, is just another dead giveaway as to your true motivations and goals. Hint: good, defensible science that stands up to scrutiny isn’t one of them.
Who’s going to tell this poor author he just wasted years of his prime academic life and over $100K in tuition and perhaps extensive debt carrying the water for a popular movement whose premise grows weaker with the passage of time. Quick, stop the debate before it gets worse !! Such a joke have climate “scientists” become. After attempting to play “god” by saying “trust us,” “we know better” and “we’re the experts,” climate scientists have become just another distrusted profession and institution among many in the U.S. and worldwide. Congratulations for over playing your hand, then doubling down ever since. Your fate is well deserved, and quite just actually.
Please Mr. Author, change your focus and career before wasting more of your precious time as another useful idiot of the progressive movement currently masquerading as the “97 percent consensus.” I still get such a hoot from this exaggeration by “scientists.” Marketing isn’t your strong suit, as hard as you may try (per the subject of this article). Return to science, if you haven’t already drifted too far away to remember what that once respectable label entailed!
#164 Yet another attempt by Mr. Rodger to amuse me with his outlandish gibes. Sorry, MA, but I find Mr. Trump far more amusing than you, though I must say I laughed out loud at several points in your diatribe.
If you actually read what Mr. Wolfe has to say, you’ll see that there is no possibility of confirmation bias, cherry picking, the devious influence of Mr. WATTS, nothing like that at all, because the scattergram he’s produced is absolutely transparent. (If you doubt my word, see his full presentation at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/12/a-look-at-carbon-dioxide-vs-global-temperature/ ) The guidelines he’s provided are there for our convenience and can easily be removed without changing anything essential.
It’s a very simple cross-plot based on two reliable data sources:
horizontal dimension:
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
and
vertical dimension:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt
Sorry, but this looks absolutely bulletproof to me. And I’m wondering why it hasn’t gained much attention from climate scientists. Probably because it is NOT the sort of thing they want to see. So much for “the science,” I’m afraid.
Wow, it must be so hard to be a climateterrorist these days. The planet refuses to obey computer models. Over and over again the planet tries to tell climatescientists that they are the scientists with “special” needs. I´m a bit more straightforward. Climate science is retarded. It´s the downs syndrom of science. No other branch of science has ever been more wrong in it´s predictions and people should get off the wagon, it will only get more embarassing the longer you stay on it.
Ice cold air doesn´t heat up warm surfaces. It is basic heat transfer physics. Greenhouse theory gets around this by pretending that the surface receives only 240W/m^2 when it in reality gets between 1300 and 500 W/m^2.
In the equations for ghe the suns heat transfer is disconnected from earths radiative cooling and that is not allowed in heat transfer. The sun is the only heat source and if the atmosphere would heat up the surface backwards it would have to heat up the sun.
The equation must be written like this:
(Sun)W/m^2 = (surface of earth)W/m^2 = (atmosphere)W/m^2——>space@3K
If you tell fairytales about how the icecold air heats the surface, you have to follow all the way back to the source. GHE throws away the solar irradiation after it has reached the earth surface and thinks that it´s ok to play around with Watts/m^2 in the system enough times to fulfill the disgusting theory where cold heats hot. There is NO support for such a thing in any kind of heat transfer physics. The only way gasses interact in radiative heat transfer, or any kind of heat transfer, back to the source of heat, is in closed systems like furnaces. Earth is NOT a closed system.
Climatology needs to include maxwell-boltzmann distribution in their education. This is the foundation of temperature and fluxdensity. It clearly says that a higher temperature is populated with a higher density of excited states in the molecules and atoms of matter, and a lower temperature is populated with a lower density of higher states of excitation in molecules and atoms.
The atmosphere is populated with a MUCH lower density of excited states in relation to the surface. When they are combined, what happens?
The total maxwell-boltzmann distribution will be diluted from the low density of excitation in the atmosphere, which means that the atmosphere cools the surface, not heats it.
Maxwell-boltzmann distribution of excitation in matter is THE hammer that crush all the BS about the atmospheric heating of earth surface. Only people who doesn´t understand it or doesn´t know about it say that cold air has any heating effect on a warm surface.
It is clearly showing that: to heat something up, there HAS to be a higher density of excited states in the molecules and atoms that heats, than the object that gets heated. If the molecules and atoms of a fluid or a solid has a lower density population of excitation than another fluid or solid, NOTHING HAPPENS TO THE TEMPERATURE OF THE MATTER WITH HIGHER STATES OF EXCITATION.
The atmosphere HAS to be hotter than the surface to have an effect that raises it´s temperature. But it is icecold. -18C mean tropospheric temperature does NOTHING to raise surface temp. 0C mean tropospheric temperature would not do anything to raise surface temperature either. This is basic heat transfer physics and the whole ghe-theory is based on lack of knowledge about radiation and heat transfer.
But that is not all, the ghe-theory is based on the assumption that earth does not obey the laws of nature. It says that earth surface only receives 240W and has a temperature of 288K. A temperature of 288K DEMANDS an input of 780W/m^2 over the irradiatiated hemisphere. At least, if it would be a perfect blackbody. The earth emits 390W/m^2@the surface but only gets input from the sun on 1/2 the surface.
Ghe-theory says that earth only gets 240W/m^2 but gets a magical 150W from santa claus in the icecold atmosphere. Ridicolous.
The foundation for ghe-theory is the claim that the surface is hotter “than it should be”, which is equal to saying that the laws of nature doesn´t apply for surface temperature. That is pure down´s syndrom science.
There is only one source of energy, the sun. The earth surface has a temperature of 288K which means that it emits 390W/m^2. THEREFORE it gets 390W/m^2(780W/m^2 during day), AT LEAST, from the sun. To say something else is stupid, ignorant, unscientific and ridicolous. To say that ICECOLD AIR heats the surface instead of the heat of the sun is beyond stupid, it´s downs syndrom science.
Measurements show that the sun gets enough radiation to have a mean T of 288K. It also shows that it almost NEVER gets so low as 240W.
There is almost NO truth in the GHE-theory at all, and it contradicts everything we know about radiation and heat transfer. ONLY in ghe-theory cold gases raise the temperature of hot solids. Nowhere else.
Earth doesn´t have the thing that is needed for backradiation, an outer solid surface barrier that gets heated by radiation or convection and radiatiates according to it´s own temperature. In heat transfer where gasses radiate in contact with heatsources and contribute to temperature of the source, it ONLY happens in closed systems with internal heat sources and walls that radiate the heat through the gas to the source. The gas serves ONLY as a transport medium of energy AWAY from surfaces and sources. If there is no opposing surface or heat source, heat will only move FROM the surface/source INTO the gas. There is nothing going from the gas to the surface that raise temperature.
When will you get through your thick skulls that it is NOT ABOUT THE NUMBER OF PHOTONS going in any direction, it is ONLY about populated states of excitation in matter according to maxwell-boltzmann distribution. Because that is the ROOT OF TEMPERATURE AND PHOTONS.
Only a higher density in flux can raise temperature, a lower density flux will dilute.
Gh-theory claims that surface only gets 240W/m^2. If that is true, nothing in the system can emit more than that, because temperature is instantaneous.
This is what your claim boils down to:
240W/m^2 = 390W/m^2
This is so stupid that i must throw up.
Read up on heat transfer physics and learn.
I dare anyone to give an example in the litterature which describes how a cold gas raise temperature of a hot surface outside of climatebullshit. It would also be nice to have an example of how the strongest gh-gas, water vapor, raises temperature oustide of ghe-bullshit.
I guess that I don´t have to give the long list of examples where water vapor and/or cold air cools hot surfaces.
Einstein and the boys are turning over so fast in their graves that you should hook them up to generators and get more free energy like you do with your atmospheric “science”. Downs-science.
#100 Peter Carson: “Anybody like to try helping out?”
Yes, I’ll be happy to help out. All the graphs in the world showing “record breaking” temperatures will tell you nothing whatsoever about the effects of AGW. That doesn’t make Roberts sound any less foolish, because he is clearly out of his depth in this exchange.
What we need to pay attention to is not all those “record breaking” years, which tell us only about the temperature, but the problem of determining whether or not a correlation exists between warming and CO2 — and if so, since correlation does not imply causation, what the evidence for causation might be, assuming a correlation can be established.
I’ve already held forth on this issue, to the consternation of many on this blog. All I’ll say at this point is that the raw data, on its face, reveals no long term correlation, as so often claimed. And efforts to establish some sort of long term warming trend hidden away due to other factors have required a great many very complex and convoluted statistical calesthenics — all of which have been rendered irrelevant thanks to the recent data “corrections” by Karl et al.
If no one minds (heh!), I’d like to hold forth a bit on this matter of “consensus” we hear so much about whenever “climate change” is being discussed.
I recently had the opportunity to view, for the second time, the very amusing and instructive film, “The Big Short,” which I feel sure many of you have seen. And, by sheer coincidence, I just completed the fascinating book, “No One Would Listen,” by would-be whistle blower Harry Markopolos. And I could not help but notice a theme common to both works: the potential dangers involved in uncritically accepting a widely held consensus view.
The protagonists of “The Big Short” see very clearly that the US housing market is unstable, and that the huge financial industry produced by the questionable packaging of mortgage-backed securities is about to collapse, taking the world economy with it. Seeing an opportunity to profit from their insights, they decide to short the market for such securities, but when they explain their strategy to the bankers, they are met with derision and laughter. (Reminds me of the laughter we hear in the above video.) After all, the consensus of literally everyone in the financial world is that the housing market is and always will be solid. And after all, the financial organizations dealing in such securities are among the most successful and highly regarded in the world. A powerful consensus indeed!
Harry Markopolos is a financial expert who, many years ago, figured out, on the basis of a critical analysis of the data, that Bernie Madoff was a fraud. Yet no matter how many times he tried (as I recall it was 8 times in all, dating back to 1999), he was never able to convince the Securities and Exchange Commission to properly investigate. Nor was he able to convince almost anyone investing with Madoff to look more closely into his operation. Why? Once again, the consensus of just about everyone in the financial world was that Madoff was honest, forthright, solid, reliable and completely trustworthy. After all, he had produced impressive returns year after year for a very long time, he’d been “investigated” by the “experts” at the SEC (in a half-hearted effort that turned out to be a sham), and passed with flying colors. Markopolos was routinely ignored, mocked, and dismissed as some sort of crackpot. After all, he was bucking an overwhelming consensus in the world of finance that Madoff could do no wrong. Ironically it was not Markopolos, who had him figured out from the start, but Madoff himself, who finally blew the whistle. There was literally too much at stake for anyone else to do so.
The financial crisis anticipated by the protagonists of The Big Short shook the entire world and is still having dire repercussions everywhere. And if Bernie Madoff’s scam had been allowed to progress for another few years, his collapse might have had equally disastrous repercussions.
I’ll leave it for readers of this blog to draw their own conclusions regarding any possible parallels with the consensus on climate change. My own opinion is well known.
Reply to # 104 Digby.
My #100 comment was supposed to provoke comment, but like Cox, has nobody here have evidence to support AGW?
Reply to #105 Barton. There is no such evidence – because there can be none. Your reference simply says that Man is producing lots of CO2 – hardly evidence that Man is causing that warming, but that is what Cox and most others give.
The problem with AGW is that somebody, sometime, somewhere has managed to subtly change the definition of “greenhouse gas” and thereby changed the whole playing field – and is WRONG!
Now, the Greenhouse effect is stated to be warming of Earth because its radiated heat is absorbed/trapped by the “greenhouse gases” (eg CO2 and methane).
I imagine “97%” of scientists use a definition like this. What is wrong with this definition and why does it give the wrong results?
[It may help your thoughts if you ask why Earth has a “greenhouse effect” of 33K vs Mars’ 6K yet Mars CO2 density is 14x that of Earth?]
Reply to # 104 Digby.
My #100 comment was supposed to provoke comment, but like Cox, has nobody here have evidence to support AGW?
Reply to #105 Barton. There is no such evidence – because there can be none. Your reference simply says that Man is producing lots of CO2 – hardly evidence that Man is causing that warming, but that is what Cox and most others give.
The problem with AGW is that somebody, sometime, somewhere has managed to subtly change the definition of “greenhouse gas” and thereby changed the whole playing field – and is WRONG!
Now, the Greenhouse effect is stated to be warming of Earth because its radiated heat is absorbed/trapped by the “greenhouse gases” (eg CO2 and methane).
I imagine “97%” of scientists use a definition like this. What is wrong with this definition and why does it give the wrong results?
[It may help your thoughts if you ask why Earth has a “greenhouse effect” of 33K vs Mars’ 6K yet Mars CO2 density is 14x that of Earth?]
#145 BPL
1. AGW relies on the incorrect version of “Greenhouse Effect”; in that sense, the terms are interchangeable.
2. The 2 aspects about AGW are
a. CO2, etc IR effect on heating the atmosphere (Chapter 1B) &
b. CO2 effect on ocean acidity (Chapter 5).
These are both physical chemistry topics; I’ve used my research degree in physical chemistry for decades. Anyway, you are quibbling; it’s what’s written that counts. See anything incorrect?
(I know I’m boring, but I only deal with science fact; I don’t have the imagination for science fiction. I suggest people deal with that which they know.)
As shown in my site, both topics depend on thermodynamics. Everything works well.
3. Conduction does not require IR as you state. The atmosphere simply collides with the planet surface, and convection does it from there. Radiation also works, of course, but the equilibrium with the planet temperature is reached either way. It’s irrelevant that the IR gases have an extra method.
As you say, the “major energy input to the climate system is radiation,” ie from the Sun – but you will concede, that input is unaffected by IR.
4. You keep asking me to crack open a textbook or two; have you examined my site? I don’t mean simply clicking on it a couple of times. All my conclusions are quantitative – including the rocky planets. You seem to say you had a different result. I’d like to know how you accounted for Mars which has a 14x greater CO2 density than Earth, but still has a smaller greenhouse effect – exactly in line with its low total pressure (0.007 bar).
5. You only gave a partial reference to your Space Research paper. I’d like to read it. (Its Abstract doesn’t support what you’ve written above.)
#144 Alfred Jones
The rate of change of greenhouse effect is only 5K/atm. That will not be detected with weather changes.
Note this implies that Earth has a constant GE of only 5K, a long way smaller than the 33K assumed by AGW. This is because AGW conveniently “forgets” other inputs to global warming such as magma release, tidal effects (Earth, Moon, Sun) – and do vary with time – compression, radioactive decay, which are the major Earth contributors.
On a picky note: Burning carbon does not change the number of molecules in the atmosphere as each CO2 substitutes for an oxygen.
GE depends on the number of (whatever) molecules multiplied by their specific heat. (I usually neglect the specific heat.) The specific heat of CO2 is only 80% of air, so that, ironically, the more CO2, the smaller the GE (but as CO2 is only about 0.04%, this effect is immeasurably small.)
#148 Chris O’Neill
(Chapter 1B). Thermodynamics shows “It can be shown that AGW via CO2 is not possible.”
It’s the totality of the atmosphere’s molecules that have the greenhouse effect.
Tell us, do you really think the atmosphere would not be warmed by Earth’s heat if the IR molecules were missing!? Would the temperature of the contents of flasks containing CO2, air, CH4, Ar, etc, differ after standing sufficient time for equilibrium – in the sun, in the dark, or wherever. No. The contents all reach the flasks’ temperature by colliding with the flask walls. It’d be difficult to do scientific experiments if this was not so.
We’ve wrapped up a month where it seems that the majority of discussion was way off topic. I tried to start some pertinent conversations, but not much stuck. Maybe this month…
Moderators, perhaps a solution would be to add an unmoderated OffTopicRomperRoom thread. You could move any comment which is even partially off topic there. As folks no longer “had” to defend their beliefs, things everywhere else would get topical fast, and the OffTopicRomperRoom would be what it is and so would not take up any of your time.
You could also double-post good comments – first in an Honor Role right at the top of the comment thread, and then again in the sequence received. Folks would be able to read the couple-six comments you think add greatly to the discussion, along with your responses, and/or read the whole unwashed discussion. This would be a more useful version of the “with inline responses” pointer. Plus, getting a comment up in the Honor Role would become coveted, so folks would work harder to produce quality material.
I’d like to know what folks think about arctic sea ice melt. So far, to me, it seems that perhaps 85% of the ice has been melted over the last 50 years. Assuming a linear trend, that doesn’t leave much time before we see blue water creeping earlier and earlier into the summer. Thoughts?
———— End of On Topic stuff
Thomas: Barton P Levenson, if I was you, I’d be seeking some help.
Crickets: If you were me, you’d be smarter, saner, and better-looking.
AJ: Assuming Crickets has improved his batting to one-for-three, my condolences, Thomas. Given the baseline photo (shudder), you must be one fugly dude…
Thomas, You’re correct that winning isn’t required to make a difference. Bernie is a grand example. I like your optimistic hope that the Greens can either replace one of the Big Two or even possibly change it to a Big Three. If the GOP finishes imploding, we might end up with the MightMakesRights (Libertarians), the Democrats, the AmericaShouldBeWhiteChristians, and the Greens.
Your (IIRC it was you) thoughts on a Senate made up of Philosopher Kings are grand, but instead of Kings, how about we make it a lifetime appointment that comes with a vow of poverty? A less extreme possibility: how about we limit the net income of Congress and the President to the median for the country – during and for a decade after they leave office? How about we make it illegal for anybody who holds an office to run for any office? (For this to work seamlessly, make all terms six years with three incumbents, so a politician would disserve six, run for two, and then disserve six more. If he loses, he can simply keep running every two years.)
Piotr, well done! I was waiting for you to do the honorable and logical thing by asking.
To answer, it’s complicated. I was abused and developed differences which opened myself to shame and isolation. I also happen to be beyond brilliant, though I have a deficient memory, especially when it comes to personal things such as names and faces. In my career as a programmer, I would solve perhaps four or five problems every day which were considered intractable by teams of programmers over months. I’d alienate folks with my fire-and-forget style, which was mandatory given my memory issues. I remember a guy knocking on my office door to give me a compliment, asking how I solved X that morning, which, from his tone, was obviously something that had degraded his life for a long time. I had no clue what he was talking about. He left thinking that I was an asshole who dismissed him. “Obviously”, somebody who was brilliant enough to solve X was just being a dick as opposed to innocently clueless. I think of John Nash as a peer. That is NOT a fun crowd to belong to.
Basically, through genetics and random chance I’m way unique in ways both grand and sad. As one would easily predict, it has not resulted in a decent, let alone good life. I remember Nash exclaiming in disbelief when he was allowed to enter to a faculty dining hall for lunch. Folks like us expect to be shunned.
I consider myself to be a resource. Anybody wanting a solution can use me. I’m not better than others, but in a world chock-full of pristine hammers, a bent screwdriver is way valuable.
Given that I’m aware of my flaws, I’m constantly trying to improve myself. It’s been a long hard road. One of my names was/is “Only KindnessMatt”, which I got from the song. But when one is constantly being attacked with hammers, such goals are hard. Humans are a social species, and when the primary socializations are negative, it’s tough to not retaliate. But that’s what Jesus recommended, and he was one smart dude. Feuds generally start with stupid trivialities, but can evolve into millennia of murders. They end “easily” – one party has to not hit “back”. I ponder my feud with Crickets often. It’s obvious that I should just ignore him, and he’s expressed the same, but here we are swapping spit in the kiss of death when either of us could simply just walk away… so I’ll try. I declare September to be “Be nice to BPL month”. We’ll see where it leads.
Folks generally tend to ignore truth and instead focus on who. Well, with those rules of engagement, I lose every time. So far. Heck, the Powerwall “controversy” is clear. Not a single person here has confirmed that a Powerwall is inadequate as a substitute for the grid. Supporting their friend trumps reality. Why? It’s obvious that one should support one’s enemies and be harshest on one’s friends and allies. Even Jesus said so with his mote quote. (which was about the relative importance of issues, not their actual size)
But I’m entering my prime years, and I’m friggin’ good at what I do. (which is to see things that others miss ) Once I break out, (if ever, but I’ve got a plan so the odds are good) I’m going to change the world. In any case, I have no illusions that I don’t have the skills at evil that “normal” people seem to have in spades. I simply can’t lie and withholding truth is seriously hard for me. My story, from grand to sad to stupid and wrong, will either snuff out as my life ends without impact, (and given my hard life, that could be any day) or it will become a subject of debate.
From there, I’ll let you ponder as to why I occasionally try to turn over a new leaf. My writing is distinct, and as I said, I don’t withhold well, so hiding or denying ain’t the rationale. If you want to figure me out, you’ve got to dump all your axioms and expectations.
Remember, you guys killed Poe.
1. Firstly, like Cox, no-one here or elsewhere can show that changing levels of carbon dioxide, or any other IR gases, can affect global warming. It’s simply become an unthinking act of faith. My challenge stands. Go on! Try!
2. And like most zealots, you won’t be diverted by looking at alternative reasoning. Few of you have even looked at my site, let alone extensively. Apparently, from the comments here, the sight of science was beyond you.
3. IR and convection, conduction and diffusion all work inside a dark stainless steel cylinder to produce a uniform temperature. Earth has the extra, faster distributor in winds.
4. 0.04% is tiny. (1/300: I don’t know what Vendicar is referring to.) But what I wrote additionally was the GE was constant – because the global pressure was held constant by gravity – so that CO2 effect remains tiny regardless of its actual percentage. (Anyway, one CO2 from fuel burning replaces one O2 molecule; total’s the same. OK, there’s usually extra water formed, but the oceans are big.)
5. #173 Chris. My site shows instances of being difficult to get anti-AGW published. Try ready it!
6. And what causes El Nino global temperature “bumps”? You are “explaining” one mystery by invoking another! It’s effectively explaining that changes in the climate are caused by changes in the climate (El Nino)! (Actually, EN and climate changes are manifestations of the same cause.)
Accuracy in ”predicting” the climate in a year in advance by tarot cards has improved by 31%, ”predicting by tee-leaf reading has improved up to 37%, BUT ”predicting by crystal ball reading has deteriorated; because now crystal bals are made in China, from inferior quality. Also, the ”predictors” are too lazy to wash their crystal balls when they pull them out of their butts, so they ”PREDICT” LOTS OF CRAP… God bless them; they need to be made to pay all the loot money back; probably they can do that by ”predicting” the wining numbers on lottery, because is much easier to predict those numbers than weather / climate a year in advance…
Jim Eager @85,86
BPL @87
Well, I prefer to accept the constant and real readings of what the satellites actually tell us is the amount of solar radiation arriving at the TOA ie. a YEARLY global AVERAGE of about 1360w/sq.m. The satellite that sits stationary in space, constantly interposed between us and the sun….measuring the variations of the flickering fireball..and coming up with a reading of about 1360w/sq.m. averaged PER YEAR. A bulk load, not to be divided down..like a 1 YEAR thickness of a coat of paint covering the whole globe at the TOA.
You guys prefer to go to blackboard, draw a one dimensional MODEL of the sun and earth ie.straight lines coming from the sun to earth, and then GEOMETRICALLY CALCULATE what you, think??, is the solar radiation arriving at the TOA. You’ve just picked one instant in time, not a yearly global average. You’ve got Fourier’s, Trenberth’s,and the all the science academie’s figure of about 340w/sq.m. yearly global average arriving at the TOA. AT THE TOA.!! AT THE TOA.!!
No, the 340w/sq.m. yearly solar global average arrives at the earth’s SURFACE. At the surface of the EARTH. You can see how it averages out over one year at earth’s surface..here..
http://www.roebuckclasses.com/maps/physicmap/earthsun/insolationchart.GIF
Just eyeballing this chart you can see that the yearly global average at the EARTH’S SURFACE is about 340w/sq.m.
NOT 168w/sq.m., as in Trenberth’s looney Earth energy budget cartoons.
Hr. Rahmstorf &al:
Be aware of what I have in my tiny Catechism from Oslo, Universitetsforlaget 1962 “Størrelser enheter og symboler i fysikken” :
“Varme, Symbol Q, Unit J, Definition and commens: Varmemengde (Heat, quantity of heat) …Heat is energy that is transported from one system to another, when the transport is due to a temperature gradient or difference of temperature.”
That rather fameous definition has been quite orthodox and conventional learning for a lot of people.Today we see it again.
I have often red from deniers side: “Atmospheric back- radiation is physically impossible because T1 < T2." Examples: Heinz Thieme Dipl.Ing from Upstairs at the railroads in old Leipzig, Technischer Assessor (That must be eastern line..)
and
Joseph Postma at Psi- Scientific International
and
Siv.ing Petter Tuvnes. Klimarealistene.com.no
My ideas of the same are obviously given by the fact that I am rather a modern chemist, aquainted to processes that may go or diffuse both ways at the same time, and dynamic eqvilibria of that. Thermal diffusion is very central for adequate practical chemical design and thinking.
Further very well aquainted to processes that may add up and superpose. And further because i am very well aquainted to the nature of heat and temperature in practical laboratory work, like baking and blacksmithing, casting and welding, heating and burning of stonewate and terracotta, and how to manage and administer heat and temperature in my house, in the engine, and on the electronic printchard.
Knowledge and and aquaintedness with this has been quite compulsary for humanity all through the stoneage…. that was very long,….One should rather have learnt.
If your soldering iron or your peak- flame is not "hot" enough, then you can "help- heat it" from beside in a large workpiece, with a larger but "softer" flame, and heat the hottest spot a bit further up from beside, by a larger source from a lower temperature. It will fuse and solder perfectly. Simsalabim, and that is not magics at all. Any plumber or coppersmith has to know.
If your heating element in the lab is not strong enough in watts so you don`t get it properly red hot, then isolate the situation. In that way you save fuel in the pottery and bakery also, and get your proper temperature.
Dipl. Ings and Siv Ings who are mentally strangers and foreighners to that, do rather display that they had their diplomæ from The Party with no proper Mittlere Reife. That must be the Arbeiter und Bauernfakultät. Tell people of that behind their back, else it will not be grasped.
I have invented and thought out practical experiments to show it.
1, mount a small incadescent lamp on stabilized nominal voltage, with a precise digital amperemeter in series. Solder it on 2 brass nails with leads on a wooden plate. Then try and isolate that lightbulb with aluminium foil, with rockwool, and with a piece of charcoal with a hole in it.
The current in the lamp will drop slightly, wich means that white hot tungsten wire is heated up still a few degrees by "back radiation" from a quite cooler place and because that metal wire is a NTC- resistor or "Ein Kalt- leiter". (Thus you need no extra thermometer, just that very precise amperemeter.
Take away the isolation, and the current grows back again to where it was.
It heats up even under less drained heating electric energy in Volts times Ampere from that power supply.
2, A next experiment may be just as fabulous.
Take a proper iron rod, 8mm x 25Cm concrete reinforcement steel may be good, and paint it classically engine-green with Tran or Sunflower oil with Cr2O3. That will make your classical engineering temperature control and supervision system. (When that system smells hot frying pan, it is technical alarm and you can see at once where it is too hot.)
Place it horizontally on 2 knives so no heat is lost to the necessary mounts, let it be naturally air- cooled.
Then heat it to red hot with a bunsen burner at the end A. Try with fingers after a while if it has also heated up at the other end B, and look how far the paint has been burnt onwards from A to B. Draw the plausible temperature curve along the rod on the blackboard and explain.
Then take another bunsen burner and heat up the end B also to red hot. Wait til eqvilibrium. Look after if the paint in the middle has been burnt. If so, take a longer rod.
Then try and deny that the temperature in B is now slightly higher than it was in A (because B was allready heated a bit from A) and since the experiment is quite symmetric, try and deny that A is also a little higher red hot now. But that little extra heat in A cannot have come from the burner A, because A was kept constant.
Wich gives us 4 alternatives:
1, the Heat from B to A must have gone all around the universe in a relativistic way.
2, or it must have jumped from B to A in an unseen, quantum- mechanical way, that only the experts can understand.
3, or You have invented the free energy Psi-, because it is quite real and can be tapped or drained and sold on the free Market. Not even Nicola Tesla managed that.
4, or You have to confess that the heat from B crept downhill to the middle where the paint is hardly burnt, and then uphill against the remperature gradient up to A. The paint on side A will clearly be burnt even a bit more than from A alone, creeping up from the green cool temperature bottom in the middle, against the temperature gradient, when you also start heating the rod at B.
3, For a next experiment you need a large copper plate, a very good conductor, mount 2 large high watt transistors at some distance from each other near the middle. The collectors are heat sink to the plate, and they have common emitter voltage from the same power. . Then you can regulate the heat in T1 & T2 by the basis currents.
Heat up T1 till you burn your fingers on it. Then heat up T2 just half as much and try and deny that it simply superposes, and the field temperature gradient does not matter at all for how heat in joule pr second or watt from a heat source is conducted further in the field.
That experiment can possibly be examined by fingers or you may paint it black and examine it with a thermocamera. Stearin has a very distinct melting point so maybe drops of stearin on the transistors and on the plate can show enough.
But theese things are a "MUST!" if you are to arrange with heat and temperature the cunning way in the machinery, on the printchard, in the bakery, or in the pottery.
Taking on a thick pullover and an anurak when it is cold simply warms you up in watts. You will shiver less and have to run less and eat less butter and bred to keep your proper body temperature.
That is how an isolator, also an electric isolator, works.
Heat is not a solid or a liquid material substance that "pushes" smaller and lower and "weaker" heats out of its way as it mooves on in the given field.
Field conductivity alone decides, and the heats do superpose. We can exel in experiments showing this.
Thus that definition of heat from 1962 is inferiour , false, and misleading.
We’re doomed.
Repent now.
Send money.
Of course I screen saved my latest attempt at posting here, it seems all far-left alarmist sites practice censorship as policy, now that a new administration is coming in good people pray that these alarmist sites find their activities watched more closely. Remember it is your arrogance and intolerance that will ultimately be your ruin, and when people find out about how corrupt the alarmist activists are there will be consequences.
global warming is freezing my ass off right now
YOU SHOULD BRUSH UP ON WHAT CLIMATE IS: -”there is no such a thing as ‘’earth’s global climate’’ – there are many INDEPENDENT different MICRO CLIMATES 1] Alpine climate 2] Mediterranean climate, 3] sea- level climate 4] high altitude climate 5] temperate climates 6] subtropical climate, 7] tropical climate 8] desert climate 9] rainforest climates 10] wet climate 11] dry climate, as in desert AND THEY KEEP CHANGING; wet climate gets dry occasionally b] even rains in the desert sometimes and improves. In the tropics is wet and dry -/- in subtropics and temperate climates changes four time a year, WITH EVERY season= migratory birds can tell you that; because they know much more about climate than all the Warmist foot-solders and all climate skeptics combined – on the polar caps climates change twice a year. Leading Warmist know that is no ”global warming” so they encompassed ”climatic changes” to confuse and con the ignorant – so that when is some extreme weather for few days on some corner of the planet, to use it as proof of their phony global warming and ignore that the weather is good simultaneously on the other 97% of the planet, even though is same amount of co2. In other words, they used the trick as: -”if you want to sell that the sun is orbiting around the earth -> you encompass the moon – present proofs that the moon is orbiting around the earth and occasionally insert that: the sun and moon rise from same place and set to the west, proof that the ”sun is orbiting around the earth” AND the trick works, because the Flat-Earthers called ”climate skeptics” are fanatically supporting 90% of the Warmist lies. Bottom line: if somebody doesn’t believe that on the earth climate exist and constantly changes, but is no global warming -> ”climate skeptic” shouldn’t be allowed on the street, unless accompanied by an adult. b] many micro-climates and they keep changing, but no such a thing as ”global climate”
Hi,
From the Benestad paper –
“The rate of heat loss ( 4a2πσT4e) must equal the rate of energy received from the sun (πa2S0(1−A)) for a planet (here a is its radius) to be in energetic equilibrium (Hulburt 1931).”
There is no requirement for a planet to be in energetic equilibrium. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years. The surface is no longer molten.
The rest of the paper is similarly flawed. Incorrect assumptions lead to nonsensical conclusions.
There is no GHE. No one has ever managed to demonstrate such a silly thing. Placing CO2 between a thermometer and a source of energy will not cause the thermometer to become hotter.
There is not even a falsifiable GHE hypothesis involving CO2. No science at all.
Cheers.
I deny that scientists can accurately model the future earth climate.
I deny the use of proxies that do not correlate with measured data
I deny that all scientist are unbiased
I deny that there is an explanation for how the first cell was formed.
I deny that all effects of increased carbon dioxide are negative.
I deny that the review process is totally nonbiased.
I deny that I am ignorant.
I deny that mankind is basically good.
I deny that atheists are smarter than other people.
I deny Santa but not for children.
I deny that I am superior to my “lefty sisters and brothers”
I am a denier.
Obviously censorship is business as usual here but is this the best way to advance scientific inquiry? It is notable that while the climate alarmist movement is funded by billions of public funds and the skeptic side is funded by a few million at best and the alarmists are losing badly, the explanation is found in credibility. The alarmists have always tried for a rush to judgement..that looks bad, the alarmists refuse public debate…that looks bad, the alarmists predictions are routinely failures…that looks bad, the alarmists use their influence to deny publication of contrary science…that looks bad, the alarmists do whatever they can to destroy the careers of scientists that research alternate explanations for climatic temp changes..that looks bad. Obviously this comment will never see light of day at RC but just maybe it will be read by one young scientist that moderates and begins him/her thinking…here’s hoping.
Best line Ive heard to sum it all up: One of the most massive scientific lies (CLIMATE CHANGE) ever recorded is about to break off from a vast accumulation of propaganda and melt away. LOL!!
And just like that “Global Warming Vanished” No mention of it on the white house.gov page. Praise God. This is the biggest leftist agenda being shoved down the American peoples throats and they try to make it believable or threaten us deniers. But that it the LIE, there is nothing to deny cause it was all made up by a bunch of power hungry people who thought they could fool the ignorant of America.. Haha.. I am one happy women and am so glad we will tap into OIL & GAS since it is so abundant and lowers the cost of energy on ALL Americans. AND JUST LIKE THAT, THERE WAS NO MORE CLIMATE CHANGE, WHICH THERE NEVER WAS. The earth has cycles and just cause it warms and cools at different times does not mean you can shove you money grubbing agenda down our throats. THANK GOD FOR TRUMP.. THE SILENT MAJORITY SPOKE AND IT ISN’T FOR DAMN CLIMATE CHANGE. Just that name is ridiculous. Duh of course the climate changes. Hello wake up, its a new day in America. Note to all extreme greenies, better get another job the next 8 years as this Bulls$it is being de-funded and shut down cause its the biggest fraud to the American people and we spoke!!! Oh happy day!!!
I live a few miles outside Santa Fe (aka Fanta Se to those who know the extreme left wing politics of the city, and why I live outside it) and will be there. Looking forward to another great dialogue about the fallacies of the AGW dogma.