It’s taken 21 months, four professors, and three associate/assistant professors, and THIS is the best they could come up with? The printed version listed no author (the pdf has been updated with John Cooks name*) yet wears the logo of the University of Western Australia (UWA), which will embarrass that university as word spreads of the intellectual weakness of their “Guide“.
Did UWA commission this piece of rather inept, qualitative “feel-good” science and clumsy reasoning? Stephan Lewandowsky invited John Cook to speak at UWA and “offer assistance“.
The booklet uses a mislabeled graph with a deceptive scale, won’t show the damning graphs it supposedly debunks, assumes positive feedback occurs despite the weight of empirical evidence against it (Douglass, Spencer, Lindzen), and repeats irrelevant information even though The Skeptics Handbook describes why rising sea levels and glaciers and ice sheets can’t possibly tell us what causes the warming. It misleadingly discusses a different fingerprint — one that isn’t the key point and isn’t disputed by skeptics. Cause and effect are mixed up, and naturally there are strawmen arguments to unnecessarily destroy for the spectacle of being seen to do something. To top it off, Cook still thinks a measurement is a force of nature that could affect the climate. It’s just confused.
There’s a shell game. Evidence for the direct effect of carbon is not evidence that positive feedback will amplify the results
Most of all, the deceptive shell game continues. The Guide offers evidence that supports a direct effect of carbon which amounts to one measly degree if carbon levels double. It offers no evidence that positive feedback will amplify the results up to a wildly high 3 or 4 degrees, and it does not inform readers that there is empirical evidence that the feedback is negative and will thus attenuate that one minor degree. Thus the half-truths are broadcast, but the lies by omission border on deception.
On the plus side, Cook has risen above ad homs and argument from authority. It’s only taken two years, but at last a critic has managed to stick just to evidence of sorts. That said, John Cook’s post that launched the guide links to a paid bully boy attack site written by a hired professional marketing team. DeSmog’s shameful practice of smearing researchers is one of the lowest points in modern science. Yet Cook links to it, apparently endorsing their ad hominem approach. We-the-people are not fooled or intimidated by kindergarten namecalling. If he had any standards of reasoning, he would not promote the attack dogs. If he was a man of principle he would condemn DeSmog for their unscientific behaviour.
Aside from the name-calling, Desmog are scientifically embarrassing. I debunked their first effort: “Desmog accidentally vindicates the Skeptics Handbook“. I’ve also debunked Deltoid as well, a post so successful it put this blog on the map. Deltoid had no reply. Cook might be surprised if he read my responses to those pages he linked too. Of all the efforts “debunking” the Skeptics Handbook, Cook’s is the best — but with the rest of the field stuck in the stone-age, that’s no badge of honor.
Looking for the short guide to “how do I know who is right?”
Try this:
- I quote who-ever-they-are directly, I use their words, their references, and their graphs. I explain the exact reasons why they’re wrong. When I paraphrase, I make it clear.
- They rephrase what I say, attack some other point, won’t reproduce the graphs I use, nor discuss the references I give. They don’t claim they found errors in the Handbook, because they can’t — just “misunderstandings” which turn out to be theirs.
One of us is talking directly to each point, and the other is engaged in misdirection — shifting the goalposts — to attack something that is not quite what the first said. One of us makes baseless assertions, and the other links to documents from experts on both sides of the fence. One of us uses mislabelled graphs with deceptive scales to make a “point” about science, and the other uses those same graphs but only to point out how meaningless they are.
If their Guide was a real debunking, instead of just an excuse to rehash the same generic propaganda, they’d say something like “her graphs have errors, she got the altitude mixed up”. Instead, they talk about everything except the killer points I raised in the handbook — and the person who is supposedly “debunked” points out the errors in their graphs instead.
The Shell Game — pretend evidence for 1 degree is really evidence for 3 degrees
The unskeptical Guide claims there are multiple lines of evidence that show humans cause global warming. But they hide the minor amount of warming this evidence relates to. They don’t admit that there is no evidence for catastrophic warming. Sure there is evidence that man-made emissions might contribute (by the time CO2 doubles, and if you assume all the extra CO2 is due to man-made emissions) to as much as 1.2°C and no more. That’s according to James Hansen and the IPCC. But the Guide doesn’t think you need to know that crucial fact. I guess they hope you’ll assume this is evidence that applies to all the catastrophic claims you hear about: 1, 3, or 6 degrees, what’s the difference?
Summarizing their Four Points: (my reply in bold)
- As greenhouse gases stop heat from reaching the upper atmosphere, a distinct greenhouse signature is a warming lower atmosphere and cooling upper atmosphere. This is exactly what’s observed by satellites and weather balloons. (No. The fingerprint that matters includes a hot spot as well. After 10 years of data adjustments by many teams, no one has found the hot spot with weather-balloon data. Both radiosondes and one satellite set are in agreement. The hot spot is the fingerprint of positive feedback, which causes the vast bulk of the warming in the climate models . It ain’t there. There’s no evidence to support the catastrophic predictions.)
- Satellites measure more heat being trapped by CO2. On top of this, ice cores find temperature affects the amount of CO2 in the air. So warming causes more CO2 and more CO2 causes warming. Put these two together and you get positive feedback. (Amplification is only a major force if the feedbacks are positive. See point one. It’s the totality of feedback that matters, and finding that one of the many individual feedbacks is positive says nothing about the total feedback.)
- The surface temperature record shows that the number of warm nights are increasing faster than warm days. This is another effect of greenhouse warming. (Warm nights are more likely due to the urban heat island effect, which is compounded by putting thermometers next to exhaust vents — that was my point. We can’t trust these thermometers.)
- To find out whether the CO2 effect is saturated, we just have to look at direct measurements – satellites find CO2 is trapping more heat and surface measurements find more heat returning back to Earth. (I didn’t say the effect was saturated, I said “almost” and that there would be warming from CO2, but it was minor. The Wang paper merely tells us what we already knew, that the atmosphere has got a bit warmer, and surprise, it’s giving off more infra red. We’d be shocked if it wasn’t.)
Point 1: Signature, Which Signature?
It’s not important, it’s not due to carbon, it’s caused by everything, and we found it anyway!
The Big Scare Campaign is so scared of this point they’ll use every excuse in the book to pour doubt on it. Methinks they try too hard. First up, they don’t want you to see the original fingerprint the CCSP put out, they only want you to see their repolished-whitewashed version:
Again this is the signature that applies to carbon’s direct effect. ie. the 1.2°C and not the signature of positive feedback which creates the disaster of 3 – 6°C in their models (but not in reality). The pure effect of CO2 is to warm the bottom half (the troposphere) and cool the top layer (the stratosphere). This pattern is not a unique signature of CO2. Ozone also absorbs UV way up high as it comes in from the sun (which warms the air up there), so the fingerprint of ozone-levels-falling is very similar to the fingerprint of CO2-levels-rising. Both leave a similar pattern like the one above. Whatever. The critics wail about one form of uniqueness, but ignore the other. The original graph (A) below is so much more informative:
The hot spot is missing from the upper troposphere. Skepticalscience won’t show this.
O-the complexity
Why the difference? All greenhouse gases include CO2, ozone and water vapor. The fingerprint in A, predicted by all the climate models, includes the effects of the (postulated) feedbacks from water — which is why we ought to see the hot spot 10 km above the equator (where evaporation rates are the fastest, and where humidity would make the biggest difference).
You are not being told the whole story
The Lapse in Judgement
The hot spot… is due to changes in the moist adiabatic lapse rate. First up, the adiabatic lapse rate is a measurement, not a thing, and measurements don’t change the weather. Clouds, radiation and ocean currents change the weather, but “lapse rates” are only numbers on a page, not a force of nature. The term sounds impressive, and only a few people will spot that the sentence is essentially meaningless. There is also no reference here, so it’s not just meaningless, it’s baseless too. If more water vapor existed up on high, it would act as a powerful greenhouse gas and that would change the lapse rate. It’s plain silly to pretend that the moist adiabatic lapse rate has got nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.
The attempt to throw in meterological jargon is either a naked grab to confuse the uninformed, or a sad reflection on the depth of the debate outside skeptical circles. Then watch the contradiction: First they say that “it’s a misconception that the hot spot is a signature of the greenhouse effect– it’s not”. Then they say the hot spot is caused by any surface warming and “is not unique to the greenhouse effect”. Are you feeling informed? Apparently the hot spot is not due to the greenhouse effect, and at the same time it’s also not unique to the greenhouse effect. Which is it then?
Let’s be clear, the hot spot is due (in climate model simulations) to an array of effects. According to the IPCC, the main feedback and most powerful greenhouse gas is water vapor. Another form of feedback is water vapor condensing and dumping latent heat, and then there’s clouds which also contribute. Read AR4, Chapter 8, page 632.
What matters to everyone on earth is that, regardless of what is supposed to cause the hot spot, there is no hotspot, so the climate just isn’t doing what the models predicted. The models are wrong about feedbacks and the hotspot. Since the only “evidence” of impending cataclysm comes from models, it’s time to worry about something else. Wait twenty years — maybe the models will have evolved by then and won’t be so outrageously wrong.
Deception by any other name
Page 3 of the Guide: “Once these effects are taken into account the weather balloon data does find a hot spot above the tropics”.
Wait a minute – you mean, it’s not important, it’s not due to the greenhouse effect, and it’s caused by everything, and actually it’s not missing in any case?! Why didn’t you just say so? Why indeed. Because it’s just more bluster, and even the pro-catastrophe team aren’t convinced. The only reference we get is Sherwood et al 2008, which I explain in full here.
Sherwood doesn’t claim to have found the holy-grail-hot-spot, though he put in a superhuman effort to do just that. He “improved the trend”, but since it started off as the opposite trend to what they’d expected, he hasn’t even pushed it into definitively “positive” territory (and that’s if you accept all those alterations done years after the data came in).
Then, for decorative effect, the Guide shows the graph which wins the prize for the most deceptive scale in the world of global warming. Remember the only relevant feature of this graph is the trend from the surface to the 150-350 hPa height in the center. If they found the hot-spot they would have found a big zone where it was warming twice as fast as the surface, smack over the tropics around 200Hpa. Only it isn’t. It’s all red, but is it 3 degrees, 2 degrees, 1 degree or flat zero?! Is it warmer than the surface, or cooler? From this graph: who can tell?
The “Guide” to confusion. There is no hot-spot here, the label (Cook’s) is in the wrong place, that one faint brown square is too low to qualify. Sherwood didn’t find the hot spot.
It gets worse. The hotspot (that doesn’t matter, right?) is actually mislabeled on the graph over the one weakly brown-red square there is — but the altitude is too low and the area too small. The real hot spot would cover about 8-12 of those squares and it would start at 150 hPa. (See the original graph in A above.) So the graph we see tells us what we already knew from other better sources, that there is a pattern which might be due to CO2’s direct effects, but there are no visible signs of positive feedback from water vapor so we aren’t going to get more than a single dribbling degree-celsius of warming over 200 years.
Point 2: The Ice Cores and the Theoretical Amplification
It works for every Earth-like planet that doesn’t have any water.
Cook doesn’t show the damning ice core graph I use. Instead there’s just the usual poster-boy generic this-is-how-greenhouse-gases work schematic. The reply “bk bk bk” comes to mind. Then look for the grade-school science project logic: “So warming causes more CO2, and more Co2 causes more warming. Put these two together and you get positive feedback.” Sure, that works for every Earth-like planet without water. Let’s pretend we don’t have oceans, rivers, clouds, rain or humidity.
In a watery Earth-world you only get positive feedback as a NET thing if water doesn’t rise up, make a few extra low clouds and rain on your parade. Darn. Remember how the hot spot is still missing? How no one can find it no matter how many adjustments they make? That’s the (total) feedback, and most of it is due to humidity. So this idea that we can explain all the parts of the ice core graphs that don’t quite add up, rests on the assumption that there is net positive feedback. (Got any evidence? Didn’t think so.)
Sure, CO2 on it’s own is a positive feedback, but it’s insignificant, piddling and not the elephant in the kitchen compared to the water-related feedbacks. Remember, temperatures cause the uptick, and temperatures cause the downtick. CO2 might do a little bit of “boostering” in the middle, but when there is a big climate shift, CO2 doesn’t seem to have much to do with causing it.
Saying that the ice cores show evidence of (insert trumpet) “A Climate Feedback” ignores the point that what matters is NET climate feedbacks, not just one minor component of the total feedback. The assumption that CO2 is powerful is loaded into every paragraph. CO2 “Explains” dramatic changes in temperature. No sir. We know temperatures control carbon, because the oceans give it up as they warm, so we’d be shocked if there was no past correlation. The past correlation is “consistent” with carbon following temperatures.
Less Heat is escaping to space?
Yet again, here’s another paper that sort of supports the 1.2°C rule. This might show some direct greenhouse effect but it tells us nothing about the feedbacks. I’ve added the original caption to the graph which the “Guide” did not: “Component of simulated spectrum due to trace gas changes only.” In other words, they used a model to draw out and remove what they reckoned are the emissions due to water-vapor.
Everything the trace gases might do can be out-done by the most important greenhouse gas that is omitted from this graph. Sure CO2 might be absorbing IR, but if water vapor changes to allow more energy to escape at other bands, then it’s not going to warm the planet much. Not Net.
Let’s ignore water vapor OK? The “Guide” doesn’t list the original caption: “component of simulated spectrum due to trace gas changes only. Brightness temperature on the ordinate indicates equivalent blackbody brightness temperature.”
John Daly described how the the results from the Harries 2001 paper were weak, and the only significant result was due to methane in any case and not CO2. Daly also found a media report where Harries said:
“There is no evidence in the report on whether or not the surface temperature of the Earth is actually rising. Harries said this is because the greenhouse effect could start a climate cycle that forms more clouds, keeping more of the Sun’s rays from reaching Earth.“
ie. Harries himself acknowledges that his paper can’t tell us much about whether minor greenhouse gases will make much difference to the world’s temperature. David Stockwell at Niche Modelling also had some interesting thoughts on this paper. See the AGW Smoking Gun article for more info on this. (Thanks to Cohenite).
Point 3: Is our Surface Temperature Record Ok?
Once again, the Guide won’t show you the photos of thermometers above asphalt, lest you are part of the 90% of the population that know that it’s a dumb place to put a thermometer. Cook doesn’t deny that thermometers are next to air-conditioners. Instead he claims that (by implication) it doesn’t matter that we’re measuring the global temperature next to hot tarmacs because:
- We compared good and bad stations and they’re both warming. Here “good” and “bad” become meaningless – when most of the data is adjusted and then homogenized, and when even remote rural sites often have poor siting just like the city ones do, this is like comparing two bowls of fruit salad which are both full of brown mouldy fruit. NOAA didn’t do a site survey of each site. They’re not comparing the original raw data. We’re looking for changes of around 0.2 degrees a decade and they want us to believe that a thermometer next to an exhaust fan doesn’t matter? (Read Anthony Watts page for more info).
- If we compare surface records to satellite ones, the surface ones have risen more than the satellite ones have since 1979. Again, they don’t show the graph that I did — which was measured from a 1979 baseline, and shows that most of the time the surface data records have higher anomalies than the satellite records.
- The Guide tells you that records have been broken lately, but doesn’t tell you that’s due to a record El Nino. The same crowd howl at skeptics who mention 1998 (and I’m not one of them BTW) the last big El-Nino year, then shamelessly use the latest El Nino year (2010) themselves.
- The Skeptics Handbook explains why evidence for global warming tells us nothing about what caused the warming, but the authors of the Guide for the Gullible can’t resist — they have to mention sea levels, ice sheets and glaciers, thus proving they don’t understand “cause and effect”. Point 3 in the handbook was about grave concerns with surface thermometers that supposedly measure fractions of a degree, yet the authors of the Guide think we are so silly we’ll believe those thermometers next to warm sewage ponds are accurate because some glaciers have melted? (I didn’t realize glaciers were calibrated to a fraction of a degree?)
Where are the quantitative arguments? We skeptics are trying to debate the finer details (like 1.2 degrees versus 3.5 degrees) and all the fan-club respond with is “it’s warming, it’s warming” — as if any number above zero will do. Try reading this concept with a straight face: Thermometers over hot car-parks are accurate because we know species are migrating to the poles.
It’s “man made”, but it’s not CO2
Here’s another non-sequiteur to support the idea that it doesn’t matter how badly the thermometers are placed.
Nights warming more than days could be caused by the urban heat island effect.
Sure the “greenhouse effect” works day and night, but cloud cover also warms us at night while it can cool us during the day, and the urban heat island effect is an excellent candidate to raise night time temperatures. The sheer growth of cities, with vast areas of concrete that act as heat-sinks through the day, and release that heat at nighttime, keep things much warmer after dark.
As Cohenite points out in comments, daily minimum temps are not a record of night time temperatures in any case since they are usually set when the sun is up, 6 – 9 am.
Once again, the double standards abound. Even though their team (The CCSP) called the pattern with a hot spot a “fingerprint”, one-eyed critics howl that it’s not unique (after they didn’t find it), then they offer 4 fingerprints, none of which inform us about the feedback effects, and some of which aren’t even unique anyhow. We’re looking for the fingerprint of the positive feedback.
Point 4: “Carbon dioxide is already absorbing almost all it can”
The “debunkers” of The Skeptics Handbook do all they can not to discuss the points I actually made. In my point 4 I merely describe the obvious point that CO2’s effect is logarithmic, or declining, which the IPCC and their climate modelers completely agree with. I don’t claim it’s “saturated”, because no log curve ever flattens out entirely.
The Guide for the Gullible pretends this is black and white, and sort of suggest that I talked about Venetian blinds (which I didn’t), and that I said it was saturated (when I said it was almost…). If he cut and pasted, he’d have to discuss what I actually said instead of attacking things someone else might have said sometime, somewhere.
The Skeptics Handbook says:
“Every CO2 molecule will increase warming ad infinitum, but it has less effect than the CO2 that’s already up there”.
The Guide ignores the point yet again, and just says effectively that Humans emit of a lot of CO2, and its all adding to the warming. Which is exactly like I what I said, but with less information. They call this “debunking”? She’s right, but we’re vaguer?
Then they need to throw in another meaningless graph:
Another irrelvant graph telling us the obvious
It all looks so fancy and “scientific” eh? But what does Wang mean? Figure it out — if the atmosphere warmed and it didn’t emit more IR, we’d be shocked. Once again, the graph tells us what we already know, that there are more minor greenhouse gases up there, and that the atmosphere has warmed. But it doesn’t give us information about the climate feedbacks. It doesn’t tell us whether there will be a disaster in 35 years time.
Wang says: “The rising trend results from increases in air temperature, atmospheric water vapor, and CO2 concentration.”
There is no mention of the altitude of water-vapor in this study. So it won’t tell us if there is more humidity higher up. It’s the upper troposphere which is important.
Carbon on it’s own causes 1 measly paltry pathetic degree of warming if carbon doubles. If feedbacks are negative, which Douglass, Spencer, and Lindzen show from three independent data sources, then the world will warm by around half a degree over 200 years. Carbon dioxide could well be warming the planet, but the entire quantitative effect is not worth worrying about. And yes, I’m aware of criticisms of Lindzen and Choi, but I’ve seen the update for 2010, and the results still suggest feedback is negative.
That’s why the numbers matter so much. 1 is not “broadly consistent” with 3.
UWA will need to address the use of it’s logo in a document so scientifically weak, and it would help if the document listed an author for credibility and accountability.*
The last word?
“The Guide says: Global Warming skepticism often focuses on narrow pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the full picture”
Too rich. The full picture is that the IPCC and western governments want to push our sweat, tears and money into something that they call “90% certain”, and “well backed by science”. Yet unbacked bloggers can point out flaws that four Professors, and three assistant Profs, don’t have any good answers to (Dr Glikson didn’t have an answer either). The simulations of disaster depend on assumptions that the empirical evidence does not support. Evidence for 1 degree is not evidence for 3.
REFERENCES
Alexander 2006: Global observed changes in daily climate extremes of temperature and precipitation, Journal Of Geophysical Research, Vol. 111, D05109, p22 [abstract]
Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer. 2007. A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology, DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651. [Abstract]
Hansen, J., et al., 1984: Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms. In: Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity [Hansen, J.E., and T. Takahashi (eds.)]. Geophysical Monographs Vol. 29, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp. 130–163. [abstract]
Harries, J.E., Brindley, H.E., Sagoo, P.J., and Bantgesin, R.J.: Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001) [abstract]
IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8. [PDF]
Lindzen, R. S., and Y.-S. Choi (2009), On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L16705, doi:10.1029/2009GL039 [abstract, PDF]
McIntyre, S. McKitrick, R.: An updated comparison of model ensemble and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere [PDF] (Submitted to the International Journal of Climatology, 2009)
Sherwood, S. Meyer, C.L., Allen, R, J. 2008: Robust Tropospheric Warming Revealed by Iteratively Homogenized Radiosonde Data, Journal of Climate Vol 21, page 5336 [PDF]
Spencer, R.W., Braswell, W.D., Christy, J.R., Hnilo, J., 2007. Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations. Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L15707, doi:10.1029/2007/GL029698. [PDF]
Wang et al, 2009: Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres [abstract]
Thanks to Lubos, Cohenite, DE, Michael Hammer for checks, suggestions and links.
* Update: The pdf guide has listed John Cook as the author, (thanks to Roy for noticing). Presumably the omission was just an oversight in the first printed version, and it’s good to see it’s fixed. I have made small changes to the post where I formerly referred to an anonymous author.
** Update 2: Upon reflection, it changes the flavour of things to know the authors name, rather than respond to a “collective”, so I also made a few more cosmetic edits before I did the big email notification.
Well done Jo. I knew you were going to pull this to bits yourself:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/the-great-leap-forward-professors-et-al-realize-they-need-to-talk-about-evidence-instead-of-insults
Comment @ 274.
It was all too easy 😉
Once again Bulldust, thanks for that link.
41
Well done, Jo Nova. Your rebuttal work will add to the ammunition already provided by your invaluable Handbook.
Re the warming nights hypothesis. The best place to test this would seem to be desert areas, where the air is very often relatively dry (thereby leaving the so-called greenhouse effect more to the CO2). No such warming was found for an Arizona weather station reported on here:
http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/Tombstone.htmA
72
Jo:
There are none blinder than those that don’t want to see.
70
Robyn Williams on The Science Show is still backing GW. The latest edition features an interview with Stephen Schneider, who says that ‘three or four’ errors were found in the IPCC report.
It’s the presenter’s introduction, however, that really takes the biscuit.
In May a letter from 255 top American scientists was sent to the journal Science saying that they were disturbed by assaults on their integrity and the McCarthy-like nature of the attacks.
As if these ‘assaults’ came unprovoked and out of the blue!
41
Congratulation, Jo! You have been damn glorified to a live Arch Devil by the Carbonari Religionists and they write exorcism handbooks to exorcize you from the readers. 🙂
Provide us with your portrait with horns, please!
31
Their idea that warm nights are increasing is garbage. I can spend a day in a desert at some 40C and freeze at night. Proof that it’s not CO2 but water vapour retaining the heat (a night clear of clouds has the same CO2 content). We’ve known this as children. Why is it that 99% of species live round the tropical equator? It’s warmer, and therefore more conducive to life.
42
It’s not relevant but…
A humble Excel Macro is better in climatic change explanations then the IPCC model for billions of corrupt money if you use the Excel on solar and PDO data.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/05/spotting-the-solar-regime-shifts-driving-earths-climate/#comment-423322
32
One is tempted to agree with the maxim that those who can’t do teach. What a motley crew, from such a disparate range of disciplines, who have put their names to that implausible nonsense.
I noticed there was one mathematician amongst them. He would have been more useful to the cause had he been able to prove McIntyre was in error say re the “hockey stick”. It really confirms one’s suspicion that, at present, climatology, particularly of the AGW genre, is a very underdeveloped almost science with a lot of poorly equipped expositors. The earth climate system is apparently just a little too complex and thus too difficult for these great thinkers to get a handle on…at least a scientifically and logically consistent one.
Thank you for that rather complete demolition of their “science”.
31
Very nice, Joanne! You’re like an Amazon warrior except that science is your key weapon.
I hope you will agree that it shouldn’t happen in an ideal “institutionalized” world that a woman like yourself beats a group of profs and those who view themselves as their peers – but that’s exactly what happened.
It seems likely that those people are fooling not just others but also themselves. There’s a problem with the altitude/latitude fingerprint and they always permute and confuse things until that they’re ready to believe that the reader will be confused and won’t assign any importance to the wrongly predicted fingerprint. But they must know it’s wrong.
More generally, they must know that they don’t have any evidence that the sensitivity exceeds the no-feedback figure – no evidence for the high warming or for positive feedbacks. But they jump into repetitious circles in which they offer evidence for much more modest and less problematic statements – statements that don’t imply what they want to prove – and try to push the reader to think that they have proved much more – although they must know very well that they haven’t.
The same thing is true for the direction of the causal relationship. They must know that the glaciation cycles exhibit correlation because the temperature influenced the concentrations of gases. The effect in the opposite direction is likely to exist – for theoretical reasons – but it’s so small that one can’t find any evidence for it in the ice core records themselves. Again, they try to make the reader forget the important insight about the direction of the causal relationship. In fact, they’re trying to make themselves forget about this inconvenient truth – and all others.
Their lack of integrity is just annoying. By the way, exactly what they (mostly unjustly) say about the skeptics is true about them: they’re trying to keep a debate about about questions that are completely settled and there’s no doubt about them – e.g. that the ice core correlation is explained by the influence of temperature on CO2, and not the other way around, and that with the available data, one can’t make any valid temperature reconstruction in the last 1000 years that would prove an unprecedented change in the 20th century.
They always hope that a sufficient number of the laymen will remain confused in the fog of their illogical comments and they will keep on nurturing their fear because it’s the irrational fear that those people are living from.
70
I looked at the pamphlet and was reminded of the phrase:
There are far too many people at UWA who seek to have failed to comprehend the simple instructions displayed in the motto with UWA’s coat of arms: SEEK WISDOM. ISTM that the coat of arms is instead being used as a symbol of authority.
A translation of the latin the upper part of the coat of arms:
To the right (Sciences): “non nisi parendo vincitur” “Nature is only mastered by obedience to her laws”
51
Jo
(Warm nights are more likely due to the urban heat island effect, which is compounded by putting thermometers next to exhaust vents — that was my point. We can’t trust these thermometers.)
Didn’t Anthony Watts demonstrate that temperature rise in a given “climate” station over the latter 20th century could be correlated to population in the region? The more populous climate stations showed the fastest temperature rise. Whatever caused this effect, it sure isn’t “global” warming.
Thanks for your time and effort – you’re busy enough as it is!
Cheers,
Speedy
51
We should not be surprised. Too many of these so-called ‘profs’ are in it up to their necks in deliberate political posturing using bad science as the motive force. Fortunately there is an ever increasing fount of sound information that is gradually changing attitudes. Making a u-turn is not a pleasant process for intelligent people especially if it is in public. I have a kind of sympathy for them as such a big error might cause them to question their other research papers. Keeping one’s head down is not a bad attitude. Here in the UK Zac Goldsmith has had the sense and decency to keep quiet on the issue of AGW although he is sound on a significant number of subjects.
30
A riddle from the (near) future:
Q: What did Michael Mann say to Steve McIntyre?
A: Would you like fries with that, sir?
Cheers,
Speedy
40
front page article The Guardian (UK) – 5th July 2010
print edition headline below:
Climategate has changed us for the better, say scientists
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/04/climatechange-hacked-emails-muir-russell
highlights: (particularly, for me, the recognisation of my issues with computer models)
Guardian:
“But greater openness and engagement with their critics will not ensure that climate scientists have an easier time in future, warns Hulme. Back in the lab, a new generation of more sophisticated computer models is failing to reduce the uncertainties in predicting future climate, he says – rather, the reverse. “This is not what the public and politicians expect, so handling and explaining this will be difficult
“Jones seems genuinely repentant, and has been completely open and honest about what has been done and why… speaking with humility about the uncertainty in the data sets,” she said.”
Guardian:
“The climate scientist most associated with efforts to reconciling warring factions, Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said the idea of IPCC scientists as “self-appointed oracles, enhanced by the Nobel Prize, is now in tatters“. The outside world now sees that “the science of climate is more complex and uncertain than they have been led to believe“.
Guardian:
“Roger Pielke Jr of the University of Colorado agreed that “the climate science community, or at least its most visible and activist wing, appeared to want to go back to waging an all-out war on its perceived political opponents”.
I have been on the recieving end of some of certain activists vitriol, ie the ‘foot soldiers’ who can only parrot, quotes from how to treat a sceptic propaganda, fed to them. It has not been pleasant, in my local community (transitions towns), online, public meetings.
I can agree with 95% of the content of the article.. (and I’ve been blocked by the Guardian from commenting, Realclimate are part of their environment network, so I’m not exactly the Guardians biggest fan. Especialy George Monbiots vitriol)
I have received comments put out in the mainstream media, TV, radio, press, like ‘ flat earther’ or ‘anti science’, or ‘climate sabatouer’, ‘deniar’, from UK, Ministers of State, Prime Ministers, and journalists, for anyone even raising the above topics, and insisting that they are an issue.
I, for the last 8 months, have received abuse, called all sorts of names, had my motivations questioned, my mental state questioned, had green peace threats (we know where you live’ ) had people walk away from me in public meetings. Just for saying what about,this, questioning the certainties, questioning the IPCC inaccuracies, questioning the acts designed to ’close down any debate’, questioning the believe in computer models vs real data..
By some of the people in that article (ie Bob Ward, Watson), who have completely changed ther ‘message’ without any apparent shame.
This article is a victory for all science. Let us, all forget about ‘post normal science.
Thanks to Judith Curry for her patience, particulary if she read any of my longer comments and for a number of her comments, particulary, for all of comment 48# in the link below (choice highlights)
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/17/some-spicy-curry/
“One element of scientific integrity is when to speak up vs when to stay silent.
The Georgia Tech students and alumni expected me to speak out on this issue When others failed to speak up, I felt that I needed to step up to the plate.”
“I have actually found the people who habituate the technical skeptical blogs and their proprietors to be much more open minded than most of the “warmist” blogs.”
“So how do we proceed from here? We need some open, rational discourse on a range of topics from openness and transparency in the science, improvements to the assessment process, a dialogue on an expanded range of policy options, the politics of climate science, improved communications, etc.”
Anybody here going to the Guardians public meeting, 14th July,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/30/guardian-debate-climate-science-emails
it would be nice to say hello. it sounds like it could actually be very positive, instead of ‘dismiss’ the sceptic, that maybe I was expecting.
Steve Mcintyre is going I believe and Latimer Alder who has commented here.
10
Thanks again for your efforts Jo. Hopefully you will help steer Australia away from very damaging economic action and encourage more direct and relevant action in support of our environment. Hopefully when that happens your contribution will be remembered and recognised by the Australian Awards Council.
51
I half suspect that these unskeptical handbooks are just a limbering-up for the forthcoming AR5 they will have to write. Can you imagine what they will write in the future rubbish? That will have to be an encyclopedia of unskeptical handbooks.
31
A masterful piece of work, Jo! We owe you again for your dedication to the cause. Thank you!
I notice this morning (California time) that the guide says it was written by John Cook and lists additional contributors by name.
I tried to cut and past the relevant part but it didn’t work.
In any case, perhaps you shamed them into identifying themselves.
—–
Thanks Roy. I’ve updated the post. I’m glad to see that the authorship in the pdf has been fixed. I don’t know how many copies were printed, but maybe it was not a lot? — JN
41
Another one of your excellent forensic take-downs Joanne.
How the AGW alarmists must have fumed for those 21 months, having your ‘Skeptic’s Handbook’ quoted at them. And then, to come up with (eventually) such an lame attack and without even a named author to be held to account.
Keep up the great work you’re doing.
31
I don’t know what to make of this.
Maybe somebody with more experience in getting something meaningful out of statistics can explain. The highlighted sentence of the abstract indicates to me that the signal is indistinguishable from “noise”.
50
Thanks to Roy for noticing there is an author (Cook) in the Pdf, so I’ve updated the post.
Bernd made a pdf copy of the printed acknowledgements page, so for the sake of preserving the original, it’s here. Thanks Bernd. Anthony Watts emailed a copy too. Gracias.
30
Looks like John has got you biting well. But but but but ….
Well the Watt’s pensioner scaring tour is over so I guess it’s back to recycling.
21
The picture of the Skeptic’s Handbook, missed by explosions reminds me of my Humvee missed by car bombs in Baghdad
Unfortunately, these were suicide car bombs and the only thing they accomplished was innocent bystanders getting killed
There’s a very sad analogy here with what the authors of the Scientific Guide to the Skeptic’s Handbook have accomplished
30
Bernd Felsche 19:
If a time series are analyzed then they usually try to find it there is a self-similarity (autocorrelation). If they find it they decompose it into periodical (seasonal) and trend component plus fluctuation residuum. The following graph shows Scafetta decomposition of the time series of global temperature into seasons and trend without fluctuation.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/scafetta_fig12.png?w=540&h=716
Also if you have a trend you could want to know whether the trend is just a coincidence or the trends in the separate parts of the raw are similar each to other. (You virtually always can find a trend but you don’t know whether it is a result of a law-governed or by chance behavour.) They apparently have made the similarity tests of the partial sub-trends finding the similarity is much weaker in compare to random fluctuation in their comparison. Then the trend is probably more driven by chance then by some law-governed, though, a weak signal under strong noise may be presented. If there is a signal, the signal must be fitted with a polynomial of high power.
30
Geee … with all of this “science” going on I do wish the planet would hurry up and stop warming. 😉
10
Brendon,
I wish it would hurry up and warm a bit. For the 4th straight year I’m having colder than normal weather and I don’t particularly like it.
I realize that it’s just weather, not climate so don’t get too excited.
31
Adolf Balik 23:
Thanks for your comments. I’m not yet sufficiently confused to understand them fully. 🙂
I’ll need to sleep on them and look again in a different light.
10
Ms Nova:
Congratulations on your efforts so far.
As WW2 bomber pilots said;
“You know when you are over the target because that is when you get a lot of flak”.
Keep hitting them! And recognise your success is indicated by the number of surreal responses you get like that of ‘Brendan’ at #24.
Richard
30
In response to your point 1 regarding the hot spot. The IPCC report, in section 9.2.2 specifically stated that
“Solar forcing results in a general warming of the atmosphere (Figure
9.1a) with a pattern of surface warming that is similar to that
expected from greenhouse gas warming, but in contrast to the
response to greenhouse warming, the simulated solar-forced
warming extends throughout the atmosphere (see, e.g., Cubasch…”
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf
In contrast, Roy Spencer stated that the “hot spot” is NOT a signature of anthropogenic global warming, but would be true of natural fluctuations also.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/10/hotspots-and-fingerprints/
By copping out on the “hot spot” argument and claiming it’s all due to water vapor, “Skeptical Science” is conceding Roy Spencer’s point in his attack on section 9.2.2 of the IPCC report.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm
20
Felsche, I communicated with the authors of similar random walk modeling of temperature data, the authors were located in China.
They showed that there is a random walk that reproduces measured temperature data over a 50-some year span that was recorded in some cities.
They didn’t show there was a higher probability that the temperature data were more likely to be the result of a Markov chain of measurements than there being some statistically significant reason for an observed rise in temperature over the periods.
For that, they would have to define a metric to measure the maximum differences between stochastic modeling and the measured results, from which they could infer a probability that there was no statistically significant reason for the observed temperature rise
40
Very nice Jo, Thanks for this guide to understand that Unskeptical guide.
One thing I didn’t understand was that “trick” (I mean as a clever thing to do…) to remove “the heating of balloons in sunlight”, if there is a hot spot that previously wasn’t there, they should measure a difference without this trick, wouldn’t they?.
Another thing is that claim that there is a direct relationship between temperature and wind shear.
I have some experience with ultrasonic anemometers that work under the physical principle of measuring the time it takes a sound to travel between an “speaker”, and the “microphone”, that time depends on temperature of the media (air), and it’s velocity (wind speed), thus, somehow you can measure both with the same sensor.
As this principle has no thermal inertia, you can have quick changes in the temperature, wich I think it could be a nice feature to have for a balloon traveling fast upwards.
Could they refer to this? or there is indeed that relationship? (any sources?)
See: http://www.thiesclima.com/ultrasonic%20anemometer_e.html
20
Alan McIntire:
At #28 you get embroiled in the debate as to whether the ‘hot spot’ is a unique ‘fingerprint’ of AGW or is induced by global warming from any cause. I keep pointing out that the debate is a (usually deliberate) distraction from the fact that – in either case – the absence of the ‘hot spot’ is an indication that there has been no AGW for the last 50 years.
The IPCC and the CCSP each assert that different causes of warming cause different spatial patterns of warming throughout the atmosphere. They each show – from model studies – that the ‘hot spot’ is induced by enhanced concentrations of greenhouse gases (i.e. AGW) and NOT by other sources of warming. This ‘hot spot’ consists of warming happening at ~10km altitude in the tropics at 2 to 3 times the warming at the surface in the tropics. So, the IPCC and the CCSP both say the ‘hot spot’ is a “greenhouse signature” (as Ms Nova reports in her ‘handbook’).
As you say, some others (including Roy Spencer) assert that the ‘hot spot’ would result from global warming whatever the cause of that warming. But so what?
That elevated warming in the tropics has not happened. This is indicated for the last 50 years by radiosondes mounted on weather balloons and for since 1979 (when the first pertinent satellites were launched) by MSU mounted on satellites. The balloon and satellite data show good agreement.
So, which is it that people want to assert?
(a) as the IPCC says, the ‘hot spot is a signature of warming from enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations (i.e. AGW) so its absence indicates there has been no global warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations for the last 50 years?
or
(b) as some others say, the ‘hot spot is a signature of warming from any cause so its absence indicates there has been no global warming from any cause for the last 50 years?
But (a) is included in (b), so in either case the indication is that there has been NO warming caused by AGW for the last 50 years.
And that is the importance of the ‘hot spot’.
Richard
20
Thanks for getting this done so quickly Jo – it’s great to have something detailed, but nevertheless clear and easy to follow that we can refer to when claims are made that you have been ‘debunked’. Best wishes.
30
The Guardian also can be interesting.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/04/climatechange-hacked-emails-muir-russell
The most interesting is the last paragraph. I read it in this way: “Now, when the damn skeptics watch us and the public believes them, no one dare make a new politically ordered IPCC prediction.”
10
Bernd Felsche @ 19: The highlighted sentence of the abstract indicates to me that the signal is indistinguishable from “noise”.
That is what it means to me too. If the “noise” exceeds the trend (aka signal), the trend cannot be distinguished from noise except by wish, hope, faith, and fraud.
In ALL cases of empirical non-repeatable noisy time series, the signal must exceed the RMS noise by a good margin (approximately a factor of 2 depending upon details) before you can know you have a signal let alone the shape or cause of the signal.
That is unless you have created the time series data. In which case, its quite repeatable and you already know what the signal part is because you injected it. By the way, that’s what simulations do. They create a clean signal time series, a clean noise time series and then sum them to create the output time series. Surprise(!?) They can detect the trend.
My question for such situation has always been, “If you already know the answer, why are you looking for it by using all that expensive equipment and people? Why not cut to the chase and simply write the report?” The most typical answer was some form of “We can’t do that, we have to look like we actually did something.” Meaning “we play let’s pretend, our managers play let’s pretend, and the people who fund us play let’s pretend. So far we have been getting away with it.”
Almost makes you want to run away and live on a deserted south pacific island. At least the crabs are honest crabs.
31
Jo, great post! I hope I never get on your intellectual “bad side”! 🙂
Brendon:
July 6th, 2010 at 1:39 am
Geee… with the AGW hypothesis so thoroughly debunked it amazes me that the proponents of the hypothesis still do not seem to realize that there has been no statistical warming in the last 15 years!
Seriously, Brendon, you can do better than a glib “drive by”‘ can’t you?
30
Richard S Courtney: #31
Nice explanation, Richard. Thank you.
40
Over at EUReferendum, Dr Richard North has managed to get the WWF Director of Communications (Climate Change Program), Nick Sundt, to state what their definition of the scientific method is:
I translate this to mean, “We start by choosing an arbitrary position and then if somebody complains about the details, we change that position to address their concerns, and in the meantime we look for further evidence to improve our estimates, until we finally reach another arbitrary position to which everybody who is interested can either agree, or give up in disgust”.
And this dear friends, is how the new scientific consensus happens.
Note: This comment was originally submitted, as #350, to the original post on this thread: “The Great Leap Forward. …”. I have repeated it here because I believe it to be relevant to this discussion. I apologise if etiquette is offended.
40
‘Well the Watt’s pensioner scaring tour is over’~ yes butt
Well, I realize ‘yes butt’ is likely a drive-by non-seqitur, but I have to wonder: how Does one scare people by telling them the world is not ending due to humans breathing?
40
Well done Joanne – as expected.
You made the comment : “either a naked grab to confuse the uninformed, or a sad reflection on the depth of the debate outside skeptical circles.”
I must say that was my reaction to the discussion with Dr Glikson. It appears these academics only converse with those with a similar view to theirs, just as Robyn Williams and Philip Adams only interview Stephen Schneider and ignore Anthony Watts or David Archibald who could have offered the alternative view.
30
so it’s “Yes but” now Lukey boy 🙂
No one was scaring the pensioners, they were informing the pensioners of the BS that surrounds AGW and putting their minds at rest.
20
janama –
and philip adams has always prided himself on belonging to the skeptics society or whatever it is called! u have to laugh.
it would be interesting to know how many ABC listeners/viewers have abandoned the taxpayer-funded broadcaster because of their CAGW advocacy.
30
Have a look at this ABC “survey”
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/survey/
I strongly suspect that this is a means of vetting participants/audience for a forthcoming ABC Q&A session on climate change. You can bet that the audience mix will certainly NOT reflect the distribution of attitudes to (C)AGW.
I would be pleasantly surprised if I were wrong on that count.
30
The runaway positive feedback due to water vapour, was always a bridge too far. Most people who start to look past the headlines, and into the science get to this point, and say nnaarr.
Its shame really because it the amount of money that has been spent, was spent on actually understanding how our climate system works including all the variable inputs. We may actually start to move towards genuinely useful long-range weather forecast.
11
pat @ 41 – I’m one who has left Philip Adam’s radio program – I used to listen to him regularly but his blinkered vision on GW is just pathetic and it clouds his whole thinking IMO. I can no longer listen to him.
30
Jo,
Another point.
Cloud cover NEVER crosses the equator from the individual hemispheres. A simple observing of http://www.intelliweather.com/imagesuite_specialty.htm
This shows due to rotation, it is impossible to have all global science lumped into a single planetary act. The hemispheres are individual.
10
35Eddy Aruda: July 6th, 2010 at 6:02 am writes
Sure. I can also do better than to cherry pick a particular year and claim there’s been no statistical warming.
Temp data from 1850 onwards shows a long term rise in surface temperatures.
But even if we did look at your cherry picked “last 15 years”, which way does the temp go?
UPWARDS!
It amazes me how there’s still some people that look at this and say there’s been no warming.
12
Ah Jo
Perfect 50% of the time, Brilliant the remaining 50%
20
Thanks again Jo for an excellent summary. One part-timer beats how many full-time profs and associates now?
They can’t find the Hot Spot and it is a travesty that they can’t…
30
The advocates of AGW have always been reluctant to state their own case in detail. Instead, they started out by offering highly simplified explanations and bare assertions. When challenged over details, they addressed these details in isolation. When publications such as your Skeptics’ Handbook appeared, they turned their criticism to these. All along they have acted like a debating team taking the ‘negative’ side, attacking the other team’s arguments but never presenting their own case.
The greenhouse analogy was questionable from the start. A century ago, Svante Arrhenius said that a greenhouse “traps heat” by allowing shorter wavelengths in but stopping the longer waves re-radiated by the ground. The AGW mob seize on this and say that the atmosphere does the same, and that its ability to stop outgoing heat increases with the concentration of certain gases. But experiment shows that a greenhouse actually works by preventing heat loss through convection: it holds in the warmed air, and most importantly does this at night. Greenhouse gardeners have always understood this when they control temperature by opening ventilators in the top of a greenhouse roof to let out some of the warmed air.
UWA’s publication is a tie-in with the recent Perth Forum on Climate Change. Of that, John Cook has shamelessly admitted:
So this is outside the field of climate science, outside the field of any of the physical sciences, even outside politics now. Instead it’s the game of the “cognitive scientists”, ie the psychs. Well, for years I’ve been following and helping to expose the junk science in that field. At various times the psychs have promoted electric shock, osmotic shock, random removal of brain tissue, deep sedation, and a wide range of drugs to treat “mental illnesses” of their own definition. Often, as in Soviet USSR, they were part of the political system and defined political dissidence as mental illness. More recently they are allied to the pharmaceutical industry and promote wide-scale drug use for poorly defined conditions such as ADHD. Somehow, they seem to have a lot in common with the global warmists.
40
This is off topic, but I’m posting it here because it is very important and I don’t want you to miss it:
It is the story of Matt and Janet Thompson of Narrogin, who should be well-known to the readers of this blog (yes, it’s that Janet – the one who organised/hosted the Narrogin Anthony Watts talk: banana cake, Speedy?!)
Green laws and a dead business
I’ve met Janet briefly at a couple of skeptics talks here in Perth and I knew of parts of their story but not the whole of it. Watch both videos and weep. I did, it’s hard not to.
Then as suggested at the end of the last video, get writing to your local member of parliament!
20
more comedy from Auntie:
5 July: ABC: Newcastle ship arrivals system reducing carbon emissions
Coal shipping queues are dropping off the coast of Newcastle, a month after the introduction of a new vessel arrivals system.
Port Corporation chief executive Gary Webb says ships can still head direct to Newcastle and take up a position off the coast, but they can now also book a place in the queue a week in advance.
Mr Webb says a high percentage of vessels are taking up the option, allowing them to save on fuel and reducing their carbon emissions…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/05/2945101.htm?site=newcastle§ion=news
10
maurice newman – where are you?
5 July: ABC: Keva Gocher: Rural Report – Biochar
Many hopes are being pinned on new technologies to deal with drought, climate change and reducing carbon emissions…
Federal parliamentarian Malcolm Turnbull is one of the people getting excited about the possibilities for bicohar.
Chemical engineer Adriana Downie of a company called Pacific Pyrolysis was at the S/E regions NSW farmers conference where Sarina Locke asked her about biochar and its possibilities…
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/regions/content/201007/2945566.htm?site=southeastnsw
ABC: Tasmanian farms are carbon sinks
A report from a Tasmanian environment group has found that farms store more carbon dioxide than they emit.
The Tamar Natural Resource Management (NRM) looked at the emissions from farms, and for the first time, at how much carbon is sequestered, or stored, on the land…
Mr Sauer (Tamar NRM chairman, Ian Sauer)says there needs to be a carbon market which farmers can participate in.
“People will be able to buy carbon credits from the farmers because clearly at the moment farmers are sequestering more than they’re emitting,” he said…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/05/2944796.htm
20
Ann-Kit:
I only watched a couple minutes but will have to watch the rest when I get home tonight. This sounds like it needs more exposure in the media. I wonder if any of the investigative journalist programs (I know, they are a rare breed these days) will be interested in running with this tragic story.
20
Anne-Kit @ 49
Very sad situation. It makes me think that being a rope salesman might become lucrative. Hopefully the criminals involved will be given a fair trial and then hanged.
30
Excellent work Jo. Clarity where there is obscurification.
30
Well done Jo. Your thorough responses have dragged out the false reasoning etc from the CAGW crowd. It must be clear to everyone now that CAGW is a false alarm.
30
Speedy @11:
Eureka! You’ve found the positive feedback mechanism, Speedy! Global warming causes people and people cause global warming. How could we have been so blind? 😉
20
Take a look at the Australian Age newspaper, page 10. The climategate email reviews are out tomorrow. It looks scathing…
The furore had laid bare “the seamy side of peer review and consensus building in the
IPCC assessment reports.”
As one quoted earlier…….the goose is cooked”.
30
Speedy: July 5th, 2010 at 11:35 pm
How many cities have grown in the ocean?
Using ocean surface temps we see a trend similar to that of land+ocean.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1900/to:2011/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1900/to:2011/trend
Bye bye UHIE!!
22
Brendon – you can chart the same using the HADCRUT3 Southern hemisphere temp anomaly and somehow it also shows a .7 degree warming trend yet the satellite record shows quite clearly that the SH has not warmed in the past 30 years since the satellites started recording it.
something’s wrong here and I think I can guess where it’s wrong 😉
30
sorry – I forgot the reference
http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20UAH%20TropicsAndExtratropicsMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
30
I have been going through the PDF and have a few questions (Apologies in advance if any of this has already been covered)
Section 1,
A, At first they state “the GH effect leaves a clear signiture in the atmosphere” and then prattle on about what you would expect to see.
They then confirm the hot spot has been found but then they go on to say it is a misconception that the hot spot is a signiture of the GH effect. So are they saying something else other than GHG are causing it or are they saying WV is not a GHG? Any help here would be appreciated.
B, They then discuss the Sat & balloon data when they say the balloons are heated by sunlight and once you take this into consideration the balloons can find the hot spot.
Now firstly i will assume they meant the radio sonde is heated by sun light not the balloon, now i will admit it has been about 6 years since i did the 7 day course with a Swedish guy named Hans from Visala but i cannot recall him ever mentioning a need to compensate the T part of the PTU measurements due to sun light. Mind you each sonde comes with its very own calibration data from the factory maybe it is in there and Hans did not feel the need to tell us about it.
Anyway i read on and discovered that they are using the GPS data to calculate the wind shear to verify the temp data…..funny i would have thought you would use the sat data, you know the same sats they mention at the beginning of the section but not anywhere else, strange….
Section 2,
Yes CO2 does cause warming but how much? Also a question for the more enlightened if there is a 800 year lag between Temp and CO2 then 2010 – 800 = 1210 can some one remind me when the MWP was?
I also read this, Temp goes up and 800 years later CO2 goes up (and now i quote) “The CO2 in the atmosphere amplified the original warming thats the +ve feed back”
What thats it!!! i feel like i have been promised a 3 course meal but have only got my entree. WHat i want to know and what they have failed to tell me is what happens when the +ve feed back raises the temps, according to what they have said this MUST cause more CO2 which in turn raises the temp and so on until the world is a qazillion degrees…Yes or did i miss something?
And then of course we have the typo “The CO2 record is entirely consistent with the warming effect of CO2” Shouldn’t that read “the temp record…” or is this another case of me misunderstanding?
Section 3,
Could you sum up this entire section with the TLA of UHI?
Section 4
Probably the most important section (well to me anyway) i have read this section many times and it still does not make sense so pleeeeese help me out here.
To my simple mind if you have OLR that interacts with the CO2 it creates heat thus we get GW, but of course CO2 can only do so much to cause GW (ie it has a log response) but now i am told that not only does the OLR cause GW in one layer but it also causes GW on multiple layers so we start off with a certain amount of OLR heat which gets multiplied over and over again as it goes through all the layers? Surely this is not correct i think once again i have misunderstood.
All in all i must say i am a little disappointed in this attempt.
Cheers
20
janama: July 6th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Your graph splits the data into three, NH, SH and the Tropics. If you divided the Tropics into two you probably find that your data will match up more closely with the data I provided, assuming your data is plotted correctly.
BTW, I was focusing on the Sea Surface Temp in order to show that the Urban Heat Island effect doesn’t apply here, yet we still see a global increase in temps.
BTW2, Why is it you wish to ignore the NH?
21
Looking at point 2 in the introduction, Jo says this:
“Satellites measure more heat being trapped by CO2. On top of this, ice cores find temperature affects the amount of CO2 in the air. So warming causes more CO2 and more CO2 causes warming. Put these two together and you get positive feedback. (Amplification is only a major force if the feedbacks are positive. See point one. It’s the totality of feedback that matters, and finding that one of the many individual feedbacks is positive says nothing about the total feedback.)
The idea that an initial slight warming from CO2 [even if true] caused more CO2 to be released ad in finitum has been refuted by this paper:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/abs/nature08769.html
It seems that CO2, like the rest of nature, is nowhere as sensitive as AGW makes out.
30
No, you are wrong Brendon; your WFT graph simply shows a combined trend where outliers have been removed by the OLS method; land and ocean are still going up slightly but there is a divergence as janama’s partition graphs show; the divergence between land and ocean temps are shown here:
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/3polyglobals.png
30
Brendon #62: “I was focusing on the Sea Surface Temp in order to show that the Urban Heat Island effect doesn’t apply here”
I think that is an unproven assumption. In fact I look at the UAH 25 year trend chart and I see patches of warming to the east and north of the most urbanising parts of the NH, yet no similar warm patches in the SH or the tropics where urbanisation has been less prevalent.
Now I would expect if the general movement of air in the troposphere and lower stratosphere is on average towards the east and towards the poles then UHI-heated air would move in that general direction over the sea and therefore contaminate SST. I’ve seen nothing to say that UHI is corrected for in the various SST series, yet I can’t see any reason why this reasoning should be wrong. Therefore my view is that there is something of a UHI signal in SST particularly in the NH.
This is further impacted by the sheer scale of the UHI effect which per Roy Spencer’s analysis is remarkably large, so much so that there’s very little warming signal left to CO2 once you truly correct for UHI. This is likewise backed up by the good quality rural sites in the US which (in the raw data) quite often show little or no warming in the last century.
30
Brendon:
July 6th, 2010 at 10:31 am
“It amazes me how there’s still some people that look at this and say there’s been no warming.”
No Brendan. What amazes – no astounds – me is that there are still some people who don’t realise that there has been warming since the little ice age and more so since the last real ice age. Anthropogenic CO2 has absolutely bugger all to do with natural climatic cycles.
Now go away and grow up.
31
Recently I got my calculator out and ran over the figures shown in version 2 of the Earth Energy Budget. I noticed that the incoming energy was the same as the outgoing energy (watts per metre2). Does this means that there is no residual heat and therefore no greenhouse effect?
To do some of these calculations some scientists regard the Earth as “Black Body”. I am no expert but this seams like a bit of choice bunkem to me! To regard the Earth as such, needs to be questioned. One point that never gets a mention is that the Earth is warm; it has a hot inner core, so must be radiating energy into space, yet I see no reference to this in the energy budget.
Can you enlighten me Jo? Do I have my facts right?
30
cohenite: July 6th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
No it wasn’t.
http://hot-topic.co.nz/new-dimensions-in-earth-science-uncovered-by-nz-blogger/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/good-news-for-the-earths-climate-system/
12
Jo,
Please organise your rebuttal in a printable form so it can easily be read alongside the “Scientific Guide”.
10
Jo, you amaze me! So much work in so little time but then again you are awash with “Big Oil” money to pat for all your researchers 😉
I think I must have been asleep for a few years as I do not understand,
“As greenhouse gases stop heat from reaching the upper atmosphere, a distinct greenhouse signature is a warming lower atmosphere and cooling upper atmosphere. This is exactly what’s observed by satellites and weather balloons.”
Who moved the goal post? I demand my hotspot or I ain’t paying!
and if the level of expertise of these Professors tries to foist,
“To find out whether the CO2 effect is saturated”
Then I am truly sad about the state of science being practised in Australia. What a mean, debased fact twisting exercise to try to pull off. I cannot for the life of me understand why they would attempt such underhand manoeuvres other that playing politics! Why would someone risk his reputation over it or is it simply they are so far in they have not got the guts to say “we made errors”!
Tip to those people: Never get between a mother and her baby….she will rip your arms off! A great post Jo and I think some of us knew it would be coming after the release of the rubbish. Love it!
30
Well I’m confused.
I read Jo’s refutation of John Cook’s refutation of Jo’s Skeptics Handbook, and I’m convinced.
Then I go and read John Cook’s refutation itself (yes, I know that’s the wrong way round….), and I’m convinced.
So where is the truth?
Is Jo Nova simply pushing a barrow for big coal? (Nice, if accidental pun)
Are there lots of embarrassed scientists out there, worried because they’ve been caught out exaggerating a problem which doesn’t exist to keep their grant money coming?
As a starting point to sort out my confusion, it would be nice to know what points both skeptics and scientists agree on.
Has there been a dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 in the last couple of hundred years?
If so, is it in any way tied to the burning of fossil fuel?
Are global temperatures warming?
And there are many many more such questions. If both sides could sort out which areas they agree on, then the discussion would be more meaningful.
Now I know of course that the onus is not on the skeptics to take a position and prove it is correct, but if Jo or someone could put the skeptics position (or positions) on the basic facts, that would be good.
13
John, you missed an important step: Did you read Jo’s original Skeptics Handbook? You’ll find your answers there. 🙂
40
John @ 67
If the energy coming in = the energy going out,then there is no heating or cooling effect (as long as your numbers are right, of course.) The only way energy can escape into the vacuum of space is via radiation. Radiation losses increase as the temperature increases (just like the bar on your electric radiator). So if we were to warm the earth’s surface, it would ultimately reach equilibrium (heat in = heat out) but just at a higher temperature.
Volcanic energy inputs to the heat balance are so low they are neglible.
Cheers,
Speedy
30
So Janama – back to scaring pensioners, truth, justice and the Australian way – Joanne sat there while Archibald told the scared pensioners that cropping Canada would be finished in a decade and they’d be back to trapping beavers for a living. Sharing a stage with this bloke. Do we have any critique of this astounding suggestion. This would be a massive global impact. Nobody has any questions – or was it all good theatre and you never ask your own side a question? Pretend scepticism Janama. Pretend scepticism.
11
On a global scale this is a bit selfish BUT the critical issue for Australia given our new ,”can do” PM is the imminent (say by November) introduction of an ETS.
No amount of quasi-statistical debate about hot spots or temperature series is going to answer the fundamental science of the role of atmospheric CO2 in climate behaviour.
We need someone to tackle the hard science. Some of you may be aware of the work of Dr John Nicol (you can track him down on this site via the ACSC). Dr Nicol has attempted such analysis.Until blogs like this one are able to shift the public discussion to the fundamental role of CO2 in climate behaviour we risk Big Julie taking us down a very dark path.
20
Yes But @ 74
As I recall, David Archibald did show pretty good correlations going back to the mid 1700’s between solar cycle duration and the succeeding weather / climate patterns for the following 20-30 years. He also indicated how this effect could take place and showed how the current solar cycle has similarities to the ones preceding the Dalton minimum. When, by strange coincidence, the Canadians were trapping beavers for a living…
Now. Can you please explain to us the rationale behind Albert Gore’s assertion that sea levels will rise by 20+ metres in the next 100 years? (Refer “Inconvenient Truth”) Can you also explain why Albert Gore likes to buy his mansions on the beach?
If there’s anyone scaring anybody under false pretences, it wasn’t David Archibald.
Cheers,
Speedy
20
To ‘Yes but’ #64
In Archibald’s presentation he showed how far south the crop line moved in Canada during previous global cooling. He indicated that if the current decline in solar activity continued Canadians could find themselves trapping Beaver for a living. I believed the comment regarding beavers was meant as a light hearted comment about the potential cooling in Canada. It was not in the league of the catastrophic predictions of the climate alarmists. Archibald presented actual past temperature data and the correlations with solar activity. He wasn’t plucking a hockey stick out of a hat in his material. His primary point was that the AGW theory doesn’t stack up with CO2 as the culprit so there must be something else and solar activity is more closely correlated with global temperatures than CO2. There certainly seems to be far more to support his scenario than the one presented by climate alarmists to support their catastrophic warming position.
30
Sorry meant ‘Yes But’ #74 in my comment at #77
30
Speedy in 73 – “The only way energy can escape into the vacuum of space is via radiation”
I’m going to have to run that past Brian G Valentine.
And yes Coral bay was lovely, my fishing skills were terribly exposed, and it was a bit chillier in the nights than I’d have liked. Hopefully 2500kms of kombi CO2 fumes will help future trips be a tad warmer;)
11
Speedy – the olde Al Gore diversion eh? Gore wouldn’t know would he. He’s an ex-polly. But we’re talking about sceptic judgement and who you get your advice from. What you’ll critique and what you won’t – So if Archibald is correct – shouldn’t the world be panicking. Won’t Russian and Chinese agriculture be in ruins too?
Shouldn’t we have a massive research program on the way for this imminent crisis? Surely you agree. I’m alarmed ! He said within a decade !
As for ” climate alarmists to support their catastrophic warming position” – well you’re telling the story – who’s talking warming catastrophe exactly. Again we see the lines being blurred as words are inserted by the sceptic agenda. What catastrophe? By when?
But seems to me that we have sceptic alarmism now – bone chilling global cooling and failure of the world’s granary is nigh? Surely you’re alarmed? I am.
Anyway – just assure me he’s correct – that’s all I ask.
11
Anne-Kit:
Finally watched the videos and I am quite appalled. While I shouldn’t comment on DEC officials for obvious reasons, I would really love to know more about the case. I have certainly seen situations that are not dissimilar, albeit for a different industry and from the Government perspective.
The dismal fact is that individuals or small groups with personal agendas and/or vested interests can tie government departments up like you wouldn’t believe if they know which buttons to push. Clearly the lawyer in this case did, and if the allegations about him are true I cannot understand why he is still allowed to practice.
I would love to know more detail about the licence conditions and processes that were applied, but common sense tells you that these guys were in an area zoned rural… it may be astonishing to some, but in a rural zone you often get rural smells. Flabbergasting, I know. I find it almost impossible to believe that a rural operation such as this was closed over something that is effectively an amenity issue.
If there were no legitimate health or environmental issues I cannot see what basis DEC would have for standing on the proverbial hose, and should be taken to the cleaners. I highly recommend the Johnston’s take their case to the relevant authorities. The Ombudsman’s Office is one place to start… they can take on cases if there has been improper handling of the licence processes by DEC officials. That’s just for starters.
Relevant ministers might be worth writing to:
Terry Redman – Minister for Agriculture and Food
http://www.premier.wa.gov.au/MINISTERS/TERRY-REDMAN/Pages/Default.aspx
Donna Faragher – minister for Environment
http://www.premier.wa.gov.au/MINISTERS/DONNA-FARAGHER/Pages/Default.aspx
Terry Waldron – your local member
http://www.premier.wa.gov.au/MINISTERS/Terry-Waldron/Pages/Default.aspx
The Obudsman’s Office
http://www.ombudsman.wa.gov.au/
Feel free to pass my email address on to the Thompson’s if they need some direction in terms of finding the appropriate Government contacts. I don’t deal with Agricultural issues in my job but I do have a fair few contacts who would know where to start.
20
Oops meant to say Thompson’s … not Johnston’s in the first reference.
20
LevelGaze: #69
July 6th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
That’s already available LevelG
Once you click on the “Print this post” you can either print to paper or save to your drive.
10
Thanks Speedy at 73. My previous post at 67
I have gone back to the Earth Energy Budget and it shows incoming at 342 watts/sq metre and outgoing at 342 watts/sq metre. Thus a balance. If there was heating of the Earth then the outgoing would be less than the incoming. Now we all know that energy cannot be created, only it’s form that can be altered. This is why I thought that the graph was dodgy.
There is no allowance for radiation from the planet’s inner core. Seems to me that it reinforces the dodginess of the AGW claque.
Not sure where the graph originally came from, but it is referred to as version 2. I had saved the graph to my computer, as I thought it was of great interest.
20
Hmmm I see this (the Thompson’s case) has already been through appeals:
http://portal.appealsconvenor.wa.gov.au/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/OAC/ADMIN_CONTENT/DECISION_SUMMARIES/2010/024-10_MINISTER%27S%20APPEAL%20DETERMINATION.PDF
10
Yes but: #74 & # 80
July 6th, 2010 at 7:20 pm
You are being silly.
If you think one sceptic addressing a crowd of 110 is the equivelant of a 3000 page official UN document commissioned by world govts, contents of which appeared in probably every major MSM in the world and in debates in parliaments around the world and caused many many new blogs to pop up on the web world, you are really being silly.
And no, no one here has to justify/defend/speak on behalf of Archibald or anyone else. If you have a problem with Archibalds presentation, contact him, I’m sure he’ll gladly respond to you in an appropriate way.
30
John Brookes: #71
July 6th, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Jo has stated many times that she has no backing by big oil or big anything. None of us really will know though will we? So the question is, irregardless of who is backing who, what do you think of WHAT JO SAYS, WHAT JO PRESENTS ON THIS BLOG?
Yes, most definately IMHO
Dramatic? I guess that’ll depend on what constitutes dramatic. The only way to know that is to know EXACTLY WHAT CO2 DOES AND DOESN’T DO IN THE ATMOSPHERE. So far we have educated guesses and output of computers that have been inputed with educated guesses. Your guess is as good as anyone elses.
The Sceptics handbook goes a very long way in doing that.
But, if what you are asking is for sceptics to produce a 3000 page report on the state of the globes climate, I’m sorry to say there is no grant money to study the earths climate, only money to study the negative effects of CO2
30
It does not matter what arguments are used there is one issue that leave beyond all doubt the shonkiness of the AGWers. The use of the Michael Mann “Hockey Stick” graph.
To recap a little. In the first two Assessment Reports (AR) the IPCC had a graph of the world’s temperature showing the Mediaeval Warm Period (MWP) and the warmth of that period, starting in the year 1000. No one argued against the insertion of that graph. However, Mann knew that there was a problem with the MWP, as this did not reconcile with his dogma, so he decided to rewrite history. Mann then diligently (I say diligently, as you need to be smart and careful to make a lie plausible) created the “Hockey Stick” temperature graph, which did away with the MWP. This was then touted some six times, in full colour, in AR3, published in 2001?.
Mann then realised that he had gone too far, so in AR4 (published in 2007) the Mann “hockey stick” disappears to be replaced by complicated presentations.
The Mann Hockey Stick is one proof of manipulation, and anyone who believes the pronouncements of the IPCC must have earn’t a degree in credulity-because you have to be good at credulity to be a believer. They are well beyond “silly”.
I saw David Archibald’s presentation, and was impressed with it’s honesty and lack of alarmism or “call to arms”. He simply stated the facts! Further, Anthony Watts presentation was irrefutable!
20
Don’t know if this has been previously mentioned but here’s an interesting article linking to Alan Siddons’ report
http://climatology.suite101.com/article.cfm/discredited-greenhouse-gas-theory-takes-global-warming-blow
Alan Siddons Disputes Global Warming Theory
Jun 24, 2010 John O’Sullivan
A Cake Cooked in a Solar Oven – wikimedia.orgIn a new essay, a climate skeptic scientist uses simple examples to challenge the conventional greenhouse gas theory of man-made global warming.
The reason Earth faces no danger from this benign trace atmospheric gas is eloquently illustrated in, ‘Why Conventional Greenhouse Theory Violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.’ Author Alan Siddons offers his new essay as a follow up to his recent paper, ‘A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon’ that he co-authored with Dr. Martin Hertzberg and Hans Schreuder.
Schreuder endorses his colleague’s latest challenge to claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), who assert that rises in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may cause runaway global warming because, “Just like the legendary phlogiston, academia has elaborate formulae for it yet it has never been proven to exist.”
and here are the final paras:
Reflected Radiation Cannot Increase the Total Energy Emitted
Siddons, from exploiting real-world examples, thereby instructs the non-scientific reader in the lesson that “radiant energy can only light something that has less radiance. Brighter illuminates darker.”
The author then urges the reader to get a better sense of this by omitting the spotlight altogether and to imagine a surface radiating light on its own.
“There’s no difference between them, and it shouldn’t need explaining that the mirror image is not illuminating the very object that it’s reflecting. But if the mirror isn’t illuminating that object, the mirror isn’t heating it either.”
A mirror adds no radiance to the object whose radiance it is reflecting. Yet a mirror’s re-radiation is entirely in one direction and many times greater than a gas which emits in all directions and which only absorbs a fractional amount of light in the first place. This alone proves that re-radiation cannot dangerously heat the Earth because heat does not flow from colder to warmer surfaces. Therefore the greenhouse gas theory is disproved.
20
Ok – there’s one vote. So John Westman believes Canada will be frozen “within a decade”. But he’s not alarmed which is interesting. Anyone else agree?
11
And Val – can you explain – http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/09/light-dawns-there-are-styles-in-science.html
or for bonus points you can also explain how cryostat radiation shields and furnace radiation shields don’t work ! Just like the greenhouse effect doesn’t work.
11
Yes but @ 80
You really should stop leading with the chin old son.
I answered your question and showed you what a real scare campaign looks like. Al Gore happens to be a classic example – James Hansen has also made a pretty tidy living out of it as well. Uncle Tim as well, perhaps? We shouldn’t pick on Albert – he just happens to be a high profile example.
Cheers,
Speedy
30
Yes but
You made an uninformed and dumb comment. I rest my case!
30
Speedy:
July 6th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
John @ 67
If the energy coming in = the energy going out,then there is no heating or cooling effect (as long as your numbers are right, of course.) The only way energy can escape into the vacuum of space is via radiation. Radiation losses increase as the temperature increases (just like the bar on your electric radiator). So if we were to warm the earth
20
Lost the rest of the posting so here I go.
Speedy:
July 6th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
John @ 67
If the energy coming in = the energy going out,then there is no heating or cooling effect (as long as your numbers are right, of course.) The only way energy can escape into the vacuum of space is via radiation. Radiation losses increase as the temperature increases (just like the bar on your electric radiator). So if we were to warm the earth
20
Speedy, labratories stink at recreating ALL factors involved, so garbage science is our result. Our atmosphere generates pressure and centrifugal force sends gases off this planet. Our solar system travels at great speeds as our planet is dragged along (little doggie).
20
Brendon @68; you miss the point, as usual; the Frank paper about CO2 sensitivity refutes AGW orthodoxy on 2 counts; firstly, it looks at the fact that temperature increase precedes CO2 increase [that is, when there is any correlation between the 2 at all; for most of paleoclimate there is none; in the 20thC temp was going down from 1940-1976 while CO2 was going up; same from 1998].
Secondly, IPCC has made recent estimates of 40 ppm increase in CO2 per 1C increase; the Frank paper derives a likely range for the feedback strength of 1.7-21.4 ppm increase in CO2 per 1C increase in temp, with a median value of 7.7ppm.
30
Yes Speedy – We know you don’t like uncle Al – but all you have to do is tell us you support Archibald’s prediction. Do you? Maybe you’re having trouble committing your support? I understand.
And Cohenite – gasp – choke – are you actually supporting “a model” as an AGW refutation ? I prefer geological models like Royer et al myself. http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/climate_sensitivity.pdf
12
Yes but, yes but, they started it first!
30
Joe Lalonde
Agree – academics don’t always relate well to the people who (to put a blunt point on it) pay for their existence.
However, I don’t think that mother earth will go about throwing loose gas molecules into the unknown. The gaseous molecules are not glued to the terra firma. Therefore they don’t have to have the same (considerable) velocity as the surface – otherwise all the winds would be consierably stronger than what we see. Also, the density of the atmosphere drops significantly as we get higher in the vertical dimension. For instance, most travellers to the top of Mt Everest (a mere 8.9 odd km above sea level) are on bottled oxygen. So there’s not so much to ditch into space anyway. The reasons for this being that air pressure is lower and the oxygen content of the remaining air is also lower. I was thumbing through my CRC Handbook of Physics and Chemistry (60th edition) yesterday, as one does, Page F197 or so, and discovered that the atmospheric pressure (and therefore gas density) at 30 km up is sweet Fanny Adams (less than 0.1%) of what it is at sea level. Apologies – didn’t check to see how much the CO2 (atomic weight 44) sinks to the bottom compared to the nitrogen and the oxygen (28 and 32 respectively.) But I don’t think there’s a whole lot of CO2 at 30 km up.
Dragging a small harmless planet through a big nasty galaxy is likely to do things to that little planet and I don’t pretend to begin to even know what this could do. Smarter people than me have linked the Ice Ages with the solar system being bombarded by cosmic rays as it passes through a fairly noisy section of the galaxy. Others – e.g. David Archibald – have noted that every time the sun spot activity drops, the Thames turns into an ice arena…
Maybe it won’t this time, but Solar Cycle 24 is unpleasantly quiet and could herald a repeat of the Dalton Mininum 1790 – 1830″s. I hate the cold! Give me global warming any time!
For more information, Google David Archibald and see what he says about Solar Cycle 24 and what it means for the next 30 years or so. Or follow this link.
http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Solar%20Cycles%2024%20and%2025%20and%20Predicted%20Climate%20Response.pdf
Global Warming isn’t a problem – it could be a holiday!
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Yes but @ 98
There are probably a lot of things that are unlikeable about Uncle Albert Gore. Telling porkies (and making millions in the process) is just one of them. (Ask me for others sometime if you feel game!) As to whether David Archibald is right about Cycle 24 and the Dalton Minimum. Yes, I think he has provided a case describing the correlation between solar cycle activity and climate, and a reasonably acceptable qualitative explanation of the effect. I hope he is wrong, but suspect he isn’t.
Your own support of Royer, by the way, could be construed as naive.
So in other words, Royer constructed a circular argument to get the result he was after. (Intended or otherwise, I don’t know) For the rest of the story, you might like to check out http://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/royer-2010/
I also have a question I should ask you. It appears to have discouraged a lot of the AGW cheer squad but perhaps I’ll raise it next time we converse?
Cheers,
Speedy
30
Hi Cohenite,
Me again.
Before anyone starts taking you too seriously, let’s review some things you have said in the past.
You have said, amongst other things, that:
1) Water vapor, which is a gas, has a surface.
2) Photons will go out of their way to avoid CO2 molecules in preference to H2O, as opposed to just randomly intercepting whatever molecules are in their path.
3) There can be more clouds without more water vapor. If there isn’t more water vapor, what are the more clouds made from?
and, finally,
4) That, if you don’t know what you are doing, you can “prove” that Beer-Lambert will give you a fixed asymptotic value expressed in parts per million, when Beer-Lambert relies on an absorption coefficient, and that coefficient is dependent on the density of the gas. Density is parts per volume. PPM tells you _nothing_ about density. If you know the ideal gas law, the pressure and temperature of the gas, and the PPM, you can make an accurate enough estimate of the density. But, pressure and temperature vary with altitude, and I see no mention of the ideal gas law, pressure, or altitude in cohenite’s posts where he presents this argument.
As one commenter put it, you guys are “learning a hell of a lot” from cohenite. Unfortunately, most of it is wrong.
11
Welcome to the real world, John. I don’t know how old you are, but I suspect you have been getting your information from a single biased source up to now. There has never been a time in Human history that there haven’t been competing sources of “information” that often are thinly-disguised propaganda designed to get you to believe a particular “story”. If you are unaware of this, you are probably being manipulated.
There are a lot of folks who only want to believe something comfortable, or what makes them feel “special” or morally superior – never mind the truth. If you aren’t satisfied with being a “believer” (for whatever motives), then you must perform “due diligence”.
Ideally, you are educated and informed enough (or can become so) to directly analyze the arguments made by the various factions. (This is not as hard as it might seem – it would be much easier if our schools would spend less time on “self esteem” and more on imparting facts and reasoning skills.)
If, for some reason, it is not feasible for you to directly tackle the basic science, you do not have to simply pick someone to believe – there are many other strategies. Joanne gives a good example of one in her post, under “Looking for the short guide to “how do I know who is right?”
In other words, “Who’s being up-front and who’s acting like a con artist?” This is usually a good guide as to who has the facts behind them and who is trying to avoid the facts.
Your list of questions betrays the fact that you are operating on a number of hidden assumptions (that, perhaps, you are not even aware of):
“Skeptics” and “Scientists” are not disjoint sets. Many skeptics are scientists. Internet polls strongly suggest that most scientists are skeptical about the “Enhanced Anthropogenic Global Warming” hypothesis (AGW, for short).
Furthermore, skeptics are united only by their belief that the AGW hypothesis rests on a number of unproven (even refuted) assumptions – they don’t necessarily agree completely on which assumptions are most important. AGW believers, on the other hand, are more religious, or cult-like, in that they try to suppress disagreement and present a united front. This, in itself, is a clue that they do not consider facts to be paramount.
This is hard to know, as there is no agreement on how to define “global temperature”. There are plenty of clues, however, that the AGW believers have been fudging the data.
For example, NASA (and other temperature dataset custodians) have regularly been “revising” 20-100 year old temperature readings. In some cases (CRU), the original raw data has been destroyed. No one has adequately explained how 100 year old thermometer readings can change. Suspiciously, the revisions have always been in the direction that shows more warming over the last century.
In the meantime, the vast majority of all-time high temperature records (which are based on raw data) were made (in the USA, anyway) in the 1930s.
Anthony Watts has shown (via extensive experimentation documented on his web site) that if the USA weather service were simply to return to using whitewashed Stevenson Screens in their weather stations nearly all of the last century’s warming would disappear.
Some scientists have suggested that the oceans’ temperature is far more important in any “global temperature” definition, due to their vastly larger heat content than the atmosphere. The best measurement of ocean heat content, the Argos buoy system, shows that the oceans have been cooling down for the last 7 years. Since this doesn’t fit with the AGW religion, it is routinely ignored or falsely claimed to have been shown to be in error. If Argos showed the oceans heating up, be sure you would be aware of it (and no one would be trying to show it was in error).
Maybe. There is evidence of fudging and cherry-picking here, also.
IMO, only ~4% of the increase can be attributed to Human activity. I base this on the 36 empirical measurement studies (peer-reviewed, BTY) on CO2 atmospheric lifetime by diverse methods done in the last 50 years. Without exception, they all showed short lifetimes: 5 – 15 years. The 4% figure is the result of a simple numerical calculation based on the average measured lifetime and Human CO2 output over the last century.
AGW alarmists claim long lifetimes for CO2 based on models that either:
A) Ignore the actual measurements as if they didn’t exist;
or B) Postulating mechanisms for which no evidence exists (and are sometimes logically impossible – such as postulating that CO2 from Human activity has a different lifetime than CO2 from natural sources).
That’s what The Skeptic’s Handbook is.
Why, exactly? So you would be relieved of the task of due diligence?
Knowing how to do (and doing) due diligence on claims that can have extreme effects on society is your duty as a citizen. Asking for “someone” to tell you “something” that will (without any effort on your part) remove your uncertainty is asking to be conned.
30
Brendon:
July 6th, 2010 at 1:39 am
Geee … with all of this “science” going on I do wish the planet would hurry up and stop warming.
Well Brennie, you might want to take a stab at an attribution study to prove that CO2 and other GHG’s are actually the CAUSE of the warming. it would appear that the Big Boys with their Big Toys have not had much success!!
As for your later references to SST, you really should do a study on those also. Before the satellite era the data is so poor that it really is useless for the purpose to which it is being put. Satellite SST’s suffer from the issues of needing major statistical corrections for their use. You really don’t have a leg to bark on.
The Big Boys are claiming what, up to 1.5c for the last 100 years?? The error bars on your favorite measurements are larger than that!! Basically the Anthropogenic Global Warming Scare has been a statistical hype of natural earth cycles and you have swallowed it hook line and stinker.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA
30
Chris G,
Thanks for not providing links to YOUR suggestion of what Cohenite has actually said in the past. Having read his comments for a couple of years, please excuse me if I am doubtful that you have interpreted them correctly in your paraphrases.
30
Chris G @ 102
I honestly can’t tell you whether that’s what Cohenite said but perhaps you could quote the places where he actually did say it and you’d have a bit more credibility. As it stands, I will be charitable and say that this is what you THINK he said. I won’t be so unkind as to suggest you may well be deluded. Or just plain wrong, perhaps.
Just picking up on Point #4, for instance.
This is a classic example of telling a truth to convey a lie. Or, more innocently, poor communication. To summarise:
1. B-L relies on absorption coefficient. True. (For specific wavelengths. CO2 absorbs 14.5 micron stuff especially.)
2. Coefficient depends on density. In part. (Optical path length, actually, which is a function of distance and density and specific absorption.)
3. Density is parts per volume. Gosh. (And I don’t just know why don’t you have a Nobel Prize already :))
But what you fail to mention is that if there is enough CO2 to absorb practically all of the relavant infra red that this earth is capable of emitting, then these basic bits of science become nothing more than motherhood statements. It doesn’t matter. The 14.5 micron wavelength emitted from the earth’s surface has been mostly absorbed in the first 100 metres of altitude. The next 100 metres takes out most of the rest. The next 100 metres grabs most of the most of the rest etc. The atmosphere is thinning after that, but there’s plenty to make sure that practically zero escapes (in that narrow sprectral range) after that. And you get worried that at (say) 10 km up the atmosphere is too thin to absorb the remaining 14.5 micron infra red. Mate! There’s precious little that even gets that far! The underlying 9.7 km have absorbed it already! And it won’t matter a fig whether the CO2 concentration is 330 or 390 ppm – the lower atmosphere has soaked it all up, literally miles below.
However, I welcome your sceptical approach and look forward to you asking the IPCC how they can be so sure that the effect of water vapour in our current atmosphere would be to generate a runaway greenhouse effect unknown in the last 4,500,000,000 (4,500 million) years of the history of this earth. Even when the CO2 concentration was about 20 times higher than it is today…
Cheers,
Speedy.
30
Bob C @ 103
Great Post Bob! I wish I’d said that! Well considered, considerate and logical.
Cheers,
Speedy.
30
Sea Surface temperature is not a good measure of ocean heat content. The Argos float data, the best source of ocean heat content as it measures from the surface down to 2000 meters depth, shows a slight cooling over the last 6 years: http://www-argo.ucsd.edu/nino3_4_atlas.gif
And that’s after strenuous attempts to “adjust” the raw data!
It doesn’t take much for you to throw out a truck-load of empirical studies, as long as it supports your bias, apparently.
30
Speedy @ 107:
Thanks Speedy! I always look forward to your insights, as well.
Good to know someone actually reads my (too wordy) posts. The potential downside is that I might become even more garrulous! I’ll try to restrain myself — I have work to do, after all. (Despite the AU time-tag, it’s mid-morning here.)
BobC
30
[…] The Unskeptical Guide to the Skeptics Handbook « JoNova […]
10
Nice answer to John Brookes there BobC and by default, to anyone else curious about making sense of the AGW debate.
… and yes indeed. It is the duty of every person to become informed on an issue that has become a social topic with a political agenda.
For we are the ones that are ultimately most affected…. Especially when that agenda also included a “market mechanism” for reducing emissions by selling carbon credit “indulgences” for those rich enough to afford them.
That alone lets the cat out the bag to the fact that this whole CAGW thing is a scam.
Keep up the good work fella’s. I Like reading your reasonings and answers to questions. Makes the ol’ grey matter twitch.
30
Brendon:
July 6th, 2010 at 10:31 am
Since several other posters have responded to your post I see no reason to whip a dead horse.
In regard to your comment about temps warming since 1850 I must remind you that it was about 1850 that the modern thermometer, invented by Gabriel Fahrenheit in 1724, were beginning to be used by just about everyone to record temps and that it was in 1850 that we came out of the LIA which was the coldest it has been during the current interglacial (unless you count the Younger Dryas). It is good that it did warm up. If you plot temps during the current interglacial it peaked about 8,500 years ago during the bronze age and it has been downhill since.
One more time, Brendon, the satellite data and the weather balloons show no statistical warming in the last 15 years. Yet, in the major cities in the USA the “adjusted” data for recent year is almost always adjusted up. The temps should be adjusted down.
The UHIE is real. Try this: start a trip from downtown Phoenix, AZ on a hot sunny day and see whether or not the temp drops as you get to the outskirts of town.
30
Chris G:
July 7th, 2010 at 12:23 am
You take some real unsubstantiated cheap shots at Cohenite and failed to provide a link or cite a source for your claims. I do notice that when one or more of the posters (I won’t say trolls) that visit from the same pro AGW site post something it is often responded to by Cohenite. So, far, nobody has been able to show him to be in error. Perhaps you can post links to empirical evidence or data based on observation that stands up under scrutiny. I would imagine that you will keep making personal attacks as you have no empirical data to support your bogus, thoroughly discredited AGW hypothesis.
30
Brendon:
July 6th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Brendon, you are coming in too low, too low! Pull up, Brendon, pull up! No guys don’t try! It is too dangerous with the heat and the flames from his horrific crash!
From the US EPA http://www.epa.gov/heatisld/
Marshmallows, anyone?
30
Jo,
Good job refuting those who are skeptical of the actual science …
George
20
So looks like Speedy is agreeing with Archibald about a bone-crushing freeze within a decade. So that’s 2 votes? Any others? I wonder if Jo is going to offer her support given she shared a forum with the said gentleman. It’s fairly simple – you either do or you don’t.
Eddy – you’re easily impressed by Coho’s legal representation. You’ll notice a selection of his usually unrefereed hand selected literature. Perhaps Eddy you’d like to support Archibald’s prediction.
Eddy – and like most sceptics – you’ll bang on about heat islands but not ask the obvious questions to yourself – why is most of warming not over the heat island regions? hmmmm
Why do the ocean data sets also show warming …. gee didn’t think about that? What happens if you just pick the good stations according to Watts. Google Meene et al. We’re all asleep waiting for Watts to publish … he seems to be delaying? Wonder why. And perhaps you might tell us what you understand by the term “statistical significance” – is there a hard boundary or not? Wonder why 25,000 species seem to also be responding to temperature changes – perhaps they all live in heat islands? Yes that’s it ! Or live next to volcanoes maybe?
Now I also find it strange that our host here so interested in the truth also hasn’t managed to ask the same simple questions. Could have asked Anthony on stage even.
But fear not Eddy – Cohenite will be along soon with some unpublished material to assure you it’s all not true. Rest easy and stop searching.
Perhaps we can ask Cohenite whether he agrees with Archibald’s prediction. If so – shouldn’t we all be be alarmed and doing something? OK Cohenite – yes or no? (bet he won’t answer)
12
Yes but @ 90
Are you a fictional writer in real life? Your creativity is very good!
David Archibald pointed out some historical facts, related to the food growing areas of Canada. He showed the evidence of the food growing area limit moving South due to unfavourable conditions during a cooling period. This stands on simple logic. David explained the logic and the link between the solar cycles and the world’s temperature.
If we look at the cycles of temperature that the world goes through, there are signs that we are entering a cooling phase. I brief study will reveal this.
Will next year be cooler of warmer than this year? We will have to wait and see. However, the probability, based on empirical evidence is that it will be cooler.
“Yes but”, you might need to review your schooling, because it may be defective. Perhaps you need to mature. The reason I say that, is because as one who has life’s experiences, I have found that the older you are the more able you are to judge crooks and charlatans.
“Eddie Aruda” @ 114. I have done a study on 2 small Australian country towns(populations <1,500). Both show an UHI effect during the cooler months between 1.0C and 1.41C. The summer anomaly is less, but is still there.
30
Eddy Aruda @ 114:
You crack me up, Eddy!
You should (do?) write comedy.
30
John, Speedy, re 67, 73
The energy budget pictures are values averaged over a year and over the entire surface of the Earth and are misleading. The best way to understand the energy budget is to consider the hemispheres independently. This is a close approximation, as there is very little energy flowing between hemispheres, either by land, water or air.
Each hemisphere is in perfect energy balance only twice per year. During half of the year (spring and summer), more energy is arriving than is leaving and the hemisphere warms. During the other half, more energy is leaving than arriving and the hemisphere cools. The result is a seasonal change in average surface temperature of about 12C for the N hemisphere and about 6C for the S hemisphere. The smaller S hemisphere value is because more of the surface is covered with water. It’s crucial to understand that these differences are not the result of an energy exchange between hemispheres, as might be implied by quoting global values, but of the Earth’s thermal mass heating and cooling. Net warming or cooling from year to year results from a slight imbalance usually caused by local and global effects which alter the effective balance between winter and summer across the planet.
The delay between peak energy (the solstices) and peak temperatures is about 2 months. This is consistent with the type of response expected from a sinusoidal stimulus based on the differential equation, Pi = Po + dE/dt, where Pi is the incoming energy, Po is the outgoing energy (including reflection), E is the energy stored in the Earth’s thermal mass and dE/dt is the power flux flowing in and out of this mass. For both hemispheres, the maximum dE/dt is about 90 W/m^2 and the minimum is about -90 W/m^2, where the S hemisphere is a little more than the N hemisphere.
Warmists will not want to admit to this because it tells us that if the climate systems average surface temperature can swing by as much as 12C during a single year, the argument that it takes decades for the planet to respond to changes in forcing completely evaporates, moreover; if +/- 90 W/m^2 of power is flowing in and out during a single year, how long can it possibly take for 3 or 4 W/m^2 to be absorbed.
George
30
Thanks for that. You mean to say nature has already refuted the IPCC’s view of climate change? Who’d a thought?
10
Bruce of Newcastle: July 6th, 2010 at 4:30 pm writes
That is an interesting hypothesis, perhaps you can do a study and see how valid it is to think that a cities UHI effect is contaminating the SST.
A quick look at the seas around China might save you some effort. 😉
11
Yes but @ 116:
From his obituary in MIT News (he died April 16 at 90):
It’s been known since the 1960s that the weather is, not even in principle, predictable beyond a few weeks at most. Since climate is aggregate weather, it is a natural assumption that climate is also a chaotic system.
Surely the burden of proof is upon those who claim to be able to predict possibly chaotic systems to prove their claims. The only way this can be done is by demonstrated predictive skill. Current GCMs (upon which climate predictions are based) still don’t show much improvement in prediction horizon over Edward Lorenz’s primitive models run on an IBM 1620 (about the same capability of a mid-level graphing calculator today).
Predicting the weather (and the climate) over long time scales (100 years) is a fool’s game — I’ll leave that to the AGW alarmists.
30
So Yes Butt
you believe in Al Gore’s predictions – bit sad isnt it.
30
Brendon:
I take the liberty of offering you some friendly advice.
Your illogical and factually inaccurate assertions are merely making you look foolish. So, I suggest that you give up and report back to your bosses that you have failed to disrupt rational debate here.
Don’t worry about the effect of accepting this advice. Your bosses have sent several other ‘lambs to the slaughter’ here, you are merely the latest one, and they will send another to replace you.
Your replacement may do better. He/she/they could not do worse.
Richard
30
Hi Richard,
I wonder how many have asked for a refund on their course fees after finding out they have been taught crap science.
20
co2isnotevil: @119
Thanks for that. Just goes to show that there is much to be learnt and that the issues are complex.
Just a thought or two.
Perhaps today we have a situation where the warmists want simple answers(intellectual limitations?) and the sceptics realize that there is much to be learnt.
30
I’m sorry but there is no other way to call this, but ChrisG, at 102 is a troll; I’ll go further Chris and call you a liar; I don’t like being misrepresented by acolytes who will do anything to avoid the irrational inconsistencies of their AGW position; of course water vapor, for purposes of radiative transfer, has a surface, where does back radiation come from; I gave you a reference to the Evans and Puckrin paper at comment 320 here;
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/the-great-leap-forward-professors-et-al-realize-they-need-to-talk-about-evidence-instead-of-insults/#comments
Chris won’t bother reading it because he is proud of his ignorance but for those who are interested here is the relevant part:
http://www.atmos.uiuc.edu/colloquia/080430.htm
K&T show a huge amount of backradiation of 323W/m2; the bulk of this is in the 15um wavelength; is it from water or CO2? This is instructive: Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate, W.J.F. Evans & E. Puckrin, American Meteorological Society, 18th Conference on Climate Variability and Change (2006). From Evans and Puckrin we see in tables 3a and 3b);
Winter
H20 94 to 125 W m-2
CO2 31 to 35 W m-2
Summer
H20 178 to 256 W m-2
CO2 10.5 W m-2
Not only did the relative CO2 contribution drop in Summer, but the back radiation value decreased from about 30 Winter to about 10 W/m2 Summer.
How do these Evans and Puckrin (2006) values compare with and confirm the energy estimates in K&T?
The back radiation shown in the K&T chart is 323 W/m2.
Data from Evans and Puckrin suggests that CO2 accounts for at most 10% of K&T, and in Summer, CO2 is only about 3% of the K&T back radiation.
To get close to the K&T back radiation values, there apparently needs to be a LOT of water in the atmosphere; CO2 would only be relevant if there were no water.”
K&T is, of course, the conventional AGW view of radiative fluxes that Chris worships; it is flawed because it does not work; even its author, Trenberth, does not know where the missing heat is.
Chris says I say that IR photons go out of their way to avoid CO2 molecules in preference to water ones; the backradiation figures above prove that but again that is not what I said; what I said was this: “water has a permanent dipole moment, CO2 does not; that means water will preferentially absorb IR in the overlapping wavelengths; here are the absorbing wavelengths of the various gases: http://www.nov55.com/atmo.html
I did not say that there can be more clouds without more water vapor; what I did discuss was how the position of water vapor and clouds can determine radiative balances. Finally, Beers Law; the issue here was that Chris and other fanatics espouse the AGW line which is increasing levels of CO2 will feed upon themselfs in a perpetual way to cause unlimited heating; I went to great length at comments 341 and 376 here to attempt to explain to Chris how this is wrong;
http://www.nov55.com/atmo.html
But to no avail; Chris you have a closed mind; you belong at Deltoid; infest there, or continue here but expect your character and psychology to be analysed rather than the scaremongering pseudo-science you peddle to the detriment of the world.
30
Yes but …
I’ll ask you the same question I always ask a warmist. I’ve been waiting a long time for a warmist to come up with a coherent reason, but alas Mr. but, I fear none will be forthcoming. Brendon, feel free to chime in, you’ve had longer to ponder this.
A surface temperature increase from 287K to 290K requires an increase in surface energy of about 16 W/m^2. The consensus is that doubling CO2 adds 3.7 W/m^2 of forcing (I can argue that this overestimates by about 2x), resulting in 16 W/m^2 at the surface after all feedbacks have been accounted for, requiring an incremental surface power gain of 4.3. Considering all incident solar energy, the incremental surface power gain relative to solar forcing is only about 1.1, considering only those watts of solar power that reach the surface, the incremental gain is about 1.6. Why is it that each incremental watt of CO2 forcing arriving at the surface is between 2.7 and 5.4 times as powerful at warming the surface as an incremental watt of solar forcing entering the system at the same place?
30
I also see “Yes but” at 116 has had a shot; someone has suggested YB is luke; that would fit since luke is a chronic regurgitator of ‘science’ which has been demolished; I see YB has referred to the Menne paper allegedly disproving Watt’s thesis that siting can affect temp data; Watts and Pielke Snr have a PR paper in the pipeline so its true all that exists right now is Watts and D’Aleo’s rebuttal of Menne but if YB is luke then he will remember he has relied on tamino’s unpublished critique of Watts; if he has forgotten he is my unpublished reply to tammy’s criticism:
“Comment from: cohenite May 13th, 2010 at 10:10 pm
Thank you luke, you are a treasure; and in his own mean, fretful way so is Dr Foster; where to start; the easy one is the comment from the acolyte that satellites and ground based temps are in accord; no doubt over the whole period from 1979 to now they are, but what about from 1998:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/to/trend
From 1979 to 1998:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:1998/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1998/trend
What happened in 1998 luke?
Tammy goes on to make 2 main charges against Watts and D’Aleo; the first is that they are stupid for asserting that by getting rid of colder, rural stations NOAA has produced a cooler temperature trend; if indeed that is what D&A did assert they would be silly; what they did say is that by getting rid of the colder sites the average temp over the whole site range would be warmer; nothing about trends. Now the GMST is the benchmark of AGW; people can gesticulate and hand-wave about trends but if the temp, the GMST, is warmer then you have an argument which supports AGW. And that is what removing the colder sites accomplished. Tammy side-steps this by putting up a GISStemp graph showing no temp drop at the time of the removal of the colder sites; but this is a anomaly trend graph; it shows the change in temp of the remaining sites not the change in GMST created by the absence of the cold sites.
The second gooseberry is that D&A were wrong to say:
“The number of stations that dropped out tended to be disproportionally rural –”
Tammy says this is wrong because since there were more rural stations to begin with then as a fraction actually more urban stations were lost; but look at the graph:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/fraction.jpg
There is a drop in urban sites but that is more than matched by an increase in suburban sites; in % terms the rural station increase has been exceeded by the combined increase in suburban and urban stations.”
30
Jimmy Haigh: July 6th, 2010 at 4:41 pm writes
Previous changes in global temps may well have their own reasons for changing. No climate scientist blames CO2 entirely for previous changes (although it does contribute in many cases).
The LIA was a slight cooling but since then we’ve seen even further warming. What was the cause for the initial cooling into the LIA and why did it warm again? Does the same warming force still act on todays climate? If you can answer those questions then you might be able to answer why we’re having a warmer period today.
You can’t simply say the climate is bouncing out of the LIA and it seems to have overdone it.
Yet another childish remark instead of arguing the point.
12
Brendon,
There’s no evidence that the LIA rebound was overdone, nor that the LIA rebound is even done. The peak of the LIA was only centuries ago. Small climatic variability like this, at least small relative to glacial/interglacial, have cycles on the order of many centuries to thousands of years. The current hypothesis about why the LIA occurred was that it was coincident with a Maunder minimum, but it could have been coincident with something else in addition, or the specific Maunder minimum could have been stronger than others, or …
George
30
Editor:
In the light of the post from Cohenite at #126, I take the liberty of drawing your attention to my post addressed to ‘Chris G’ at #393 on the thread at
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/the-great-leap-forward-professors-et-al-realize-they-need-to-talk-about-evidence-instead-of-insults/
That post from me is addressed to ‘Chris G’ and concludes saying:
I strongly request that any further posts from ‘Chris G’ that mention Cohenite should be moderated unless the person(s) posting as ‘Chris G’ provide sufficient information for him/her/them to be identified.
Richard
31
What’s this about warming oceans?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/global-average-sea-surface-temperatures-continue-their-plunge/
10
Thanks Richard; but I don’t mind; the internet is as close to transparency as we can get [until Mr Smith’s censorship comes into play] so I think guys like Chris hurt themselves more than me; as a Deltoid regular [I think] he will be aware of who I am so he will not defame me; at the end of the day his comments are just sad.
30
Brendon #120: “A quick look at the seas around China might save you some effort.”
Exactly. You will note that the trend graph is from 1978 to 2006 and is an averaging trend of 25 years. The biggest urbanisation effects in China have been late in that period, whereas Japan and S. Korea went through their urbanisation/industrialisation stages earlier. China’s growth has been 50% overall since just 2006! So the lower contribution from China means the hot spot over the Sea of Okhotsk is less than those to the north and east of N America and Europe where industrialisation is mature. Entirely plausible. Nevertheless there is a hot spot to the NE of China, Japan and Korea albeit slightly less intense, which adds to my hypothesis.
As I said, it looks to me that there’s a UHI signal contaminating sea surface temperatures. It would be interesting to cross check against Argo data lower in the water column, but that network has only been going a few years so the 1978 baseline would not be available below the surface mixing zone.
30
cohenite: July 6th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
That’s funny, in the previous thread you said “I have no idea what you mean by an 800 year CO2 lag.”. Now you are using that argument.
CO2 is not the only forcing to affect surface temps. Said this many times already. 😉
You didn’t read the other links I provided did you? Especially the part about why the very small sub-intervals may not reflect changes that we experience with larger CO2 changes.
Perhaps you would prefer the BBC’s summary – http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8483722.stm – where the Author himself says “That’ll probably even itself out to signify no real change in the temperature projections overall”.
20
cohenite, Brendon,
The 800 year lag comes from the average lag as calculated from the Vostok ice cores. Newer cores, for example, the DomeC cores, have a finer temporal resolution.
The DomeC lag is very interesting. The lag when the temperature is decreasing is hundreds of years longer than the lag when the temperature is increasing. Even more interesting is that the CH4 lag characteristics are identical. The average lag is less than 800 years, but the lag when temperatures are decreasing is close. The most likely mechanism that can cause this kind of hysteresis is life. More biomass -> more biomass decomposing -> more steady CO2 and CH4 as biomass decomposes, more CO2 -> more biomass. Can you say feedback?
George
30
Brendon; Dr Frank is a good company man; I have read countless papers which have a position against AGW but where there is included some incongruous disclaimer along the lines that, yes but [to quote luke], despite our findings AGW is still real. I am not interested in what Dr Frank subsequently said nor speculation about larger CO2 changes; what the Frank paper said is what I quoted; it stands by itself.
Thank you for reminding me about the CO2 880 year lag; I prefer to look at as being slightly more complex than that; this is the conventional view;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/fig_tab/nature06949_F2.html
Cook at SC, as I’m sure you are aware, treats this ‘lag’ in the conventional way; ie heating>CO2increase>moreheating>CO2increase etc. A more accurate assessment is here; and yes it is not PRed but have the wit to see that the analysis is good:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf
30
Brendon:
July 7th, 2010 at 10:01 am
Wow! I have seen fallacious and illogical reasoning but you have taken it to a new level.
The little ice age was a slight cooling? Prove it. The IPCC first assessment report showed both the LIA and the MWP. Check out the third slide at http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/IPCC%20TEMPERATURE%20FIDDLING.pdf. While your at it, read the rest of the slides. It should be easy for you, kind of like a book with pictures? You see, the observational data showed that the “little cooling” was actually the coldest it has been during this interglacial. Mikey Mann’s MBH98 has been debunked by the Wegman Report. In fact the IPCC airbrushed it out of their 4th assessment report. Maybe you can find it in there for me?
You then bloviate about answering a couple of questions, the cooling during and the warming after the LIA and about whether or not the same warming force still act on todays climate. You then state that the climate isn’t “bouncing” out of the LIA!
Total non sequitur! Did you ever take a course on rhetoric and deductive reasoning?
You started with an unsubstantiated and totally false claim that the LIA was a slight cooling. You then pose two questions about why temperatures fluctuate and unwittingly make the skeptics case for them. It wasn’t CO2 levels so what was it? Since climate is a chaotic nonlinear system nobody can predict future climate and none of the models have. Your statement implies that if we cannot explain what is causing the climate to change then CO2 is the culprit. Again, no one can! And that is the point. CO2 levels were lower during the MWP then they are now but temps were as high if not higher. Can you explain that? Just because we do not know what all the factors are effecting climate change does not mean that they are nonexistent. You’re asking for an “explanation” is an insidious appeal to ignorance.
BTW, the climate didn’t “bounce” off or out of the LIA but temperatures did recover, thank God! You know, climate change?! Please tell the rest of your chums at the website that you hang out at that the climate is always changing. I hope that the shock won’t kill them!
30
@brendon
There is a new paper out on the MWP being global. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/04/new-chinese-study-in-grl-disputes-the-hockey-stick-conclusions/
Care to comment?
30
Thanks Speedy.
Trace elements also effected by magnetics.
Water itself is the single most fasinating element when trying to understand all the factors involved surviving in an extremely limited temperature range and interacting in many ways.
10
Yes but:
July 7th, 2010 at 9:06 am
Actually, I am impressed by his ability to reason logically and cite evidence. You aught to give it a try instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks.
Yes, but- and like most AGW lemmings-you’ll bang on about broken hockey sticks but not ask yourself the obvious question-why don’t the satellites and weather balloons show any warming despite the continuous rise in CO2 and where did all that supposed heat go?
Well, answer the question and no “buts” this time!
30
7 July: ABC Australia: Alice shivers through coldest day on record
Alice Springs has had its coldest day on record, shivering through single digit temperatures yesterday.
Sally Cutter from the weather bureau says Alice Springs reached a maximum of just 6.4 degrees yesterday afternoon.
“That makes it the coldest on record for Alice Springs and those records are fairly old,” she said.
“I think it was 1948 was the coldest July day and 1966 was the previous coldest day on record.”..
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/07/2946659.htm
6 July: ABC Australia: Cold weather a blessing in disguise
An independent agronomist says freezing temperatures across much of the state may in fact help the state’s farmers.
On Sunday, Geraldton shivered through its coldest temperature on record, when the mercury dipped to 0.4 degrees.
Much of the Wheatbelt has also experienced temperatures below 5 degrees.
Richard Quinlan from Planfarm says frost is unlikely to cause damage, because most crops are still in the early stages of growth…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/06/2946119.htm
10
@BobC #118
Glad to provide a little comic relief. BTW, great post at #103!
BTW, you wouldn’t happen to be a geologist whose given name is Bob and surname starts with the letter C, would you?
30
@ yes but
Another ad hominem attack. Well, we can’t all provide peer reviewed material like the IPCC! Oh, thats right, 40% is not peer reviewed and comes from, in most cases, from some pretty flakey sources. Peer review must be important to the climate scientists at the CRU as they were willing to do anything to game the system. As Phil Jones said to Mikey Mann —even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
Don’t fear? Trust me, I do not fear because:
The truth is my shepherd; I shall not want.
2Truth maketh me to destroy bogus green arguments: the truth leadeth me beside the still waters of cogitation.
3The truth restoreth my confidence: it leadeth me in the paths of deductive reasoning for the truth’s sake.
4Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of AGW fear mongering, I will fear no evil: for the truth art with me; thy logic and thy clarity they comfort me.
5Thou preparest a logical argument before me in the presence of mine opponents: thou anointest my mind with reason; my arguments runneth over my opponents.
6Surely reason and thought shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the TRUTH for ever.
30
typo at 141 aught should be ought.
30
There’s a weekly summary of recorded extremes on the live feeds from stations operated by WA’s Department of Agriculture and Food. Morawa in the northern wheatbelt has been quite chilly. Merredin is colder, still.
There’ve been a few station data outages recently; reflected in less than 24 hours of data. The real extremes can then be missed.
ISTR that Broome recorded 18°C as both minimum and maximum temperatures a couple of days ago. Radiation balance? 😉
30
Not Bob Carter — I’m an optical engineer (with a physics background) whose given name is Bob and surname starts with the letter C, and I’ll start using my full name when my wife no longer works for government labs.
Occasionally I get bits of advice from her like: “If you want to see a climate modeler’s hair catch on fire, suggest that the el Nino/la Nina cycle might be driven by under sea volcanism.”
30
BobC: #121:
There are lots of things I don’t know, and will try to learn so that I can contribute more usefully to the debate here.
But the old weather/climate confusion is something I understand:
Weather is like a coin toss – you don’t know if its going to be heads or tails. Climate is like many thousands of coin tosses. You still don’t know exactly the number of heads and tails, but you’ve got a pretty good idea that it will be ~50% of each.
13
never-ending abc….there needs to be a taxpayer revolt!
7 July: Katherine Nightingale: Rising CO2 may lead Nemo to danger
Global warming could have an unexpected effect on the clownfish star of Finding Nemo and his kind, by making them indulge in risky behaviour, say researchers…
Now research led by marine researcher Professor Philip Munday of James Cook University (JCU) has found it could also make fish less aware of – and even attracted to – predators.
They publish their research this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal…
Professor Geoffrey Jones, also of JCU and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, said the research took the level of concern about the effects of climate change on coral reef fish “to a whole new level”…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/07/2946968.htm
10
BobC: July 7th, 2010 at 1:23 am writes:
Nor did I say it would be. I simply pointed out that the ocean surface has also been showing a long term warming trend, yet no cities are being built there.
And as the Argo team says – http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html
“The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals. Seasonal and interannual variability dominate the present 6-year globally-averaged time series. Sparse global sampling during 2004-2005 can lead to substantial differences in statistical analyses of ocean temperature and trend (or steric sea level and its trend, e.g. Leuliette and Miller, 2009). Analyses of decadal changes presently focus on comparison of Argo to sparse and sometimes inaccurate historical data. Argo’s greatest contributions to observing the global oceans are still in the future, but its global span is clearly transforming the capability to observe climate-related changes.”
Also you probably know this already, but the Argo data doesn’t go below 2,000 meters, nor do they measure the warming occuring under ice. There are large patches of ocean completely unmeasured near the poles where surface temps are showing greatest surface warming.
Didn’t take much to rebute your argument either.
12
Brendon:
July 6th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Actually, it is the oceans that influence land temps! On short time scales See abstract from Journal of Geophysical Research, VOL. 114, D14104, 8 PP., 2009
doi:10.1029/2008JD011637 at http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml. Another falsification of the AGW theory!
On long term time scales all of the ice core records show that land temps lag ocean temps by hundreds of years. There is no correlation between ocean temps and recent land temps. Using ocean temps to bolster your feeble AGW argument is laughable, at best.
30
Brendon:
July 7th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
A lie by omission!
Brendon:
July 6th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
You were trying to show that “ocean + land” show a trend. See my post at 151 and not just that cities do not “grow” in the ocean.
Think and then post!
30
@ Brendon
For an informative article about how unreliable GISS temp records are see http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part2_GlobalTempMeasure.htm
30
Brendon #150 – “I simply pointed out that the ocean surface has also been showing a long term warming trend, yet no cities are being built there.”
We as a species seem to like to build on the coasts…which just happen to be next to the ocean surface…
As I said an Argo comparison of 40m temperature trend vs SST would quantify this effect but as you pointed out it’ll take a while before we get such data.
Hence I think you’re unjustified to exclude UHIE affecting SST. I’ve made a case that it does, which you have not countered using referenced data of your own.
30
John Brookes: #148
July 7th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
I would contend that a coin toss (with only 2 variables) is nothing like our climate with many variables that operate both independently of each other and in concert on many time scales.
A closer analogy (though still nowhere near sufficient) would be the throw of a pair of dice.
On the first throw (weather) you know the result will be somewhere between 2 and 12. (hence we do OK in predicting weather 2-3 days out)
Now throw the same dice 100 times (climate) and tell me what the result range will be.
30
Eddy – you have the good taste to ACTUALLY CITE the McLean, J. D., C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter “paper”.
I think this well illustrates your level of study of the domain.
Have you perused the reply (which alas hasn’t been defended) http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JD012960.shtml
If you like we can walk away quietly and never mention it again.
Cohenite isn’t bad for a legal chappie but he’s still learning stats 101. But let’s play Woodfortrees – such a fun tool.
Indeed let’s do a very simple analysis. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/to/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/to
Hey look at the last values – the hotspot is appearing – the red’s exceeding the green line.
Using sceptic logic of “what happened” yesterday as source the hotspot is proven.
BTW Coho – did you say you supported Archibald’s prediction (just for my scrap-book).
12
Cohenite @ 126:
Mr. Cohenite, I’m certain that lots (besides me) have been watching and reading your patient unoffensive attempts to reason with contrary (warmist) opinion here. Please do not let up!
30
My potential mistake
Mr. Perhaps should be Ms.
Absolutely no offense meant!
30
Yes but:
July 7th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Thank you for the condescending ad hominem. Your link contained a comment section and at the bottom was the following:
Received 5 August 2009; accepted 6 April 2010; published 14 May 2010.
This is only July and we will have to wait and see how the authors respond. Are you always so premature?
Your link to woodfortrees is interesting. So, what are the margins for error? You are writing about a very short period of time.
I never said and no one else did, either. Another straw man!
I’ve read your posts on this thread. Long on sarcasm and ad hominems and extremely short on science. Are you capable of forming an intelligent, cogent and lucid thought?
30
Brendon: #150
July 7th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
I don’t see any sense in wasting time discussing ocean warming. AGW CANNOT warm the oceans to a discernable level. It’s just not possible. The only thing that CAN warm the oceans, especially to any depth, is direct sunlight.
So it begs the question, if the oceans HAVE warmed up, then more sunlight has penetrated it (due to reduced cloud cover or higher TSI for instance) which would mean any land warming may have been similarly affected.
As an addendum, don’t be taken in by talk of “deep ocean” warming, or Trenberths missing heat. Sunlight warms the oceans down to about 100 metres depth (about 3% of the light reaches this depth) further down you go, the darker and colder it gets.
The mixing of the oceans (wave action for instance) also happens mostly in the top 100 metres.
So the question to ask is, how does a warmer (hence less dense) water make it’s way down to the bottom layers?
The answer is, it mostly doesn’t. Hence, even at the very warm tropical waters, the deep water temperature is much the same as that of deep water at high lattitudes.
30
#148 the coin toss analogy has been done to death here and elswhere and rightly dismissed.
Think about output of a one dimensional MEMS accelerometer. Integrating the output gives velocity.
Real sensors have noise, however. Try integrating the noise. You get a random walk. Try predicting the velocity at some time in the future(weather) or even the average velocity over a period of time some time in the future(climate). You don’t get anything very useful in either case.
30
Yes but: #156
July 7th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
I hope your comment was a genuine error and not one that intentionally misleads.
The “red exceeding the green line” happens during strong El Nino years. Look at the graph you cited.
Secondly, in relation to a hot spot, we are not just looking for the red line to “exceed” the green line. We are looking for it to be 2 to 3 times as much.
So Yes But, were you not aware of the above or were you intentionally misleading?
20
Mark D @ 158; thanks and I am a Mr.
Yes but is up to his usual mischief @156 with a WFT graph purporting to show a THS because it looks as though it shows a higher temp in 2010 [and 1998] than the land based HadCrut green line; this is particularly mirthful because at every other year the land based anomaly is higher; in any event RSS is lower troposphere temp; the THS would be higher up and would be measured by AMSU; perhaps luke, er sorry, Yes but, can check for us. In regard to the graph from WFT if we change it to a simple regression trend, which everyone in stats 101 would know about, we get this;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/to/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/to/trend
20
@Baa Humbug #156
Great post! Thanks for saving me some time doing the research. I am watching youtube and tabbing back and forth.
@cohenite
You sure are getting under the skin of the AGW woowoo bots that have been frequenting this site lately. The way I score it: cohonit 127 AGW zombies 0!
20
Bruce of Newcastle: July 7th, 2010 at 10:50 am
So the greatest warming from UHI in China should be in those years.
And yet when you look at the graph you find that China has cooled slightly.
There’s a warm patch near Darwin, yet to my knowledge that hasn’t has outstripped China in terms of urban sprawl.
But your theory breaks down when looking at other parts of the world, or on different timescales.
Another example the trend in central Australia for the past 10 years shows 1 degree of warming, yet the ocean off the East Coast and also the area around Perth show almost nothing by comparison, even though this is where the urban sprawl has been highest.
Using the same graph, how do you explain Africa being so much warmer than China if UHI effect is so pronounced? In fact Central Australia is warming more than China.
Are you suggesting the urban impact of Alice Springs has surpassed that of China?
11
Brendon @165…..
For someone spending so much time and taking up ink space here, I am shocked you dare raise DARWIN as a site for AGW case in coparison to china?!. see past logs of the BOM ‘adjcutments’ placed on that site.
What a load of hogwash and total mis-direction you are presenting!
Read some more of whats already been debtaed before commenting further..puleez.
20
@ brendon
Have you ever heard of the Bolivia Effect? See http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/ghcn-gistemp-interactions-the-bolivia-effect/
20
Thanks Eddy; I just wish all these AGW types would fling off their clothes and go and live in the Simpson desert or something. Things are too good so people have to invent problems.
20
Weather is not climate, and Australia is not warm
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climate_is_not_weather_and_australia_is_not_warm/
10
Macha: July 7th, 2010 at 4:21 pm writes
I’m sorry this is news to me. What’s BOM ‘adjcutments’?
Does it explain the long stretch of warming from Darwin down into WA?
01
ok hands up who is not laughing at Brendon now???
10
Your patronisng qualities are becoming more visible Brendon; I’m sure you are aware of how the CRU scandal touched on Australia and the temperature adjustments in Darwin are typical;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/#more-13818
The Akasofu link is particularly good.
10
Brendon #165
Chalk and cheese. You were arguing about UAH satellite SST and now you cite GISS land station surface temperature trend for central Oz and China?
Given even GISS’s own people don’t trust their own series (they use the CRU datasets instead), I think you are getting far out on a limb. The GISS issues with long scale smoothing and inflated temperatures are well known, whereas I have heard no significant criticism of the satellite datasets, which I what I linked to.
And as for China, you did not read what I wrote. The prevailing wind in climatic terms is to the east and towards the poles. Where do you think heat generated from all those new Chinese airconditioners is going to go? Most Chinese industry to 2006 has been in the coastal provinces, only recently have inland cities started to boom. So you would expect the temperature anomaly not to increase over the land, but over the Okhotsk Sea to the northeast, which is where it is in the 25 year plot. Even GISS’s 2000-2009 plot has a hot anomaly over the Okhotsk.
10
Climategate: how a story the media pooh-poohed changed everything
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_how_a_story_the_media_pooh_poohed_changed_everything/P40/
00
Baa Humbug: #155.
Regarding weather and climate. I maintain that our inability to predict the weather in 3 weeks time is no impediment to predicting climate. I cite coin toss, and you say it is too simple.
OK. You want me to throw 2 dice 100 times. You point out that if you do it once, you get a number from 2 to 12. The probability of each value between 2 & 12 is:
2, 1/36; 3, 2/36; 4, 3/36; 5, 4/36; 6, 5/36; 7, 6/36; 8, 5/36; 9, 4/36; 10, 3/36; 11, 2/36; 12, 1/36
Anyhow, using these probabilities, I did some random simulations of 1000 throws. The average value for the first few trials of 1000 were: 6.932, 7.073, 6.96, 7.033. I’m sure you get the idea – when you do a lot of them, the ups and downs average out and you are left with pretty much the same number (7) every time. The probability that the average of 1000 trials would be (say) 5, is vanishingly small. Yet on a single trial, 5 will turn up 1 time in 9, which is not much less than 7, which turns up 1 time in 6.
So it is with climate and weather. One can have a very good idea of what the average weather (climate) will be, even if one can’t predict weather.
So I am going to list this as one thing which climate skeptics (frosties) and AGW proponents (hotties) agree on:
Our inability to predict the weather 3 weeks in advance does not imply that we cannot predict future climate.
Note that this does not say, “We can predict climate”. In this discussion, that remains an open question.
If you want to refute my assertion, you will need to provide a good reason why our inability to predict weather implies that we can’t predict climate. It will also have to be a reason I can understand, which might be difficult, as I’m a bear of very little brain 🙂
01
Yes but: #116
Looks like you are trying to build some sort of consensus by default.
I assume that this is a demonstration of how the post-modern scientific method works.
Interesting demonstration; but it is not very elegant is it?
At least the traditional way of doing things was based on predictions that could be verified by subsequent observations.
10
Eddy Aruda: #164
July 7th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Hi Eddy. Mate I’m at once proud of you for the restraint you’ve shown of late, and deflated because it’s just not as much fun. 🙂
10
Green laws and a dead business
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/clean_green_and_broke/
00
Can’t predict the weather but can predict the climate. Hard to beat this rubbish!
Tell that to the Vikings who settled Greenland during the MWP
Tell that to the Aztecs
Tell that to the Europeans during the LIA.
Tell that to the Irish before the potato famine
Tell that to all the civilisations that collapsed due to climate change.
Please give us a break. What will next year be like? We will have to wait and see, although I would have more confidence in the opinions of David Archibald than of the rantings of the weasels at the IPCC.
10
Eddy Aruda: #139
There is also a paper on the Peruvian Andes being warmer during the MWP. Archeologists have found evidence that during this period grains were grown at much higher elevations than is possible today.
I will try to find the reference, it was an interesting read.
10
IPCC “one sided”…………..
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ipcc_one_sided/
00
John Brookes: #175
July 7th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Thnx for that John. It was a good try. But I’m afraid you are looking at it too narrowly. (IMHO) Yes you may get an average of 7 for each roll of the dice, but I did say the dice throw was too simplistic didn’t I?
In your random simulation above, you effectively “reset” each time you throw. Climate doesn’t reset on 31st December each year. There are cumulative effects.
I should have been clearer in my post when I asked what the “range” will be. The range I had in mind after 100 throws was 200-1200.
So, going back to your coin toss analogy, the better question would have been “how many heads (or tails) in a row”?
To take it further, according to your analogy, the more we toss (in case of climate, the further out in time we go) the more accurate we get. If that’s the case then pls answer the following..
The IPCC projected climate 100 years hence. What will earths climate be 500 years hence and 10,000 years hence?
00
While we are typing about oceans, has anybody considered the chemistry in the subduction zones between the tectonic plates?
I was asked this by a geologist (civil engineer with a joint degree).
Apparently, it is hard to consider molten rock without CO2 coming into the equation.
Just a thought?
00
Baa Humbug: #182:
I don’t think I said that we could project climate more accurately the further into the future we went, in fact far from it. What I meant was that climate is the average of weather, and so while one day is difficult to forecast, one month is less so, and one year is even less difficult.
For example, I predict that the average maximum temperature measured at Perth Airport next January will be more than 10 degrees hotter than the average maximum temperature measured at Perth Airport this June.
I would definitely not predict that the 10th of January would be 10 degrees hotter than 10th June. It could very well happen, but there is no certainty about it.
So you see that my inability to make a “weather like” prediction does not stop me making a “climate like” prediction.
I am not claiming that hotties can forecast the climate 100 years from now – maybe they can, maybe they can’t. All I’m saying is that the inability to predict weather does not automatically imply an inability to predict climate, and I haven’t seen any good arguments to the contrary yet.
01
Yes John @175, what you are doing is averaging random events; it gives a false sense of predictability as gamblers and stock market jockies periodically find out if they are not covering their bets. Nature/climate does have a random or stochastic component; the smart cookies like Koutsoyiannis have devised methods to factor that into predictions; if you’re really interested look up the Hurst phenomenon and Long Term Persistance.
While nature/climate does have stocastic qualities it also has, on varying timescales, quite predictable oscillations such as day/night, seasons, Milankovitch cycles and the like, but you can’t really predict when they are going to be like outside of a range of probabilities with error bars which may exceed the range of the variable being predicted. The alleged connection between temperature and CO2 is a classic case. It is pretty much accepted that temperature movement is a near unit root or random walk; that is it is close to but not completely random. Now, AGW says that there is deterministic relationship between CO2 and temperature; so, we have temperature which is almost random now being said to directly caused by a variable which has been fairly well predictable over the recent history; how can a near-random variable be predicted by a non-random variable? To use your coin toss analogy is like keeping one coin in your hand and saying the position of that coin will predict the one you are tossing.
10
SIMON McKeon has just the right attitude in these irrational days to be the CSIRO’s new chairman.
I know – you’ll say it’s crazy for our top scientific body to now be led not by a scientist but a Melbourne banker.
But he has the right vibe, you see.
It is important to the Gillard Government that the CSIRO be led by another global warming alarmist, who won’t do anything embarrassing.
MORE:-
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_the_csiro_chairmans_yacht_no_measure_of_global_warming/
10
Cohenite @ 163~ was that a WFT graph or a WTF? graph he was showing us?
00
Thanks cohenite: #185. I will look into the Hurst phenomenon when I get a chance.
Just for now, does the Hurst phenomena say that because you can’t predict weather, you can’t predict climate?
I’m trying to build things one bit at a time, and right now, the correctness or otherwise of this statement is all I’m interested in.
01
Cohenite #172
Floors me that we both linked to Darwin-zero study at exactly 5.22 pm. I’d say ‘great minds…’ but mine more likely resembles a wine shrivelled peanut.
10
“Just for now, does the Hurst phenomena say that because you can’t predict weather, you can’t predict climate?”
Fair dinkum John, you tell me:
http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/849/
Bruce & Otter; isn’t life grand.
11
Oh dear Coho – sorry for showing all the data in my woodfortheforest graph – and thanks for your trend graphs well illustrates my point. It’s going UP !
And isn’t it so boring that satellite shows the warming not where the UHIs are. Oh drat !
But if you look guys I think you’ll find that on the last datum point the troposphere is heating up. So I think the hotspot is just kicking in.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/to/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/to It’s trying to get there. Just have faith – like you do in Archibald’s freezing within a decade prediction.
John Westman (and must we be so formal) – perhaps you might mega-droughts that rendered parts of the USA, Africa and China waste. Civilisation busting in facts. Wonderful thing that MWP.
Eddy Aruda – love your tie BTW – McLean et al have been unsuccessful in getting GRL to publish their reply to the comment. Think you’ll find it’s a conspiracy to keep sceptics down.
And Coho – you’re shameless – I told you about Hurst first ! Bazza told me. But he’s seriously clever.
John Brookes – the old “because you can’t predict weather, you can’t predict climate?” eh – I think you’ll find that you’re confusing your initialisation problem with your boundary problem. And of course that PDO thingy (which probably doesn’t even exist except in Coho’s mind – an artifact in fact – El Nino/La Nina debris ) makes things a tad wobbly too.
01
cool making predictions on one data point – clever
10
Thank you Anne-Kit Littler @49 for telling us about the Thompson’s plight. I watched both videos. I’d like to know what those public servants were thinking. We need some “environment-gates” to happen!
00
Re Post 184 the basis for your prediction that the temperature at Perth Airport will be hotter by more than 10C in midsummer than it is in mid winter is based on a relatively long term historical data set. The same could equally be said, using historic data for a comparison much closer, say spring to winter, summer to autumn etc. Then one could do the same for month to month and if one had sufficient historic data that could be reduced even further to give a reasonable prediction for shorter periods.
What you say has some validity. However as climate is always changing, under natural climate variation, the further ahead one seeks to predict climate events the less accurate the prediction is likely to be. Your confusion arises because your example is about a cyclical event (I think you will find that summer and winter have been following one another around for quite some time… it has in this neck of the woods anyway), and of course has nothing to do with the distinction you make between weather and climate.
Unfortunately all this is irrelevant in terms of climate predictions on the basis of purported AGW. There is no indisputable historic data, as yet, that that can quantifiably distinguish between, let’s be specific, the weather and climate effects caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions and natural climate variation.
“Perth Airport temperatures” depend on a large historical data set, it is the value of that, rather than some distinction between weather and climate that gives your prediction a pretty fair chance of being in the ball park.
On the other hand the AGW alarmist predictions, short or long term, are based on things like deltaT = K ln (CO2b/Co2a) and very little else except the seeming increasingly vain hope that the feedbacks are positive.
10
191; I’m not calling you ‘yes but’ luke, it’s too hard to type; anyway, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel; as I said a THS would be higher than the RSS lower troposphere data; try AMSU; but let’s assume RSS is adequate; a THS would heat faster than the surface because the surface is heating the THS quicker than vice-versa; so;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/to/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to/trend
10
John Brookes:
Despite several people giving you a variety of answers, you keep iterating the same question. Most recently you repeated it at #188 where you ask;
Cohenite raised the issue of the Hurst effect so I leave it to him to discuss that if he chooses. I am writing in attempt to answer your basic question; viz.
Since climate is average weather can climate be predicted when weather cannot?
My responses to this question attempt to be different from the answers you have received so far. So, hopefully my responses may help to resolve your thoughts on the matter.
Firstly, those who assert they can predict anything need to demonstrate the validity of their claim. Therefore, they need to demonstrate that their methods have predictive skill because only gullible fools would accept their claim in the absence of them providing evidence of predictive skill. So, other people are only required to doubt their claim until they have demonstrated that their methods have predictive skill.
Climate models are not verified as tools for predicting future climate change. None of the existing models has existed for 20, 50 or 100 years so it is not possible to assess their predictive capability on the basis of their demonstrated forecasting skill;
i.e. climate models have no demonstrated forecasting skill for predicting future climae(s).
This is why their indications of future climate change are said to be “projections” and not “predictions”.
So, for this reason alone, it is a fact that there is no known method for predicting climate.
Secondly, the methods being used to predict climate are demonstrated to not work.
The climate models (General circulation models; GCMs) represent temperature reasonably well but fail to indicate precipitation accurately. This failure probably results from the imperfect representation of cloud effects in the models. And it leads to different models indicating different local climate changes. For example, the recent CCSP report provided indications of precipitation over the continental U.S. ‘projected’ by a Canadian GCM and a British GCM. Where one GCM ‘projected’ greatly increased precipitation (with probable increase to flooding) the other GCM ‘projected’ greatly reduced precipitation (with probable increase to droughts), and vice versa.
But precipitation is a basic parameter of climate. So, we know as a certain fact that the GCMs are not capable of predicting future climate.
However, there could be a philosophical argument as to whether it is theoretically possible to develop a method to predict climate. Similarly there is philosophical argument as to whether it is theoretically possible to develop a transportation system to enable travel faster than light. Neither of these arguments has any practical importance at present because there is no known method to do either.
Richard
10
cohenite: #190:
The Hurst phenomenon may say that predicting climate is difficult, but it doesn’t say that it is difficult because we can’t forecast weather.
So I don’t reckon that an inability to predict weather in itself has any impediment to predicting climate.
10
Good on you John; make a fortune predicting climate; don’t forget, though, that Hurst applies to long term phenomena, hence the expression Long Term Persistence.
10
John Brookes: #184
July 7th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Now you got me scratching my head. At first you say…
But then you follow it up with…
Can I assume you also mean 2 years is less difficult still? What about 10 years or a hundred or a thousand?
I think what you are forgetting in all this is that we are talking about projections of 2 to 4.5DegC in a century by the Pro AGW camp.
To convince anyone that they can’t predict T’s to any reasonable accuracy one week, one month or a year ahead, but they can predict T’s 30+ years (climate time frame) ahead will take some doing.
Llew Jones at # 194 covered most of it for me (thnx) but I’ll add this. You say…
Funny, didn’t the UK Met Office try predicting their upcoming seasonal forecasts and fail miserably to the point where people were thinking about sueing them? So the “experts” tried your “will be 10DegC hotter” theory and failed.
10
Bernd @146
Strange but true, our maximum for Broome on that day was 18.7C at night and the minimum was 17.6C in the middle of the day.
During this time we also had 66.6mm of rain, nearly 15 times the July average. More is forecast thurs, fri, and sat.
This follows 6 to 8 months of temps above average due to very warm seas to the north which looks like it is changing to cooler temps with all this cloud and rain.
Dipped my toes in the sea on Saturday though and found it too cold for a swim!
10
Scott: July 7th, 2010 at 5:20 pm writes
Hi Scott, perhaps whilst you are laughing you could answer this question since no one else here seems capable.
Does it explain the long stretch of warming from Darwin down into WA?
01
still laughing Brendon
10
cohenite: July 7th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Really, why is that?
Not really. I am aware that there are somepeople that don’t understand how homogensiation works.
For the specific case of Darwin temps, I’ll treat this WUWT article like any other. Ya wait a week or so from the time of the article, then google for the correct answer.
In this case you can find the comments from the person that is involved with the Darwin data – http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/12/11/how-low-can-you-go/#comment-843553
01
Oh Cohers you’ve done your analysis wrong
look the troposhere is warming faster http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1999/to/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1999/to/trend
01
No luke, you know 1998 has significance in respect of metaclimate features; for those who don’t:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.1650v3.pdf
What happened in 1999 luke?
10
Brendon: @ 203
July 7th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
cohenite: July 7th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
For the specific case of Darwin temps, I’ll treat this WUWT article like any other. Ya wait a week or so from the time of the article, then google for the correct answer.
No Brendon, what you get by googling after a week is the misleading information that suits your argument, put forward in an attempt to deflect any criticism of the hockey team.
10
Geez people! We’ve been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age (around 1800 – documented ad-nausaeum historically), with CO2 beginning to rise long before the industrial revolution.
How can a trace gas of 0.0388% of the atmosphere be the bad guy, when we chuck out 30Bn tons a year, and nature spews out some 640Bn tons. That’s just 3% of total CO2 and just 0.0009% of the atmosphere man could possibly have an impact on. Reducing all of that further, CO2 has a logarithmic effect in the atmosphere and oceans whereby adding more has continually reduced effect:
Further, water vapour absorbs far more bands of radiation and is 95% by volume of GHG’s:
It’s very tiring to see people get into absolute specifics of feedbacks and forcings when we KNOW that only 100Mya there was some 10-15x the CO2 today in the Jurassic, where life clearly thrived, and delicate aragonite corals evolved in obviously non-acid oceans because the un-dissolved fossils of these corals and shellfish annoyingly (for CAGWists) continue to appear on museum shelves.
I suspect it’s not that easy for the warmist crowd to understand, in which case I’m ready to fight molecule by molecule, but why – when the conclusion has already been written in the not-so-long-ago past and even with gargantuan CO2 levels compared with today, there has never been a runaway greenhouse (positive feedback loop) or fabled “tipping point”, ever.
Can I shut up now?
10
John Brookes: So I don’t reckon that an inability to predict weather in itself has any impediment to predicting climate.
OK. That may be an exactly true statement: you don’t reckon….
However, is your reckoning correct? To answer that question we will need to know more precisely what you mean by the major terms “predict”, “weather”, and “climate” as well as the modifying terms “inability” and “impediment”. In case you are confused why I would ask for a clear definition of these common terms consider your comment at 184:
While your first sentence may be exactly true in that you didn’t use the exact words, the meaning of the first sentence clearly contradicts the meaning of the second sentence. Hence, you appear to focus on the exact words you use and treat them as primary while leaving the concepts to which the words refer to rattle about as so much irrelevant noise.
So, which is it? Are you interested in ideas and concepts or merely argumentation about the exact words you use? If its the exact words you use, then the discussion is at best irrelevant, uninteresting, and boring to the point of distraction. If its the ideas and concepts, then lets start discussing that by you by YOU defining YOUR terms so we can know what YOU are talking about.
“Predict” means (your definition).
“Weather” means (your definition).
“Climate” means (your definition).
“Inability” means (your definition).
“Impediment” means (your definition).
No more of this “I didn’t say that” kind of rhetorical misdirection. Mean what you say and say what you mean.
10
Eddy Aruda: July 7th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Ahhhhh so that’s where all the cooling has been hiding is it? In Bolivia. The rest of the world has been getting hotter, but that is somehow offset by Bolvia. Because we’ve no data for it we can safely assume it’s been really really cold.
But if that’s the case, then why did one of Bolivia’s glacier disappear?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8046540.stm#image
01
T Harley #200:
Well that settles it: We’re headed for an ice age! 😉
Lots of rain forecast for Western Australia. Winds picked up around Perth this arvo. I managed to prune the weeds in my back yard to a common height at lunch time while the sun was still shining.
10
Homogenisation Brendon? I’m sure you are not talking about milk; one of the great problems for AGW is to establish a parity between particular sites so that localised effects don’t taint averaging to establish GMST which is the lynchpin of AGW; that is, if GMST is going up then AGW must be happening; look at this paper:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3663.1
This method of adjusting particular sites for micro inhomogeneities involves identifying the bias and then subtracting it out as a step function over the duration of each corresponding site change. But this is different from what GISS and AGW crew do; this is demonstrated by Mann and Principle Component Analysis {PCA}; Mann’s Antarctica paper with Steig is a good example of this;
http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/SteigetalNature09.pdf
What is done in this paper is to assume a “high spatial coherence”, or uniformity of temp trends and conditions over the whole area with no micro inhomogeities; with this assumption the PCA equivalent, RegEM, is employed to extrapolate from a preferred temperature location to the rest of the area. This method downfills according to an assumption; the Runnalls method standardises upward from particular locations.
Nonetheless the Runnalls method still is insufficient to support AGW even if there is a consistent trend over many locations; the reason for this is that even though the GMST [the Earth’s average temp] may be going up it still doesn’t mean that the Earth’s energy balance [ERB is compromised in an AGW way [ie OLR A^4 + B^4; this means that GMST can increase but the ERB need not change; conversely, the ERB can vary but the GMST temperature stay the same. The point is elaborated in this paper:
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-321.pdf
They say: “[6] At its most tightly coupled, T is the radiative temperature
of the Earth, in the sense that a portion of the radiation
emitted at the top of the atmosphere originates at the Earth’s
surface. However, the outgoing longwave radiation is proportional
to T4. A 1C increase in the polar latitudes in
the winter, for example, would have much less of an effect
on the change of longwave emission than a 1C increase
in the tropics. The spatial distribution matters, whereas
equation (1) ignores the consequences of this assumption.
A more appropriate measure of radiatively significant surface
changes would be to evaluate the change of the global
average of T4.”
Now Brendon, what I took from comment 64 in your link was, if not exactly a mea culpa, then some sort of concession or acknowledgement that micro inhomogeneities dominate particular sites and that an overall trend neither fairly represents those or an accurate depiction of ERB.
The question for you is why do the adjustments made by AGW always increase temp trend?
10
I’m sorry, this paragraph at 211 came out wrong:
Nonetheless the Runnalls method still is insufficient to support AGW even if there is a consistent trend over many locations; the reason for this is that even though the GMST [the Earth’s average temp] may be going up it still doesn’t mean that the Earth’s energy balance [ERB is compromised in an AGW way [ie OLR A^4 + B^4; this means that GMST can increase but the ERB need not change; conversely, the ERB can vary but the GMST temperature stay the same.
What is should say is this:
Nonetheless the Runnalls method still is insufficient to support AGW even if there is a consistent trend over many locations; the reason for this is that even though the GMST [the Earth’s average temp] may be going up it still doesn’t mean that the Earth’s energy balance [ERB] is compromised in an AGW way [ie OLR A^4 + B^4; this means that GMST can increase but the ERB need not change; conversely, the ERB can vary but the GMST temperature stay the same.
10
WHAT DID I JUST SAY..?.. 😉 (@207)
00
Sorry all.. just getting a tad carried away in the moment. After all, I’m just an experiment in artificial stupidity.. 😉
00
John Brooks
When one looks at GCMs at the regional level it is apparent that the long term scenarios are absolutely useless for predictive purposes.In the case of Latin America we have a wide range of senarios for the period 2100- 2130 and at one extreme the Hadley GCM postulates a 21% reduction in rainfall and an increase in the dry season of up to three months while at the other extreme the GISS ER model opts for a 10% increase in rainfall and a reduction of the dry season of one month (Li et al Geo. Rsch. 2006).
GCMs are amazing they can not only predict future climate but they can predict whatever climate you want.
10
Olaf – what tosh – tell us what the solar insolation was in those pre-historic times … trust a sceptic to stuff the fundamentals of an argument like that.
And a bloke called Mike G reported over at climateshifts “The corals of 450 MYA are extinct. They have been for about 300 million years, since the transition from a calcitic to aragonitic sea. They’re morphologically distinct from scleractinians and were gone for 50 million years or so before scleractinians started building reefs. When CO2 climbed in the Jurassic and Cretaceous, there was a transition back to calcitic seas, scleractinian nearly went extinct and all reef-building stopped for ~15 million years. Modern coral diversity and reef-building only goes back to about 45-50 million years when the seas made their most recent transition back from calcitic to aragonitic. CO2 has been below 500 ppmv for virtually that entire period.” feel free to rebut ! http://www.springerlink.com/content/085g2151l3nlt871/
Now Coho – surely you’re not going to tout some indulgent essay that you’ve posted on the internet as a source. Regime shifts indeed – how colourful and indulgent. Report back when it’s in GRL will you.
Look 1998 was also a regime shift too (why? coz I say it is just like you do) – so I’ve given you the post 1998 (1999 onwards) trend. Surely ? And why are you even sure the IPO even exists. Have you seen a graph of the thing – it’s a dogs brekky. Trust a sceptic to do a “break test” on an artifact.
And fancy dragging out that tired old Koutsoyiannis ruse – you well know that you’ve no chance of any validation given boundary conditions for ENSO aren’t included. Just as well I’m here isn’t it or you’d trying on all sorts of malarkey.
01
Brendon #203 – “Does it explain the long stretch of warming from Darwin down into WA?”
If you look at the first 3 graphs at the link I originally put up, there is no such stretch of warming in the satellite (UAH or RSS) data or even the 1979-2009 GISS surface station data.
I suspect the longer period has balanced the swings with the roundabouts compared with the 2000-2009 GISS map. Also you never know what odd version of homogenisation GISS has used unless you go station by station, and in WA and NT the long interstation distances are going to cause problems with GISS’s 1200 km smoothing horizon. Unfortunately UAH and RSS don’t appear to provide the regular global trend isotherm maps that GISS and NOAA NCDC do, although I may be missing something since UAH changed their website recently. NEO does nifty global maps based on RSS but doesn’t appear to allow multiyear trends.
10
“Yes but” @ 216:
The difference in solar energy at 100Mya would be between 6-9% less than today, which is completely within seasonal differences of some 7% average today.
This is what evolution is all about in case you missed it. However, I’m talking about corals and shellfish some 4x closer to the varieties we have today compared to that which you cite. When it comes to evolution of oceanic life, remember that not just climate, but tectonic forces such as continental drift and suddenly differentiating ocean currents, not to mention the changes in climate attributed to continental drift and changing ocean currents have an everlasting effect over a long period of time.
Co2 has virtually NOTHING to do with coral diversity, as it follows sunlight and can grow faster than sea level rise, which is why many islands have grown rather than shrunk over the last several thousand years.
I have. Now PROVE it’s due to CO2 and why we (YOU) should pay ever increasing taxes for something that’s still a “hype-othesis” and completely unproven in any catastrophic way.
Note – You still haven’t disproven anything I said in the post you gleaned your attack from in the first place (207). Was it far too simple for you.. somehow..?
10
cohenite: July 7th, 2010 at 10:50 pm writes
Can you please clarify for me, which of these applies to the Darwin station?
01
Bruce of Newcastle: July 7th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
So you think John Cristy is wrong when he suggests the temperature is increasing in the urban areas themselves, not carried away by the winds to the North Polar region. As he says Note the rapid rise in nighttime temperatures in the Valley as agriculture and urbanization occurred.
So is he right, or are you?
Bruce of Newcastle: July 7th, 2010 at 11:34 pm writes
I agree. That’s why I reduced the timeframe to when China had expanded dramatically. Yet it showed cooling for that region.
Oh, and about “your link”. They say
Where is it they get the idea that CO2 didn’t cause warming prior to 1970? That’s a new one for me. Can you direct me to where the IPCC says that since they don’t cite this?
01
Olaf moans “When it comes to evolution of oceanic life, remember that not just climate, but tectonic forces such as continental drift and suddenly differentiating ocean currents, not to mention the changes in climate attributed to continental drift and changing ocean currents have an everlasting effect over a long period of time.”
Thanks for playing Olaf – and yes all this affects climate too. And you omitted that little bunch of facts as well from from your simplistic and incorrect initial comment. As well as lower solar input. As for “6-9% less than today, which is completely within seasonal differences of some 7% average today.” I had to laugh – and you’ve calculated the impact of that through have you. How many watts difference at 65N to give you an ice age? CO2 doesn’t warm in the absence of solar radiation does it? Or perhaps you think it does? Pullease !
“Co2 has virtually NOTHING to do with coral diversity” – well it does – have a look around CO2 vents.
“Now PROVE it’s due to CO2 and why we (YOU) should pay ever increasing taxes for something that’s still a “hype-othesis” and completely unproven in any catastrophic way.”
Oh dear it’s the “you can never prove anything” approach of denialism. Yes well. As for taxes ? Am I asking you to pay taxes? A classic example of framing and verballing. Typical.
01
Yes but: Yes well. As for taxes ? Am I asking you to pay taxes? A classic example of framing and verballing.
Hmmm. Do we have another example of someone who treats his exact words as a primary and the concepts to which they refer to be irrelevant noise?
Ok. So you may not have exactly asked for us to pay taxes. If you support the reasons for taxation that those who do explicitly advocate taxes, you are in effect be advocating taxes by apparent intent and implication. It would be helpful for you to tell us what your position is on the so called “cap and trade” or other form of taxation to limit CO2 (aka GHG). Are they necessary and will they do more good than harm?
Try saying what you mean and meaning what you say. The actual specific words said or not said are not germane. Its the meaning that counts.
10
Jo,
Are you laughing as hard as I am at these feeble attempts to support the assertion that the earth is still warming…warming…warming without the slightest bit of credible support being offered? I’ll bet you didn’t realize that you have a joke wall on your site.
I’ve begun to enjoy the comedy instead of wanting to challenge every assertion for some honest proof.
10
Yes but,
You still haven’t answered my question at 127. I guess your handlers are stumped too. I’m not surprised, as there is only one correct answer and that answer means that CAGW is dead. Get over it. Pushing your brand of junk science here isn’t going to get you very far nor will it change the facts.
George
01
Regarding weather and climate prediction.
Climate is certainly easier to predict than weather, but you can’t predict the climate using weather forecasting techniques. This is the failure of GCM’s. GCM’s were designed to predict the weather, not climate. The problem is divergence. As the GCM diverges from reality, it may be predicting a climate, but is not predicting the climate.
The bottom line is that to the extent that the energy arriving from the Sun is known, COE dictates the consequences of that incident energy and the climate is theoretically predictable. However, to date, a valid model with predictive abilities has yet to be produced. All of the models which predict warming have been tweaked to predict warming because that’s what’s expected. There’s no first principles based model that predicts catastrophic warming from increasing CO2 by any amount, and until there is (which will never happen), you don’t have a leg to stand on.
George
10
Brendon:
July 7th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
Judging by your illogical response I would surmise that you didn’t read ther link I provided you. Instead, you shot from the hip with a stupid question about a glacier disappearing. The Bolivia effect refers to how much guess work and fudging goes into temperature data by GISS. There are no temp measurement station in Bolivia! Instead, the nearest temp stations are: beaches of Chili, Peru and the Amazon Jungle. Bolivia is comprised mainly oh high altitude plains and the Andes Mountains. The GISS manipulation of data is outright fraud. If you didn’t suffer from herd mentality you may actually use that brain of yours to do some independent research. But, that would involve real science and could negatively impact the faith of your green religion.
Safely assume it is cold? Actually, they show non existent warmth. Do your homework and quit being a pedantic pseud! The reason GISS shows a .7 degree warming trend is largely due to manipulation of data to achieve a predetermined outcome. You know, fraud? If you use that big brain of yours and read what is at the link you will find that it is an effect that is not limited to Bolivia. The US has the best temp system in the world and the majority do not meet NOAA standards.If you look at the raw data otr the data for rural stations then most of the warming disappears. See http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf and http://www.ozclimatesense.com/2010/02/us-rural-temperature-stations-show.html
Regarding your mentioning a retreating glacier, some are retreating and some are not. There has been some minor warming since we exited the little ice age. If global warming is causing glaciers to melt, why are so many growing? Seehttp://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm
Free unsolicited advice: when you respond, try and be consistent. I feel as if I am confounding you by putting you in a round room and telling you to go sit in a corner!
10
Sorry guys I had to go to bed I was laughing so hard at Brendon who puts his chin out there for a wacking
I am with your George and Roy its become a little like funniest home videos watching the guy swing out on the rope and forget to let go, then swing back and hit the tree.
Homogenisation – the art of adding fudge facters to temperature data until you get the reading you want. if no temp data exists just grab it from the next closest hot temperature site.
10
No doubt if you put either the GREEN COMMUNIST “Brendon” or the GREEN COMMUNIST “Yes but” into a room with two shovels and then told them to take their “pick” they would be CONFUSED!!
It is quite evident from the Pathetic DRIVEL that they have been wasting people’s time with here that they are “mental giants” – NOT!
I would recommend they they not apply to join MENSA!
They are merely two extremely dangerous, vacuous and fallacious puppets of al gore.
00
In your example above, you can predict percentages (of heads and tails) with greater and greater precision, but the opposite is true of the difference between the number of heads and number of tails, which becomes more uncertain with time. What, exactly, is the analogy to weather/climate?
In contrast to coin tosses, in which each toss is independent of every other toss, chaotic systems are extremely sensitive to initial conditions (the definition of a chaotic system) and can have extremely long (even infinitely long) memories. A single, trivial-seeming event can decide between two completely different future histories. Lorenz coined the term “butterfly effect” to describe this.
I think enough is known about modeling weather (and climate) to say that they definitely can’t be modeled by an independent series of random events, but are probably chaotic. (Weather modeling is what got the whole field of chaos started, after all.)
While it is possible for a system that is chaotic in the short term to be predictable in the long term, it is not something that can be assumed. Anyone who claims to be able to predict such a system can only establish that by demonstrated predictive skill — which GCMs and climate models in general have totally failed to do.
If this is obvious to you, perhaps you should create a model that does show predictive skill. That would be vastly more convincing than flawed analogies.
10
“Yes but” @ 221:
My initial comment was designed to be simplistic, however it’s not at all incorrect as you’ve now shown by calling volcanic sea floor vents “CO2 vents” and skirting the the real issue:
There you go again, you can’t prove human CO2 is the cause of any warming and yet your brothers in arms “govt” espouse it is. Indirectly, YOU want me to pay taxes for an unproven hype-othesis and to show why I should, you simply brush aside the core of the issue as above.
Temperatures swing some tens of degrees daily, not to mention seasonally, and somehow you feel 0.5 degrees change per century is cataclysmic and requires taxing, still without evidence of any kind considering the huge swings of the recent past:
http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html
I suggest you actually click that link and learn something for a change. Many of your CAGWist brothers will simply say “you don’t understand the science”. I do, but it’s really this simple. The science has been done and failing to be able to comprehend simple graphs may have been what led you to incorrect AGW conclusions. My initial comment stands firm.
10
Brendon #220
I’m glad to see you’re reading the work of John Christy. I’d not read this one which is from early 2009, but I see nothing which contradicts what I said. You said:
If you read the document he does not say “not carried away by the winds to the North Polar region”. He is talking about the San Joaquin Valley showing direct signs of UHI warming due to development, but the Sierra Nevada mountains nearby not showing such. He does not say where the heat is going to – my point is that heat will follow the climatic conditions, which on average is east and towards the poles. This is reasonable for the locations of large scale climate, where I was describing whole areas like N America, Europe, China/S Korea/Japan. In the San Joaquin Valley you have this dirty great range of cold mountains to the east, a bit of a road block to winds. If you want to find out where the heat flows to then you’d have to look where the climatic conditions on average take it. Almost certainly this is microclimate driven for this isolated case. You have no such mountain ranges off of New York, and my contention was that UHI related heat would flow out over the ocean and contaminate the sea surface temperatures along the average climatic direction. Christy’s submission does not say this does not occur, he is silent on what happens after UHI affects the local surface station, warming of which as I said certainly occurs. See my link about quality rural sites at #65: the urbanised San Joaquin Valley is not ‘quality’ being UHI affected as he argues.
So in summary I don’t disagree with Dr Christy in this case, I disagree with you who assigned a statement to him which he didn’t make either specifically or even in general terms.
Regarding the statement on the Appinsys webpage I cannot say what IPCC report or section they are citing. I draw your attention to my posts which use that webpage ONLY to link to the isotherm anomaly graphs to support my OWN words. This is the point of the scientific method, you set up your own hypothesis and prove or disprove it using data. I gave the data, I did not quote Appinsys’s words (which I don’t entirely agree with in that oversimplified case). The data which comes from UAH, RSS and GISS supports my hypothesis. If you want to know why they say that, or what basis in IPCC reports this statement is supposed to come from then you can ask the webmaster.
About cooling in China in the period 2000-2009, I point out the same principle – heat and therefore COLD moves generally and on average with the climatic winds, which INTO China come from Siberia, which has this great big cold anomaly in this last decade (not much UHIE going on in Siberia!). If you wonder about the general climatic wind direction from Siberia, ask yourself where all the loess came from for the Chinese plains. So China proper has cooled, while the UHI heat from the urbanised/industrialised coastal provinces has generally followed the climatic winds to the north and east, which as I said is apparent in that same chart (ie to Okhotsk).
I commend you on your effort, however the data you’ve provided appear to support my hypothesis, not refute it, while also supporting Spencer’s hypothesis that UHI has had such a strong effect on the temperature record that there is little warming signal left over to attribute to CO2 (and CH4/N2O etc) – as Christy says at the link you gave: “the developed Valley has warmed significantly while the undeveloped Sierra foothills have not”.
10
First: If the heat is going into the ocean below 2000 meters, exactly how is it getting there without transiting the shallower water? This reminds me of the “God of the gaps” argument often used against evolution. Deciding what must be true about things we have no direct knowledge of is, historically, a bad bet.
Second: The Argos floats most certainly do measure water temperatures (and other things) below floating ice. As they spend most of their time at depth, there is no way to prevent them from being swept under ice. More recent (since 2007) Argos floats are able to sense ice and not surface. They can either float at shallow depths waiting for clear water, or store their data and do another deep dive, depending on their programming. Some floats can be reprogrammed remotely, when they check in. (http://www.joss.ucar.edu/events/2009/aon/talks/monday_talks/breck_owens_ARGO.pdf)
Agreed. Very simple to do as long as you don’t let facts get in your way, and say anything you want.
10
Brendon #220
One additional thing. We were originally talking about sea surface temperatures in the time averaged satellite record. The land surface station temperature data is already at least partially corrected for UHI (although not completely, based on Spencer’s findings). SST is not corrected for UHI, whereas I think there IS a UHI contamination signal in SST in certain areas.
If you could go to UNCORRECTED raw land surface station data I’m sure the Chinese industrialised areas would stand out much more than they do in GISS’s chart. The UHI signal may be partly but not completely hidden for the land but is not hidden at sea since they never thought UHI should need to be corrected for in the SST series.
Note also this GISS chart you linked to at #165 is only a 3 year trend, and short baselines can get distorted by events like la Nina, which occurred during 2006-2009.
I don’t think GISS would dare put such a raw data chart into the public space however, it would demolish their own CAGW case.
10
Olaf says “My initial comment was designed to be simplistic” – yes mate I know 🙂 and misleading and half the story like most sceptic tosh
“Temperatures swing some tens of degrees daily, not to mention seasonally, and somehow you feel 0.5 degrees change per century is cataclysmic ” and old sceptic ruse – well comments like this make one wonder about the wisdom of democracy and the right to vote. (1) Cataclysmic is simply sceptic framing – may not be cataclysmic but humanity is already at war with climate – you can have some MORE ?!? (2) shifts in averages add to to changes in the extreme end of the distribution, and more importantly whole changes in circulation systems. See what sort of changes in ocean temperature does it takes to change rainfall distribution. El Nino is a few changes in degree. El Nino changes rainfall over half the planet. From a science viewpoint there is already a more than reasonable case that AGW has contributed to changes in Australian rainfall patterns. That’s “contributed”.
It’s an assessment of risk Olaf – and you deciding it’s about politics have made no formal evaluation of the science or risk.
01
Well, we now know that ‘Yes but’ has run out of science. Whenever the discussion degrades into risk assessment and precautionary principle arguments, you know they’ve been bottomed out. By the way the acceptable risk is zero relative to the ‘better safe than sorry’ precautionary principle nonsense. As far as I’m concerned, the law of unintended consequences should be far more important. What’s more, it seems that incremental atmospheric CO2 has far more positive benefits than negative ones, even if it had as much impact on the climate as the alarmists would like us to believe.
While the climate is hard to predict, it is easy to predict that some day, we will run out of carbon based fuel. When that day comes, our biggest concern will be how to replace the CO2 in the atmosphere in order to sustain agriculture and feed the population. It’s really too bad that CO2 isn’t as powerful as claimed. If it was, we would have a chance at mitigating the next, inevitable, ice age.
George
10
Eddie Aruda @226
Please don’t be too hard on “Brendon” and also “Yes But”. They have a high entertainment value. They are good for a laugh.
As to predictions of climate, here is my take. I reckon that next summer will be warm to hot and next winter will be cool to cold.
10
Brendon @ 219; you want to know which of the 2 methods of temperature homogenisation I described at 211 applies to Darwin; well, that’s the $64 question; you linked to this [comment 64]:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/12/11/how-low-can-you-go/#comment-843553
What adjustments do you think are going to be made since this is straight from the horse’s mouth? My point is that GISS/BoM and all the ‘official’ temperature data collectors have an atrocious record. I don’t want to cast aspersions but this summary of the process of adjustment is easy and accessible;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/23/adjusting-pristine-data/#more-3208
However, you will note that no detail about the homogenization algorithm is applied and that, apart from the incredible rigmorale in the process, is the crucial question; or at least one of them; the other one is what I raised at 211 but the formatting could not be reproduced there so I’ll try again: (A + B)^4 > A^4 + B^4; Do you know what this means? What it means is deduced from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, E = sigma x T^4, where sigma = 5.67×10^-8, and T is temperature in K; what this means is that temperature variations at particular sites contradict the efficacy of a global average temperature [GMST], even if homogenisation process has established a commonality of trend; the reason is that the amount of the IR emission from a locality which is determined by the SB equation can show no alteration in the Earth radiation [or energy] balance [ERB] despite an alteration in GMST; what AGW does is (A + B)^4 or adds all the site temps and then applies SB to that total; this does not take into account the temp differences between the sites which is crucial to ERB rather than the trends at those sites; the second part of the equation is crucial for spatial difference A^4 + B^4 where each site has its SB emissions determined before adding to other sites; you can see this is different by just plugging some figures into the equation and seeing how they differ.
Anyway back to Darwin; this should explain how Darwin temp data is manipulated to give false warming trends:
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/the-australian-temperature-record-part-1-queensland/
10
Lionell Griffith: #208
I’m just trying to understand stuff, and part of that understanding is getting rid of invalid arguments.
One argument which keeps appearing says that, “since we can’t accurately forecast weather, we can’t forecast climate”. The people making this assertion don’t define the terms precisely, because they think everyone understands what they mean, and I think I understand what they mean. Still, I’ll try and tighten things up a bit. So I think the original argument goes like this:
Because we can’t accurately predict whether a day 3 weeks in the future in Perth will have a higher maximum temperature than today (as measured by the met office in Mt Lawley), we can’t predict that the decade 2091-2100 will have a higher average global near surface level temperature than that of the current decade.
And I believe that this statement is false. We may or may not be able to predict future climate. But our inability to predict weather is irrelevant.
I don’t think that this is at all controversial. I don’t think that you, or anyone else actually believes that our inability to forecast weather has any relevance to our ability to forecast climate. As John Westman #236 says,
So he is happy to do climate predictions. But I bet he won’t be able to make an accurate prediction of the minimum and maximum temperature in wherever he lives on Christmas day.
02
Yes but:
July 8th, 2010 at 9:47 am
Your post and consequent attack against Olaf is so unwarranted and despicable that I will not justify it with the dignity of a block quote.
You are, by virtue of your lame and half witted post, nothing more than a weasel, pure and simple. Perhaps I am being harsh towards the weasel as the weasel serves a purpose in the grand scheme of things. You do not. You merely take up oxygen on the planet that a cockroach or rat could be breathing. The aforementioned creatures contribute in some way to nature’s grand plan. You do not. You are a waste of skin. You are an obsolete vessel of untruth that has been slated by human progress for extinction. The world will not mourn your passing. The interests of justice would be served if you could drag the rest of your ilk into that innermost circle of Dante’s inferno as punishment for the crimes that you and your conspirators have perpetrated against humanity.
I would ask you if you had any decency but the answer is blatantly obvious. You have no class and you are void of honor.
21
Hey, Yes but, have you been told or what!
02
Jeez Eddy, I wish you’d stop beating around the bush man! Mind you, I was pleased that you ‘apologised’ to the fine upstanding weasels of the planet for fleetingly associating them with our recent trolls.
On matters ETS: I heard our PM start to hedge her bets on it last night. Muttering things like a consensus with the people and that it’s not likely to see the light of day until after the 2013 election.
Methinks they are getting an earful still from the public.
00
John Brookes: I’m just trying to understand stuff, and part of that understanding is getting rid of invalid arguments.
Fair enough. However, if you don’t have a clear understanding of the terms you are using, you have no way to distinguish a valid from an invalid argument. Further, if neither party in a conversation understands what the other party thinks the words mean, the conversation is just as hopeless.
I pointed out a set of words you used who’s meaning must be clear and objective or critical thought and communication about your reckoning is impossible. “I just know” is not an adequate level of understanding to draw any conclusion but that no conclusions can be drawn. Ignorance is not an argument. Its an excuse.
So how about it? What do you mean by the critical terms I highlighted in 208?
I quote:
I really cannot take this conversation further without understanding your understanding of the five basic concepts to which your words refer. You don’t have to offer any explanation or definition but if you don’t I will not continue the conversation.
10
Lionell Griffith: #242.
I’m afraid you will have to discontinue the conversation. The words which you would like my definition of are everyday english words. Their definition is in a dictionary. I tried to clarify by moving from a generic statement to a specific case, but it appears that did not allay your concerns.
Thus far, not a single “frosty” (i.e. those who don’t believe AGW is happening) has agreed with me that an inability to predict weather does not of itself mean we can’t predict climate.
So I guess I will list this as a point of difference between frosties and hotties:
Frosties believe that an inability to predict weather means that we can’t predict climate. Hotties believe that an inability to predict weather is irrelevant to the prediction of climate.
01
Yes but: #234
July 8th, 2010 at 9:47 am
Oh we are, are we? So then, it should be easy for you to name/list the people who have been adversely affected by this “war”. No need for individual names. Just list some communities perhaps. You know. like…..”the Yes Butt village of the Sore Butt nation had to be evacuated due to….”
And while you’re at it, how about you name/list species adversely affected by this war. It has now been nearly 30 years of AGW scare campaign. That’s a climate length, surely someone something somewhere is suffering from this 30 year war.
NAME THEM
If you don’t, then admit Eddys post at #239 is totally accurate.
10
John Brookes: #243
July 8th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
John firstly let me say you have been a delight here over the last few days, and I really mean that. The contrast between your posts and Yes Butt have been stark.
Regards weather and climate, let me point out the following to you.
* Projecting TEMPERATURE 20, 50, 100 years hence is NOT projecting climate.
* What the consequences of that T rise is the key
* The consequences of that T rise IS WEATHER (storms, drought floods etc) That’s what’s going to (supposedly) hurt us, not the T rise itself per se.
* If the consequences of the T rise CANNOT be projected, then it is safe to say we can’t project climate.
* Substitute predict for project at your leisure
00
Gee Baa Humbug – you might just have me there – mmmmm – let’s see we could add up the ongoing costs of El Nino, droughts, floods, hurricanes, heat waves, cold outbreaks
And perhaps billions spent on drought aid over decades…. nothing to worry about hey? Do go on.
Eddy – nice tie today too – don’t mistake a robust discussion with abuse. I was being polite. Do you think you lot should be able to misrepresent, libel, vilify and disparage without any right or reply. Look we know you’re born to rule. But isn’t free will and free thought a bitch. And do get some personal feedback – your rant would only confirm our worst fears about the sort of people you really are. Very unsettling – perhaps we may even quote you.
Let’s check your checklist – conspirators, crimes, justice, punishment, inferno, extinction (left out Al Gore being fat). Come on matey – have a Bex and good lie down.
Eddy – did your Mummy ever tell you not to do the nana when you’ve lost an argument. Try arguing the science.
Coho – you’re doing well here. They like you. My compliments.
01
John Brookes:
July 8th, 2010 at 11:21 am
Lionell Griffith: #208
No, you are not. You are a lettered man of at least normal intelligence as demonstrated by your ability to construct a sentence and your rudimentary understanding of basic grammar. Feigned ignorance is no badge of honor. Quit being disingenuous and start being sincere. Quit pretending to be mentally challenged as it is beneath your dignity.
10
Obviously, John, you didn’t read (or understand, if you did read) my post at 229. This is what I said:
So, yes; I agree that climate may be non-chaotic (predictable) at much longer scales than weather, which is chaotic and only predictable over very short term. You miss the main point, however, when you say:
No one’s belief about this issue is relevant — there is no way we should destroy the global economy on the basis of anyone’s belief.
Again, this is what I said in #229:
(The parenthetical comment is added.)
There is no a priori reason to believe that a system composed entirely of chaotic components is other than chaotic itself. The only way to establish that climate is not chaotic and can be predicted is by demonstrated predictive skill. This is not something that can be established by asking a scientist’s (or a million scientists’) opinions — and especially when said scientists are paid by the government for producing opinions supporting increases in government power.
So far, none of the “hotties” (shouldn’t you say “changies” to keep up with the current style?) have produced any models with demonstrated predictive skill (at time scales of > 1 year) distinguishable from chance.
The burden of proof is upon the “hotties” to demonstrate that they can predict climate. This cannot be done by theoretical argument, by consensus, or by any other way than demonstration. So far, no such demonstration has been made. There is no evidence that this is other than a manufactured “crisis” by those with ulterior motives.
Here is one real difference between “Hotties” and “Frosties”: If you can produce the evidence asked for above, you will convert nearly all of the “Frosties” — No amount of evidence converts dedicated “Hotties”. Just another indication of the artificial nature of this “crisis”.
10
Point of clarification! My post was directed towards John Brooks, not Lionell Griffith.
10
I might add “anti-science” as well.
10
Yes but:
July 8th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
I wasted my time trying to do so with a dissembling dotard like you!
Here are some quotes from the biggest time bandit on the site, you, Yes but.
As a matter of practice, I do not discriminate against gay men. So, Yes but, when are you going to come out of the closet?
10
Eddy Aruda: #247:
No Eddy, I genuinely am trying to understand stuff. I know some things, and not others. I need to know more. Its a slow process, and one way to improve my understanding is to put it here and see what you guys think. Several people here have already helped, and to them I am grateful.
Note to BobC #248. I’ve not asserted that anyone can predict climate. I take your point about chaotic systems being, well, chaotic. Do I gather that you agree with me that an inability to predict weather does not of itself preclude our predicting climate (although, as you point out, other things may preclude it). Give me a yes or a no!
01
John Brookes:
July 8th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
John,
I apologize if I have misunderstood you. Jo’s archives contain a wealth of information on the subject of global warming. Another excellent site is junkscience.com.
Some of your statements are quite vexing. An example:
Your reasoning is fallacious as your observation is contradicted by the facts, “Frosties” believe that the climate is a chaotic non linear system and that is beyond our current scientific abilities to predict its future. “Hotties” believe that the atmospheric content of CO2 (388 parts per million), which in relation to the total content of the atmosphere is the equivalent of the linoleum on the first floor of a one hundred story sky scraper, is going to dramatically alter climate via an unproven and never before observed positive feedback loop and cause catastrophic global warming which will result in an apocalypse. BTW, man’s contribution to the atmosphere’s CO2 content is analogous to a barely discernible scratch in the linoleum on the floor of the first story of the aforementioned one hundred story skyscraper.
Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is a failed and falsified hypothesis. The burden of proof is on the proponents of the hypothesis. They have failed miserably to make their case. Good luck with your research and search for the truth.
10
How clever yes butt – we never had any of those until 30 years ago. Boy with your logic you will go far.
A question for you
were you born stupid or do you take a class or something?
00
Yes but: #246
July 8th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
If that’s all you got, then I do have you. Your a joke Butt.
Now you can tell us how CO2 causes El Ninos
Then you can tell us WHICH drought, flood hurricane or heat wave was caused by CO2
And finally, you can tell us how is it that Global Warming causes COLD OUTBREAKS.
[snip] ED
If you had half a functioning brain, you’d be dangerous.
10
Scott: #254
July 8th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
You asked Yes Butt…
You’ll find it is both.
You see, those advocacy focused professors choose the dumbest, easily led impressionable students and indoctrinate them with the ways of gaia. Result???? Luke Yes Butt
10
John Brookes:
July 8th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Your question is illogical as it assumes that predicting the weather and predicting the climate are the same except that climate is weather over a longer period.. This is a sweeping generalization. Your “yes or no” question is a bifurcation, also known as a false dilemma. Climate is a chaotic non linear system. One change in the variables skews and nullifies the forecast. The weatherman can always be wrong. Have you ever noticed that the further out the forecast is the greater the chance for error in the forecast?
10
@ Baa Humbug
I seemed to have misplaced my gloves! 😉
10
Thanks Baa
I presume thats what gives the stupidity compounding effect. 🙂
00
“Now you can tell us how CO2 causes El Ninos”; that was the wrong question Baa, Yes but [luke] will now produce a torrent of Vecchi and Meehl papers.
Speaking of questions and John’s odd seperation of frosties and hotties; the point about AGW predictions is that they are predicated on certain assumptions, predominantly that increases in human emissions of CO2 [ACO2] will cause various catastrophic weather events and cause a new temperature plateau when CO2 levels cease to rise; this is the so-called equilibrium sensitivity which assumes a delay in the effect of increased ACO2 on temp. So, John, what you are really discussing is not the difference between weather and climate but the assumptions underlying AGW; any prediction must be based on an assumed knowledge of what causes weather and climate and that is the dispute we are having.
Luke has poo-poohed Kousoyiannis who I linked to earlier; Koutsoyiannis is one of the world’s leading scientists in the field of climate prediction and understanding of the stochastic nature of climate. What he has shown is that one of the primary methods AGW has in verifying its assumptions about climate, predictions into the future, is wrong; see;
http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/850/
Click on the condensed version of the presentation. Noone has refuted Koutsoyiannis which is why luke maligns him.
The other way AGW seeks to validate its climate assumptions is through hindcasting, hence the Hockeystick and the notion that todays temperatures are unprecedented both in extent and rate of increase because of ACO2; in this too they have failed;
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080619142112.htm
Now a 22F increase in 50 years is a temp increase! The fact is even the 2nd 1/2 of the 20thC is not exceptional:
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b370/gatemaster99/warmtwice.png
This are not controversial; so the conclusion is, it is not about predictions, or weather vs climate but whether the AGW assumptions are correct; if they demonstrably wrong, as I think I have just shown, then it does not matter whether you are talking about next week or 50 years hence the prediction will be just GIGO.
10
Dear Cohers sensing the danger tries to head me off. Good try but we’ll just let that sit.
Baa Humbugsly – I have to hand it to you – one doesn’t often land a dopey sceptic marlin that easily. You’re going to fast boy – slow down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx98pskffOY&feature=related
Now Baa H “Now you can tell us how CO2 causes El Ninos
Then you can tell us WHICH drought, flood hurricane or heat wave was caused by CO2
And finally, you can tell us how is it that Global Warming causes COLD OUTBREAKS.”
Now boy – did I say CO2 caused all that. No …. you jumped the gun boy. I never said any of that was caused by CO2 and you missed the point coz you were too busy swinging without thinking (again).
I simply said, and Bob Carter even agrees, that natural hazards are … errr … hazardous.
But I guess you don’t think they are …. hmmmm. Humanity may have even went close to extinction in one of those early African mega-droughts. Now that would be catastrophic – well for humanity at least.
Now of course AGW probably does change cold air outbreak patterns – http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/outreach/proceedings/cdw29_proceedings/vavrus.ppt
And CO2 probably has already changed southern hemisphere circulation – maybe the 1940s drought having a dash of AGW in it.
And maybe CO2 might change El Nino too and other interesting things.
But hey BH – let’s not get all sophistamuckated with the science when we can fight over whether the sky is blue.
“Koutsoyiannis is one of the world’s leading scientists in the field of climate prediction and understanding of the stochastic nature of climate.”
Come on Cohers – what’s he predicted then eh?
01
John Brookes:
Your post at #243 is the second time you have ignored an answer I have taken the trouble to provide you.
At #243 you say:
But my post at #196 gave a complete explanation of the reasons why it is impossible to predict climate at present, and it concluded saying:
It is beginning to seem that your posts here are disingenuous in that they purport to be seeking information about climate but – in reality – are about “difference between frosties and hotties”.
Just in case you had not noticed, this blog is about climate change. It only considers people in terms of the effects on people rsulting from climate change and policies excused by climate change.
Richard
10
Yes but: #261
July 8th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
You slippery little thing you. It was you who said we were already at war with climate at #243. I asked you to name the victims of this said war at #244. You then came up with El Nino etc at #246
Now Yes Butt, what war on climate are you talking about if not the one supposedly caused by mans emissions?
Like I said before…M.O.R.O.N. You need to take your hand off of yourself, you’ll go blind, didn’t your “close mentor” professor tell you this during one of your sessions.
10
Yes but:
Please compare your post at #246 that includes several incorrect assertions to your post at #261 that denies your assertions are true.
For example; Baa Humbug asked you to justify your claim concerning “cataclysmic” AGW that said;
He phrased his call for you to justify that saying:
Your response at #236 says;
But your post at #261 then says;
That is a falsehood!
The discussion was concerning your assertions of cataclysmic AGW from CO2. So, yes, you did “say CO2 caused all that”, as anybody can read for themselves.
Please note that this is merely one example. Anybody can see for themselves that your post at #261 refutes each assertion you made in your post at #246.
Please explain why you bother to post statements that you later deny are true?
Is it that you are a liar who says whatever seems convenient at the time in hope that nobody will notice your lies?
Richard
10
Richard S Courtney: #262:
I suddenly got all excited because I realised that there is quite a good analogy to global climate – the share market.
The movement of one particular stock from day to day is weather. The movement of the sharemarket index itself over a longer period is climate. Now what an individual stock does 3 weeks from now is pretty well impossible to predict. What the market index does over a short period (say 5 years) is also impossible to predict. But the long term behaviour of the share market is semi-predictable. Over the long term it goes up. Sure there are 10 year periods over which it doesn’t increase (just like temperature, eh?), but overall it just keeps going up. Why? Well, its not just random, its because there is a concerted continuous push in one direction, up.
So I’d go as far as to say that I see no reason why we can’t predict trends in climate, even if there is a chaotic component to climate.
Having said that, the Nikkei is an obvious counterexample. Having peaked in 1990, it only started to recover in 2003, and since then the recovery has not been convincing. But maybe looking at one share index (the Nikkei) in isolation is cherry picking, as Japan may have been usurped by China, and if China’s index was included (along with Korea, India etc), it might be a different story.
I like visiting here. It makes me think. Anyhow, I’ve probably outstayed my welcome so I’ll go away for a while now. See ya.
11
j brooks~ pray tell, what does a ‘stock market Crash’ mean, in climate terms?
10
The only way John Brookes’ #265 analogy to the stock-market may be relevant is that when a company goes bust it is de-listed and no longer traded on the market and therefore not included in the index. Also, the major stock-market indices in the world simply include the largest companies by capitalisation. So in both instances there is in effect some cherry picking involved which over-emphasises the upward trend over time. Now that does have a familiar ring to it!
10
Richard and Baa, so luke said that:
“but humanity is already at war with climate”
Amazing; he is just an old recycled gaia worshipper after all; I just find this view, which I’m sure informs, to a large extent, the AGW mantras, to be both infantile and religious; and the absolute core of this debate. Climate and nature, which are synonymous to AGW, is merely a set of processes which have rubbed chaotically against each other for eons to reach the current environment; to regard this environment as special and inviolate would mean that no progress could occur because every amenity, every aspect of a civilised and decent life has come about from keeping nature at bay and overcoming its limitations. Many of the AGW supporters, like luke, would regard pristine nature to be preferential to human need and advocate reduction of world population to less than a billion and in the case of Australian academics like Glen Albrecht, to less than the aboriginal population which prevailed before contact with Europeans.
How humans interact is a crucial debate because we cannot despoil our environment but from the AGW vantage the solution is a Clive Hamilton one; a drastically reduced population living [sic] at the beck of natural randomness.
At war with climate indeed.
10
What I said at #248 John, is:
Most people, who took the time to read that, would understand it as a “yes”.
If you are really “trying to understand things”, why the “gottcha” arguments? I remember arguing like that in grammar school on the playground.
When I said that, BTY, I was thinking specifically of turbulence in an otherwise predictable fluid flow. The small-scale turbulence is unpredictable, the larger flow can be predicted, given the right conditions. Given the wrong conditions (very large Reynolds number, say) the turbulence takes over everything. We know all this, not because we have some published papers on it, but because it has been demonstrated a great many times that using the laws of fluid dynamics (essentially Newton’s laws) under the right conditions we can produce successful predictions.
So far, no one has demonstrated predictive ablility on the climate, nor is there any theoretical reason yet put forth to believe it can be done. Initial studies (Lorenz in the 60s) indicated that the entire system was chaotic to a large degree.
Similarly, in your stock market analogy, there is much more evidence that the markets are chaotic than predictable.
I find it somewhat ironic that the folks who are pushing (with zero evidence and against most theoretical expectations) the AGW agenda might, in fact, make the stock market predictable — the global economy will crash if they get their way.
00
Dear Richard – perhaps you have trouble with comprehension
” So, yes, you did “say CO2 caused all that”, as anybody can read for themselves.”
Where did I say that ? You wouldn’t be attempting verbal me would you? SO PUT UP OR SHUT UP !
The point for anyone with a scintilla of nous would be that humanity has battled climate extremes for millenia – ergo existing climate variability is a bit of a problem.
The point being that even without AGW impacts climate is a problem. Your luminary Bob Carter has even said so.
It is my position that I think there is reasonable evidence that AGW will add to those impacts. And there will be winners and losers. And perhaps as luck would have it, after all that praying, I’m sure God preferences white anglo-Saxon Protestant US wheat farmers ( a bit of indulgence there in case Baa Humbug has a seizure).
In the sceptics’ haste to rhetorically stab the opposition to death inevitably you trip over yourselves in gleeful blunder. So anxious – such little care. But that’s the quality of sceptic understanding.
@268 Oh I don’t think so Cohers – pray tell then – why have we been spending $100Ms for decades on drought relief? And Coho – as a lawyer – don’t verbal me matey and a woeful diversion from the intellectual roadwreck you know they’ve stumbled into. You should have warned them. And you know I’m pro-nuclear as the solution.
00
Cohenite:
Please forgive my making a knit-picking point, but it annoys people (including me) of a religious persuasion. And it is pertinent to my understanding of why the AGW-scare has ‘taken hold’ in the developed West.
At #265 you say;
I agree your point, but the “view” is superstitious and not religious.
A religion is a coherent set of beliefs based on acceptance of a set of tenets that are accepted by its adherents.
There are many religions each with different tenets.
Some are deific (i.e. they have as a tenet the existence of a God or Gods); for example, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism.
Others are atheistic (i.e. they have as a tenet the denial that a God or Gods exist); e.g. Marxist-Leninism and humanism.
And some are agnostic (i.e. they have no consideration of the existence of a God or Gods in their tenets); for example, Bhuddism.
A good religion benefits people. But a bad religion harms them, and there have been some bad religions; for example, the religion of the Incas, Marxist-Leninism, etc.
But people with a religious persuasion can be converted to another religion with different tenets so, over time, the good displaces the bad because people prefer that which benefits them.
And a variety of beliefs can be adopted within the constraints of any set of tenets so each religion exists in a variety of forms (i.e. sects or denominations).
A superstition is an irrational belief that is usually based on natural human fears of death, destruction and the future. It has no agreed tenets.
There are many superstitions; for example, “you will get bad luck when a black cat crosses your path”, and “your future is affected by the apparent position of the planets in the sky”.
Importantly, a superstition has no underlying tenets so its adherents cannot be converted. Also, it is hard to remove a superstition because it is based on emotion – usually fear – and, therefore, it is not accessible to rational dispute.
People have inate need for beliefs. So, when religion is lost then superstition fills the void.
But religion (e.g. Christianity and Marxist-Leninism) has declined in the developed West and so the search for something to replace it is to be expected. And the cult of AGW is filling the void created for many people by the loss of religious adherence in the developed West.
It is perhaps pertinent that the US has experienced less decline of religion than most of the developed West and it took much longer for the AGW-cult to get acceptance in the US.
A lack of logic and refusal to face facts are classic behaviours of people who choose to replace religion with superstition. In the Middle Ages the European Christian Church was governed by superstition (e.g. the populace were not allowed to read the Bible so were forbidden to know the tenets). The result was aweful.
Similar behaviour is demonstrated by adherents to the cult of AGW. They ignore reality, they espouse irrational beliefs, they contradict themselves as and when it suits them, and they attack any who question their belief.
But over centuries the Christian Church returned to the constraints of the tenets of Chritianity, and the evils of the Mediaval Church are now rightly condemned. When people return to the principles of science then they find that those principles demand that they reject AGW. One can only hope that will not take centuries for the cult of AGW to be overcome.
Richard
00
yes but @ all:
It is clear to me that you must have to slather on a lot of grease before posting here. Slippery language, a constant supply of links that don’t prove anything just more smoke and mirrors. The predictable signs of real trolls; smugness, condescension, evade, parry, thrust, parry, tap dance, twirl, sing, stand back and claim higher standards.
You are mighty full of yourself. Trouble for you is that you are seen clearly for what you are: a well greased acolyte of the AGW religion, and mostly full of sh*t.
00
In light of Richard C @ 271,
I amend my post above to: Trouble for you is that you are seen clearly for what you are: a well greased acolyte of the AGW superstitious cult, and mostly full of sh*t.
00
Yes But:
Your bluster at #270 fools nobody.
In response to my pointing out that you blatantly lied, you childishly cry;
I did “put up” with a complete explanation of your lie in my post #264. But you now have the temerity to claim that you did not say what you did.
Perhaps the complete quotation from your post at #234 will assist your selective memory. Your full paragraph (that I cited in my post at #264) says;
So, you listed all the climate effects that you assert are being affected by AGW and bolstered those suggestions by claiming;
“From a science viewpoint there is already a more than reasonable case that AGW has contributed to changes in Australian rainfall patterns.”
You do not seem to understand that one lie cannot be justified by bluster and another lie.
Apologise for your lie, then go away.
Richard
10
Richard; one of the things that has struck me about AGW is its similarity to the Eden parable; a natural paradise before mankind bites at the fruit of knowledge [fossil fuels] and then is punished/cast down for its temerity; AGW would seem to be the casting down; or rather the stern [sic] remedies advocated to remedy the straying from the path. Then again I suppose Frankenstein had the same message.
Perhaps luke is the Frankenstein monster, or maybe Igor? I see he has reverted to his old favourite of droughts: “the horror, the horror”; perhaps the powers that be should read David’s slide show; slides 16-18:
http://landshape.org/data/StockwellCSP.ppt.pdf
00
Don’t try to verbal me with your bullying style Courtney. What I said was precise and accurate to the comments being made at the time. Your own bluster indicates your complete lack of comprehension.
Cataclysmic is framing tactics and users need to be called out on it. Artificially framing arguments, leaving half the story out and quote mining is sceptic tool in trade.
DO YOU ENDORSE THESE TACTICS?
Do you endorse the quality of the science reported here? http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html A simple yes or no will suffice.
And indeed humanity has been at war with climate for millenia. A recent clipping as a small example http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/08/2947899.htm
And indeed I think there is reasonable science that AGW can make that worse.
And indeed I emphatically did say not AGW was the sole cause of all climate problems as Baa Humbug asserted.
I insist you apologise for calling me a liar !
01
Thanks Coho – I needed a copy of that. Appreciated.
00
Yes but: #276
July 8th, 2010 at 11:42 pm
No you idiot, I insist YOU apologise for behaving like a dick head and lying thru your teeth.
Playing word games isn’t going to let you off the hook.
20
Cohenite:
You make good points at #275.
We do not want to disrupt this forum with religious discussion (we have enough trolls trying to disrupt it), but I think you will want to hear the introduction to one of my presentations at the first Heartland Conference.
That introduction is a parody of a ‘hell fire’ sermon on the Eden myth, but is from the perspective of the AGW cult. It seems to have amused some others because they have copied it onto You Tube and blogs.
If you want the laugh then go to
http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork08/newyork2008-video.html
the scroll down to
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
8:45 – 10:15 a.m.
Track 2: Climatology
Then click on my name and scroll back up to the top to see the video.
I hope you find the introduction as funny as I did preparing and presenting it. (And you may be interested in some of the bulk of that presentation, too).
Richard
00
Yes But:
Re. your demand of me at #276.
I have no need to apologise for anything. You lied. When I pointed out your lie then you responded with another lie. I did not call you a “liar”.
However, I now point out that a person who attempts to justify his having lied by telling another lie is a liar.
So, I demand that you apologise for your lies then go away.
And if you think that demand is “bullying” then you should try taking some of the bullying that your ilk try on me as a norm.
Richard
10
Eddy Aruda: July 8th, 2010 at 5:22 am
Nah. I just took a shortcut to the obvious.
Yes I could have entered into a debate with you about how a grid of temp changes can/can’t account for the observed global climate change, but I decided it would be easier to skip that and look at the direct evidence of warming in Bolivia.
Oh if there’s one thing I will definitely be, is pedantic. Us skeptics are very pedantic!
If GIS temps are bad, then you must be also suggesting that all the other reconstructions, which also show the same trends as GIS are also committing fraud.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Picture-381.png
Are you one of those people suggesting a world-wide conspiracy theory?
I took a look at some of the links. Frankly I am not impressed with the quality of research, but let’s persist.
I went to the Greenland glacier advancing 7.2 miles per year item. The comment says “The article then blathers on about how this is consistent with global warming.”, although it doesn’t say why it would be wrong. The first two links are dead.
I open the “Transcript” link and have a read. About the glacier, it says
So it’s not growing in size, it’s actually moving. They go on to say
So your link to say that glaciers are growing, actually supports global warming!!! Seems the over-exubrious web-blogger got carried away and doesn’t know the difference between advancing and growing.
Perhaps some articles of a scholarly nature would be more reliable reading.
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=glacier&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=2005&as_vis=0
A warning though, most that study glaciers are also reporting an acceleration of melt in recent decades.
Thanks I’ll bear that in mind when next you present a blogger “science” site filled with “advancing” glaciers.
00
So: I eagerly await your take-down of Al Gore for his blatant use of “cataclysmic framing tactics” /sarc-off
Looking at the totality of Yes-butt’s remarks, he appears to be a raving lunatic, brainwashed into a superstitious cult and impervious to reasoned argument. Discussing anything with him is a waste of time (probably his goal).
00
To Brendan @ 281:
Conspiracy is unnecessary and a red herring. (One might even say that it is a deceptive “framing”, to adopt progressive-speak.)
This outcome was predicted as a consequence of the government take-over of scientific research 49 years ago by departing President Ike Eisenhower in his farewell address to the nation (http://www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/indust.html). While this speech is better known for Ike’s warning about the “military-industrial complex”, he spent nearly the same amount of time warning about “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money…” and warned that “…we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.” (I think perhaps Ike over-estimated the ethical level of scientists here — it is the politicians who have captured the scientific establishment.)
Perhaps the only demonstrated positive feedback in AGW is this:
Individuals in government, who control public moneys and desire more power, fund scientists to produce unsubstantiated opinions that support the idea that the only thing that will save us is giving the government more power.
We know from long tragic history that governments, when faced with the choice of increasing government power at the expense of the public good, will always choose to increase power, unless adequate restraints are present. It is a rare person in politics who has a reputation for ethical behavior.
It’s too bad that so many scientists are so easily bought — but there is no reason to believe that scientists, as a group, are any more ethical than average. On the contrary, there is nothing I can see in the graduate education and academic experience that particularly rewards ethical behavior.
00
Brendon:
Having made a fool of yourself and been totally demolished on the other thread, you now come here presumably with the intention of displaying more of your ignorance and stupidity.
Please go away. We used to have a useful troll who frequented here with mistaken ideas that were a spur to thought and debate.
Your comments are never useful and are mostly daft.
So, I repeat my request. Please go away. Your bosses may then replace you with another useful troll.
Richard
00
@John Brookes: #175:
Weather forecasts are not predicated on averages to any great extent.
Weather comprises more than just temperature, as does climate. For example moisture, wind direction and precip have a little something to do with the Monsoon seasonal weather in SE Asia, don’t you think? Maybe cloud cover (or lack) is a factor of climate. Tornados are part of climate in many US states as are hurricanes in others. Then there are Foehn winds, pressure, terrain, ground cover, and more, but enough of that.
It does appear that few predictions for climate take into account many of these variables which surely limits even their accuracy to even properly describe the climate. Our US military does take into account even more things to provide climate forecasts for specific conditions (ground moisture, visibility, tides etc.) for contingency planning. But thats another story. Still I haven’t seen many readily available climate forecasts that have any great accuracy, so maybe it can be posited that at least these folks haven’t yet demonstrated that their version of climate can be forecast with any great accuracy. Do they need a bigger die set?
I could probably name several US cities that you could visit with the same daily temperature during a visit, but all with different climates. For example, I maintain it is impossible to describe the climate of San Francisco using only temperature. This would indicate that their data set is far too limited.
And please recognize that averages of averages are essentially mathematical garbage.
I’ll comment that the so-called climatologists that use a 30 years (or whatever) period of data to define climate do it for some way to cope with the complexities of climate variability. On the other had it hard to argue that when I walk out the door here in Florida I am not experiencing both weather and climate. If not, when do I experience climate? I’ve only lived here 23 years. Do I have to wait another 7 years to experience the climate?
That reminds me of a story I tell about being discovered as a military (flying tactical recon) weatherman one summer many years ago in South Carolina.
Every time we bought meat at his store the clerk would ask me what the weather forecast for tomorrow was. Generally I had no idea having been off in the boonies hundreds or even thousands of miles away from the US. So most of the time I would say, “Hot and humid with scattered afternoon showers.” I was right much of the time during that summer, using average weather.
See how easy it is? And I didn’t even use dice!
00
Yes but: says
July 8th, 2010 at 11:42 pm
How about these:
And
Are you going to “call” them on it?
00
Given that nobody can predict climate (we are agreed), what is the possible excuse for trying to control it? Trying to control it without being able to predict it is like driving blindfolded — not likely to end well.
01
Old post, but a very interesting presentation you linked. The answer to John’s question is on pages:
Pages 34-35: Does the climate exhibit Hurst-Kolmogorev behavior? Yes.
Page 33: HK behavior implies much lower predictability for climate on scales > 2-3 years (compared to a random process).
Page 37: Do climate models reproduce HK behavior? No
Climate modeling is not ready for prime-time. Basing policy on predictions made by models without predictive skill is a fraud and driven by ulterior motives.
00
Mark D – well actually yes – have been over there asking some hard questions. Have you?
I note Richard hasn’t engaged on any of my points – so we’ve simply decided to stonewall. Predictable.
Interesting tactics by the faux sceptics – having been exposed thoroughly in debate – they’re retired into abuse and mock umbrage.
NOT ONE SCIENCE RETORT gents. Very very poor. Frankly I’m offended.
SO ANSWER THE QUESTION FAUX SCEPTICS – do you agree with Bob Carter that natural hazards are an ongoing issue for humanity – YES or NO !
Cohenite – “Do climate models reproduce HK behavior” – are you sure. Do you know what lurks in long scale integration runs. Have you checked? Bet not.
00
Yes but,
I asked you a simple science question (see post 127), which you have yet to answer. You seem to think that irrelevant points and name calling somehow makes your case. You then avoid the hard science questions and complain about others not addressing the science when you or another troll drags them into irrelevant side bars. This is the typical behavior we see from trolls and why many have a short fuse when dealing with people like you.
I would be happy to discuss the science with you, but be warned, all of the junk science you hold near and dear will crumble down around you. Perhaps a fear of this is why you are reluctant to engage in a scientific discussion? Of course, like most trolls, you are not likely to have a strong science background, and a discussion of scientific fundamentals will be way over your head.
George
00
Yes But:
You really are incorrigible.
You lied. When I pointed out your lie then you responded with another lie. I have demanded an apology for your lies. Now at #289 you write:
You have made no “points” that justify or apologise for your lies in any way.
That is the only thing which is “predictable” about this.
Importantly, you have clearly decided to “stonewall” but I have not, and I have given no indication of any kind that I have any intention of doing that. So, your use of the word “we” is another lie (although a trivial lie when compared to your whoppers that induced my demand for your apology).
In fact, and contrary to your lie that I wish to “stonewall”, I persist in my demand that you apologise for your growing list of lies.
Apologise for your lies then go away.
Richard
00
yes but @ 289; no I have not been over there (where ever that is) to ask hard questions. I’m here asking you easy ones to show how you are doing exactly what you claim skeptics are doing namely: Artificially framing arguments, leaving half the story out and quote mining.
Perhaps you have noticed that the subject of AGW has moved beyond conversation to active manipulation of national laws. I spend more of my time with politicians because that is where the imaginary problem that your “scientists” created, will be put down. You can spend all the time here that you want spinning dizzy stories about whatever. AGW already has become a showdown of “my scientists are better than yours” and still there is no hard evidence. Worse for you is that the “science” has become absurd! Cooling means warming, winter means warming, snow means warming, Oceans are warming with “hidden” deep warming, mystical delay in the warmth being seen, ignore the sun and so much more. Your AGW is a house of cards! Skeptics know this and your team has not been able to do better than authority based fear mongering.
00
Poor yes butt failing basic science again
had his butt wipped in science and debate by all and sundary
cant hold a conversation or a common thread
turns in circles and ends up on his head
when he answers Georges question with some science
we might all be shocked but that I doubt.
Go on Yes butt give it a go were all dying for another laugh
00
Brendon:
July 9th, 2010 at 12:09 am
In other words you, Brendon, are a lazy intellectual slob who is incapable of deductive reasoning or doing any research before you stick your foot so far down your mouth that it gives everybody who sees you the false impression that there is something between your legs!
There is no direct evidence because there are no GISS temp measurement stations in the entire country, you fool!
Main Entry: pe·dan·tic
Pronunciation: \pi-ˈdan-tik\
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1600
1 : of, relating to, or being a pedant
2 : narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously learned
3 : unimaginative, pedestrian
Yep, thats you Brendon!
Wow! You are correct. GISS will eventually have to release their emails and other info that have been the subject of an FOIA. When they do, fraud will be uncovered and an attempted whitewash will almost certainly follow.
Translation: The evidence is and contradicts and demolishes my preconceived green cult beliefs so I will reject it out of hand.
You are such an idiot! When it is cold snow falls. Glaciers are created by snowfall. Snow compacts into ice. The ice becomes denser with more snow and ice continues accumulating. Gravity acts upon the ice and the glacier advances, you know, it GROWS? When it is warm, snow melts. The glacier retreats. You know, SHRINKS? So, let me sum it up for you, warmth causes glaciers to shrink and cold causes glaciers to grow. Growing glaciers do not support the argument for AGW!
Another assertion with no evidence to support it. The IPCC says the Himalayas will be gone in thirty-five years. THe experts say that is BS! They call it glaciergate!
BTW, your link to google scholar leads to a google sheet with several links. If you were anything but a dimwit you would have made an argument and then cited some evidence. Citing google in that manner is more fallacious reasoning. You know, Argumentum ad nauseam?
You are living proof that the village idiot has been replaced by the site idiot!
00
Luke @ 289: “long scale integration runs”; go on luke, you know you are just itching to introduce Parker et al into the conversation; aren’t you? As I said to you before Parker’s analysis is deficient because it does not consider stochastic factors and break occurances; but at least Parker did prioritise ACO2 influence as being secondary to natural factors something this similar study, with FOUR decompositions of temperature factors [cf Parker’s 2], also does;
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g28u12g2617j5021/
The point about natural dominance over any ACO2 attribution to temp trend was, of course, the point about McLean.
The other problem for global approaches to GMST is that regional variations trump and defeat the efficacy of any global or even large regionalised attempt to average temperature which I discuss at comment 237 above; this paper looks at the problem from an Australian vantage:
http://www.mssanz.org.au/MODSIM97/Vol%201/Bates.pdf
00
Yes but: #289
July 9th, 2010 at 5:16 am
You lying idiot. What have natural hazards got to do with AGW? Say what? AGW will make natural hazards worse? Considering natural hazards have been around since earth was a baby and man has been dealing with them SUCCESSFULLY, then your position is WE HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT AGW. Proving what a LIAR you have been, you are and continue to be.
Trying to make out that you are posting here because you’re worried about some NATURAL hazards shows you to be a deceptive lying troll of the worst kind. A scumbag as I call you.
We’ve had some simpleton brain dead lemmings here before, but you take the cake Yes Butt the scumbag
00
Richard S Courtney: July 9th, 2010 at 1:26 am write
By “demolish” you mean the way you:
– neglected to provide an argue about long term trend.
– failed to show that a denied statistical warming
– eventually realised the hotspot does not have a GHG signature, that would be the atmosphere.
– cannot refute the papers that show a hotspot may indeed exist.
Your method of argument seems to be:
– repeat what others have said ad nauseum without actually reading the counter argument.
– declare victory and demolishment of everything, even though you fail to even address some points.
– Tell people they are a troll and go away.
You’re in fairyland mate!
At least you ask nicely this time.
You call me a troll, further made insults without addressing the arguments I put forward, as again you do here.
You continued to misspell my name even though I pointed this out to you and yet throughout all of this I have refrained from calling you a Dick.
00
Eddy Aruda: July 9th, 2010 at 9:28 am
You must have missed the part about the glacier disappearing or do yuo blame that on UFO’s?
You bet. You missed out “overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, esp. in teaching. “. 😉
I’m a big fan of the details.
A global conspiracy? Do you wear a tin hat?
And we know the results of independent enquiries into the leaked emails, why is it you think GISS will be any different?
Read the transcript, they say the glacier is MOVING at a faster rate, not growing. They also say it is moving at almost twice the speed than what it was 5 years prior.
The IPCC also corrected that mistake.
The link to google was to show that there is a wealth of papers of the topic of glacial melt, it was not to highlight a specific paper. The evidence I am citing is the numerous papers.
More insults rather than addressing the argument. And ironic given that I can tell the difference between growing and moving.
00
@My fellow posters
It seems that trolling is now considered to be a form of mental illness. This would explain Yes but and Brendon.
From http://io9.com/5387029/stanford-study-explains-internet-trolls
And more! From http://thecountryshrink.com/2008/07/02/on-the-psychology-of-trolls/index.html
So, it appears that we have been, despite our sincere offorts, harming Brendon and Yes but. They need serious help that is best left to trained mental health professionals. We should treat them with compassion. These poor souls have a life devoid of meaning, no meaningful relations with others and suffer from extremely low self esteem.
Brendon, yes but, I am sorry! Truly, if I had known of your impairment due to mental disease I would have been kinder, compassionate and charitable. Good luck guys and I hope you can get the help of a competent meental health professional as soon as possible! 😉
00
“The things you’re liable
to read in the bible;
it ain’t necessarily so.”
Very good Richard.
00
Brendon #297
Mate, I suggest you keep it to the science – that works better for your case than getting personal. Let flames and mud slide off.
On the science you might like to look at the NOAA predictions for the next six months re the ‘long term trend’ of ‘statistical warming’. My point is that the temperature anomaly data series look like they trend, but the problem with any data set is the interpretation. Studies like Spencer’s recent one suggest the apparent trend is illusory, as is the interpretation of others who link the solar maximum in SC23 to the temperature record. Furthermore as we had been discussing, UHI heating also can look like a trend upwards because of the urbanisation wave over the last century – the UHIE though is inherently limited (you can’t urbanise beyond 100% so UHI driven rise in temperature will top out at some saturation point).
Back to the NOAA prediction – look at it in combination to the SC24 predictions of Archibald and others and it does not look like we’ll see the temperature record rising again for a few decades. I hope that will get the modellers to seriously look at the variables that matter, and get their heads out of the one-size-fits-all-its-CO2-alone hypothesis. The world will be better for an increase in reality.
00
Eddy Aruda: July 9th, 2010 at 10:35 am writes
More insults rather than addressing the argument.
A sure sign of desperation.
00
Eddie Aruda @ 299
Your advice to Brendon and Yes but is to be commended, but is pointless. You have given them advice to seek mental help but therein lies a problem. To get mental help you first have to be mental and I see little in the posts by Brendon and Yes but that give me confidence that they can be helped. It is best to save the money for expenditure on more useful pursuits.
Really, would you take a monkey to get mental assistance? Of course not! You have to be first intelligent to be able to receive assistance.
00
Maybe, but if the cap fits…
00
Brendon @ 298:
So behind the times! I have the finest felt fedora money can buy, lined with tin foil of course!
00
Eddie that’s just weak matey – have a look at the level of venom dished out by your colleagues here.
Just read the level of bile dumped on Brendon and myself instead of arguing the point.
And would you not rather have a debate – or do you just want to engage in a back-slapping exercise?
Is an echo chamber what you’d like?
Like “Oh good show Richard old chap – you really gave those warmist blighters a good thrashing. Another cucumber sandwich?”
Coho being an observant little sceptic loves to track all the arguments down. And at least his putdowns are clever.
BTW Coho – silly comment – Parker has nothing to do with long integration runs – say 100 years – off to CSIRO for some GCM training with you
10
sorry I meant 1000 years Coho
Now Dearest Baa Humbug
“What have natural hazards got to do with AGW?” mmmmm – gee dat’s a hard one …. let’s see could it be that certain quasi-periodic patterns may be changed. Nah ….
Say what? AGW will make natural hazards worse? Well yes dear boy ! That is entire point. Of course then they won’t be natural. or some will be natural and other not. Or maybe even mixed up.
“Considering natural hazards have been around since earth was a baby and man has been dealing with them SUCCESSFULLY, then your position is WE HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT AGW” I say that is brilliant. The Earth went goo goo – gaa gaaa in the pre-Cambrian did it
Is that so. mmmmmmm well gee BH I guess all those people that have perished in famines and hurricanes were just faking it. I see your logic. So do ring up the famous sceptic Bob Carter and tell him your discovery – Bob will have to correct his position. And rewrite his latest book. So inconsiderate of you BH. He should have checked with you first that it’s all ticketedy-boo with matters climatic. Never any problems costing $100Ms to worry about.
00
but,
What makes you think that natural disasters will get worse? Where’s your evidence of this. Hurricane frequency does increase as the climate warms, but have you noticed that even though NOAA has been forecasting above normal Atlantic hurricane activity for the last few years, there have been very few? They predicted an above normal season this year too, but so far. it’s starting off slow. Perhaps the models NOAA are using are not accounting for the fact that the temperatures have been falling. Even these models seem tainted by the CAGW bias. Talk about denial …
Also, as it warms, rainfall increases. Weather patterns may change, but overall, deserts tend to shrink as it warms as biomass expands. Plants like warmth and there’s plenty of evidence supporting causation between warmer temperatures and the expansion of the biosphere.
If you look at the frequency of natural disasters, it hasn’t changed. We just hear about more of them now, plus, with more people living in disaster prone areas, the costs are higher. Here in the USA, you can blame the government, whose federally funded flood insurance program rebuilds the same houses, in the same places, every few years. We also tend to hear about more of them now that we live in a world of instant communications. The next major earthquake in California will be tweeted around the world before the shaking even stops.
You must realize by now that your fear mongering, guilt driven pseudo humanitarianism won’t get you very far. Please, let’s try and stick to the science. Again, I refer you to post 127.
George
00
Right luke, 1000’s of years; like what happened millennia ago:
http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/c26eac043404365b046ade72e8bc9424.html
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/Preboreal_EPSL_2008.pdf
Note, noting about ghg’s, methane is specifically excluded; all to do with water. And further note these Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger events such as the PETM [even further back in time], your favourite, have no GHG imput. Now, what was that about long integration runs; or are we just talking about the MWP and the hockeystick again?
00
Yes But: #307
July 9th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Yet more tripe from the moronic lemming that is Yes Butt. Moron says…
Hey Richard Cranium, go back and sit on your professors lap (you must be used to it by now) and ask him to tell you how since the day mankind put on a skin from an animal, discovered fire and learned to build shelter, he has been less and less susceptible to natures wrath.
You also spew…
So c’mon smart arse, which quasi periodic patterns? How have/will they change? What are the cost benefit analysis of these changes?
Take a tip. If you really snuggle up to your professor, he might tell you the truth whilst under emotional overload. He’ll tell you he doesn’t even know how these quasi-periodic patterns operate, what influences them and how much. He might even tell you WE JUST DON’T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT EARTHS CLIMATE.
And after that crescendo, you can take a shower.
00
@ yes effeminate but and Branded
You two disingenuous cretans are just a couple of punk trolls whose intellectual asses were handed to them by any and all posters that you debated with on this site.. You are so busy buying into your own BS that you forgot one important fact: anyone who is objective and reads this thread will know you two dills to be nothing but a couple of mediocre half wits who are just a pair of dysfunctional losers in search of a life. The best you can hope for is the pity and charity of others.
You are pathetic!
00
Yes Butt: #307
July 9th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Dear boy? Is that what your proff calls you whilst gently stroking the back of your head?
So now, after 40 years of AGW warming, which natural disasters have become unnatural? Which ones are more of a disaster now than they were 40 years ago? Name some. Link to some of these disasters and say “this one was because of AGW”.
00
Eddy, they clearly have some time to fill in while they await news on their next funding gig.
00
Yes Butt: #306
July 9th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Isn’t that what you wanted Butt? here is what you said at #261
Land a Marlin ha? So you’ve been fishing by your own admission. But when the fish fight too hard for you to handle, you complain.
“Boo hoo hoo, hey proff, they’re verballing me, pouring scorn and bile all over me, what should I do?”…….”there there there Butt, bring your butt over to my office after class and we’ll have a “chat” about it ok? nudge nudge wink wink, I’ll make you feel better”………..”Awww do I have to again?”……..”Yes Butt, if you want to save the world, you need my “gentle” guidance.”
00
Ahhh,the West Australian….and not one mention of global warming, which is all we read about when we had seen teh string of hot days during the summer months (doh).
“The cold front that raced through Perth early this morning has given Perth its wettest July day in nine years, with 40.6mm recorded in the 24 hours to 9am today. Thundery showers and hail last night and this morning make it not only Perth’s wettest July day in a nearly a decade, since 88.8mm was recorded on July 30, 2001, but also its wettest 24 hours in two years.
Earlier this week Perth broke another record after the airport recorded its longest cold streak in 66 year with 14 consecutive days with a minimum less than 5C.
I know its weather – not climate, but hey. c’mon. with La nina, low solar cycle, PDO and ocean temp. drops, etc. etc…the enxt few years sure looks cooler.
00
Knock, knock. It’s Gillard’s green police
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/knock_knock_its_gillards_green_police/
00
You guys forget that a robust peer-review process is vital to science, it is vital to correcting error and bias in data, in modifying or overturning theories, testing hypotheses, testing the criticism of all of the above, and yes even fraud when and if it occurs (much rarer than many of you seem to believe, for the very reason of peer-review). I haven’t seen anything even remotely resembling the peer-review process on this side, no sort of absolutely vital self-critical or corrective mechanism or even an attempt at such, thus nothing resembling actual science. This lack of self-criticism and corrective procedure is common to movements such as 9/11 Truthers, creationism, and even your nemesis, some radical environmentalists. I am not talking about the legitimate scientific skepticism and dissent which is vital to science, and that has undergone peer-review, which has sadly been drowned out by a thousandfold deluge of psuedo-scientific noise and politics of hatred in the public sphere. It’s a sad and dangerous trend.
I am in no way a “true believer”, I simply believe in science where there is no such thing as true belief, just variable confidence, I reserve personal doubts about a variety of mainstream scientific theories, and in fact would very much personally like to see GW or its effects to be non-existent or negligible. Try to understand your opponents before demonizing them, which reduces the dignity of us all.
00
Come on Eddie be nice – we’ll be nice if you are. Incidentally are you married – nice photo.
Now Dearest Hummers – where were we …
Yes the Prof gave me an “A” for pooning sceptic noobs, to get an A+ one has to put the boot right in, but a C in Divinity and a D in French.
But to your highly pertinent and most excellent questions.
“discovered fire and learned to build shelter, he has been less and less susceptible to natures wrath.” hmmmm well that would explain how the recipients of Katrina just pissed it in, how all those that died in African famines were just bunging it on, and why Australia has spent $100Ms of dollars in drought aid propping up farmers for the last 30 years. Yes that makes perfect sense.
Which quasi-periodic changes – well maybe ENSO, IOD, SAM, STRI, Asian Monsoon – and perhaps you should check your IUD Baa Hummers.
And do you know why there are earthquakes BH? (Go on ask!)
Coho – what are you on about. Are you on leave? Is some numb nuts moonlighting for you? You seen discombobulated. TELL !
00
Well said Tim but alas a lone voice of reason.
00
Baa Humbug:
At #312, you ask the liar who hides behind the name’yes but’:
But that is the same question you asked the liar at #244 when his/her/it/they repled with the liar’s first big lie at #261.
The cowardly liar has caught you in a loop.
1. The cowardly liar states a big lie.
2. You question the lie.
3. The cowardly liar claims he/she it/they/ did not say the lie but said something else.
4. The cowardly liar is questioned as to why he/she/it/they lied.
5. The cowardly liar spreads lies and irrelevancies like confetti in hope that his/her/its/their first and big lie will be forgotten.
6. The cowardly liar repeats the big lie.
7. You question the lie.
Your question at #312 is a demonstration that you are caught in the loop.
So, ignore the liar. His/her/its/their lies add nothing constructive.
Richard
00
Tim:
At #317. Welcome, it is good to see a change of shift.
Which are you here to replace, Brendon or Yes But?
Please say it is both.
Failing that, let it be Yes But. Brendon is merely silly, but Yes But’s lies are annoying.
Richard
00
Tim; read this:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-myth-of-the-noble-scientist/2008/03/02/1204402275168.html
And then if you want to discuss peer review and inevitably the consensus argument as support for AGW then I’ll be pleased to; just remember that Miskcolzi’s peer reviewed papers [with another on the way] disproving AGW have not been refuted. There are a number of other peer reviewed papers which also disprove AGW, but do your homework with those [Miskolczi’s paper is the most blogged paper in this debate so I’m sure you are aware of it] and if you have anything new to add feel free to.
00
Brendon:
At #297 you complain that I have repeatedly asked you to go away because your silly points are plain silly and, therefore, your points are a distraction from serious debate.
You list items you say I did not answer. But I did. So, in an almost certainly forlorn attempt to demonstrate to you the silliness of your assertions that I did not answer your listed points, I will respond to one of them.
Which one to address? Well, the first in your list seems to be fair choice because they are all plain wrong. It is a claim that I
– neglected to provide an argue about long term trend.
Now, your intellect seems so weak that I suspect this assertion is an example of your failure to understand and is not an emulation of the cowardly liar who hides behind the alias of Yes But.
You first made your silly assertion on the thread at
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/sherwood-2008-where-you-can-find-a-hot-spot-at-zero-degrees/
And my first rebuttal (repeated and expanded seveal times) is in #128 on that thread. It says:
Subsequently,I gave you several explanations of why my answer is correct and why your claims about “long term trends” are nonsense as indicators of “no warming since 2001”. This is because your claims about “long term trends” are based on two pieces of idiocy; viz.
(a) You wrongly asert that a statistically insignificant fluctuation says something about “long term trends”
and
(b) You wrongly assert that statistical insignificance has no meaning compared to a few months of measured warm temperatures when assessing “long term” trends.
Several others also tried to explain it to you. But all to no avail. In the end I gave up and told you to “Go away”.
I could rebut every other point in your list in similar manner. I demolished them all.
The difficulty is not that I failed to answer your points: I did. The difficulty is that you lack the intellectual capacity to understand the subjects that you proclaim, so you cannot understand why what you are saying is plain daft.
Richard
00
Richard – I just made you write another rant. – you can’t stop yourself can you.
Now I demand you apologise. You have offended me sorely.
00
Miskolczi’s paper – ROFL – what published in the Hungarian Journal of Pottery Cohers. Pullease – not even Ecoeng believes.
00
Richard S Courtney: #320
July 9th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
Although I was enjoying myself, (hunting the hunter so to speak), I will take your advice.
00
Yes Butt how is your double lobotomy working out for you – hmmmm seems not to well.
Maybe try adjusting your Alfoil Hat
00
Yes But:
At #324 you say:
I have made no rant.
If I have “offended you sorely” then that surely indicates I said something true because your behaviour demonstrates that you are a liar.
I owe you no apologies for anything.
Aologise for your lies then go away.
Richard
00
Hi Richard
Yes Butt’s aluminium hat has slipped and the radio waves are getting in, plus his mum forgot to wipe his chin of dribble so you will have to wait awhile before you get something worthwhile out of him.
00
cohenite: I’m by no means qualified to analyse the climatology, but I do have, I think, a fairly good understanding about science in general. A handful of papers do not “disprove” or “prove” anything, either way. The terms “proof” and “disproof” really are misnomers in science. It would be more correct to say something like: X’s peer-reviewed paper, appears to provide (strong?) evidence that (whichever aspect of?) the AGW hypothesis is falsified, or, that it provides strong evidence in favour of an alternative hypothesis, or something along those lines. I do not doubt that such papers exist, whatever their merits, but I have no real standing to attempt to assess such merits, as very few in this public debate do. But what I can say is they need to be put through the normal scrutiny and compared against the entire background of other findings and assertions very carefully before conclusions are reached. The degree of overall scientific confidence in whatever aspect of AGW/GW may very well change as a result.
By no means is peer review perfect. Like any human endeavour it is subject to failings by our less noble characteristics, there can be no perfect self-correction mechanism. Which is why every scientific finding, no matter how well established, is potentially in doubt. I should have been clearer, when I said peer review, I was including under that banner the whole process of self-correction (testing, falsifying, repeating, self-scrutiny) in science. Peer review itself – I do not doubt that there have been cases where it has failed, even egregiously, and perhaps a better system can and should replace it, but the necessitation of the spirit of the system is pretty much self-evident. If it weren’t, why weren’t private journals being set up and becoming reputable everywhere when the normal peer reviewed channels were failing working scientists? (I’m aware of the online free print press for scientists, but aren’t these just placeholders for papers that are still currently in review?) And if peer review is so egregiously prone to failure, then how come science has come so unbelievably far with it in place?
So my defense is not of AGW/GW per se, but of the scientific process itself, which I view has been under attack implicitly or explicitly. On AGW/GW, my position is I personally find it highly unlikely at this stage that the kind of massive fraud, incompetence, vested interest, radical politicization, or whatever else on the part of the climate science community and related bodies, that seems to be required here, has actually occured… but, of course, nothing is impossible.
So my point in criticism of the skeptic side of the public debate, is that whatever the perceived and real faults of the peer review process in general, and whether or not the corrective mechanism including peer review has failed in the specific case of AGW/GW to whatever extent, the importance of correction and criticism itself in science remains doubtless. Which I find severely lacking to nonexistent, in the case of the public, “informed layperson” scientific scrutiny that has been occuring en masse (note I am separating the public dissent from the dissent in the journals/from qualified scientists.) You need to be correcting yourselves to be doing real science.
Do the more vehement among you really believe that someone with a conscience and a brain and as relatively informed as it is possible for a layman to be, cannot possibly hold these beliefs? I have made every effort to understand your position as best I can, and my opinion is always subject to review. Thanks.
00
IS THIS THE NEXT STEP BY THE GREEN COMMUNISTS??????????????
‘Ecological’ plan sees dead put in dunny:-
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/lifestyle/the-other-side/dead-put-in-dunny/story-e6frfhk6-1225889434108
MAYBE POLITICIANS AND THEIR FAMILIES SHOULD BE FIRST!!!!!
00
Richard, I’ve seen luke like this before; it’s his crazed ferret persona; hopefully he’ll resume normal transmission and start throwing paper at us, which from past experience, some of which is useful and interesting.
00
Oh boring …. Baa Hummers isn’t going to play anymore – and Richard isn’t budging. But the comments were priceless.
Coho – yes I thought of dropping in a bit of literature (i.e. other than E&E or pretentiously published on some web site or the Hungarian Journal of chookery) but would be wasted on the likes of Hummers and other dweebs.
But I must say Coho old trout – do get yourself along to a GCM course – if you’re going to put the boot in – at least sound convincing.
Toodle pip !
00
Yes but
I have a problem with wood ducks, the blighters keep attacking my lucerne crop. No matter how many I shoot they just keep coming back. They are so dopey they circle the paddock and come back into the line of fire time after time. I am at a loss as to what to do about them, have you any suggestions?
00
Yes But:
I am pleased that – at last – you have said something which is demonstrably true instead of presenting your usual demonstable lies. At #333 you say of me:
Yes! I will adhere rigidly to the scientific method and call out liars whose clear purpose is to attack science.
So, you are right for once. I will not budge.
But you still have not advanced far enough. Having managed to say something truthful, now try to move the final step and apologise for the lies you have posted here.
Then, perhaps, it may be possible to have a conversation with you that is based on evidence and logic. No such conversation is possible so long as you remain an unrepentant liar.
Richard
00
I sense the two trolls; yes but and brandon are soon going to do their troll death rattle and blow up (then go away)
Tim, yes I’d have to say you must be the “replacement” they always start out sounding mostly sane and sticking to principals. Then as the questions become too difficult the ad-homs and most telling, argument from authority.
Prove me wrong please?
00
Tim @ 330
I don’t disagree with most of what you have said (your observations) Although you seem to be building a case for the authority argument.
However I found this interesting:
So after “this stage” where are all the expert predictions of warming? You’d think after “this stage” most of the trends would be CLEARLY in line with predictions. Why aren’t they?
Why “at this stage” would there be substantial experts still not willing to get on board the AGW (CAGW) train?
00
Courtney – this is your last chance. Apologise ! You have made ZERO intellectual contribution to this post.
Your rhetorical bluster about adhering to the scientific method is noted.
Just asking – did you have a role in passing the paper subject to this critique ?
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html Yes or no ?
Do you support absolutely the findings of http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml Yes or no ?
00
yes but, why have you avoided answering the question at 127 posed by co2isnotevil? (copied here for your convenience)
00
“Yes but” posts suspiciously like another member from the Mad Hatter’s tea party. I refer to Rumble Mourdre, of course.
00
Yes But:
At #338, you continue to throw irrelevancies and lies around in attempt to avoid the issue.
Apologise for your lies.
As I said at #335:
So, I will not answer your irrelevant questions or have any conversation with you until you do what any real man would do:
apologise for your lies.
Richard
00
Friends:
What is happening here may not be apparent to some, so I write to ‘spell it out’.
Ms Nova established this blog for serious discussion of the issues of climate science which she reports in her ‘Skeptics Handbook’. Both the blog and, more importantly, the Handbook have obtained growing reputations. This is seen as a threat by the cult of AGW.
So, members of the cult are attempting to destroy the reputations of the Handbook and this blog. And, success in destroying the reputation of one will harm the reputation of the other. So, devotees of the AGW cult are using every means at their disposal to attack both.
Ms Nova has repeatedly shown that she is more than capable of refuting attempts at discredit of her Handbook. Indeed, the contents of her Handbook are clear and factually accurate statements of climate science relating to AGW. And those who have attempted to refute the Handbook are relative intellectual pygmies when compared to her. So, she has all she needs to defeat the Handbook’s detractors.
However, this blog is open to destruction by concerted campaign against it.
A series of trolls has been let loose on the blog. They have attempted character assassination, stupid arguments, and a hail storm of irrelevancies as methods to obscure and prevent serious scientific discussion here. To date, they have each run away defeated.
Now, the troll who hides behind the alias of ‘Yes But’ is attempting to discredit the blog by posting blatant lies.
It is essential to defeat the attempt to make lies an acceptable form of contribution to this blog. Otherwise, the result will be complete destruction of this blog as a place for serious discussion of the issues of climate science. And, if that happens, then the AGW cult will have succeeded in its attempt to give discredit to Ms Nova’s Handbook.
Richard
PS
As a footnote I add that Cohenite has repeatedly accused ‘Yes But’ of being the Luke cabal. ‘Yes But’ has not denied this and (in response to Cohenite’s comment at #332) ‘Yes But’ seems to confirm it at #333. The Luke cabal is a group of three (perhaps four) civil servants who share an office and spend much of their time at work to scaremonger about AGW on any blogs that they find.
00
Yes but,
In spite of my announced intention of ignoring fools like you I’m going to respond. You are the most offensive and worthless of all those fools who attempt to discredit this site and its owner. You are a coward who does his dirty work under an alias — a despicable thing in and of itself. The lying is even worse. I’m tempted to regret my campaign to avoid obscenity. But I’ll resist that temptation for Jo’s sake.
I’d say that you have repeatedly had the legs chopped out from under you except that when you first appeared you didn’t have a leg to stand on in the first place. No one will ever miss you when you’re finally gone.
00
Mark,
Have you noticed that Mr but has yet to acknowledge me in any of his replies? I sense a coward here, either that, or he has been instructed not to respond to science issues and is only allowed to push buttons. Maybe I need to throw some insults at him to get a response.
George
00
So, you two trolls were deeply wounded by my post at 299?
Brendon:
July 9th, 2010 at 11:07 am
Yes But:
July 9th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
If you were a couple of sincere posters who wanted to debate the science you would have come across as sincere from the very beginning. Instead, you were nothing but a couple of disingenuous sarcastic time bandits whose sole purpose in posting was to cause chaos.
Here is your first post “Yeth ooh butt”:
And “Bland one”, here is your first post:
The reason why my post at 299 caused you both such consternation is because you both know it is true and so does anybody who reads the thread. You two are a couple of self serving, mentally ill losers who unwittingly hurt the very cause you pretend to champion. You are both a couple of trolls. You know it, I know it and so does everybody else who visits this site.
In regards to your question at #318
Yes, I am married. It is obvious from your various comments that you find me attractive. I am flattered but I am not gay. I am sure that there is a gay man out there who is just right for you. You may try being a little more personable and then perhaps you can land the man of your dreams! Good luck in your pursuit of true love! 😉
00
Tim, re330
Yes, peer review is very important. The problem is that climate science peer review has been horribly broken for decades. Blogs like this, are the response to this problem. The signal to noise ratio definitely gets low, but this is more due to troll activity attempting to derail discussions about the science.
I don’t know how many pro CAGW science papers you’ve read, but every one that I have has had serious technical errors that should never have gotten past the peer review process. The fact that they did, and in all cases the mistake is in the favor of CAGW, is indicative of how broken and biased the peer review process really is.
It’s also true that there are many competing attacks against CAGW, which may be confusing to the layman and may give the impression of flailing. What you should get from this instead, is that CAGW is so horribly broken that there are many avenues of attack against the biggest fraud ever perpetrated in the name of science.
As for conspiracies, I don’t believe that there’s a wide spread conspiracy going on either, as many on the CAGW side actually believe what they say. This is not because of definitive science, as most supporters lack the scientific background to understand, but because many want CAGW to be true. What’s going on is an accidental conspiracy caused by flawed group think. There appears to be a politically motivated conspiracy among a small group of researchers, but they justify this by claiming that even if the science can’t unambiguously support CAGW now, they have a misplaced faith that it eventually will. This is somewhat of a smokescreen because the political motivation is generally driven by a radical green agenda and CAGW provides support for agendas like this, that otherwise can’t stand on their own.
George
00
“The Luke cabal is a group of three (perhaps four) civil servants who share an office and spend much of their time at work to scaremonger about AGW on any blogs that they find.”
Well that’s fascinating – and you have the temerity to talk about lying. This puts you into 100% fabrication territory matey. The usual sceptic trait to recycle rumours (coz hey I read it on the internet!). And come in spinner – isn’t it so easy to make a blue when your blood is up. Your failure to answer my questions and rant I think proves the point.
No Eddy I’m not gay and mate I was simply pulling your chain for being so rude. Jeez you lot are a dour lot and self obsessed.
co2isnotevil – I have noticed your interesting question. I am not ignoring you.
co2isnotevil – now I’ve asked Richard about a few papers that should not have passed review …. hmmmm
Now all this talk about trolling is pretty interesting … 3 of of you have now written lashings of straight out abuse. Courtney has decided instead of engaging just to pick a fight. Eddy has decided that born to rule is his right. So any chaos gentlemen is of your own making. You think about it.
Now what I said was climate has had episodic impacts on humanity since early evolution. Circumstantial evidence with DNA studies puts the whole human race close to an extinction event in early times. And collectively, but especially in developing nations, endured droughts, floods, hurricanes, heat waves and cold waves.
The full account of MWP period with civilisation busting mega-droughts in the Americas, with droughts in Asia and Africa make for interesting reading. Bugger grapes in England.
And indeed humanity’s clash with climate has persisted till the current day. For heavens sake – even Bob Carter agrees with that and has suggested a Plan B climate policy is needed. Whatever that actually is? But give Bob credit for the robust concept that our climate is not a completely benign friendly force (episodically at least).
And yes climate has varied in the past and the Earth is still here – well the rocks are. Many of people and species on the receiving end are not. If you live a first world country you obviously can mitigate climate to some extent – from turning on the air-conditioning, to building a dam, an irrigation scheme, to escaping hurricane disaster zones by plane, helicopter and automobile. Periodically the first world will make food drops into a third world famine as we now have the technology to make the drop. Or perhaps spending billions on drought aid in Australia over decades on an agriculture which purports to be self-sufficient and “at peace” with its climate. And if Baa Hummers thinks the dollars were not spent – check a magical network called the internet.
So Jo has a front piece here about people on the land – in this case fighting bureaucracy not climate. Although nothing like a good drought to push many enterprises over the edge when debilitated by other economic circumstances.
So if one put one’s self into an Australian farming context and was fair dinkum – as Australians supposedly are – and was innovative as Australians are from stump-jump ploughs, to Hills Hoists clothelines, black box flight recorders and nicking a few of those US Agricultural Protection dollars back in the wireless technology court case – just maybe you’d want to combine some fair dinkum, innovative smart can-do thinking into deciding the future of your farm, industry, region and nation.
All people on the land love the weather. Every true-blue Aussie is a climate forecaster. Inigo Jones and Lennox Walker have had us looking at solar cycles and rainfall long before Archibald rocked up with his cataclysmic big freeze prediction. And it’s a mugs game isn’t it. Even try one of these for a joke http://ag.arizona.edu/OALS/ALN/aln59/price2.html – just down the road. Everyone remembers the few that these brave souls got the prediction right but not those they got wrong. We never did get to see the hindcast or cross validation stats – coz there were none. Just overfitted regressions bravely projecting into the future. And as some bright spark stats guy said about climate before they went off to do merchant banking (maybe work for Eddy or Richard) – just because climate exhibits cyclical behaviour doesn’t mean that real cycles actually exist. You have enough quasi-periodic comings and goings and things sloshing back forth to make pattern seeking apes see stripes where there are none. So we’re mugs for climate – always have been – always will be – but now we have ENSO, PDO and the internet so everyone can play.
So if you were sitting at your place in the bush, deciding where to move your farm to next (obviously not bureaucratic rainfall declining WA), working out what to do with the bloody MDB, or being one of those Canberran hollow man policy wallahs contemplating drought subsidies – you might decide to plough through (and you’d be a mug to start) BoM’s climate data, a cook’s tour of contemporary thinking on matters climate. Working through the numbers yourself you might all sorts of interesting trends in temperatures, frosts, and maybe even the Indian Ocean and Southern Oscillation. Now as Bob Carter has indicated – and you all Bob is a good bloke right? – and if your were true to your Aussie cred you’d want to make a quantitative and innovative decision. Equipped with the knowledge that “if it’s bigger than 10 it’s a CSIRO job” you might even check out the latest science that the boffins are up to.
Now you wouldn’t be dishonest or a drongo and start looking at whole of Australia rainfall stats or even whole MDB stats when you have a very good idea that rainfall decline seems to be focussed in specific areas. Coz if you did you’d just one of those political activists caught up in the anti-AGW enthusiasts club. You might even notice some worst on record numbers in some areas.
And the latest science makes a fair case for changes in ENSO – Coho will scoff – but in SOI trends, Modoki mode style, whether ENSO differently under greenhouse or the Pacific simply steps up to mean warmer state. Indian Ocean temperatures would get some consideration as well as IOD pattern frequency. Antarctic circulation – maybe a greenhouse x stratospheric ozone combination as driver. Trends in SAM, STR and STRI. What ocean gyres and Indonesian flow throughs are up to. Perhaps step changes in Asian monsoon if you like cave records, or greater variability if you like coral cores. You might suddenly decide that there’s bunch of stuff going on that would make Inigo Jones turn in his grave.
Now the question of course is why? And whether you could get this to happen with solar forcing – or whether there would be evidence that you’d need greenhouse and Antarctic ozone forcing to make the pattern. I think the results are tantalising – being a mug punter. And what’s Coho gonna give you as an alternative – put a bloody mean through the 120 years of record – do a bloody mindless statistical Chow Mein break test in some unpublished bloody Journal of Hungarian Quackery. Nah he’s just gonna tell you it’s the PDO (if it even exists).
Relevance to an ETS, Al Gore, Hansen, the IPCC – buggered if I know. This is about a whole bunch of guys you’ve never heard of. But this gentlemen is the pointy end of real decision making. Ask Bob Carter to give you a hand – he’s got Plan B !
I wonder if sceptics ever have to make a climate related decision – or are they just mindless nihilists wanting to drag all climate science down.
Anyway – have to go – here at the climate resistance bunker it’s time for the morning shift to start in the our ongoing troll war to stop all anti-AGW climate blogs in the world. Tell you what – the money is good too, although a few guys have left to join the coal industry.
00
Yes George @ 344, it appears that you have something of a reputation of being tough with questions! Makes them shake in their boots?
Good job too.
00
Yes but @347
Your best post yet.
Why are you picking on Bob C?
Do I think man clashes with climate? You bet! it’s a tough world out there.
*
I do wish you’d be kinder to the Hungarians though:
http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf
CO2 CANNOT CAUSE ANY MORE “GLOBAL WARMING”
FERENC MISKOLCZI’S SATURATED GREENHOUSE EFFECT THEORY
by Miklos Zagoni, 2007 IPCC Reviewer, Physicist
Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest, Hungary
December 18, 2009
The Earth’s atmosphere differs in essence from that of Venus and Mars. Our atmosphere is not totally cloud-covered, as is Venus: globally, about 40% of the sky is always clear. Also we have huge ocean surfaces that serve as a practically unlimited reservoir of water vapor for the air.
With the help of these two conditions, the Earth’s atmosphere attains what the other two planets cannot: a constant, maximized, saturated greenhouse effect, so that adding more greenhouse gases to the mix will not increase the magnitude of the greenhouse effect and, therefore, will not cause any further “global warming”.
The surface temperature of Venus is hot, because the total cloud cover prevents heat from escaping to outer space. Mars’ surface is cold, because there is not enough greenhouse gas to reach the energy-saturation limit. Only the Earth has these two important features that have allowed it to maximize its greenhouse effect, completely using all available energy from the Sun.
This assertion is not a result of desk speculations. Nor is it a special hypothesis based on assumptions of limited application. It is the outcome of detailed spectral radiative-transfer analysis of huge archives of atmospheric data from NASA and elsewhere.
The project started about 25 years ago, when Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, a Hungarian physicist, began to write a high-resolution atmospheric radiative transfer code — a special computer program that is necessary if we want to calculate the atmosphere’s infrared radiative processes precisely.
Understanding the downwelling and upwelling long-wave fluxes in the atmosphere is essential if we are to compute the Earth’s global energy balance and its greenhouse effect accurately.
Miskolczi used his program in remote-sensing satellite projects such as the Japanese ADEOS2 and NASA’s CERES. In the meantime, Jeffrey Kiehl and Kevin Trenberth released their global mean energy budget in 1997. They based their energy distribution on the U.S. Standard Atmosphere of 1976, and used several estimations and approximations.
Miskolczi decided to check their work by using his computer code on the best available observed global atmospheric database. He chose the TIGR global radiosonde archive of the Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique, Paris.
Miskolczi reported the launch of his project in 2001 in the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service (QJHMS), a 110-year-old English-language learned journal.
From that archive, he selected about 230 vertical atmospheric profiles, representing the global average well, and started the computations on each of the selected profiles, and also on their global average. He reported the results in 2004, also in the QJHMS. The co-author of the paper was his boss at NASA.
Three interesting findings emerged:
First, Miskolczi discovered that the proportion of the surface upward longwave radiation that is absorbed by the atmosphere is equal to the downward longwave atmospheric radiation. This relation (within the usual error margins) was there in the Kiehl-Trenberth 1997 distribution implicitly. However, Miskolczi stated it exactly and explicitly.
Secondly, Miskolczi found that the global mean upward longwave radiation of the atmosphere is half of the surface upward longwave radiation. Again, this correlation had been known and taken into account implicitly earlier, but Miskolczi proved it with a higher accuracy, and wrote it down as a new balance condition.
Thirdly, on the TIGR database, using his program, he was able to derive (probably for the first time in the climate literature) the global mean infrared optical depth of the Earth’s atmosphere — the exact radiative-transfer measure of the greenhouse effect.
In 2007, Miskolczi published another—more theoretical—article in QJHMS. He realized that his new, explicit flux relations, added to the well-known set of global energy balance conditions, led to a system of solvable equations describing an equilibrium greenhouse effect – equations that could be tested against the measurements. Miskolczi found that the solution of the theoretical unperturbed equilibrium greenhouse equations is equal (within less then 0.1 per cent) to the real observed greenhouse effect shown in the TIGR database.
In the 2007 paper, he also made an important theoretical step forward. He realized that Eddington’s long-standing solution of the Schwarzschild-Milne radiative transfer equation contained an approximation that applies only to an infinite atmosphere, but was invalid in the finite atmosphere of the Earth. Miskolczi solved the equation with real boundary conditions. It was this exact, analytical solution that allowed him to calculate the global average infrared optical depth of the Earth’s atmosphere correctly.
The theoretical explanation of Miskolczi’s set of equations was clear. There are two opposite forces determining radiative processes. The Earth is a hot stove in a cold room, heated by the sun. It must cool as effectively as it can: it has to reach its minimum energy state in accordance with the principle of least time. The most effective cooling is perspiration – releasing heat by evaporation, in the form of latent heat.
So, on the one hand, the amount of water vapor in the air is maximized in accordance with the principle of minimum energy. On the other hand, this maximum amount of water vapor, as greenhouse gas, in the air causes a maximized greenhouse heating. In this process, all of the available incoming energy from the Sun is transformed into longwave radiation upwelling from the surface of the Earth.
These two opposite forces maximize both the heating and the cooling of the surface. For as long as there is enough water in the oceans, these two forces are able to maintain equilibrium in the form of maximal heating and cooling.
Since the Earth’s atmosphere is not lacking in greenhouse gases, if the system could have increased its surface temperature it would have done so long before our emissions. It need not have waited for us to add CO2: another greenhouse gas, H2O, was already to hand in practically unlimited reservoirs in the oceans.
Here is the picture. The Earth’s atmosphere maintains a constant effective greenhouse-gas content and a constant, maximized, “saturated” greenhouse effect that cannot be increased further by CO2 emissions (or by any other emissions, for that matter). After calculating on the basis of the entire available annual global mean vertical profile of the NOAA/NCAR atmospheric reanalysis database, Miskolczi has found that the average greenhouse effect of the past 61 years (from 1948, the beginning of the archive, to 2008) is:
* constant, not increasing;
* equal to the unperturbed theoretical equilibrium value; and
* equal (within 0.1 C°) to the global average value, drawn from the independent TIGR radiosonde archive.
During the 61-year period, in correspondence with the rise in CO2 concentration, the global average absolute humidity diminished about 1 per cent. This decrease in absolute humidity has exactly countered all of the warming effect that our CO2 emissions have had since 1948.
Similar computer simulations show that a hypothetical doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration in the air would cause a 3% decrease in the absolute humidity, keeping the total effective atmospheric greenhouse gas content constant, so that the greenhouse effect would merely continue to fluctuate around its equilibrium value. Therefore, a doubling of CO2 concentration would cause no net “global warming” at all.
Surface warming is possible only if the available energy increases. This may happen through changes in the activity of the Sun, or through variations of our planet’s orbital parameters, or through long-term fluctuations in the exchange of heat between the ocean and the atmosphere.
There are also some man-made sources. Air-pollution by aerosols (soot, black carbon, dust, smog etc.), and large-scale surface modifications according to urbanization and land-use change may—and probably do—alter the amount of absorbed and reflected shortwave energy, and can hence lead to change in the long-term energy balance.
These terms are all involved in the “available energy”. They can all modify the “effective temperature” of the Earth – i.e. the temperature of a planet with the Earth’s albedo (or reflectivity) at the Earth’s current distance from the Sun, without the presence of greenhouse gases in the air. The effective temperature is now 255 Kelvin, or –18 °C.
Miskolczi asserts that the surplus temperature from the greenhouse gases (about 33 C°, bringing global mean surface temperature up from –18 °C to 15 °C) is constant, maximized, and cannot be increased by our CO2 emissions, because it is the greenhouse effect’s theoretical equilibrium value.
It is possible that in the 21st century the effective temperature may change a little, just as it has changed in previous centuries. But the additional (greenhouse) temperature will be 33 C°, within a variation of about 0.1 C° of recent decades. Physically, it cannot increase (as the UN IPCC has predicted it will increase) to 35-38 C° to produce a 2-5 C° warming.
The conclusion is that, since the Earth’s temperature does not depend on our CO2 emissions in any way, trying to limit our emissions is bound to be entirely ineffective in protecting the climate from warming.
Miklos Zagoni
Physicist and Science Historian
Eotvos Lorad University, Budapest
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2010/01/13/ferenc-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-saturated-greenhouse-effect-theory-c02-cannot-cause-any-more-global-warming/
00
Yes but,
You need to differentiate between things that happen naturally and will continue to happen and things that man could cause if a whole bunch of speculative assumptions happen to be true. The fact is that man’s emissions of CO2 are benign relative to the climate and overall, more beneficial to mankind than harmful.
You can continue with your guilt ridden tirade about 3’rd world inequities, but that has nothing to do with man’s CO2 emissions. Find another excuse to push your Marxist agenda. You will not be allowed to subvert science for this purpose. Science is about truth, not opinion and certainly not about fabricating false truth to support unsupportable agendas. In the end, the science will always win.
I’m glad that you at least acknowledged my question. I’m sure it’s hard for you to find an answer and I should point out that this is but one of many questions I can pose whose only answer is that CO2 does not magically violate Conservation of Energy and the IPCC has consistently overestimated any effect CO2 might have.
I can even pinpoint exactly when the CAGW ‘science’ broke. It was in the mid 80’s with papers by Hansen and Schlessinger, which ultimately led to all of the ‘science’ behind CO2 amplification by feedback. Did you know that the feedback modeling behind the quantification of climate sensitivity and feedback strengths is based on the assumption that the open loop climate gain is only 1? Unless you understand control theory, this may not mean anything to you. The physical reason is that the open loop gain can be one if and only if the Earth had no atmosphere, which is certainly not the case.
The assumption of unit gain is hidden behind the quantification of climate gain as a ratio of surface temperature to forcing power. Ordinarily, feedback systems are quantified with inputs and outputs specified in the same units, so that gain and feedback are all dimensionless numbers. The Schlessinger model hides the assumption of unit gain by inferring that the relationship between surface power and surface temperature (i.e. Stefan-Boltzmann) is the source of the climate system gain. This error is reproduced in text books and ultimately referred to by all pro CAGW papers. It’s ironic that this entire house of cards is built on a math error that Schlessinger seems too proud to admit. After all, who wants the world to know that as the self proclaimed ‘inventor’ of climate system feedback, they made a potential multi-trillion dollar math error when mapping the climate system into a feedback network.
Even worse is that the Schlessinger feedback model assumes a hypothetical feedback system controlling surface temperature. In fact, the actual feedback system is the one controlling the Earth’s energy balance. While this does affect surface temperatures, it also affects cloud temperatures, the percentage of cloud coverage, surface and cloud reflectivity, weather and a whole lot more, all of which have mutual interdependencies which are ignored by the Schlessinger feedback model. This is the root cause as to why so many warmists are so convinced that they are correct, even as they are about as wrong as they can possibly be.
George
00
Well done George again and Mark
But have to agree with Richard @342 Yes butt has shown he does not understand the science so his only weapon is to draw you into a slanging match. He gets his science from an over active imagination, the main stream media and from cut and paste from corrupt sites. His logic is flawed and he talks in circular arguments often citing his own illogical concepts.
When he is proved wrong or unable to answer he changes the subject or starts dribbling (I sure his keyboard is soaked by now).
One day he he might grow up and post something reasonable, but I doubt it because his world would come crashing down. I can see the day were they will need an AGW annonomous group to allow these people to get over the fact they were wrong and move on with their lives and do something constructive and worthwhile for humanity.
00
Mark,
Here is a plot which shows the effect you are referring to.
http://www.palisad.com/co2/fbe/wc_st.png
This is a scatter diagram of the relationship between water content and surface temperature for each month during the last 25 years and for each 2.5 degree slice of latitude. The blue (southern hemisphere) and magenta (northern hemisphere) dots are the 25-year average for each slice. Even after 1 year, the net flux crossing any 2.5 degree slice will be close to zero. It even turns out to be mostly true even on a monthly basis, as can be seen by the relatively tight distribution of dots around the mean response.
Even though this is a spatial mean, the flux cancellation across the integration permits the response to emerge. All of the differences between hemispheres can be explained by the different topography of the hemispheres.
You should notice that the surface temperature saturates at about 301K, even as water content increases exponentially. This is because above 301K, there is so much latent heat it cancels out the incremental incident energy!
Another interesting plot is this one.
http://www.palisad.com/co2/fbe/is.png
This shows the relationship between incident energy and surface energy. There are 2 reference lines representing closed loop gains of 1 and 1.2 and an X marking the climates current operating point. There are also 2 measurements which show that the gain is 1.1 and decreasing above 0C and about 1.5 and increasing below 0C.
The open loop gain can be calculated based on nominal atmospheric absorption and is somewhere between 1.2 and 1.4. It’s interesting that the absolute gain at 0C is about 1.3, which is in the middle of this range. It seems that the relationship between incident energy and surface energy can be quantified by positive feedback for temperatures below 0C and by negative feedback for temperatures above 0C. In other words, water itself is responsible for widening the goldilocks zone for liquid water.
George
00
Richard
I read this blog a lot and have occasionally contributed to it. You have nothing to fear from trolls. Readers can make judgements and in your case you are always sincere and scientifically knowledgable. I have come to recognise that CAGW is a theory which the warmists need to prove beyond reasonable doubt and they have failed. Trolls do not prove it, merely illustrate the methods warmists use to promote CAGW. I just thought I would let you know how much you, and others here, are appreciated so that you do not get disheartened. And suggest that your efforts are not sidetracked by trolls, which is what they are trying to do.
Alan
00
Alan Sutherland:
At #353, Thank you!
Your timing was impeccable. It seemed that Eddy and Scott had grasped the importance of what is happening here, but I was getting disheartened. If only so few could understand the matter then there was no point in defending Ms Nova’s blog against the assault because the defence was sure to fail.
I will ‘stay for the fight’ and I was on the point of giving up. So, again, thank you.
Richard
00
@ Richard
Richard S. Courtney #354
There is no coincidence and you are hear for a reason. You will not be tested beyond your ability to endure. You are not alone. People have been placed in your life to make sure that you never become disheartened and quit. I have nothing but the utmost respect for you and I hold you in the highest regard. You cannot fail because the truth will always triumph and you are a principled man who will not yield to the tyranny of consensus.
Stay the course and know that we are with you!
00
MarkD & CO2; well done; luke at 347 will revert to his heartfelt but essentially handwringing persona occasionally; when he does he always conflates various plights around the world with AGW on an emotional basis. The idea that CO2 effects have infiltrated macro climate factors like ENSO, the Walker, Sam etc is the new paradigm of AGW; a typical paper is this one;
http://ams.confex.com/ams/88Annual/techprogram/paper_133611.htm
The Meehl paper says the 1976 climate shift, which is an iconic argument against AGW, in fact supports AGW, because without AGW the 1976 shift would have occurred in the 1960s. This is fanciful and is contradicted by the 1998 shift which featured a down shift in temp; the period between 1976 and 1998 features fairly flat temp; that is the temp shifts are the source of the temp trend; this too is inconsistent with AGW and the asserted correlation between CO2 increase and temp. If luke wants to feature one of these macroclimate features as a product of AGW he should specify one so a response to that can be made; just flinging around a bunch of acronyms and hardluck stories and assuming a connection should not be the basis for such profound policies advocated under AGW.
10
Richard,
I wont presume to get this quote correct but the theme is “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”
So while you and George, Eddy, Baa & of course Jo and others keep doing something, evil cannot succeed so keep your chin up and keep up with good fight.
I enjoy your posts and wisdom.
Scott
00
Sorry cohenite should of mentioned you in my last post.
00
“You need to differentiate between things that happen naturally and will continue to happen and things that man could cause if a whole bunch of speculative assumptions happen to be true” – of course – I’m referring to peer reviewed literature in GRL, Nature, Science – not backdoor soft reviewed junk like E&E.
This sort of collection is amazing “evil cannot succeed so keep your chin up and keep up with good fight.” EVIL !!!! Come on. Listen to some more talk back radio.
Mark D – “Why are you picking on Bob C?” – only a bit – simply as Bob IMO has been hypocritical in that he has posed the problem but really isn’t interested.
“Do I think man clashes with climate? You bet! it’s a tough world out there.” GEE TELL R COURTNEY AND BAA HUMMERS ! So you’d be very sensible to agree. And Bob C agrees with you too.
Eddy – “You cannot fail because the truth will always triumph and you are a principled man who will not yield to the tyranny of consensus.” Barf ! Is “tyranny of consensus” sort of like democracy. Why do you “born to rule” types think you have a monopoly on this sort of philosophy. Others may have friends, family and communities too ?! So more framing – place the debate as good versus evil – a crusade !
co2isnotevil Says “You can continue with your guilt ridden tirade about 3′rd world inequities, but that has nothing to do with man’s CO2 emissions.” I DID NOT SAY IT DID ! IT IS SIMPLY THE FACTS
“Find another excuse to push your Marxist agenda”. DON’T YOU DARE PRESUME TO CALL ME A MARXIST – HAVE YOU RESCINDED YOUR KLU KLUX CLAN MEMBERSHIP – you don’t know my politics. I don’t presume to know yours.
“You will not be allowed to subvert science for this purpose.” AND THAT WHY SCEPTICS NEED TO AND WILL BE BE CALLED OUT AT EVERY STINKING RUSE – NO SANCTUARY. However want to have a serious science debate – that’s fine.
“Science is about truth, not opinion and certainly not about fabricating false truth to support unsupportable agendas.” COULD NOT AGREE MORE
“In the end, the science will always win”. MAYBE NOT – IT’S A POLITICAL WAR ON SCIENCE. See creationism in schools, extreme green ideology, market behaviour, the degree of influence of religion in education in both the west and the east.
“So while you and George, Eddy, Baa & of course Jo and others keep doing something, evil cannot succeed so keep your chin up and keep up with good fight.” IMPACT ON ESTABLISHMENT SCIENCE is precisely zero point zero. You’re just a cheer squad. An echo chamber. Nothing. Zip. Nadda. WHY – coz you look totally disingenuous. Maybe you’re not – you probably believe strongly and sincerely in your views – but your style says a lot.
00
John Brookes:
July 7th, 2010 at 1:04 pm edit
Regarding contributing to debates….
John you recently posted an article at skepticalscience titled hotties and frosties.
I posted a comment numbered 16 where I first stated that I hadn’t connected the John Brookes posting here with the John Brookes at skeptical.
I commented about another bloggers comment, then finished up by stating that it was a pleasure having you post here at Novas and that you were welcome here anytime, “don’t be a stranger” was the term I used.
The body of my comment did not contain anything controversial. One blogger stated (comment #1)
I merely pointed out that in the late 80’s and early 90’s when AGW started to become prominent, they had less than 15 years of data showing warming. Ergo, if the current 15yr period is subject to high signal to noise ratio, the same must apply to the earlier period. In other words, how could they be so confident of AGW with less than 15yrs warming.
But it seems that my COMMENT WAS DELETED.
Now you have a funny thread where my comment at #16 deleted, but #19 #21 #22 replying to my non-existent comment, and my further replies at #29 and #30
The article was yours (and an admirable one too), you effectively invited comments and encouraged debate.
So I ask you, do you approve of the deletion of my comment?
Did you have a say in the deletion of my comment?
Do you know why my comment was deleted?
I don’t have a copy of my deleted comment. However anyone who reads the responses as listed above will glean the fact that my comment wasn’t controversial nor was it out of line. Indeed, over the last week or so I’ve tried to engage those at skeptical in a civil discussion about climate. I can only guess why my comment was deleted. My guess is it’s because I added a p.s. saying “John you are always welcome at Novas, don’t be a stranger”.
If that is the case….well…….I leave it to others to judge.
It’s a shame, I was looking forward to regular debates with “hotties” as you call them.
Skeptical comment thread here.
00
MarkD – no need to educate me on Miskolczi – I watched for weeks as the debate on Miskolczi raged at Niche Modelling. Ended in utter confusion. The debate went up down around and around.
Come back when this “landmark” stuff is published in Nature or GRL – OR print in full the rejection slip and reviewers comments. Having said that I wish Miskolczi keeps going.
Cohenite – thank you for reminding me about that excellent paper – it did get published. Meehl, G.A., A. Hu, and B.D. Santer, 2009: The mid-1970s climate shift in the Pacific and the relative roles of forced versus inherent decadal variability J. Climate, 22, 780-792
And Coho – for your delectation – who says nobody looks at solar: Meehl G.A., J.M. Arblaster, K. Matthes, F. Sassi and H. van Loon, 2009: Amplifying the Pacific Climate System Response to a Small 11-Year Solar Cycle Forcing, Science, 325, 1114, DOI: 10.1126/science.1172872
The role of the Quasi-biennial Oscillation (QBO)
in the response to solar forcing has been noted in
earlier studies (3). A set of experiments with the
two WACCM model versions with a prescribed
QBO has been carried out, and results from those
experiments will be presented in a subsequent
paper. However, the results for the climate system
response to solar forcing are qualitatively similar
to those presented here without the QBO, but the
prescribed QBO shows improvements in the stratospheric
response compared to observations. Though
the solar-forced eastern equatorial SSTanomalies
shown here are about half the amplitude of those
associated with the El Niño–Southern Oscillation,
they are relevant for understanding decadal timescale
variability in the Pacific. This response also
cannot be used to explain recent global warming
because the 11-year solar cycle has not shown a
measurable trend over the past 30 years (10).
And lastly give us your review on Meehl G.A., C. Tebaldi, G. Walton, D. Easterling and L. McDaniel, 2009: Relative increase of record high maximum temperatures compared to record low minimum temperatures in the U.S., Geophys. Res. Letts., 36, L23701, doi:10.1029/2009GL040736
00
To the likes of Yes but, Brendon, Tim.
I see many “red herrings” across the trail in these posts. There are many lies and many attempts at deceit. But of course these are the “bread and butter” of the AGW mantra. Goebbels had it right- if you repeat the lie, no matter how monstrous, often enough the people will come to believe it. And of course, this includes the believers themselves. I will say that many of the believers have the unquestioning innocence of a child. The manipulators love this!
The whole issue of AGW can be simply reduced to a couple of points and we must not forget this. By this simple reduction we can clear the mind of all the rubbish and “red herrings” and come to the real issues. Those issues revolve around only two points; all others are secondary!
The first issue is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere and its measurement. All the reporting for the world is taken from only one site which sits on top of a volcano, which itself spews out 8,500 tonnes of CO2 daily. While one expert has assured me that the recordings are credible, I still think it appropriate that readings should be taken from around the world, including the Southern hemisphere. The early data has been cherry picked to give a low reading to show a steeply rising trend from the start of industrial times. We have at least 2 serious questions about the data.
The second issue is that to do with the world’s temperature data. We have seen the arrival and departure of the fraudulent Michael Mann hockey stick, which on its own is sufficient to discredit the arguments of the warmists. We then have the issue of the urban heat island effect which is ignored in the small cities and towns and yet has been shown to exist. It well known that there has been manipulation and selective picking of the temperature data. Thus the temperature data is open to serious question.
The likes of Yes but and Brendon, are childish, and contribute little to the debate other than a good laugh or two. I would be appreciated that they depart.
00
Yes but,
It’s not a political war on science, but a political war using belief wrapped in pseudo science to support otherwise unsupportable agendas. Among those agendas are Marxism, radical green, oil company profit envy, anarchy and anti capitalism. I don’t know which of these is yours, but it’s likely to be one. Either that, or one of the hands that guides you has one of these agendas and has failed to clue you in.
I don’t have a ‘belief’ in how the climate works relative to incremental CO2, I can put a precise upper bound on the effect and know with 100% certainty, that the upper limit is less than the lower limit of the IPCC ‘consensus’. Since we both can agree that science is about truth, lets discuss the science.
Peer reviewed climate papers don’t mean squat to me. You know as well as I do that the deck is stacked heavily against anyone who wants to publish in Nature, Science and other such publications. Talk about an echo chamber ,,. If you want to talk about science, don’t just cite some paper, explain things in your own words. Let me know you actually understand what you are talking about.
I’m still waiting for the answer to my question about what makes energy arriving at the surface as the result of GHG absorption is so much more effective at heating the surface than the same amount of energy coming from the Sun.
While you at it, see if you can explain why exponentially increasing atmospheric water content has no effect on surface temperatures above about 301K, when the ‘consensus’ claims that water related positive feedback significantly amplifies small changes in forcing power. Well, apparently not incident solar forcing power, but only solar power absorbed and then re-radiated by the surface, absorbed by a GHG, only half of which is radiated back to the surface.
George
00
cosisnotevil @6:51 yes totally agree that feedbacks and cloud cover are outstanding issues. So I am not in “denial” on issue here – however we seem to have major circulation changes that the best diagnosis from scientists who are not AGW “personalities” puts a significant emphasis on a circulation system being subtly forced by greenhouse. So that implies some degree of risk to humanity – probably as to who wins and loses out of any reorganisation of systems. All this is a very difficult problem – what would a greenhouse signal look like emerging from a cloud of natural variability at inter-annual and decadal time scales. as much as there seems to be a degree of change and perhaps risk – “warmists” should also not overstate the position nor dismiss the issue with natural variability.
OK here’s the cataclysmic deep end for Australia – what the probability of the Pacific ending up in a mean El-Nino like warm state? (Note I did not say it was there at all – but one can only wonder about the trends – whether the move to Modoki mode is just a variation or a different theme)
So in the sceptics rush to kill off all opposition – to frame the debate as good versus evil – they miss all this very interesting science. You never see it discussed on forums like this.
And this is what I was attempting to say before being dismissed as a liar by RC & BH. CO2isnotevil – there is no Luke Desk cabal – no Marxist agenda – just some hobbyist following the bouncing ball. And I did not support Labor’s ETS.
00
John Westman – if you have invoked volcanoes and global atmospheric CO2 growth – you have in one shot dismissed your entire credibility. Go away and cuddle your copy of Plimer.
“Goebbels had it right- if you repeat the lie, no matter how monstrous, ” – YES – that’s what we say about sceptic liars every day. Good point.
“While one expert has assured me that the recordings are credible, I still think it appropriate that readings should be taken from around the world, including the Southern hemisphere.” THEY HAVE you very silly person. One station is at Antarctica for heavens sake. Go and have a Google !! OMIGOD ! And you think we’re childish and you would come on here with a crap statement like that !
CO2isnotevil – “You know as well as I do that the deck is stacked heavily against anyone who wants to publish in Nature, Science and other such publications.” WELL THAT EXCUSE is weak really. Does not stop Spencer or Lindzen getting into GRL does it. And even stuff like McLean et al gets through occasionally (shock horror. But yes publication is hard yards. However – should be just run an IPCC review on blog opinions? Which blog – maybe John Westmans
00
Yes but,
There’s no need to worry about getting stuck in an El Nino state, or La Nina state for that matter. Climate oscillations are normal and in fact, required. There is no static steady state average surface temperature, but a dynamic steady state with oscillations around an average. Small imbalances do tend to push parts of the system over into one of 2 quasi stable states, but the nature of a quasi stable state is that it’s stability is tenuous. There are also many interacting bistable state variables, where the PDO is just one of them.
I’ve looked at a few of these and it seems that there are small local difference in the ratio between the incident energy and outgoing energy as the climate switches between pairs of quasi stable states.
My primary point is that the water vapor amplification of the relatively small intrinsic effect of incremental CO2 is completely bogus. There is boundless physical and theoretical evidence that supports this conclusion and absolute nothing but speculation to support massive amplification. The reason for the confusion is the adoption of a faulty model representing the effects of GHG as feedback and the obfuscation of the nature of gain and feedback by specifying them in units of degrees K per W/m^2 (or W/m^2 oer degree K) instead of as the dimensionless values they should be.
As I also pointed out, the usual climate feedback model does not model the actual system, but models a hypothetical system controlling only the surface temperature. The fact is the closed loop gain of this hypothetical system is dependent only on the physical feedback control system and not at all on the hypothetical system. While the hypothetical system coefficients can be matched to a specific operating point, it’s predictive value is nil. This is because the feedback fraction and closed loop gain are moving targets and vary over a wide range.
George
00
Yes but, you said,
And it certainly seems that the bar is much, much higher for people like Lindzen, Spencer and other skeptics to be published. Moreover, they can’t get away with gratuitous claims of speculation as fact as is often the case with pro CAGW papers.
George
00
yes but,
Look at post 352, read the descriptions and follow the links. This is unaltered (at least by me) satellite data from Nasa GISS.
George
00
Luek @ 361; as usual you are scattergunning; slow down; the Meehl and Santer paper I have noted as bizarre and I’ve given my reasons; the Meehl and Arblaster paper is here:
http://www.cawcr.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff/jma/meehl_solar_science_2009.pdf
As you can see they are supportive of a solar influence and say this:
“One of the mysteries regarding Earth’s climate system response to variations in solar output is
how the relatively small fluctuations of the 11-year solar cycle can produce the magnitude
of the observed climate signals in the tropical Pacific associated with such solar variability.
Two mechanisms, the top-down stratospheric response of ozone to fluctuations of shortwave
solar forcing and the bottom-up coupled ocean-atmosphere surface response, are included in
versions of three global climate models, with either mechanism acting alone or both acting
together. We show that the two mechanisms act together to enhance the climatological
off-equatorial tropical precipitation maxima in the Pacific, lower the eastern equatorial
Pacific sea surface temperatures during peaks in the 11-year solar cycle, and reduce
low-latitude clouds to amplify the solar forcing at the surface.”
I don’t know where you got the quote you show at 361; I can’t find it in the Meehl Arblaster paper I link to above. As a general comment I really don’t understand how anyone can categorically say that there is no solar influence contributing to the warming up to 1998 and cooling since; but I’m always willing to listen.
00
@ yes but
Allow me to quote all of the intelligent comments you have made in your last few posts
I hope you get some help and soon!
00
@ Yes but
Start using question marks when you ask a question, Troll!
Athens was a democracy and the consensus (majority) forced Socrates to drink hemlock. I live in the US. My country is a republic, not a democracy. The majority is not allowed to trample on the rights of the minority or the individual. We have nuisance laws. An example would be a city ordinance that requires dog owners to pick up the fecal matter that their pets leave in public. Speaking of which, why are you still here? Don’t they have nuisance laws where you live?
00
I really like your posts, George; they get me to look at this in new ways and your research and insights are remarkable. (I even agree with you when you disagree with me — OK, there are exact real-world physics problems 😉
But really — aiming this level of discourse at “Yes but” is unsportsmanlike. This man has come unarmed to a battle of wits; he is absolutely incapable of responding at anything near the level of your analysis. You might as well be talking to a 2 year old who is holding his ears and yelling “Nah, nah, nah, I can’t hear you!”
You should really do a complete post — Jo would put it up for sure, and the rest of us would learn some things.
Bob
00
Hey Richard talking of lies – remember the fun we had when you fabricated that I owed you some absurd amount of money. Ahh the fun times we had!
00
Eddy, are you feeling:“born to rule”?
BobC how about you?
George?
Richard?
Cohenite?
John Westman
Scott?
Roy?
Baa H?
Anyone?
00
MattB:
February 15th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
How is that research coming along Matt? Have you repented yet? Maybe you should just let sleeping dogs lie?
00
No Mark D I don’t feel “born to rule”; that is just a typical bit of luke hyperbole; I would be content just to be left alone.
00
throwing a pigeon in amongst you learned scientists:
What is missing in this graph depicting radiation transmitted by the atmosphere? http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
That’s right, the atmosphere is missing. Or at least 79% of the atmosphere is missing. Why would that be I wonder? Well according to the “Greenhouse Effect” hypothesis it is because Nitrogen (79%) is a “non-participating gas”. Meaning that it doesn’t absorb or emit, or more accurately, transmit infra-red radiation.
Well the problem is that any and all substance above 0 K emits infra-red. Infra-red is light. As such it travels at light speed. Infra-red light is emitted at light speed. The temperature of 79% of the atmosphere is equal to the other 21% of the atmosphere what ever that may be at any given moment.
Statistical thermodynamics says that “temperature” is not really defined for individual molecules, but rather is a property associated with large collections of atoms and molecules vibrating and (in the case of fluids/gases) colliding with each other.
Nitrogen therefore emits IR at the same rate as the rest of the atmosphere. A substance which emits IR at the speed of light must also absorb IR at the speed of light. Otherwise how would Nitrogen maintain a constant temperature? Conduction requires direct contact in solids, and in fluids conductivity is dependent on convective currents. The energy that leaves the Earths atmosphere does so at the same rate it arrives, at light speed. If a substance that emits at light speed had to obtain it’s energy by a process any slower than light speed the result would be that it would freeze. This is proven by the solar oven experiment showing that they can make ice as well as cook food. Again any substance above 0 K emits IR. A substance which emits IR must absorb IR or become frozen. All substances emit, so therefore absorb IR.
This graph, one of Goddard’s favorites, has 79% of the atmosphere missing. It is specious and fraudulent.
It must now become obvious that terms such as “non-participating gases” or “IR-Inactive gases” must be considered as sophistical terms of AGW fraud. They are in effect, the other side of the coin from ‘Greenhouse Gases”.
WUWT, witting or unwitting, (and I say that for my own protection) is just another layer in the onion of AGW fraud.
00
by the way that is not my comment; i don’t have the expertise; just like to know what you guys think
00
val @ 377; this is informative, especially the comments:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/20/co2-%e2%80%93-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-two/
Then we can talk about whether there is a greenhouse effect as these people do:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
And whether atmospheric pressure contributes to atmospheric temperature; if you have a spare month that is.
00
Yet another costly green plan hits the wall
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/yet_another_costly_green_plan_hits_the_wall/
00
Mark D.: #374
July 10th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Nah!! BORN TO EMIT
00
@ MarkD 374
What a compliment getting mentioned in the same post as
BobC, George, Richard, Cohenite, John Westman, Roy & Baa H
Thank you, greatly appreciated
I am not in their league by a long shot, but thanks anyway!
00
Val Malkus:
At #377 you say:
Sorry, but that is a misunderstanding. Nitrogen and oxygen do play a much, much larger part in the thermal processes of the atmosphere than AGW-advocates like to admit, but not for the reason you state.
As you say, all gaseous molecules can absorb and emit thermal radiation. But, in addition to the small radiative absorbtion that you mention, greenhouse gases (GHGs, e.g. carbon dioxide, CO2, and water vapour, H2O) can absorb – and emit – radiation much, much more effectively. This is because GHGs can absorb energy in ways that N2 cannot: i.e. they have the abilities to absorb energy rotationally and vibrationally.
Think of it this way. A water molecule consists of two hydrogen atoms each attached to an oxygen atom:
H
I
O
I
H
So the hydrogen atoms can vibrate relative to the oxygen atom.
{- -}
H
I
O
I
H
{- -}
The vibration of the hydrogen atoms is energy stored by the molecule (just as the vibration of a spring is energy stored by the spring). Clearly, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2) cannot store vibrationally energy in this way.
Hence, the effect of GHGs is to increase the ability of the atmosphere to absorb thermal radiation (IR). Everything emits thermal radiation and the GHGs in the air can absorb IR that is emitted from the Earth’s surface. But this does NOT change the temperature of the atmosphere. The temperature of a gas is determined by the average velocity of its molecules, and the energy stored inside each molecule does not change their velocities.
A GHG molecule is said to be ‘excited’ when it has absorbed a photon of IR and, therefore, has a higher energy state. It has to lose this energy before it can absorb another photon.
And this where nitrogen and oxygen are important.
An excited GHG molecule can lose its energy of excitation by
(1) emitting another photon
or
(2) colliding with another molecule and giving its energy to that other molecule.
The lower atmosphere is very dense and has high pressure (i.e. it has many molecules per unit volume and they collide a lot). So, almost all the excitation energy is transferred by collisions in the lower atmosphere. There are thousands of de-excitations by collisions for each de-excitation by emission of radiation from GHG molecules in the lower atmosphere. And it is this frequency of collisional de-excitation that leads to the fact that almost all the IR from the Earth’s surface is absorbed in the lowest 100 m (i.e. ~300 feet) of the atmosphere.
An excited GHG molecule cannot absorb another IR photon until it has been de-excited. And the frequency of collisions between molecules in the lower atmosphere provides rapid de-excitation which enables frequent excitation.
But the molecules that collide with the GHGs are almost all nitrogen and oxygen atoms because the air is almost all nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2). These molecules cannot absorb energy rotationally or vibrationally like GHG molecules can, so the energy they absorb accelerates them (i.e. they move faster). And the temperature of a gas is determined by the average velocity of its molecules, so collision with the GHG molecules heats the N2 and O2 molecules. Thus, the atmosphere is warmed.
But ‘hot air rises’ so the warmed air moves up by convection. The resulting effect is an alteration to the lapse rate.
However, the point to note is how very little of the energy absorbed by GHGs in the lower atmosphere is emitted as thermal radiation from the GHGs. It is almost all lost to N2 and O2 by collisions. And only half of that small amount of radiation FROM the GHGs can return to the Earth’s surface to cause the surface warming known as the radiative greenhouse effect.
Much of the warming of the surface from GHGs will by conduction from N2 and O2 molecules that have been heated by the GHGs (just as the ground is heated by the air when a warm front moves in).
So,
(a) almost all the absorbtion of IR by CO2 that can occur in the air occurs in the lowest 100 m of the air,
(b) a tiny part of that energy absorbed by GHGs is returned towards the Earth’s surface as IR,
(c) because the air is mostly nitrogen and oxygen.
Richard
00
Val Malkus:
The thought has occurred to me that my post at #383 omitted to state a conclusion. I think it is obvious but, for completeness, I add it here.
The considerations I state in my post a #383 lead to the certain conclusion that
additional CO2 in the atmosphere cannot alter (to a discernible degree)
(a) the Earth’s surface temperature,
(c) the lapse rate
and
(d) the convection rate
This is because the lowest 100 m of the atmosphere absorbs almost all the IR that CO2 can absorb, and more than all cannot be absorbed.
Sorry for the omission.
Richard
00
Eddy I’ve since decided to adopt Richard’s approach and I’ll not be proceeding with my part of the deal until he apologises for lying;)
00
Matt B:
At #385 you say;
Please! You once were useful. Please do not adopt the methods of ‘Yes But’.
What the cowardly liar who hides behind the alias of ‘Yes But’ has tried to do here is both disgraceful and serious (see #342). It is much too serious for it to be trivialised with nonsense.
I did not lie and – as Eddy has quoted at #375 – the record proves that I did not lie. If an apology is needed then you need to provide it for your completely unfounded accusation against me.
Now, let that be an end to it unless – of course – you wish to support attempts to get the unrepentant and cowardly liar who hides behind the alias of ‘Yes But’ to apologise and go away.
Richard
00
Richard learn to take a joke. The quote from Eddy however does nothing to prove your case on the $5k
00
I got 4 thumbs down for my born to rule question?????
Perhaps the voters didn’t see this quip from Yes But directed at Eddy @ 359:
00
Has anyone else given thought that yes but IS Mattb?
I mean they have the same last initial…..
MattB, Eddy, please just post a link to the go-round about the bet.
00
Somehow I think RS could be ruling class. What pomposity. “Now, let that be an end to it unless ” Oh yes – watch yourself laddie !!
And you watch yourself too Eddy, you’ll be next if standards drop – and do that tie up.
Reminds me of http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html
00
Mark D:
At #389 you suggest:
I think you jest. But, in case you are serious, I point out that I would be extremely surprised if this were so.
Matt B and I have often disagreed and our views on AGW are diametrically opposed. But the record shows Matt B is sincere and honest in his views.
There are many words that could be applied to ‘Yes But’ but sincerity and honesty are not among them.
Richard
00
Yes Richard, it was mostly an attempt at humor – I should have put a smiley there.
00
Richard Courtney,
I think most regulars here realize what you posted at 342. I for one am behind you 100%. I’ve been almost enraged at the attacks against you personally. But you hold your own very well, exceptionally well in fact. So do not give up! Many are solidly with you all the way.
Roy
00
Matt, at Not FOUR, 1.4 degrees you were flailing away as usual. You know, appeals to authority and refusal to substantiate or support anything that you posted? Finally, Richard S. Courtney called you out.
MattB:
July 10th, 2010 at 10:50 pm
Richard S Courtney:
February 13th, 2010 at 12:46 am
Matt B:
At #77 you say;
At various posts you insulted both Richard and E&E and then, when cornered, you agreed to make it a matter of honor, claimed you would produce due diligence and later said you would change the bet to a “Trading Places” wager of one dollar.
Richard had you cornered and you failed to follow through on anything. Why would dredge up a past event, open up old wounds and embarrass yourself further? You could have just posted something along the lines of, ” Hi, my name is Matt and I will waste your time, reason illogically, appeal to authority and then fail to deliver on the due diligence I promised to perform.”
Use a little common sense and let it go, Matt!
00
Yes but:
July 10th, 2010 at 11:15 pm
The tie in the picture of me is worn properly and does not need to be tightened. Unlike you, troll, I do not hide behind a screen name and that is an actual picture of me. Your idle threat is typical of a troll. If I was standing if front of you right now you would be defecating in your drawers. You were that kid in school that everybody picked on and beat the crap out of on a regular basis. You wouldn’t make a pimple on a man’s ass.
You are just someone who takes up space and wastes valuable oxygen that someone else could be breathing. I have attorneys on retainer if you want to take the legal course. If you want to settle things the old fashion way, whimpy, send your name and location to Jo and she can forward it to me.
00
Friends:
I write to place on record my sincere gratitude to all who have stated their encouragement to me here and privately. You are all very kind. And I needed it.
Richard
00
Eddy:
You post at #395 was pure poetry. I am in awe.
The comment saying to ‘Yes But’,
“You wouldn’t make a pimple on a man’s ass”
is so true, and I am still laughing.
Richard
00
BobC,
Thanks for the kudos. BTW, as much as many here hate climate models, much of my insight about how the climate operates comes from developing, verifying and iterating such models.
I’ve discussed doing a post with Jo. Something will show up eventually …
A topic I’m considering is ‘The Feedback Fubar’, where I can explain in more detail why the pedantic climate feedback model is horribly broken, derived from a math error, does not represent reality and has no predictive capability.
George
00
Yes but:
July 10th, 2010 at 5:42 am
And the troll wonders why he gets no respect?
00
@ Richard S. Courtney #397
Thank you for your kind words. I have tried the kinder, gentler approach at the urging of some posters. They implored me to be more civil. It just was not working. In any war the path to victory is littered with the bodies of your slain enemies. The war ends when the enemy has sustained so much damage that he is incapable of continuing the conflict.
Both Brendon and Yes “I am in the closet” but started being rude and obnoxious from their very first posts. Then, when their feelings were hurt and they feel aggrieved and injured they cried foul, what hypocrisy! When I pointed out to them that trolling is a recognized mental disorder they went apoplectic. I guess the truth can be quite painful, even for a troll.
I always enjoy reading your posts and have learned much from you. Thank you, Richard.
00
I’ve just been tipped off about this interesting thread. I would suggest more AGW skeptics take a look at the brilliant papers of G. Gerlich, R. D. Tscheuschner: ‘Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics,’ and Siddons, Hertzberg and Schreuder’s, ‘A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon?’
http://climatology.suite101.com/article.cfm/discredited-greenhouse-gas-theory-takes-global-warming-blow
These scientists have busted the so-called greenhouse gas effect- it just isn’t there. Its a fraud. Science is now approaching the cusp of a paradigm shift on this.
For example, consider the IPCC description of the bogus atmospheric greenhouse effect which posits:
1. A warm body (the earth) radiates heat to a cool body (the atmosphere)
2. The cool body “back-radiates” (IPCC term) heat to the warm body.
3. This process continues perpetually, with heat flowing round and round in a continuous cycle.
4. The result of this perpetual process is that the warm body becomes warmer.
What is most amazing is that both alarmists and skeptic scientists have taken the above blatant 2nd Law of Thermodynamics violation at face value for so long. People, time to wake up to the fact ever more highly-respected scientists are now speaking out and exposing this scam. I urge you to read the above papers and become enlightened.
00
Are you threatening me Eddy? And how did you know I was in the closet? I’m been quivering in here all night. Thank God for wireless. But I’ve put my back out trying to see if my ass has pimples. Hey Eddie it’s time for the morning shift at the climate resistance bunker – we’ve now installed some security guards in case you come a callin’. Please don’t hurt us. We didn’t mean it. We’re sorry. We apologise. We don’t believe in AGW anymore. Just don’t hurt us. Please. Our orders are to set their phasers to stun only. Although given faux sceptic craniums are somewhat thicker we’ve upped the Ghz rating.
hmmmm You’re a humourless bloke aren’t you. I reckon if you’re even reacting to this sort of joke – you must have the discrimination powers of an ant. Which goes of course to your understanding of climate science and your ability to even comment. So instead of wasting your time being dragged around in my wake – why don’t you stop being obsequious to Courtney and make a science comment yourself for once. Eddy consider a makeover and get a photo like Mr O’Sullivan. Much cooler.
Mr O’Sullivan – may I say – what a load of tosh. That would be the back-radiation you can measure on a clear night with a pyrgeometer. Remember what you’ve been told on the Watt’s tour – nobody (that’s nobody he said) said Bob Carter disputes the greenhouse effect. So G&H should debate with Bob, Anthony and David.
“This process continues perpetually, with heat flowing round and round in a continuous cycle.” – says who – G&H . LMAO !
Tell us John – how do radiation shields work in furnaces. And hey how did Osram do it – look Osram have defeated the laws of thermodynamics. It’s a bloomin’ miracle John.
Look no hands ! http://lightingpro.com.au/catalog/osram_irc_halogen_lamp.php
Of course it could be a conspiracy – even GE are in on the act – http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/education_resources/literature_library/product_brochures/downloads/product/16714_halogen.pdf
The G&T rebuttal, counter-attack and more rebutting are here http://climatephysicsforums.com/topic/3292392/1/
The Greenhouse on the Moon stunt is just a fabricated beatup. Read the “release” – what hopeful dross. It’s on a “scandal” coz the author said it was. Gee what “journalism”.
But it could be true of course – coz you’ve read it on the internet.
00
@ yes in the but
I skipped over most of your post as I see no reason to read it. You are a troll. You have been a disingenuous piece of work since your first post. I did not threaten you, you threatened me. Actually, it was not much of a threat because you are a pussy. The best part of you ran down your mother’s leg and wound up as a brown spot on the mattress. If I want any lip from you I will scrape it off the zipper on my pants!
00
I know what you mean Eddy
Yes Butt has to whistle when he goes to the toilet so he knows which end to wipe.
00
Richard Courtney and a few others here.
I respond to the tenor of this thread by stating that,The AGW believers are showing their true colors by their weak and silly replies.They keep moving the “goalpost” in their effort to keep their argument alive.That itself shows they KNOW they are on shallow ground.
I suggest that instead of getting angry with them,I would laugh at their fumbling attempts to make any rational points.Stick on just one thing you think that are wrong on and bite their ankles over it HARD! Over and over until they deal with it honestly.
Making long replies to these trolls only give them opportunities to slither around with their prevaricating B.S. They then twist with half answers over and over and hope the lurkers stay confused on them.
Make your replies SHORT and watch them fumble over it or they ignore it.
Trolls hate short replies and you should realize why.
Try it and see if that works for you.
00
Regarding what Richard Courtney wrote at post #354.
The attacks against the Skeptical Handbook are so dumb,that only a few new flies will be caught over it.Most such flies are too far gone for rational thinking anyway.There are always a few flies who fall for anything and eventually drown in the pap.
That is why I read and laugh over the potshots that AGW believers make.They have no desire for honest discussions and there is a reason for it.They are too busy carrying on a belief of a doomsday future and it permeates in all their shibboleths in the many blogs and forums I have been attending over the years.
Thus it should be no surprise to read gutter quality attacks against the Handbook.
How else they would react to such a document?
The purpose of the Handbook is to EDUCATE and that is why it is a threat to the AGW believers camp.Who have a proven history of hiding or altering data,refusing data submission requests and similar unscientific behavior.
Even when the world cools hard in the next 12 months,they will say that is just weather and the warming trend continues.
I just laugh at their hypocrisy when they do that.
00
Scott:
July 11th, 2010 at 8:26 am
That is one of the funniest things I have ever heard. When I use it in the future I hope to remember where I got it!
00
Eddy yes I laughed too – great sledge – and I just know you peeked at my post – didn’t you. Just a widdle peek?
BUT BUT ” did not threaten you, you threatened me.” – just remind me how I have threatened you again? I must have missed it.
Sunsetectomy – mate I had to laugh myself – “Even when the world cools hard in the next 12 months” now isn’t that a hoot – so when a warmist says that world has warmed – nah it’s an El Nino” but when a faux sceptic sees a La Nina … hmmm … nothing is said. No hypocrisy here. Move along folks – nothing to see.
Sunset – if you think the Handbook is to educate – well you’re gullible aren’t you. I have this bridge I’d like to sell you ….
00
Yes,but writes this amusing content free statement:
Meanwhile ALL the major warming periods since the 1970’s coincides with El-Nino’s phases.Now that it is gone the warming trend stopped.
Imagine that!
How did that vaunted CO2 molecule arrange that?
00
El Nino – Global Temperature Driver
I also came across a presentation showing that climate temperature change seems to happen in steps.
The 1976 and 1998 climate shifts are examples of step temperature change.
In reality all of the warming in the last 30 years occurred in ONE year.
00
Re John O’Sullivan @ 401,
This is exactly the experiment that Lionell Griffith posted back a bit. I knew instinctively from daily observation that there would be no brighter spot produced by the mirror on the paper even though I couldn’t explain it well. Since then I’ve pondered whether GHGs in the atmosphere don’t function in exactly the same way as the mirror. If a bit of heat leaves the surface and heads for space it cools the surface by some amount. If it happens to be returned by some mechanism, any mechanism, it’s just replacing itself is it not? No increase in temperature involved.
I begin to understand fully why Lionell insists that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas. That heat can only be in one place at a time. If it’s on the Earth then it contributes to the Earths temperature. If it’s in transit it has cooled the earth by the amount of heating it can produce. If it then resides in a CO2 molecule for a time it increases the energy of that molecule but when it leaves, the CO2 molecule returns to its lower energy state. If that energy strikes the earth again all it’s doing is replacing the heat it removed when it left.
I now get it why the AGW non-theory violates actually the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. It requires creation of energy out of nothing violating the first law and it doesn’t permit entropy, violating the second law. So there must be a net cooling even when energy is returned to the surface and this would be true even if every bit of radiation was returned (the paper goes dark if you turn off the lamp, proving that energy is lost from the system, contrary to AGW).
So why is there any difference between a CO2 or H2O molecule and a mirror? The greenhouse gas mechanism can maybe slow down cooling but how can it cause the slightest warming?
Can anyone offer a counter argument? I’m always eager to listen and learn.
PS:
I knew the laws of thermodynamics long ago but never worked with them. Even when I went back and looked them up again the full connection took all this time to hit me. I answered Lionell’s question about whether his experiment proves or falsifies AGW with, it falsifies it because it intuitively did and yet still I was too dense to make the full connection. Sometimes I wonder why you all put up with me.
00
…because slow and sure wins the race, Roy?
00
Roy Hogue – try http://lightingpro.com.au/catalog/osram_irc_halogen_lamp.php – the bulb violate the laws of thermodynamics according to those here…
Sunset – gee so we’re magically building heat from nowhere from Los Ninos over 30 years are we …. hmmmmm …. Coho will snort but if you get the global SST data – either variant – sea temp or night time marine air temp – and do a very basic principal component analysis since 1850 till present – PC1 ain’t ENSO it’s the centennial trend – i.e. a mixture of solar and greenhouse forcing – PC2 is IPO and PC3 is AMO – No ENSO !
00
Yes but,
Take your complaint up with the folks here:
http://climatology.suite101.com/article.cfm/discredited-greenhouse-gas-theory-takes-global-warming-blow
Like I said, cooling can be slowed but no warming is possible. If you want to believe the marketing hype of someone trying to sell you a product, be my guest. But don’t expect me to believe it.
00
I’m sorry luke, did you say a mixture of solar and GREENHOUSE forcing is the centennial trend; greenhouse is the centennial trend??!.
ENSO is a solar signature; I’ve told you before you don’t need to accumulate heat [as AGW does] for a trend, only a mechanism which allows more solar; ENSO’s connection with cloud cover does that [see Meehl and Arblaster]; a slight variation in cloud cover will do that; cloud cover is correlated with SST which in turn is correlated with ENSO; which comes first? Does it matter? The process appears to be cyclical with some asymmetry [and therefore a heating bias] since 1850 when temps started to rise; that pattern has more or less continued for the next 160 years with no room for any greenhouse attribution. So since 1850 temps have risen due to a slight positive bias in the ENSO pattern; by that I mean that the La Nina dominated [-ve PDOs] have been less cool than the El Nino dominated [+ve PDOs] have been warm; also there have been more +ve PDOs over this period; there has been no AGW signature in this process; how do I know that? Well, your mate Foster et al say this:
“It has been well known for many years that ENSO is associated with significant variability in global mean temperatures on interannual timescales.”
Of course Foster et al still claim a larger trend due to greenhouse; they are wrong because greenhouse cannot explain steps in trend which go up and DOWN; ENSO can.
00
Hi Roy @ 414; the Siddons paper on errors with Stefan-Boltzmann derived temps on the moon has been getting a lot of publicity; it appears to be wrong in a way which undermines AGW in another way other than backradiation; it is discussed here:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/03/lunar-madness-and-physics-basics/
00
Gee thanks Mark D @ 374.
I did not realise that I was “Born to Rule”. Perhaps you would not like my rule?
I see in this thread many people who are wanting to improve their knowledge on the interactions of the atmosphere, climate, and on supposed climate change issues. There certainly is plenty of information being posted and discussed by knowledgeable people.
Unfortunately, we have a number of dimwits who seem to little else to do, other than provide distractions, rants and ad hominen attacks. While these dimwits have provided some light entertainment, they have become tiresome. I have come to the conclusion that it is best to just ignore them and not make comments to their direction. Once they realise that they are no longer getting attention, they will fade away in high dudgeon.
Let’s just ignore them. This is my last post that will have any reference to the dimwits. We now have the chance to raise the standards of this thread.
00
@ John Westman: (#362)
July 10th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
John, I like your reduction, and propose to take it one step further:
If AGW were supported by facts, its proponents wouldn’t resort to fraud.
00
Climate Change Timeline – 1895-2009
http://butnowyouknow.wordpress.com/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/climate-change-timeline/
00
Well Roy – I’d prefer to confine one’s self to the scientific literature instead of unreviewed unpublished sceptic horse dung thanks.
But please be careful – you can play the game yourself – get a light bulb – measure its temperature. Then cover it with the thinnest alfoil you can find. Report back. Tell us that it can’t happen. But don’t get electrocuted – we need as many sceptics as we can to watch the world warm up. Or take Eli’s word for it http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/09/light-dawns-there-are-styles-in-science.html
John Westman – pathetic – no response to any of my science comments. Weak as water matey – you’re just doing a lah lah lah I’m not listening.
And you think you’re getting quality science comments from many of the goon squad (co2notevil and Coho excepted) do you? Well you’re easily pleased.
Coho yes I did indeed say “a mixture of solar and greenhouse forcing” – but not solar in recent decades – and in the recent decade maybe even a decline in solar.
00
Ah yes,
Speaking of science, I’m still waiting for an answer to my question.
George
00
luke @ 420, you have linked to eli’s experiment with light bulbs as though it is evidence for a radiative forcing effect from a blanket of extra CO2 in the atmosphere; it isn’t; it is an experiment which demonstrates, just like every greenhouse, that temp is much more determined in the atmosphere by convection then radiation; eli’s bulb test simply removed convection from the experiment just like a greenhouse’s glass walls do; the temp gets warmer not because of some magical thermo effect of radiative build-up but because the heat is no longer moved. In addition eli’s scenario is limited to a heat build up determined by the energy of the heating source, that is the current, and assuming a perfect insulator, that is, a perfect remover of all convective [and conductive] energy removal. What AGW does, however, is assume an unlimited heat build up potential, the so-called Venus effect, where increasing CO2, the equivalent of the insulation around the light, will cause heat to build up to a greater extent than the heat equivalent of the energy from the source; if that were the case the Earth would theoretically become the sun and Venus would be much hotter than its current temp given its CO2 levels of 96%. In short what luke and eli are preposing is a perpetual energy machine similar to this:
http://www.vermonttiger.com/content/images/2008/07/25/toaster.jpg
00
What baloney – foil is a fabulous conductor and the experiment will and does convect very well thank you.
try an Osram IRC bulb or a GE Powerfilm then….
for Orsam “A reduction in losses due to thermal radiation (IRC):
Special bulb geometry and a sophisticated coating on the bulb ensure that the thermal (infrared) radiation is reflected and the heat emitted from the filament is reflected back to the filament. As a result the filament is heated further. This means that less electrical energy has to be supplied to the filament. This technology is used for all low-voltage Energy Saver lamps (12 V) because of the optimum geometric conditions.” you tell me it can’t work !! bunk – it does … isn’t reality a bitch ?
or a radiation shield in a furnace is another example
Coho – the 2nd law ruse is rubbish as is the perpetual energy ruse. Stuff only E&E might publish.
“What AGW does, however, is assume an unlimited heat build up potential” no it doesn’t
00
Friends:
I draw attention to the best joke of the week. It is in #420 and says;
The quote has three adjacent sentences.
The first references a blog comment by the professional liar who hides behind the pseudonym of Eli Rabbett so he cannot be prosecuted for his lies.
The second claims the writer has made “science comments” when he has just cited Rabbett.
And the third talks about doing a “lah lah lah” then adds the obvious statement, “I’m not listening.”
Now that’s funny!
Richard
00
luke; put a thermometer next to a candle; then compare that temperature with a glass container which has no “sophisticated coating” over the candle; I’m going to go into business with them labelled: “greenhouse candles”; can I have your testimonial; and I’ll need you as a witness when an action under the Trade Practices Act is taken against your light bulb manufacturers.
00
Oh, and luke, foil has a reflective property of at least 90%;
http://multifoilexperiment.blogspot.com/
00
Eli measured the temperature of a light bulb at 160 degrees C, presumably by putting a termocouple in contact with the glass of the bulb. Although I don’t doubt the reality of this measurement, I very much doubt that it means anything. The temperature of a typical light bulb filament is over 3000 degrees C. Eli would be better off learning to use a pyrometer.
It sounds like marketing hooey, because choosing suitable resistance for the given voltage and size of bulb allows the designer to operate the filament at any temperature desired regardless of any “sophisticated coating”. The efficiency of a incandescent bulb is limited by the melting point of the filament which is the same for all quartz/halogen bulbs (nothing beats tungsten).
Osram claim “energy savings of up to 30%” and that’s an admission that the real efficiency improvement is less than 30%. If you check the basic theory of luminous efficacy you find that the step from regular incandescent to quartz/halogen is always around 27% and that’s just because the hotter filament has a color temperature better matched to the human eye.
Don’t believe Wikipedia? I don’t blame you, maybe believe the Aus government here — http://www.climatechange.gov.au/what-you-need-to-know/lighting.aspx
They claim a 28% energy saving when you move to quartz/halogen from ordinary incandescent. Looks like Osram’s “sophisticated coating” might give 1% improvement at best, but we are probably talking about round-off error more than anything.
Now you have got me on the subject of the Aus government and their phase-out of light bulbs. Their quoted 10,000 hour lifespan for CFL bulbs is absolute rubbish, ask anyone who has tried a few, and currently there is no way to legally dispose of mercury-filled household material. Just try ringing up any of the recycling places and ask if they want to take some mercury off your hands. I strongly suspect that most people just put them out in the garbage where the mercury goes into landfill, until it leaches out into the local groundwater.
We are busy putting poison into our water supply in the name of a CO2 climate change myth so scam-merchants like Al Gore can get wealthy. Green advocates have their heart in the right place — all they need now is a bit of brains.
00
Well Cohers alas Osram and GE have done it – and this puts a total mockery on this 2nd law drivel.
It’s about net, it’s always been about net.
Get a very thin IR reflective glass and we’ll see ! Why do furnaces use radiation shields?
Now mate – just between you and me – while Eddy and Richard are fawning all over each other, high-five-ing, and pre-occupied with each others ties – there are only 3 issues – water vapor feedback, clouds and what the circulation systems and/or quasi periodic behaviour do when shoved with some extra forcing. And do we agree if the risk is too high – we’ll just get ourselves a bloody big nuclear reactor? You have to defend yourself against the migrant hordes anyway.
And speaking of water vapor – dropped Meehl, Parker and Philipona. Check out some water vapor evidence – http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler09b.pdf
And won’t Dessler, A.E., and S.M. Davis, Trends in tropospheric humidity from reanalysis systems, J. Geophys. Res., submitted be a hoot. Free kick as to where we’ll be next. Maybe he should have sent it to E&E do you think?
It’s just a risk management calculation in the end. No green politics. You can all still be born to rule if you like.
And you know as an Aussie wouldn’t it just piss you off to know that God really is a WASP American wheat grower? (example net result of a semi-permanent ENSO and all that CO2). Maybe the CIA have already made the calculation? Be a bit of a bugger for all those poncy Hunter horse studs and Broke wineries. Just having a nice Viognier myself whilst typing before another heavy date.
00
OMG, Luke is back. 🙂 He’s my favorite boyfriend of all times! Hi, Lukeeeeey!… Boy are we gonna have some fun now or what?!
Love, Wessy Poo
XOXXXXX
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewjxzSGmOGw
00
Wayne #419.
That’s a keeper Wayne, says it all. Hysteria down the ages.
00
Yes Wes, luke, the Hunter S Thompson of the AGW church.
Luke, thanks for the Dessler paper; putting a temp value on ENSO, via radiative changes caused by water, is an interesting idea; of course David Stockwell put a value on ENSO in this paper:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0908/0908.1828v1.pdf
00
Hey Wessy-bot – gee I’ve missed you. How are the rocks? And Mrs Wessy? The interminable rhetorical rants – where’s the poetry inducing micro-sleep inducing apnea in scepticism these days? BTW THE VIDEO WAS GREAT ! 🙂 May I send you a nice AGW track http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pufec0Hps00
Wes – just to bring you up to speed – I seem to have got off on the wrong foot with Richard & Eddy – they think I’m some sort of gay lying troll – could you put in a good word?
We had to put on extra security for the night team here at the climate resistance bunker in case Eddy shows up. And I’ve been slipping in my sledging so the coven has demoted me and now I have to walk up the back on demos and answer the phone to those creeps at Greenpeace (we hate them – so moderate). Myself – I spent the night quivering in the closet with Phil who sends hugs. He still hasn’t regained movement in his arms after the accident with the mixmaster.
And Cohers has been posing off – I would have had the blog down and dusted if he hadn’t shown up – and now you ! And there’s this bloke called co2isnotevil who seems like he knows stuff (scares me actually – he may be the only who really knows anything – just act cool if he shows up).
00
The IRC technology used in the installation lamp (burner) contains the routing of the infrared (IR) radiation of the lamp back to the filament by means of a suitable reflecting layer mounted outside on the lamp (burner).
This additional energy supply for the filament enables the supplied electrical energy for the filament to be reduced. The reduction of the wattage (W) can take place without a loss of light (luminous flux or luminous intensity). As a result, lamps with IRC technology can be used to reduce the total wattage of the system, and therefore also for thermal load reduction are, in the broadest sense, energy savers. However, it is also important that the thermal load on the luminaire is reduced if, for example, a 50 W cold-light reflector lamp is replaced with a 35 W DECOSTAR IRC with the advantage of the same luminous intensity.
More simply, it can be said: the same amount of light with lower wattage.
Cold-light reflector lamp
(standard) DECOSATR IRC
35 W as bright as 20 W
50 W as bright as 35 W
65 W (older type) as bright as 50 W
00
Yes but @420,
FYI: As a teenager I was rewiring my parent’s garage, building one tube radios (dangerous voltage stuff) and repairing radios. Some of those old radios used tubes with plate caps running several hundred volts. Have you ever even seen a vacuum tube? Do you understand what a plate cap is?
I saw transistors appear and built kits using them. I saw integrated circuits appear and then develop to the point where there’s a computer in my cell phone more sophisticated and powerful than those old mainframes that were around when I started my career. They needed a ton of air conditioning, lots of power and a large room but still would not have been able to do what my phone does.
I started my career with the company that jointly with IBM, developed the first computerized air defense system, including an all vacuum tube computer. I’ve had the privilege of getting a guided tour “through” that computer — rack after rack of it. It was all done in the 1950s.
You are a rank amateur at technology, at insulting people and about physics. When I post something here I keep a firm grip on my limitations. Do you do the same? If you didn’t constantly make a fool of yourself you would get a much better reception. I post under my real name, including sometimes controversial statements. You are just a constant irritant and willfully so! I don’t know how old you are but the intellectual age you display is that of a teenager, about 14 or 15 years I would say. It’s shameful! If I did that I’d use an alias too, lest my friends and family discover what a basket case I really was.
As for the rest — it’s been answered over and over. I see no need to rehash it. You can read for yourself and (presumably) learn if you want to.
00
Yes But, I’m feeling a little dense this morning, could you explain what you are “proving” with the light bulb experiment?
Did someone here suggest that IR can’t be reflected?
Did someone here suggest that IR can’t be focused at a target and increase the target temperature?
Did someone here suggest that IR is the same spectral WL as visible light?
Did someone here suggest that the atmosphere is made of foil?
Help me out here please.
00
CHART
Yes but,
Did you see that chart? It shows a step temperature increase in 1998,the year of the super El-NINO.It was flat before and after that year.
Did you bother to see this CHART? I will quote the text that came with this:
There is strong agreement between Enso and temperature changes.
You wrote this empty tripe:
Your statement is avoiding my charts and being the dishonest person you are for changing the discussion,to avoid answering what I posted back at post #410.
When will you guys ever stop trying to move the goalpost?
From Cohenite post #415 at the bottom is this quote:
The very reason why I asked this question at post # 409,you never answered at all:
00
Tel at post # 427,you wrote this statement I think needs to be considered a little bit further:
At 3000 degrees C,it would indeed be a very strong emitter of IR in incandescent,but none in other bulb designs in the similar temperature range.With a stated 85% IR emission,I would think the “backradiation” bouncing off the coating would be irrelevant because it is already emitted and leaving the bulb in excess of 98% from the Filament.
Here is a LINK that discuss the difference between incandescent bulbs and LEDS.
Eli (Joshua Halpern) Rabbett should realize that the supposed back radiation support in his lightbulob is negligible at best and thus fails to support the even less convincing application of that silly idea to a complex atmosphere.That now includes convection and conduction,that are missing from the light bulb.
00
Yes but,
The filament is not heated further. It’s simply prevented from cooling as fast as it would without the special coating. Thus it reaches a higher temperature before net energy lost equals net energy input.
The laws of thermodynamics still hold and make “…heated further,” simply untrue.
The Earth, by the way, is not such a simple system as the light bulb and can’t be can’t be reduced to such a simple analogy.
00
Yes but, re 438
You really think that this is a definitive paper? The uncertainty is huge, only results from models are presented and the most important H20 feedback mechanisms (which happens to be negative) appear to be ignored. In case you don’t know what these are, let me explain. As the temperature rises, evaporation increases and the latent heat of evaporation increases. The second effect is that all this evaporation causes more rain, which is just about always cooler than the surface and cools it further. The evidence, both theoretical and empirical, is clear that this heat pump effect is so strong that above about 300K, it completely offsets additional increases in solar energy. I said negative feedback like effects because like the positive feedback like effects that you seem so concerned about are only the consequence of applying an inappropriate feedback model to the climate system. The only relevant feedback is that which is controlling the Earth’s energy balance and the surface temperature just comes along for the ride.
As for the light bulb, it seems that just about any product marketed with ‘green’ or ‘eco’ in it’s name heavily overstates it’s effectiveness. This is just a marketing ploy targeted at the weak and gullible minds that have bought into this whole CAGW scam. With all the doom and gloom and fear mongering surrounding this issue, any marketer worth their business degree would be taking advantage of it. Attach green or eco to the product name and you can take advantage of boatloads of free advertising.
Filament bulbs will be disappearing soon anyway once the cost of LED’s becomes reasonable. If we keep up this CAGW crap, China will be the only one manufacturing led’s or anything else for that matter. Their scientists seem smart enough not to buy in to the CAGW fear mongering and their centralized planning recognizes that they will come out on top as the west self destructs in a sea of CO2 guilt. They’re putting new coal fired electric plants on line at a record pace. Do you really think that the small amount of green lip service we see from them is sincere? It’s in their best political and economic interest to stand by and watch the west self destruct.
BTW, there’s no reason for you to fear me or to fear the truth. In fact, unless you have an ulterior agenda which is unsupportable without CAGW, you should celebrate the truth, as it means that the waste of trillions of dollars to unnecessarily mitigate CO2 emissions can be avoided.
I’m still waiting for your answer to my earlier question. I can help by giving you the answer. It is ‘CO2 isn’t special and any GHG absorbed power that is returned to the surface has the same effect, on a watt per watt basis, as incident solar power’. Of course, the implication of this answer is that CAGW has no foundation.
George
00
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarism
Main Entry: pla·gia·rism
Pronunciation: \ˈplā-jə-ˌri-zəm also -jē-ə-\
Function: noun
Date: 1621
1 : an act or instance of plagiarizing
2 : something plagiarized
— pla·gia·rist \-rist\ noun
— pla·gia·ris·tic \ˌplā-jə-ˈris-tik also -jē-ə-\ adjective
Yes but:
July 11th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
http://www.osram.com/osram_com/Tools_%26_Services/Training_%26_Knowledge/FAQ/General_Lighting/Halogen_lamps/index.html
Yes but:
July 11th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
http://www.osram.com/osram_com/Professionals/General_Lighting/Halogen_lamps/Technologies/HALOGEN_ECO_technology/index.html
You have made no attempt to address the arguments made by the various posters with the exception of a few feeble attempts that were easily and thoroughly refuted. You are such a blatant and obvious troll and a hypocrite. You have not been polite or considerate from your first post onward and yet your feelings are hurt when people respond to your lame, effeminate and illogical statements in a derisive manner. You are such a tool that you deserve no better. Brain dead comments about my tie are typical of your inability to articulate an intelligent argument. Do you think your sarcastic and sissy comments have converted one reader? If anything, you are losing the crowd and you are a skeptics best friend. People reading this thread will, at best, pity you and will more than likely dismiss you as a lonely and mentally ill epicene worthy only of scorn and derision.
00
Yes but:
July 11th, 2010 at 7:41 pm
.
Ad hominem, red herring and non sequitur all within one sentence.
You then followed with, “there are only 3 issues – water vapor feedback, clouds and what the circulation systems and/or quasi periodic behaviour do when shoved with some extra forcing.” your inconcise and vague statement is a fallacy Of composition and a red herring, to boot.
More illogic from a troll who never fails to disappoint. I knew earlier that you were cutting and pasting because it wasn’t your typical irrational thought being expressed. I can see you throwing a hissy fit right now, wimpy!
00
wes george:
July 11th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Thanks for the link to the video. In fairness to Luke (alias yes but) he does really know how to dress and imitate a woman. It seems almost natural for him. Which one of the three was he? 🙂
00
Well what a load of grizzling.
Roy yes – it’s simply about “net” – so yes I agree. BUT Net radiation balance is a key part of denial. That’s the osram /GE/ alfoil/ radiation shield point. It’s just about net.
Otherwise explain the effects?
Yes Mark D – the point attempting to be discussed is whether the G&T twaddle that a “colder” atmosphere cannot warm a warmer body is a point of debate. Some of us believe in net radiation balance. And the back-radiation can be measured in your back yard on a clear night with a pyrgeometer. So if net isn’t happening – well an awful lot of science has just bitten the dust. Lots of radiation budget studies with 4 instruments – an upward facing pyranometer, a downward facing, and the same for the pyrgeometers. Now sceptic luminary Bob Carter said nobody (that’s nobody) disputes the basics of the greenhouse effect. Well he’s wrong. Faux sceptics will debate everything. So is Bob wrong? (Better do a quote so Eddy doesn’t blow a valve – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_radiometer – but be careful – we all know wikipedia is a leftist plot)
Any “green” aspects of the bulbs – irrelevant to the physics point. Who cares in this instance. Although amusing green irony for the faux sceptics. Gee are there reds under the beds everywhere in your minds?
Eddy – pla·gia·rism – no wankerism – it’s obvious I’m quoting (well maybe not for the feeble) – indeed find some osram quotes higher 403, 412. And I thought you weren’t talking to me. Can’t leave it alone can you. Do you like being dragged in my wake having a sook. It’s obvious Eddy that you are actually the troll with a strange tie. You’re the one sprouting irrelevant comment on every thread here not me like trolls do. You have made no attempt to address any of my points.
I asked before “why are there earthquakes” – answer – quasi-periodic onanism from sceptics sets up episodic global harmonics. Bob needs to know that for his Plan B. If we knew what sets them off we could save lives.
co2isnotevil – yes a watt is a watt – so wot’s your point? (being serious)
00
Sunset – I apologise – in all the excitement I had overlooked your excellent post.
So you’d be the sceptic that now wants to accept the temperature record when it suits and make argument from it. That’s interesting. Coz think carefully where that gets your whole argument if the whole temperature record is wrong. But anyway …
This hypothesis has been summarily dispatched in the recent uncontested rebuttal of Foster, G., J. D. Annan, P. D. Jones, M. E. Mann, B. Mullan, J. Renwick, J. Salinger, G. A. Schmidt, and K. E. Trenberth (2010), Comment on “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature” by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D09110, doi:10.1029/2009JD012960
It’s just wishful thinking to draw a few lines where you’d like them to be. It’s not science. Indeed all you have a linear trend with noise. See Foster et al above.
Indeed a simple principal component analysis of 2 ocean temperature series will give you PC1 as a centennial trend not ENSO ! The IPO like pattern comes out as a much smaller #PC2 with an AMO like pattern as a much smaller #PC3.
00
Yes but, in 443, you said,
Do you understand the question I asked in post 127?
The point is that 341.5 W/m^2 of incident power from the Sun heats the surface to 287K (384.7 W/m^2 of radiated power) for a net gain of 384.7/341.5 = 1.1, while the IPCC, and by proxy you, claim that 3.7 W/m^2 of incremental forcing from CO2 absorption causes a 3C rise in the surface temperature. If you add 3C to 287 and convert to power, the Earth’s surface emits 401.1 W/m^2, which is an increase of 16.4 W/m^2. This means that the IPCC claim of gain, relative to power from CO2 forcing, is 16.4/3.7 = 4.43, which is about 4x higher than solar forcing.
Clearly, there’s no pent up warming relative to solar forcing (which is the CAGW talking points reason for why CO2 effects are not seen in the data), as the Sun has been shining for billions of years. Moreover, the planet responds quickly to changes in forcing. Otherwise, how do you explain that the average global surface temperature varies over a 4C range during the year and the average hemispheric average temperature varies by as much as 12C over the same period. If the climate was as sluggish as the IPCC requires, there wouldn’t even be any diurnal temperature variability. This is not the result of moving energy around, but a clear effect of the Earth’s thermal mass heating and cooling. The global slew rate is about 1C per 3 months which is plenty fast enough to respond to the milliwatts of incremental forcing per year that comes from CO2 emissions. The actual slew rate is even faster.
You might claim that counting reflected energy as incident energy isn’t fair. Actually it is, since modulating the Earth’s reflectivity is one of the things the global feedback driving the energy balance will do. But it really doesn’t matter to make my case. Power entering the system is reduced by 30% owing to reflection, so 341.5 W/m^2 becomes 239.1 W/m^2, representing a gain of 384.7/239.1 = 1.6. A gain of 1.6 is still far less than the 4+ required to support CAGW.
You might claim that the incremental gain is stronger than absolute gain. The data seems to dispute this, as can be seen here,
http://www.palisad.com/co2/fbe/is.png
The measurements represent the effects on the surface temperature for 50 W/m^2 of incremental power. As you can see, the incremental gain is about 1.1 for surface temperatures > 0C and about 1.5 for surface temperatures < 0C. The graph also shows 2 reference lines representing a gain of 1 and a gain of 1.2 and an X marks the spot of the climates current operating point.
I've done the 3-d atmospheric simulations using HITRAN absorption data and I can confirm that 3.7 watts/m^2 represents incremental absorption and not the incremental power directed back to the surface, which is only about half that amount, so the gain must really be 2x higher than I stated in order to support CAGW. The IPCC assertion that this represents a reduction in the power leaving the planet is true in a limited sense, but fails to account for the steradian component of atmospheric radiation (an amateur mistake). Remember, GHG doesn't trap or create energy, but only delays the release of energy that originated from the Sun, was absorbed by the surface and then radiated by the surface. This delay is only on the order of minutes to hours, otherwise it would never cool down at night.
So it seems that you agree that a watt is a watt and a joule is a joule, so again I ask how can you explain why the 'consensus' requires a watt from GHG absorption to be as much as 10x more effective at heating the surface than a watt from the Sun?
George
00
Yes but,
Something else to ponder. Did you know that the solar constant varies by about 80 W/m^2 owing to the difference between perihelion and aphelion? This translates to an average forcing change of 20 W/m^2. According to the IPCC, this should cause about 16C of temperature change. We certainly don’t see this.
What we see is that at perihelion, the global average temperature is about 3C cooler than at aphelion! This represents and incredible 20C of deviation from what the consensus says it should be. Based on the real gain, it should only be about 3-4C warmer. The reason it’s 3C cooler instead is that perihelion just happens to coincide with when the planet is most reflective from the growth of the N hemisphere snow pack.
There’s a large amount of highly predictable monthly and seasonal variability in the climate system, which is consistently ignored when using averages and anomaly analysis. The sole purpose of both is to hide this variability. Understanding seasonal variability is the crucial first step towards understanding how the climate operates. Your ability to understand is severely compromised when so much of the data is hidden from view.
George
00
@yes but
When people quote they use quotation marks or provide a link. That is not what you did. Then again, you are sloppy!
You do love to preen and prance about, don’t you? You keep dodging questions and talking, for the most part, in gibberish. Although you are a pitiful buffoon you do provide some entertainment value. Thank you for being the site idiot. Also, thanks for helping to bring people to the skeptics side.
Are you a plant? In essence, are you a “double agent”? Have you been planted here by the skeptics to embarrass the pro AGW camp? I think so as nobody can be as stupid as you are. I mean, you have been nothing but an embarrassment to the pro AGW side that they must cringe when they read your posts. But hey, keep it up! We need fool like you to make the skeptics look good.
Were you sexually abused as a child? If so, there is help for you! See:http://www.essortment.com/lifestyle/signssexualabu_sofp.htm
00
Yes But, Then your foil experiment is flawed because as Tel has mentioned the filament (tungsten) Is at around 3000 C. Why doesn’t the foil covered bulb go way over 300C? (Assuming the experimenter actually properly measured the bulb in the first place). Further, if the foil reflector is “back heating the filament” why would its temp rapidly rise to the melting point?
00
You will have all heard about the Dodo, now extinct. Whenever pursued, it would fly around in ever decreasing circles until it flew up its own rectum, from which point of vantage it would shower sh*t and scorn on its pursuers. For the Dodo to administer these humiliations, it needed to have a pursuer. If the pursuer gave up at just the right time, the Dodo would be left residing up its own backside.
Thus endeth my lesson on how to deal with trolls.
Alan
00
Will warmists offer the apology they demanded from the sceptics?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/will_warmists_offer_the_apology_they_demanded_from_the_sceptics/
00
MarkD – why doesn’t it go over 300C – well it simply reaches a new equilibrium. The foil experiment is a bit rough – but a good enough example. So I was stunned to find out about the Osram globes where a technical coating was employed. For less watts – same light output ! Much better example. You also have to explain away radiation shields in furnaces.
Alan Sutherland – might I say that yourself Edwardo actually sound like the trolls – totally abusive, humourless, off-topic and ranting. I’m predicting an earthquake.
Eddy just ask yourself – have I, like Cohenite, Mark D or co2-sy has – asked this dude or dudette (me) (might be a cabal, coven, clique, the CIA, ASIO, eunuch, gay boy, lady, paid actor, or Turing test experimental prototype)a science question yet? Isn’t that trolling? You see I don’t really care who you are – just your ideas. And in your crusading zealotry to repulse trolls you’ve descended into trolling.
co2isnoteveil – well theory is one thing – have you undertaken any radiometer measurements yourself?
Some have
Philipona, R., B. Dürr, A. Ohmura, and C. Ruckstuhl, 2005: Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback increase temperature in Europe, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L19809, doi:10.1029/2005GL023624. (WMO 2007 Norbert Gerbier – MUMM International Award).
00
Wayne – no they won’t because fundamentally it a debating point not a science point.
This is the science point – http://www.whrc.org/resources/essays/pdf/2010-02-Nepstad_Amazon.pdf
Typical Bolt dross and laughable. Only dopey sceptics would fall for it.
00
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by admrich. admrich said: http://bit.ly/9IANEJ The Unskeptical Guide to the Skeptics Handbook #GlacierGate #ClimateGate #Scam […]
00
George @ 445; you raise some important issues in respect of the incremental and absolute effect of CO2. Luke has responded with his usual Pavlovian response, Philipona and backradiation. First to reiterate a couple of points;
1 Emissions from temp are not linear; Stefan-Boltzmann, E = sigma x T^4, where sigma = 5.67×10^-8, and T is temperature in K, shows for example what value of T gives a value of 240W/m^2?
T=255K, or -18′C. This is the so-called effective temp of Earth which would prevail if there was no atmosphere.
Now take the earth’s actual average temperature of 15′C (288K) and see what the Stefan-Boltzmann equation provides –
E = 390 W/m^2. That’s a difference of 150W/m2 for an increase in temp of 33C, the so-called greenhouse temp.
AGW theory says that CO2 forcing will produce an equilibrium new temp for 2XCO2 of 3.2C. That’s with incremental forcing of 3.7W/m2.
2 However, even by AGW theory standards CO2 forcing is not constant; Beers Law shows that for extra CO2 the rate for forcing drops exponentially so that 280ppm to 560ppm = 1.2c rise
(on average each 100 ppm results in a .4 C rise)
560ppm to 1120 ppm = 1.2c rise
(on average each 100 ppm results in a .2 C rise)
1120 ppm to 2240 ppm = 1.2c rise.
(on average each 100 ppm results in a .1C rise).
And that’s before negative feedback from water/clouds is factored in.
3 The primary issue is whether CO2/ghg forcing actually has an effect on temp; this seems strange because as we have seen with the Tropical Hot Spot debate the AGW position is that it doesn’t matter where foricng comes from, ghgs or solar, w/m2, the measure of forcing are the same; however this paper says otherwise;
http://economics.huji.ac.il/facultye/beenstock/Nature_Paper091209.pdf
What Beenstock et al find is that solar forcing has a different effect on temp to that from ghg forcing. Changes in solar radiation change surface temperature to maintain overall radiative balance, but forcing by rfGHG in the atmosphere are compensated within the atmosphere in some way. This is what Miskolczi’s thesis is; Miskolczi bases his idea that the greenhouse effect is running at maximum so that variations in the constituent parts of the greenhouses gases are compensated for by other constituent parts; Miskolczi based his conclusions on empirical evidence such as the constant optical depth. What the Beenstock paper has done is provide a statistical confirmation of this showing that the supposed correlation in trend between CO2 and temperature is spurious; that is there is an incremental effect by CO2 on temp but no absolute effect so that the effect of CO2 is neither longlasting nor does it create a new, higher equilibrium temp.
4 So to luke and his backradiation measurements. The fact that water dominates this is shown by comment 320 here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/the-great-leap-forward-professors-et-al-realize-they-need-to-talk-about-evidence-instead-of-insults/#comments
Variations in CO2 will be compensated for by variations in forcing from water.
00
Yes but,
Why would I explain anything to you? You know it all. Now if you want to do something useful go find that elusive hot spot. Your cause will gush all over you with approval if you can do it. You’d be very happy.
00
From the Meriam Webster online dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weasel
Weasel
Speaking of weasels
Yes worthless but droned:
00
Yes but,
If you want to engage in a serious scientific discussion, you need to give some more thought to your comments. I’ve been giving you far more latitude than you’ve earned. Remember, everything you say will be burned into cyberspace for all eternity.
Obviously, I do not have the means to be collecting data myself. I must rely on data supplied by GISS, UAH and others. Of course, with all the post processing applied to data sets I need to dig deep to get as close to the source as I can. I also don’t know what you mean by theory. For the last few posts I’ve talked about only measured data.
You want theory, how about this. The thermohaline circulation is driven by the difference between evaporation and precipitation from the poles to the equator. More rain than evaporation at the poles raises the polar ocean and causes cold water to dive under equatorial warm waters (think subduction). Less rain than evaporation at the equator lowers ocean levels. Combined, this squeezes the thermocline increasing heat conduction from above to below, heating the lower boundary of the thermocline until it’s width is again in equilibrium. We think of water as a conductor of heat, but it’s also an insulator, although a poor one. A kilometer of water is a good insulator and this is what the thermocline is. Notice how this is another unaccounted for negative feedback like effect?
George
00
A rueful Ivo de Boer has admitted in his departure speech (to KPMG, no less) that no european country can be found that is willing to destroy its economy for this religion. Funny that.
I suppose it had something to do with Sarkozy’s party losing just about every district in the French regional elections after he proudly announced his carbon tax. “Merde, non!” bellowed the people back at him. And yes, I realise that’s not idiomatic French.
Might have to drag one of those grisly guillotines out of a museum just to drive the point home to some pollies.
00
Europe’s leaders give up on the warming faith…….
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/europes_leaders_give_up_on_the_warming_faith/
00
Yes But @451:
Cmon yessy, you MUST do better than that!
You brought us the foil light bulb experiment now defend it: Why does it not melt down? You have a reflector focusing back radiation at the filament, it gets hotter emits more IR, more gets reflected back, repeat repeat repeat BAM meltdown.
00
MarkD – err nope – it’s still losing energy but the net rate of loss is less (!?) Then it reach a new equilibrium. Do you think it’s gonna be a run-away. China syndrome ! It’s not Jack’s beanstalk !
So can you explain why the skin temperature goes from 160C to 300C? What could it be – it’s insulated – hmmm aluminium foil is a great insulator (not)…
And in the Osram example – there is no clumsy foil wrapping – it’s IR reflecting glass.
And while we’re doing simple experiments – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo (and yes before anyone jumps – I know it’s pure CO2 – but the point is simple and elegant)
But back to CO2-esy – you realise that the 3.7W is at the top of the atmosphere. The direct on-ground forcing is actually about 1W, the rest is internal to the atmosphere.
Dearest Eddy – did Mommy ever tell you not to do your nana when beaten. Can’t we be friends. You make me so sad Eddy. I’m really offended and hurt. BTW http://ghost1227.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/all-your-base-tattoo.jpg
00
Eddy this instructional video will help your style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuAjSlxiN84
00
yes but
I didn’t look at your links, why should I? I have no respect for you and can care less about you. You have been a dishonest and insincere troll whose life is void of meaning. You are so lonely that you have nothing better to do then embarrass yourself every time you post. Every visitor with an open mind that sees this thread will know that you are just a pitiable wretch that is a legend in hi own mind.
You have no friends and you find no joy in you career. You are lonely and are merely counting the days until time takes its course and you breath your last. On that last day you will look back and realize that you accomplished absolutely nothing other than being an object of scorn for others.
Do your nana? More gibberish. Beaten? Every battle is won or lost before it is fought. You were destined for defeat from your first, inane post I have been enjoying myself with my family in Southern California and have decided to spend as little time as possible dealing with a piece of human garbage like you. Besides, it was unnecessary as you were pummeled every time you posted by everybody you attempted to match wits with.
00
Yes But,
I didn’t say it would run away, I asked you why wouldn’t it run away.
From Wiki (don’t you love it): “The glass bulb of a general service lamp can reach temperatures between 200 and 260 degrees Celsius (400 to 550 degrees Fahrenheit).” So it seems the whole demonstration is bogus, likely a measurement error.
Oh and your foil is too an insulator of radiant energy:
“The term thermal insulation can refer to materials used to reduce the rate of heat transfer, or the methods and processes used to reduce heat transfer. Heat energy can be transferred by conduction, convection, radiation. Thermal insulation prevents heat from escaping a container or from entering a container.”
Still doubt?
“In space, there is no atmosphere to attenuate the sun’s radiated energy, so the surfaces of objects in space which are exposed to the sun heat up very quickly. Since space is effectively a vacuum, heat cannot be transferred by either convective or conductive heat transfer so it is only to prevent radiative heat transfer that insulation is required. Multi-layer insulation, the gold foil often seen covering satellites and space probes, is used to control thermal radiation on spacecraft, as are speciality paints.”
So Yessy, why did I spend so much time on a foil covered light bulb? Because it calls into question your skills at selecting “evidence”. I would not suggest this was proof of any kind to support a case for AGW.
00
Yes but,
It’s actually a little more than 1 and closer to half of the 3.7 (actually half of 3.6 by my simulations). The other half is radiated back into space and is not subtracted from the 3.7, as it should be, if the actual metric was the reduction in power at the top of the atmosphere. The energy emitted by the heated atmospheric gases is omnidirectional, while the surface is curved, so no energy circulates in the atmosphere forever. It either goes to the surface or out into space. So we agree then, that the required gain is actually 8 times larger than the system supports, not 4. This is an even bigger hill to climb for CAGW support. But like I said before, it really doesn’t matter, since the science doesn’t support the IPCC claims either way.
Any heat stored in the atmosphere is transient. It’s mostly energy temporarily manifested as kinetic energy of an N2 or O2 molecule. It’s simply energy at a point along a delayed path to be either radiated into space or returned to the surface. Only the component making it’s way back to the surface has anything to do with forcing the surface temperature. And even this dependency is part of a much more complex feedback control network maintaining the Earth’s energy balance. BTW, it’s this higher order feedback network which manifests the properties described by Miskolczi and which invalidates the feedback model used to quantify climate sensitivity, forcing and all of the scary numbers in IPCC summaries.
George
00
MarkD – Yes agree with what you say about satellite shields but ?? And yes I know about convection and conduction.
and the temperature instrument is sensitive to 5c – so 160C to 300C. Alfoil is not a good insulator – you could try putting a piece on red hot plate and see if it stops your hand being burned. Although I don’t recommend it.
Oh Eddy – you’re so mean to me. Why are you so cruel. Can’t we just be friends. I’d just like to give you a big hug and tell you it’s OK. I do however value all the interesting science facts you’ve told me – they were most interesting.
00
Yes but~ As an interested observer, I would be Very pleased if you could address Co2isnotevil’s questions to you. And by address I DO mean Answer them, in scientific terms. Can you do that for us?
00
Otter as an interested observer – what do you think his question is ! It comes down to whether you believe there is any evidence for water vapour feedbacks above the straight CO2 forcings. Dessler does – http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL035333.shtml . Or whether you can measure the greenhouse flux increase – Philipona at al asserts they can (paper above)
00
Nup I dont – game over
00
More of the same from the troll(s):
“My quoted sources g-o-o-d, yours b-a-d”‘. Hubris? you’re full of it, but I hope you stick around so that more visitors can see what “useful idiots” for the cause you are.
00
luke’s recycled Dessler paper ‘proving’ positive feedback from water is number 2 on this list:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/more-worst-agw-papers/
Dessler’s subsequent paper is number 3.
00
Incisive Scott – Mark brilliant thought – let’s what Cohenite gets hard for – what a bunch …. LOLZ
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/10/believing-ten-impossible-things-before.html
but how I feel about Eddy is here http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008_10_01_archive.html
Cohenite thinks chucking something together with Stockers is publishing. And don’t you love in Stockers deceptive pensioner scaring presentation where he put ppm and ppb on the one graph.
00
C’mon son, you can do better than that! Hmmm…on second thoughts maybe that’s all ya got.
00
You idiot luke; that rabett response was to my first list of 10 worst pro-AGW papers not the 2nd which includes Dessler; and the graph from David Stockwell’s presentation is graph 14 which shows CH4 on the right Y axis in ppb and CO2 on the left Y axis in ppm; the 2 concentrations are scaled differently because the purpose of the graph is to show the relative trends. Sleep it off; I’ve told you not to drink after 6pm; as a gremlin you should remember that, especially after the incident with the cucumber and the poodle.
00
Just in case the trolls missed it, here it comes again!
Ivo de Boer with the Washington Post.
WP: “Where do you think the environmental movement is at this point?”
De Boer: “At the end of the day, if the situation is that a significant portion of the people in the environmental movement believe the green [economic] growth story, but an even more significant number of people outside the environmental movement don’t believe the green growth story, then it’s just not going to happen. Very few governments are going to be willing to run their countries into the ground to save the planet.”
So there you have it. These people really do expect us to crash our economies to keep the toxic green sludge happy.
00
Cohenite:
I’m sure you’ve got all of us intrigued now. Would you care to elaborate on the poodle and cucumber thing?
00
Mark in 475 – you’ve completely misinterpreted that quote. It makes no comment on whether the green growth story holds up… it is a statement that if more people don’t believe it then it will not become policy.
00
Well certainly that’s true Matt, as heat conduction takes place between physical media.
The void of space can be considered a medium all right at about 3 Kelvin degrees; but doesn’t provide a medium for conduction of heat via thermal vibration of atoms (hence a vacuum is an insulator of heat transfer by conduction.)
Anyway, radiation mass transfer is possible, as is radiation heat transfer
(on the Star Trek show only. It seems to me that screenplay writers for the Star Trek show are also famous for their contributions to IPCC reports)
00
Yes but:
July 12th, 2010 at 9:21 pm
Luke, yes but or whatever your name is I did not bother to click on to your link. I wouldn’t give you the satisfaction. What other posters have written is the truth. You are a troll, whatever you post is unimportant and irrelevant.
I am a successful businessman which means my time is valuable. I am going to go have fun on the sand today in Newport Beach, California. It is going to be a beautiful day. You are a loser, Luke. That is why you stay on this site and waste everybody’s valuable time with your inane tripe.
Address the science? Why should I? You have no intention of finding the truth. You are simply here to waste the time of others because you are jealous of them. You are a mentally ill broke troll who has never had a measure of success in your life. If you ever got an award it must have been for last place. I know my fellow poster will watch my back while I am gone. I will be thinking of you this afternoon when I am having steak and lobster and you are eating beans and weenies (and hot dogs, too).
Mark D., Mark, Cohenite, Scott, Roy Hogue and CO2isnotevil have you cornered like the rat you are. I’ll check back later from my iphone to get a chuckle from watching you embarrass yourself further.
I hope you get some help, Luke. Unfortunately, you will probably continue down your current path, a road that goes from nowhere to nothing. Once a broke dick loser, always a broke dick loser!
To everybody else who posts here on a regular basis, well done. Maybe we should all chip in and buy Luke a tie? He is obviously fascinated by them but can’t afford to buy one! 😉
00
Roy (and all the others who keep responding to Yes but), here is the problem:
You are deeply familiar with science, have participated in the scientific enterprise (which is being corrupted by the AGW “scientists” who are whoring for the government — see post 283), have spent lifetimes working with technology and making things work.
“Yes but” is “nothing but” a fool (or possibly a knave): He knows little and understands less and I would bet that he has never had to make anything work. You are right Roy — his emotional age is ~15. He is a lot like the “Progressives” I interact with daily (I live in Boulder, CO) who think that what they think and believe actually determines what the world is like. To them, a winning argument is a story that convinces them.
Lucky for the rest of us, they don’t build cars, airplanes, etc.
Because of my background in math, I am sometimes asked (by these kind of people) to settle a math question based on my opinion. I explain that my opinion can settle nothing — that a proof (or dis-proof) must be constructed, and I am willing to do that given some time. I get blank looks.
(Actually, the comparison is unfair to the Progressives I know — all of them are much more mature than “Yes but”. Anyone who interacted with others the way he does would soon be shunned by everyone.)
This thread is reaching a level of diminishing returns: Anyone with half an open mind who reads it can easily see the differences between the serious commentators and the ones like “Yes but”; summed up so well by Jo:
“Yes but” won’t answer George’s question (post 127) because an actual discussion on relevant science would undermine his position and either:
A) He is a fool who only wants to believe what makes him feel comfortable and “special”,
OR
B) He is a knave, and being drawn into real discussions would undermine his goal of obstructing discussions on “enemy” blogs.
(“RealClimate” and other “Progressive” blogs ban commentators who raise serious issues in order to preserve the illusion of consensus. The trolls who attack realist blogs probably don’t realize how much they undermine their position by their methods.)
Either way, it’s time to ignore him. (How long would you continue a meaningless argument with a child?)
00
A clarification:
I am not (in post #480) suggesting that Jo should ban anyone. It is not working out too well for RealClimate, for example: It seems to be bringing down the intellectual level of the whole blog (maybe an unavoidable response to running a blog based on deception).
Consider this post on the greenhouse effect at RealClimate:
The infantile level of many of the comments is startling. I would sum them up with this composite statement (my opinion):
“Wah! This is too complicated! Just tell us what to believe!”
Far from being “too complicated”, the post (which contained equations – gasp!) was just nonsensical. Lubos Motl has a good analysis of it.
Letting trolls and misguided cultists strut their stuff here is better than suppressing them — it makes obvious the bankruptcy of their mental processes and level of scientific literacy.
00
Bob C. :
Usually till about bedtime 🙂
00
Bob C:
A good post at #481. Thank you.
Richard
00
I think some of these global warming alarmism blogs are sending people over here (Deltoid?) – advising global warming fans to “set the record straight” and “tell the denialists off”
I think that is how a lot of this dreadful traffic appears
00
I think that most webservers can track from where traffic came. Jo could (and may) get a list of which sites commenters came from, so we could see how many were clicking in from warmist blogs.
A weekly summary of traffic from the warmist blogs would be interesting. I look at the current troll infestation as evidence Jo is getting under their skin. Good.
00
Yes but, re 468
You still don’t get it do you. For someone who pretends to understand something about climate science, it’s amazing how little comprehension you demonstrate when we discuss it. You should at least make an effort to pay attention. You must realize that you aren’t representing your cause very well here. The distract and avoid tactics you’re using are very transparent and it shows that you are in way over your head. Maybe you should try and find someone with a deeper science background to contribute the discussion.
The question has nothing to do water vapor feedback. It has to do with how can you explain the great disparity between how the IPCC treats forcing from CO2 and forcing from the Sun. Yes, indirectly, the answer precludes water feedback related amplification of CO2 related ‘forcing’, but the question stands on it’s own and requires no fuzzy belief system to determine the answer. It seems your avoidance of the question is because you know the answer invalidates the whole CAGW premise. Did you know that this was the question that got me banned from posting on RC, long before climategate brought the insanity of the CAGW pushers into the lime light? Gavin couldn’t answer it either, so he blocked my IP’s. Do you agree that this is childish behavior? Why are you reacting in the same way to the same question?
George
00
So Yes Butt was that your answer? or dont you understand the Question?
00
New Oz PM is Lesbian Communist
http://www.henrymakow.com/new_aussie_pm_is_communist_les.html
00
The good news is, she represents the only group of people the Obama government cares to deal with.
The bad news is, this is incomprehensible to 99+% of the population
00
MattB #477
I think it’s perfectly obvious what it means any way one looks at it, He let the cat out of the bag. Even he knows it, Mattyboy and only you don’t.
Just look again at what Spain and Italy have done. Slashed the subsidies to these “leech” green industries. Open your eyes.
Tell you what MattB. Why don’t you mortgage you house and set up a “green” enterprise and make it work sans any taxpayer funded special grant or subsidy.
Then I might give anything you write some credence.
00
Hey everybody, the beach was nice. I see CO2sinotevil is still waiting for an answer from Luke. In the end he is his own worst enemy. I’ll check with you guys later.
00
OK, so why do Universities keep pushing this nonsense on the students if the whole thing is nonviable?
It is obviously not sustainable in any sense: the revenue generated from it cannot support it
It’s unfathomable to me that the same mistakes get repeated over and over – as if, on the ten millionth trial, it will work
00
Eddy,
I posted the same question over at Deltoid which seems to have hijacked the thread about biased news coverage at the Australian. Now I have a whole buch of people flailing around trying to avoid answering the question.
George
00
Brian:
I believe it’s the test for insanity:
Repetition of the same input in the hope of a different outcome.
00
Another great example of “your tax dollars at work” is the Toyota Camry Hybrid. Tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to subsidise this dog of a car that private buyers don’t want.
All but a couple of hundred of the 3,700 sold have gone to government departments and some fleet buyers. Real people know that it will take years to balance the extra outlay in fuel savings. Don’t forget the “damoclean sword” of battery replacement around 100k kms.
A real winner, I don’t think!
00
George RE 493, spectacular job over there! I see they have “moderated” the thread so new posts that are OT will be deleted. (nice)
How about we cut and paste some of the better (stupid) arguments they posted, put them here and rip them up?
PS, I began to feel pretty bad being called a troll there (vicariously). You did well by not reacting to their taunts.
00
Every time I see a Prius or a Pelosi-mobile I want to say to the driver, “you really have no self-esteem at all, do you”
00
Mark,
I guess that thread will now wither up and die. It’s been pretty quite since the moderation kicked in. At least it was interesting for a little while.
The troll remarks simply made me laugh. It’s kind of like when you play at the opposing teams home field and the boo you. It’s also humorous that the real trolls behave the same way on their sites as they do here and of course, so did I.
George
00
Amen Brian. I call ’em Kruddmobiles.
00
And don’t forget the Pius from Southpark. Funny how they all seem to still have Obama-Biden bumper stickers on them.
00
George/co2; just had a look at Deltoid; you scored an impressive amount of roadkill; the idea of disparate forcing from equivalent W/m2 from solar and CO2 is definitely a sore point amongst the AGW glitterati; I have tried the argument about net upward IR flux from BOA being insufficient or much less than other heat transfer [as shown by the official K&T cartoon] and it is a sore point; the irony is that AGW claims an equivalence in forcing between 2xCO2 and a 2% increase in solar:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/
I like your 10 arguments against AGW and they are worth repeating;
1) The relationship between water vapor and temperature is inconsistent with the requirements for a climate driven by water vapor driven positive feedback.
2) Measurements of the net climate system feedback by many different methods shows conclusively that the net feedback acting on the climate is negative, while strong net positive feedback is required to support CAGW.
3) CO2 lags temperature in all paleo reconstructions and the lag when temperatures are falling is significantly larger than when temperatures are rising.
4) The ratio between the incident surface energy and radiated surface energy (the climate system closed loop gain) is only about 1.6 and it needs to be at least 4 to support CAGW.
5) During the last interglacial, the multi-century, global average temperature was about 3C higher than today, with far lower CO2 levels.
6) In deep prehistory, CO2 levels were orders of magnitude larger than today, yet temperatures did not spiral out of control and even ice ages still occurred.
7) There is no detectable monotonic trend in the global average temperature corresponding to the monotonic increase in atmospheric CO2.
8) The existence of the MWP, LIA and recent cooling, shows that the forces driving natural variability can easily overcome even the exaggerated claims of the effects of anthropogenic GHG.
9) The absorption spectrum of CO2 is mostly saturated and increasing concentrations do not trap enough incremental energy to cause a 1C rise, let alone 1.5C-4.5C with a nominal value of 3C.
10) All measurements of the climates sensitivity to forcing derived from satellite data are far too small to support CAGW
For what it is worth, here are mine:
1 Previous levels of CO2 were much higher than today and correlated with temperatures higher, the same and lower than today.
2 Movements of CO2 do not correlate with movements in temperature; during the 20thC from 1940-1976 CO2 increased but temperatures dropped; the same from 1998. See Lansner:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf
3 Climate sensitivity of 2XCO2 = 3C has not been verified by the 40% increase in CO2 and temperature increase of only 0.7C since 1900. Of that 0.7C increase solar influence has been 0.1-0.4C [TAR] and natural variation at least 0.3C.
4 The mechanism by which CO2 causes heating has never been adequately explained; see:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0904/0904.2767.pdf
http://biocab.org/Total_Emisivity_CO2.html
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/15567030701568727
5 The optical depth, which is as good a measure of the ‘greenhouse’ effect as any has not increased in 60 years of measurement.
6 Outgoing TOA IR has declined [Lindzen and Choi]
7 Increased SW flux at the surface during the crucial period of AGW warming from 1983-2001 increased [see Pinker et al]
8 Clouds are a negative feedback
9 Water vapour has not increased as required by AGW theory [see Paltridge, Soloman and many others]
10 Miskolczi has a new paper which provides further empirical evidence for his first paper’s thesis that internal variation of greenhouse components such as CO2 and WV will not increase the greenhouse effect. Miskolczi has never been rebutted by a peer reviewed paper.
10
Mark at 490. Thanks for the advice… in fact I have resigned my job at the university and am in the process of setting up my own private business sans government funding. Subject to offers from top ranking consulting firms eager for my skills and knowledge. Cheers for your interest. I look forward to your new-found respect.
00
MattB: #502
July 13th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Being a struggling small businessman myself, I wish you luck with your venture MattB, you got mouths to feed. Good luck.
Now back to my normal self…
I’m guessing your venture is about sustainability? In that line of business, you only need keep one thing in mind Matt and you’ll be successful…..A sucker is born every minute.
00
*cash register sound*
😉
00
MattB #502
If you pull that off on your own bat, you will most certainly gain my respect. Needless to say, however hard you may have worked before, you are now about to find out the true meaning of the word “work”.
Good luck to you in your venture.
00
cohenite #501
That entire post is worth bottling. Ripper!
00
Mark, George did the work. The point is there are so many holes and contradictions with AGW that only a fanatic could support it the way the Deltoid regulars do; as Richard and others have noted it is either a religious or superstitious conviction; actually I think cult is a better word.
00
Yes, the amazing way that change in solar “forcing” can have a time constant briefer than one year, but change in CO2 “forcing” has a very long time constant — for the same chunk of rock being heated.
There’s another one.
They all proudly ponce around with their calculation of volcanic “forcing” due to ash in the air, but have you noticed the strange effect of how volcanic “forcing” has a time constant short enough to pretty much ignore the effect after the ash has washed away? Don’t you think the negative step input caused by volcanic ash would also have a time constant just as long-term as the supposed positive input of CO2?
00
Tel, exactly.
00
MattB: Microbrewery? Brewpub?
00
cohenite #507
Sorry, I did not make my message clear. Your post encompassed Georges work and I’m certainly in awe of his grasp of the subject.
00
Excellent conversation down here in 500-comment-land. I read with interest. Thanks! And just in case you are wondering, I have not put any moderation on “Yes But”. His silence is his own.
Mattb. Best of luck! Tough time to launch a business, tho’ Perth may be one of the best cities to launch it in right now…
00
Cohenite,
I decided to continue for a little while on the open thread, http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php. I was hoping for comments from people who understand science, but it seems like most of the posters have about the same attitude and lack of depth as the trolls that show up here. At least it will be harder for them to go away when the questions get tough. Thanks for the link to gavin’s inconsistencies. I haven’t spent any time over there since I was banned for posting science issues on a political blog.
George
00
BobC @480,
Since you address me by Name:
You are of course, basically correct. I have ignored most of the disruptive types and ignored “Yes but” for quite a while. But there’s a point where it’s difficult to avoid saying something. Then he comes along and simply begs me to tell him off. I couldn’t let that pass! “Don’t get electrocuted…” Better, don’t do his stupid experiment!
I can only speak for myself. But I think we need to confront them. And then when they show their true colors ignore them and let them die on the vine. This thread takes the record for length since I’ve been following JN. It’s a practical impossibility even to try to go back and review what’s been discussed. It’s a bit too much.
00
Brian el al,
Don’t be too hard on the Prius. How else are these save-the-world types going to feel good about themselves?
00
Coho – I take my eye off you for a day or two and you’re up to your old tricks
2) Measurements of the net climate system feedback by many different methods shows conclusively that the net feedback acting on the climate is negative, while strong net positive feedback is required to support CAGW. COHO ignore all Dessler’s eveidence. TYPICAL !
3) CO2 lags temperature in all paleo reconstructions and the lag when temperatures are falling is significantly larger than when temperatures are rising. AH THE OLD CO2 LAG RUSE. YOU KNOW IT SHOULD. NON-ISSUE – SCEPTIC RUSE !
4) The ratio between the incident surface energy and radiated surface energy (the climate system closed loop gain) is only about 1.6 and it needs to be at least 4 to support CAGW. WELL PITY PHILIPONA HAS MEASURED IT
5) During the last interglacial, the multi-century, global average temperature was about 3C higher than today, with far lower CO2 levels. NOPE – You don’t know that. Even McIntyre said he doesn’t know !!!
6) In deep prehistory, CO2 levels were orders of magnitude larger than today, yet temperatures did not spiral out of control and even ice ages still occurred. AH THE OLD RUSE – WHAT WAS THE SOLAR OUTPUT !!!
7) There is no detectable monotonic trend in the global average temperature corresponding to the monotonic increase in atmospheric CO2. SO !!!
The existence of the MWP, LIA and recent cooling, shows that the forces driving natural variability can easily overcome even the exaggerated claims of the effects of anthropogenic GHG. Yes indeed – depending on what it is. BUT WHY – WHAT RHETORIC
9) The absorption spectrum of CO2 is mostly saturated and increasing concentrations do not trap enough incremental energy to cause a 1C rise, let alone 1.5C-4.5C with a nominal value of 3C. YOU KNOW THAT’s BUNK http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
Coho you’re like a dog returning to your vomit. You’ve been warned before for bulldusting.
As for George’s incomprehensible question
Surface radiative flux changes will be larger than changes at the tropopause because most surface radiative flux is blocked by the atmosphere (the standard greenhouse effect). The direct forcing on the ground is actually about 1W, the rest is internal to the atmosphere. And the effective radiating temperature of about 255K is what matters for energy balance arguments – any change in surface air temperature depends on the internal behaviour of the atmosphere. From the standard Kiehl-Trenberth picture, only about 1/6 of the radiative flux from the surface is actually left as a net upward flow, after you subtract the back-radiation from the lower atmosphere (which warms as much, or more, than the surface). That probably accounts for the factor of “2.7 to 5.4” , but it’s there for all forcings, not just CO2.
So there is certainly no additional factor associated with CO2 forcing compared with solar forcing. And if you doubt the back-radiation is there go and measure it (which CO2-esy admits he doesn’t do) in your backyard on a clear night – and rebut up all those radiation budget papers with measurements – and of course back-radiation violates the second law of thermodynamics (which even Bob Carter disagrees with and therefore presumably CO2-esy) – pity the little old Osram light bulb shows what crap that is.
And what happens to our chief onanist and white night blog defender, Edwardo?
00
It seems after having a bo-peep over at Deltoid that George needs to do one thing – he certainly gave those blighters a good what-ho – given he has such experienced resources at his disposal – let see we’ve got Coho, Jo, Jo’s hubby, Bob, Bill K, John Mc – quickly write up your thesis and send it off to GRL, Nature and Science – when it’s rejected by all – publish the rejection comments. Maybe you could do a joint authorship like on the McLean et al paper. That helped.
Cohenite – you’ll help won’t you – get Stocker’s onto it when he’s not scaring pensioners with ppm and ppb on the same graph. Or Franksy will get you into GRL.
But maybe you’re a genius – and when you beat us mere amateurs we will be rendered asunder. And Eddy will mock us for the rest of our days.
Tell when you’ve published (which of course sceptics never do – coz there’s a big conspiracy and 1000s of people are in on it). Excuse me while I adjust my net radiometer and alfoil hat for the new physics.
00
The “greenhouse” effect cannot work unless the stratosphere cools.
Simultaneously, the troposphere warms.
On the average, then, heat has moved from a cooler stratosphere to a warmer troposphere without work expended.
Go ahead, give us a clear explanation why that hasn’t violated the second law.
Just make it simple and clear for us – so that we can understand.
Leave out the condescension and the giggling and the name calling and the incomprehensible syntax for us.
This is clear enough – and if you don’t do it, you’re just another global warming dunce dupe fraud
00
Should have been, Brian et al, at 515. Sorry, sometimes my right hand doesn’t know what my left hand is doing. El Al is an airline which you definitely are not.
00
Yes but,
How about radiation cooling on a dry winter night. That should give you an idea of just how powerful and long lasting CO2 forcing really is.
So, you’re paying attention over at Deltoid? Too bad so few of the regulars are. I went over there hoping to find an intellect that could discuss the science. I haven’t found one yet. Too many of the regulars are expressing abject anger, which I recognize as the first stage in the human response to loosing something near and dear. Acceptance is the last stage and may take a while.
You also don’t really understand ‘back radiation’. Most comes from clouds, not the clear sky atmosphere. GHG absorption between the surface and clouds has little net influence on the radiative balance since the clouds will likely absorb nearly 100% of the surface radiation anyway and this accounts for about 66% of the surface!
Clouds absorb radiative power from the Sun and the surface and accumulate other energy as the potential energy of water lifted against gravity, electrical energy stored between the cloud to Earth capacitance and the latent heat energy from evaporation. This energy is radiated back to the surface and in to space as a gray body (i.e a non unit emissivity related to the cloud optical depth and the relative fraction of ice and water in the cloud). Half is radiated up and half down. The clear sky back radiation from the atmosphere is far smaller at about 23% of the surface power. We can calculate the total back radiation as a percentage of surface power as, p*.50 + (1-p)*.23, where p is the fraction of clouds, which is nominally 66%. The result is about 41% of the surface emitted power. On top of this, we must add half of the energy entering clouds from the Sun, which is equal to Psun(1-refl)/2, where Psun is the energy from the Sun and refl is the reflectivity of clouds, which is about 33%. Putting it all together, we get,
BackRad = Psun*0.33 + Psurf*.41
Psurf is approximately 1.1 times Psun, which gives us,
BackRad = 0.71 Psurf = 273 W/m^2
If you consider that only the (1-p) 34% of the surface that’s not covered in clouds participates in the outgoing radiative flux, the surface power leaving the atmosphere can be calculated as, Psurf * (1-p)*(1-.23) = Psurf * .26, which is as close as you can get to the 1/6 number you are referring to. If you assume that all of the GHG absorbed power gets back the surface, then the 1-.23 becomes 1-.46, which results in a value of Psurf * .18, which is closer to your 1/6 value. Of course, this is a meaningless metric.
We can more accurately calculate the fraction of surface power reaching space as (1-0.23)*(1-p) + (1-e)*p, where e is the average emissivity of the clouds, which is about 0.8 and which can be used to account for surface energy leaking through clouds and into reach space. This gives us,
SurfOutRad = 0.39 Psurf = 150 W/m^2
The total energy leaving the planet is the sum of power from the surface and the power from the clouds. The average cloud temperature is about 262K (from ISCCP cloud data) corresponding to an emitted power of 267 W/m^2. We can calculate the cloud power that leaves the atmosphere as (Pcloud*p)/2 * .9, where the .9 is the adjustment to compensate for cloud power absorbed by the atmosphere. This is lower than the (1-.27) for surface to space absorption because of the lack of water vapor between cloud tops and space. This gives us,
CloudOutRad = 0.30 Pcloud = 80 W/m^2
If we add 150 to 80, we get 230 W/m^2. This is within 5% of the expected power of 240 W/m^2 at an equivalent temperature of 255K. A more detailed calculation closes this gap altogether. The reason is that cloud energy is more than the equivalent energy of cloud top temperatures owing to the temperature lapse rate through the cloud and ‘warmer’ power from below sneaking through the semi transparent cloud.
George
00
The chances of getting a coherent answer to 518 are of the order exp(-1/ε), 0<ε<<1, aren't they.
Yes But he'll be back soon enough, to condescend and show off what he doesn't know some more.
For whatever reasons, remain unclear
00
I’ve posted this link before but in view of the current debate…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/24/ed-begley-jr-flips-out-on_n_370022.html
So typical of these Taliban-like zealots – not to mention communists, they can’t stand to think that anyone thinks differently to them.
00
So Mark – how did you read the Huffington Post without vomiting all over the floor?
I can’t do it and so I don’t even try
00
Brian,
I well and truly take your point. There were a number of results in the search and unfortunately that was the one I selected.
Apologies if you lost your last meal over your shoes!
00
luke, I have critiqued Dessler and Philipona endlessly; here for example:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/more-worst-agw-papers/
Philipona also doesn’t specify from what height the backradiation is coming from; the atmospheric temperature at any height is a function of the local pressure, or vertical mass (PV = nRT), and the total energy contained in the air level is determined by the net electromagnetic flux resulting from solar absorption/surface heating and emission to space. Radiation does not play a role in the atmospheric thermodynamics since each layer is in local thermodynamic equilibrium [LTE] with its surroundings and there is no net radiation heat transfer between layers or between the surface/atmospheric boundary. This means the back radiation received at the ground is from the immediate air level.
Even if we accept the usual K&T diagram about energy flux we can see that their net radiative flux at the surface is small and in net terms dwarfed by other energy movements;
http://www.atmos.uiuc.edu/colloquia/080430.htm
But even if we just look at the backradiation level to the surface rather than their net flux at the surface there are still problems with this; K&T show a huge amount of backradiation of 323W/m2; the bulk of this is in the 15um wavelength; is it from water or CO2? This is instructive: Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate, W.J.F. Evans & E. Puckrin, American Meteorological Society, 18th Conference on Climate Variability and Change (2006). From Evans and Puckrin we see in tables 3a and 3b);
Winter
H20 94 to 125 W m/2
CO2 31 to 35 W m/2
Summer
H20 178 to 256 W m/2
CO2 10.5 W m/2
Not only did the relative CO2 contribution drop in Summer, but the back radiation value decreased from about 30 Winter to about 10 W/m2 Summer.
How do these Evans and Puckrin (2006) values compare with and confirm the energy estimates in K&T?
The back radiation shown in the K&T chart is 323 W/m2.
Data from Evans and Puckrin suggests that CO2 accounts for at most 10% of K&T, and in Summer, CO2 is only about 3% of the K&T back radiation.
To get close to the K&T back radiation values, there apparently needs to be a LOT of water in the atmosphere; CO2 would only be relevant if there were no water.
Water determines climate not CO2;
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008431.shtml
You are slumming luke; this effort would even be rejected at Deltoid.
00
Entirely unrelated:
I stumbled upon a video of this man swimming – absolutely without creating turbulence in the water at all.
This made me realize that I’ve been swimming incorrectly all my life – this is the way to swim for very long distances, without expending power needlessly. I’ve been practicing this all summer.
OK, sorry for distraction, back to global warming zealotry etc
00
Brian at 518:
You make it sound as though it is the stratosphere transferring heat to the troposphere in violation of the 2nd law, whereas is is increased CO2 in the troposphere preventing IR from the earth’s surface reaching the stratosphere.
Simply put – no heat has “moved” from the stratosphere to the troposphere.
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html
00
Oh dear – looks like George was just blown away over at Deltoid. Darn.
And yes Coho – you’ve criticised endlessly and it was all a pretentious try-on. In the end – they’re published – you’re not ! Surely you wouldn’t want the IPCC to use your blog bilge – especially after the Himalaya goof. God I’m bored Coho and yes I am slumming it. Where’s Eddy – I enjoyed his abuse.
00
I’ve seen that before, Matt, but the problem is, from a phenomenological standpoint – there is no distinction. The stratosphere cools, the troposphere (supposedly) warms – and the cause of this, is concurrent.
It is stated that the stratosphere cools, and the troposphere warms FROM the greenhouse effect, and two are related by the transfer of heat – there is no way to disentangle the two.
Besides, all heat to the Earth as radiation eventually leaves the Earth to space at 22+ micrometers radiation, because the atmosphere is diathermanous to all these wavelengths.
If the greenhouse effect was meaningful at all, then geothermal heat alone would have saturated the atmosphere aeons ago. It is not possible this could not have happened – doesn’t anyone see the that
00
I don’t expect many people to stand up and admit they have been advocating solar panels and windmills and driving Priuses for naught.
That’s not human nature
00
Mr. but,
You really think that throwing ad hominem attacks, arguments by authority and being picky about the words I use is being blown away? No wonder you’re so deluded. The one challenge against the Schlesinger feedback error was from someone who couldn’t figure out that if f = Go*F then F = f/Go. Your buddies can’t even handle simple arithmetic and you’re bragging about this?
George
00
Brian – if I had a long metal bar with a flame heating each end, then took one flame and moved it so both were at the same end, then one of the the bar would warm, and the other cool, with no violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. No?
00
cohenite,
My HITRAN 2008 based 4-d atmospheric simulations tell me that on average, about 2/3 of the GH absorption is due to water vapor and 1/3 is CO2. Each of CH4, N2O and O3 contribute about a percent each. Between cloud tops and space, the CO2 contribution is larger than the water vapor contribution. Between the surface and clouds, water vapor tends to be even more dominant, although GHG absorption between the surface and cloud bottoms makes little difference to the energy balance. The clouds will absorb most of the surface energy anyway.
The real distinction between them is that water vapor absorption is under dynamic control of the feedback system maintaining the Earth’s energy balance, while CO2, CH4, O3, N2O act more like a constant bias. They tend to change slow enough anyway, that they are irrelevant relative to the dynamic control of the climate system which quickly adapts to any change in the bias.
George
00
Sure, but one wouldn’t expect to see one end of the bar become hotter whilst the other end became cooler
It can of course happen, but work must be expended in some manner for it to happen
George you’re wasting you time on him
00
Actually Brian, if I moved a flame from one end to the other, then actually I would expect one end to become hotter whilst the other end became cooler? NB heat is not being transferred from the cool end to the hot end… one end is being warmed and the other is not.
00
George: “Between cloud tops and space, the CO2 contribution is larger than the water vapor contribution. Between the surface and clouds, water vapor tends to be even more dominant, although GHG”; that confirms cloud forcing being negative as Ramanathan and Inamdar estimated net cooling of 48 W/m^2 from low clouds and net warming of 30 W/m^2 from high clouds, for a net cooling impact from clouds of 18 W/m^2 (or somewhat more than 10 times the total estimated forcing from all GHGs since 1750, according to IPCC). This is really another way of saying that when water and CO2 are both present water will dominate, which also supports Lindzen’s IRIS concept.
00
MattB $532:
There are only about 532 unknowns in your “experiment”. It almost qualifies as a climate model. 🙂
The end away from the flame could easily continue to increase in temperature. The change in temperature is determined by the heat “balance” of conducted heat (power) and the ability to disspate heat (power) between the heat source and the other end.
00
George – coisnotevil – yes of course it isn’t – it’s an inanimate trace gas with radiative properties as well as being used by plants for photosynthesis.
As for “You also seem to think that I’m trying to model something here. I’m not. All I’m doing is presenting data and a few top level constraints dictated by COE.” Well you don’t know how big a buffer the atmosphere is that slows down the net radiation budget. So I’m puzzled you think you can reverse engineer this system. I am also less than impressed that you have made no empirical observations.
George – you should also be reflective on whether I am a lefty/greenie/neo-marxist whatever. I’m just an average person interested in this issue. And in the end I just want a non-ideological assessment of the the level of risk from pushing circulation systems round in very short periods of time. Which was my original small point here. Some of us come to climate issues looking for reasons as to why farmers shoot themselves in despair in the depths of drought.
00
Bernd 537 of course it “could” do as you say, but it “could” do as I say depending on heat applied, length of bar, composition of bar etc etc. It would be a minority of cases where an end of bar would be hotter when the flame was applied at the other end instead of the end in question though. More importantly it could do it without violating the 2nd law.
00
Yes but,
I was going to ignore you, but you asked a relevant science question.
As for reverse engineering a system, techniques are widely available. For example, consider a black box containing an arbitrary resistor network between 2 pins. I can measure the response to stimulus applied between the pins and determine the equivalent resistance of the network. Whether or not I put the black box or a single equivalent resistor into some circuit, the behavior will be indistinguishable. The same kind of analysis can be extended to arbitrary circuits, including circuits with gain and feedback. To reverse engineer the climate, I don’t need to know the size of the internal buffer or anything else about the inside implementation. I can determine everything from the systems response. The concepts of equivalence theorems and logical reduction are powerful tools you can apply to reduce complexity to it’s essence. Reverse engineering the climate is actually easier because there’s visibility into many of the internal state variables, for example, surface temperature, cloud temperature, cloud distributions and percentages, cloud and surface reflectivity, cloud emissivity, incident solar energy, atmospheric water content and more which are available in the satellite data sets.
As for empirical observations, I certainly am observant of weather and local conditions and split my time among multiple microclimates between sea level and 12K feet. I also visit many Sierra Nevada glaciers and permanent snow fields and have been observing them for decades (I hike and ski them all summer long). The post you are referring to was where I said that I haven’t done my own radiosond measurements and must rely on others for this data. As I said, this is well beyond my means. You should actually read my posts before you make stupid comments like this.
I don’t really care what your political bent is. There are certain ideologies which CAGW reinforces, but even that can be overcome by true science.
George
00
That’s our luke; when you go empirical he waxes theory and when you push theory he rejoins about how far he can stick his foot into his mouth. One of the sub-theories attendant to AGW is whether pressure contributes to the temperature profile from surface to TOA.
What do you think luke, does pressure contribute to temperature; I see your mate Arthur just took a shot at George at Deltoidville; why don’t you ask him?
00
Yes but,
It occurred to be that you may not understand the difference between simulation and emulation. A GCM attempts to simulate the climate by modeling the system as a bunch of small pieces and using the math of fluid dynamics to predict how all these pieces will interact. We know from observation that the system is chaotic, therefore unless you get your simulation exactly right. a small error anywhere can be magnified into a massive error somewhere else. I call this the model divergence problem. But the bigger problem is the large number of unknowns and the more tenuous connection between what’s simulated and the relevant climate system state variables to which the model is converged by tweaking the unknowns.
What I’m doing is climate emulation. This looks at the response of the climate system and establishes the simplest set of mathematical rules that describes the relationships among it’s state variables. Of course, I’ve also extended the concept to the interacting response of relatively small slices of surface and atmosphere, but each still only requires a handful of state variables. I use relatively long time tics (weeks to months) so that the chaos mostly averages out and many of the state variables are direct observables in the satellite data sets allowing for unambiguous correlation to measurements. I also have a hierarchy of state variables where I can use more or fewer, depending on the required speed/accuracy trade off.
My plots of water content vs. temperature and solar energy vs. surface energy and the many relationships between state variables I talk about in http://www.palisad.com/co2/eb/eb.html should make more sense to you in the proper context.
George
00
MattB 539:
You said that that the far end would cool.
Now you write:
That makes no sense at all. Not even in a “minority” of cases. Energy (nett) does not move against a gradient without more external work being done.
Looks like you’ve tried to move the goal posts once too often.
00
Bernd you are a lesson in misrepresentation of words. Maybe it is a language thing? YOU are the one who said the end without the flame could increase in temperature… all I did was agree with you.
00
Everything on this blog is published.
00
Yes George – and I think you’re a very clever person (seriously). However this is really specialist stuff – what goes on on a K/T diagram is a simplification of radiation code in a GCM.(which Coho “thinks’ he understands). So the only way to test your mettle is to publish. I don’t say this as a way of getting at you. Simply you owe it to your fellow travellers and you do have a support network who will help you write it up. If it ain’t published it isn’t going to get cited in any IPCC or equivalent type review. I know someone trying to publish on lunar forcings on climate (yes believe it or not). He’s had one success and failed since to get published on Phase II. However he doesn’t think there’s “a conspiracy”. Actually I’m surprised Coho being the intellectual harlot that he/she/it is hasn’t jumped on lunar ….
On another matter I think we’re all to happy to be polarised by this AGW issue. Anyone without a political agenda would simply want to know “the answer” as to whether a short sharp change in climate is likely/possible if we altered the Earth’s radiation budget in a short period. And how 6 billion humans moving to 9 billion would cope with the circulation changes that would result. So I’m sceptical you see … and I need to know.
So it’s interesting that you/we/I don’t really want to understand other points of view. You don’t I suspect coz you’re too clever. And why is Eddy so angry anyway – I’ve just been pulling his chain and living up to his expectations – which should be obvious to everyone but him. Don’t yanks understand “taking the piss”?
00
Tel – and so are all the extremist groups too – does it make it true….
And all the quack remedies and cancer cures … does it make them true …
00
Yes but:
No more or less than millions of words published in the “peer reviewed” literature about cancer cures “just around the corner”.
You claim to be just an average person and then you sling off at George. You must be the classic case of a little knowledge being dangerous.
You wanta know? Fine, you can send yourself into bankruptcy for all I care. Just don’t expect anyone else to share your “magnificent obsession”.
00
Well who’s George – his publication record in climate is what exactly? pffft ! I heard it on the Internet.
Well Mark – “Just don’t expect anyone else to share your “magnificent obsession”.” – well why are you here then Mark – to do some trolling or are you just a cast extra goon in the cheer squad?
00
Ah, of course. The feigned veneer of civility dissolves.
So you do expect that your fantasies be funded by taxpayers.
Just a yes or no will do.
00
I’ll remind you that it was you who attempted to equate publication with truth (not something I would do) so you are arguing against yourself (#517 above).
00
MattB 544:
Misrepresentation? Perhaps you can explain what is being misrepresented.
Your statement in comment 539 seemed to indicate that the end away from the flame would get hotter than the one with the flame. I’ve read what you’ve written several times. I’ve not extrapolated to what you might actually mean. That would be unfair and second-guessing. I’ve taken your words at face value.
Language thing?
Is this simply a distraction from the fact that you’ve neglected thermal conduction and convection in your unspecified metal bar model. You can make models simple enough to understand, but don’t expect reality to follow. You’re likely to get your fingers burned.
00
Fantasies by taxpayers – err no !
I didn’t say publication necessarily equals truth – as McLean et al well demonstrates – but it’s somehow I feel it’s better than taking your word for it Tel. Do you think every mug punters word for it counts? If you’re any good – stop whinging, suck it up – and run the gauntlet of peer review – do you think you’re above that Tel? Squirming on the point just makes one suspicious that there is something you’d be afraid to let real experts look at.
00
Bernd – you said “The end away from the flame could easily continue to increase in temperature.” and I agreed with you that in certain circumstances you could apply a strong flame at the other end and the non-flame end could get warmer. However I was simply allowing you to nit pickwhere I had intended the flame to have swapped ends. You’ve interpreted my words to mean the end without the flame would be hotter than the end with the flame – but I was intending that the end without the flame could get hotter during the process of heating the other end, but only in relation to itself.
Either we are both wrong as I had followed your lead. Or just you are wrong:)
But regardless lets get to the point… CO2 in the lower atmosphere warms by stopping more IR, meaning less IR reaches the upper atmosphere than used to, so there is less warming there, therefore it cools.
INterestingly this is consistent with the measurements… so I’m not sure if the point is that Brian thinks the planet itself is in breach of the 2nd law?
00
MattB 554:
The CO2 near the surface is heated mostly by conduction/convection with the surface and the near surface air.
IR is not “blocked” by the CO2 to a significant extent. The IR that the CO2 does absorb can only result in re-radiation or in heating – an increase in gross molecular velocity. Water vapour is a much more abundant and efficient absorber of IR.
For a given amount of energy (heat), CO2 will expand more than the dry air, given its lower specific heat. The lower specific heat is a path of lower resistance to heat being removed from the surface, but it also depends on the partial pressures of the gases. Differential “expansion” promotes natural convection. The higher the CO2 content, the more easily the air convects and transfers heat away from the surface.
CO2 is concentrated near the surface due to its density. It’s presence there increases the cooling of the surface, transferring more heat into the air, warming the air. Air convects readily in all directions, exchanging volume and heat with colder air elsewhere. The “stirring” initiated by CO2 expansion canbring more CO2 near the surface to be warmed, along with other air.
That is another (small) negative feedback mechanism. One that is highly non-linear. Impossible to model well enough to make any reliable prediction. We can observe and guess, based on previously observed patterns. But they break down quickly indicating a complexity that is at least near-chaotic.
Recognizing that the calculating convective system performance is already intractible, the effect of trace levels of GHG can be neglected. There are bigger fish to fry.
00
Yes But, do you ever become weary of the argument from authority?
At least you should be able to remember that it DOESN’T WORK HERE!
00
Bernd we are not talking about the major reasons CO2 may be warmer near the surface, we are talking about the increase in temperature due to there being more CO2. And it is not just the CO2 warming up… that is AIR… we are talking about IR running in to more CO2 lower down, causing warming, and less IR up above, meaning less warming.
00
It doesn’t work, and that explains his proclivity to feigned ennui and mockery. These techniques aren’t especially effective, either
00
Argument from authority is all he has (other than “feigned ennui and mockery”, as Brian notes). Being unable to follow a logical argument, he depends on others to tell him what to think. This is why he is unable to answer George’s question (#127) — his chosen “authorities” can’t answer it either.
In is own mind, then, he is a dope — unable to think for himself and utterly dependent on his chosen authorities to tell him what to believe. I have to agree with him here.
This would explain his dependence on illogical arguing tactics, and his inability to see that they are not working here. (After all, if you have already decided you can’t think for yourself, the only thing left to argue about is which “authority” you should believe.)
Tellingly, this kind of tactic is common on the warmist blogs.
00
Yes But, please provide your CV indicating your academic publishing history. Until you have demonstrated this, I’ll no longer communicate with you. After all, this is serious business what with farmers committing suicide in droves (apparently) and all. One can’t be wasting time with non-credentialed servile minions.
00
I would have some respect for John Cook if he had not deceptively mis-labeled his blog “SkepticalScience.”
Every honest scientist is a skeptic, first and foremost. But Cook is no skeptic himself. He is a heavily partisan advocate of the debunked notion that CO2 drives the climate, and that runaway global warming will be upon us if CO2 is not rolled back to 1990 levels.
So John Cook is the antithesis of a skeptical scientist; he is someone with an agenda who has his mind made up. His blog name deliberately misrepresents the plain fact that is a climate alarmist blog, and therefore the truth is not in him.
00
Mr. But can’t evaluate or analyze Tel’s arguments without someone else (peer reviewers) telling him what to think. His only options are to take his word for it or not, as his chosen authorities direct him. He’s probably not aware that many in this forum have reviewed scientific papers for publication.
It’s amusing to imagine Mr. But trying to review a paper (not that anyone would ask him): Since no one had already reviewed it, he would not know what to think and wouldn’t be able to start his review — a Catch-22.
He might not know that, however — Since a Catch-22 is a logical paradox, it requires a slight acquaintance with logic to recognize one.
00
Yes but.
The problem with publishing anything related to climate science is that it’s only taken seriously if it appears in a mainstream publication like Nature or Science. The editorial staff of the mainstream publications are horribly biased against anything that might undermine CAGW. I can be 100% correct in all my assertions and it would take years to see something published and only after it was edited beyond reason.
There’s not enough time to do this, nor do I have the resources to do this right. If I was funded and didn’t have to work otherwise, it might be a different story, but the bottom line is that CAGW must be unequivocally debunked NOW not later and I’ve an analysis that does this. We are at a critical crossroad in history where the politicians are trying to impose trillions of dollars of costs on the worlds economy in order to mitigate a problem that doesn’t exist and that even it it did, the proposed remedies would do nothing to help.
George
00
Cohenite, re 536,
I’ve found that net cloud feedback teeters on a knife edge of being neutral. On the one hand, increasing clouds reflect power, cooling the surface, but on the other hand, they trap addition surface power, warming the surface. They have one more important effect which is that it adjusts the relative ratio of cold cloud power and warm surface power that makes it’s way into space and is the primary way that clouds can modulate the energy balance, At constant cloud and surface temperatures, more clouds means that the Earth looks colder from space and fewer clouds makes it look warmer.
Subtle variability in cloud optical depth and surface reflectivity can push the feedback one way or another.
The far bigger feedback effect from water (at least above about 280K) is evaporation and rain where both ends of the hydro cycle cool the surface. Evaporation via latent heat and rain as a cooling influence on surface temperatures. At around 0C, cloud feedback has a sharp change in character owing to surface snow reducing the difference between cloud reflectivity and surface reflectivity, which effectively cancels out it’s influence on the energy balance. This is a cool response plot that shows how cloud cover is related to temperature.
http://www.palisad.com/co2/fbe/ca_st.png
As temperatures warm, cloud coverage increases. At about 0C, cloud coverage starts to decrease as the temperature increases. As the climate system starts to saturate at 300K, cloud coverage starts to increase again as temperatures rise.
George
00
Yes but,
I went back to your original post on this thread. It wasn’t someone trying to find out anything. It was just so much moronic nonsense. And so-on for the next and the next and the next…
Contrast that with what you said at 538:
And this at 546:
But it’s only you who doesn’t know the reasons. You haven’t a leg to stand on. You sound like a braying jackass from start to finish. Both cuts from your posts are simply lies. Absolutely willful prevarications. Let’s not even mention that the second one is a copy and past of the first. Did you expect no one would ever go back and look?
I’ve been taken to task for replying to you. But no one ignores you so here it is in a nutshell. My little finger knows more about physics than you do. Pick a hand, either hand and that will still be true. Yet those who argue you down repeatedly know much more than I do and when they speak I try to learn. You may say you try to learn but that’s another big fat lie. You learn nothing. You make not the slightest attempt to learn.
If you represent the product of a modern day university then you’re going to reach a point where your world collapses on top of you like a ton of bricks because you’ve been lied to and cheated. It will be terrible. I’ve seen far too many of the product of our schools that spend more time on political correctness than knowledge. They don’t go far. So have your fun while you can!
00
“Yes But, please provide your CV indicating your academic publishing history. Until you have demonstrated this, I’ll no longer communicate with you. After all, this is serious business what with farmers committing suicide in droves (apparently) and all.” If it were people you know your attitude might be different. BUT AHH YES – the old sceptic verballing – did I say “droves”? You just can’t help yourself can you? . And looks like well we won’t communicating then will we – toodle pip. Don’t you love these ultimatums. It’s a blog [SNIP]
Roy – a few observations – you’re still here aren’t you. “Both cuts from your posts are simply lies” Roy proclaims. Well Roy – how would you know. What’s inconsistent? [SNIP]
Maybe I never even went a modern day university – perhaps I just got out of prison. [Snip]
00
CO2-esy – “There’s not enough time to do this, nor do I have the resources to do this right. If I was funded and didn’t have to work otherwise, it might be a different story, but the bottom line is that CAGW must be unequivocally debunked NOW not later”
Well you’re spending lots of time here and at Deltoid.
What resources – Microsoft Word and email to get help from your many colleagues in scepticism. Surely you have it written already !
And now you want gravy train funding.
“CAGW must be unequivocally debunked NOW not later” Well George – that’s the spirit – if you seriously believe this – your impact is precisely zero POINT zero. Unpublished means it will not see the light of day in any international report ! AND you have the answer – you know where the physics is wrong !
So George – you’re telling me that this is THE GREATEST CHALLENGE to society as we’re about to piss trillions up against the wall and you can’t find the time or raise some funding from our dear friends [snip]. Surely Richard would help. Ring Bob up ! Or Cohers will see you through. They got the Watts tour funded.
And if you’re right the world’s economy is about to be ruined by a neo-marxist greenie plot – but you’re now saying you’re too busy to act ! Well maaaattteeee ! Would you be shocked if I thought you weren’t fair dinkum?
00
MarkD – given you seem to like statistics – here’s one – “The Road from Coorain” by Jill Ker Conway
00
Well, I can get under the but’s skin after all. How about that?
Frankly, no. I don’t want you to take my word for anything. I think you already know, as in, if the shoe fits wear it. You picked it up and put it on so it must fit.
Have your fun while you can!
00
Been away for a few days and after reviewing the posts, there is no doubt that Co2isnotevil, Bobc, and others, have much to say that is highly valuable. Thanks! Compare that, to the drivel and obfuscation that emanates from some mouths.
Recently, we ran a seminar where we had 3 presenters(a meteorologist, a scientist and an economist), which was well attended. We even had 2 potential trouble makers(greenies). Neither of the two greenies had anything to say: I suspect that the strength of the presentations gave them no traction.
It became evident that one issue that we have, is that of misinformation versus proper science. It is very easy to make an appeal to authority(the IPCC in this case) and to make outlandish claims, and consequences, of climate change. Their looney claims cannot be rebutted by making further outlandish, emotive and ridiculous claims.
We all agree that many of their claims are not backed by proper peer review, but by an incestuous peer review process. Alarmist/warmist claims are very easy to make but, unfortunately, can only be discredited and rebutted by proper science, facts and figures, which can be tedious. This can be difficult for the average citizen to understand.
Perhaps, the original charter of the IPCC should be looked at? You can see why it functions the way that it does.
All the claims by the IPCC, are built on a rotten foundation. The world temperature record is defective and should it ever be cleaned up, it may well show that the amount of warming in the last 100 years is between zero and negligible. The long term trend of the world’s temperature is one of cooling.
00
Sorry Roy — I wasn’t taking you to task, but using your post as an example of casting pearls (your post) before swine (Yes but).
Obvious to anyone with a functioning brain.
Mr. But: > 400 posts later and you still can’t get up the cojones to tackle George’s question (#127). Pathetic.
00
Isn’t that answer in 127 given in the question… it is the feedbacks.
Or rather – it is because it is. The counter argument about the feedbacks not having such an effect just means that some say it isn’t.
So if we assume you don;t like my answer, and one is not forthcoming from YesBut, please allow me to turn the question around:
A surface temperature increase from 287K to 290K requires an increase in surface energy of about 16 W/m^2. The consensus is that doubling CO2 adds 3.7 W/m^2 of forcing , resulting in 16 W/m^2 at the surface after all feedbacks have been accounted for, requiring an incremental surface power gain of 4.3. Considering all incident solar energy, the incremental surface power gain relative to solar forcing is only about 1.1, considering only those watts of solar power that reach the surface, the incremental gain is about 1.6. Why are those who think that each incremental watt of CO2 forcing arriving at the surface is between 2.7 and 5.4 times as powerful at warming the surface as an incremental watt of solar forcing entering the system at the same place, wrong?”
00
BobK – Not Mr But when it could be Ms But pls. I did answer George’s question above. Alas not to his satisfaction.
But his thesis took an exocet up the stern over at http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comments. Not a pretty site I’m afraid. Toodle pip !
00
Exocet? yeh, right!
You limp-wristed lot are somewhat given to exageration.
It was probably more like a gnat doing a kamikaze dive into elelphant’s arse, I should think.
When you wheeled Paul Ehrlich out of his dementia clinic to proclaim his support for AGW, that was the day you lost. The embittered, paranoid old doomsayer has been doing this stuff since before you were probably born. None of his dire predictions eventuated and he’s been sour on nature ever since for frustrating him.
In the meantime, you really should go and see your doctor. I’m sure he can do something for your nocturnal enuresis problem.
00
Well Marky boy – Instead of soliciting on street corners – Why not skank your tush over to Deltoid and correct Arthur where he left off. LOLX+
Alas I think you’ll be sliced and diced somehow.
BTW I kacked – excellent sledging – however you forget I’ve been insulted by experts. ” a gnat doing a kamikaze dive into elelphant’s arse” classic ! I love it.
00
So you’ve been insulted by experts, huh?
Ever bother to wonder why. Maybe something to do with you believing that everybody should follow you to green hell.
Sorry won’t take up your kind invite to the site frequented by your fellow gnats and freeloader acadamia nuts. Thanks all the same. I go to sleep every night sound in the knowledge that you’ll all be totally irrelevant in a very few years. The rot has already begun in Europe, it won’t take long to get here. You made a big mistake picking merchant bankers for co-conspirators in this scam. Most people hate them even more than greenies.
00
Yes of course you won’t visit.
[SNIP keep it at this level and you’ll be sent to the sin bin]
A highly intelligent response.
I’m still waiting for the ice age. Let’s see June 2010 – another record – ho hum …
00
MattB, re 572
Why is it then that feedbacks only affect the W/m^2 watts of GHG ‘forcing’, but not to the W/m^2 of solar forcing? The claim of your side is that the small intrinsic warming from CO2 is amplified by increased evaporation caused by increased temperatures. Why isn’t the much, much larger influence on surface temperatures from solar radiation similarly amplified?
George
00
Hoo hoo, yes butt, that got under your skin, hey!
I regard insults from the likes of you as the highest praise. You and your friends will go down in history in the same way as Trofim Lysenko. Fleeting triumphs of politics over science.
“Toodle pip”.
00
Oh so we’re up Lysenkoism now. I’ve had that too. I wasn’t being insulting. It’s simply piss weak to pretend you’re interested and then not read the debate. Now matey you wouldn’t be what they call disingenuous would you?
00
Mark,
Yes, pay special attention to my conversation with Arthur. Most of the rest is just noise. But then again, you’re probably lurking over there anyway. I’m starting to tie all the pieces together for them.
Unlike most of the trolls we get here, Arthur seems to know enough about the science that when properly explained to him, he may actually get it, although his last response was getting desperate, to the effect of, “you can’t be right and must have made a mistake”. Yes but is cracked and seems to think that the loser of a debate is the one who is targeted with the most insults, rather than the winner being the one with the best arguments.
I know they’ve been lurking here. I wouldn’t be surprised if a deltoid regular cuts and pastes words from this in some stupid out of context way and posts it over there.
George
00
G’day George, I can honestly state that my screen has not been sullied by that site appearing on it.
00
George – I’m stunned. You didn’t impress at Deltoid…. in any case I remind you this is an issue worth trillions to the world (so say you guys) and you haven’t got the time to publish in GRL? Pretty weak don’t you think. As soon as you came up against a domain expert like Arthur you were floundering. And you’re so myopic you don’t even know who Arthur Smith is !
Get published George or have zero point zero impact on the debate. Frankly George you’re not serious.
00
mmmm Mark is soooooo objective. “He just KNOWS he’s right”.
As I said Mark you’d turn to stone. Tim Lambert has busted more scams than you have ideas.
00
Thanks for the chuckle, but Tim Lambert still has not explained the adjustments made at Darwin, other than his “we try very hard” cap in hand effort, and a general link to some dense and opaque methodological document that still can’t explain why four individual adjustments were made at one particular site.
This question was asked many times on Deltoid and repeatedly dodged.
00
Sneaky, but we have been through this already. This website is public. The contents are published. George’s website likewise.
00
Yes but, you are entitled to your opinion, I’m entitled to mine. The differene is, yours will put this country down the dunny. You know, like Spain.
00
George at 578 my initial reaction is that it is understood that different types of forcing have different outcomes… hence we can look for “fingerprints”. Solar produces different feedbacks in areas of the planet where the sun reaches the surface of the planet, whereas CO2 is a more uniform change across the planet. Your question suggests to me that they should be the same as eachother, but I have no reason to adopt that as a starting point.
I have no problems with the suggestion that the feedbacks for CO2 may be overstated, but that is to be fought out in the scientific literature, and I unlike many here do not claim to be in possession of groundbreaking new science that will change the established view on climate science?
I get that you think the feedbacks are overstated, but all I can do is point you in the direction of the volumes of climate science that deals with the various forcings and feedbacks that have lead to the current AGW mainstream position sorry. Thats not ducking and weaving, it is just an honest answer.
00
this paper is getting n a bit but: http://www.cawcr.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff/jma/meehl_solar.pdf
00
Mattb,
The uniqueness of a GHG signature is that there is a shift in the temperature profile of the atmosphere owing to GHG influences being concentrated near the surface. However, this fingerprint has yet to me measured.
I’m talking about joules and watts here. Energy is energy and a watt of solar power will do the same amount of work as a watt of GHG forcing. Except, perhaps if extra work is required to reorganize the atmopshere’s temperature profile, in which case, a watt of GHG power will do less than a watt of solar power.
George
00
Yes but,
Do you really think it was an accident that I started this conversation with Arthur? I know who he is. He seems to have made a reputation debunking skeptics and seemed to be one of the more knowledgeable posters at Deltoid. But I have to say, he’s not doing a very good job with me. You must be making your assessment based on the cracks from the peanut gallery, instead of actually reading what I said. I suggest you go back actually read my posts. I’ve tried to keep it simple with intellects like yours in mind.
George
00
ooooo – Tel – This site is public – yea and so are all sorts of kooky sites. Perhaps the IPCC will use you as a consultant to tell them which are the good un’s.
But I’m sure you’d like the IPCC future reviews to only use peer reviewed literature or will any old dogs balls do?
There is ZERO excuse for George not publishing.
Lambert didn’t explain something eh – OMIGOD I’m shocked. And I thought he was perfect. It’s the end of life as we know it.
Mark – and how will my opinion put the country “down the dunny” exactly. I didn’t support the ETS. But hey you wouldn’t be one of these clowns that is so simple minded – that they decide they don’t like a policy response – ergo the science must be crap. That’s logical (not!).
00
Yes George (unpublished pers. comm.) – yes you won. I’ll take your word for it. LMAO.
Mate he wiped the floor with you.
00
Yes but,
You can have the last word, I have no interest in a flame war.
George
00
Thanks George – publish or perish !
00
IPCC and “peer reviewed” in the same sentence?
I do hope everyone knows by now that the IPCC drew its Amazon warnings from a WWF propaganda leaflet (and by the way, the IPCC was unable to even accurately quote the WWF since the WWF was talking about risk from deliberate “slash & burn” land clearing rather than climate change) but beyond that, the WWF in turn drew its source data from some anonymous Brazilian website that no longer exists and can’t be checked.
They are using dogs balls now, how could they get any worse? They have their own procedures but they can’t even be bothered living up to their own standards. The most useful improvement to the IPCC would be to terminate all their future government funding. If you want to pay me some millions in pork-barrel consulting, I can give the same conclusion in a heavier report.
00
George, their argument is that GHG power and solar power are distributed differently over the surface of the Earth. The theory being that if the sun gets stronger then most of the additional power falls at the equator, whilst if GHG heating gets stronger then it spreads more toward the poles. That’s what the modelers claim at any rate.
Personally, I would have thought there was plenty enough energy transport from the equator towards the poles to swamp any difference (and GHG back-radiation depends on solar radiation anyhow)… but I’m just filling in the AGW reasoning for why “Joules ain’t Joules”.
00
Mark:
At #587 you say:
I think you have stated the most important point in this thread.
The CAGW scare is dead. It continues to run around like a headless chicken, but – like the chicken – it is dead while still moving with an appearance of life. And the movement will be obvious in Mexico later this year.
However, like the ‘acid rain’ scare of the 1980s, the smell of the corpse of CAGW will continue to pollute energy and economic policies for decades to come.
The ‘acid rain’ scare’ is dead, too. Nobody announced its death (and nobody will announce the death of CAGW) but few remember the ‘acid rain’ scare unless reminded of it.
And the ‘acid rain’ scare should act as a warning because it is very similar to the CAGW scare.
It was based on dubious ‘science’ that anyone could see was flawed.
It was denied by empirical evidence.
It was promoted for political and economic reasons.
‘Greens’ adopted it and promoted it as a method to attack industrial civilisation.
It was the major environmental concern in its day.
It was quietly forgotten when its political use had been fulfilled.
But the stench of its corpse pollutes the political scene to this day.
The UK Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) of the European Union (EU) is one good example of the stench from the corpse of the ‘acid rain’ scare. The LCPD was established in response to the ‘acid rain’ scare, and it sets limits to emissions of oxides of sulphur and nitrogen (SOx and NOx) permitted from power stations. The civil servants who were put in place to operate the LCPD need to justify the continuing existence of their jobs, so they keep reducing the emission limits. There are no valid scientific reasons – and no valid reasons of any other kind – for these reductions. But the latest reductions will force closure of all except two of the UK’s coal fired power stations in 2014.
The power stations could continue to operate if they were fitted with flue gas desulphurisation (FGD). Some have sufficient land available for them to fit FGD but others do not. More importantly, FGD adds about 20% to the capital cost and about 10% to the running cost of a power station.
A power station has to recover its capital cost over the entire ~30 years of its scheduled life. This recovery of capital cost becomes difficult when the capital cost is increased by ~20% and the power station’s running cost is increased by ~10%. The recovery of capital cost becomes impossible when the FGD is retro-fitted to a power station that is 5-years old so only has about ~25 years of its scheduled life remaining. Hence, closing the power station (with large resulting losses) costs less than fitting FGD to keep it running.
So, as a result of the ‘acid rain’ scare, in 2014 the UK will be forced to choose between leaving the EU or having its lights go out.
The CAGW scare is dead but it has yet to lie down and be forgotten. There will be a temptation to forget the CAGW scare as it fades away. But – as the effects of the ‘acid rain’ scare demonstrate – this temptation needs to be resisted.
Richard
00
Tell,
They really believe this? It’s far too easy to debunk.
GHG captured power is proportional to surface radiated power, which is proportional to the strength of the Sun. Also, water vapor is dynamic and it’s strength is proportional to evaporation, which is also proportional to incident energy.
George
00
MattB posted the paper at #589, it’s a bit meandering but here is the introduction to section 4:
Maybe I have not understood the paper properly, their simulation seems to show solar warming was very high around the North Pole back in 1950 to 1960 (see figure 6a for solar component of simulated warming). I can’t really imagine how it could selectively heat the North Pole because the concept of an orbital shift happening over a 30 year period seems extremely implausible. Anyhow, that’s what’s in the diagram, but earlier in the text they say:
When I first read through, I saw that and took it to mean that an increase in solar input would fall mostly at the equator, but in the model the warming ends up at the pole (but not for recent warming post 1980). Which sounds a bit inconsistent.
So if you can unravel what the paper actually is saying, then I guess you can start the debunking from there.
00
Richard:
Thanks for that comment. I simply don’t believe that alternative and renewable (whatever that means) energy sources apart from nuclear are anywhere near to providing what a functioning society needs.
I’ve never felt more disillusioned with academia than at the present. University chancellors and boards have traded academic integrity for climate sorcery to ensure that trainloads of money continue to arrive.
00
Tel @ 596
One point, I notice that has not received much attention, and that is the matter of peer review.
Let’s remember that there are two kinds of peer review.
The first and preeminent is that of putting your hypothesis together with all your calculations and submitting it to others for review, comment and above all thorough examination. The aim being to have someone try to discredit and to find any errors. If the hypothesis survives these examinations, it becomes accepted and of course a proud scientist can then put his name to it.
The second peer review process is where a “scientist” gives his hypothesis to his mate, often in the office “next door”, who does little more than just sign it off. Well why not, as they are both working for the same “organisation” or have the same plan in mind? This kind of peer review is a corruption of the proper peer review process. Remember, we even had one of the climate gate emailers (Jones?) said that he would redefine the peer review process, if necessary.
00
Mark at 601 – I think you’ve hot the nail on the head. I think that if we put climate change to one side and just do a rational examination of the energy sources on the table then nuclear power wins hands down over coal, with renewables providing a 20% niche market if that (of course some wonder breakthrough may happen in the future who knows).
Once you’ve come around to the nuclear world, you then step back and see that the abundance of energy available ticks all the boxes… peak oil – sorted, climate change – sorted, nuclear waste – sorted (ok this relies on GenIV technology coming online within say 30 years), long term fuel supplies – sorted.
One of the great things about the BraveNewCLimate Blog is that you have out and out climate deniers talking sensibly with out and out warmistas crunching through all the issues that surround nuclear power. ’tis quite something to watch.
The global conspiracy of interest to me is not AGW, but it is how the far left and the far right have somehow managed together to demonise nuclear power and then slug it out between themselves as big oil vs power down society.
00
MattB
At last, something we can agree on. My only concern with nuclear is not technical.
We would need to vigilant that the ongoing profit is not privatised whilst leaving the taxpayer with decommissioning costs.
00
Mattb
Another thumbs up for you.
What the hell is going on here…….I’ve given you at least three thumbs up in the last few weeks!
Oh yah and about 50 thumbs down. Keep working on it though, the ratio is getting better 🙂
00
George, the Deltoid regulars are a strong disappointment to me. I rather thought that was a respectable Warmist blog.
Perhaps me taking on the worst of them has taken some of the more aggravating posts away from you. I think you have Arthur at least wondering. (his ego may prevent him from ever admitting so)
Keep it up!
00
Arthur is kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. He has no choice by to agree that the radiative model used to interpret satellite data is valid, which means he must accept my energy balance equations. I’ve already laid out the path between these equations and the implosion of CAGW and I think he should have connected the dots by now.
Here’s the next thing I will post over there. If any of the Deltoid regulars are lurking here, are you scared yet? You should be.
http://www.palisad.com/co2/eebc/eebc.html
This links to a simple spread sheet for calculating the Earth’s energy balance. Not only do I compute the 255K value, I also compute surface and cloud energy fluxes which cross check to the satellite data exactly. The coincidence hypothesis is certainly invalidated as 2 versions of each 3 measurable fluxes are calculated by independent means.
George
00
Scared? Do you know something I don’t know (to be scared of)?
00
George, take a look at the back and forth I have had there with “jakerman” I believe he is not English speaking (fluent) and I wonder is Deltoid outsourcing it’s bloggers?
What a concept pay your bloggers!
00
I know that CAGW is going to implode. Have you player with the spread sheet?
00
I had a look over it but I couldn’t see where it concludes with “thus three degrees of warming” so obviously it cannot be allowed to pass peer review. 🙂
Seriously though, may I suggest you insert the first sheet as a title page with an introduction and perhaps some brief help. Then insert a sheet after the main calculator with a one-paragraph explanation of each item, and possibly references. You know you can use “merge cells” to build one big cell where you can type a paragraph of text (enable line-wrap in the cell format).
Also, it would be nice if the user could twiddle the CO2 value and see how much the temperature goes up… but maybe save that for Version II. Very nice to have something so simple that people can twiddle with.
00
George – get published or remain in the scrap bin of history of internet bit buckets.
It doesn’t matter whether you think you’ve bested Arthur or not…. it’s all just noise on the vine
Although you have the defence against humanity “making a multi-trillion dollar mistake” – ahem you’re “too busy”.
Plenty of time for blogging and making web sites though. But anything to avoid running the gauntlet of serious peer review by real physicists.
Might we bit a tad sceptical here ! hmmmmm … Oh well – a great pity – George could have saved the world – but he was “too busy”…. so sad…
00
This is the thread that won’t die! I go on vacation for a few days and 40 more posts appear!
You’ve got to admire Ehrlich for sticking his neck out by actually making specific predictions (like, “Only 20 million people will be left in America by 2000” [1967]) — especially since not one has ever panned out (or even come close).
What does it say about the Left (and Yes but) that they still think Ehrlich is worth quoting (except for humor)?
Their connection with reality seems to be dysfunctional.
Well, now: That perfectly explains his arguing style!
01
Hey But: Not everybody suffers your inability to follow logical arguments, and needs someone else to tell them what to think. Obviously, Arthur and George know how to have a scientific debate, as inconceivable as that may be to you.
How do you think that journal editors find people to review papers, anyway? You seem to be completely ignorant of the purpose of peer review — it is not done by god-like beings who know what is right or wrong. It is primarily for preventing embarrassing (to the editor and author) mistakes, such as inadequately citing prior work, not justifying assumptions or conclusions, mathematical mistakes, etc.
It is a perversion to try to use peer review to censor opposing viewpoints, as the CRU “scientists” tried to do.
Regarding math mistakes: As an engineer I have found that nearly 25% of the “peer-reviewed” papers I want to use contain equations that are dimensionally inconsistent — forcing me to recreate the entire derivation chain (or look for a better reviewed paper). I guess they don’t teach dimensional analysis anymore.
I know you have tried to spread the lie that there are “no peer-reviewed anti CAGW papers”, so here is an incomplete list of 750 such papers.
00
I might add that many of the most interesting and useful papers are found in the various conference proceedings, and are not peer reviewed. It’s up to the reader (or audience member, if you attend) to make up their own minds about an author’s arguments.
This assumes, of course, audience members and readers who can follow logical arguments.
00
Mark,
I’ve found that it’s no worth discussion anything with jakerman. All he wants to do is drag you into a flame war. I’ve found it’s best to ignore him as it only detracts from the content of the thread.
George
00
Tel,
Thanks for the feedback. You are right that it certainly doesn’t support 3C. The effects CO2 changes have are on the absorption fractions. These are far too complex to put into a spreadsheet, even the IPCC heuristics are too coarse, relative to the accuracy of these calculations. But for reference, the surface to space absorption factor of 56.6% increases to about 57.6% when CO2 is doubled and the 40.4% cloud to space absorption increases to about 41.7%.
George
00
George, I’m done with akerman. I thought there was hope for a sense of reason there but alas….Actually towards the last few posts it seemed like akerman might be a computer! The replies seemed to be pulled from a list. Frank there is absolutely insane. It would seem like a nice home for Yes But 🙂
Sorry I didn’t look at your sheet yet I HAD to go to bed! and work (for wage) beckons for the moment. At a glance it looks very interesting.
00
BobC – don’t try me on matey. 750 my butt. Don’t come here pimping your skanky list of submitted papers – submitted equals not published or even rejected as per “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature” – which I would not even have the decency to mention. How embarrasing. And let’s remove all the E&E “references” after http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html How many of these papers are rubbish – 700 !
Come BobC – at least give it half a go like George.
But George has THE answer BoBC – George has the CURE to this AGW madness. Trillions of dollars at stake. But George is “too busy”.
Oh well can’t be too important then can it.
00
Y.But — I encourage you to continue to put your “logic” on display. Nothing says “lightweight” like your arguments.
00
Y.But:
Apparently, you didn’t read far enough to see the list of lies used to attempt to debunk the list of papers challenging CAGW. You used two of them (6 more to go — have at it. Surely you can put all 8 lies in a reply, especially if they are there to copy):
BTY: There are only 8 “submitted” papers (which are not counted), ~140 from Energy and Environment (out of 750) and ~40 from Nature
So, you found one person (apparently one of your “Masters” you look to for thought guidance) who doesn’t like a single paper in E & E — so you want to trash the entire journal.
Like I said: Nothing says “lightweight” like your examples of “logical argument”.
00
Well BobC – yes I’m sure it’s a stirling list (giggle). 140 E&Es eh? hmmmmmm….
00
Geez But; When are you going to figure out that empty mockery isn’t really a valid argument?
Oh, that’s right — you’re an idiot, so never.
Make that empty mockery by an idiot — still doesn’t work.
Keep up the good work, you never disappoint.
00
I’m not expecting you to rewrite HITRAN into a spreadsheet (and you might run into license problems if you did). If you happen to have the spare computing time then please scan out a table of values starting from a CO2 of maybe 100ppm up to something round 600ppm or there abouts. Perhaps whack the table of values into an extra sheet and then let the user select a row from the table as “plug-in” values for the absorptions.
00
Hi Joanna
How can I send to you a very interesting document (in French, I am sorry): Académie des sciences, Paris , séminaire de travail : Evolution du Climat – 5 mars 2007
“Les échanges méridiens commandent les changements climatiques”, by Marcel Leroux, Jean Moulin University, Lyon, Climatology Lab
this document presents the Polar Mobile Anticyclone (AMP, Anticyclones Mobiles Polaires) and a refutation of the IPCC Global Warming Theory.
Best Regards
Jean-Pierre (France)
If needed, I have a friend from Australia, who lived in France since about 40 years : he speaks a fluent French as well as English, of course. He could maybe translate the document.
00
Joanne:
Here is one other interesting circumstance regarding works of Griggs and Harries that are used by CAGW climatards as a proof that AGW model is correct, that increase in CO2 leads to a measurable drop in OLR as the IPCC/Hansen concept of “radiative forcing” dictates. Their work is based on comparing satellite data from 1970 with data of 1996 and 2003. To be compared, they must select only spectra that they believe do not have clouds, otherwise the whole stuff is so variable that is totally useless. The funny thing is that to get the baseline from 1970, they rejected 99.3% of available spectra, so their “IRIS yearly global average” is based only on 25 samples total( !!!). Given weather, seasonal, and spatial variability of globe conditions, it is outrageously low. I think this detail is worth mentioning in your rebuttal of Cook’s cookings.
00
Al Tekhasski @ 626
I just read that paper this week – Griggs and Harries spent quite a bit of time trying to remove cloud influences. The IRIS data comes from a sensor with a really wide aperture, making it quite likely that it will include some clouds. They did a fairly reasonable job of removing cloud contaminated data, and the fact that the data from the three different satellites with three different apertures ended up with the same standard deviation indicates good confidence that they had cloud free reasonable data, even if they threw out a lot.
On the other hand, aside from the methane signature, all the CO2 and water vapor line changes (while consistent with the greenhouse effect) were only at about the noise level – hardly proof. Not inconsistent, but not solid evidence.
00
[…] to ad homs, and kindergarden namecalling (like “denier” and “Christie Crocks”) and is debunked all over the internet, but the Prof is too poorly trained in reasoning to spot the cheap tricks, […]
00
[…] (wie „Leugner“ und „Christie Crocks“) und wird im gesamten Internet verworfen. Aber der Prof. ist zu wenig im Argumentieren geübt, als dass er die billigen Tricks durchschaut, […]
00
[…] (wie „Leugner“ und „Christie Crocks“) und wird im gesamten Internet verworfen. Aber der Prof. ist zu wenig im Argumentieren geübt, als dass er die billigen Tricks durchschaut, […]
00
[…] (wie „Leugner“ und „Christie Crocks“) und wird im gesamten Internet verworfen. Aber der Prof. ist zu wenig im Argumentieren geübt, als dass er die billigen Tricks durchschaut, […]
00