DailyClimate.org is pleased to offer two opinion pieces by notable climate scientists commenting on the recent release of the climate science emails.
Get a load of this headline:
Opinion: Snippets of stolen emails cannot make the Earth flat
Wow, make the earth flat? That has to be some sort award winning headline for the most stupid strawman argument ever. But then, look who is writing it – Supermandia
The first paragraph sets the nauseating tone:
Here is what we know: The Earth is round, smoking is linked to lung cancer, and humans are changing the climate by emitting massive amounts of heat-trapping carbon dioxide and other gases. Like extra blankets at night, those emissions are warming the planet. The physics of greenhouse gases has been understood for more than 100 years. It is not new science.
[Update: Hmmm, commenter John-X points out this reference from Mike Mann’s PSU meteorology dept (shown below) which really throws a wet blanket on that statement.]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Does the atmosphere (or any greenhouse gas) act a blanket?
At best, the reference to a blanket is a bad metaphor. Blankets act primarily to suppress convection; the atmosphere acts to enable convection. To claim that the atmosphere acts a blanket, is to admit that you don’t know how either one of them operates.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course, the rest of this is just a BS strawman argument, most skeptics (and certainly no skeptical scientists) don’t dispute the greenhouse effect, only the magnitude of the effect and confounding factors such as feedbacks and sensitivity. The phrase about smoking and lung cancer is right out of the slimer playbook championed by people like Romm and Gore, who have used such tactics before. The only purpose for it being there is to tar people you disagree with a broad brush.
But wait, there’s more sliminess. How about we link the climate debate to illegal steroid use too?
… Killer heat waves, devastating droughts and wildfires, and unprecedented floods are expected in our warmer world and we are witnessing these events now. Climate is the canvas and weather is what is painted on that canvas. Change the canvas and all weather is affected. The extra heat and moisture that human-caused warming is adding to the climate is like injecting steroids into our weather.
Scott Mandia must think everyone is stupid except him, because time and time again it can be demonstrated that there is no trend in severe weather that links to climate. Even NOAA puts the kibosh on such linkages, such as with the Russian heat wave wrongly blamed on climate change.
But hey, if you think of yourself as “superman of climate” I suppose supersized-ego powers come with the cape. You can read Scott Mandia’s super opinion here.
From the press release:
John Abraham is an associate professor of Thermal Sciences at the
University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, Minn. He teaches and carries
out research in the areas of thermodynamics, heat transfer, fluid
mechanics, and climate monitoring. He is co-founder of the Climate Rapid
Response Team.
Scott Mandia is Professor of Physical Science at Suffolk County
Community College, Long Island, New York. He has been teaching weather
and climate courses for more than 20 years.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I need to brush my teeth, I think I threw up just alittle. Damn Taco Bell burritos.
“Like extra blankets at night, those emissions are warming the planet. ”
HA HA HA!
Freshman Meteorology FAIL!
http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadGreenhouse.html
Supermandia, “…has been teaching weather and climate courses for more than 20 years.”
Hapless students at SUCOCC have been taught Bad Greenhouse for more than 20 years!
There should be a “Facepalm” award. Make it look sort of like the sculpture “The Thinker” but with his palm covering his face.
Like this:
http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/2/6/9/4/9/3/Thinker-facepalm-sigh-40751482435.jpeg
If you are going to relentlessly bang the drum you have no time to stop for “facts”
@Brian 1.49pm.
I did not have Taco Bell burritos. But my reaction was the same. I am off to find strong toothpaste.
Geeeeesssssseeeee
Beats the h*ll out of me why anyone would even consider listening to S
tupidupermandia“John Abraham is an associate professor of Thermal Sciences at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis”
wow.
You’d think an associate professor of Thermal Science could have helped out his pal, and at least explained to him how a blanket works.
“To claim that the atmosphere acts a blanket, is to admit that you don’t know how either one of them operates. ” – Alistair B. Fraser Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University
http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadGreenhouse.html
Is there a greenhouse effect? Huffman’s write up seems reasonable, though I do not go along with his other ideas. Any thoughts out there?
Please…
The University of St. Thomas is in St. Paul, Minnesota on Summit Avenue and NOT Minneapolis.
Isn’t it a bit early to be saying this is the silliest ever? The new files only came out yesterday. Wait a few more weeks – I imagine that we’ll see sillier.
It is pretty silly thought. LOL.
I hate when I type fast….. “though”
We are already seeing more numerous and intense tropical cyclones globally over the past several years. My peer-reviewed research has shown a very strong negative increase.
http://policlimate.com/tropical/
John-X says:
November 23, 2011 at 1:54 pm
Hapless students at SUCOCC have been taught Bad Greenhouse for more than 20 years!
John-X, I am unfamiliar with this institution of higher education. Can it be that the entire faculty and student body are unaware of this unfortunate acronym of the facility?
Oh. I see. Never mind. Just a bit slow on the uptake.
Mandia can’t even spell “Durban”. It is (albeit petty) things like this that further undermine the sloppy unscience that he flails away with. It’s bad enough to see misinformation, but when the proofreaders miss spelling errors, it just reinforces the whole messy tome. This in the face of the oft-cited need to “improve the message”
Ha.
One gets the impression now… that seriously (just reading Dot.earth, MSM take etc;, usually ALL pro AGW), that this time the tables have TURNED! This may well be the end of the AGW scam! If these idiots had just left the CO2 effect alone, and concentrated on land use (ie Pielke et al), overpopulation etc v climate as a problem to be solved they would have had a future professionally anyway…
Maybe the earth is flat and space is curved.
Reminds me of the last scene from Raiders of the lost Ark.
“We have top men working on it”
Who?
“Top Men”
I guess in this case that means a Physical Science prof at Suffolk County Community College.
During the night, when its cold, I’ll be covering myself with air containing 0.038% CO2 so as to keep myself warm. This atmospheric blanket is guaranteed to keep me warm all night long. /sarc off
As one wag put it, sorta makes one feel like dragging their butt on the carpet. No, wait! The authors fit my definition of “stool-pigeon”. But bigger’n a squab. Much bigger.
Ryan N. Maue says:
November 23, 2011 at 2:16 pm
“… a very strong negative increase. ”
OMG, that sounds bad!
Oh, wait. They’re meeting in Durban to fight it with an even stronger negative decrease in taxes.
Whew.
nc says:
November 23, 2011 at 2:14 pm
“Is there a greenhouse effect? Huffman’s write up seems reasonable, though I do not go along with his other ideas. Any thoughts out there?”
Yes there is; but is it increasing? The CO2 absorption spectrum is nearly saturated so not by very much; also, the CO2 absorption bands are much narrower than the ones of water vapour and compete partially with water vapour. Plus, there is no observational evidence for the tropospheric hotspot that the climate models forecast so something must be wrong with their assumptions. Plus, they didn’t forecast the lack of warming over the last decade so something must be wrong with them again.
Let me quote a climate scientist.
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=9402
13:01:04 -0800
from: Richard Somerville
“I also think people need to come to understand that the scientific
uncertainties work both ways. We don’t understand cloud feedbacks.
We don’t understand air-sea interactions. We don’t understand
aerosol indirect effects. The list is long. Singer will say that
uncertainties like these mean models lack veracity and can safely be
ignored. What seems highly unlikely to me is that each of these
uncertainties is going to make the climate system more robust against
change. It is just as likely a priori that a poorly understood bit
of physics might be a positive as a negative feedback.”
Would you bet the world economy on that kind of science? Maybe just wait til the scientists can prove anything? Or deliver models that work? The Joneses and Manns and Hansens and Trenberths have been overplaying their cards.
“Of course, the rest of this is just a BS strawman argument, most skeptics (and certainly no skeptical scientists) don’t dispute the greenhouse effect, only the magnitude of the effect and confounding factors such as feedbacks and sensitivity. ”
Not correct, sir. I am a scientist and I doubt the “greenhouse effect.” The THEORY doesn’t even count as science, until there is empirical evidence (and not just diagrams and cartoons).
[snip -over the top]