Supermandia and the most supersilly Climategate rebuttal ever

Professor Scott Mandia - "notable" climate scientist according to the Daily Climate - click for details

I just got a nauseating email release from The Daily Climate that said:

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.

About these ads

126 thoughts on “Supermandia and the most supersilly Climategate rebuttal ever

  1. There should be a “Facepalm” award. Make it look sort of like the sculpture “The Thinker” but with his palm covering his face.

  2. @Brian 1.49pm.

    I did not have Taco Bell burritos. But my reaction was the same. I am off to find strong toothpaste.

  3. “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

  4. 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?

  5. Please…
    The University of St. Thomas is in St. Paul, Minnesota on Summit Avenue and NOT Minneapolis.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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…

  10. 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.

  11. 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

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. “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).

  16. The thing about di-oxy carbide is that increases in its content in the atmosphere are only beneficial, while those of carbon dioxide are horrendously hurtful to our environment.

    Climate scientists are a rare breed, while ´climate scientists´are as numerous as their grant-addicted, unfounded scare stories.

    In the beginning, cigarettes were healthy and did not cause cancer, likewise the Earth was flat and carbon dioxide was an evil gas. Now we are wiser – at least some of us are – and we know better.

  17. He has been teaching weather and climate courses for more than 20 years.

    Good heavens, lots of people will have to take the course again. Somewhere else.

  18. jae says:
    November 23, 2011 at 2:39 pm

    mmmmm…. yeah, kinda.

    I gotta quote Prof. Fraser, one more time:

    “Let’s examine some of the nonsense frequently offered in the name of science.

    Is the greenhouse effect a good thing?

    Well, yes, if you appreciate living.
    (…)
    Does the atmosphere trap heat (in producing the greenhouse effect)?

    Alas no. As rapidly as the atmosphere absorbs energy it loses it. Nothing is trapped. If energy were being trapped, i.e. retained, then the temperature would of necessity be steadily rising. Rather, on average, the temperature is constant and the energy courses through the system without being trapped within it.

    Does the atmosphere behave like a greenhouse?

    The name, greenhouse effect is unfortunate, for a real greenhouse does not behave as the atmosphere does. The primary mechanism keeping the air warm in a real greenhouse is the suppression of convection (the exchange of air between the inside and outside). Thus, a real greenhouse does act like a blanket to prevent bubbles of warm air from being carried away from the surface. As we have seen, this is not how the atmosphere keeps the Earth’s surface warm. Indeed, the atmosphere facilitates rather than suppresses convection.

    One sometimes hears the comparison between the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere (not in real greenhouses) and the interior of a parked car which has been left in the summer Sun with its windows rolled up. This comparison is as phony as is the comparison to real greenhouses. Again, keeping the windows closed merely suppresses convection.

    Whether the topic is a real greenhouse or a car, one still hears the old saw that each stays warm because visible radiation (light) can pass through the windows, and infrared radiation cannot. Actually, it has been known for the better part of a century that this has very little bearing on the issue. ”

    again:

    http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadGreenhouse.html

  19. John-X says:
    November 23, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    “Hapless students at SUCOCC have been taught Bad Greenhouse for more than 20 years!”

    In the Big Apple, that’s OK. What is important is that you are a communist.

  20. I wonder if I should cut and paste this …

    … Killer heat waves, devastating droughts and wildfires, and unprecedented floods are expected in our warmer world ….

    … over at RealClimate as a response to Dr Gavin Schmidt when he says I’m raising strawman arguments about doomsday scenarios coming out of climate change scientists.

  21. The targeted advertising on this website amuses me. Most of the ads displayed when I read this blog are for subsidized solar panels! The best one I’ve seen is for a private pension company which promises to invest my retirement fund in saving the planet. They call this ‘ethical!’ I don’t think there will be much left for my retirement in 50 years! This is the reality we are facing, normal people assume that anyone interested in the climate change debate must be desperate to waste money on shrinking their carbon footprint. How many people are even aware that there are two sides to the argument?

  22. Having taken classes with John Abraham’s professors, when there were in graduate school, under Dr. Eckert, I wonder how impressed they are with the “wunderkind”.

  23. Now now, AGW believers, don’t come unglued yet. I wouldn’t want to see you lose your heads over nothing, after all.

  24. There will be no end to the silliness or the shrillness until the last tenured teacher succumbs to ridicule from his or her pupils for dragging out long discarded agw beliefs many decades hence. Sadly. The oil will still be flowing and the ENSO will still be ensoing and the ocean will still be 70% of the earth more or less.

  25. The Left is a zombie cult who repeat whatever their ringleaders tell them to say. Mic Check!

  26. The extra heat and moisture that human-caused warming is adding to the climate is like injecting steroids into our weather.

    ==

    Global warming hey? He must never have learned about temperature gradient and storms… Mandia is a prat and I do not envy his poor students.

  27. Honestly, these people really have issues…deep seated emotional issues. During my far-too-long tenure in academia I noticed the folks around me all had essentially the same character: intellectual ability generally advanced beyond “normal” folk, but socially – arrested development around the age of 5 years old. In other words: very smart preschoolers. They would throw temper tantrums, they think everyone should serve them..whatever they are thinking must be right..etc etc etc. I couldn’t get out of academia fast enough. And this guy is yet another example that proves my point. Would you ever catch the CEO of a major company dress like superman? The only people I see dressing like superman (outside of Halloween) are…..5 year olds.

  28. Ozymandias..

    The central theme of “Ozymandias” is the inevitable complete decline of all leaders, and of the empires they build, however mighty in their own time.

    Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
    Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

    ==========================

    A tool is a tool is a stool

  29. This Mandia fellow is stuck on stupid, and resorts to the usual ridiculous tactics from the warmist playbook. Words simply cannot express my thoughts on this story, so I’ll just post this:

  30. Notice this is an obvious lefty politically, because he diggs deep into using tobacco.

    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

    Because they claim their opponants are using tactics similar to the “big tobacco” fight from the 90’s.

  31. Scott Mandia,

    The terminology ‘Greenhouse Effect’ is a misnomer and misleads scientists, environmentalists, politicians and general citizens alike. It is more correct to simply say instead that each of the various types of gases, vapors, particles and chemicals in the atmospheric has its own specific atmospheric behavior and properties. CO2 has its specific behavior and property; H2O has its own, O2 has its own; likewise N2; O3; Ar; etc. Each individual behavior separately considered, does not equal their interactive combined behavior. All gases combined yield a planetary atmospheric composite effect. Forget ‘Greenhouse Effect’. In spite of the CO2 myopia of the IPCC for the past 20+ years, CO2 has not been shown from observations to have any significant contribution when all aspects of the climate’s dynamics naturally vary.

    Regarding the Climategate Release 2.0, the damaged integrity and scientific non-professionalism of the exposed core team of IPCC gaming climate scientists is widely understood to exist even within the community of scientists. The scientific product that is their product is exposed now. The self-correction processes within the science community have engaged. Rebalancing is already occurring. Science will move on now, having learned a valuable lesson from the ideological advocacy that infected IPCC centric climate science.

    Your ‘Climate Rapid Response Team’ has become an ad hoc clique of vigilantes attempting to enforce accepted scientific truth that pretends to be enshrouded in an authoritarian mantle from the IPCC. They are absurd.

    John

  32. He’s right, you know; i’ve always found that when the nights are cold, instead of adding extra blankets to my bed, I just need to breathe extra heavily to increase the carbon dioxide in the room and I’m much warmer in no time.

  33. “The extra heat and moisture that human-caused warming is adding to the climate is like injecting steroids into our weather.”

    He gets credit for mentioning all the water vapor that is necessary to amplify the co2 greenhouse effects in the computer models.
    But the caped academic marvel is going to need help.
    Will the people be saved from flourishing national economies and abundant, affordable, reliable energy supplies? Who can win the battle against the “extra” “human-caused” “heat and moisture”?! To be continued…

  34. “Alex the skeptic says:
    November 23, 2011 at 2:26 pm
    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”

    So this is also why when I exhale under the covers I get warmer, the CO2 in my breath… wow, I didn’t know that….

  35. “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, ”

    AHEM! Not true! The Dragon Slayers, among others are all scientists and they have disproved the greenhouse effect, by both theory and experiment. I am a scientist by training and career myself (although not in the climate field).

    A “greenhouse effect” from back radiation is impossible according to the laws of thermodynamics. Cold CANNOT heat warm! I am surprised that WUWT still cling to such lukewarmist beliefs!!!

  36. Darren Parker:

    “This blanket is woven from the same thread as the Emperor’s new clothes”

    LOL. It is truly amazing to see all the references to “blankets,” and “insulation” among actual “climate scientists,” and their supporters, with copious caveats about how that is not actually a “correct analogy”–and/but that they need to use that analogy for the commonfolk to visualize some magical undefined, unproved phenomenon in their uneducated, weak minds. Or something like that. It’s eerie. Bottom line is that there seems to be no way to prove (or disprove?) the notion of an “atmospheric greenhouse effect.” Me, I think convection erases any greenhouse magic.

  37. Scott Mandia:
    Opinion: Snippets of stolen emails cannot make the Earth flat>>>

    REPLY: No more than they can make it round. What they can do is expose “scientists” saying it is flat when they clearly know it is round.

    SM:
    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.>>>

    REPLY: What we know is that the “consensus” was that the Earth was flat, until the “skeptics” proved it was round. What we know is that the “consensus” was that smoking was not linked to lung cancer until the “skeptics” proved it was. What we know is that the “consensus” that CO2 may cause catastrophic warming not only isn’t even a consensus, but some of the key proponents knew darn well they were making it up or grossly exagerating. Incidently, there used to be a “consensus” that you could cure disease through blood letting and bumps on peoples heads would tell you if they were crazy or not.

    SM:
    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.>>>

    REPLY: If the physics of “greenhouse gases” is like “extra blankets at night”, then in fact it is brand new science. That’s clearly not what the known physics of the last 100 years has been saying.

    SM:
    … Killer heat waves, devastating droughts and wildfires, and unprecedented floods are expected in our warmer world and we are witnessing these events now.>>>

    REPLY: We are? Oddly, all the statistics about weather related deaths show that cold is number one by a country mile, all other weather related deaths have been dropping. Agricultural output is several times higher now than it was just a few decades ago. Have the crops been growing several times as fast during these devastating droughts and unprecedented floods? Since we’re on the drought/flood topic, how does warming cause both increases and decreases in precipitation world wide at the same time? Where are these wildfires by the way? In the flooded areas that are producing more food than ever before? Or in the drought areas that are producing more food than ever before? Last I checked the numbr one cause of “wildfires” was human carelessness. That means not putting your campfire out properly Scott, not breathing too much.

    SM:
    Climate is the canvas and weather is what is painted on that canvas. >>>

    REPLY: Goodness grascious, no. Climate is the long term average of the weather. In other words, for your analogy to be accuracte, weather is not so much the canvas, but the brush that paints the picture called “climate”.

    SM:
    The extra heat and moisture that human-caused warming is adding to the climate is like injecting steroids into our weather.>>>

    REPLY: Oh dear, you really do have a problem with the science, don’t you. The earth has been warming since the last ice age at more or a less a constant rate. Hasn’t speeded up recently, in fact, as all four major temperature records show, it has slowed to a crawl and may even be entering a cooling cycle. In the meantime, the global cyclone energy index has been falling for three decades. Did I mention that weather related deaths world wide have shown a steep decline (except for those due to cold)? How about them crop yields we’ve been seeing, all up, and up a lot in the last few decades. By the way, since any warming is more pronounced in cold areas than in warm areas, and weather is driven by the differential in temperatures between areas, that would suggest that the temperature differentials would be smaller, leading to less extreme weather and a more stable climate.

    From the Press Release:
    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.>>>

    REPLY: Is he like the “climate scientists” exposed in ClimateGate 2.0? Saying one thing in press releases and another when actually discussing the actuall science? Perhaps some of his former students would like to comment? Does he spin fables at work too, or just in the press?

  38. Makes you think this isn’t so far off (certainly on this side of the ‘Atlantic Sea’.

    W H Auden
    The Fall of Rome

    The piers are pummelled by the waves;
    In a lonely field the rain
    Lashes an abandoned train;
    Outlaws fill the mountain caves.

    Fantastic grow the evening gowns;
    Agents of the Fisc pursue
    Absconding tax-defaulters through
    The sewers of provincial towns.

    Private rites of magic send
    The temple prostitutes to sleep;
    All the literati keep
    An imaginary friend.

    Cerebrotonic Cato may
    Extol the Ancient Disciplines,
    But the muscle-bound Marines
    Mutiny for food and pay.

    Caesar’s double-bed is warm
    As an unimportant clerk
    Writes I DO NOT LIKE MY WORK
    On a pink official form.

    Unendowed with wealth or pity,
    Little birds with scarlet legs,
    Sitting on their speckled eggs,
    Eye each flu-infected city.

    Altogether elsewhere, vast
    Herds of reindeer move across
    Miles and miles of golden moss,
    Silently and very fast.

  39. I had one of those Superman suits when I was about seven years old. Please shoot me if I ever wear one again.

  40. Scott Mandia “knows” the earth is round. Unfortunately for him, it is actually an oblate spheroid.

    As for that costume, given the waders, you have to wonder where that hockey stick has been.

  41. But… But… but warmist “climate scientists” use a plane-parallel (flat Earth) model to simulate this planet in their science papers, models and equations. So exactly who is a “Flat Earther” here? Not the skeptical scientists I know, they prefer a spherical atmosphere in their science. I think this is propogana rule #17, blame the opposing side for what your side itself is doing.

    Some may tend to trivialize this fine point but it has a surprisingly large effect on any analysis results. Using a plane-parallel basis, horizontal radiation never leaves the Earth’s atmosphere. After travelling thousands of kilometers horizontally that radiation is still at the same altitude above the surface. But using a spherical and actually a realistic model of the atmosphere, horizontal (and of course also nearly horizontal) radiation quickly leaves the Earth climate system simply BY THE CURVATURE.

    I read such a post of a climate scientists mocking those skeptical as believing in a flat Earth and I just have to laugh out loud! It is they who are the clowns as this Scott Mandia (“superman of climate”) so clearly shows to world.

  42. As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. Unfortunately for Mandia most of them would be expletives.

  43. Sorry for the mental images, but I have to ask – am I right in assuming his thigh high boots are actually fishing waders and not purchased from some type of (eeeuwe) rubber specialty shop.

  44. Supermandia: “The physics of greenhouse gases has been understood for more than 100 years. It is not new science.”

    Yeah, it kinda is.

    Geez, for a Superhero, Kaptain Klimate here, with his Avenging Hockey Stick of Klimate Justice, just can’t seem to get anything right.

    With his, “more than 100 years” reference, he must be going back to Svante Arrhenius, who can’t quite be said to have “understood” “the physics of ‘greenhouse gases.'”

    Arrhenius massively miscalculated the absorptive and radiative properties of CO2.

    But, Arrhenius seems to have been a prototype for The Team:

    “Arrhenius’ high absorption values for CO2, however, met criticism by Knut Ångström in 1900, who published the first modern infrared spectrum of CO2 with two absorption bands. Arrhenius replied strongly in 1901 (Annalen der Physik), dismissing the critique altogether.”

    And (though we have no historical record of this), probably denounced Ångström as a right wing denier, funded by Big Oil (or maybe it was Big Steam back then).

    But if Kaptain Klimate really believed Arrhenius ” understood” “the physics of ‘greenhouse gases'” over a hundred years ago, he might be advising a bit more caution in any attempt to reduce CO2:

    “If the quantity of carbonic acid in the air should sink to one-half its present percentage, the temperature would fall by about 4°; a diminution to one-quarter would reduce the temperature by 8°.” – Svante Arrhenius, “Worlds in the Making,” 1908

    And if Kaptain Klimate really believed Arrhenius ” understood” “the physics of ‘greenhouse gases'” over a hundred years ago, he might be forced to become, as Arrhenius was, somehting far more sinister than a mere denier. Arrhenius was enthusiastically pro-industry, pro-coal, and pro-CO2:

    “By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.” – Svante Arrhenius, “Worlds in the Making,” 1908

    “Rapdily propagating mankind!” That’s what makes Paul Ehrlich’s head explode!

  45. “…. 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 …..”

    Tobacco smoking = human CO2 emissions is often raised, by people who should know better, to fool the gullible I suspect.
    The apt analogy would be something like: smoking 40 cigarettes a day is beneficial even necessary for good health, but smoking 41 will cause deadly lung cancer.

  46. I read this in John-X link

    “Curiously, the surface of the Earth receives nearly twice as much energy from the atmosphere as it does from the Sun” HUH

    how did the atmosphere get twice as much energy?

  47. JonasM says:
    November 23, 2011 at 2:15 pm
    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.
    =====================
    JonasM says:
    November 23, 2011 at 2:16 pm
    I hate when I type fast….. “though”
    =====================

    Use your other finger and put that one back where it came from.
    ‘Scuse me while I’m ROTFLMAO.

  48. What ‘Climate Scientists’ say:
    70’s: The world is entering another ice age! We’re all going to die!
    80’s: The world is warming. We are not certain why, but CO2 may be contributing.
    90’s The world is warming mainly because of man-made CO2. We need to stop this now.
    00’s: The world is probably going to be destroyed by the CO2 we release. CO2 causes most climate changes.
    10’s: The world is going to be destroyed by the CO2 we release. CO2 causes all climate changes. We’re all going to die! Give us all your money, now!
    20’s: Do you want fries with that?

  49. Nigel S says:
    November 23, 2011 at 6:13 pm

    (…)”All the literati keep
    An imaginary friend…”

    Whoa. I didn’t know I was a literatus.

  50. Sigh, —– CO2’s contribution to energy being returned to earth. I’ll use a ridiculously high number foregoing other energy ridding mechanisms we know about.

    Energy reaching the earth is …..239.7w/m2(well, that’s what I just read) assume all of it is converted to IR and emitted outward from the earth. Atmospheric CO2 is ~0.04% CO2 absorbs ~ 15% IR using the 3 bands of absorption. All other IR goes right through it. Of that energy absorbed, because of the omnidirectional emission of energy, CO2 sends less than 1/2 of that back towards the earth. Assume the 0.04% was well mixed and on a plane to where every CO2 molecule would receive IR energy leaving the earth. So, 239.7 X 0.0004 X 0.15 X 0.5 = 0.007191w/m2 That is the non-blanket warmth we get from our CO2. It must be panic time!

  51. Greenhouse effect? So, Earth is now an artificial environment? What on Earth is terminology for?
    greenhouse effect?
    Full of Sh*t Effect?
    Comparing a tiny enclosed artificial environment to the colossal wide open world and what influences it is one of the climate enthusiasts biggest mysteries, it is not an accurate description of any part of any climate here on our planet, well except the artificial parts, the question is, Is our climate artificial?
    I know it is not, if you believe that it is artificial then you are wrong and therefore your irrelevant terminology is out of context and also wrong, therefor I believe you have no authority to describe our world to me.

    Don’t get me started on that fun guy wearing the cape, he couldn’t even save his hockey-stick!

  52. Supermandia, “…has been teaching weather and climate courses for more than 20 years.”
    Not worth promoting?
    P.S.
    Busfires at Margaret River caused by government burnoff, the helicopter dropping fire bombs must have an AGW designation.

  53. 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

    The Earth is not round, it is an oblate spheroid, larger in the southern hemisphere than in the north and there is no evidence that the climate change of the last century is outside the bounds of natural variation.

    So he got two out of three wrong.

  54. John of Kent says:
    November 23, 2011 at 5:40 pm
    “The Dragon Slayers, among others are all scientists and they have disproved the greenhouse effect, by both theory and experiment. I am a scientist by training and career myself (although not in the climate field).
    “A ‘greenhouse effect from back radiation is impossible according to the laws of thermodynamics. Cold CANNOT heat warm! I am surprised that WUWT still cling to such lukewarmist beliefs!!!”

    The ‘Dragon Slayers’ are scientific fundamentalists, who have chosen to memorize cute slogans and magic formulas, and to dogmatically defend their misunderstandings, rather than to do the hard thinking that’s necessary for mastering the essence of their subject matter. The fact that they are AGW skeptics does not imply that they are automatically right about everything.

    Scientific laws are not holy writ. A typical scientific law has a certain range of applicability; outside of that range, it is Peter Principle material. We’re talking Scientific Literacy 101 here. Repeat after me:
    The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to MACROscopic phenomena, not to microscopic ones.

  55. I wonder if this clueless clown can get a refund on his 3rd grade Egmacation?
    This is one of the brightist they have??

    Some Fools will say anything to make a buck.

  56. We should be careful when dealing with metaphors and similes.
    I don’t read that headline as posing a ‘straw-man argument’. It’s merely colourful language. Rather than being any sort of argument, it’s a paen to his conviction that we know enough to be certain that thermageddon is coming.
    There are much better grounds for critiquing his response.
    What he thinks he knows is opinion, not scientific knowledge, a fact disclosed by the e-mails he dismisses.
    His article is non-quantitative. What he calls ‘massive’, I call ‘minute’. The proportion by which CO2 has changed the atmosphere is smaller than the ratio of my income to that of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett combined. As I said, minute.
    Calling the analogy between CO2 and a blanket ‘a bad metaphor’ fails on two grounds. Trivially, because it is a simile. Significantly, the aptness of a metaphor depends on which aspect of the comparison the speaker wishes to imply. It would be a bad metaphor if he wished to distinguish between convection and radiation, but it’s a good metaphor for something(s) that keep things warm without themselves generating energy.
    Colourful language makes for easier reading. I’m rather fond of my own turn of phrase, that ‘foretelling the future from the entrails of a computer has proven as inaccurate as foretelling it from the entrails of a goat.’
    There’s something about the nature of the internet that makes it easy to miss metaphor and simile. It leaves us looking as if ewe’re insanely literal, and therefore somewhat stupid. There’s lots more to be critqued about this article than merely his word-choice!

  57. So why should this denial of confirmed information be taken more less seriously than unconfirmed opinion?
    Am I losing my mind?
    These so-called scientists say time after time that they have absolutely no convincing evidence of AGW.
    And this moron wants us to think that such is irrelevant?

  58. If carbon dioxide emissions are like injecting steroids does that mean there will be ‘shrinkage’ or perhaps just outbursts of irrational anger?

  59. James Sexton calculates

    So, 239.7 X 0.0004 X 0.15 X 0.5 = 0.007191w/m2 That is the non-blanket warmth we get from our CO2. It must be panic time!
    ————
    James this calculation is utterly wrong.

    Here is proof by performing a simple thought experiment: remove all of the oxygen and nitrogen from the air, but leave the partial pressure of CO2 the same. In other words the number of CO2 molecules per cubic metre is not changed.

    That 0.0004 becomes 100% of the atmosphere. And your calculation now produces a much higher degree of absorption. That is not correct.

  60. “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.”

    Maybe this guy could find a way to heat and cool a home based on CO2.

  61. Well if that’s the calibre of scientist that has been teaching weather and climate courses for 20 years then no wonder a certain group of climatologists are suffering from a massive failure in logic…

  62. LazyTeenager says:
    November 23, 2011 at 11:25 pm

    James Sexton calculates

    So, 239.7 X 0.0004 X 0.15 X 0.5 = 0.007191w/m2 That is the non-blanket warmth we get from our CO2. It must be panic time!
    ————
    James this calculation is utterly wrong.

    Here is proof by performing a simple thought experiment: remove all of the oxygen and nitrogen from the air, but leave the partial pressure of CO2 the same. In other words the number of CO2 molecules per cubic metre is not changed.

    That 0.0004 becomes 100% of the atmosphere. And your calculation now produces a much higher degree of absorption. That is not correct.
    ==============================================
    LT, you’re not looking at the percentage properly….. the 0.04% is by volume, not as percentage of the various molecules out there. Maybe this will help you….. Volume is the quantity of three-dimensional space enclosed by some closed boundary.
    Try again, sparky!

  63. The earth is round? Really? Does he mean like a disk, or perhaps a coin, which is a very short cylinder? If you ask me, the earth is spheroidal.

  64. Last month Physics Today, a monthly popular journal for professional physicists, had two pro-AGW articles. The first one tried to relate not believing in global warming to not believing in Copernican theory or relativity, even bringing in a short snippet about flat earthers. The second tried to explain how this problem could be fixed with better communication. (It even had a pathetic word cloud for the article, which was another new low for our professional journal.)

    It seems like they are passing around a set of standard rebuttal arguments.

    Also, I am trying to get the journal to reprint the Matt Ridley text. I think it is imperative that scientists start talking about ethics issues.

  65. “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?”

    Does atmosphere cause nights to be warmer as compared to having no atmosphere?
    If that is what is meant by greenhouse effect?
    If so, there is a greenhouse effect.
    But no one claims the atmosphere functions in same way that a greenhouse functions-
    a greenhouse reduces heat losses by inhibiting heat loss via convection.
    So a greenhouse like effect does not occur in regards to planet Earth.
    But like a greenhouse the planet is kept warmer at nite.
    And gases are responsible.
    CO2 isn’t involved in as significant factor in retaining
    most of this heat during the nite. Also not disputed.
    Is water vapor [a gas and called a greenhouse gas] a significant factor in retaining
    most of this heat during the nite. Yes, it is. Again, not a disputed fact.

    Is greenhouse effect a lousy term.
    Yes. As it is misleading. And has been misused.
    What other term is there, so we don’t need to continue to use the term “greenhouse effect”.
    Someone needs to coin one. Not me.

  66. John-X says:
    November 23, 2011 at 6:51 pm
    “By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.” – Svante Arrhenius, “Worlds in the Making,” 1908

    Thanks for introducing this, John. Interesting that so many from the pro camp refer to Arrhenius’ work without quoting his conclusions – more equable and better climates.

  67. “The ‘Dragon Slayers’ are scientific fundamentalists, who have chosen to memorize cute slogans and magic formulas, and to dogmatically defend their misunderstandings, rather than to do the hard thinking that’s necessary for mastering the essence of their subject matter. The fact that they are AGW skeptics does not imply that they are automatically right about everything.

    Scientific laws are not holy writ. A typical scientific law has a certain range of applicability; outside of that range, it is Peter Principle material. We’re talking Scientific Literacy 101 here. Repeat after me:
    The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to MACROscopic phenomena, not to microscopic ones.”

    Your first paragraph amounts pretty much to an Ad-hom attack on the Slayers and reads as though you have not read and digested (or possibly just not bothered to understand!) the Slayer arguments. As it happens, I am a scientist, and I can assure you that science IS about fundamentals. In this case the Slayers have gone right back where no-one else dared to tread to the fundamentals of physics and found the AGW theory to be baseless. So-called “Climatologists” seem to have forgotten basic physics in their headlong rush to promote their agenda.

    Your second paragraph is also “post normal” science nonsense. holy writ, indeed, please leave the religious connotations out of this! The laws of science, in particular those of physics and thermodynamics ARE well understood, proven and fundamental. The second law of thermodynamics applies throughout the universe, on all scales.

    Sorry, your comment is complete nonsense; please repeat after me:-

    AGW from Back IR is impossible because the laws of thermodynamics do not allow it.

    On the microscopic scale this is because the IR emitted from the ground is merely scattered throughout the atmosphere. It cannot heat the system as it is already a result of the heat in the system, not the cause of it. If the Back IR heating theory were true, then water should flow up hill and perpetual energy from nothing would be possible.

  68. ‘Understand the Greenhouse Effect for 100 years or more!!

    Understanding does not come into it because the GHG effect does not exist. Nothing can store heat, much less a trace gas, because heat will always escape from an area of warmth to one of cold regardless of insulation. Insulation slows heat loss but cannot stop it. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states this quite clearly. Any gas warmed at the surface WILL convect to a cooler area and lose heat by conduction with cooler gas molecules and by adiabatic expansion. It cannot, if cooler than the surface, radiate heat to the hotter area. The 2nd Law also clearly states this. So re-radiated heat from the CO2 is out as well.

    So failed theory of the GHG effect.

  69. Ok – so I may be an intellectual Oxford educated snob, and I know little of academic rankings in the US, but does a Community Collecge merit having a Professor in Physical Sciences? Does the same need to know any physics? Is this the same as a Prof at Princetonor MIT? And is he like Prof Jones – made a prof in a subject needing statistical analysis but unable to use Excel? I left the academic world in 1973 despite offers to remain in it – and find that its intellectual capability has been ever eroded since that time. And predictably so.

  70. To be fair, he is not dressed as Superman as that’s a C on his shirt. Now if only I could think of a word beginning with c that might be appropriate.

  71. nc says:
    November 23, 2011 at 7:02 pm

    I read this in John-X link

    HUH

    how did the atmosphere get twice as much energy?
    ______________________________

    That is the most idiotic statement I have ever seen. Did some one explode several nuclear bombs while I wasn’t paying attention and turn the atmosphere radioactive?

    Aside from a tad bit of Radon, the energy come from the SUN all of it!

    I found another reference to the quote over at Judith Curry’s site. The block of ice referred to is the atmosphere.

    Meteorologists tell us that this block of ice overhead warms the ground. Well known meteorologist Alistair Fraser, who taught meteorology at Penn State from 1978 to 2001 (CV at http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/cv/ ), puts it this way at http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadGreenhouse.html :

    “The surface of the Earth is warmer than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere because it receives energy from two sources: the Sun and the atmosphere. The atmosphere emits radiation for the same reason the Sun does: each has a finite temperature. So, just as one would be warmer by sitting beside two fireplaces than one would have been if one fireplace were extinguished, so, one is warmer by receiving radiation from both the Sun and the atmosphere than one would be if there were no atmosphere. Curiously, the surface of the Earth receives nearly twice as much energy from the atmosphere as it does from the Sun.”

    ….I searched the web for references to his website. I found a great many praising him for the clarity with which he explained global warming, but not a single objection to his claim that the atmosphere warms the surface.

    On that basis it seems safe to assume that the proposition “the atmosphere warms the surface” has been assimilated and accepted by the non-skeptical public as an axiom about global warming..
    http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/

    ..

  72. James Sexton says:
    November 23, 2011 at 7:50 pm

    Sigh, —– CO2′s contribution to energy being returned to earth. I’ll use a ridiculously high number foregoing other energy ridding mechanisms we know about.

    Energy reaching the earth is …..239.7w/m2(well, that’s what I just read) ….
    _______________________
    The Climate Scientologists messed with that number too. Recently NASA cites TSI as “1361 W/m2

  73. Just checked the wiki entry for “buffoon”, thinking the Supermandia would be a good replacement for the, alas, now overidden MM. .

  74. jheath says:
    November 24, 2011 at 3:16 am

    Ok – so I may be an intellectual Oxford educated snob, and I know little of academic rankings in the US, but does a Community Collecge merit having a Professor in Physical Sciences? Does the same need to know any physics?…
    _________________________________

    A community college is a two year school. I took an accounting course at the local Community college and ended up having to teach the darn course myself because the teacher did not have enough basic ARITHMETIC (adding and subtracting) to teach the course or a high enough reading level to read the darn book the night before. The book was decently written and fairly easy to understand.

    Good grief first level bookkeeping is taught in high school here for the kiddies who do not want to take real math and this accounting course was not much beyond that level.

    To put it more bluntly I have taken several community college courses to keep my ASQ certification and my high school courses were a lot more difficult.

  75. James Sexton says:
    November 23, 2011 at 11:57 pm

    LazyTeenager says:
    November 23, 2011 at 11:25 pm

    James Sexton calculates

    …==============================================
    LT, you’re not looking at the percentage properly….. the 0.04% is by volume, not as percentage of the various molecules out there. Maybe this will help you….. Volume is the quantity of three-dimensional space enclosed by some closed boundary.
    Try again, sparky!

    I have not looked at the equation itself, but what you say is not correct. Volume is the amount of space. That has nothing to do with ‘how much’ fills that space, as you imply. That is a factor of (or indeed, causes) pressure.

    Back to the drawing board, my friend, I think LT is probably right.

  76. “The physics of greenhouse gases has been understood for more than 100 years”.

    The physics is understood by the physicists since the 1930-ies, not by the climatologists of
    today. They simply haven’t read the literature and made a dogs breakfast of it.

  77. And so the debate goes, when 97% or more of the debaters–and their admiring followers–are incompetent (through decades-long, systemic miseducation). In such an atmosphere, only the decisive facts, not pretentious theory, can save science, and I am, as far as I have yet found, the only scientist to have logically and dispassionately homed in on, found, and immediately recognized, the simple, definitive facts (which are 20 years old and should have been brought out as I have done, long ago–by even the students, if not their professors; that is how easy it really is, and should be for all of those who consider themselves competent physical scientists). There is no greenhouse effect, of increasing temperature with increasing carbon dioxide. When a believer in the greenhouse effect can explain why the ratio of temperatures in the atmospheres of Venus and Earth, over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, is precisely explained by their distances from the Sun, and nothing else–the definitive fact–then he/she will be worth listening to, not before. I say it is because both atmospheres are fundamentally warmed by direct absorption of the same portion of the incident solar radiation (in the infrared, since the two planets reflect quite different proportions of the visible radiation); and I say that is what I would expect any competent physicist MUST say. The best such “experts” have been able to do is say, “It is a coincidence”. That is laughable, because it is pathetic. It is not a coincidence, it is the definitive fact, the simple comparison of two detailed atmospheres, denying the greenhouse effect entirely. Focus on that fact–only the distance from the Sun is needed, not a further “greenhouse effect”, or “albedo” (reflection of visible radiation) effect–it explains why, in spite of the widely-believed and hotly defended “settled science”, there is such a war over it, between skeptics and believers. Fundamental incompetence–dogmatic belief, with the refusal to face decisive facts–is at play. Climate science based upon the greenhouse effect is simply a complete farce, and so is the continuing, clueless debate among incompetent “experts” on the subject.

  78. Dammit!

    I need a new shipment of popcorn – again!!

    Still, cheaper than the ‘green’ theft in my energy bill…

  79. Gail Combs,

    “The Climate Scientologists messed with that number too. Recently NASA cites TSI as “1361 W/m2″

    I believe the figure you referred to is the solar constant, which is the amount of solar radiation striking a square metre at the distance the Earth is from the sun. The smaller figure is the average amount of radiation on the Earth’s surface, allowing for night time, the fact that the Earth is a sphere, not a plane, and the earth’s albedo. The second figure is directly derivable from the first by simple geometry.

  80. John Sexton,

    “So, 239.7 X 0.0004 X 0.15 X 0.5 = 0.007191w/m2 ”

    In what sense is the amount of back radiation from CO2 a direct function of it’s concentration in the atmosphere? If anything, the function is logarithmic. Any formula would have to include the area under the curve of radiation absorption across all emitting wavelengths.

    The general “consensus” is that a doubling of CO2 leads to an increased radiative forcing of about 3.7 w/m2 without feedbacks. Even Richard Lindzen accepts that.

  81. @ Jer0me and Victor Causey
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    LazyTeenager says:
    November 23, 2011 at 11:25 pm

    James Sexton calculates

    …==============================================
    LT, you’re not looking at the percentage properly….. the 0.04% is by volume, not as percentage of the various molecules out there. Maybe this will help you….. Volume is the quantity of three-dimensional space enclosed by some closed boundary.
    Try again, sparky!
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I have not looked at the equation itself, but what you say is not correct. Volume is the amount of space. That has nothing to do with ‘how much’ fills that space, as you imply. That is a factor of (or indeed, causes) pressure.

    Back to the drawing board, my friend, I think LT is probably right.
    ==========================================================
    Oh my…… atmospheric CO2 is expressed as volume. Do take the time to look it up, because this creates a bit of confusion. So, when expressed as a percentage, it is expressing the percentage of the space occupied. This would be important because of the omnidirectional characteristics of earth’s IR radiative properties.
    And, yes, that causes pressure…… look at the Ideal Gas Law for application. And pressure’s effect on temps. But, I’m not addressing pressure, only the radiative effects on CO2. And I assume the space occupied would be replaced by another gas with similar properties except the IR absorption.
    Yes, the equation isn’t exactly proper. There are other factors, which I touched upon in my original comment that the equation doesn’t address, but specifically towards the logarithmic effect, right, I don’t address saturation or spatial differences.(which is the logarithmic effect).

    Vince, I know you’ve been at WUWT often enough to know many of us don’t give a damn about “consensus”. I posted this equation to illicit critiques, but I thought I’d get a bit better than what I’ve received, so far. BTW, you are entirely correct in your response to Gail. But, even that number varies depending upon source.

  82. Hey MIKE!! Tone is not spelled TOME….Just thought you might want to proof read your comments…have a good pay!! lol

    Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says
    “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.

    [MODERATOR'S NOTE: Hmmmm.... another case of pot calling kettle calling cauldron blak... -REP]

  83. Ron says:
    November 23, 2011 at 3:36 pm
    He’s a Penn State grad. You know, the kind trained to help Mannkind.

    And here i was thinking he was a State, Penn, escapee laying sacrificial tribute before a Mannikin.

  84. .. “and humans are changing the climate by emitting massive amounts of heat-trapping carbon dioxide and other gases” ..
    Some facts:
    – In spite of consistent rising of human (and non human) CO2-eq emissions for the last decades, warming has stopped to grow during last decade;
    – Global earth climate during the medieval ages (~850-~1350 AC) was considerably warmer than during the last 30 years (as confirmed by several paleoclimate and temperature proxies studies), in spite of no human CO2-eq emissions at that time.
    Knowing these facts, how can people accept Mr Mandia beliefs for good?

  85. He is going to need taller boots to wade through the c*** he writes.

    The concern is that he is teaching and we can assume grading papers. Are students being educated in science or activism and are blankets and the flat earth in his lectures and tests?

    As Gail Combs comment questions the academic qualifications required at a community college I question the ability for rational thought of the caped crusader with hip boots. Exhibit A is Prof Scott Mandia’s article.

  86. The hockey stick is a bit of a giveaway. Any one who knows anything knows that it has been utterly discredited. So much so that the Chicken Littles have been trying to distance themselves from it. This of course has proved difficult due to it being their favourite icon for several years and they formed a habit of delivering their doom-mongering speeches in front of it.

  87. Hmm… well that’s sad. Usually, when I get an idea that I know is wrong, I can run it up over here and get a quick explanation as to why it is wrong…. … well, since I put it out there….. atmospheric CO2 is expressed in ppm by volume….. 390ppm which is where the ~0.04% comes from. So, that’s why its wrong…….. thanks guys.

    To all, have a happy Thanksgiving!

  88. “BillySam33 says:
    November 24, 2011 at 8:03 am

    Hey MIKE!! Tone is not spelled TOME….Just thought you might want to proof read your comments…have a good pay!! lol ”

    No, actually I think he does mean TOME. Look it up – it is a word.

  89. crosspatch says:
    November 23, 2011 at 1:56 pm

    There should be a “Facepalm” award. Make it look sort of like the sculpture “The Thinker” but with his palm covering his face.

    I think it should actually be the “face-plant” award as in what you do when you come of your skateboard and don’t get your hands down in time.

  90. jheath says:
    November 24, 2011 at 3:16 am

    Ok – so I may be an intellectual Oxford educated snob, and I know little of academic rankings in the US, but does a Community Collecge merit having a Professor in Physical Sciences? Does the same need to know any physics? Is this the same as a Prof at Princetonor MIT? And is he like Prof Jones – made a prof in a subject needing statistical analysis but unable to use Excel? I left the academic world in 1973 despite offers to remain in it – and find that its intellectual capability has been ever eroded since that time. And predictably so.

    I am also puzzled about this. At my university a professor was head of a faculty or occupied a chair, not just an academic employed by the university. It wasn’t “a professor” but “the professor of …”. e.g. Stephen Hawking who occupied the “Lucasian Chair of Mathematics” aka “Lucasian Professor of Mathematics”. I did a supervision with “Dr Oatley” and he wasn’t professor Oatley at the time, just one of the top guys in the Engineering Dept. Then they created the chair of electrical engineering and he became “Professor Oatley”. Professor meant something. Different systems – different definitions.

  91. jae says:
    November 23, 2011 at 2:39 pm

    “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).

    Agree. Lukewarmists are just trying to avoid being called bad names.

    The GHG speculation has not been subjected to any proper testing of its null(s); the partial observational checks so far spectacularly fail to reject such null(s).

  92. I enjoy reading all the comments from the educated people here, and learn a lot. No one has answered the most important question that us common people want answered: Are these guys going to the penalty box for high sticking?

    btw the hockey stick is a necessary artifact; they use it to beat the skeptics into submission.

  93. Just a little icing on the cake. Super Mandia Reviews Donna Laframboise:

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1U43LM86A5W5P/ref=cm_cr_pr_auth_rev?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview

    Somebody does not understand research… just sayin’

    When one begins to drink a glass of spoiled milk, it only takes a sip or two to understand that there is nothing good in there and I better put the glass down now. The same is true for LaFramboise’s book. After reading about 50 pages, and it was a struggle to go that far, it is clear that the author does not understand the scientific process. To claim that the IPCC reports are “not true” is to misrepresent thousands and thousands of scientific papers by thousands of international scientists.

    Sour milk indeed!

  94. jim1251 says:
    December 3, 2011 at 2:53 pm

    btw the hockey stick is a necessary artifact; they use it to beat the skeptics into submission.

    Long since rendered ineffectual; it’s been demonstrated to be made of NERF. Causes shrieks of hysterical laughter on contact.

Comments are closed.