If the IPCC was Selling Manmade Global Warming as a Product, Would the FTC Stop Their Deceptive Ads?

Just purchased my copy. Thanks

Just got mine.Thank you Anthony!

Bought it.

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” –Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace
The ideological origin of the warmist scare-mongers is indelible. This isn’t a conspiracy theory. The trail, going back to Club of Rome, is littered with their own words, proclaiming the leftist dream, or leftist scientists and leftist politicians telegraphing their agreement with this leftist dream + their intent to deceive on AGW: http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren in ’73 called for the “de-development of the United States.” Why is it that the solution to g warming just happens to be -exactly- what the eco-idealists had demanded years before: cutting industrial production. It stretches credulity to think that this is just a wild coincidence. Not a chance.
The Cry Wolfers (read the fable) had most of us duped good, for a long time. But now, with the CGate emails and Hide the Decline etc etc, their deceptive intent, and ideological motives, is undeniable. ALL their predictions of disaster, and ALL their models, have failed.
Indeed, the wheels have fallen off their deception mobile. Yet these guys seem unfazed, moving apace like mindless automatons they roll out fresh baloney daily it seems, and new, but transparently false — and laughable — predictions of doom. A joke.
I don’t think CO2 is a primary.. or secondary … driver of climate. Spread the word on this ~ 3 minute video which gives 90% of the final word on CO2, plus it shows algor in the fundamental deception: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg

A fine looking presentation, download was flawless, and I am proud to have my name on each page.

Ian Rudge says:
February 15, 2012 at 9:46 am
A bit unfair on homeopathists I reckon. At least there is SOME evidence that their stuff might actually help people.
=================================================================
I doubt that there is any REAL evidence that it helps.
At least it can’t hurt you unless you choose to use that instead of real medicine for an illness.
I will believe in “alternative” medicine when they prove that there is “alternative” physics, mathematics etc

Comment for Bob
I paid my $5.00 to paypal today by credir card (receipt # available) but they would not let me download. When I clicked on your link on the page with the receipt I got a message that my paypal account was blocked with a $0.00 balance. Technically they are correct; I have tried many times over the past few years to close my paypal account, which they point blank refuse to do. I do not and will not use paypal, basically because I do not trust them and will not reactivate my account with them because I do not want an account with them.
Can you let me know how I can now download your book. Thanks

Richard B. Woods:
I think the science-is-settled-certainty of the model’s results as suggested in the abstract was addressed here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/in-their-own-words-the-ipcc-on-climate-feedbacks/

I bought the download but cannot access it due to having no password. How do I get my money’s worth?

Can the FTC regulate Faith based Organizations?
Because AGW supporters have to believe and never question.

If AGW theory is a hoax, then how do you explain the Evans and Puckrin 2006 results (http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm) , which show that the measured downward longwave radiation from anthropogenic greenhouse gases indicate that “an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850″?
To give your post the serious answer that it deserves, there are two reasons.
First of all, your post begins with a straw man. “Skeptics think AGW is a hoax.” I’m a skeptic but I certainly don’t. Most of the people who post on this blog, I think acknowledge that the GHE is real and responsible for a fraction of the Earth’s mean surface temperature and indirectly “climate”. However, in your post you left out the critical “C”. Most of the skeptics on this list don’t believe in Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and yeah, we do tend to be very skeptical of papers that publish one thing, then assert something else utterly without foundation.
For example, in your post (and in the associated paper) the missing “C” is there by implication. 3.5 W/m^2 over a mere 150 years! Oh my! And this can be positively and believably predicted by only a few years of surface observations we can now be certain that we know what the GHE was in 1850 because there are no possible confounding effects that might contribute to or modulate the GHE in ways left out of our model.
Leaving alone the issue of whether this itself is believable — model computations by their nature tend to verify the assumptions built into them by their programmers because one never builds them blind, one always goes back and tunes them until they do — where is the factor of 3-5 positive feedback predicted by the IPCC in all of this that is required for the “C”? Not so much there.
Second, a truly dedicated skeptic might note that this paper is looking at the wrong end of the pipe. The paper seems by hypothesis to consider upwelling or downwelling radiation to be the only factors that heat or cool the surface, and then only in an appallingly linear fashion. In fact, there are many heat transport mechanisms at work here, and some of them might well modulate the overall rates at which surface warming occurs. I personally dislike any discussion of the GHE that references upwelling and downwelling radiation because it is remarkably difficult to actually chart the flow of heat in the global atmosphere on this basis, where there is continuous mass transport of heat via convection that very probably has every bit as great an effect on mean surface temperatures as direct surface radiation, at least when one doesn’t live in the middle of the dry, relatively calm, Sahara desert. In the middle of the Sahara the actual atmospheric GHG mediated GHE might be resolvable in terms of downwelling radiation — in moist old windy stormy Canada it is not, I think.
Fortunately, one can look at the other end of the pipe — one can look at the greenhouse effect in the one place it really matters — the top of the troposphere, where greenhouse cooling of the greenhouse gases occurs. At the top of the atmosphere life is far simpler. One doesn’t care how heat is transported or “trapped” or anything else down below. One cares about one thing, and one thing only — the measured TOA IR spectrum, integrated over the surface of the planet and over all frequencies. That is what has to balance total non-reflected insolation. The GHE is then reduced to its simplest possible terms. Some parts of the TOA emission come from cold GHGs high in the troposphere. Those bands, and their associated “temperature” are clearly visible in IR spectra. Some parts of the TOA emission come from the surface, in e.g. the water window. Some parts come from e.g. water vapor in clouds or the air in between. To the extent that parts of the spectrum emit colder, other parts must emit warmer to compensate given constant solar heat input.
Of course one is not given constant solar heat input. There is now direct evidence that the Earth’s albedo is increasing (obtained from studying lunar reflection of Earthlight) even as TOA TSI is diminishing as the sun moves further out from the 9000 year Grand Solar Maximum of the twentieth century — the one CAGW enthusiasts like to pretend could not possibly have had anything to do with the warming of the late 70s to the 1998 El Nino. But of course they also like to “deny” that there was a Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age because if there were, it suggests that the natural variation of the climate is as great or greater than any gain associated with AGW due to many factors, not just greenhouse gases. Humans and their goats probably created the Sahara desert — land use and redistribution of water may “own” part of the warming observed over the last 160 years along with changing solar state and complex system feedback in the major global decadal climate oscillations and oceanic heat transport systems. It is a bit silly, don’t you think, to imagine that you can make predictions concerning the heat flow through what is quite literally the world’s most difficult open system coupled Navier-Stokes problem based on the presumed value of just a tiny handful of parameters! The entire system is quite capable of reorganizing itself spontaneously to alter global average temperatures by a factor larger than the supposed GHE gain.
Finally, by focusing on the TOA IR the skeptic gets rid of a whole lot of rubbish that can lead to results of entire computations, however well-intentioned, being mere garbage themselves on the GIGO principle. The lower atmosphere is already optically thick in CO_2 and relatively stable elsewhere. Adding more CO_2 there has almost no global effect on surface upwelling or downwelling radiation levels, however much it might locally warm a city or airport as part of the UHI effect. What matters is the temperature of the overhead emitters as they lose the energy to space. The warmer they emit, the cooler the entire system underneath them in the unblocked bands. The cooler they emit, the warmer.
This reduces everything associated with CO_2 — not feedback, not all GHGs, not aerosols, just CO_2 — to the single question — how, exactly does the outgoing IR emission temperature of the upper troposphere in the CO_2 band change with CO_2 concentration?
I think there is a strong case to be made that the answer is “hardly at all”. The ENSO modulates it far more than secular changes in CO_2 by forcibly uplifting the tropopause in the warm tropics, but the tropopause in general has not significantly changed in height in the entire period of time that we have been measuring it. After all, its height is not a linear function of CO_2 concentration — it is determined by a mix of the wet and dry ALR, the associated pressure-density profile, the details of the varying composition of the stratosphere (which has become 10% drier since the solar state returned to “normal” and nobody quite knows why, they only know in retrospect that the extra water there was probably responsible for as much as 30% of the warming of the 80’s right there), and of course the complex action of the major decadal oscillations, that change whole major portions of the globe from being places that on average uplift the tropopause to places that drop it down, modulating the GHE far more than the CO_2 concentration ever does in the process.
There is some reason to believe that there is a weak (logarithmic) boost to the CO_2 mediated GHE from increased concentration, but even that may be overwhelmed by negative feedback in the water cycle.
You don’t have to believe any or all of this as you like — I’m just pointing out that it is really pretty easy to be a rational skeptic even through the trauma of learning of a model computation that proves beyond any doubt that there has been 3.5 W/m^2 net forcing due to all GHGs since 1850, reliable because it is based on a few years — in fact, reading the paper and looking at the table it appeared to be a very few years — of measuring the downwelling IR spectrum in Canada. I’m certain that this result is perfectly general and describes downwelling IR in the Sahara, over the tropical Pacific, and elsewhere perfectly well, just as I’m certain that clouds have absolutely no effect save to transform the modest AGW actually observed into the “C”AGW that justifies spending a few trillion dollars over a decade against the small chance that overall feedback will end up being positive, be as large and catastrophic as Hansen claims, and cause the oceans to boil (his claim, again, however unbelievable). Hell, he’s never been right so far, but there is always a chance of it, right?
Not.
A lot of skeptics, you see, aren’t religious GHE-denying zealots. We’re just lukewarmist. Sure, there is some AGW, but where’s the need to panic and authorize the wholesale looting of modern civilization against the small chance of a sky-is-falling level of catastrophic threat. All the more so when even the proponents of most of the measures agree that they won’t have any meaningful effect but to redistribute wealth from rich countries to poor ones. Could that be the real agenda here?
Even more all the more so when one considers that if we as a species do nothing special, the ordinary expected progress of technology and predicted changes in the sheer economics of the recovery of unmined fossil fuel resources make it nearly certain that long before CO_2 doubles, humans will stop using carbon much for fuel. In thirty years coal burning power plants will be as obsolete as TV antennas on rooftops or mainframe computers, and this will happen no matter what anybody does with regard to carbon trading. Sure, we could speed up the process by making rational decisions now (and save ourselves a bunch of money in the long run with selected investments) but the last thing in the world one wants to do is hobble the economies of the energy producers in the developed countries with carbon trading and wealth redistribution schemes. One wants them to have lots of money to invest in new technologies as they reach the price point compared to fossil fuels that make them the only rational way to generate new electricity, for example. It wouldn’t hurt to build more nuclear fission power plants in the meantime as well, ideally with Thorium technology that is nearly nuclear-proliferation proof. And if and when thermonuclear fusion becomes economically feasible and efficient, the game is over. Power will never again be scarce, and will never again come from burning carbon anywhere but maybe — maybe — in cars, where it is still difficult to store 35 KW-hours of energy in the volume of one US gallon any way except in gasoline.
rgb
rgb

Richard B. Woods says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:36 am
“How does one explain the Evans 2006 measurements of downward longwave radiation from anthropogenic GHGs if AGW theory is not correct?”
Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) is the energy leaving the earth as infrared radiation at low energy, what level of low energy NOT leaving the earth is acceptable? or as a function of temperature, what is to stop it from cooling? as Heat energy tends to move from warmer areas to colder areas, Atmospheric gases? at what point do Atmospheric gases, oceans and land surface area NOT transport heat energy from warmer areas to colder areas? Inferring that Anthropogenic sources of longwave radiation will cause a catastrophic amount of global warming by blocking that transport of heat energy is a silly idea, especially when two of the proposed culprits of agw are extremely beneficial (if not necessity) for life on earth, one is CO2 which is part of an important trace gas and the other is warmth. The “AGW theory” as you call it is a FAIL.

I still don’t feel you will get far arguing about temperatures and observed variations from models. The argument against the IPCC has to be about the physics involved. The single and most important error in their physics is their conjecture that when a cold atmosphere sends radiation to the surface that the energy in that radiation will be converted to extra thermal energy in the surface. This is wrong.
Maybe this (previous) post bears repeating …
When solar radiation (UV, visible and IR etc) travels through space we do not know what its end effect will be until it strikes something. We will observe its effect and say – there’s some light from the Sun – but it may be more light if it hits a white surface than a dark surface, as a camera exposure meter will confirm. It may generate thermal energy (more or less depending on what it strikes) or it may appear as light as it starts to penetrate the oceans, but end up as thermal energy in the deeper depths. Of course some will be reflected or scattered and strike another target sooner or later, and another etc.
My point is, “heat” is the transfer of thermal energy, but thermal energy is not a fixed amount of energy travelling along with radiation. The energy in the radiation has to go through a physical process of being converted to thermal energy. This happens only for those frequencies in the radiation which are above the natural frequencies that can be emitted by the target, because the target cannot re-emit those frequencies. (The hotter the source of spontaneous radiation, the higher will be the peak frequency.) So solar radiation can be converted to thermal energy in the Earth’s surface, but radiation emitted from a cooler atmosphere cannot be converted to thermal energy in a warmer surface. “Heat” only appears to be transferred (and only from hot to cold) because only radiation from hot to cold will be converted to extra thermal energy in the target.
It does not matter whether you are increasing the rate of warming in the morning or decreasing the rate of cooling later in the day, you still need extra thermal energy to do this. You cannot get this extra thermal energy from a cooler atmosphere, morning or evening. You cannot say the Second Law is not broken because of the direction of net radiation or net heat flow. All that matters is, what actually happens between any two points – one point on the surface and one point in a cooler atmosphere. What goes on between other “points” – a point on the Sun and another point on the surface is irrelevant. The Second Law must apply between any two points.

Richard B. Woods
“If AGW theory is a hoax …”, with no assertion about who thinks that.
========================
So positing a fallacious argument is OK so long as you don’t attribute it to anyone? Did that even work for you in junior high? Keep digging Richard.

Well Lew ‘Big Oil’ Skannen just made a donation.
Let’s see Anthony try and explain that one away!

wermet;
BS. The only 2 documented cases of Vitamin D toxicity resulted from about a year’s use of mis-formulated supplement pills, containing over 1,000,000 IU ea. When their use was discontinued, a few weeks sufficed to clear the mild symptoms.
The liver quite efficiently disposes of excess amounts over about 40,000 IU/day, which is readily reached by a half hour or so in direct sun for us paleskins.

I also just bought a copy, and will look forward to reading it over the next few days.

Bob – I am very interested in purchasing your book and presenting it as a gift to Richard B Woods. Unfortunately, your current edition is an ‘illustrated book’ and apparently I would need this in a books for the blind version. Or, if some prefer, a can’t-see-the-forest-for-the-trees version. Is that something that might become available (hopefully, the sooner the better)?
@Robert Brown says:
February 15, 2012 at 1:00 pm
Impressive scientific knowledge equally balanced with good common sense. No whining here…thank you for teaching this old dog new tricks. Who recently made up the fable that Cagw skeptics are interested in; “dissuading teachers from teaching science”? BTW – Is your above on-line course/post accredited?

wermet says:
February 15, 2012 at 9:10 pm
Nerd says: February 15, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Not sure where Vitamin D fits in but you’d be surprise how many chronic diseases you’d fix by taking vitamin D at the right dosage (no difference than fixing vitamin D deficiency). Thankfully, the latest studies are flowing in showing that we may have needed much more vitamin D than previously thought…
PLEASE BE CAREFUL…
Vitamin D is one of the vitamins that can be toxic (or even fatal) in large dosages. Consult your physician before starting a Vitamin D regimen.
========
🙂 Here’s the hard part …. provide papers to prove that. You will not find anything definitive. Even vitamin D researchers asked for it when confronted by the very same flawed information you just provided and no one came up with anything to prove toxicity at 5,000 IU. Even up to 10,000 IU! You fell into same trap that warmists set up over CO2.
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/what-is-vitamin-d/vitamin-d-toxicity/
http://grassrootshealth.net/
5000 IU a day is nothing for adults. I personally prefer to go by weight based at the rate of 1000 IU for every 25lbs of bodyweight for healthy people and double the rate for people with health problems brought on chronic vitamin D deficiency which isn’t much difference than treating vitamin D deficiency. The conventional treatment for vitamin D deficiency is 50,000 IU a week (over 7,000 IU a day)for 2-3 months but most medical doctors still have poor understanding in vitamin D because of what is taught in school in the past. It probably will be another 10 years before we see big update. Anyway for adults, 5000 IU a day for several months is enough just to get to 40-50 ng/ml which is at the bottom of optimal range (50-80 ng/ml). No big deal.

I just made my purchase and the download went fine.
Looks good!
—————————
As for the comments about vitamin D, I take 5,000 IU a day. Considering going a wee bit higher.
I think you would have to take absurd levels to do serious harm.
Aha…..from the Vitamin D Council link provide earlier.
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/what-is-vitamin-d/vitamin-d-toxicity/
“What exactly constitutes a toxic dose of vitamin D has yet to be determined, though it is possible this amount may vary with the individual.
Published cases of toxicity, for which serum levels and dose are known, all involve intake of ≥ 40000 IU (1000 mcg) per day. 1 Two different cases involved intake of over 2,000,000 IU per day – both men survived.”

StudioBronze says:February 15, 2012 at 10:14 am
Well stated.
Thank you so much to Bob T, Anthony and Josh.
Download was no problem as a guest at PayPal.
Look forward to reading the work.

Bob Tisdale
Thanks Bob, 🙂

Richard B. Woods says:
“abut 280 ppm to 392 ppm — not a doubling — and that 280-to-392 increase is what the 3.52 W/m2 is concurrent with..
You’re right, my bad.
Recalculating (in Tom Tom voice):
0.39 / 0.4 = 0.975 C sensitivity to 2XCO2, still less than 1. No where near 3.
Or if you prefer:
0.84 / 0.4 = 2.1 C sensitivity to 2XCO2 if taking their un-cited “typical” GHE of 150 W/m2 seriously and assuming that’s the only variable (lol). Higher than 1 but still not 3.

I said, in my February 16, 2012 at 8:47 pm posting:
“But you’ve applied the DLR increase _since pre-industrial times_ to the sensitivity for a _doubling of CO2_. Since pre-industrial times, CO2 has increased only from abut 280 ppm to 392 ppm – not a doubling – and that 280-to-392 increase is what the 3.52 W/m2 is concurrent with..”
I had forgotten that the 392 ppm (112 ppm above the pre-industrial level) figure was for 2011, but the Evans 2006 results were based on measurements taken during 2004-2006 (See the extended abstract at ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf).
The average CO2 atmospheric concentration for 2004-2006 was about 380 ppm (100 ppm above the pre-industrial level).
John West says:
February 17, 2012 at 8:22 am
“Recalculating (in Tom Tom voice):
0.39 / 0.4 = 0.975 C sensitivity to 2XCO2, still less than 1. No where near 3.
Or if you prefer:
0.84 / 0.4 = 2.1 C sensitivity to 2XCO2 if taking their un-cited “typical” GHE of 150 W/m2 seriously and assuming that’s the only variable (lol). Higher than 1 but still not 3.”
John West’s constant 0.4 used in his calculations came from (392-280)/280 = 0.4, the fractional increase in CO2 concentration since pre-industrial times, but that would have been correct only for measurements made in 2011. For the Evans 2006 measurements, the proper constant is (380-280)/280 = 0.36, about 10% less. Substituting the proper 0.36 constant for the 0.4 constant in West’s calculations makes the calculated sensitivity figures about 10% larger.
0.39 / 0.36 = 1.1 C sensitivity to 2XCO2
or the alternative calculation (I’m not sure whether this is related to the prompt sensitivity vs. equilibrium sensitivity question that I asked; I await West’s answer on that.)
0.84 / 0.36 = 2.3 C sensitivity to 2XCO2
Both corrections to West’s original calculations have been in the direction of better agreement with the IPCC figures. If it turns out that West’s “alternative” calculation of 2.3 is indeed intended to be the equilibrium sensitivity, his 2.3 figure is within the lower range of some of the mainstream sensitivity studies that were averaged to produce the IPCC sensitivity figure of 3.

BobT
Bought the booklet and read it. A masterly exposition – many thanks for the falsifying of the AGW concept, beauitifully simple explanation. I had concluded the same from the CET trace which shows many other similar episodes since 1750, but your explanation is globally appliccable. And many thanks too for taking the time and trouble to elucidate the complexities of ENSO, and why that similarly hurts the AGW cause as well. And all that is done with the data sets, even after being breathed on by the cabal of ‘climate science’!!