NOTE: This op-ed is apparently too hot for some editors to handle. Late last week it was accepted and posted on politix.topix.com only to be abruptly removed some two hours later. After several hours of attempting to determine why it was removed, I was informed the topix.com editor had permanently taken it down because of a strong negative reaction to it and because of “conflicting views from the scientific community” over factual assertions in the piece.
Fortunately, some media outlets recognize a vigorous scientific debate persists over humanity’s influence on climate and those outlets refuse outside efforts to silence viewpoints that run counter to prevailing climate alarmism. My original piece follows below.- Craig Idso
Guest essay by Dr. Craig D. Idso
The release of a United Nations (UN) climate change report last week energized various politicians and environmental activists, who issued a new round of calls to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Some of the most fiery language in this regard came from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who called upon Congress to “wake up and do everything in its power to reduce dangerous carbon pollution,” while Secretary of State John Kerry expressed similar sentiments in a State Department release, claiming that “unless we act dramatically and quickly, science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy.”
Really? Is Earth’s climate so fragile that both it and our way of life are in jeopardy because of rising carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions?
In a word, no! The human impact on global climate is small; and any warming that may occur as a result of anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions is likely to have little effect on either Earth’s climate or biosphere, according to the recently-released contrasting report Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, which was produced by the independent Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
This alternative assessment reviews literally thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not support and often contradict the findings of the UN report. Whether the subject is the effects of warming and rising CO2 on plants, animals, or humans, the UN report invariably highlights the studies and models that paint global warming in the darkest possible hue, ignoring or downplaying those that don’t.
To borrow a telling phrase from their report, the UN sees nothing but “death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods” everywhere it looks—as do Senator Boxer, Secretary Kerry, and others. Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts demonstrates that life on Earth is not suffering from rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels. Citing reams of real-world data, it offers solid scientific evidence that most plants actually flourish when exposed to both higher temperatures and greater CO2 concentrations. In fact, it demonstrates that the planet’s terrestrial biosphere is undergoing a great greening, which is causing deserts to shrink and forests to expand, thereby enlarging and enhancing habitat for wildlife. And much the same story can be told of global warming and atmospheric CO2 enrichment’s impacts on terrestrial animals, aquatic life, and human health.
Why are these research findings and this positive perspective missing from the UN climate reports? Although the UN claims to be unbiased and to have based its assessments on the best available science, such is obviously not the case. And it is most fortunate, therefore, that the NIPCC report provides tangible evidence that the CO2-induced global warming and ocean acidification debate remains unsettled on multiple levels; for there are literally thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not support a catastrophic, or even problematic, view of atmospheric CO2 enrichment.
Unfortunately, climate alarmism has become the modus operandi of the UN assessment reports. This fact is sad, indeed, because in compiling these reports, the UN either was purposely blind to views that ran counter to the materials they utilized, or its authors did not invest the amount of time, energy, and resources needed to fully investigate an issue that has profound significance for all life on Earth. And as a result, the UN has seriously exaggerated many dire conclusions, distorted relevant facts, and omitted or ignored key scientific findings. Yet in spite of these failings, various politicians, governments, and institutions continue to rally around the UN climate reports and to utilize their contentions as justification to legislate reductions in CO2 emissions, such as epitomized by the remarks of Senator Boxer and Secretary Kerry.
Citing only studies that promote climate catastrophism as a basis for such regulation, while ignoring studies that suggest just the opposite, is simply wrong. Citizens of every nation deserve much better scientific scrutiny of this issue by their governments; and they should demand greater accountability from their elected officials as they attempt to provide it.
There it is, that’s my op-ed. It’s what some people apparently do not want you to read. While the over 3,000 peer-reviewed scientific references cited in Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts are likely more than sufficient to establish scientific fact in a court of law, they are not sufficient to engage the real climate deniers in any debate. The rise in atmospheric CO2 is not having, nor will it have, a dangerous influence on the climate and biosphere. But don’t take my word for it, download and read the report for yourself (available at www.nipccreport.org). Compare it with the UN report. You be the judge!
Dr. Craig D. Idso is the lead editor and scientist for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
Obama has declared war on the truth. Huge sums are spent to promote the scam of AGW.
Panic must really be breaking out if the politicians and grant seeking catastrophists have to pull strings to remove such a mild ‘op-ed’. They obviously have not heard of the Streisand effect.
Hardly radical. This well demonstrates the fact the alarmists now realise the game is over and all they have is an attempt at total censorship of opposing views and information.
The good Dr doesn’t appreciate just how right he actually is. The fact is that you cannot heat water through its surface. If you doubt me try heating water through the surface using a heat gun. The heat is completely rejected. Energy only enters the ocean via the sun’s rays not via the heat of the atmosphere. The reason is surface tension. Surface tension is not a powerful force but it is powerful enough to block heat passing from the atmosphere into the ocean. No matter how much co2 is put into the atmosphere the heat from it cannot pass through the the surface of water. In short there is no way of storing or building heat on the planet, no matter how long you leave your suv idling. Therefore there is no such thing as anthropogenic global warming and the oceans cannot be boiled away.
What’s lacking in the op-ed is some nice concise facts to illustrate the main failings of the
AGW position – a nice graph showing the difference between global temperature reality
and AGW model estimates one be one suggestion. Another would be the point made by Monckton
in his WUWT article published today, indicating the number and length of warming periods
in the past several hundred years. Also would be the big changes shown in successive IPCC report in which they lower their estimates considerably. And ,of course, the length of the current
non-warming period, during which CO2 emissions have increased significantly their rate of
increase. As Joe Friday used to say : Just the facts Ma’am, just the facts. Saying your competitors are mistaken is not going to convince anyone. And while you can and should refer to more
extensive sources, just doing so is no substitute for stating relevant and convincing facts yourself.
Barbara Boxer, John Kerry and Harry Reid represent why we have become so cynical and untrusting of our government. Politically astute, extremely arrogant and loving of the headlines they do not represent the core values of the American people.
RMB,
Your reply manages to contaminate a good blog, and give ammunition to pro CAGW viewers, that will quote your error as typical skeptic ignorance. Surface tension is not the cause of blocking heat entering the oceans.
Have you tried to heat water through the surface.
am I correct in thinking we can post this on our websites and link back to here also?
Reference RMB’s comment: What’s a “heat gun”? Hair dryer? Paint stripper? Heat lamp? Not quarreling, just don’t understand.
“The human impact on global climate is small; and any warming that may occur as a result of anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions is likely to have little effect on either Earth’s climate or biosphere, according to the recently-released contrasting report Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, which was produced by the independent Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).”
so the science is settled. little effect?
I wonder how the clowns who wrote the NIPCC scientifically determined that there will be little effect in the future? how’d they do that? I read the NIPCC. I saw no experiments that proved there would be little effect. I saw no statistical analysis in that report that proved there would be little effect. And they explained why you could not use models to project the effects.
How did those clowns deduce from no evidence that there would be little effect
Is the Idso from CO2science.org? I love the place.
Excellent response, but the lack of a basis in fact is true of a great deal of what is being pushed now since the whole point is really transformational political and economic change in a collective direction. As Lester Milbrath wrote in his book Environmentalists: Vanguard for a New Society these models are actually to create a false but influential new “sophisticated understanding of how the world works with a normative/ethical system that recognizes and addresses theses realities.” Massive redistribution by the political class in other words.
http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/destroying-the-dominant-social-paradigm-via-education-for-21st-century-political-power-and-personal-gain/ lays out more from what Milbrath acknowledges as the real vision and it dovetails with the most recent IPCC report’s language on Adaptation via Climate-Resilient Pathways involving preemptive personal and social transformation.
Reblogged this on Sierra Foothill Commentary and commented:
I wrote about Senator Boxer’s lack of scientific knowledge here: http://wp.me/p3RtiD-8F Now we have a more scientific observation.
The whole climate theme is so political created by the democrats and Al gore, Obama etc.. in the USA that it’s vomiting to watch it.
Policy based science is what it really is. And policy based on policy based science is no longer a sign of a functional democracy?
USA better wake up and rid themself of this ideological corruption before it’s to late?
Mosher, are you saying that LW IR radiation can heat the oceans’ top 700 meters to such as extent that it rises above the noise of natural variations caused by cloud and ENSO variables? Or are you saying that the heat affects are just over land? If just over land what about the extent of mixing? Would this not also be buried in natural noise?
Oh wait…surely you know that natural temperature variations are still FAR greater and their drivers FAR stronger than minute changes caused by anthropogenic additions. No? To give you a head’s up, if you say that anthropogenic additions to natural atmospheric CO2 does indeed over-power natural variations in temperature swings and powerful natural drivers, I want to see your equations showing that anthropogenic additions have the power to rise above complex natural variations.
And leave the epitaphs for some other folks who care not for plausible scientific discussions.
Steven Mosher says: April 20, 2014 at 8:48 am
How did those clowns deduce from no evidence that there would be little effect
Is this a trick question ? Here is my response….
The same way warmists concluded the opposite: they made it up ? /sarc
Consider this shared, soon as I finish my yard work. Links back to here and the NIPCC, of course!
Clowns, mosh? My apologies to Anthony and the rest, but you just took a HUGE step down in whatever estimation I had of you.
Uh, moshe, it’s paleontology. CO2 warms and greens the globe. Be thankful the level has risen.
The Early Bird shares the worm. Bon Appetit.
==========
Mosher,
Once again you exhibit the fear your side has for an alternate stance. You are reduced to calling people you disagree with “clowns”, and generalize the NIPCC findings to suit your position.
Very immature, and very sad.
Mr. Mosher needs to learn the value of debate and alternate ideas. Don’t be a Mannic oppresive.
At 9:16 AM on 20 April, Santa Baby had observed:
To give them their due, to the extent that some few Republicans have been quick-witted and ferally cunning enough to take advantage of the Climate Catastrophe fraud, they’ve certainly exploited it.
It’s simply that feral cunning and predatory authoritarianism functions more broadly and with far greater rapacity among the ranks of the National Socialist Democrat American Party (NSDAP), and for the past thirty years this preposterous bogosity has shown them the way to promotion to pay.
And we’ve learned about government reality from them, haven’t we?
RMB says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:30 am
How many times do we have to go through this? Don’t use a heat gun, us a warm front that brings in an air mass with a wet bulb temperature higher than the water temperature. Even better, use one with a dew point higher than the water temperature and water vapor will condense on the water surface release a huge amount of latent heat.
And what the heck does this have to do with the topic at hand anyway?
The American people should rid itself of the democrats before they succeed in getting rid of the American people with Climate Treaty Global Government?
Steven Mosher says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:48 am
I wonder how the clowns who wrote the NIPCC scientifically determined that there will be little effect in the future? how’d they do that? I read the NIPCC. I saw no experiments that proved there would be little effect. I saw no statistical analysis in that report that proved there would be little effect. And they explained why you could not use models to project the effects.
How did those clowns deduce from no evidence that there would be little effect.
==========================================================
Mosher revealed for the troll at heart that he is.
Gee Steven, read the report. It is long. They conclude this by the fact that none, as in zero of the often predicted and modeled disasters, have occurred, (backed by numerous peer reviewed science applied to real world observations, not climate models or lab studies non reflective of real world environments) ) but the known benefits of CO2 aerial fertilization of the biosphere are readily observed. It is elementary and fundamental simple scientific deductive reason, applied to observations and experiments. (Something you have quite forgotten).
Steven Mosher, at least 1/2 dozen times I have challenged you to show us the C in CAGW. Failure to do so here, after inserting your usual hit and run immature insulting attacks at professional PHD scientist, and fleeing any defense of your pitiful attack, will forever brand you the troll label you are earning.
As a carbon-based life-form, I resent the assertion that my basic structure is composed of a pollutant. The self-loathers like Kerry and Boxer, though they have every reason to find themselves utterly disgusting, must not be allowed to project their psychopathy on the rest of us. We remember our second-grade science. We remember that CO2 is the source of our carbon.
The Liberal support for Climate Alarmism, and the villification of CO2, is rooted in money — tax money.
The Liberals are always on the hunt for new ways to extract money from businesses and industry for their causes. Carbon taxes were (and are) the promise of a Fountain of Endless Cash for social engineering schemes. This dream of endless new cash is now dying, and the Liberals are fighting to save it, while hiding behind the poor science from the IPCC now being foisted upon a mostly naive public.
Thankfully today we have the internet. In the mid-90’s there was an awakening on the Left that the freedom of information flow had the negative side, that the traditional press and media outlets would no longer be the sole source and control of information to shape public opinion. So unless the Obama administration turns over the internet root domain structure to the UN dictators and despots, blog sites like Anthony’s here will continue to inform and provide freedom of information, while the Left can only vent hatred, and be exposed for what they seek — control of thought.
Mosher says, How did those clowns deduce from no evidence that there would be little effect.
============================================
Steven, next time put a question mark behind a question. It indicates that you are sincere in wanting to know. I have seen you admonish many for not doing their homework. Do your homework, read the report.
There is immense evidence that the plus 100 ppm CO2 increase has had NONE of the disastrous affects shouted constantly by the alarmist. There is immense evidence that the additional CO2 is primarily beneficial and there is immense evidence that those benefits will continue to increase with increased CO2, while the unmanifested fears of the alarmist, due to increasing CO2, logarithmically decrease as more CO2 is added.
Steven Mosher says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:48 am “”the clowns who wrote the NIPCC…”” “”How did those clowns deduce from no evidence….””
Mr Mosher almost managed to ask a valid question, the answer to which would have interested me greatly. Then he blots his copybook by referring to the qualified scientists who wrote the report as clowns. This is where the alarmist brigade always manage to shoot themselves in the foot. The average person does not differentiate between Santer and Lindzen, Mann and Curry, Spencer and Hansen etc, they just see scientists. That one group spends it’s time trying to discredit the other is obvious and people wonder why they do not just show us that the world is not getting greener, why they do not just show us the 50 million climate refugees, why they do not show us the storms that are stronger than have ever been seen before; why they don’t show us the droughts that are longer and dryer than ever before; why they do not show us that snow is a thing of the past etc. Surely that would be so much simpler than calling people with better qualifications than yourself, clowns?
climate is much more robust than models
Reblogged at http://futurehistoric.wordpress.com/2014/04/20/dueling-climate-reports/
The censorship of opposing views in climate science is pathetic, illiberal and undemocratic.
Steven Mosher says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:48 am
How did those clowns deduce from no evidence that there would be little effect
Resorting to name calling weakens your argument considerably Steven.
Also as there have been no correct predictions from your ‘warmist’ camp you should perhaps look to your own capabilities before querying those who disagree as they have ample evidence of your failures.
“””””….RMB says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:30 am
The good Dr doesn’t appreciate just how right he actually is. The fact is that you cannot heat water through its surface. If you doubt me try heating water through the surface using a heat gun. The heat is completely rejected. Energy only enters the ocean via the sun’s rays not via the heat of the atmosphere. The reason is surface tension. …..”””””
This is the kind of “skeptic” post, that that leads to MS dismissal of climate skeptics.
Your assertion that you can’t heat the water with a heat gun, is something that is testable by anyone. And I recommend that everyone try it, using your wife’s hair dryer, or a real industrial heat gun, if you have one.
I have an excellent industrial heat gun, and I plan to do the experiment myself, since I never have done it.
The claim, is almost certainly true, which is why folks should see for themselves.
The problem RMB, is that it has nothing to do with surface tension.
Water, is highly transparent, to the bulk of the solar spectrum radiation, but it is very absorptive in the near infra red, were heat guns work.
I’m guessing that my heat gun can get up to 200 deg C air temperature, but the heater itself gets hotter than that. If it got to 970 deg. C, the radiation peak would be at 3.0 microns, which happens to be where water absorbs most strongly, with alpha being between 8,000, and 10,000 cm^-1
So 63% isabsorbed in about 1-1.25 microns . 5-7 microns of water will absorb 99% of the 3 micrin IR.. Even at lower temperatures, 50 microns will do it, and that will cause evaporation from the surface
Sorry to be a bit late in reply. I got involved in this thing when I read an e-mail by Trenberth lamenting the fact that heat was “missing”. I googled “missing heat” and sure enough all sorts of heat was missing in the climate science world. When I was at school about 58 years ago I was taught about surface tension and I was shown that the surface tension that covers the ocean whilst not strong is strong enough to support the weight of a paper clip. I noticed that no mention was ever made about surface tension was ever made when talking about climate. Nobody ever said “we ignore it because” it just wasn’t mentioned.
I decided that I had never seen heat applied to the surface of water and I got curious. I fired a heat gun at the surface of water in a bucket expecting steam to rise almost immediately. A heat gun operates at about 450degsC as far as I know. To my surprise the water seemed to remain unmoved. After 5mins I tested the water and found that it was stone cold. Now I’ve had explanations offered to me about the water evaporating so rapidly that the surface remains cool but the trouble is that would mean my kitchen should be full of steam which it isn’t.
Idecided to kill the surface tension by floating a metal dish on the surface and I found that by directing the heat through the metal dish the water would heat as expected. If I’m correct and I’m pretty sure I am then no physical heat passes through the surface of water from the atmosphere. Apart from anything else this means that the ocean cannot be boiled away.
The implications of what I am saying are enormous, far too many to go into right now but I’d like to get you interested.
Remember that surface tension will support the weight of a paper clip and physical heat has no weight.
What is happening right now tends to bear me out. It would explain the “missing” heat and it explains the “pause” because no extra heat is absorbed by the ocean in addition toradiated energy so there is no back up when the sun goes quiet. rgds RMB
And can anyone here on either side of the CAGW debate please explain to me, by what physical process(es) CO2 generated at ground level by the burning of fossil fuels makes its way to the upper atmosphere to become a greenhouse gas?
The only “clown” here is Steven Mosher, with his disingenuous attack on the real science offered by Dr. Idso. Steven, why don’t you just shut up and go away somewhere? Go find a place that provides you with no energy nor any of the other benefits of carbon-based civilization, and stay there.
Steven Mosher says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:48 am
How did those clowns deduce from no evidence that there would be little effect
====
Same way you guys did it….only backwards and in heels
I just gave myself an idea – we skeptics are defenders of carbon-based civilization!
george e smith;
I have an excellent industrial heat gun, and I plan to do the experiment myself, since I never have done it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Turn the [fan] in the heat gun off, as the air flow promotes more cooling via evaporation that the heating element provides in the first place. And it blows the evaporated air away from the bucket instead of leaving it in contact with the water surface as would happen in a real ocean surface. Well, a real ocean surface unperturbed by wind I suppose. So make sure your experiment includes a surface perturbed by combinations of wind (including white caps, foam, and flotsam), rainfall, and debris ranging from algae to dust to dead leaves and insects, and is big enough that the air from the heat gun doesn’t blow the primary effects outside the radius of your [experiment]. You’ll also want to refer to Leonard Weinstein’s comment upthread.
Pointing a a heat gun at a pail of water is just a good way to completely fool yourself.
cnxtim says:
April 20, 2014 at 10:36 am
And can anyone here on either side of the CAGW debate please explain to me, by what physical process(es) CO2 generated at ground level by the burning of fossil fuels makes its way to the upper atmosphere to become a greenhouse gas?
______________________
There are a number of issues with your question. CO2 does obviously get into the upper atmosphere, from whatever source, through normal atmospheric mixing. CO2 also acts as a greenhouse gas at whatever altitude it is found in the atmosphere.
“So 63% isabsorbed in about 1-1.25 microns . 5-7 microns of water will absorb 99% of the 3 micrin IR.. Even at lower temperatures, 50 microns will do it, and that will cause evaporation from the surface”
And with the forced convection provided by the fan I’d expect to see net cooling rather than any warming.
I seem to recall someone posting an attempt at a controlled experiment of this sort over on Tallbloke’s Talkshop a year or two ago. Experiment was a strong infra-red source and a separate source of ventilation. With both being varied in a controlled fashion.
“Konrad” if memory serves correctly. Don’t think the write up ever got properly finished though.
I don’t think there is any chance of water getting heated by IR in anything but perfectly still, windless conditions. Odd no one has actually tested this properly in the last 30 years, with billions that have gone into climate “research”.
There was also an interesting paper on the pseudo liquid crystal properties of the water surface and how this varies with the presence of certain organic oils coming from some varieties of sea weed.
Seems even the most basic science isn’t that settled at all.
Steven Mosher,
Make up your mind. You have shown time and time again that the people promoting the AGW apocalypse are fibbing and deceptive.
Yet you reject people offering counter opinions.
That fence sitting is going to give you one heck of wedgie.
OK AR so gg occurs at all levels of the atmosphere, not as illustrated in every CAGW illustration promoted by the IPCC?
Steven Mosher says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:48 am
…
————-
Steven’s only saying what he often says one way or another, which is that skeptics should apply (where applicable) the same standards and criticisms to reports with conclusions we like as we do to reports with conclusions we do not like. As usual, it’s hard to argue with his point.
Among the news outlets that do not tolerate deviation from the party line are the San Francisco Chronicle and PBS News Hour. The other night, in reporting on global warming politics the latter organization presented its audience with two experts, each of whom presented the Democratic party line. Cancellation of one’s subscription to the Chronicle and contributions to public broadcasting stations would be appropriate responses.
confused from birth by the misnomer ‘earth’
and afraid it might get hotter, he fails to note: it’s watery.
with his radiation physics on a phase transition planet, he’s
at the grand finale of the bonfire of Teh Vanities.
so exotic models writhe and spin like sugar plums with his attack
what would don quixote think of all these windmills tilting back?
Mannic oppresive. Heh. A new favorite.
Google shows one result. An original, from an original.
99.9% sure George Will coined an old favorite of mine, “inconvenient fact”. The burn became the source and motivation for Mr Gore’s movie title, I believe. How would I verify the first use of a phrase, etc?
Thanks.
It’s a real shame that some of the best topics here get little to no real disscission in the replies because most of the replies have to deal with Mosher saying something stupid.
“Have you tried to heat water through the surface.”
No, and I don’t plan to. A more interesting question (and interesting answer) is why nuclear powered submarines don’t worry about being detected by the heat they emit.
Mark Bofill says:
April 20, 2014 at 10:59 am
Steven Mosher says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:48 a
Steven’s only saying what he often says one way or another, which is that skeptics should apply (where applicable) the same standards and criticisms to reports with conclusions we like as we do to reports with conclusions we do not like. As usual, it’s hard to argue with his point
==========================================
Mark that lacks logic. He said nothing of the sort. He immaturely asked a thoughtless question, which, by the way is well answered in the report. In addition it was hypocritical. Mosher often critiques those who do not do the hard work, examine the reports, do the math themselves. Here he failed to do that, as the question is well and repeatedly answered in the scientific literature.
Thanks Kim. The consistency over the decades where the creators admit the Climate models are not designed to predict future behavior or reflect reality is underappreciated. The UN still likes the Bariloche model from the 70s the best as it openly proclaimed it redistributive purpose. Milbrath is graphic that the models are a means to shift the Dominant Social Paradigm–a purpose so important he made it a Proper Noun.
There was an Oxford-Martin Commission report from last October in UK that is also just as graphic as it can be. There’s not a time when anyone plans to announce that the transformations have commenced. Education and land use planning and Big Data are the ways in and all this is in high gear.
To the planners at the IPCC and UN the models are just a tool to increase their ability to regulate human systems. People, their minds, and total personalities all count as systems to be manipulated. Any plausible excuse will do and this one has taken years to really show the intentional deceit.
worst ice in decades,
ttps://ca.news.yahoo.com/coast-guard-warns-bad-ice-atlantic-canada-ships-173704122.html
Moshpit kindly illustrates another ‘fact’.
He illustrates that for a certain type of lukewatery clones it is necessary to label the NIPCC authors clowns. N’est ce pas?
John
Mr Mosher is right of course: the fact that there is no discernible evidence that increased CO2 levels have led to catastrophic events so far does not in itself prove that increasing CO2 levels may not lead to such catastrophes in the future.
My problem with his argument is the implied ‘non sequitur’. The fact that you cannot prove the above simply does not imply that increasing CO2 levels will ‘as a matter of fact’ lead to catastrophes.
The atmosphere is well-stirred by convection. Other than diminished water vapor, it maintains a relatively consistent composition to the troposphere. Even if it did not, however, and remained low in the atmosphere, it would function as a source warming the surface. The pertinent question is, as always, what harm would this cause and is it easier to mitigate or adapt?
Steven Mosher says:April 20, 2014 at 8:48 am
“How did those clowns deduce from no evidence that there would be little effect”
So Steven, please explain how the clowns at the IPCC deduce from NO EVIDENCE that there WOULD be an effect (by warming).
The benefits of more CO2 are manifest, and proven by experiment.
David, maybe. Wouldn’t be my first mistake, won’t be my last. I read this:
and it sounds like the sort of things we criticize when AGW supporters don’t meet these standards, at least to me.
Actually, my problem is that with all of the alarmism, with politicians calling for immediate action in the name of science (where they do not understand the uncertainties btw, and where mainstream organizations cheerfully perpetuate that regardless of the protests of guys like Dr. Richard Tol), one can argue that what’s needed isn’t for the opposition to act like objective scientists. The opposition should act like opposition, maybe? If there’s a faction distorting the science to push an agenda, what’s wrong with the existence of a faction pushing back without rigorous regard to the science, I wonder. Maybe there’s lots wrong with it, but I still wonder.
I’m thinking out loud, and I’m saying things I could (and probably will) find problems with. But sometimes I wonder how objective anyone can be with the enormous weight of the mainstream pushing one conclusion. The playing field isn’t level. It’s hard to not lean against that, even if leaning against it isn’t justifiable on objective scientific grounds.
By the way, I firmly believe that “We Are All Bozos On This Bus”. (Show me where the steering wheel is.)
Just keep pushing.
The bigger the resistance, the earlier we reach it’s breaking point.
Push, push, pusch and don;t forget the real culprits, the banksters.
The warmists are only the useful idiots.
Any discussion with them is a loss of time.
Steven Mosher says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:48 am
I wonder how the clowns who wrote the NIPCC scientifically determined that there will be little effect in the future? how’d they do that? I read the NIPCC. I saw no experiments that proved there would be little effect. I saw no statistical analysis in that report that proved there would be little effect. And they explained why you could not use models to project the effects.
How did those clowns deduce from no evidence that there would be little effect.
————————————————————————————————————————–
Steven, how about this assessment, my e-mail to the president: http://wp.me/p3JfLw-2
John Kerry is literally, an idiot.
I’m afraid Mosher is right. Here are some observations as well as a model result.
Here is one I missed for Mosher.
Mosher, pay attention. Sometimes we have to look much further back. We don’t know how warm it will get in 2100 but let’s for the sake of argument say 3C. Even here there are benefits and the biosphere was not destroyed. PS So far the failed projections of the IPCC points to mild warming.
‘The human impact on global climate is small’ oh, no it isn’t!
Co2 I find you guilty as charged!
How can small amounts of co2, influence global warming?
‘Dr Karl who joins us from the ABC studios in Sydney…[yes co2 is causing the global warming thing]…Anthony from Leeds…{what percentage is global warming a natural cycle or helped by human…it’s my belief that it’s just a percentage man made and a percentage natural cycle}…[while we humans have been on this planet…the normal state of the climate is an ice age…100,000 years of ice age and then 20,000 years of none ice age…the water to make this ice come out of the oceans…this is the normal state of affairs, you can walk from the British Isles to Europe…the co2 levels are the highest in the last 650,000 years. They are rising faster than any time in the last 3 million years…but we are causing an extra…the co2 levels…we have taken the levels from 280ppm to 380ppm (not current levels) so that is a difference of 100ppm…or 1 part per 10,000, but people have said how come, can 1 in 10,000 have any effect what so ever. But if we take a moderately large male they weigh 100Kg which is 100,000 grams, so 1 part per 10,000 of that is 10grams… if you were to give that person…10 grams of morphine they would be dead…so you can see the argument that’s given, the change in co2 level is only 1 in 10,000, so minuscule is a ridiculous argument… it is very easy to…with small forces]’
So listen for yourself :-
Steven Mosher talks about clowns and models. Clowns are supposed to make you laugh not the models. Since Mosher loves his failed models I want him to have a laugh and cheer up.
In ten years time it will be exactly 200 years since Fourier in a “Paper” of 1824 on page 140 wrote:
“The heat of the sun, coming in the form of light, possesses the property of penetrating transparent solids or liquids, and loses this property entirely, when by communication with terrestrial bodies, it is turned into heat radiating without light.”
Well, he writes more about it than just that but just that should be enough to bear out the gist of the article above. But it also bears out the claim that there is indeed a so called Greenhouse Effect (GHE). But a GHE that has got very little (or nothing) to do with the so called “Infra Red Back Radiation” (IRBR).
Fourier continues, still on page 140: “This distinction of luminous and non-luminous heat, explains the elevation caused by transparent bodies. The mass of waters which cover a great part of the globe, and the ice of the polar regions, oppose a less obstacle to the admission of luminous heat, than to the heat without light, which returns in a contrary direction to open space.
I happen to believe that we “lost” vital climate understanding” with the advent of Arrhenius’s theory some years later in 1896.
Did Mosher just imply that the onus is on us to prove their doomsday scenario is wrong? I thought he was smarter than that.
Sen. Barbara Boxer Is a Complete Idiot, regarding Anything to Do with Climate. She somehow thinks that excessive CO2 equates to AGW.
RMB says: “…Surface tension is not a powerful force but it is powerful enough to block heat passing from the atmosphere into the ocean….”
I’ve asked you more than once to provide some scientific evidence that surface tension affects heat transfer between a heat source and a liquid surface. I’m open to the concept, but you have not responded, and continue to repeat your unsupported assertion. Please produce the equations, the charts, the formulae, the graphs, or be silent. If this continues, people may confuse you with Mosher. 🙂
This is a reply to jorgekafkazar. If you can get hold of a double sink, rig them identically, depth of water etc. Get a heat gun which operates at 450degsC. Apply heat to basin 1 uncovered for about 15mins and you will get a rise in temp of about 6degF. Get something like a baking dish and float it on basin2. Again apply heat to surface of the baking dish for 15mins and you will get a temperature rise of 48degsF.
This is my interpretation of what is happening. The heat being applied is fierce and fan forced. The temperature in basin1 rises 6degs after 15mins at 450degsC. I believe that the only reason that it rises at all is due to the fan forcing simulating weight and “fooling” the surface into believing it is no longer the surface for very brief periods and it absorbs a miniscule amount of heat given the heat being applied.
In the case of basin 2 the temperature rises a much more credible 48degsF. I say that the object floating on the surface kills the surface tension underneath and allows the heat to flow as it would into an upside down pan.
There is very little point in us entering into an argument over this at this time. What I would like everybody to do is get a heat gun and try heating the water through the surface. Should you succeed I want to know how you did it and where I’m going wrong but you won’t succeed.
The warmist guys put forward a proposition that the sun’s rays heat co2 and the warmth increases the evaporation rate at the surface and that releases even more ghgs into the atmosphere but they didn’t test the hypothesis. You can’t store heat on this planet and you can’t build heat on this planet so there is no such thing as AGW.
One more thing. I have had it put that the reason that the water does not warm is that it is evaporating rapidly and the heat is being removed. If that was the case my kitchen would be full of steam and it ain’t.
To sum it all up as far as the ocean is concerned radiation yes physical heat no. rgds RMB
Notice how UNEP, PRME, and other UN affiliated groups have become Senior Advisors pushing the Sustainability Literacy Test on education all over the world.
http://www.sustainabilitytest.org/en/substainability_home Have your students take the test indeed.
The 2014 equivalent of proper belief in the dialectic. No wonder these bureaucrats are in a hurry to implement before more frigid winters break through even the most carefully erected mindsets.
FYI
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/04/20/Winter-is-coming-and-we-will-wish-for-global-warming
In light of the spirit of sceptically assessing the statements that are made by anybody in the name of science, what do you make of the fact that the organisation behind the report is funded by conservative groups and energy corporations? Me personally, it would make me suspect that they collected information with a conscious bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#Funding
Well, I guess in Steven’s world, the fact that the sky has never fallen before nor is it falling now doesn’t prove that it COULDN’T fall sometime in the future. The chicken little theory of global warming.
id8 says:
April 20, 2014 at 11:30 am
Well, there’s Thomas Huxley, crica 1870:
“The great tragedy of Science — the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”
Ugly, not inconvenient. But, the same gist.
Reblogged this on Nevada Life and commented:
I am not a fan of reblogging in any way but this is something I believe strongly about. Global Warming is a world wide lie… Accepted as truth. And whom is the father of lies?
To call people clowns is not a good look anywhere to try and prove an argument and is just plain rude and not needed or convincing to anyone reading it!
Bart says:
Well, there’s Thomas Huxley, crica 1870:
“The great tragedy of Science — the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”
Ugly, not inconvenient. But, the same gist.
Nice. Did you recall that one? I am looking for a tool to find specific modern references.
The earliest usage of “the science is settled”, “deniers”, some others, along with the Will item I mentioned. Google is teasing me, but I am just not finding things.
There must be another service/ search that specializes in this?
Thanks again for the great quote.
[Note: “pyromancer76” is “beckleybud” and “H Grouse”. He is the same sockpuppet. Banned multiple times. ~mod.]
Hey RMB. Ever boiled a pot of water on the stove?
Of course you can boil a pot of water on the stove. The heat goes into the water through the bottom of the pot where there is no surface tension. The trick is to get heat through the surface of the pot as the warmists claim happens when co2 is heated. You can get energy into water through its surface by radiation but physical heat will be blocked by the surface tension.rgds
Paul Woland:
You wouldn’t denigrate them for their source(s) of funding, if it came from honest TAXPAYERS, more or less by confiscation? That would make them and their “Bias” more representative of “The Truth”? Methinks you to be quite gullible.
20 April: West Hartford News: Jim Shelton: Yale climate change summit focuses on energy future
The world’s energy future will be marked by massive urbanization, transformed utilities and a race to adapt to a changing climate.
Those are just a few of the revelations from an international climate change summit convened Thursday at Yale University. Dubbed “EnergyFuture 2030,” the day-long conference cast a critical eye at everything from government regulation to the impact of dwindling water resources on the power grid…
Pachauri and another speaker at the conference, Karen Seto of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, helped write sections of a new IPCC report on climate change that has made headlines worldwide.
Those reports point to major urbanization in the next two decades, led by Africa and Asia. Globally, it’s the equivalent of adding 20,000 football fields of urban space every day through 2030.
***“I’m increasingly of the opinion that the developing countries have to take the lead,” Pachauri said. “Why should we follow a resources-intensive path to development? It would be utterly foolish to replicate what’s happened in the rest of the world.”…
Karen Hussey, of Australian National University, spoke of the role water will play in the future of energy…
The warming of the oceans also will have an impact on the power supply.
*** “It’s difficult to use water as a coolant when it’s already warm,” Hussey said…
Panelists lauded the emergence of new suppliers from the ranks of renewable energy companies. That will inevitably lead to changes in energy storage and distribution, government regulation and a transformation in the role of public utilities.
“Change is coming and you really have to get your arms around it,” Esty said.
http://www.westhartfordnews.com/articles/2014/04/20/news/doc5351430e6a5be833111461.txt
Or, RMB. How could rain drops freeze in cold air? Could they lose heat but not gain it from the air? I wouldn’t know and am not being snarcy, but your assertion is counter intuitive to me.
Does Mosher ever rebut the rebuttals against him? I never see it happen. He merely drops his load, and then is never heard from again in these threads.
At 3:09 PM on 20 April, Bruckner8 had observed:
[snip . . nah, that’s just getting messy . . mod]
[“Messy”?? Moderators need to follow their written guidelines. “Messy” is a personal judgement that comes across as censorship. ~Snr mod.]
Mr. Jones:
The language that you use in your comment (e.g. “confiscation”) makes me feel like you only want to express your opinion against taxes, which is fair enough. Surely we want to test what the powerful are saying, regardless of whether they are in government, universities or companies? Perhaps we can both agree that it would be gullible not to be suspicious of a situation that is as follows: Conservative groups that have a political interest and companies that are looking to make a profit fund research (in this case, the NIPCC). The results of the research come out favourable to those funding the work. I think that sounds like bad science!
Bruckner8 says:
April 20, 2014 at 3:09 pm
He does sometimes.
Just follow the money. The whole concept of global warming is the desire of the left to impose central planning, and spread “social justice.” (Which means that there will be impoverishment for all, as that is what the leftist utopia always results in.) The Global Warming danger hoax has long been thoroughly discounted. But the leftists continue to push the issue as they believe they can full enough of the people enough of the time to implement their tyranny.
+1 for “Mannic oppressive.” Well done Mr. Watts!
It appears that Mr. Mosher is missing one goat. This is a positive development.
Blackadderthe4th says on April 20, 2014 at 1:15 pm:
Co2 I find you guilty as charged!
How can small amounts of co2, influence global warming?”
= = = = = = = = = = =
And then he goes on to liken CO2 to what he thinks is a very highly effective poison being added to your body. His claim is that:
– – – – – –
“if you were to give that person…10 grams of morphine they would be dead”
= = = = = = = = =
So then blackadderthe4th, are you saying that a person who’s body already contains 280 parts of his/her bodyweight in this highly toxic substance is not dead yet. Or is it that he/she will be deader still if another 10 parts are added?
If you do not consider yourself to be stupid, then do not act like you are. (for your own sake.) Somebody talking, what could very well be rubbish, on a radio is not always proof of good reliable research.
pyromancer76:
The thing is, the organisation behind the NIPCC is involved in many other things outside of funding science as well. The Heartland institute also runs advertisements against climate change, and also has lobbied for the tobacco industry. How does that make you feel about the reports on climate science that they are funding?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#Smoking
20 April: SBS: Eric Holthaus: How the US military is preparing for climate change war
Climate change could start the next world war, and he U.S. military is preparing for conflict, retired Navy Rear Adm. David Titley says in an interview with Slate.com
But in addition to the call for cooperation, the reports also shared an alarming new trend: Climate change is already destabilizing nations and leading to wars.
That finding was highlighted in this week’s premiere of Showtime’s new star-studded climate change docu-drama Years of Living Dangerously…
In a recent interview with the blog Responding to Climate Change, retired Army Brig. Gen. Chris King laid out the military’s thinking on climate change:
‘This is like getting embroiled in a war that lasts 100 years. That’s the scariest thing for us,’ he told RTCC. ‘There is no exit strategy that is available for many of the problems. You can see in military history, when they don’t have fixed durations, that’s when you’re most likely to not win.’…
In a similar vein, last month, retired Navy Rear Adm. David Titley co-wrote an op-ed for Fox News:
‘The parallels between the political decisions regarding climate change we have made and the decisions that led Europe to World War One are striking – and sobering.’…
Holthaus: In short, climate change could be the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of the 21st century…
Earlier this year, while at the American Meteorological Society annual meeting in Atlanta, I had a chance to sit down with Titley, who is also a meteorologist and now serves on the faculty at Penn State University. He’s also probably one of the most fascinating people I’ve ever spoken with. Check out his TEDxPentagon talk, in which he discusses how he went from ‘a pretty hard-core skeptic about climate change’ to labeling it ‘one of the pre-eminent challenges of our century.’
Titley: ‘I like to think of climate action as a three-legged stool. There’s business saying, “This is a risk factor.” Coca-Cola needs to preserve its water rights, Boeing has their supply change management, Exxon has all but priced carbon in. They have influence in the Republican Party. There’s a growing divestment movement.
***’The big question is, does it get into the California retirement fund, the New York retirement fund, those $100 billion funds that will move markets?’…
Titley: ‘A lot of people who doubt climate change got co-opted by a libertarian agenda that tried to convince the public the science was uncertain—you know, the Merchants of Doubt. Where are the free-market, conservative ideas? The science is settled’…
Titley: ‘We need to start prioritizing people, not polar bears. We’re probably less adaptable than them, anyway.’…
***’I never try to politicize the issue.’…
Titley: ‘People working on climate change should prepare for catastrophic success. I mean, look at how quickly the gay rights conversation changed in this country. Ten years ago, it was at best a fringe thing. Nowadays, it’s much, much more accepted. Is that possible with climate change? I don’t know, but 10 years ago, if you brought up the possibility we’d have gay marriages in dozens of states in 2014, a friend might have said “Are you on drugs?” When we get focused, we can do amazing things. Unfortunately, it’s usually at the last minute, usually under duress.’
(This article is part of Future Tense, a collaboration among Arizona State University, the New America Foundation, and Slate.)
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/04/20/how-us-military-preparing-climate-change-war
above is an edited, condensed version of the following.
***what SBS Australia doesn’t want the public to know!
18 April: Slate: Eric Holthaus: “Climate Change War” Is Not a Metaphor
The U.S. military is preparing for conflict, retired Navy Rear Adm. David Titley says in an interview.
***Slate:Despite all the data and debates, the public still isn’t taking that great of an interest in climate change. According to Gallup, the fraction of Americans worrying about climate “a great deal” is still roughly one-third, about the same level as in 1989. Do you think that could ever change?
Titley: A lot of people who doubt climate change got co-opted by a libertarian agenda that tried to convince the public the science was uncertain—you know, the Merchants of Doubt…
Most people out there are just trying to keep their job and provide for their family. If climate change is now a once-in-a-mortgage problem, and if food prices start to spike, people will pay attention. Factoring in sea-level rise, storms like Hurricane Katrina and Sandy could become not once-in-100-year events, but once-in-a-mortgage events. I lost my house in Waveland, Miss., during Katrina. I’ve experienced what that’s like…
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/04/david_titley_climate_change_war_an_interview_with_the_retired_rear_admiral.html
Gee, Paul.
Are you claiming that “science” can be bought? Are you implying that running advertisements “against climate change” implies somehow that climate change can actually be changed by an advertisement on the radio and on TV?
If so, how much “climate change” can be bought for 1.3 trillion dollars in new tax revenue stolen from the world’s poor and innocents AFTER 30 years worth of a political advertising? Screaming and yelling actually – but let’s stick with “advertising” whose result is now killing people and destroying economies. ‘
50 years from now Michael Mann and James Hansen will either be regarded as ahead of their time brilliant leaders of science who fought so bravely against the hoard of denying heathens … or … complete buffoons who duped so many with their faulty science and set the world’s great economies on a wild goose chase while so many were forced to remain in poverty. I’m leaning heavily toward the latter.
Today’s (Obama’s) military is subject to prizes and promotions and money WHEN THEY PROMOTE the Obama administrations propaganda – most specifically the Obama’s administration’s policies and climate change and on homosexual relations. When today’s military does say anything against the Obama administrations policies – remember, the America they sworn to protect and defend? … Well, those military members are promptly and immediately fired. The programs and bureaucracies that don’t toe the Obama administration’s lines and lies about climate change? They get defunded. The admirals and generals who promote climate change? They get promoted and re-hired – as the examples you cite.
Thus, does it means ANYTHING when a “military” so-called expert claims anything with respect to “climate change”? Does it mean ANYTHING when the USAF spends more on “ecological fuel” than any other bureaucracy on the face of this planet?
No. And you are a propagandizing fool to further that propaganda.
Thanks, Dr. Idso. Very good article.
I have an article on the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) reports in my climate pages.
“what some people apparently do not want you to read” must come out.
Steven Mosher says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:48 am
“How did those clowns deduce from no evidence that there would be little effect”
———————————
‘Deduce’? Try ‘induce’ as in induction from observations (rapidly rising co2 + no [certainly no ‘catastrophic’] warming) to a probable conclusion: little or no connection between co2 emissions and temperature.
RACookPE1978:
Incidentally, the Pentagon thought that climate change was a serious threat even under bush. Do you think that was political manipulation as well? Then how do you explain it considering the fact that Bush never accepted the reality of climate change?
http://www.rense.com/general70/pepen.htm
RMB says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:30 am
Leonard Weinstein says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:43 am
Richard C. Savage says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:47 am
george e. smith says:
April 20, 2014 at 10:29 am
davidmhoffer says:
April 20, 2014 at 10:43 am
Greg says:
April 20, 2014 at 10:53 am
jorgekafkazar says:
April 20, 2014 at 1:49 pm
Ok, I see some confusion on the effect of LWIR on liquid water. I have run a number of experiments dealing with this. The answer is that incident LWIR can neither heat no slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.
RMB is however incorrect to claim it is the effect of surface tension. What occurs is that LWIR cannot penetrate more than a few microns into the skin evaporation layer. The energy so absorbed is simply rejected via evaporation faster than it can conductively effect the liquid below.
You can all build a simple version of the experiment –
http://i42.tinypic.com/2h6rsoz.jpg
(Hand waving about the fans used in the experiment to eliminate gas conduction is no good as the average wind speed over the oceans is Beaufort scale 4.)
Run the experiment starting with 40C water in both sample containers. You will notice no difference in cooling rate between samples under the strong and weak LWIR sources. Now repeat the experiment but with a square of cling film floated onto the surface of each water sample. The cooling rate of both samples will be slower as evaporation is restricted, but the sample under the strong LWIR source will cool slowest.
You can also run a control using dry sand instead of water. You will find that the sample under the strong LWIR source heats faster.
Downwelling LWIR does not effect the oceans in the manner climastrologists claim. In some circumstances with very cold water or very still air it is possible to get LWIR to effect the temperature of water, but the effect is not great. For the calculations of the climastrologists to be correct, LWIR would have to effect liquid water to the same degree it would effect a blackbody that cannot evaporatively cool. This is provably not the case.
This however is not the greatest mistake of the climastrologists. Their first mistake is far, far greater. They calculated the effect of incoming solar SW on the oceans as if they were a blackbody, whereas they are in fact a transparent “selective coating” over 71% of the planet. Without a radiative atmosphere to cool the oceans they would become a giant evaporation constrained solar storage pond. Ocean temperatures would top 80C. Climastrologists calculated the temperature for the oceans in absence of a radiative atmosphere to be -18C. That’s a 98C error for 71% of the planets surface. That’s game over for AGW.
The question that no AGW believer or Lukewarmer ever wants to answer –
“given 1 bar pressure, is the net effect of our radiative atmosphere over the oceans warming or cooling.”
Climastrologists calculations indicate that the atmosphere is warming the oceans (or slowing their cooling rate for those that want to hide behind semantics). But it is clear that our atmosphere acts to cool the oceans. And without radiative gases our atmosphere couldn’t cool the oceans as it would have no way to cool itself.
I think I need to comment on this. You quote an experiment involving lwir,I take that to be radiated heat. My point is very simple. The ocean will absorb radiation all day every day. If you even suspend a lightbulb over the surface of water the water will absorb heat. What you cannot do is heat a gas in the atmosphere and have that physical heat affect the surface of the water. The surface of water is protected by what is effectively a membrane strong enough to support the weight of a paper clip and when you apply heat from a heat gun or similar, the experience I am having is that the surface completely rejects the heat. One explanation that is offered is that the water is evaporating so quickly that the surface remains cool. The trouble with that proposition is that if that is the case my kitchen should be full of steam which it is not. If you float a metal dish on the surface and apply the heat source to that the water will become warm quite quickly. Isay that is because the floating object kills the surface tension underneath it and you have an upside down pot that heats, no problem. Surface tension has the potential to become very embarrassing for people and they willdo anything to take your mind off it but surface tension is the key to this argument. rgds
blackadderthe4th says:
April 20, 2014 at 1:15 pm
“‘The human impact on global climate is small’ oh, no it isn’t! … Co2 I find you guilty as charged! … How can small amounts of co2, influence global warming? ”
Loose analogies are not much use: what holds for one case does not necessarily hold for another. e.g. if I tip a bottle of red cordial into the sea will it turn the water red? No.
Paul Woland,
Argument from authority just makes you look rather ignorant. You seem to thrive on argument from authority, when you are not relying on condemnation by association (even when you have to fib about the association).
‘Climate change’ has been successfully used to destroy the antiwar movement. Now, liberals are all hot under the collar during blizzards, about the possibility it might warm up some day. This wild goose chase is going to be a nasty destructive force in the left and I am a liberal!
Hunter:
My authority in this matter is science. When I mentioned the fact that Pentagon has accepted climate change as a reality for a long time, it was only to falsify the argument of RACookPE1978. I suspect the Pentagon make their choice in part through some institutional process that evaluates science as well.
20 April: NYT: Beth Gardiner: Setbacks Aside, Climate Change Is Finding Its Way Into the World’s Classrooms
LONDON — From Mauritius to Manitoba, climate change is slowly moving from the headlines to the classroom. Schools around the world are beginning to tackle the difficult issue of global warming, teaching students how the planet is changing and encouraging them to think about what they can do to help slow that process…
To slow dangerous warming, “we need an overall change of mind and a change of action that relates to everything that we think and do,” said Alexander Leicht, of Unesco, the agency overseeing the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, which ends this year…
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/business/energy-environment/setbacks-aside-climate-change-is-finding-its-way-into-the-worlds-classrooms.html?hpw&rref=education&_r=0
is this what UNESCO has in mind?
19 April: Missoulian: Free event on effects of climate change planned at SKC campus in Pablo
Montanans from all backgrounds will gather in 13 communities across the state to show strong home-grown support for immediate solutions to the climate crisis Saturday, April 26 from noon to 3 p.m…
Montana is heating up and the evidence of climate change is all around us: beetle-killed forests; larger and hotter wildfires; smoke-filled valleys threaten our health; melting mountain glaciers; less irrigation water for farmers and ranchers; fishing closures on blue-ribbon trout streams; and, weird weather events that damage property.
Clearly the changing climate is affecting our way of life and costing taxpayers millions…
Local businesses and organizations will share information promoting green energy and climate solutions.
Lunch and music will be provided. The event is free and open to everyone.
http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/free-event-on-effects-of-climate-change-planned-at-skc/article_d914220a-c81f-11e3-9f5a-0019bb2963f4.html
20 April: Monmouth University to Go Carbon Neutral in Honor of Earth Day
Written by Monmouth University
West Long Branch, NJ – Monmouth University will go carbon neutral on Earth Day and help students and area residents to do the same. On Tuesday, April 22, 2014, Hess Energy Marketing, a Direct Energy Company, is providing the University with Verified Emission Reductions (VERs) equivalent to the University’s energy consumption for that day. The carbon off-sets are the equivalent of taking seven passenger cars off the road for a full year.
On Tuesday, April 22, Monmouth University will host an Earth Day Celebration on the patio of the Rebecca Stafford Student Center from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. with Clean Water Action and several other University energy partners. The event will have music, giveaways, environmentally-themed games, and information tables. All are invited to stop by and get a free LED bulb, while supplies last…
http://www.ahherald.com/newsbrief/monmouth-news/17388-monmouth-university-to-go-carbon-neutral-in-honor-of-earth-day
An unauthorized release of documents indicate Idso received $11,600 per month in 2012 from the Heartland Institute.[11]
From Wikipedia, on Dr. Idso. Dare I say, “Yellow Journalism” or Unmitigated BULL SHIT!
I’m willing to wager he may have recieved a payment in ONE MONTH of that amount for “sponsored work”. Why is it (actually knowing the general budget of the Heartland Institute) that I have complete doubt to the accusation (indirectly, but implied here) that he’s on a 130K a year stipend from H.I.????
I really regard this sort of demonisation as actual EVIL. Akin to NAZI propaganda, or SOVIET PROPAGANDA. Of course, unless one has the reasources, as the U.S. did, to “economicaly break the back” of an “Evil Empire”, or as in the case of WWII one actually WAGES DROPPING BOMB WAR against an EVIL group, the only other thing we can hope is “for the blind to see and the deaf and dumb to be made whole…” Miracles indeed!
Slackbladder,
You seem a little confused so let me try and explain:
If you gave the same human 10g of water they would not die. That’s because water isn’t morphine. Equally, CO2 isn’t morphine. You can’t compare the two.
Additionally, please don’t start thread-bombing this blog with youtube links like you do over at Jo Nova’s place. It gets boring very quickly. (Although there are some great videos of cats falling out of trees…)
“The rise in atmospheric CO2 is not having, nor will it have, a dangerous influence on the climate and biosphere.”
Agree with much of what you said but just as many of us fault the warmists for their predictions based on plausibility we need to eat our own dog food which is to say . . . better to have left this as “CO2 is not having . . . .”
Anyway, that is what I think.
Paul Woland says:
April 20, 2014 at 4:59 pm
Hunter:
My authority in this matter is science. When I mentioned the fact that Pentagon has accepted climate change as a reality for a long time, it was only to falsify the argument of RACookPE1978. I suspect the Pentagon make their choice in part through some institutional process that evaluates science as well.
——————————-
Argument from authority needs a bit more than ‘my authority in this matter is science’. It requires (inter alia) a genuine consensus amongst qualified experts. There is no genuine consensus amongst qualified experts that co2 emissions will lead to CAGW, so the argument from authority fails.
Report: McKinsey & Co: Myths and realities of clean technologies
Don’t be fooled by high-profile setbacks. The cleantech sector is gaining steam—with less and less regulatory assistance.
April 2014| bySara Hastings-Simon, Dickon Pinner, and Martin Stuchtey
The world is on the cusp of a resource revolution. As our colleagues Stefan Heck and Matt Rogers argue, (For more on their argument, see “Are you ready for the resource revolution?,” McKinsey Quarterly, March 2014, which summarizes some of the ideas in Heck and Rogers’s new book, Resource Revolution: How to Capture the Biggest Business Opportunity in a Century, New York, NY: New Harvest, 2014.) advances in information technology, nanotechnology, materials science, and biology will radically increase the productivity of resources. The result will be a new industrial revolution that will enable strong economic growth, at a much lower environmental cost than in the past, thanks to the broad deployment of better, cleaner technologies and the development of more appropriate business models. But how do we reconcile this bold and heartening prediction with recent challenges experienced by cleantech, the general term for products and processes that improve environmental performance in the construction, transport, energy, water, and waste industries? Over the past couple of years, many cleantech equity indexes have performed poorly; in January 2014, the American news program 60 Minutes ran a highly critical segment on the subject.
***The former chief investment officer of California’s largest public pension fund complained in 2013 that its cleantech investments had not experienced the J-curve: losses followed by steep gains. It’s been “an L-curve, for ‘lose,’” he said.
So, is cleantech failing? In a word, no…
http://www.mckinsey.com/Insights/Energy_Resources_Materials/Myths_and_realities_of_clean_technologies
If “97 percent of scientists agree”, then there wouldn’t be 3,000 peer reviewed papers to draw from to create a report that contradicts the IPCC’s latest effort. And, please note, that the IPCC does not restrict itself to peer-reviewed. They are more than happy to use anecdotes to ‘prove’ their point.
Governments continue to perpetuate the myth of harmful AGW. The reason is simple: It’s not about truth. It’s not about right. And, it’s not about wrong. It’s about power and control. In other words, politics as usual.
Unfortunately, this time, politicians have the media on their side. Those who are supposed to keep us informed, are willfully uninformed and intend to keep us in the same condition.
So is Barbara Boxer. Their scientific ignorance is amazing.
face reality, McKinsey & Co:
19 April: The Economist: Coal: The fuel of the future, unfortunately
A cheap, ubiquitous and flexible fuel, with just one problem
WHAT more could one want? It is cheap and simple to extract, ship and burn. It is abundant: proven reserves amount to 109 years of current consumption, reckons BP, a British energy giant. They are mostly in politically stable places. There is a wide choice of dependable sellers, such as BHP Billiton (Anglo-Australian), Glencore (Anglo-Swiss), Peabody Energy and Arch Coal (both American)…
***Just as this wonder-fuel once powered the industrial revolution, it now offers the best chance for poor countries wanting to get rich.
Such arguments are the basis of a new PR campaign launched by Peabody, the world’s largest private coal company (which unlike some rivals is profitable, thanks to its low-cost Australian mines). And coal would indeed be a boon, were it not for one small problem: it is devastatingly dirty…
But poverty kills people too, and slow growth can cost politicians their jobs…
America’s gas boom has prompted its coal miners to seek new export markets, sending prices plunging on world markets…
In Germany power from coal now costs half the price of watts from a gas-fired power station. It is a paradox that coal is booming in a country that in other respects is the greenest in Europe. Its production of power from cheap, dirty brown coal (lignite) is now at 162 billion kilowatt hours, the highest since the days of the decrepit East Germany.
Japan, too, is turning to coal in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. On April 11th the government approved a new energy plan entrenching its role as a long-term electricity source…
A $5.2 billion taxpayer-supported clean-coal plant in Mississippi incorporates all the latest technology. But at $6,800 per kilowatt, it will be the costliest power plant yet built (a gas-fired power station in America costs $1,000 per kW). At those prices, coal is going to stay dirty.
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21600987-cheap-ubiquitous-and-flexible-fuel-just-one-problem-fuel-future
Konrad says:
April 20, 2014 at 4:33 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Repeated explanations as to what is wrong with your experiment you are, it seems, oblivious to. Repeated reference to ERBE and CERES data that shows exactly the opposite of what it would show if your experiment were correct similarly make no impression on your made-up-damn-the-facts maind.
The difference between you and an alarmist zealot clinging to a belief system in the face of massive amounts of contrary data is precisely zero.
This is why I voted “no” in Anthony’s poll re forming an official group of some sort. Our ranks are as much beset by drivel as those of the alarmists. It cannot be routed out of the internet (the stupidity of the sl@yers is testament to that), or even in this blog (without destroying the essence of debate that makes this blog work). But an organized group, to be effective, must speak with one voice.
TRBixler says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:21 am
Obama has declared war on the truth. Huge sums are spent to promote the scam of AGW.
Disagree,TRBixler. Billions are being spent to advance two things…..higher taxes for political leeches to live off of and advancing UN Agenda 21. It really is simple.
Funny. When I hit the link to the report I get the contents page but when I try to download a pdf of the sub sections Chrome gives me a “this is a dodgy website” and won’t let me do it. This is on my iPad. Works fine on my Win 7 PC running Firefox.
Anyone else seen this?
Discourse Commissars and Gauleiters such as Babs Boxer, Big Al Gore and “Pompadour John”
Kerry are deviants, not “deniers”.
Anyone scrutinizing a chart where Point A = +1, Point B = 0, and Point C = -1, only to assert that trend-line ABC is positive, is worthy of Rene Blondlot, Immanuel Velikovsky, Trofim Lysenko, and other chuckle-headed sham-wows grunting preschool doo-wop to foreclose rational debate.
Tattoo a crimson “D” on each of these dolt’s sloping foreheads, with “300 PPM” tastefully strung down their noses, and see how far their Luddite sociopath bleats-and-squeaks carry before common-sense and fundamental humane decency take hold.
My authority in this matter is science. When I mentioned the fact that Pentagon has accepted climate change as a reality for a long time, it was only to falsify the argument of RACookPE1978. I suspect the Pentagon make their choice in part through some institutional process that evaluates science as well.
————————————————————————————
Paul, you linked to an article in The Observer and you declared that your authority is science.
Apparently, this prestigious scientific journal, sister publication to The Guardian, The Observer Sport Monthly and The Observer Woman, became aware over a decade ago of a “SECRET” report, suppressed by the “defence chiefs” (sic) but endorsed by the Pentagon.
This analysis insisted that, by the year 2020 (six years hence), major European cities will be sunk by rising seas and Britain will be plunged into a Siberian climate.
This is the same science that John Kerry invokes when he proclaims that the atmosphere’s CO2 exists as a layer a quarter inch thick at the top of the atmosphere.
The same science coming from Al Gore with the temperature of the Earth’s crust at several million degrees.
The same science that has David Suzuki declaring that the carbon in your wind-shield is what makes your car hot.
I’ll give you this; I did recently spend a week-end trying to make a small part of the Earth flat, so, you got that part right.
Perhaps it’s time Anthony treated Mosher like the drive-by troll he has become. Like all the others, he just drops his cr** and leaves. Or maybe he’s just become yet another deranged eschatologist, longing for the end of the world, even when it’s not happening – except in his and his deranged colleagues’ heads. Sorry to rant but I am so, so tired of his and their contempt for anyone who doesn’t agree with their loopy UNPROVEN world-view. Clown? You sure are Mosher.
blackadderthe4th says:
April 20, 2014 at 1:15 pm
I guess you must be playing the part of Baldrick – the useful idiot.
“This fact is sad, indeed, because in compiling these reports, the UN either was purposely blind to views that ran counter to the materials they utilized, or its authors did not invest the amount of time, energy, and resources needed to fully investigate an issue that has profound significance for all life on Earth. And as a result, the UN has seriously exaggerated many dire conclusions, distorted relevant facts, and omitted or ignored key scientific findings”
The reason that they ignore contrary data is because they believe its just noise, perhaps even sometimes correct ‘noise’, but nevertheless noise that obscures an ultimate Malthusian inevitability.
Because they have nailed the colours to the Malthusian mast, that economic growth and human progress will inevitably result in a Malthusian catastrophe (population and growth will outstrip resources), contrary data is just seen as delaying the inevitable, or just being used to prop up a doomed system. Climate change is being used as a tool to prop up their Malthusian-based ideology. It doesn’t even matter to them if the science of climate change is ultimately incorrect, the Malthusian inevitability remains the priority, and justifies the distortion of science to achieve that aim.
The problem with their position of course, it that there may well not be any Malthusian inevitability at all, than humanity might well adapt and continue to prosper. They also seriously underestimate the human capacity to prepare, mitigate, or use alternate resources and innovate, as well as the seriously under estimating the earth’s carrying capacity itself.
Many people do not accept the fundamental basis of Malthusian ideology, in biology for example many species do not all behave like mosquitos which reproduce on mass leading to inevitable mass mortality, many species in fact adjust their reproduction according to resource availability and survive ad infinitum. As long as this fundamental assumption remains unaddressed, the IPCC will not listen to all the data and arguments.
James Ard says:
April 20, 2014 at 1:24 pm
Did Mosher just imply that the onus is on us to prove their doomsday scenario is wrong? I thought he was smarter than that.
That’s the warmistas last attempt to be right without proof: change the null-hypothesis to CAGW=true and let others try to disprove it. In 30 years they haven’t been able to prove their point. So much for settled science. There is no evidence at all for CAGW, only a pathetic believe in the destruction of the earth and rejection of the Western way of life as we know it. The inmates are running the asylum.
Mosher is a nice guy in person, but he has a strange view of reality:
“I wonder how the clowns who wrote the NIPCC scientifically determined that there will be little effect in the future? how’d they do that? I read the NIPCC. I saw no experiments that proved there would be little effect.”
Such an experiment would be tantamount to proving a negative. Alarmists often use this tactic: “Prove that ___________ can’t happen!”
Dr. Idso is absolutely correct: CO2 is harmless. No global harm from the rise in CO2 has ever been identified. And, it is beneficial: the planet is rapidly greening in direct response to the rise in CO2.
No wonder the alarmist crowd is losing the battle, and the debate. Every prediction they have ever made is a scary one, and every prediction they have ever made is wrong.
Steven, instead of name-calling, post some scary predictions for us that have actually happened. As a member of the climate alarmist clique, surely you must know of some.
davidmhoffer says:
April 20, 2014 at 5:29 pm
——————————–
David,
I also voted “no” in that survey. A single sceptic organisation would be far more susceptible to Alinsky group control tactics. It is important to have a diversity of views. For sceptics, diversity is strength.
AGW believers would love to see sceptics in one group holding the lukewarmer line. After all many are now desperate for an exit strategy and “warming, but less than we thought” is just what they want. The lukewarmer position that the atmosphere is warming the oceans is what AGW believers need to engineer their “soft landing”.
But there can be no soft landing. The atmosphere is provably cooling the oceans and radiative gases are cooling the atmosphere.
I’ve seen many of the millions of climate refugees myself. They came to Florida for the Winter to escape the cold, as they have done for a hundred years.
Moshpit, you really should stick to low level journalism. ! The one thing you might be good at.
And ‘hangin’ with the crew from BEST isn’t helping your scientific credibility.
“blackadderthe4th says:
April 20, 2014 at 1:15 pm”
Linking to a a broadcast which includes Dr. Karl is like linking to Cook at SkS and their “97% concensus” report. A big fail! Dr. Karl has been on ABC TV too and made some statements about basic science that were easily proved to be completely wrong. But this is the standard we here in Australia have become to expect from the ABC.
Johan says:
April 20, 2014 at 12:08 pm
Mr Mosher is right of course: the fact that there is no discernible evidence that increased CO2 levels have led to catastrophic events so far does not in itself prove that increasing CO2 levels may not lead to such catastrophes in the future.
=================================================================
Hum?, well lets see, the alarmist make dozens of failed predictions about increased CO2, both in the scientific literature, and in the media, they ALL FAIL BADLY. The climate models based on increased CO2 ALL run to warm. They all fail the observations. The predicted disasters ALL fail to materialize. There are good documented peer reviewed studies that show where these failure occur. The benefits of increased CO2 are hard to overstate. They are demonstrated in hundreds of experiments, both in the lab, and in the FIELD. All of the observations support the NIPC studies.
So does this PROVE future CO2 increases will not lead to the failed predictions. Well no, science does not PROVE anything, being always open to other possibilities. But the conclusion Mosher rejects is highly logical and scientific. NOTHING in the pro CAGW so called “science” ever stated that CO2 would have no affect for the first 120 PPM increase, and then suddenly have disaster everywhere.
So, why don’t you guys really show Mosher up and provide the answer to his question? You could have already done that in the time it took to type what you did, and showing that he is wrong will be much more effective than trading insults! The point he makes is quite reasonable and deserves a decent response.
On McKinsey’s vision it is not just clean technology. In October 2013 they issued a report on the 7 domains they think can be managed by governments and cooperative businesses better using Big Data. The interest in clean technology loves the data being thrown off.
Once again an excuse for public sector centric decision making. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/conclusion-now-enacting-the-long-sought-planned-economy-and-society-via-the-open-data-initiative/
There is no need to make this personal in reference to Steven Mosher. He co-authored the Crutape Letters, busted Peter Gleick, and holds the discussion to a stringent level of ethics and clarity. That he appears to be harsher on skeptics than he is on the true believers, and has in this case tried to saddle the skeptics with proving a negative, keep it in perspective. He is one of the best minds in this grand discourse.
drumphil….because the reverse is obvious…
How did those clowns deduce from no evidence that there would be any effect…..
There is zero evidence that global warming even exists.
drumphil,
Steven is asking skeptics to prove a negative: That just because alarmist hype has been wrong so far, we must still take alarmists seriously because they might be right some day.
That is the trick Paul Ehrlich and gang have made themselves rich off of for going on fifty years. That should be beneath the dignity of anyone who is serious.
drumphil says:
April 20, 2014 at 7:02 pm
So, why don’t you guys really show Mosher up and provide the answer to his question? You could have already done that in the time it took to type what you did, and showing that he is wrong will be much more effective than trading insults! The point he makes is quite reasonable and deserves a decent response’
=============================================
The detailed answer is in the report itself The general answer is given numerous times, most recently five minutes before your post. Moser gets called a troll because of his hit and run general comments, and his hubris style of lecturing, as well as his insults, “clowns” to well documented PHD studies.
blackadderthe4th,
“we have taken the levels from 280ppm to 380ppm (not current levels) so that is a difference of 100ppm…or 1 part per 10,000, but people have said how come, can 1 in 10,000 have any effect what so ever. But if we take a moderately large male they weigh 100Kg which is 100,000 grams, so 1 part per 10,000 of that is 10grams… if you were to give that person…10 grams of morphine they would be dead…so you can see the argument that’s given, the change in co2 level is only 1 in 10,000, so minuscule is a ridiculous argument… it is very easy to…with small forces]’
The analogy suggesting morphine is to the human body as CO2 is to the atmosphere would only make sense if your body had a natural morphine level of 8 grams and you increased it by 2 grams to 10 grams.
A better analogy would be to find a trace mineral in the human body that is needed for health and one that the human body was deficient in to start with(as 280 ppm CO2 was in our atmosphere).
I’ll help. How about magnesium which in an average human has a mass fraction of around 500/1,000,000 of that humans weight. For simplicity, lets call it 500 parts per million of the trace mineral. There are obviously differences in how the body uses magnesium and ranges for optimal health vs the relationship our planet has with CO2 but again, for simplicity we want to increase the level 25% from some level less than optimal. What should be the before and after levels for a good analogy here?
Magnesium levels are normally measured in mg/dL with an acceptable range of 1.8-3.0 mg/dL and optimal levels from 2.4-2.8 mg/dL.
If we are talking about the response by our biosphere to CO2, the acceptable “normal” range could be estimated at 300 ppm to 2,000 ppm. Less than 300 is very detrimental to plants and above 1,500 also becomes detrimental.
The optimal range is from around 900 to 1,500 ppm.
http://www.organicagardensupply.com/environmentclimate/co2-enrichment-for-indoor-gardening/
Atmospheric CO2 has increased from a deficient 280 ppm to a an acceptable but still far less than optimal level of 400 ppm.
Using magnesium in the human body, for an analogy, we would be deficient to start with, below 1.8 mg/dL at 1.7 mg/dL. Increasing the level by 25% get’s us into the acceptable range at 2.1 mg/dL but still below optimal levels of 2.4-2.8 mg/dL.
Boosting magnesium levels even higher than that, would contribute BENEFITS to that persons body/health, not kill them, just as additional increases in atmospheric CO2 will benefit vegetative health, plant growth and for animals, world food production.
With respect to the warming from the increased CO2, we have a massive disagreement between estimates, ranging from modest/beneficial up to catastrophic and using the above example is not as clear for temps but what is obvious is that even the most exaggerated, high end projection of temperature increase, has very little in common with the drug morphine in the human body.
I used the effect of CO2 on plants in the example because it pertains to the KNOWN law of photosynthesis and irrefutable effects at various levels…………just like it is known from medical science what levels of magnesium are acceptable and optimum for the human body and how it effects our bodies.
@Steven Mosher
You antics bring to mind a Thomas Huxley quote:
The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.
The atmosphere is provably cooling the oceans and radiative gases are cooling the atmosphere.
Yet again, if that were so, your theory would be born out by ERBE and other data. Instead they show the EXACT OPPOSITE. Data trumps theory, but, unfortunately, not dogmatic allegiance to a pet belief system.
Lol, and I just noticed that Fred Singer is a lead author. Same guy that produced “scientific reports” for the tobacco industry.
“Steven is asking skeptics to prove a negative:”
He is only asking them to prove what they claim.
“The rise in atmospheric CO2 is not having, nor will it have, a dangerous influence on the climate and biosphere.”
Spent some more time reading the report, and I think that Mosher is right. They haven’t done the necessary analysis and statistics necessary to support their claims.
Now, they may actually be right, but just being right, and having good evidence isn’t enough if you are writing a report to explain what it is you think, and what evidence you have for it. The conclusions put forth by the OP go further that what the evidence they present covers.
Craig- do you still receive $11,600 per month from the Heartland Institute? Doesn’t this represent a conflict of interest?
The human ability to ignore contradictory data is difficult to underestimate.
Models diverge from measurements, even when the measurements are ‘adjusted’ in an attempt to fit the models.
Contradictory papers are ignored. Those who don’t fall in line get called deniers. There are even calls for punishment of those who disobey.
It’s not about science. It’s about humans.
RACookPE1978 says:
April 20, 2014 at 4:19 pm
Today’s (Obama’s) military is subject to prizes and promotions and money WHEN THEY PROMOTE the Obama administrations propaganda – most specifically the Obama’s administration’s policies and climate change and on homosexual relations. When today’s military does say anything against the Obama administrations policies – remember, the America they sworn to protect and defend? … Well, those military members are promptly and immediately fired. The programs and bureaucracies that don’t toe the Obama administration’s lines and lies about climate change? They get defunded. The admirals and generals who promote climate change? They get promoted and re-hired – as the examples you cite.
Thus, does it means ANYTHING when a “military” so-called expert claims anything with respect to “climate change”? Does it mean ANYTHING when the USAF spends more on “ecological fuel” than any other bureaucracy on the face of this planet?
No. And you are a propagandizing fool to further that propaganda.
A military kills people and breaks things, regardless of temperature. They adapt. A general worrying about AGW is a general taking up space and wasting money. Let him do it as a civilian.
Damn, forgot to separate the text again. Last paragraph mine.
drumphill,
Have the predictions of the AGW consensus held up under the test of time?
No. The consensus was clear: By now we would be much warmer. We aren’t. The slr would be noticeably increasing. It isn’t. Taht we would nothave >17 years of pause. We are. That there would be a troposphere hot spot. There isn’t. That Himalayan glaciers would be melting away, along with Greenland. Neither are. Oh, that’s right: Skeptics pointed out the idiotic nature of the Himalayan glacier claim and some consensus scientists finally caught on years later. That storms would be worse and more frequent. They are neither.
So we are reasonable in pointing this out and saying that the consensus offers nothing to think they will be less wrong in the future.
And your repeated reliance on the fallacy of confusing the messenger (and misrepresenting the messenger) only confirms a certain aura of dimness about you.
Gee, you should release that as a report. It’s all clear now!!
Claiming someone else is wrong is not the same as doing the work necessary to provide strong support for your own conclusions.
““The rise in atmospheric CO2 is not having, nor will it have, a dangerous influence on the climate and biosphere.””
That was the claim. It’s a big claim.
Steven Mosher says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:48 am
====
Mosh if you need to start calling people names it is because the facts are not on your side. Otherwise you would only need to argue the facts.
I’ve personally seen close on 60 years of global warming. This is almost all the warming that the IPCC tells us is due to human CO2 emissions.
When I was a kid be had headlines all the time about crop failures and famines. And the population was less than 3 billion.
Now today the population is 7 billion and we seem to be doing a pretty good job of feeding them. After 60 years of global warming.
So Mosh,it looks to me like the evidence that global warming is a good thing is staring you in the face.
Now as to the future, how do we know that it won’t cause a problem in the future? We know this because the best indicator of future performance is past performance. Global warming so far has been mostly beneficial, so the only reasonable conclusion is that this will also hold in the future.
Yes there will be winners and losers, and some people will be worse off. And if you only count those people worse off in your study global warming will look bad. But if you add in the winners, the large fraction of the extra 4 billion people we could not have fed without global warming, you end up with a whole lot more winners than losers.
But you might say, “too much of a good thing is bad”. However, we have the paleo record to answer this. The earth’s average temperature has remained within very narrow limits for the past 600 million years even with very much higher CO2 levels than are possible if we burned all the fossil fuel reserves on earth. The reason is of course water. We simply cannot physically arrive at too much of a good thing.
drumphil says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:19 pm
““The rise in atmospheric CO2 is not having, nor will it have, a dangerous influence on the climate and biosphere.””
That was the claim. It’s a big claim.
==============================================
Well supported by literally hundreds of studies on the benefits of added CO2, well supported by the hundreds of failed projections of alarmist that have failed to materialize, and well supported by historical studies of times when CO2 was far higher.
BTW Mr Drumphil, the statistics are there. Literally hundreds of studies and thousand of field experiments showing the benefits of CO2. As for the statistics showing the lack of harm. No increase in hurricanes, sever storms, droughts, fires, floods, sea level rise, crop failures etc. So the statistics on the realized harm are virtually zero, and the benefits are profound and extensive.
Right, so, therefore you know that there wont be any negative effects in the future no matter how much C02 rises?
I would suggest that the belief that this is true is inversely proportional to actual expertise in climate science, and that that this is true even on this forum.
drumphil says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:44 pm
Right, so, therefore you know that there wont be any negative effects in the future no matter how much C02 rises?
————————————————–
What and you /know/ there will be catastrophic effects, do you?
In fact nobody /knows/ anything because the inference is inductive, not deductive, probability not certainty. But the probability most definitely favours those who predict no dangerous side effects from increasing co2 levels (the inference being based on past observations, not future imaginings).
OMG Mosher. Where in the hell does the IPCC come up with these idiotic catastrophic climate projections to the year 2100. Where is the testing of these projections. There is none. It’s pure B.S. They do not follow the scientific method in any way shape or form. The true climate clowns, including you, are the IPCC. Get the %#!* outa here with your B.S. propaganda. I am sick and tired of your B.S. While you idiots continue to shriek your warmist alarmism, mother nature continues to make fools of you and your Chicken Little blatherings. How many years on no warming is it going to take? 25 years? 50?
davidmhoffer says:
April 20, 2014 at 7:27 pm
“Yet again, if that were so, your theory would be born out by ERBE and other data. Instead they show the EXACT OPPOSITE.”
—————————————–
No, the earth radiation budget experiment does not show the atmosphere warming the oceans. All it really shows is that the earth is absorbing and emitting around 255 w/m2. Climastrologists assume that the average 240 w/m2 that reaches the oceans does not have the power to heat them above -18C. They have provably made the mistake of treating the oceans as a blackbody instead of a selective surface. History can not be re-written. This critical mistake is at the very foundation of the radiative GHE hypothesis.
But let’s play “let’s pretend”. Lets pretend that DWLWIR was actually heating the oceans by 33C. Climastrologists claimed that the oceans would freeze to -18C without atmospheric cooling or DWLWIR. We know how hot an evaporatively constrained solar pond gets, 80C or beyond. So lets reduce that by 33C to 47C to eliminate all evaporative and conductive cooling and any heating effect of DWLWIR. That’s still 65C higher that the claim of the climastrologists. Our oceans are actually at around 15C, so the atmosphere must be cooling the oceans. And how does the atmosphere in turn cool? Radiative gases.
David, there is no way around it. The climastrologists went and treated our deep SW/UV transparent oceans as a blackbody, and to make matters worse they assumed that materials that can evaporatively cool respond to incident LWIR like solid materials. AGW is the greatest mistake in all of human scientific endeavour. In this context there can be no point in differentiating believer and lukewarmer positions and trying to get sceptics to adopt the latter. Both positions are utterly wrong.
drumphil says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:44 pm
Right, so, therefore you know that there wont be any negative effects in the future no matter how much C02 rises?
==================================================
Words in my mouth Sir. I infer through simple logic and analysis of the scientific papers. Science is always open to further evidence. What is your evidence of the “C” in CAGW. I am open to hear it.
April 20, 2014 at 1:15 pm | blackadderthe4th says
———
You quote Dr Karl, science presenter from the Australian Broadcasting Company, as an authority ? JOKE !
drumphil says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:44 pm
Right, so, therefore you know that there wont be any negative effects in the future no matter how much C02 rises?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No we don’t know that. What we do know is what the effects are of living a zero emissions lifestyle is. Devastating. Its called the stone age. Life was brutal and short. The vast majority of people on earth would die. So you are asking us to weigh the outcome of mitigation strategies which have known and massive harm to humanity against the negative effects of something that might happen and for which there is increasing evidence will be mild at worst and potentially beneficial.
Your next comment was a blatant appeal to authority, devoid of fact or reason, and requires no further rebuttal.
@davidmhoffer
Of course for the rich, they merely buy indulgences.
“Words in my mouth Sir. I infer through simple logic and analysis of the scientific papers. Science is always open to further evidence. What is your evidence of the “C” in CAGW. I am open to hear it.”
Hang on, don’t you have to provide the evidence if you make the claim. I’m not making claims here.
This however is a big claim: “The rise in atmospheric CO2 is not having, nor will it have, a dangerous influence on the climate and biosphere.”
“No we don’t know that.”
Well, then isn’t it a problem for you that the OP claims that?
“The rise in atmospheric CO2 is not having, nor will it have, a dangerous influence on the climate and biosphere.”
drumphil;
Well, then isn’t it a problem for you that the OP claims that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Less of a problem than people who appeal to authority while insisting we take measures with known harm in order to mitigate something that might happen and may well be beneficial if it does.
Eh, could you talk around and to the side of the point more deliberately if you tried?
I mean, this discussion is suppose to be about the OP and what they have presented isn’t it?
“drumphil says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:19 pm
““The rise in atmospheric CO2 is not having, nor will it have, a dangerous influence on the climate and biosphere.””
That was the claim. It’s a big claim.”
Something for you to read Drumphil.
http://www.freedomworks.org/content/13-worst-predictions-made-earth-day-1970
Enjoy!
If you have a point, please specify what it is.
drumphil says:
April 20, 2014 at 9:19 pm
I mean, this discussion is suppose to be about the OP and what they have presented isn’t it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your entire rebuttal consists of an appeal to authority. Then you accuse me of sidestepping the issue? LOL
Which still leaves you trying to justify doing something harmful to avoid something that might happen and might be beneficial if it does. The OP aside, that’s what this issue boils down to.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
Note Dr. Idso’s references. He is talking science, not politics. The alarmists mostly talk politics, and taking things away from you.
Cosmos, and ND-T, ran their episode on determining the age of the earth by getting so good at detecting lead. The researcher then realized we were adding lead to the environment at dangerous rates. They pointed out the money to be made by letting lead remain. Science was used on both sides.
Sense finally won out. Of course, hyperbole held sway as well, as ND-T asserted there is no safe level of lead in humans. Well, his own show proved him wrong when they pointed out the snotty nosed worker had thousands of times more lead in him than there was in the ice they were trying to retrieve and analyze.
Yes, we want lead levels very low, but it is nonsense to assert that any exposure is dangerous. For global warming, the money is on the side of the alarmists. Those asserting the alarm is false are just refusing to be taken in. It is a scam. The politicians and the alarmists see much money to be made, and much political power to be grabbed. Don’t believe them. As ND-T likes to point out, and Sagan and Fineman, before, nature will not be fooled. Mother nature cares not. She will simply carry on, throwing rocks at us whenever the mode strikes, and not noticing one whit anything we do to mess our nest. Sure, we can mess it up good, and cause plenty of harm to ourselves, but burning fuel that nature concentrated for us is never going to matter. CO2 is plant food, and essential ingredient to life. We can burn all the fuel, and the plants will go right on growing, and us critters will go right on eating them, and the planet and life as we know it will continue.
“Your entire rebuttal consists of an appeal to authority. Then you accuse me of sidestepping the issue? LOL”
Exactly what I am I suppose to be rebutting? Can you actually explain what you mean?
“Which still leaves you trying to justify doing something harmful to avoid something that might happen and might be beneficial if it does. The OP aside, that’s what this issue boils down to.”
I never said anything about that. “The OP aside” is not an option when we are talking about claims made by the OP.
“drumphil says:
April 20, 2014 at 9:38 pm
If you have a point, please specify what it is.”
The point is the OP has made a statement and a claim that CO2 is not and will not have a damaging effect on the climate and biosphere. There are many statements and claims at the link I provide that something WILL happen and yet didn’t. I am trying to provide a bit of balance here. We have 40 odd years of statements and claims of some “things” that *WILL* happen due to planetary pollution/cooling/warming lergely driven by human activity etc and 40 odd years of evidence that positively debunks those claims. We also have almost 18 years of data showing no global warming, no increase in droughts, no increase in floods etc all the while CO2 concentration have increased significantly since those early claims were made. Who’s right? I don’t know, but we know who’s been mostly wrong in the last 40 years.
“Well, then isn’t it a problem for you that the OP claims that?”
This is a pretty straight forward yes/no question. You answered by talking about something. Why did you choose to do that?
“Less of a problem than people who appeal to authority while insisting we take measures with known harm in order to mitigate something that might happen and may well be beneficial if it does.”
So does that answer mean that it is a problem for you? If so, why not say what you mean.
*something else*
“Who’s right? I don’t know, but we know who’s been mostly wrong in the last 40 years.”
So, what does that tell us about the veracity of the claims made by the OP? I would suggest, basically nothing.
Steven Mosher says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:48 am
“The human impact on global climate is small; and any warming that may occur as a result of anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions is likely to have little effect on either Earth’s climate or biosphere, according to the recently-released contrasting report Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, which was produced by the independent Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).”
so the science is settled. little effect?
I wonder how the clowns who wrote the NIPCC scientifically determined that there will be little effect in the future? how’d they do that? I read the NIPCC. I saw no experiments that proved there would be little effect. I saw no statistical analysis in that report that proved there would be little effect. And they explained why you could not use models to project the effects.
How did those clowns deduce from no evidence that there would be little effect
++++++++++++
The name calling shows you’ve lost the argument. The IPCC have proven that CO2 has not been shown to cause warming. Try as they might, their CO2 driven models (with water vapor feedbacks) have proven that CO2 must not be a significant driver of climate. Or don’t you understand this?
drumphil;
“The OP aside” is not an option when we are talking about claims made by the OP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ah, I see, the thread is restricted to only those things which YOU want to discuss. Points which you cannot address may be dismissed out of hand because YOU want to void talking about them, I already addressed the concern about the OP’s opinion upthread, and if you recall, agreed with you to some extent. Now, how does that change anything?
Stick around drumphil. Far more articulate and knowledgeable advocates of the CAGW position have come and gone over the years. Mostly gone. Mostly without scoring a point. Sad really. Frankly, I think the site is weaker without them. We need those with differing views to test the strength of our data and positions about the data. Lately we’ve had to content ourselves with debunking bullsh*t from people who think the ghe doesn’t exist at all or that radiatively active gases cool the atmosphere. But someone who comes along and points out facts that make us rethink our positions? Rare, very rare.
But do try to bring some facts to the table to rebut arguments, or even the OP itself. By all means. If you want to argue that once sentence is too strongly worded, by all means. But if you want to score points, then find fault with the substance of the OP and show us where it is wrong in fact or reasoning.
Welcome to the debate.
“Ah, I see, the thread is restricted to only those things which YOU want to discuss. Points which you cannot address may be dismissed out of hand because YOU want to void talking about them, I already addressed the concern about the OP’s opinion upthread, and if you recall, agreed with you to some extent. Now, how does that change anything?”
You can talk about whatever you like, but you can’t demand that I change topic because you want to talk about something else.
“Stick around drumphil. Far more articulate and knowledgeable advocates of the CAGW position have come and gone over the years. Mostly gone. Mostly without scoring a point. Sad really. Frankly, I think the site is weaker without them. We need those with differing views to test the strength of our data and positions about the data. Lately we’ve had to content ourselves with debunking bullsh*t from people who think the ghe doesn’t exist at all or that radiatively active gases cool the atmosphere. But someone who comes along and points out facts that make us rethink our positions? Rare, very rare.”
Blah blah, anything but talking about the claims made by the op, which is all that I was ever talking about.
“But do try to bring some facts to the table to rebut arguments, or even the OP itself. By all means. If you want to argue that once sentence is too strongly worded, by all means. But if you want to score points, then find fault with the substance of the OP and show us where it is wrong in fact or reasoning.
Welcome to the debate.”
What the hell does that have to do with the issues I raised. You can talk about anything you like, but you can’t demand that I justify claims that I never made.
thingadonta says: April 20, 2014 at 6:13 pm
Many people do not accept the fundamental basis of Malthusian ideology, in biology for example many species do not all behave like mosquitos which reproduce on mass leading to inevitable mass mortality, many species in fact adjust their reproduction according to resource availability and survive ad infinitum.
Not exactly….
Malthus, a cleric, pretty much limited his discussions & concerns to human populations in particular. In fact, most of his concerns & concepts have no real correlates in species other than humans.
Almost all species DO behave exactly like mosquitoes, producing many more offspring than the environment can support, and yet do survive “ad infinitum”. In general, they can be segregated by those that produce large numbers of offspring with high mortality and those that produce fewer offspring with lower mortality. We call this high R and low R (or K) species for the (R)eproductive rate. But BOTH types potentially produce many more offspring than the environment can support and the populations of both are controlled by mortality or death. ALL species adjust their R to resource availability as well; a poorly fed female mosquito will lay fewer eggs than a well fed one.
At any rate, nature is both more complex and simpler at the same time than we know.
davidmhoffer: I’m still trying to understand what it is we disagree on. We both seem to agree that the claims made by the OP go beyond what can be supported with good science, and that was the only claim I made in this thread. Exactly what else is it you expect me to justify?
drumphil says:
Right, so, therefore you know that there wont be any negative effects in the future no matter how much C02 rises?
Please note that over 500 million years ago, CO2 levels were over 7000ppm—over 17 times modern levels. Even at the low end of the uncertainty range (~3000ppm), that’s still over 7 times modern levels. And, hey, no catastrophe!
http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
No runaway global warming. In fact, there was an ice age while CO2 levels were in the 4000ppm range.
But CO2 is chemically inert — it doesn’t react with or bind to other molecules. (Unless forced by photosynthesis or other energy input.)
Right, so, therefore you know that there wont be any negative effects in the future no matter how much C02 rises?
The OP didn’t say “likely not have” or “probably will not have”, he said “nor will it have, a dangerous influence on the climate”
@drumphil – wrong debate. We are not the ones promoting C-AGW. In other words, we do not claim to have the answers. Those promoting C-AGW pretend to have them. yet all their prognostications have been wrong so far.
drumphil;
What the hell does that have to do with the issues I raised. You can talk about anything you like, but you can’t demand that I justify claims that I never made.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You raised an issue and I agreed with you. Then I made an additional point about the larger picture. If you want to stomp around like an angry child, feel free to do so. You’ll convince no one of anything.
I invited you also to debate the evidence presented on the OP, to refute it if you could. You’ve studiously avoided doing so. You’ll have to seriously pick up your game if you want to score any points.
“You’ll have to seriously pick up your game if you want to score any points.”
Gawd, If only I’d realized there was someone scoring this…. Meh, you can play for points if that’s what you care about, but you can have that all to yourself.
drumphil;
The OP didn’t say “likely not have” or “probably will not have”, he said “nor will it have, a dangerous influence on the climate”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
For starters, we cannot read your mind. If you are responding to a specific comment than quote it first so we know who and what you are addressing.
I already said I don’t think we know this for certain. But like an angry child, you don’t seem to want to accept agreement for an answer. Nor do you want to discuss the larger picture. Nor do you want to rebut the evidence upon which the statement rests.
C’mon, pick up your game. Give us something to work with.
drumphil;
Gawd, If only I’d realized there was someone scoring this…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ah, if only you were mature enough to recognize a metaphor.
What you did was this:
“So you are asking us to weigh the outcome of mitigation strategies which have known and massive harm to humanity against the negative effects of something that might happen and for which there is increasing evidence will be mild at worst and potentially beneficial.”
Where the hell did I do any of the things you claim I did there? I didn’t even touch on those issues. Where did I ask you to weigh the outcomes of mitigation strategies against anything? This is an example of you putting words in my mouth, so that you can steer the discussion towards what you want to discuss, regardless of whether or not I actually raised any of those issues.
“Nor do you want to discuss the larger picture.”
What does the larger picture have to do with whether or not the claims made by the OP are justified. This was the only claim I made in this thread.
drumphil;
Where the hell did I do any of the things you claim I did there?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Seriously? You disputed the statement that we know the outcome. If we don’t know the outcome (which is your claim, to which I agreed) then what are we left with OTHER than to weigh the outcome of mitigation versus inaction?
“drumphil says:
April 20, 2014 at 9:56 pm
So, what does that tell us about the veracity of the claims made by the OP? I would suggest, basically nothing.”
My take on the OP’s statement is that the underlying evidence, real observed evidence not modeled output, to date suggests nothing dangerous is going to happen to the climate or the biosphere. If it were true it would have happened by now because most people who are in support CAGW claim that the safe level of CO2 is 350ppm/v. We’re quite a bit above that now and the climate is just fine here in Australia.
I understand we sceptics are still waiting for the observed evidence that CO2, and only that ~3% of ~395ppm/v CO2 from human activity, is driving the climate to change in a bad way when we know it was warmer 10,000 years ago and changes in CO2 concentrations follow changes in themperatures by ~800 years.
“Ah, if only you were mature enough to recognize a metaphor.”
“But like an angry child,”
Meh, I’m still waiting for you to provide a quote that shows me “appealing to authority” as you claim I have done. Any second now….
10 grams of morphine will kill you quickly, but 10 grams of fibre (per day) will kill you slowly.
“Seriously? You disputed the statement that we know the outcome. If we don’t know the outcome (which is your claim, to which I agreed) then what are we left with OTHER than to weigh the outcome of mitigation versus inaction?”
I disputed the claim of the OP and suggested that it went far beyond what could be justified with the evidence presented by the OP. What did the OP claim?
Our pathetic, science-challenged politicians label carbon(and anything containing carbon atoms) as dangerous pollution. So, anything or anyone containing carbon must be pollution and also somehow dangerous?
I wonder to what ends that kind of perverted opinion and logic might lead to?
“Streetcred says:
April 20, 2014 at 9:06 pm
April 20, 2014 at 1:15 pm | blackadderthe4th says
———
You quote Dr Karl, science presenter from the Australian Broadcasting Company, as an authority ? JOKE !”
And I have only even seen him on after school kids TV programs targetted at 5th graders and above. I do not recall even seeing him on any, IMO, genuine science program.
“And I have only even seen him on after school kids TV programs targetted at 5th graders and above. I do not recall even seeing him on any, IMO, genuine science program.”
Yeah, cause real scientists don’t do kids programs…..
1960 to 1964: Secondary school education at Edmund Rice Christian Brothers College in Wollongong, New South Wales. Received a Commonwealth Scholarship for university.
1965 to 1967: Tertiary education at the Wollongong campus of the University of New South Wales, studying for a Bachelor of Science degree in physics and mathematics
1968 to 1969: Master of Science (qualifying) in astrophysics at the Wollongong campus of the University of New South Wales. (MSc (Qual.)).
1977: Studied as a miscellaneous student in computer science at the University of New South Wales.
1978: Commenced studies for a Master of Biomedical Engineering degree at the University of New South Wales (part-time).
1979–1980: Full-time student at the University of New South Wales. Received two scholarships – Commonwealth Government Scholarship in 1979 and Lions Fellowship in 1980. Studied under Peter Gouras in January and February 1980 at Columbia University’s Presbyterian Physician’s and Surgeon’s Hospital in New York to gain extra knowledge in the field of electroretinography (detecting electrical signals from the human retina). Designed and built an electroretinograph. This device is still in use at the Prince of Wales Hospital, in association with the Retinitis Pigmentosa Foundation. Completed degree of Master of Biomedical Engineering. (M. Biomed. E.).
1981 to 1984: Degree in medicine and surgery at the University of Sydney. Awarded the Grafton Elliot Smith Memorial Prize for Anatomy in 1982. Awarded the Alexander James Scholarship for Community Medicine in 1984.
1982: Elected as a member of the Australian Institute of Physics (MAIP).
1986: Completed Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery. (MB, BS).[5]
So, basically just some random dude who only does unimportant kids TV.
drumphil says:
April 20, 2014 at 11:12 pm
So, basically just some random dude who only does unimportant kids TV.
———————————————
An argument from authority requires a genuine consensus and a properly qualified expert. If someone is proffering opinions outside their field of expertise or in areas in which there is no body of consensus then you do just as well (in terms of validity) to ask the milkman.
You know what’s weaker than an argument from authority? An argument against someones authority based on the fact that they do kids TV.
“drumphil says:
April 20, 2014 at 11:12 pm”
Yeah, anyone can do a Wikipedia search on someone in the public TV space. All I said was that I only ever recall seeing him on kids TV shows. And in those shows he has made patently false scientific statements which could be easily disproven. I don’t recall seeing him on any other TV program in a discussion about science related topics. That’s not saying he hasn’t.
drumphil;
Meh, I’m still waiting for you to provide a quote that shows me “appealing to authority” as you claim I have done. Any second now….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ask and ye shall receive:
drumphil says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:49 pm
I would suggest that the belief that this is true is inversely proportional to actual expertise in climate science, and that that this is true even on this forum.
drumphil says:
April 20, 2014 at 11:22 pm
You know what’s weaker than an argument from authority? An argument against someones authority based on the fact that they do kids TV.
—————————————————————–
This goes back to his comments on it being a bad argument that co2 could have no effect because there is so little of it in the atmosphere.
If he wanted to rely on a consensus argument he could have mentioned the logarithmic warming effect of co2 and then mentioned that it was a matter of contention as to whether there were positive feedbacks that would amplify that warming.
Instead he chose to attack scepticism with a dubious argument from analogy.
How is that an appeal to authority? It is simply my observation as to varying levels of support for certain ideas between people with greater and lesser expertise in climate science. You may draw whatever conclusions you wish.
And, I’m still not sure what you were referring to when you talk about my rebuttal? Exactly what was I suppose to be rebutting?
I’m confused. If “The human impact on global climate is small; and any warming that may occur as a result of anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions is likely to have little effect on either Earth’s climate or biosphere” then how come “In fact, it demonstrates that the planet’s terrestrial biosphere is undergoing a great greening, which is causing deserts to shrink and forests to expand, thereby enlarging and enhancing habitat for wildlife.”
“So you are asking us to weigh the outcome of mitigation strategies which have known and massive harm to humanity against the negative effects of something that might happen and for which there is increasing evidence will be mild at worst and potentially beneficial.”
Do you accept that I never asked anyone to do this? Can you actually provide the quotes that show me saying what you claim I say:
“Seriously? You disputed the statement that we know the outcome. If we don’t know the outcome (which is your claim, to which I agreed) then what are we left with OTHER than to weigh the outcome of mitigation versus inaction?”
I was very clear about what my complaint with the OP was. It would seem that your obsession with “scoring” has made you determined to “even up”, regardless of the fact that we both agree the OP made statements that can’t be supported by the evidence they provide.
Anyway, I wait with baited breath for the next lesson in maturity. I suppose your comment like:
““Ah, if only you were mature enough to recognize a metaphor.”
“But like an angry child,”
are justified because of how immature I am. From now on I will try and live up to your high standards.
drumphil, no one needs to be much of an expert in CO2 “climate change” Climate Science to know that it has as 100% rate of prediction failures stemming from its hypotheses = Falsification of CO2 “climate change”! But plenty of experts in the area of Climate do disagree with the tenets of CO2 “climate change”, as well as Countries such as China, which is currently building about as many coal-fired electricity plants as possible. It’s clear by now that the alleged “cure” to the still only alleged net “disease” of CO2CAGW, is easily much worse than the alleged disease – which itself was simply assumed to exist by the ipcc, then wildly disasterized with no attention at all paid in like manner to the real, potential, and wildly exaggerated benefits of Global Warming . Spain and Germany are discontinuing their subsidies to “green energy” wind mills and solar because it doesn’t work and is bankrupting them.
If you don’t listen to Robin they’ll all end up like this.
==============
“drumphil says:
April 20, 2014 at 10:25 pm
The OP didn’t say “likely not have” or “probably will not have”, he said “nor will it have, a dangerous influence on the climate”
So if the OP had used the usual cowardly weasel words such as “likely”, “probably”, “could” and “might” etc, you’d be happy I’d guess? I think the fact that the OP has gone “balls out” to say what he said is bold IMO. And that supports the fact there is no evidence that ~3% of ~395ppm/v CO2 is doing anything now NOR will do anything *dangerous* in the future to climate.
“””””…..davidmhoffer says:
April 20, 2014 at 10:43 am
george e smith;
I have an excellent industrial heat gun, and I plan to do the experiment myself, since I never have done it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Turn the [fan] in the heat gun off, as the air flow promotes more cooling via evaporation that the heating element provides in the first place. And it blows the evaporated air away from the bucket instead of leaving it in contact with the water surface as would happen in a real ocean surface. Well, a real ocean surface unperturbed by wind I suppose. So make sure your experiment includes a surface perturbed by combinations of wind (including white caps, foam, and flotsam), rainfall, and debris ranging from algae to dust to dead leaves and insects, and is big enough that the air from the heat gun doesn’t blow the primary effects outside the radius of your [experiment]. You’ll also want to refer to Leonard Weinstein’s comment upthread…….””””””
Now David; you’re a fairly critical thinker.
So look at where RMB’s original post (re surface tension) is, and where Leonard Weinstein’s response is.
Compare the length, and complexity of Leonard’s response; succinct, but not informative, with the somewhat longer, but information containing response I penned (laboriously) to RMB, but also for the benefit of any and all readers.
So if we both started reading this thread, at the same moment, whose response do you think would be done, and post first ??
I always start reading from the top, to see what readers are saying about the story, and don’t stop reading until, I find something, I feel needs correction, or amplification, or support.
So I never saw Leonard’s response. But he sure nailed the problem..
And I don’t think I said anywhere that I would turn the heat gun blower on; why would I, if the air never got hotter than maybe 200 deg. C, and in addition (they claim) ordinary gases of air don’t radiate in the infra-red anyway.
So I won’t need to turn it off; I never turned it on.
george e. smith says:
April 21, 2014 at 1:12 am
————————————
George,
you are correct in saying that surface tension is not the issue. However incident LWIR does not have the effect claimed over water that is free to evaporatively cool. I showed a cleaner version of the experiment earlier on the thread here –
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/20/dueling-climate-reports-this-one-is-worth-sharing-on-your-own-blog/#comment-1617674
However if you want to try with a hair dryer you can also see a similar effect.
(Note – do not try this if you do not have an RCD safety device installed on your power supply. No stupid accidents please. Water, electrical appliances. Stop and think)*.
Take a thin plastic tub of water and install a probe thermometer 5mm below the surface. Now try to heat the water surface with the hair dryer, holding it about 300mm away so as not to cause turbulence or splashing. You should only notice a very slight temperature rise in 5 min. Now point the hair dryer at the side of the plastic tub, again about 300mm away. Initially you will see no heating, but then the Raleigh number is exceeded and convection brings the heated water to the probe. Heating through the plastic works far better than trying to heat through the skin evaporation layer.
Oh and “switching of the fan”? Forget that, average wind speed over the oceans is Beaufort scale 4 😉
*Not aimed at you George, but others are reading…
Isn’t it time we all simply ignored dumphill? He brings no discussion, no evidence and is currently doing a good job of disrupting the thread because of his egregious refusal to accept the null hypothesis or any argument about his assertions. I call that a troll tactic. Shouldn’t we treat him accordingly?
drumphil:
“““The rise in atmospheric CO2 is not having, nor will it have, a dangerous influence on the climate and biosphere.””
That was the claim. It’s a big claim.”
Followed by:
“Right, so, therefore you know that there wont be any negative effects in the future no matter how much C02 rises?”
I think you are switching your argument. A “dangerous influence” isn’t necessarily the same as a “negative impact.” In addition, by leaving the argument open with “no matter how much C02 rises?” kind of gives you a convenient escape from any retort.
The word “dangerous” in the original statement is the one that makes all the difference in the world. To say “rise in atmospheric CO2 is not having, nor will it have, an influence on the climate and biosphere” would simply be stupid. When the word “dangerous” is added though, it kind of depends on what is meant by “dangerous.” Does it mean a potentially “negative effect” or does it mean the apocalypse?
drumphill,
And we can quote Michael Chrichton who had a similar resume.
You are just an obtuse true believer.
@ rogerknights says:
April 20, 2014 at 10:25 pm
CO2 is not chemically inert.
RichieP says:
April 21, 2014 at 3:03 am
———————————
Awww come on….
We’ve got an faux lukewarmer AGW believer throwing an innocent AGW believer under the bus just for defensive colouration.
It’s comedy gold!
RMB says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:30 am
“The fact is that you cannot heat water through its surface. If you doubt me try heating water through the surface using a heat gun.”
———————–
The next time you want to heat up a cup of water with a “heat gun” to put a teabag into …… ask your mother how to do it.
I’m sure she will tell you that the heat “goes up, not down” …… and that’s why she places her skillets and pots on top of the gas flame on her cook stove and not underneath of it. Ya boil water, ….. ya don’t broil it.
But iffen you got all day to do it …. you can heat that water from the “top down” with your heat gun.
drumphil:
“““The rise in atmospheric CO2 is not having, nor will it have, a dangerous influence on the climate and biosphere.””
That was the claim. It’s a big claim.”
:drumphil:
“Right, so, therefore you know that there wont be any negative effects in the future no matter how much C02 rises.
==================================================\
Mr. Drumphil, there is a world of difference between “any negative”, and “dangerous influence”
The word dangerous, used in the report, refers to the predicted global disasters. Also, the report does not say. ” no matter how much C02 rises”, as again, you distort the report just as you also put words in my mouth. There is a limit on how much CO2 will rise due to human actions, and, further supporting the NIPC assertion, it is well known that the warming affect decreases exponentially.
For this, and hundreds of other reasons, the report backs up its claims. The scientific literature now contains strong verifiable evidence that the alarmist make dozens of failed predictions about increased CO2, both in the scientific literature, and in the media, they ALL FAIL BADLY. The climate models based on increased CO2 ALL run to warm. They ALL fail the observations.
The predicted disasters ALL fail to materialize. There are good documented peer reviewed studies that show NO INCREASE IN ALL THE PREDICED DISASTERS.
The benefits of increased CO2 are hard to overstate. They are demonstrated in hundreds of experiments, both in the lab, and in the FIELD. All of the observations support the NIPC studies. The anthropogenic increase of 120 PPM, right now grows about 15% more food globally then it would in a 280 PPM world. In addition it takes no additional water to achieve this, palatable water being a real problem in the world, due to politics, not a lack of resource.
So does this PROVE future CO2 increases will not lead to DANGEROUS GLOBAL CONSEQUENCES. Well no, science does not EVER PROVE anything, being always open to other possibilities. But the conclusion Mosher rejects is highly logical and scientific.
NOTHING in the pro CAGW so called “science” ever stated that CO2 would have no affect for the first 120 PPM increase, and then suddenly have disaster everywhere, did it?
So again Mr Drumphil, where is the C in CAGW? You refused to answer this last time; saying you were not asserting anything. However you are asking the world to change to a massively destructive economic policy based on a failed science. So you have a duty to answer the question. Where is the “C” in CAGW? Mosher also has failed to answer this question every time he is asked.
I recommend that the regular posters all ask Mr. Mosher; “Where is the “C” in CAGW?” every time he shows up, as he has consistently failed to answer this question.
The truth is that for 17 years the A, the G and W are also missing, and the C never even hinted at coming, while the G,W also, never came beyond numerous known historic trends.
CAGW is a failed hypothesis. CAGW is the correct name for the theory, and the move to calling it “Climate Change”, should be disputed every time they use the incorrect term.
cesium62 says:
April 21, 2014 at 12:17 am
“I’m confused. If “The human impact on global climate is small; and any warming that may occur as a result of anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions is likely to have little effect on either Earth’s climate or biosphere” then how come “In fact, it demonstrates that the planet’s terrestrial biosphere is undergoing a great greening, which is causing deserts to shrink and forests to expand, thereby enlarging and enhancing habitat for wildlife.””
—————–
Your confusion is due to the mixing up of “apples n’ oranges”.
If the atmospheric CO2 ppm increases by another 200 ppm to a total of 600 ppm there will NOT be any detectable or measurable increase in near-surface air temperatures.
If the atmospheric CO2 ppm increases by another 200 ppm to a total of 600 ppm there WILL BE a pronounced detectable or measurable increase in the “greening” of the planet’s terrestrial biosphere.
And technically, the more “greening” of the planet’s terrestrial biosphere means more “cooling” of the near-surface air temperatures.
“HA”, ….. CO2 is Mother Nature’s prescription pro-biotic. It decreases her temperature and “greens” her up.
Cheers
You crashed their Kumbaya-ya party. What did you expect?
Mods: previous comment intended for another thread. Please remove or disregard. Thx.
Warmarxists hate & fear any positive effects of CO2, even tho they are well-documented. Expect squealing and blindly lashing out.
The CAGW propaganda machine is alive and well, esp when university presidents deny certain kinds of scientific research over other kinds that are more akin to their ideology. For them the only CO2 is a dangerous CO2. Nothin else matters.
http://www.syracuse.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/04/earth_day_climate_change_challenge_of_the_century_commentary.html
***
RMB says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:30 am
***
Wrong about surface tension. But the fact remains that CO2 back-radiation (IR) cannot penetrate significantly into water (a couple microns). All the warming (better described as reduced cooling) from GHGs is manifested immediately as a surface warming, and increased water vapor. There is no significant time-lag and no heat-in-the-pipeline directly from GHG effects (unless one wants to postulate that GHGs increase solar input somehow — good luck). Ocean “diffusivity” is essentially insignificant regarding GHG infrared.
OK. Fine. No problem.
So, SW IR radiation cannot “heat up” the surface of water past a few microns, and what IR energy IS absorbed into that immediate surface layer of water goes into evaporation (latent heat) which removes the energy from the water.
SO, go two steps further into the system involved. Between the tropics of cancer and capricorn (near the equator oceans) 1030 watts/m^2 ARE hitting a flat water surface each hour at noon.
At sunrise (6 hours earlier) there was no SW IR downward.
At sunset, 6 hours later, there will be no SW IR downward.
At midnight, 12 hours later, there will be no SW ITR downward.
Now, over a 1,000,000 km area, explain the energy IMbalance on an hour-by-hour basis. (Hint: Over four million km^2 areas (2 at the equator, two at the poles) you CAN explain the actual complete heat balance.)
Do NOT allow yourself the lazy and completely wrong Trenberth “flat earth, average sun, average albedo” excuse. Use the actual radiation in, actual evaporation, actual convection, and actual conduction losses.
We have heard thousands of excuses and claims, but I have NEVER seen published an actual climate model result of global winds, temperatures, and regional climates. Actually, I have never even seen a climate model that re-creates ocean currents, jet streams, cold fronts, and seasons even.
— As a carbon-based life-form, I resent the assertion that my basic structure is composed of a pollutant. The self-loathers like Kerry and Boxer, though they have every reason to find themselves utterly disgusting, must not be allowed to project their psychopathy on the rest of us. We remember our second-grade science. We remember that CO2 is the source of our carbon.–
Brilliant. I am quite sure we could invent a pill that would rid your body of harmful carbon pollution by stopping its ingress and preventing you from exhaling this dangerous pollutant into the environment. Once “carbon neutralized,” your corpse could be buried – oops, carbon sequestered – to permanently remove your carbon footprint and protect future generations. In more ways than one.
I’m preparing the ad campaign as we speak…
/sarc
Just to clarify my unclear post, the “your” I was referring to was Kerry and Boxer et al, not the author, who is right on.
David,
Why ask Steven that? He’s a lukewarmer as far as I can tell.
Mark, on this thread he just called a study by PHD scientists, with reference to hundreds of peer reviewed reports showing the benefits of CO2, and showing how the postulated harms were in fact wrong, a report by “clowns”. CAGW is not an academic theory sans global political agenda.
Mosher consistently take a pro precautionary principle approach. Politically he has hinted at his leftist leanings. They go hand in hand
To RMB and Konrad,
You assert, variously, that water cannot be heated from the surface down due to “surface tension”, or you pose more sophisticated arguments that downwelling radiation cannot heat water from the surface down. The former argument is simply absurd and reveals a truly profound ignorance of physics and thermodynamics. The second is more sophisticated — it doesn’t really argue that surface heating does not occur, it attempts to argue that without exception (independent of, say, the relative humidity or dew point near the surface) the heat is instantly lost as latent heat via surface evaporation.
The empirical refutation of both assertions is trivial. Consider the variation of sea surface temperature with a) Latitude; b) Season. There is an absolutely inescapable correlation between the average amount of downwelling radiation in all bands and sea surface temperatures. To put it bluntly, sea surface temperatures in the tropics tend to be warmer than 20 C and are often as warm as 30 C or even higher. Sea surface temperatures inside the Arctic circle rarely reach 10 C, and that only at the warmest part of summer, when downwelling radiation is maximum.
Furthermore, one can do direct spectrography on ocean surface waters (looking down from overhead), and observe that the ocean radiates in the LWIR. Kirchoff’s Law suggests that they must absorb in the LWIR as they radiate in the LWIR.
Finally, anyone who has taken elementary chemistry or thermodynamics classes knows that the rate of evaporation in any system depends on both the temperature at the surface and on the partial pressure of the vapor above it — that is, the relative humidity. If the gas above the liquid is saturated (for the temperature) with vapor, there is no net evaporation and no latent heat cooling. If the gas is supersaturated (at the temperature) there is the opposite — active condensation at the surface — which warm the surfaces by giving up latent heat to the surface as molecules from the vapor hit and stick.
It is a thus simple matter of fact that the assertion that water cannot be heated from the surface with downwelling radiation is false. Of course it can, and on average in lakes, oceans, ponds, rivers (all of which warm with the seasons — that is, with the variation of radiative flux delivered to the water surface due to orbital tipping angle — from the top down) it is. That doesn’t make it the most efficient way to heat water, of course — only an idiot would try to boil water with a burner on top because water is a comparatively poor conductor and because it has a substantial thermal expansion coefficient and hence quickly stratifies due to internal buoyancy into a profile that has the coldest temperatures on the bottom if heated at the top. Heating the bottom causes comparatively rapid convective mixing. And if we want to boil water rapidly, what do we do? We put a lid on the pot to trap the vapor and maintain the gas above the liquid at close to saturation, minimizing evaporative loss.
I’m quite certain that the factors that precisely describe the way that the ocean surface absorbs and loses heat all the way down to its skin depth(s) in all incident frequencies from the complex mix of radiation, latent heat transfer, convection, direct conduction from the surface atmosphere (which also changes temperature at the surface due to radiation, conduction, latent heat transfer, and convection), complicated by variations in its transparency, its lifeform content, its local chemistry, and enormously nonlinear and complex variations of the above that occur when e.g. winds blow over the surface and whitecaps occur, or during the ocean’s globe spanning thermohaline transport process that we haven’t properly begun to fully understand or explain are not simple. The sentence I need to use to include most of them by name itself is not simple. A computational realization of all of these processes is very, very much not simple. So why do people persist on making stupid linearized statements that are nothing more than personal opinion dressed up in scientific language?
Water “cannot” be heated from the surface? Bullshit! A closed volume of water, like any other form of matter, can be heated from any surface because it does not get a bye from the first law of thermodynamics! Precisely how it responds will depend on all of the processes that occur both within the volume to distribute energy and at the surface where energy can enter or leave the surrounding environment.
It is reasonable to doubt reports of oceanic warming to depths of 700m when those reports involve temperature deltas at the absolute limits of the resolution both of the apparatus used to make the measurements and the statistical process that transforms a pitifully sparse and non-uniform sampling at depth into statements about the bulk behavior of a heterogeneous fluid volume covering 70% of the Earth’s surface. It is also very reasonable to demand a plausible description of transport processes responsible for the heating, given the aforementioned difficulty of rapidly transporting heat down through a highly stratified fluid (almost all of the ocean is within 1-2 degrees of 4 C, and only substantially departs from this temperature in the top 500 or so meters, depending on latitude). It isn’t that there couldn’t be such processes — see the aforementioned thermohaline circulation, that very definitely pulls heat down into the deeper ocean and transports it very long distances — it is that they run against our simplest models of a stratified ocean with poor conductivity and comparatively weak vertical heat transport from the top down against the prevailing convective stability. It is also quite reasonable to think long and hard about the mix of heat transfer mechanisms at the surface because they are so horrendously nonlinear and local microstate dependent that they are very likely not to be tractible via any sort of naive linearization.
Once again I have to state — in agreement with several others above — assertions of this sort do not do the science, or the scientific reputation of this blog or the skeptical argument — any favors. They are so obviously wrong that they smack of desperation or obfuscation. They make it so easy for people to at least try to dismiss the entire rational skeptical argument by pointing out that some of those arguments are purely crank stuff, nonscience. This dismissal is a logical fallacy, to be sure, but although it is a logical fallacy it is a statistical truth, and most of us readily understand that.
As for the NIPCC, I have little to say. The political polarization of science sucks. Presenting climate arguments by tallying “peer reviewed publications” that agree with one perspective or the other sucks. Truth isn’t determined by a “vote” in the form of peer reviewed publication tallies, and the fundamental arguments for or against future catastrophe are not improved by such a count on either side. It drives me crazy when arguing with warmists when they invoke the peer reviewed publication tally as proof of their belief instead of directly addressing the data and the lack of skill in the models that are really the sole scientific basis for belief in catastrophic warming. If the models are wrong, the tally of papers making predictions of what will happen in 100 years contingent upon the models being correct will be utterly irrelevant, will it not? If they are right, then no amount of skeptical argument, no tally of papers extolling the virtues of more CO_2 will matter when the model-predicted catastrophes come to pass.
The entire argument, at this point, hinges on the reliability of the predictive models, the GCMs. Worse, since those models do not themselves even come close to agreeing, it currently hinges on the reliability of the “ensemble” of models on average in an abominable perversion of statistical legerdemain. It may well be that some subset of the GCMs are reasonably predictive, but the IPCC (in AR5) does not rank the models on the basis of predictive skill or give them additional weight on the basis of a good correspondence with observed reality. It does not reject models that have done a particularly terrible job of predicting reality. It does not adjust their statistics on the basis of the relative computational weight of the results of any given model in the CMIP5 ensemble. By so doing, they have made it literally impossible to falsify any statement made in AR5, even as they have made it literally impossible to assign any meaningful number as “statistical confidence” in any of the predictions based on the ensemble mean.
To be completely blunt — nothing else really matters at this point. We can argue about whether this or that bit of physics is correct — whether or not the oceans “can” warm as rapidly as they may be warming (which is incredibly slowly, but that is a good thing if true), whether or not there is a factor of 2-3 positive feedback on CO_2 only forcing because of water vapor — but in the end, these statements only matter in the context of the actual solution of the actual equations that accurately describe the evolution of the Earth’s climate at an adequate resolution to have predictive skill. It is — in my opinion, based on looking at the results of the best attempts to solve these equations so far — unlikely that we have yet succeeded in building a good predictive model of the climate, and nearly certain that we have built a large number of poor (that is non-predictive) models of the climate, models that are not in good agreement with observational reality for reasons that we do not even begin to understand but that are very likely related to both omitted physics, incorrectly linearized physics, and a serious, serious problem with model resolution and emergent phenomena.
rgb
David,
Again, I could have this all wrong, but that’s not my impression of Steven. He didn’t say they were wrong. He asked after their evidence, as any good skeptic ought. Lots of people have suggested Steven has been asking skeptics to prove a negative, but I don’t see that. The report didn’t say ‘The effects are uncertain’. The report said, ‘Effects are small.‘. That’s a positive claim that requires substantiation.
Look, I’m not interested in starting the Steven Mosher Fan club, even though I’m sure it must seem that way to readers sometimes. It just bugs me that people get on his case because he refuses to be a hypocrite, is what it boils down to. People go on to assume he’s a lefty because he’s rigorous. I thought he was libertarian actually, don’t know and I don’t really care. But yeah, I object to people beating up on Mosher as an effigy straw man for positions he doesn’t even appear to support.
If you want to judge Steven’s motives (which I don’t), and figure out what side he’s on (which is irrelevant anyway), you need to explain why a Team player would bust Peter Gleick in the matter of the Heartland wirefraud, and read and explain his participation in the Crutape Letters. Who cares, right, what’s all that got to do with anything? Right! It doesn’t, unless you’re considering irrelevant questions in the first place. Let’s listen to what the guy actually says instead of making tribal assumptions, that’s all.
Robert Brown;
Water “cannot” be heated from the surface? Bullshit! A closed volume of water, like any other form of matter, can be heated from any surface because it does not get a bye from the first law of thermodynamics!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thank you sir!
id8: There is a quote site: http://www.brainyquote.com/
“And, my friends, in this story you have a history of this entire movement. First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you.” (Nicholas Klein)
Robert Brown says: April 21, 2014 at 7:42 am
… It is … unlikely that we have yet succeeded in building a good predictive model of the climate, and nearly certain that we have built a large number of poor (that is non-predictive) models of the climate, models that are not in good agreement with observational reality …
Robert Brown, thanks very much for that post !! Always nice to get some solid facts, informed opinions and the common sense that clearly shows the difference between the two.
But I like my opinion too …”they both make it up” /sarc
[which is only /sarc because, at it’s base, both sides conclude way to much certainty on their broad viewpoints given their very weak data and inappropriate statistics use]
Mark Bofill says:
April 21, 2014 at 7:56 am
David,
Again, I could have this all wrong, but that’s not my impression of Steven. He didn’t say they were wrong. He asked after their evidence, as any good skeptic ought.
=========================================================
True, but the hypocrisy was twofold. One, he often admonishes skeptics for not doing their homework. Here he did not do his homework. The NIPCC report is very long, with hundred of references to historical peer reviewed science on the real world affects of CO2 on the biosphere and biology of this planet. It takes on many of the purported harms of CO2, and shows where, why those suggestions are likely wrong, not using models, but real world studies. A real world study showing the lack of nitrogen depletion due to enhanced CO2 is not a statistic. It is a study of the affects showing the projected harm did not happen. (Except in the sense of the predicted depletion failing to happen) The study is chalk full of those kinds of statistics. Mosher failed to address ANY of the hundreds of scientific observed measured and documented facts in a very long report.
His second hypocrisy was to call the PHD scientist who made up the report “clowns” By this twofold and shallow dismissal of a well presented and detailed study, a study of clowns without statistics, Mosher was doing far more then sincerely asking what is the basis of their assertion that their is not likely to be catastrophic consequences of additional CO2 in the biosphere. he answer to hat question is detailed throughout the entire report. n general however it is vey simple. The earth has not warmed as predicted. The predicted disaster have failed to materialize. The benefits have and are materializing. The studies indicate this is likely to continue with additional CO2.
You say he is a luke-warmist. Also true. However, when a luke-warmist supports the precautionary principle, their luke-warmness is rendered meaningless, because the political global government solutions are then engendered and supported. In this well researched paper on the benefits of CO2, Mosher attempts to trash them with insulting disdain. I have seen Mosher repeatedly support the precautionary principle. The CAGW use of the precautionary principle is, IMV, a gross distortion of that principle; and also deeply harmful to the life and health of the people of this planet. It is dangerous to the economy, the environment, and likely to lead to war, as poverty is always likely to lead to war.
Regarding his political view, he has been careful, but let slip his government centrist leaning a few times. If you wish I will look for those instances. I have never heard him say anything remotely libertarian, but I could be wrong.
I also wish the CAGW debate could be strictly scientific, but, alas, it is highly political. Mosher portends to be only interested in the science, but his actions here betray his assertion. because he does not defend obvious wrong, like Peter Glick, does not mean he is unbiased. It just means he does not want to be biased. Confirmation bias is very tricky, and none, including myself are 100% immune to it. Moser is not “evil”, but he is not consistent either. Also his hubris and lecturing, without condescending to a rational discussion, can be grating on the nerves.
Mark Bofill says:
April 21, 2014 at 7:56 am
David,
“Again, I could have this all wrong, but that’s not my impression of Steven. He didn’t say they were wrong.”
++++++
He did not use correct English language, yet instead he called them names, clowns, thereby attempting to disqualify them from being capable of cogent (unclown-like) conclusions. What gets me is that Mosher often has a brilliant command of language, which I often see as attempting to obfuscate away from truth and knowledge.
Mark, sorry for the typos. I hope they are simple, so that the meaning is still conveyed. I wish Steven Mosher would condescend to discuss. It is something you appear to be capable of, but a quality I perceive as mostly lacking in his hit and run condescending approach.
It’s all good. 🙂 I’ve pretty much worn out any desire to talk about Steve Mosher anyway.
Joel O’Bryan says:
April 20, 2014 at 10:04 am
“The Liberals are always on the hunt for new ways to extract money from businesses and industry for their causes.
Thankfully today we have the internet.”
Yeah the internet has hit them where it hurts – this may put a free internet at risk if there isn’t a big change at the polls soon. These diabolical guys have been whittling away at education for decades, interfering in curricula – even the food rules are being bent to sell global warming – a good education was identified as a threat to this ideology some time ago. Schools and universities are nearly all corrupted with political correctness.
As much as I hesitate to “feed the troll” by responding at all, it is important that we be consistent – the answer to bad science is not worse science. RMB’s rant about “heating water through the surface” has been posted many times on this site and repeatedly debunked. There are many valid arguments against the current CO2-centric climate models. That is not one of them and anyone who has ever left a kiddy pool outside on a sunny day knows it.
Robert Brown says:
April 21, 2014 at 7:42 am
———————————-
“To RMB and Konrad,”
Oh no you don’t 😉 I have already stated on this thread “RMB” is incorrect…”
“The second is more sophisticated — it doesn’t really argue that surface heating does not occur, it attempts to argue that without exception (independent of, say, the relative humidity or dew point near the surface) the heat is instantly lost as latent heat via surface evaporation.”
I most clearly did not argue “without exception”. I did mention wind speed and water temperature. My point is that empirical experiment shows that liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool does not respond to incident LWIR in the same manner as other materials.
“There is an absolutely inescapable correlation between the average amount of downwelling radiation in all bands and sea surface temperatures.”
All bands? The experiment I showed was clearly only dealing with incident LWIR. I am well aware of the manner in which UV/SW/SWIR heat water.
“Furthermore, one can do direct spectrography on ocean surface waters (looking down from overhead), and observe that the ocean radiates in the LWIR. Kirchoff’s Law suggests that they must absorb in the LWIR as they radiate in the LWIR.”
Water definitely both absorbs and emits LWIR. Nowhere do I claim otherwise.
“Water “cannot” be heated from the surface? Bullshit!”
Nowhere do I claim that water cannot be heated from the surface. I am clearly claiming that for water that is free to evaporatively cool, incident LWIR is ineffective at this.
“It is also quite reasonable to think long and hard about the mix of heat transfer mechanisms at the surface because they are so horrendously nonlinear and local microstate dependent that they are very likely not to be tractible via any sort of naive linearization.”
This I can completely agree with. Although I would state it differently – The oceans are not a blackbody, standard S-B equations won’t work.
“Once again I have to state — in agreement with several others above — assertions of this sort do not do the science, or the scientific reputation of this blog or the skeptical argument — any favors. They are so obviously wrong that they smack of desperation or obfuscation. They make it so easy for people to at least try to dismiss the entire rational skeptical argument by pointing out that some of those arguments are purely crank stuff, nonscience. This dismissal is a logical fallacy, to be sure, but although it is a logical fallacy it is a statistical truth, and most of us readily understand that.”
If by “rational sceptical argument” you are referring to the “Lukewarmer” position, then there is a problem. Faced with the question –
“given 1 bar atmospheric pressure, is the NET effect of our radiative atmosphere over the oceans warming or cooling?”
– CAGW believers, AGW believers and Lukewarmers all answer “warming”. The “basic physics” of the “settled science” clearly states that the “surface in the absence of an atmosphere” would be at ~-18C. However, we know how hot an evaporation constrained solar pond can get, ~80C. That’s how hot our oceans would get in the absence of atmospheric cooling. Even if we pretend that DWLWIR was capable of raising ocean temps 33C and remove that, the figure for the oceans in absence of atmosphere is still 65C higher than the -18C claimed. This means that the NET effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is cooling. And for the atmosphere to cool the oceans, it must have some way to cool itself. That would be radiative gases.
(yes, I am well aware that the oceans would actually boil into space without an atmosphere. There is no “out” there.)
“models that are not in good agreement with observational reality for reasons that we do not even begin to understand but that are very likely related to both omitted physics, incorrectly linearized physics, and a serious, serious problem with model resolution and emergent phenomena.”
While I agree with this, the single mistake of treating the oceans as a near blackbody when they are instead a SW selective coating over 71% of the planet’s surface is so big that investigation of other complexities is unnecessary.
These folks speak as if they wer talking about something really, really KNOWN – but when you ask them to make their prediction for the near future, watch them dance around the question. “…unless we act dramatically and quickly” sounds awfully certain.
It’s pretty simple and straightforward. They make extraordinary claims, with great certainty – both scientists and politicos. Thus, the ball is in their court,so we should simply ask them to put up or shut up. With their certainty, surely the science is SO nailed down that they should be able to TELL us WHEN and AT WHAT LEVEL the disaster begins.
So, we should simply be asking them these questions:
1. At what level of CO2 do we begin to actually experience the disaster?
2. In what year will this happen?
First of all, they will refuse to answer, indicating that their certainty is based on nothing but assertion.
Secondly, they will change the subject and tell us that WE need to answer why this won’t happen. OR they will say that if we wait that long it will already be too late.
I mean, certainty is certainty. In engineering or physics when you say some structure is going to fail when the stress exceeds a certain point, THAT is certainty. The formulas have been known and used many times in the past, so there is a lot of KNOWNS happening and there is a very low level of uncertainty. The same goes for transformers or other electrical devices – we know that a certain (no pun intended) amount of voltage (within a known range) will fry certain devices.
Greg says: “….Konrad” if memory serves correctly. Don’t think the write up ever got properly finished though.
So I did remember correctly and it appears he has still NOT written this up . (Has he even done the physical experiment? All I see here is the usual “thought experiment” and verbal hand-waving exercises. ) .
Konrad, if you’d actually done it, let’s have it. Description of apparatus, method, table of results.
This must be quite a simple desktop experiment. Has no one EVER even tried this and written it up in 30 years and billions of dollar of expenditure ????
My god, how did that get held back? Is K’s name blacklisted ?
My gut feeling on this is that a water molecule within microns of the surface of water, that is near equilibrium with its surroundings, and absorbs an IR photon will be energetic enough to evaporate unless there is a high vaporu pressure just above the water surface.
This proviso means extremely still conditions and probably a temperature inversion to prevent convection cells emerging.
That’s idealised and in reality I don’t see it happening enough to matter.
Possible exception is oils or surface contaminants, oil from sea weed or pollution or the mysterious liquid crystal effects of the water surface.
“You be the judge!”
Oh no, no, no, we cannot have people thinking for themselves, we have government experts to tell us what to think, they would be unemployed! Why do you hate science?
Steven Mosher says: “I read the NIPCC.”
I don’t think you did.
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2b/pdf/Front-Matter.pdf
The report says we can’t really predict with any reliability what future temperatures will be within the relevant range, which is true.
The report says the IPCC estimates of what will happen under warmer temperatures appears to be wrong, based on the evidence given in the report — also true.
There’s no contradiction in pointing out both facts.
So as they say, worry first about your own big red nose before criticizing your neighbor’s big floppy feet.
Greg Goodman says:
April 22, 2014 at 10:12 am
———————————-
Yes Greg, my name is blacklisted. However, in Anthony’s defence I do have the habit of winding Dr. Brown and Willis up. All posts that even mention the evil one must be checked by a moderator 😉
Here’s the thing Greg, If I say I have run the experiment, I have. The diagrams provided are the refined version for others to build. Unlike climastrologists I want others to replicate my work.
The early version of the incident LWIR onto water free to evaporatively cool experiment was published at Talkshop back in 2011. –
http://i47.tinypic.com/694203.jpg
– That version simply reflected out going IR from warm water samples back onto the surface of one sample not the other. Later tests have involved steady LWIR sources.
One of the great disappointments with the whole sceptic blogsphere is how few people actually check anything empirically. This website’s foundation was in the empirical checks of surface stations. Anthony our host has taken the time to empirically check Al Gores CO2 in a bottle experiment and prove it false. Dr. Spencer at his site took the time to build a radiative GHE experiment. But what do most other sceptics do? Cut and past, click and link, and type, type, type.
Well I say “Type is cheap”. There is an ancient saying – “Tell me I’ll forget. Show me I’ll understand. Let me do it and I will know.”
Rather than give you tables or figures, I would far rather you verified the physics for yourself. The more people that know, the better. You will need to buy a non contact IR thermometer. Mine cost about $100, but there are cheaper versions that would be quite adequate.
Set up a small desk fan to create a very light breeze (1m/s) across a table surface. (you may need a sheet of card to build a baffle so air flow is an even layer across the table surface)
Place a matt black 100 x 100 x 2mm thick sheet of aluminium on the table surface
Place a very thin tray the same size with 2mm of water in it (tray sides 2.5mm deep or less) next to it.
Use the IR thermometer to measure the surface temp of each.
Hold a steam iron set at 200C 50mm above the black plate for 2min, then re-measure temp.
Do the same for the shallow tray of water.
You should note a ~15C rise in the black plate but little or no change in the water temp (if you have poor airflow between the iron and the water surface, gas stagnation and conduction will warm the water surface, but not 15C)
As I have indicated to Dr. Brown up-thread, cold water or low wind speed would allow LWIR to effect ocean cooling rates. The problem is that Climastrologists claim DWLWIR is raising ocean temperature by 33C. DWLWIR clearly doesn’t have the power to do this when water can evaporatively cool.
Hopefully in the next week I will have two new experiments up for discussion at Talkshop – “Shredded Lukewarm Turkey in Boltzmanic Vinegar” and “How black were my oceans?”. These cover the issues I was raising in my last comment to Dr. Brown. The near blackbody calcs of the climastrologists indicate the sun alone does not have the power to heat our oceans above -18C. These two experiments demonstrate the difference between near blackbody and a SW selective material and why our sun alone is warming our oceans, and why the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans must be cooling.
REPLY: You aren’t blacklisted as you claim, your comments still get published, but they are on moderation hold…since as you admit you tend to get a bit over the top at times -Anthony
“REPLY: You aren’t blacklisted as you claim, your comments still get published, but they are on moderation hold…since as you admit you tend to get a bit over the top at times -Anthony”
I appreciate that I am not actually “blacklisted”, and do accept the reasons for moderation.
I was however pointing out that Greg is not the first to appear go into moderation for just typing my name 😉
Robert Brown says:
April 21, 2014 at 7:42 am
+++++++++++++
Your post at 7:42 am is one of the finest posts. Nothing I can say would make your post better.
Mario
Robert Brown says:
April 21, 2014 at 7:42 am
“…As for the NIPCC, I have little to say. The political polarization of science sucks. Presenting climate arguments by tallying “peer reviewed publications” that agree with one perspective or the other sucks. Truth isn’t determined by a “vote” in the form of peer reviewed publication tallies, and the fundamental arguments for or against future catastrophe are not improved by such a count on either side.”
========================================================
I certainly disagree with any suggestion that this is what the NIPCC did in their report. They never made a “statistical” count of reports that agreed, or disagreed with them. (Despite that fact that Mr. Mosher appears to need some form of such statistics to consider it valid) They made rational deductions based on hundreds of real world studies and observations supporting the net benefit of CO2, and supporting the assertion that the projected harms are at least, highly exaggerated relative to the observations, if not entirely contrary to the observations in many cases. I think your characterization here is unintentionally insulting to the authors, as well as incorrect.
Konrad says,
“As I have indicated to Dr. Brown up-thread, cold water or low wind speed would allow LWIR to effect ocean cooling rates. The problem is that Climastrologists claim DWLWIR is raising ocean temperature by 33C. DWLWIR clearly doesn’t have the power to do this when water can evaporatively cool.
———————————————————————————
Dr Brown, I have trouble criticizing this. The ability of water to receive most DWLWIR energy at the very top surface, and use most of that energy in evaporation, using, or moving further energy up via convection, and via the solar absorption spectrum of WV above the surface, even before cloud formation, limiting the surface penetration of incoming insolation, must mean that the warming affect of DWLWIR is less on the ocean surface then on a the ground surface.
How much on average over the entire earth, dunno,but the idea appears sound..