Guest essay by Steven Burnett
Most of my income is derived from tutoring, with part being tied into the Google helpouts system. One of my most loyal customers for my physics and mathematics tutoring sent me a link to a $10,000 reward challenge for skeptics. Which is now up to $30,000, seen here.
Below is what I wrote back with minor edits. While I could have added more links, or graphs, I feel that this synopsis is the most compact skeptic’s case, without dropping off too many details. Perhaps I should submit it for $30,000.
These kinds of challenges pop up all the time here’s one for creationism:
The problem with the climate change challenge is that no one is denying that there is likely an anthropogenic signal. The question is how much.
This article probably offers one of the better overviews of the issue
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/06/20/global-warming-of-the-earths-surface-has-decelerated-viewpoint/
You can demonstrate in a lab that CO2 absorbs IR wavelengths within the same range as the earth gives off. The data shows that the northern hemisphere has had a shift in the mean temperature since before the industrial revolution.
Overwhelmingly the people pushing the issue like to try to box skeptics in by presenting it as an all or nothing issue, which those who don’t read skeptic statements take on faith. In reality the skeptic’s side has a much larger range of stances on the issues, I have tried to bold them out. There are some people who make ridiculously stupid claims that there is no anthropogenic signal but it’s a very small minority. Many skeptics feel that they are just internet trolls, we try not to feed them.
A better way to examine skeptics is to look at them as scientific critics, and more specifically to evaluate the criticisms as issues with each step of the scientific method in climate science fields. The standard scientific method goes:
Observations->Hypothesis->Experiment->Analysis. If we were to go back to the ’90’s Then we could state that this was doled out as…
Observations: A warming/CO2 concentration correlation and CO2 absorbs IR spectra, the same trend in the ice core data existed,
Hypothesis: Emissions cause global warming,
Experiment: Climate Model,
Analysis: a close approximation of the hind cast, statistically significant temperature increases, hockey sticks, etc. Through the late 1990’s and early 2000’s the conclusion that global warming is real was scientifically acceptable. The next stage is usually peer review and scrutiny and this is where the theory ran into problems.
The Problems:
The observations aren’t very good prior to the late ’70’s and they get worse as we go back to the earliest records. We weren’t looking for tenths of a degree trends and we weren’t controlling our instruments for them. Stations have been moved, cities have grown etc, all of which would induce a warming bias on those stations, the data is frankly of poor quality. But there are other problems that came up. The ice core data, using better instrumentation, actually shows CO2 lagging behind temperature changes. More importantly temperatures stopped rising on all data sets, but CO2 levels continued their upward expansion. We also have not detected the “hot spot” that was sure to be proof of an anthropogenic contribution.
Our Hypothesis for how the climate system operates is essentially coded into the climate models. There are 114 of them that are used by the IPCC all of them are going up, all of them are rising faster than observations and most of them have been falsified. But the work falsifying them is very recent.
This paper falsifies the last 20 years of simulations at the 90% confidence interval, within that blog entry you can find another paper that falsifies them at the 98% confidence interval. That paper cites a third that falsified at the 95% confidence interval. What this means is that there is less than a 10%, 2% or 5% chance that the models are wrong by chance.
As the models are mathematical representations of how we think the climate system operates, that means climate scientists were wrong. In response there has been a flurry of activity attempting to attribute the pause and explain it, but explaining a problem with mathematical models after it occurred and claiming that your hypothesis will still be born out requires its own period of time to validate.
There are well over 10 different attributions at this point for the pause, most of them entirely explaining it away. This means the pause in its current state is over explained and more than one of those papers is wrong. In science we aim for a chance at being wrong of 5%, apparently climate science gets a pass.
This divergence also has impacted the metric known as climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivities note a thermal increase of 1.2-1.5 C per doubling of CO2, as in if we went form the current 400ppm CO2 to 800PPM CO2 the temperatures would rise approximately 1.2-1.5 degrees, climate simulations produce much higher results typically between 3 and 4.5 degrees per doubling.
Digging even further there are major issues with the models, our experiments, themselves. Depending on the compiler, operating system and even hardware modeling output can change due to rounding errors. They can’t predict clouds. Nor do they have the resolution to see many of the atmospheric processes that transport heat. But that’s only the climate models themselves. The impact models, or integrated assessment models have almost no data upon which to base their claims. That’s why the IPCC stated that the costs of climate change for 2.5 degrees of warming range from .2%-2% of world GDP. This is again for predictions almost 100 years in the future, which at this time are untestable and unfalsifiable.
When evaluating the cost of a ton of CO2 emissions the integrated assessment models depend very heavily on the discount rate. The current administration cites a discount rate of 3% at 37$ per ton but the most appropriate discount rate, and the one which long term assessments are supposed to be performed at is 7%. This means the actual social cost of carbon is about 4-5$ per ton. As was discussed in an EPW senate hearing, the current administration has failed to produce the 7% discount rate as is required and instead produced 5%, 3% and 2.5% rates. The reason the cost varies so much is partially due to uncertainty in the integrated assessment models which are fed the outputs of the GCM’s. A common coding colloquialism is GIGO garbage in garbage out.
But the worst issue is the analysis. As part of the attempts to preserve the theory there have been some gross statistical practices and data torture employed. The first monstrosity to be slain was Michael Mann’s hockey stick which used a special algorithm to weight his tree samples. That was taken down by Steven McIntyre a statistician who proved not only the weighting issue, but also found the splice point of thermometer data when the proxy and thermometer temperatures diverged.
There have since been several other hockey-sticks, all of which go down as giant flaming piles of poo. Trenberth’s hockey stick, also from dendrochronology, died when it was pointed out that he was using a special sub-selection of only 12 trees, and that when his entire data set was used the hockey-stick disappeared. In 2013 Marcott et al published a hockey-stick on his graph that averaged multiple proxies except the the blade portion was generated using only about 3 of the proxies, that weren’t statistically robust, had some proxy date rearrangement issues, which coincided with the industrial revolution.
You have mentioned the 97% consensus papers which do exist but they are atrocious. Cook et al. has been rebutted several times actually I recommend further reading some of the issues that Brandon Schollenberger has pointed out as well, though it’s not peer reviewed. The earlier 97% paper by Doran and Zimmerman was equally stupid the wallstreet journal touched on both but I recommend this site for a thorough critique. Truthfully the number of abstracts and methodologies I have read that are complete garbage from this field is astounding so I’m not going to try to link them all.
The question ultimately becomes what piece of evidence is required before admitting that climate may not be as sensitive to anthropogenic emissions as once thought?
Outside of the problems with their scientific methodology there’s also some ethics issues that seem to keep cropping up. A statistician working for a left leaning think tank was just terminated because he wrote a piece about the statistically weak case for anthropogenic warming. About a month before that Lennart Bengtsson, a climate scientist tried to join a more conservative and skeptical climate change think tan. He had to resign due to threats, authors withdrawing from his papers and general concern for his safety and wellbeing.
A paper of his, focused on the discrepancy between models and observations, was rejected with the rejecting review stating they recommended it in part because they felt it might be harmful. The reviewer also mentioned that climate models should not be validated against observational data. A few years ago it was climate-gate.
A psychology paper tried to name skeptics as conspiracy nuts, when it was retracted citing ethical reasons, the researchers and their community cited it as being perfectly ok to debase your opponents and that the retraction was due to lawsuits. The clamoring defense got so antagonistic the publisher had to reinforce the rejection was due to the papers ethics violations, language and the failure or unwillingness of the authors to make changes. There’s also the paper that says lying and exaggerating results is OK.
If you read skeptical science they try to rebut skeptic claims but nine times out of ten they use strawmen, ad hominems or other logical fallacies. For instance a good argument can be made that cheap affordable fossil fuel energy can greatly improve the poorest nations of the world, and that denying them access to this resource is harmful. They rebut it by pointing out that projected climate damages, impact the poorest nations the most. That might be true but it’s not the same argument. Depriving impoverished nations of the energy they need to grow, enforcing poverty and mandating foreign dependence for 85 years, so that the poor might not have to suffer from as many storms in the future is frankly asinine.
But let’s say you’re not skeptical of the ethics, or their methodological flaws. Let’s say you decide you want avert the future risk now. You can still be skeptical of the proposed solutions. For instance let’s look at energy policy. The cheapest, most effective and simplest energy policy would be a carbon tax. Again 4$ per ton accurately prices future damages. It also allows countries and markets to work instead of hoping bureaucrats don’t screw it up. Essentially a carbon tax penalizes carbon for its actual cost instead of giving enormous power to unelected officials like what the EPA just did.
But maybe you don’t believe in markets, maybe you believe the government isn’t as incompetent as they seem to keep trying to prove. That’s fine, you can still be skeptical of how the money is being spent. In the US solar receives an unbelievable amount of market favoritism, you start by getting a 40% tax credit on every installation. Additionally while all sectors recoup their capital investments over time as the assets depreciate, solar recoups 100% of its cost in under 5 years, that’s less time than an office chair. With these perks solar is still the most expensive form of electricity generation.
When you correct for just the tax credit solar costs increase to almost 140$/mwhr for standard installations, that goes up for thermal solar. Correcting for wind’s tax credit this goes up to about 88$ MwHr. The intermittancy on the grid is an externality that should be accounted for, from there you have to factor in the degradation of wind and solar as a cost factor, which when integrated over their life span multiplies their cost by almost 4.5.
Nuclear at an approximate 96$/MWhr is substantially cheaper, has a lower life cycle carbon emission, lasts longer and is safer. But we only hear about improving renewable contributions when they are literally worse in every way.
These are issues that we can have with the scientific authenticity of the theory. The next step would be falsification, but It’s difficult to find a piece of falsifying evidence. No matter what happens now or in the future global warming/climate change seems to predict it. We have both warmer and cooler spring/summer/fall/winter. There’s droughts and floods, cold/hot. Literally in 2009/2010 we were hearing how climate change will totally cause more snow in winter when just a few years before it was the end of snowy winters. Hell that was four years ago and they were still blaming crappy Olympic conditions on global warming this year, ignoring entirely that the average temperature for that part of Russia in February is above freezing throughout the whole damn record.
We have almost 2 decades of no temperature trend, and a net negative for a little over a decade. That’s apparently not enough. There are periods within this interglacial that have been warmer, and periods that have been cooler. So what is the reference period of a climatic normal? A few hundred years ago temperature spiked without greenhouse gas emissions, the period of 1914-1940 showed a similar rate and trend as the 1980-200 period, why is the latter anthropogenic and the former not? How is CO2 the driving force this time when there is scant to no evidence that it has ever been the major force in the past?
Why should we believe the corrections or explanations for the pause, the same individuals hyping them were the same ones pointing out how perfect the models were just a few years ago? there is no mechanism by which heat remitted in the lower atmosphere magically descends to the deepest layer of the ocean. the one we just started to measure a few years ago and from which there still aren’t reliable measurements, also the region that is bounded by warmer upper oceans and geothermal heating. How does it get there without being detectable in the upper atmosphere, lower atmosphere or upper oceanic level? Nor is there a mechanism to describe how it could possibly all concentrate in the arctic where we also don’t have any measurements.
Where do we draw the scientific line between natural or artificial trends, and how do we know that line is accurate? Why shouldn’t climate science be required to validate? What is falsifying evidence? Faced with the mountain of problems surrounding uncertainty, poor methodology, awful ethics and analysis, most skeptics, myself included just call the whole thing bullshit.
Excellent rebuttal of CAGW theory – thanks.
I am pretty sure the most part of the warming we seen so far in the records really is made by man. I also think it’s proven many times at this blog. Just look yesterday at how the record have been tampered with. The trend made from decline to …. Sure it’s man made and proven how to deny that … and most important how to prove it’s wrong
Nice write up. Thanks, it was worth the time.
Models are making policy folks.
When one looks at any given energy or environmental policy at any level, it is driven by a climate model somewhere in it’s past or present.
When one looks at how most models are currently constructed, that have already influenced past policy, one should shudder. It is like painting rotted wood.
We certainly should have the technology to decypher from the environment what we want.
Don’t forget about the CO2 monitoring Satellite that was successfully launched recently.
How will we manage that data? Never had it before, did we?
Amazing what we can learn with eyes from space, eh?
My submission (Climate Change Reconsidered by NIPCC) was rebutted with an article from Greenpeace and another from DeSmog!!!
If alarmists are serious about putting money on the line, let’s do it like this, Simon v. Ehrlich style:
Over the 21st century, the IPCC projects about 4mm of sea level rise per year if draconian cuts in fossil fuels are made, and about 7mm/year under a business-as-usual scenario. The IPCC also projects a global surface temperature anomaly increase of about 3C per CO2 doubling.
I want there to be a way to bet real money against an alarmist that the actual rises will be less than half of the predicted rises in sea level and temperature, payable in 2025, based on the trailing 10 year averages. The wagers can be held in an escrow account. I wish Intrade had not been shut down.
I’m sorry, but this say it all….
This is an anti-sucker bet. The manner in which it is phrased makes it impossible to win it. He may as well have asked for proof that taking a leak in the ocean doesn’t raise the sea level. Of course it does. The question is by how much and is that enough to have a significant impact.
This is a favourite tactic of the warmists. To phrase the question in a manner which completely side steps the actual issue, and then declare victory. It is terribly sad for anyone with a working knowledge of the physics at hand to witness scientists such as this one twisting and contorting the question so that it no longer represents the debate itself. It is sad, but strong, evidence that they cannot debate the actual issues, they know they can’t, so they re-frame to create a meaningless playing field upon which to claim victory.
I’m going to wander down to the ocean now and take a leak. It won’t raise the seal level by enough to matter, and I challenge this “advocate dressed up as a scientist” to prove otherwise.
From “the challenge”:
“Outraged by the unsavory tactics of climate change deniers, physicist Christopher Keating says he’ll give $10,000 to anyone who can use the scientific method to prove that human-instigated climate change isn’t real.”
Point #1 – They (including Keating) haven’t shown proof, using the scientific method, that “climate change” is being “instigated” by humans. We don’t even have proof that it is being measurably contributed to by human activity. As Steven Burnett points out, we humans are probably contributing to some degree of a warming atmosphere, but the exact amount is highly debatable.
Point #2 – “Climate Change”? Really? C’mon, let’s not keep falling for that. If human CO2 emissions are contributing to any sort of change in the climate, it would be minor warming. When it is either not warming, or cooling, it can not be the fault of those CO2 emissions, can it? But, “Climate Change”! Geez, the climate is always changing somewhere.
Point #3 – The concept is that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing the climate to warm. As the Oregon Petition says,
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
That is the ball upon which we must keep an eye.
The author of this piece should add a section on the benefits of CO2 in its form as plant food.
every 2013 raw….is below every 1938 raw
you only get global warming by algorithm and adjustments
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/07/05/temperature-adjustments-in-ohio/
Oops, I have a comment stuck in moderation, ’cause I used the “d word” in a quote from “the challenge”.
“Latitude says: July 6, 2014 at 5:35 pm
”
I’m sorry, but this say it all….
– – –
That graph is missing about 419 units of F that should be added to the bottom. Why does it stop at -40 ?
It accepted by both sides that atmosphere rose from 300ppm in about 1900 to about 400ppm now. That 100/1,000,000 of a change in the atmosphere, or 1 in 10,000 parts of the atmosphere changed from something to CO2. We are led to believe, or shall i say – force fed, that 1/10,000 part is what drives higher temperature and every weather event you can think of, even tsunami’s.
And that extra evil 10,000th part has to be from man. Yet the IPCC’s own literature states that fossil fuel combustion is only about 3% of the total of earths CO2’s emission.
http://theresilientearth.com/files/images/Carbon_Cycle-ipcc.png
(that Carbon Cycle image is nothing but a wild rough guess by the IPCC,)
When you just put that 10,000th part next to 3% something doesn’t seem to be right. Or you can believe that planet Earth is in a very, very delicate balance indeed.
“The author of this piece should add a section on the benefits of CO2 in its form as plant food.”
The reason I didn’t is because that would represent a red herring. The point of a scientific critique is to demonstrate the failure of the offered theory. Pointing out benefits means nothing if we arent countering the claims. This is the same problem with the SKS kids countering statements on the harm of restricted carbon fuel use by saying climate change will get worse. It’s not per se an incorrect statement, its just irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
The problem with their challenge is that they never define their terms. “Man Made Global Warming” can be whatever they damn well want it to be and thus it is like Steve MacIntyre’s whack a mole.
Yes, about that $30,000 challenge…
After numerous difficulties posting at his site, I did manage to get an entry published and screen shots taken. Some may think this is a waste of time as Christopher has stated he will be the sole judge. Actually, this being the Internet, the world will be the judge 😉
I will place the entire entry below as an example of the simplest empirical proof that there is no net radiative GHE on our ocean planet. If there is no net radiative GHE, there can be no AGW from CO2 emissions.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
AGW empirically disproved for $30,000 USD
Christopher,
disproving AGW is simple, and the disproof can be empirically demonstrated. AGW depends on the unproven hypothesis of a net radiative “greenhouse effect” raising the surface temperature of our planet 33C above its theoretical blackbody temperature of -18C. But there is no net radiative GHE on our ocean planet.
Does this mean there is an error in current radiative physics? No. The two layer radiative model that is the foundation of global warming claims works. You can even build an empirical model –
http://i44.tinypic.com/2n0q72w.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/33dwg2g.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/2wrlris.jpg
– The target plate in chamber 1 reaches the higher equilibrium temperature. But this has no relationship to the reality of our planet. Standard S-B equations work for matt black plates separated by vacuum. They don’t work when coupling between “layers” is occurring via non-radiative transports. They don’t work on moving gases. They certainly don’t work on semi transparent surfaces and they don’t work on materials cooled by evaporation.
And it is the last two points that are the killer for not just AGW but the very idea of a net radiative GHE on our planet.
All of the AGW hoax can be disproved by just correctly answering one very, very simple question –
“given 1 bar pressure, is the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans warming or cooling?”
The radiative GHE hypothesis stands or falls on this question as 71% of the planets surface is covered in ocean. If the net effect of the atmosphere over the ocean is cooling, AGW and the radiative GHE hypothesis are both disproved. Why? Because if the net effect of the atmosphere over 71% of the planets surface is cooling, the atmosphere in turn needs a cooling mechanism. The only effective cooling mechanism for the atmosphere is radiative gases. If, given 1 bar pressure, the atmosphere is cooling the oceans, then AGW, as you requested, is disproved.
So is our atmosphere warming or cooling our oceans? The AGW hypothesis states that DWLWIR slows the cooling rate of the oceans allowing the average 240 w/m2 received to heat them above -18C to 15C.
Can DWLWIR slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool? The answer is no. Not to any measurable degree. This can be shown by the simplest empirical experiments –
http://i42.tinypic.com/2h6rsoz.jpg
I have been running multiple versions of this experiment since 2011 –
http://i47.tinypic.com/694203.jpg
Just fill the sample containers with 40C water under the strong and weak LWIR sources. You will note no divergence in their cooling rate. Repeat, but this time float a square of LDPE film onto the surface of each sample. Now, when evaporative cooling is prevented, the sample cooling rates diverge. Incident LWIR, even if emitted from a cooler material, can slow the cooling rate of most materials. It just doesn’t work for liquid water that can evaporatively cool.
But if DWLWIR is not keeping our oceans above -18C what could be doing it? The oceans are a “near blackbody” aren’t they? An average 240 w/m2 of incident solar radiation should only result in a temperature of 255K (-18C). Well the simple answer is that the oceans are not a near blackbody, they are what is known to engineers (but not climastrologists) as a “selective surface”.
So what is the difference between a “near blackbody” and a “selective surface”, and why does it matter? Here we will cover empirical experiments dealing with semi-transparent selective surfaces.
Are you seated comfortably Christopher? Then let’s begin. Let’s begin …in 1965.
In 1965, researchers at Texas A&M were experimenting with solar storage ponds. While “salt gradient” won the day, some initial research was into freshwater evaporation constrained ponds –
http://oi62.tinypic.com/1ekg8o.jpg
– They found an interesting thing. Despite making layer 2 matt black and absorbing more SW and UV, the pond didn’t heat as well. Layer 2 clear and layer 3 black worked far better. If layer 2 was black, they found temperatures just millimetres below could be 30C lower than surface. If there was no DWLWIR on such a solar pond with layer 2 matt black, then average surface temperature would indeed be -18C. But layer 2 clear and layer 3 black is a game changer. Without atmospheric cooling, regardless of DWLWIR, surface Tmax would top 80C.
Let’s examine SW selective surfaces a little further –
http://oi61.tinypic.com/or5rv9.jpg
Here is the experiment being run under intermittent SW simulating diurnal cycle –
http://i61.tinypic.com/2z562y1.jpg
The experiment is simple. Expose both blocks to equal SW radiation. Say about 1000 w/m2 for three hours. Block A now has a higher average temperature by about 20C. Try again with 1000 w/m2 of IR. No average temperature difference. Both blocks have the same ability to emit LWIR, the same ability to absorb both SW and IR. The only difference is the depth of SW absorption. And for materials with slow internal non-radiative transport this matters a lot.
But acrylic blocks in that experiment are static. No convective circulation. Maybe that will save AGW? No –
http://oi62.tinypic.com/zn7a4y.jpg
Here two insulated matt black tubs of water are used. One tub has clear water, the other water dyed black so light will not visibly penetrate 2mm depth. Exposed to SW, tub A with the clear water reaches the higher average temperature, and the higher surface temperature.
Christopher, there is no way around it. The selective surface effect is what is keeping the oceans 33C above theoretical blackbody temp of -18C not DWLWIR as claimed by the Church of Radiative Climastrology.
So there you have it Christopher, the proof, via the scientific method of empirical experiment, showing that AGW is a physical impossibility. DWLWIR cannot be slowing the cooling rate of the oceans. Due to the selective surface effect of transparent water exposed to SW, the sun alone has the power to heat the oceans to 80C or beyond, were it not for atmospheric cooling. And the atmosphere as you know has only one effective cooling mechanism – radiative gases. Therefore global warming due to human emissions of CO2 is a physical impossibility, because the net effect of radiative gases in the atmosphere of our ocean planet is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.
Here’s the simple facts of climate on our planet, Planet Ocean. –
The sun heats the oceans.
The atmosphere cools the oceans.
Radiative gases cool the atmosphere.
Just think Christopher, if you had spent $5000 on building this –
http://i42.tinypic.com/315nbdl.jpg
– you might have been $25,000 better off.
The good news is that paying out $30,000 USD to end the whole AGW thing and getting back to real environmental problems is a bargain.
Christopher, time to pay the man.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
While I may hope that Christopher sees the benefit in ending the hoax and getting science back on track, I suspect we are going to be treated to $30,000 worth of this –
I have offered a wager to warmists on my Facebook page that I am willing to extend to any and all comers. To wit:
For all of my friends who have bought into the Global Warming nonsense, I have an incredible opportunity for you. If you truly believe that the icecaps are melting and sea level is rising as a result of man’s influence on the climate, then this is a no-brainer for you. Using this gage (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/), I propose a little wager. For every year that sea level rises more than 5mm (~3/16ths of an inch), I will pay you $10,000 and for every year that it rises less than 5mm, you pay me $10,000. Come one, come all. Let David Suzuki know too because I’m sure he’d like to get in on this free money.
It is a scam. As soon as you engage him he starts changing the rules. Then, no matter what you say he simply dismisses it as “All lies”. He thinks the hockey stick is excellent, valid, research, that the commissions of inquiry into Penn State, CRU were all clear, unequivocal rejection of all charges. The leaked emails were hacked and then only carefully selected snippets were taken out of context. He says all IPCC predictions (projections) are accurate, and that is just for starters. Lord Monckton and Alex Jones had a brief discussion about him last week. Of course it does get mainstream media headlines, which is the name of the game.
A model is not an experiment… It is a model. That’s part of the problem: climatologists confuse modeling with experimentation.
Mark
Konrad says:
July 6, 2014 at 6:06 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And here we have Konrad, boldly walking into the trap, spouting complete nonsense, which will in turn get used to show that skeptics don’t know what they are talking about. The trap snaps shut on him, but ensnares all of us.
“You can demonstrate in a lab that CO2 absorbs IR wavelengths within the same range as the earth gives off. ”
So why isn’t CO2 used in double and triple pane windows? Is it because argon reflects IR better than CO2? Plus, there’s 25 times more of it in the atmosphere than CO2. If anything the AGWers should be freaking out about argon. But what is the absolute worst global warming gas on the planet? Water vapor. And there’s about 100 times more of it than CO2.
From above:
Should that not be “there is now less than a 10%, 2% or 5% chance that the models are right by chance” ?
Or, phrasing it differently, “Now, after 20 years of data to compare with model predictions, there is only a 10%, 2% or 5% chance that any of the 23 models could be still be right.”
I critiqued not adding the benefits of CO2 because of the paragraph on social cost. Surely if this so called social cost is referenced, the benefits of CO2 should also be relevant. Less land required to grow food… etc. Forests are being cut down to burn as a fuel source as an alternative to burning fossil fuel, which causes environmental harm that should also be taken into consideration.
Dr Ball,
Why not turn the tables on him? Offer $1 million if he can prove AGW exists, using empirical evidence and the Scientific Method.
He will have to show his scientific evidence, verifying the fraction of a degree of global rise in T attributable specifically to human emissions, and it must be testable and measurable.
$1 million is much more impressive, and might get some media attention.
[Disclaimer: models are not evidence. Peer reviewed papers are not evidence. Assertions are not evidence. Quoting Arrhenius is not evidence. Scientific evidence is raw data, and/or verifiable empirical observations.]
davidmhoffer says:
July 6, 2014 at 6:16 pm
——————————
“And here we have Konrad, boldly walking into the trap, spouting complete nonsense, which will in turn get used to show that skeptics don’t know what they are talking about. The trap snaps shut on him, but ensnares all of us.”
“complete nonsense” cries David. There’s no need to read what Konrad has written! No need to try those simple empirical experiments for yourself! No need at all!! AGW is real I tell you!!!
Say David, who’s “us”?
What are the “official” probabilities that the IPCC claims for its 2100 Clima-pocolyse of Doom: of death, doom, and destruction?
Do they claim +4 deg C as a matter of fact? Or do they assign various probabilities of a +1 deg C, +2 deg C increase, +3 and +4 increase?
Konrad;
“complete nonsense” cries David. There’s no need to read what Konrad has written! No need to try those simple empirical experiments for yourself! No need at all!! AGW is real I tell you!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’ve read your drivel many times, and have gone to great lengths in other threads to show you that your theory is falsified by observational data which shows the exact opposite of your claims. You persist, there’s no point debating you further. You are only a slight step away from Sl@yer nonsense which has been banned in this forum.
The models aren’t just failing to describe temperature trends, they are also failing to describe the internals such as water vapor and the tropical upper atmosphere. Add those failures to the omission of cloud feedbacks, and we never even get to talk about temperature.
1.
“Christopher Keating says he’ll give $10,000 to anyone who can use the scientific method to prove that human-instigated climate change isn’t real.”
Science does not prove anything. Science only tests theories to determine whether one strategy or another can falsify any of them.
There is no standard at which some claim morphs into “scientific knowledge.”
Science is a process.
So, all of this is going nowhere.
2.
The burden of proof is on those who have a causal claim. The burden of proof is on those who claim that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere causes incoming solar energy (detectable by heat measurement) in our atmosphere to be retained.
Since there are many observations that run counter to this hypothesis, such as the lack of cause-effect in the recent “pause,” and that the prevailing temps and variability are within normal limits of variability, the AGW cultists have quite a case to prove “above and beyond” natural variability.
3.
Show your work; the AGW cultists cannot and will not show their work.
4.
These people are cultists. Each will have to make a break from the socially-isolated true believers in order for the preposterousness to become apparent. Many have. Other than that, you cannot discuss things reasonably with them; it is not about reason, or science.
You cannot have a reasonable discussion with them. They cannot carry out a conversation without getting livid, or making irrelevant God-Complex special-knowledge pleas to “reason.” Or both. To try is to argue with a brainwashed person. This is sad, but true, for friends and family of mine. So, I don’t say this with any bemusement.
We can only allow them to continue to fall over their own wrongness until enough give up on the charade. And love them unconditionally, as you would a cult-member family member.
Here is my analogy to this bet:
Claim: Fertilizer makes plants grow faster.
Concern: If plants grow 10,000 times as fast, they will over grow our cities faster than we can cut the vegetation back, block off our roads and airports, and make the oceans un-navigable.
Alarm: This will destroy civilization as we know it.
Skeptic: Uh….there’s no evidence to show that plants would start growing ten thou-
Bet: Idiot! Do you deny that fertilizer causes plants to grow faster? I’ll give you $30,000 if you can prove that fertilizer doesn’t make plants grow faster.
When they can predict the weather 6 months to a year from now then they can tell me what they think the weather will be decades from now and I might listen.
Until they have the model and the proxies right, they’re just waving eagle feathers, rattling bones, blowing smoke and chanting to some deity as far as I’m concerned.
Send it in. Got to be in it to win it.
(But I’m pretty sure they will wriggle and re-define until your entry fails.)
“Observations->Hypothesis->Experiment->Analysis. If we were to go back to the ’90’s Then we could state that this was doled out as…”
That’s exactly what AGW isn’t, and it didn’t start in the ’90’s. Well, it actually started in the 1890’s. And with physics that you’ve described. Carbon dioxide impedes outgoing IR. That’s the reason for expecting that putting a whole lot of it in the air to cause warming. Not a hypothesis based on observed warming.
So we put a whole lot of CO2 in the air and it warmed. If it hadn’t, then at some stage the that might cast doubt on the physics. But it did.
You missed the actual quantitative predictions tied to specific atmospheric chemistry and physics. The (as I recall) basis for the runaway warming was to be a 3.7 W/meter squared excess downwelling that would cause a mid-troposphere/mid-tropical heat reservoir to form that wold push the boundaries of warm air northwards, disturbing the jet stream and enmeshing the temperate latitudes in a stagnant pool of CO2 and heat…
That is also a testable hypothesis… and kudos to whoever came up with the mechanisms. The calumny goes to the people that chose to carry on with the fiction after those mechanisms and predictions WERE falsified.
As it now stands, without that clear mechanism there is no physical basis for AGW. No mechanism except for some nebulous, qualitative ‘CO2 causes warming’ dreck that is supported by table-driven physics (as opposed to explicit, algorithmically modeled/experimentally updated mechanisms) that has no ability to hindcast, no ability to highlight data anomalies, no ability to forecast but a proven ability to summon federal money like Justin Bieber pulled in pre-pubescent teens to concerts for years.
The falsification of the initial mechanisms and the failure to propose an additional ones is a more damning and fatal blow than any flick on the nose to the already peripatetic models.
There is no mechanism with experimental support for the runaway scenario.
There is no valid metric (and average global surface temperature is definitely not a viable proxy for a warning signal) to identify risk or business-as-usual scenarios.
There is no predictive value in 80% of current ‘research’ because it is all derivative to the initial – and falsified – hypothesis.
The last real addition to fundamental research was the Argo buoys… and that data is in the process of being redacted into trash now as well to match the Enron-scale fraud being perpetrated on the surface temperature data sets.
Pardon the rant… just think about adding the base mechanisms for changing the climate ( the heat pools) and add that in. There is no warmist answer to the falsification or replacement for a fundamental driver that would be different this time from the last 5 to 10 times the earth has had high CO2 and wonderful, rich, diverse, explosively life-filled biomes at the same time… until the ice ages cleaned all that up.
“The problem with the climate change challenge is that no one is denying that there is likely an anthropogenic signal.”
What rubbish! Exactly what is the “anthropogenic signal” ?
Where is the “anthropogenic signal” in the data for the past 2 decades?
“Keating is offering two prizes: One that will pay $10,000 to anyone who can prove — via the scientific method — that anthropogenic climate change is not real, and one that will pay $1,000 to anyone who can provide any scientific evidence at all that it isn’t real.”
Keating does not understand the scientific method. The burden of proof lies on those who are claiming man is the cause of most (>90%) of the global warming since 1950. AGW is a hypothesis and all hypotheses need scientific evidence to be accepted.
The prosecutor cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that Tom is the murderer. So the prosecutor asked Tom to prove his innocence. Hilarious. What is asserted without (sufficient) evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
” Faced with the mountain of problems surrounding uncertainty, poor methodology, awful ethics and analysis, most skeptics, myself included just call the whole thing bullshit.”
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
I would like to see Konrad’s comment here expanded to a full article. I have a physicist friend I would like to show that to.
Please please please submit.
And get your ass handed to you on a plate.
Nobody is ever going to see a penny of this prize. You cannot use logic to convince a zealot. When Prophecy Fails by Festinger shows that even in the face of incontrovertible and undeniable evidence to the contrary, a true believer will cling to his beliefs. The example given is of an “end of the world” prophecy at a certain date. When the date arrives the true believers conjure up a new belief to patch over the failed one, they do not reject the earlier belief.
The true believers in “climate change” (as if there were ever a time when the climate did not change! Except in the opening song of the musical Camelot) need the climate and the earth to be damaged by man. They don’t like people and wish that many would die. From Rousseu and his “Noble Savage” to Maurice Strong and the UNEP the message is from the Pogo cartoon (“We have met the enemy and he is us!”) When the climate cooled in the 70s it was us. When it climbed in the 80s and 90s, we were cooking the planet. Now that it has paused it is overpopulation that is weirding the planet and causing storms, droughts, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes and unfriendly fish. When it starts cooling again it will be us again. The idea at the heart of the matter is that people are bad, there are way too many of them, any success of people at adapting to the environment and succeeding must be stopped by any means necessary. If pseudoscience can be invented to further this noble cause, all power, money and support to the “science”. If it takes scare tactics or a big war that will be next.
You won’t get anywhere using logic and facts with these guys.
Beautiful. Send it in.
It’s also a logical impossibility to prove a negative… so I’d say his money is safe.
(Popperian falsification not withstanding, it may be possible to prove that someone did not attend a meeting or that a particle does not behave in a precisely specified way. But complex scientific theories are another story. Newtonian Mechanics was not “disproved” with the arrival of Einstein’s theories. Rather it became a special case within a broader context.)
Climate change has nothing to do with CO2, AGW or emissions. It is solely a
matter of Earth orbit oscillations, understandably calculated for any person in:
Joachim Seifert: Das Ende der globalen Erwärmung, ISBN 978-3-86805-604-4
(2010). As long as details of the Earth orbit are excluded from discussion, the
temp increase in the 20. Ctry and the hiatus in the 21. Ctry cannot be explained.
Those people who set up those bets will not read arguments which falsify their
position.
ladylifegrows says:
July 6, 2014 at 7:48 pm
I would like to see Konrad’s comment here expanded to a full article. I have a physicist friend I would like to show that to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is sufficient information in the post as is for any physicist to comment on. I propose you show the comment to your physicist friend and report back as to what s/he said.
For anyone interested in how it actually works, there was a very detailed series of articles on WUWT that goes in depth as to how the GHE works and can be verified and directly measured:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/07/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-light-and-heat/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/29/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-molecules-and-photons/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/28/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-atmospheric-windows/
The debate is not, and never was, about the existence of the GHE. The debate is about the sum total of the effects plus feed backs (sensitivity). Getting suckered into an “it exists vs no it doesn’t” argument simply feeds the warmists with the ability to paint skeptics as science illiterates. I recommend also Willis’ fine “Steel Greenhouse” articles.
ladylifegrows says:
July 6, 2014 at 7:48 pm
“I would like to see Konrad’s comment here expanded to a full article. I have a physicist friend I would like to show that to.”
————————————-
No need to look at those images or do those experiments. Davidmhoffer has ruled that they are “complete nonsense” and “drivel” 😉
How certain are we that temperatures today are actually higher than the 1930’s ?
davidmhoffer says:
July 6, 2014 at 8:13 pm
“The debate is not, and never was, about the existence of the GHE.”
———————————————————————————-
It is now 😉
Oh, and you don’t get to “frame” the debate for “us”.
Exactly. The Alarmists made the claim. Let them demonstrate that there is any measurable contribution to global temperature by man, using empirical evidence and testable hypotheses. Until then, assume the null hypothesis, i.e. there is none.
/Mr Lynn
Nick,
And it warmed…but then it didn’t! You’ll have to in some way explain both the rise and the pause using root causes and show the theoretical basis to even begin to get that half-truth through. It went up in the 1980-2000 period, but then somehow flattened out at 1998 levels for the last 16 years even though CO2 levels are rising at the same or larger rate. That is a problem for the theory. Also the temperature rise in the first half of the 20th century when there was no where near the rise in CO2 needs a good physical explanation.
Basically your post of 7:21PM is a very large FAIL.
“You can demonstrate in a lab that CO2 absorbs IR wavelengths within the same range as the earth gives off.”
If the Earth is giving off those IR wavelenghs, doesn’t that mean the CO2 is not very good at absorbing them?
Konrad, I have degrees in Physics and Aerospace Engineering, and I am well aware of the radiation and gas transport properties, and agree you are wrong. Please stop making skeptics look bad. I can agree that negative feedback (likely from cloud variation) can reduce CO2 effects (not amplify it), and that natural variation can swamp small residual human caused effects, but this is not the same as what you say.
To the author: I’d not use the term “pause” to describe the current flat temperature trends. It’s a loaded word that presumes the ability to see into the future where warming begins again. For all we know, temperatures will begin a long-term decline.
I would also add a paragraph or two about the over-reliance of climate scientists on the peer review process to validate the accuracy of numerical results. Peer review is a mechanism used only to verify the procedures used to arrive at particular result. Peer review does not tell you if a result is or is not correct. If I am asked how I know that the acceleration of gravity at the Earth’s surface is approximately 9.8 meters per second squared, the words “peer review” won’t cross my lips. I can point to the fact that this figure has been experimentally derived and confirmed, and more importantly, I can simply note that this value has been relied upon in applications that work in practice. How can we be sure that, if two 100 ohm resistors are connected in parallel across a voltage source, the two resistances will be seen as a 50 ohm resistance by the voltage source? The same reasoning – I can measure it, and Kirchoff’s equations have been used by electrical engineers to design circuits for decades, and those circuits work.
That’s what “settled science” looks like. If the best that some theoretical scientist can say in response to the question “How do we know that your adjustments to the raw temperature data are actually accurate?” or the question “How do we know that the net amount of increase in the Earth’s average temperature from a doubling of CO2 is more than “x” degrees” is that the results have been “peer reviewed” then that tells me that climate science is in an incredibly primitive stage of development, and cannot be relied upon for making policy.
Konrad says:
July 6, 2014 at 6:06 pm
“Yes, about that $30,000 challenge……………etc.”
I agree with Konrad.
Is it not true that the hyrological cycle shows that heat from the sun evaporates the H2O [Heat of Vaporization]; the water vapor expands and rises to the upper atmospher and gives up the heat [Heat of Condensation]; which cause clouds and precipitation?
That, to me, is cooling the earth.
CO2 does the same thing. It is a gas; it expands and rises when heated, and also carries the heat to the upper atmosphere.
CO2 does not, imo, act like a solid [blanket], and just lie there and “trap” heat.
Alberta Slim;
That, to me, is cooling the earth.
CO2 does the same thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If that were the case, Mercury would be warmer than Venus. But it isn’t. The earth would be the same temperature as the moon, but it is considerably warmer. Deserts would have an average temperature higher than a rain forest at the same latitude, but they don’t. Deserts would not cool off a great deal at night…but they do. Rain forests would cool a great deal at night…. but they don’t.
Read the articles I linked to above to understand why that is.
Alberta Slim;
CO2 does not, imo, act like a solid [blanket], and just lie there and “trap” heat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On this you are correct. CO2 doesn’t trap heat, it intercepts and re-distributes an energy flux. Some of the energy flux gets re-distributed (absorbed and re-emitted) back toward earth.
After years of following this issue it seems to me that what is going on is the result of a classic and common case of misperception.
The CO2 obsessed see the climate as now under the control of humans: Anthropogenic, or caused by man. Therefor, AGW is supposed to be Anthropogenic Global Warming. Warming caused by man’s activities. But there is another “Anthro” cause to consider. One that fits the facts much better: “Anthropomorphic”. Seeing the face of a god in a cloud is Anthropomorphic. That perceived face is a result of human created perception of the cloud. Not a human change in the cloud itself.
Does human activity influence the climate? Yes. We always have, since the first caveman used fire to burn down the woods to chase game out for dinner.
Are we making the climate dangerous or changing it drastically? Only in the power of huan imagination.
After nearly thirty years of unlimited funding climate change promoters cannot show one shred of evidence that we are facing a climate crisis. Instead they have to rewrite the history, suppress the debate and demand authority to make the changes they want without challenge.
Why bother? You can’t prove that MMGW isn’t happening and nor does anybody have to. The onus of proof is on those who claim that it is. At the moment it patently isn’t happening
Will Nitschke explained it all- you can’t prove a negative. Shall we also offer $30,000 to prove that aliens aren’t causing global warming? I am always confused by the warmistas lack of basic scientific standards (e.g. cobbling different data types into a single hockey schtick without explanation). The Amazing Randi is a much better scientist than many warmistas. He has (had?) a standing offer of $1000000 for anybody who could demonstrate a paranormal activity under controlled conditions. After being blasted for making a few mild comments about the shakey AGW case maybe Randi would be interested in applying his BS detectors to the AGW Cargo Cult? A million dollars for anybody who can prove human activity has accelerated global warming? As many here have pointed out the onus of proof is on those making the claim and models are not proof, especially when they don’t work even moderately well.
Nick Stokes says:
July 6, 2014 at 7:21 pm
Firstly. it was already warming when we started adding “huge amounts of Co2”. That warming has ceased. Nearly 18 years ago.
Secondly, you said; “If it hadn’t, then at some stage the that might cast doubt on the physics. But it did.”
This statement is ridiculous. And you know it. Ergo, the physics IS in doubt.
Alberta Slim says:
July 6, 2014 at 8:41 pm
“I agree with Konrad . . . CO2 does the same thing. It is a gas; it expands and rises when heated, and also carries the heat to the upper atmosphere.
CO2 does not, imo, act like a solid [blanket], and just lie there and “trap” heat.”
We all can quibble about how heat gets moved around from one part of the Earth to another before it gets cast back off into space, but given that the Earth (land, water, and air) is wrapped in a vacuum, the only mechanism that the Earth as a whole has to shed the heat it receives from the Sun is to radiate it back into space. Adding more increments of CO2 to the atmosphere can only incrementally add to the time that the Earth as a whole churns the heat around before radiating it back into space, making it a less efficient radiator. A less efficient radiator has to raise its temperature to achieve a new equilibrium.
This question is ridiculous! It’s like offering $30,000 to prove that ghosts don’t exist, then trying to pretend that ghosts must exist because you still have your $30,000.
You can’t conclusively prove that something doesn’t exist.
Plus, as the post suggests, nobody is denying that CO2 absorbs radiation and converts it into heat. Most skeptics are saying that there is no evidence to support the alarming predictions and that the scientific method has been abandoned in all the adjustments and homogenizations done to the temperature records.
Leonard Weinstein says:
July 6, 2014 at 8:31 pm
“Konrad, I have degrees in Physics and Aerospace Engineering”
—————————————————————————–
Excellent! Then the science of selective surfaces should be no great challenge…
Show me how much better your science is than my engineering.
Take a look at this simple selective surface experiment –
http://oi61.tinypic.com/or5rv9.jpg
When illuminated with 1000 w/m2 of SW, Block A will rise to around 20C higher temperature than Block B. When illuminated with equal power of IR, both blocks reach the same temperature.
You say I’m making sceptics “look bad”? Well, show me how much better you are. In clear language explain for other readers why frequency of incident radiation (even if of equal w/m2) matters in this ever so simple experiment. Why the temperature differential between the blocks when illuminated by SW but not when illuminated by IR?
Now these blocks are not a direct model of the oceans, but which block is more analogous to the actual transparent oceans and which is closer to how the climastrologists went and treated the oceans by falsely claiming they were a “near blackbody”?
” Trenberth’s hockey stick, also from dendrochronology, died when it was pointed out that he was using a special sub-selection of only 12 trees, and that when his entire data set was used the hockey-stick disappeared. ”
Are you sure that it was Trenberth’s?
Steven Burnett wrote – There are some people who make ridiculously stupid claims that there is no anthropogenic signal but it’s a very small minority. Many skeptics feel that they are just internet trolls, we try not to feed them.
This had me scratching my head a bit. I don’t understand why you’d single these folks out like this when we really have no conclusive evidence one way or another if CO2 has an effect on climate. There’s only one earth and it has an incredible number of inputs that may or may not affect the climate. We have no way of controlling for a single variable as is done in clinical trials, what we’re left with is trying to determine cause and effect on what amounts to an observational study. The rule I consider paramount regarding observational studies is that correlation does not mean causation, so thinking that we have any conclusive evidence as to what guides climate change is a fool’s errand at best. And ripping into people who think CO2 has no effect on climate is as shortsighted as saying it’s the only thing that guides climate.
You can have your opinion on the degree that man affects climate but belittling folks for not sharing it is just as bad as warmist behavior.
“””””…..You can demonstrate in a lab that CO2 absorbs IR wavelengths within the same range as the earth gives off. The data shows that the northern hemisphere has had a shift in the mean temperature since before the industrial revolution……”””””
That’s really wonderful; I mean this part:….You can demonstrate in a lab that CO2 absorbs IR wavelengths within the same range as the earth gives off.
So the mean Earth sea level / lower troposphere Temperature is reputedly 288 K, or +15 deg. C or about + 59 deg. F , your choice.
At this Temperature, a “Black Body” which is what the experts presume the earth approximates (very roughly) emits about 390 W/m^2 in an essentially Lambertian (Cosine(A) intensity ) radiation pattern with a near black body spectrum that peaks at about 10.1 microns wavelength. (on a spectral radiant emittance versus wavelength scale.
So almost any non polished black object, such as a lump of coal or a charcoal (barbecue) brickette, after being chilled in the refrigerator, should give off almost exactly the very radiation, in the correct amount, and spectral distribution, that the whole earth purportedly emits.
So have you ever heard of or seen anybody perform an experiment wherein such a source irradiating a sample of dry air containing 400 ppm by volume of CO2 (if necessary synthesized from pure N2, O2, Ar, and CO2) caused the Temperature of that sample to increase above its originally stabilized room Temperature, by any appreciable amount.
I have heard of experiments conducted using phony radiation sources, that were 100,000 times the spectral radiant emittance, and 10,000 times the total radiant emittance of the earth surface and air samples, with quite uncontrolled abundance of CO2, and that radiation included vast amounts of radiant energy, that also can be absorbed by CO2, but is essentially completely absent from the radiation spectrum emitted by the earth.
But I have never heard of anybody who actually “demonstrated in a lab”, what YOU say you can demonstrate.
But I agree with the premise. Many (maybe most) “climate skeptics” do believe that CO2 in the atmosphere does absorb some of the radiation wavelengths emitted by the earth surface.
I personally have no idea whatsoever, how much the air is heated when that happens; that is, what local Temperature rise results from that absorbed radiation.
All I can say is WOW. I’ve been waiting for someone with the stomach for it to write that essay which so nicely summarizes the big picture. That needs to find it’s way into the MSM because it’s the real story. An indictment of the system we live with that has the capacity and means to allow this kind of thing to happen and it’s happening all through government. It’s called corruption. This , along with other worrying signs of sickness lead me to believe we’re in a lot more trouble than climate change can offer.
Kurt says:
July 6, 2014 at 9:17 pm
—————————–
“ A less efficient radiator has to raise its temperature to achieve a new equilibrium.”
Two important points –
First the effective (not apparent) IR emissivity of liquid water is less than 0.8. This is easy to check by measuring with background IR reduced by a cryo cooled “sky” –
http://i61.tinypic.com/24ozslk.jpg
The 0.95 figure that climastrologists foolishly put into their failed S-B equations was for apparent emissivity. That is the emissivity setting you use for measuring water temp when cavity effect and holdraum effect are occurring.
Second, water vapour evaporated into the atmosphere has effectively increased the radiating area of the surface, as it is now radiating in 3D.
For purposes of offering a challenge, has an agreeable definition of global warming been provided? If there is no global warming, what characteristics need be shown (by agreement)?
” For instance let’s look at energy policy. The cheapest, most effective and simplest energy policy would be a carbon tax. Again 4$ per ton accurately prices future damages.”
WRONG…. $4 per ton does NOT accurately reflect future damages. I do NOT accept this as accurate. The data to me suggests that so far the increase in CO2 has been net beneficial, therefor we should be getting a REBATE of $4 per ton of CO2 emitted. The earth is 11% greener, crop yields are way up since going from 300ppm to 400ppm and the earth is a mere 1.5C higher than the LIA, which I would say is a good thing. In the absence of proof that CO2 is going to cause more than 2C or warming per doubling, no Tax or trading scheme in required to mitigate CO2 release.
If the debate is about the presumed deleterious effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, no purpose is served by pointing out possible non-deleterious, or even beneficial effects. That’s a separate issue, and skeptics gain nothing by deflecting the debate.
CO2 clearly intercepts some of the surface emitted thermal radiation. How much, and what effect that has is, what there is disagreement about.
george e smith;
So have you ever heard of or seen anybody perform an experiment wherein such a source irradiating a sample of dry air containing 400 ppm by volume of CO2 (if necessary synthesized from pure N2, O2, Ar, and CO2) caused the Temperature of that sample to increase above its originally stabilized room Temperature, by any appreciable amount.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From the archives of John Daly, on of he fiercest skeptics ever:
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
Note also the criticisms of this experiment published at the top of the page zip. The experiment demonstrates conclusively that some energy does get absorbed by CO2, and the zip file explains why the conclusions of the experiment are lower than expected due to their failure to take into account the sheer scale of the atmospheric air column.
Except running a computational model is not an experiment, never was and never will be. The terminology itself is wrong.
“…
No matter what happens now or in the future global warming/climate change seems to predict it.
…”
Incredibly, even including the disappearance of (presumably the gene for) red hair.
Go figure.
http://uncovercalifornia.com/content/2396-climate-change-will-decline-red-hair-population-scotland
Essays like this each week here longwindedly bury those few images that speak a thousand words such as the simple Marcott 2013 hockey stick scam or the pencil straight emissions defiant world average of tide gauges. But I guess some blokes just like to write. Here’s my two thousand words:
http://s6.postimg.org/jb6qe15rl/Marcott_2013_Eye_Candy.jpg
http://postimg.org/image/uszt3eei5/
As for the “paper” mentioned by rogerknights / latitude, if that is a quote from it, makes some pretty wild claims.
I don’t know of anybody who claims that GHGs such as CO2 and H2O (vapor) act as “true black bodies.”
For starters; what is a “true black body” ??
Well no such thing exists. Nothing physically real absorbs 100.000% of any and all electromagnetic radiation having wavelengths or frequencies from zero to infinity, not counting the two end points. It’s a purely theoretical concept.
But the Planck / Bose / Einstein BB spectral radiant emittance curve, is fairly accurately followed by many real objects at least over some Temperature range, and spectral range. The Planck curve predicts that 98% of the total energy, lies between 0.5 and 8.0 times the spectral peak wavelength, with only 1% beyond each end. The short wavelength end crashes very rapidly; the long end, much more slowly.
In practice, many objects absorb well over some 16:1 bandwidth, and look like quite respectable at least “gray” bodies.
But the specific absorption bands of GHGs are a consequence of molecular structure, and have nothing whatsoever to do with thermal (BB like) radiation. They don’t depend on Temperature.
So nobody sensible thinks GHGs are BB like. And they are so low density, they don’t come close to absorbing 100% of anything. Solids and liquids are much denser, and absorb more completely, so behave more BB like.
Other gases can and do radiate thermal continuum spectra, just like solids and liquids, but at very low intensities, because of the low molecular density. The entire atmospheric column, absorbs a miniscule amount of the solar radiation, so it is not even vaguely like a black body.
“””””…..davidmhoffer says:
July 6, 2014 at 10:16 pm
george e smith;
So have you ever heard of or seen anybody perform an experiment wherein such a source irradiating a sample of dry air containing 400 ppm by volume of CO2 (if necessary synthesized from pure N2, O2, Ar, and CO2) caused the Temperature of that sample to increase above its originally stabilized room Temperature, by any appreciable amount.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From the archives of John Daly, on of he fiercest skeptics ever:
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm…..”””””
So David, did you read my post at all ?? Your John Daly paper uses a 1200 deg C globar IR source.
Earth surface IS NOT AT 1200 DEG. C
And I already said nobody (sane) disputes that CO2 absorbs 15 micron LWIR (and others)
And they also added water vapor to their air sample. Their plotted spectrum, is incapable of resolving water lines from CO2 lines.
An increasing tone of disbelief I do detect, “…ignoring entirely that the average temperature for that part of Russia in February is above freezing throughout the whole damn record.”
The entire Climate Change/CAGW is going to go poof in the coming years in the eyes of the utility heating bill-paying public due to natural climate cooling of about a 1deg C or so by 2022. Get out those wool blankets and fire up the pop corn maker for the AGW histrionics from Pope Gore and Co.
A good bit of the HUG paper is beyond my ken. I note he mentions using the Beer-Lambert law. That law pre-supposes that the absorbed radiation stays dead. But he also asserts that the radiation gets thermalized by collisions.
I’m not a quantum mechanic, but it seems to me, that the resonant absorption, in this case at about 15 microns by the CO2 molecule puts the CO2 molecule into an internal excited state; in this case the degenerate bending mode (two perpendicular identical modes) . This energy is internal to the molecule, and independent of the laboratory space co-ordinates, so it is not involved in the “heat” content of the air mixture, and should have no effect on the Temperature.
Now the excited molecule will of course collide with something else, most likely a N2 molecule.
That collision could result in premature termination of that excited state, but it seems to me, that exit from that entirely internal molecular state, can only occur by emission of essentially the same energy photon, at 15 microns. Since the lifetime of the excited state is shortened, by the collision, it would seem that the transition energy might be slightly different, simply because of Heisenberg (dE.dt). But as near as I can fathom, the CO2 molecule re-radiates essentially the same 15 micron photon, but with a slightly broadened spectrum due to Doppler and collision broadening.
I’ve never seen any explanation as to exactly how this essentially line spectrum, due to molecular structure, can suddenly morph into a broad thermal spectrum, dependent on temperature, rather than simply a broadened but still line spectrum.
In any case, the absorbed photons, don’t stay dead, so Beer’s law does not apply.
A I said, I’m not a QM, but I don’t buy this “thermalization” of the CO2 absorbed radiation.
The extra-terrestrial emission spectrum of the earth, carries the signature of the emitting surface Temperature; not the stratospheric TOA Temperature, and the holes in it, are at the resonance spectral frequencies of the appropriate GHG species. (CO2 or O3 for example).
But a lot of stuff to read in that Hug paper.
And no he did not do the earth like experiment in the lab. He may have shown the basic CO2 molecular band we all talk about; but he didn’t use an earth like source at say 288 K. to measure any warming.
It is a scam. As soon as you engage him he starts changing the rules. Then, no matter what you say he simply dismisses it as “All lies”. .
Exactly my point. Without defining the terms, the exercise is useless…
Nick Stokes:
At July 6, 2014 at 7:21 pm you write in total
Your final paragraph is an historical error. It should say;
So we put a whole lot of CO2 in the air and it continued to warm from the Litlle Ice Age (LIA). If it had stopped warming, then at some stage the that might cast doubt on the physics. But – except for a pause in the 1040s and 50s – it didn’t stop warming until the late twentieth century.
Richard
Commenting on the discount rate used for the cost of the carbon impacts.
“…the most appropriate discount rate, and the one which long term assessments are supposed to be performed at is 7%.”
I have been using 7% as my middle rate of discount for at least 20 years. The logic I use is as follows.
Preamble that establishes the performance of the US economy as an adequate basis for establishing the discount rate:
The US is a mature economy with arguably the world’s most efficient markets. The US is self-contained enough that its economy is not greatly distorted by prices set in other countries. The US economy is open enough so that international trade reduces price distortion within the US economy. The US tariff regime tends to bring about efficient pricing of traded goods and services.
The logic for establishing the discount rate:
The long-term total return on the US stock markets is about 10%. The long-term inflation rate is about 3%. The real rate of return of capital invested in the US economy is 1.10/1.03 approximately equal to 1.07, that is 7%.
There are other ways to derive the long-term discount rate. This method is the simplest that I know of.
Based on the characteristics of described in the preamble above, a discount rate of 7% is also a reasonable global rate assuming average commercial risk.
Many foreign countries maintain a range of distorted prices by fiat prices, high tariff walls, bureaucratic restrictions on trade and capital movement, and currency controls. As a consequence, economists must calculate the shadow prices / border prices for many goods and services. The use of a relatively open economy like the US economy permits the shortcut method that I have shown above as a way of deriving 7% as a global discount rate.
Government projects that do not directly support private production should probably use a higher discount rate in order to avoid squeezing out private investment. In practice, governments use a lower discount rate in order to get preferential access to capital.
Nothing in my comment should be taken as endorsement of the well-known government subsidies and other economic distortions known to exist in the US economy.
The importance of this observation is that the economic cost of global warming in the Stern Review was set at 0.1% (one-tenth of one per cent) compared to his estimate of 1.5% for long-term social investments (schools, hospitals, etc.).
Some economists have argued that Stern should have used the risk-free economic rate used by the Treasury, which is around 3.5% in the UK.
In my opinion such a high risk-free rate is absurd. The risk-free rate for government bonds in the US is close to zero.
But is the application of the “precautionary principle” consistent with low risk? Or does the precautionary principle signify that climate policy should be based on ordinary business risk?
Do the wide confidence intervals of the IPCC signify low risk or high risk? In my opinion the economists have not reconciled the physical theories to their own theories.
Stern should have used not 0.1% discount rate, but 7% or something close to it. The cost-benefit analysis for CO2 should be “do nothing”.
I ignore here the fact that most cost-benefit analyses omit most of the benefits of CO2 emissions. .
OOps my final paragraph contains misprints. It should say
So we put a whole lot of CO2 in the air and it continued to warm from the Litlle Ice Age (LIA). If it had stopped warming at some stage then that might have cast doubt on the physics. But – except for a pause in the 1940s and 50s – it didn’t stop warming until the late twentieth century.
Sorry.
Richard
I read George.e.smith’s comments above with interest. My layman reading tells me that CO2 molecules will reach local air temperature. I understand this effect is termed ‘translational energy’ and effects primarily the bending modes. Thus CO2 molecules are able to radiate over some 3,800 lines of emission centered on 15 microns cooling the atmosphere. I read it is statistically possible for a CO2 molecule to absorb an occasional photon over that range but this does not effect the temperature of the molecule. This argument is used to claim that the absorbed radiation reduces the rate of cooling. I have to ask how CO2 ‘knows’ a photon from the surface as apposed to a photon from another nearby CO2 molecule. Or for that matter from a nearby H2O molecule? and what are they up to during this time? The H2O molecules I mean.
The guy has it the wrong way around. He’s the one proposing catastrophic global warming, he should have to prove his theory.
You know that the trial is rigged when the same party acts as judge and defendant.
Well the “Temperature” of a gas is based on the mean energy per molecule, or per degree of freedom. The equi-partition principle says that on average there is kT/2 kinetic energy (joule) for each of three axes of “translation”, and maybe another kT/2 for each of two (or three) axes of rotation. For dumbell like molecules such as N2 or O2. it is assumed that the moment of inertia about the axis, is very small, so they talk about 3kT/2 or 5kT/2 depending on the kind of molecule.
A bent molecule like H2O, probably has three significant moments of inertia, so it might get 6kT/2 energy on average.
Now these energies apply in the frame of reference of the gas volume, not the frame of reference of the molecule. So they energies relative to that frame. When a molecule such as CO2 absorbs or emits a photon, the energy change is in the reference frame of the molecule itself; it is internal to the molecule and doesn’t alter its kT/2 equi-partition average energy, or its Temperature.. Well an individual molecule doesn’t have a Temperature; that is a macro property of a very large assemblage of molecules.
I have argued that any single molecule, in time, will have any of the possible energy values given by the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution for a gas at any Temperature, so that arguably, we can say that the average Temperature of a single molecule, over some (long) interval of time, is exactly the same as the average energy of the whole assemblage, per molecule. But any single molecule in free flight, and not colliding with other molecules, does not have a Temperature (different from 0 K) so it doesn’t radiate thermal (bb like) radiation. But it can and does absorb, and emit photons at favorable frequencies, such as the 15 micron ones that CO2 likes, but such absorption or emission does not alter its Temperature..
“Heat” energy is the only form of energy that changes the Temperature. EM radiation, or Electricity(electric currents), do not change the Temperature. Note, an electric current flowing in a resistive wire, will dissipate energy in the resistance, turning it into “heat energy”, and that in turn, will change the Temperature of the wire. Currents flowing in a non resistive super conductor do not create heat.
And as for GHGs cooling the atmosphere, by radiating 15 micron photons. A 1 micron wavelength photon has about 1.28 eV energy, so a 15 micron photon, is about 85 meV energy.
A CO2 molecule can’t just go kicking out 85 meV of internal energy ad infinitum. It has to first absorb such a photon, to go from the ground state, to an excited state from which it can radiate, essentially the same energy it captured. That is why the Beer-Lambert law doesn’t apply; the absorbed photons, don’t stay dead, they are re-incarnated, at essentially the same energy.
Very few real situations actually follow Beer’s law. In such materials absorption leads to a non-radiative event, which ultimately manifests itself as heat; the photon stays dead. Well in good time the heated material (due to the absorbed energy turning to heat (probably phonons)) will emit thermal radiation, probably at some Infra-red wavelength.
I don’t see GHGs cooling anything, they simply absorb and re-emit, with no change in Temperature.
Yes the emission may not be spontaneous, but triggered by a collision.
The whole aim of this “bet” is to reject all information, evidence, observation, etc., and then claim that no skeptic was able to prove anything. It’s not about results, it’s about headlines claiming sceptical failure. It’s another attack on skeptics. Its another contrived “fact” they will wave around as “proof” we’re wrong and don’t know anything.
Konrad says:
July 6, 2014 at 6:06 pm
“…All of the AGW hoax can be disproved by just correctly answering one very, very simple question –
“given 1 bar pressure, is the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans warming or cooling?”
////////
Konrad
This is your most complete post.
I have, for years, been expressing the view that it is all about the oceans, by which I would say it is all about the first few metres of the ocean, and the atmosphere above the oceans. I consider that it is this column that one needs to look at, and this is where research should be directed. So I would slightly extent what you say.
What heppens in the first few metres of the oceans is pivotal. Due to the absorption characteristics of LWIR in water, some 60% of all LWIR is absorbed within just 4 microns (MICRONS not millimetres), and since DWLWIR is omnidirectional such that approximately 20% of all DWLWIR interacts with the ocean at a grazing angle of 20% or below, it is likely that about 80% of all DWLWIR is absorbed within the first vertical 4 micron column (I have not done the maths since the precise result is not particularly important).
Irrespective as to whether about 60% or about 80% of all DWLWIR is being absorbed in just 4 microns, there is a huge amount of energy being absorbed in the top 1 or 2 microns. But what is happening to this energy, if it is being absorbed (in accordance with the accepted absorption characteristics of LWIR in water)?
Unless this energy can be dissipated to depth (thereby diluting the energy) at a rate faster than the rate that would drive evaporation, the oceans would effectively boil off from the top down. So what processes may be at work that dissipate this energy to depth thereby diluting the energy at the required speed?
Herein lies a difficulty. We know that the temperature gradient of the ocean is upwards in the top millimetres see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_temperature#mediaviewer/File:MODIS_and_AIRS_SST_comp_fig2.i.jpg . Accordingly, the energy in these top microns cannot be disipated down to depth by conduction as that would be acting against the energy flow.
The only other mechanism frequently raised is ocean over turning. But that is a a slow mechanical process (and which appears to be a diurnal proceesss at that), and that slow mechanical mixing cannot reasonably be seen to dispate the absorbed energy in the top microns down to depth at a rate faster than evaporation would be driven by the energy absorbed in the top microns of the ocean.
Of course, we do not see vast amounts of evaportation (the amount of energy theoretically being absorbed in the top microns is in the order sufficient to drive some 14 to 18 metres of rainfall annually!) so that suggest that DWLWIR is not actually being absorbed by the oceans (perhaps because it is a measured signal but without energy capable of performing sensible work) or that there is some other process going on (which is not fully known or understood) that disipates this energy at a rate faster than the absorbed energy can drive evaporation.
However, what appears clear is that something is up, and something needs a further explanation.
Why does everyone keep saying that AGW is real ? I have not yet seen a DEFINITIVE proof for this hypothesis. If their is an ‘A’ signal then it should be discernable, measurable, provable. As SteveMc said a very long time ago, “Where is the engineering standard proof that AGW is real”. If you don’t have it, stop making statements that suggest you do.
Just because you ‘feel’ it aught to exist doesn’t mean it does. And, yes I’m a physicist, yes I know that elements and molecules apsorb but that doesn’t mean they heat the planet. So, Please, Stop it or provide the proof.
Further to my last post, I stated “…since DWLWIR is omnidirectional such that approximately 20% of all DWLWIR interacts with the ocean at a grazing angle of 20% or below, it is likely that about 80% of all DWLWIR is absorbed within the first vertical 4 micron column (I have not done the maths since the precise result is not particularly important).”
This sentence was not tightly expressed, but the best way of visualizing matters is that about half of all DWLWIR is interacting with the ocean at a grazing angle of 45deg or less, and hence the vast majority of DWLWIR (which I have estimated at 80%) will be absorbed before one reaches a depth of 4 micron seen as a vertical column.
I dissagree with your unfounded and gratuitous scientific capitulation at the start of your piece of work here;
“The problem with the climate change challenge is that no one is denying that there is likely an anthropogenic signal. The question is how much.”
The author then goes further down the idiot’s branch of appeasement with the following sad sack of dog vomit;
“There are some people who make ridiculously stupid claims that there is no anthropogenic signal but it’s a very small minority. Many skeptics feel that they are just internet trolls, we try not to feed them.”
Just who is this mental midget trying to impress here? (My sincerest apologies to actual mental midgets. They are generally good people who are not as scientifically challenged as Steven Burnett apparently is.)
Mr Burnett displays his dyslexic logic with these two blisteringly imbecilic statements, in my never to be humble opinion.
“… no one is denying that there is likely an anthropogenic signal. The question is how much.”
Pardon me Stevie boy, I completely reject being lumped in with any smoldering dolt who buys that line of dog poo.
Couching your commentary with warmist cult pseudo-scientific sounding nonsence such as “anthropogenic signals” does not help your case. It just exposes what a disingenuous dolt you are.
By saying “anthropogenic signal” you are putting in facts not in evidence. A man made signal of a change in temperature is measured in what thinking people everywhere call “degrees.” A signal is what we put on street corners so that people like the author dont get hit by cars crossing the street without their mommys.
Measuring temperature in universally accepted scientific terms like degrees allows thinking people to observe, record, and reproduce experiments to buttress lines of actual reasoning Stevie.
We know that a blanket of cloud cover slows cooling as the sun sets on a cold winter’s night. But only an idiot would make the claim that a blanket actively heats or causes temp to increase. If co2 displyed any insulative ability then its “signal” would be measurable and observable and recordable and repeatable every winter’s night.
Your statement implies that everyone buys the bull that co2 has any measurable affect on tempurature. If so, then show us Stevie boy! You’ll be able to proudly stand side by side with intellectual giants in the field of science like Al Gore!
You cannot show any evidence because there is none.
I really really really dislike liars who insult intelligence by repeating worn out lies.
Speak for yourself troll boy, thinking people do not agree with your moronic premise that a trace gas affects atmspheric temps to any measurable degree whatsoever. If trace gasses did affect temps to any measurable degree, then one could actually measure this magical phenomenon is a thing we call “degrees,” not “signals.”
What? Only $30000? How about $billion for falsifying Russell’s teapot, pink unicorn or flying spaghetti monster? That would be entertaining at least.
Given IPCC’s notorious track-record, cutting their funding to 4 ppm is worth a try. Perhaps positive feedback and forcing will do the rest and everybody will win.
urederra says:
July 7, 2014 at 1:30 am
“You know that the trial is rigged when the same party acts as judge and defendant.”
A.D. Everard says:
July 7, 2014 at 1:41 am
“The whole aim of this “bet” is to reject all information, evidence, observation, etc., and then claim that no skeptic was able to prove anything.”
————————————————————
You are essentially correct, Christopher was likely using this as a publicity stunt for the promotion of his book. He has indeed stated that he will be the judge. But there is a little problem.
He won’t.
I have given him the definitive empirical disproof of not just AGW but the whole idea of a net radiative green house effect –
“The oceans are a “selective surface”, not a “near blackbody”
and
“Given 1 bar pressure, the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is cooling of the oceans.”
Christopher has responded and accepted the submission. The acceptance has been screen shot. It was the first to point out the fundamental problems that invalidates the whole hypothesis. Now, no matter what he tries, he’s stuck. The AGW hoax depends on the two utterly false claims –
“The oceans are a near blackbody”
and
“Given 1 bar pressure, the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is Warming (slowing the cooling) of the oceans.”
He can change the rules or make a dismissal based on desmog blog links, but he cannot change the physical reality of climate on this planet, nor can he change the fact that on 02/07/2014 he was shown the experiments that prove AGW to be a physical impossibility.
It may take a little time, but the hoax cannot last forever. Soon folks will start to ask about why those climate models all failed. And a few more people are going to work it out. And the answer will be the same. Without atmospheric cooling our oceans would heat to near 80C and the atmosphere in turn has only effective cooling mechanism – radiative gases.
Christopher added a submission deadline, but had not added a payout deadline at the time of my submission. Tick tock, tick tock…;-)
Well tom,
Any deviation from 0 is an effect. So to make the statement that there is no effect requires evidence to that effect.
Considering a simple I spectroscopy experiment will show that co2 absorbs I bands, and that simple absorption increases the internal energy of the system, it would require some amount of evidence to show that a demonstrable absorption effect in a lab doesn’t carry over at all or in any way to nature.
Whether this effect is significant, detectable, or the primary cause of the detected trend is a very different argument. Onus probundi applies the burden of proof to the maker of a claim, IR spectroscopy validates the claim that co2 absorbs IR. To claim this trait doesn’t apply to the environment has its own burden of proof.
Tom Rowan. I hear you. Having driven late in the afternoon on a tarmac road, peppered with thermometers displaying air (+18 ± 2 °C) and road surface (+40 ± 3 °C) temperature all the 150 km stretch, I’m inclined to think modern humans do warm the air. Having said that and despite of the road being quasi-abandoned, parking the car for a stroll on that road without shirt and shoes wasn’t as tempting as cAGW implies.
I have seen some people writing about quantum mechanics, beer lambert and photon absorption/reemission. Here is how it actually works.
CO2 absorbs a photon which energizes the molecule. In most cases co2 will remit the photon generally along the same wavelength within a short period of time. However it is not instantaneous and there are other compounds that collide with CO2. Some of these collisions will transfer the absorbed energy and while it will eventually be remitted it is not guaranteed to be of the same wavelength.
For the photons that are remitted by the CO2 we can consider the trajectory to be completely random. Sometimes the photons will go up sometimes down and other times sideways.
Thus increased CO2 reduces the net photon flux away from the planet. Eventually the net flux reaches a new equilibrium. At equilibrium the net flux inot and away from the planet may be zero but the number of photons in play, and thus net thermal energy will be higher.
The problem is that this effect diminish logarithmicly with concentration. CO2 is also competing with other more effective absorption compounds such as water. Thus the net effect of co2 has will depend 9n factors such as existing concentration, concentration flux and water vapor c9ncentration.
In colder regions the effect from CO2 will increase in warmer regions it should decrease. It also makes it paradoxical that people claim it will increase the high temperatures. The coldest regions and lowest temperatures are likely to show the strongest signal, and more specificly in drier regions so as not to confuse dry/wet gas samples as having the same effect.
Beer lambert does not have the photon per Se die. The net absorption of a particular wavelength means it could be released at a different wavelength, by other compounds in the solution or for other reasons. All beer-lambert says is that a compound that absorbs a wavelength reduces the intensity of that wavelength per unit length traveled or per concentration increase. The only reason you couldnt use beer -lambert is it requires no mixing and a nifty atmosphere. However an approximation could be used to determine the same effect.
I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. Saying that there should be an anthropogenic effect of manmade CO2 is one thing. Pointing to said effect is quite another. The fact is that they can’t point to that effect, or what they like to call the “anthropogenic signal”. That doesn’t mean there is none. It is just like David said above about peeing in the ocean. Will it affect sea level? Of course it will! Can it be measured? No. Does it matter in the slightest? Absolutely not.
The burden of proof is entirely on them. That is the scientific method. Their attempted ploy of reversing the null hypothesis is both bogus and unscientific.
“Dr Christopher Keating is offering a cash reward to anyone who can provide him with proof that man-made climate change isn’t real.”
Dr Keating gets to decide the proof.
Anyway, he is deploying a juvenile fallacy, trusting his audience doesn’t catch it. An Argumentum ad Ignorantium. He is marketing his theory. Failure to prove his theory wrong does prove his theory right. It is not even evidence that his theory is right.
richard verney says:
July 7, 2014 at 1:56 am
————————————————————
Do have a care Richard. You are straying from the “lukewarmer” path. Too much of that and you could be branded a “slayer”, a “skydragon” or worse an “AGW heretic”. Cries of “silence unbeliever” will surely follow…
I mean you are afraid of being falsely accused of being a “slayer” right? That still works doesn’t it?
Well, the few remaining “sleepers” still think so…
But back to less political matters. The reason DWLWIR cannot slow the cooling rate of the oceans is not too complex. As you are pointing out LWIR does not penetrate the skin evaporation layer of the oceans. About 100 microns is the limit. Within this layer, as with all water, not all molecules are at the same temperature (kinetic state). When an IR photon is absorbed by a cooler (slower) H2O molecule it can heat it. But when a photon is absorbed by a hotter H2O molecule, it can raise its energy state to the level where it can break surface tension and evaporate. In this manner incident LWIR can “trip” some molecules into evaporating sooner, creating cooling of the water in excess of the energy of the photon involved. In terms of heating (or slowing the cooling rate if you wish to play semantics) the net effect of DWLWIR over the oceans is….zip.
An this of course is why, when challenged, AGW believers cannot ever produce a replicable lab experiment showing that incident LWIR has a significant effect on the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. (All they’ve got is that Minnett tripe, and I’ve already found out how they fudged that. Too easy 😉 )
DWLWIR is provably not what is raising the oceans above their “theoretical blackbody temp of -18C”. The oceans are a UV/SW selective surface, the sun alone is doing that. The selective surface effect is so powerful, that without atmospheric cooling the surface Tmax of the oceans would top 80C. The net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is cooling, and in turn the atmosphere has only one effective cooling mechanism…
Stephen Richards says:
July 7, 2014 at 1:58 am
————————————-
“Why does everyone keep saying that AGW is real ?”
I understand there may be a small amount of money involved…
Well that and the reputation of every environmental NGO, most of the world’s journalists and half the world’s politicians.
I am not math savvy and i don’t even know if it’s interesting but, could someone calculate a normal distribution over temp. anomalies or ice coverage of the poles (or northern reps. southern hemispheric temp) since the beginning of time as to establish once and for all what the “normal” state for the poles actually is? Is it glaciation or interglacial and what is the “normal” temp.?
Hope you understand what I am asking.
“We all can quibble about how heat gets moved around from one part of the Earth to another before it gets cast back off into space, but given that the Earth (land, water, and air) is wrapped in a vacuum, the only mechanism that the Earth as a whole has to shed the heat it receives from the Sun is to radiate it back into space. Adding more increments of CO2 to the atmosphere can only incrementally add to the time that the Earth as a whole churns the heat around before radiating it back into space, making it a less efficient radiator. A less efficient radiator has to raise its temperature to achieve a new equilibrium.”
Non-evaporative heat transfer dominates the Earth’s surface cooling (~60% of the total, the rest being the net surface LW, including the direct LW to space). Atmospheric radiation to space dominates the total planetary cooling (~90%, the rest being the direct surface LW to space). I don’t see how more CO2 makes the Earth a less efficient radiator. On the face of it, it looks like a more efficient radiator, with higher atmospheric emissivity.
http://pmm.nasa.gov/education/sites/default/files/article_images/components2.gif
Use the electrical analogy and concept of thermal resistance, which can provide us with a good deal of guidance in the solution of the Earth’s surface and total planetary heat transfer problem. At the surface/atmosphere interface we have three thermal resistances (evaporation, convection and net LW) connected in parallel, plus the resistance of the direct surface LW to space (the window), which creates a shortcut directly to space. At the TOA, we have the resistance of atmospheric LW to space, plus the already mentioned shortcut.
A few points on the current comment thread
1) I see one of the regulars has claimed someone is very close to “Sl@yer Nonsense” (TM)
I first found out what a “Sl@yer” was and that talk of it was banned when I asked a question after an exchange similar to that on the first half of this thread (all I have read so far). I am disappointed that we complain about the alarmist religion refusing debate while we do the same. I think there is a word for that.
2) The Scottish Skeptic wrote an interesting post in which he claimed that mainstream skeptics and “Sky Dr@gons” had the same theory basically but looked at it wrong. (both sides are slightly wrong according to him) It was a little off-putting that he got their name wrong, but he had their position down ok.
http://scottishsceptic.wordpress.com/2014/07/03/reconciling-skydragons-and-mainstream-skeptics/
3) It is a Fracking Fact that mankind has effected the climate of the planet earth. One of the biggest impacts is deforestation. Another is agriculture and raising meat-food animals. How much of an impact? I would say that man’s impact is tiny compared to other things, but we can never prove man had no impact since, clearly, mankind has impacted the climate.
4) We are presently in an ice age. Yes, an ice age. We are presently in an inter-glacial portion of the current ice age. The interglacial ages have been getting colder each time according to the proxy series. I would like to see the alarmists tell me why I should not pray for a warming back up so warm as to end the ice age itself. But at the very least I would like the gods to give us warmth equal to the warmest interglacial of this present ice age. [NOTE: I love working in the yard in full sun when it is over 90 F and the humidity is nice and high so some might call me crazy]
5) Let us never forget that the present climate “debate” is almost purely political. Under the scientific method, the question was settled long ago, but under the rules of modern government funded “science” the “debate” drags on like a zombie. (and makes about as much sense as “The Walking Dead” show)
~ Mark
Non-radiative heat transfer dominates…
Here is the submission I made that clearly proves there is no man made global warming.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
This is my proof to win the $30,000 so please don’t steal it! 😉
Global climate change, requires that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), whose existence is uncontested, was not global in extent (Because it would imply that the signal of natural variability is larger than the flux of the contemporary instrumental record).
However, if this argument is true, it ‘gives the lie’ to the notion of “global climate change”!
If the ‘climate change’ of the MWP was geographically limited, how can climate change be said to be global!
You have to think about this a little but it is logically watertight (Both deductively and inductively IMHO).
This is not a semantic argument, it could be fully fleshed out.
Steven Burnett says:
July 7, 2014 at 3:13 am
Steve, that’s not how it works. CO2, like all matter, can only emit radiation at the same wavelengths that it absorbs it.
If an exited CO2 molecule collides with another air molecule before it can emit its photon then it reverts to its ground state and can no longer emit a photon. The energy is converted into ‘translational energy’, i.e. the increased momentum of the molecules involved in the collision. This is called ‘thermalisation’. The CO2 molecule cannot emit its photon after being ‘thermalised’.
Thank you george e. smith at 1:37 am above. Your comment has given me much to think about.
Amen.
ladylifegrows says:
July 6, 2014 at 7:48 pm
I would like to see Konrad’s comment here expanded to a full article. I have a physicist friend I would like to show that to.
Hear, hear! I second the request!
SanityP says:
July 7, 2014 at 3:51 am
I am not math savvy and i don’t even know if it’s interesting but, could someone calculate a normal distribution over temp. anomalies or ice coverage of the poles (or northern reps. southern hemispheric temp) since the beginning of time as to establish once and for all what the “normal” state for the poles actually is? Is it glaciation or interglacial and what is the “normal” temp.?
SanityP, it’s certainly interesting to geologists. Our host has a page devoted to charts. At the top, go to “Reference Pages->Global Temperature: Climate->Paleoclimate” and scroll down.
Short version: Earth is normally too warm for permanent, year-round ice anywhere on the planet, even at the poles. For nearly 80% of the last 4 billion years, Earth has had snow and ice only in winter. Eras when there is permanent, year-round ice, we call “ice ages”. Even the interglacial stages of ice ages are abnormally cold for this planet. A “normal” Antarctic has forests.
Amusingly, CO2 was at 4400 ppm (11 times the present) 460 million years ago — during a particularly bitter ice age.
I dunno the CO2 atmospheric science but I do know that an absence of correlation means an absence of causation — and the only correlation between CO2 and climate is in reverse: when the climate warms, then the CO2 increases. Even Venus is no warmer than it should be just from being closer to the sun — when you account for the effects of atmospheric pressure.
” There are some people who make ridiculously stupid claims that there is no anthropogenic signal but it’s a very small minority.”
Oh, really? If there is evidence of an anthropogenic signal, please let me know. If you believe that increasing CO2 increases the temperature, please show me evidence from the past, where it can be proven that a step change in CO2 was followed by a corresponding step change in temperature. This might be difficult, as the ice cores clearly show that CO2 followed the temperature, and not the other way around.
Nearly half of the modern warming occurred before there was enough CO2. And in this century, when CO2 has increased by around 10%, why has there been zero global warming?
How do we know that the modern warming was simply a rebound from the Little Ice Age? The data shows a good correlation between temperature and the amount of clouds globally. How do we know it didn’t get warmer simply because there were less clouds?
Some amount of warming may have occurred because of human CO2 emissions. But if so, show me the data. Show me the proof.
Chris
One cannot prove a negative, so the manner in which the challenge is framed, is fundamentally flawed.
But of course, man has an affect on climate, at any rate at a regional level and on a micro climatic basis. But in making such a comment, one has to define what is meant by climate, or a change of climate.
Is a warming of a few tenths of a degree C, a climatic change? Personally, I do not consider it to be, but that is subjective, since I would wish to see a change in weather patterns such as rainfall, snow, frosts, essentially some zonal shifting between the different Koppen (or Trewartha) classification.
We all know about UHI, this raises the temps of large urbanisations by several degreesC (perhaps even more), and has a significant effect on night time temps. So depending upon how you define matters, UHI is an obvious man made impact on climate (but limited to the places that have been urbanised).
A more obvious micro climatic change takes place when we dam rivers and flood valleys. This does more than simply change local temps, it can change rainfall, patterns and the like. Ditto, de forestation.
So no one can seriously and convincingly argue that manmade climate change does not exist. Land use, clearly confirms that it does exist, at any rate on a regional and micro cllmatic basis. The isse is CO2. is this a player?.
Personally, I do not see how any genuine scientist can say that there is a signal to CO2 in the data sets (other than in data sets dealing solely with the measurement of CO2 such as Mauna Loa data), still less that CO2 drives temperature (as opposed to being a response), still even less that a temperature/cliamte response to manmade emissions can be dedected.
The data sets are all way too flawwed, the error magins so large, noisy with nautural variation etc. such that no signal to manmade emissions can be made out.
That does not mean that there is no signaal, but merely that presently, we cannot separate the signal from the noise such that it cannot yet be detected. I consider that to be the honest interpretation of the observational data that we have, and that is of course why, there is over reliance upon models since CO2 induced AGW exists only in computer simulations.
Steven Burnett writes:
“Nuclear at an approximate 96$/MWhr is substantially cheaper, has a lower life cycle carbon emission, lasts longer and is safer. But we only hear about improving renewable contributions when they are literally worse in every way.”
Nuclear power costs far more than $96/MWhr – which is 9.6 cents per kWh.
Even in France, with 85 percent of its power by nuclear plants, and heavily subsidized by government, industrial users pay 11.6 cents per kWh compared to US at 6.7 cents, and France residential price is 17.5 cents per kWh compared to US at 11.9 cents per kWh. This shows that France, with almost a full nuclear-powered grid, charges approximately double for industrial power (11.6 vs 6.7), and approximately 50 percent more for residential prices (17.5 vs 11.9). French prices would surely be much higher, if France did not export power but had to throttle back each night, and if subsidies were fully forbidden. These prices are for France’s old, depreciated plants, but new plants must charge far more to cover the much higher capital costs.
See Following France in Nuclear Is Not The Way To Go at
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part.html
See also Preposterous Power Pricing if Nuclear Power Proponents Prevail at
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-two.html
Every time CO2 reaches a maximum we re-glaciate… So CO2 warms until it cools.
I will gladly pay anyone $50,000 if they can prove that we don’t really live inside a hologram, and that the Matrix wasn’t a documentary. Oh, and I, and I alone, get to say what is “proof” and what is not, and anyone who disputes my ruling is automatically disqualified from the contest.
(Ok, that is just an illustration of a) the impossibility of “proving a negative”, and b) the ridiculous terms which apply to the contest which is the subject of the article I’m responding to)
Re:
“The problem with the climate change challenge is that no one is denying that there is likely an anthropogenic signal. The question is how much.”
Dr Keating states the following clearly on his website (his capitalisation):
“IF YOU ARE SAYING MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT REAL AND YOU CAN PROVE IT, I AM GIVING YOU THE CHANCE. IF YOU ARE NOT MAKING THAT CLAIM, THEN THIS CHALLENGE IS NOT FOR YOU.” http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.co.uk/p/blog-page_1.html
The challenge is only for people who reject man made global warming completely. It’s not for people who accept it but question its extent. Since the author of the above article clearly accepts that man made global warming is to at least some extent a reality then, as Dr Keating makes perfectly clear, the challenge is not for him. So what’s the point of his article?
Roger I’m talking levelized cost not retail. This is a common mistake typically made by advocates.
David.
The reason this is relevant has to do with our understanding on the theory behind global warming. The theory is wrong based on observable data. Having an effect is something that is different from 0. We must have an effect, but whether man made global warming is something that is detectable or not is up for debate. A failure to clearly detect the signal is Indistinguishable from no warming effect. And the challenge specifically asks for evidence that refutes an anthropogenic impact.
The statement made by Dr Keating and the resulting challenge should therefore be open to any evidence falsifying the theory.
Mikeb,
I’m aware that many of the photons should be remitted at near the same wavelengths it is capable of absorbing. However I struggle with the idea that it is remitted at the exact same wavelength. That would imply an energy change that is 100% efficient while possible It’s what happens.
Glow in the dark materials tend to absorb high frequency photons in the uv range and remit them at much lower energies some period of time later. Neon materials do the same thing but with a significantly shorter lapse. Considering there are numerous micro peaks in the IR profile of co2 and minor losses could still occur and keep the photons at close to the same wavelength I believe the statement as I wrote is technically correct but minor variations in wavelength would still keep remitted photons within the absorption range of other co2 molecules.
Kurt says:
July 6, 2014 at 9:17 pm
Alberta Slim says:
July 6, 2014 at 8:41 pm
“I agree with Konrad . . . CO2 does the same thing. It is a gas; it expands and rises when heated, and also carries the heat to the upper atmosphere.
CO2 does not, imo, act like a solid [blanket], and just lie there and “trap” heat.”
“We all can quibble about how heat gets moved around from one part of the Earth to another before it gets cast back off into space, but given that the Earth (land, water, and air) is wrapped in a vacuum, the only mechanism that the Earth as a whole has to shed the heat it receives from the Sun is to radiate it back into space. Adding more increments of CO2 to the atmosphere can only incrementally add to the time that the Earth as a whole churns the heat around before radiating it back into space, making it a less efficient radiator. A less efficient radiator has to raise its temperature to achieve a new equilibrium.”
KURT:
” Adding more increments of CO2 to the atmosphere can only incrementally add to the time that the Earth as a whole churns the heat around before radiating it back into space, making it a less efficient radiator. A less efficient radiator has to raise its temperature to achieve a new equilibrium.”
I believe that you are incorrect.
Please think about this: Put a pot of water on the stove and bring it to a boil. What is the temperature? 100C. Right? Now, turn up the heat. The water boils faster but the temperature stays the same. SO! Any heat picked up by the CO2 also radiates to space faster, thus keeping the earth in equlibrium [on average].
Chris Wright says:
July 7, 2014 at 6:00 am
” There are some people who make ridiculously stupid claims that there is no anthropogenic signal but it’s a very small minority.”
Oh, really? If there is evidence of an anthropogenic signal, please let me know.
We skeptics sure do quibble over wording, but perhaps it is simply in our DNA?
The word “signal” is the problem here. A “signal” should be detectable. So, I agree with you that there is no detectable signal. I also agree, it is not a “ridiculously stupid claim” to say there is not.
However, the physics does suggest that there probably is an anthropogenic effect on the climate. In the case of our discussion, anthropogenic CO2 emissions could be having an effect. No detectable “signal”, but a theoretical effect nonetheless.
I believe it would be more helpful to the skeptic cause if we would refrain from calling fellow skeptics stupid.
We (folks who post here) have been down this path before. There isn’t a simple “this is what skeptics believe” statement, although I keep pushing the Oregon Petition statement, as I did in an earlier post in this thread. In that regard, stating what one thinks is other skeptics opinion almost always garners an “I do not” post.
Just making an observation.
“ridiculously stupid claims that there is no anthropogenic signal” – where is the proof of the anthropogenic signal . . . scientific proof that is . .? If there is no proof then it can hardly be described as “ridiculously stupid” to “claim” there is no such signal and place the onus of proof on those who would attribute blame. . . And this was the starting point of this essay!!. . . If there is an anthropogenic signal, what is the extent of its contribution?
The fundamental problem in this whole war of words and ideologies is natural variation . . . we don’t know what the climate would have been, whether exactly as it is, colder, or – yes, even that – warmer than it is . . without that knowledge the rest is guesswork informed by embattled statistics that would often be inaccurate before we started to bully them into the shape we prefer . . .
This was interesting but the offer of $30,000 is a joke. What he is asking to be disproven is ” increased concentrations of greenhouse gasses have cause the globe to warm” or increases in the concentration of gasses that cause the globe to warm will cause the globe to warm. in his understanding of what is to be disproven there is no quantification or designation of anything. He is not interested in discussing the impact of an increase of a specific concentration of any particualr gas.
My advice is that if you like this type of game take your life savings and buy lottery tickets, the chance of success is greater.
A bit OT but I need info. I hear all the time about the 390ppm CO2 at the mid troposphere but as CO2 is heavier than air and must be down here where we are and can be absorbed by plants and the sea – what is the concentration down here? And is the great variation all down here too?
If this is very obvious, sorry, but please bear with me. Thanks.
I’ve been having fun with a low temp handheld IR Thermometer, I measure the sky, and have started measuring my concrete sidewalk, asphalt drive, and the grass in the yard.
Sorry for the long post:
NO DATA UNIT TIME
1 67.2 F 07-04-14/21:34:18
2 67.2 F 07-04-14/21:34:19
3 66.3 F 07-04-14/21:34:19
4 66.9 F 07-04-14/21:34:20
5 66.9 F 07-04-14/21:34:20
6 66.2 F 07-04-14/21:34:21
7 66.2 F 07-04-14/21:34:21
8 66.9 F 07-04-14/21:34:22
9 66.2 F 07-04-14/21:34:22
10 66.2 F 07-04-14/21:34:22
11 66.9 F 07-04-14/21:34:23
12 66.2 F 07-04-14/21:34:23
13 66.7 F 07-04-14/21:34:24
14 66.7 F 07-04-14/21:34:24
15 66.7 F 07-04-14/21:34:25
16 66.7 F 07-04-14/21:34:25
17 66.7 F 07-04-14/21:34:26
18 66.7 F 07-04-14/21:34:26
19 66.2 F 07-04-14/21:34:27
20 52.5 F 07-04-14/21:34:27
21 51.8 F 07-04-14/21:34:27
22 52.5 F 07-04-14/21:34:28
23 52.5 F 07-04-14/21:34:28
24 52.1 F 07-04-14/21:34:29
25 52.1 F 07-04-14/21:34:29
26 52.1 F 07-04-14/21:34:30
27 51.4 F 07-04-14/21:34:30
28 50.9 F 07-04-14/21:34:31
29 51.4 F 07-04-14/21:34:31
30 52.1 F 07-04-14/21:34:32
31 52.1 F 07-04-14/21:34:32
32 51.4 F 07-04-14/21:34:33
33 51.4 F 07-04-14/21:34:33
34 51.4 F 07-04-14/21:34:33
35 51.4 F 07-04-14/21:34:34
36 51.4 F 07-04-14/21:34:34
37 52.5 F 07-04-14/21:34:35
38 52.1 F 07-04-14/21:34:35
39 52.1 F 07-04-14/21:34:36
40 52.1 F 07-04-14/21:34:36
41 52.1 F 07-04-14/21:34:37
42 52.1 F 07-04-14/21:34:37
43 52.1 F 07-04-14/21:34:38
44 52.5 F 07-04-14/21:34:38
45 52.5 F 07-04-14/21:34:38
46 52.5 F 07-04-14/21:34:39
47 51.6 F 07-04-14/21:34:39
48 50.9 F 07-04-14/21:34:40
49 51.2 F 07-04-14/21:34:40
50 51.8 F 07-04-14/21:34:41
51 51.2 F 07-04-14/21:34:42
52 55.4 F 07-04-14/21:34:42
53 55.9 F 07-04-14/21:34:43
54 57.9 F 07-04-14/21:34:43
55 56.8 F 07-04-14/21:34:44
56 52.8 F 07-04-14/21:34:44
57 53.2 F 07-04-14/21:34:45
58 52.5 F 07-04-14/21:34:45
59 52.5 F 07-04-14/21:34:46
60 52.1 F 07-04-14/21:34:46
61 51.6 F 07-04-14/21:34:47
62 53.6 F 07-04-14/21:34:47
63 53.6 F 07-04-14/21:34:48
64 54.1 F 07-04-14/21:34:48
65 53.2 F 07-04-14/21:34:48
66 53.7 F 07-04-14/21:34:49
67 53.7 F 07-04-14/21:34:49
68 53.7 F 07-04-14/21:34:50
69 52.8 F 07-04-14/21:34:50
70 53.2 F 07-04-14/21:34:51
71 65.4 F 07-04-14/21:34:51
72 66.2 F 07-04-14/21:34:52
73 66.2 F 07-04-14/21:34:52
74 66.2 F 07-04-14/21:34:53
75 66.2 F 07-04-14/21:34:53
76 66.2 F 07-04-14/21:34:54
77 66.7 F 07-04-14/21:34:54
78 66.0 F 07-04-14/21:34:54
79 66.0 F 07-04-14/21:34:55
80 66.0 F 07-04-14/21:34:55
81 66.3 F 07-04-14/21:34:56
82 66.3 F 07-04-14/21:34:56
83 66.3 F 07-04-14/21:34:57
84 66.3 F 07-04-14/21:34:57
85 66.3 F 07-04-14/21:34:58
86 62.2 F 07-04-14/21:34:58
87 -39.1 F 07-04-14/21:34:59
88 -36.4 F 07-04-14/21:34:59
89 -37.1 F 07-04-14/21:34:59
90 -37.1 F 07-04-14/21:35:00
91 -37.1 F 07-04-14/21:35:00
92 -37.1 F 07-04-14/21:35:01
93 -37.1 F 07-04-14/21:35:01
94 -37.1 F 07-04-14/21:35:02
95 -37.1 F 07-04-14/21:35:02
96 -37.8 F 07-04-14/21:35:03
97 -37.8 F 07-04-14/21:35:03
98 -37.4 F 07-04-14/21:35:04
99 -37.1 F 07-04-14/21:35:04
100 -37.8 F 07-04-14/21:35:04
101 -37.8 F 07-04-14/21:35:05
102 -37.4 F 07-04-14/21:35:05
103 -37.8 F 07-04-14/21:35:06
104 -37.1 F 07-04-14/21:35:06
105 -37.4 F 07-04-14/21:35:07
106 -37.4 F 07-04-14/21:35:07
107 -37.4 F 07-04-14/21:35:08
108 -37.8 F 07-04-14/21:35:08
109 -37.4 F 07-04-14/21:35:09
110 -38.5 F 07-04-14/21:35:09
111 -37.8 F 07-04-14/21:35:09
112 -37.8 F 07-04-14/21:35:10
113 -37.8 F 07-04-14/21:35:10
114 -38.5 F 07-04-14/21:35:11
115 -38.5 F 07-04-14/21:35:11
116 -38.5 F 07-04-14/21:35:12
117 -38.0 F 07-04-14/21:35:12
118 -38.7 F 07-04-14/21:35:13
119 -38.0 F 07-04-14/21:35:13
120 -38.0 F 07-04-14/21:35:14
121 -38.7 F 07-04-14/21:35:14
122 -38.7 F 07-04-14/21:35:14
123 -38.2 F 07-04-14/21:35:15
124 -38.2 F 07-04-14/21:35:15
125 -38.2 F 07-04-14/21:35:16
126 -38.2 F 07-04-14/21:35:16
127 -39.1 F 07-04-14/21:35:17
128 -38.2 F 07-04-14/21:35:17
129 -37.8 F 07-04-14/21:35:18
130 -38.7 F 07-04-14/21:35:18
131 -38.2 F 07-04-14/21:35:19
132 -39.2 F 07-04-14/21:35:19
133 -38.5 F 07-04-14/21:35:20
134 -39.2 F 07-04-14/21:35:20
135 -38.5 F 07-04-14/21:35:20
136 -38.5 F 07-04-14/21:35:21
137 -38.5 F 07-04-14/21:35:21
138 -39.1 F 07-04-14/21:35:22
139 -38.5 F 07-04-14/21:35:22
140 -38.5 F 07-04-14/21:35:23
141 -38.5 F 07-04-14/21:35:23
142 -39.1 F 07-04-14/21:35:24
143 -39.1 F 07-04-14/21:35:24
144 -39.4 F 07-04-14/21:35:25
145 -38.5 F 07-04-14/21:35:25
146 -39.8 F 07-04-14/21:35:25
147 -38.2 F 07-04-14/21:35:26
148 -38.7 F 07-04-14/21:35:26
149 -39.1 F 07-04-14/21:35:27
150 -39.1 F 07-04-14/21:35:27
151 -39.1 F 07-04-14/21:35:28
152 -38.7 F 07-04-14/21:35:28
153 -39.4 F 07-04-14/21:35:29
154 -39.4 F 07-04-14/21:35:29
155 -39.8 F 07-04-14/21:35:30
156 -39.1 F 07-04-14/21:35:30
157 -39.1 F 07-04-14/21:35:30
158 -38.7 F 07-04-14/21:35:31
159 -39.8 F 07-04-14/21:35:31
160 -39.8 F 07-04-14/21:35:32
161 -39.8 F 07-04-14/21:35:32
162 -40.3 F 07-04-14/21:35:33
163 -39.8 F 07-04-14/21:35:33
164 -39.8 F 07-04-14/21:35:34
165 -39.8 F 07-04-14/21:35:34
166 -39.2 F 07-04-14/21:35:35
167 -39.8 F 07-04-14/21:35:35
168 -39.8 F 07-04-14/21:35:35
169 -41.6 F 07-04-14/21:35:36
170 -40.3 F 07-04-14/21:35:36
171 -39.8 F 07-04-14/21:35:37
172 -40.3 F 07-04-14/21:35:37
173 -40.3 F 07-04-14/21:35:38
174 -40.3 F 07-04-14/21:35:38
175 -40.3 F 07-04-14/21:35:39
176 -40.3 F 07-04-14/21:35:39
177 -40.3 F 07-04-14/21:35:40
178 -40.7 F 07-04-14/21:35:40
179 -40.7 F 07-04-14/21:35:41
180 -40.7 F 07-04-14/21:35:41
181 -40.1 F 07-04-14/21:35:41
182 -41.8 F 07-04-14/21:35:42
183 43.5 F 07-04-14/21:35:42
184 62.2 F 07-04-14/21:35:43
185 63.6 F 07-04-14/21:35:43
186 63.6 F 07-04-14/21:35:44
187 64.2 F 07-04-14/21:35:44
188 63.5 F 07-04-14/21:35:45
189 64.2 F 07-04-14/21:35:45
190 64.2 F 07-04-14/21:35:46
191 63.6 F 07-04-14/21:35:46
192 63.6 F 07-04-14/21:35:46
193 64.2 F 07-04-14/21:35:47
194 63.8 F 07-04-14/21:35:47
195 63.8 F 07-04-14/21:35:48
196 63.8 F 07-04-14/21:35:48
197 62.6 F 07-04-14/21:35:49
198 63.3 F 07-04-14/21:35:49
199 63.8 F 07-04-14/21:35:50
200 63.8 F 07-04-14/21:35:50
201 63.1 F 07-04-14/21:35:51
202 63.8 F 07-04-14/21:35:51
203 63.8 F 07-04-14/21:35:51
204 63.8 F 07-04-14/21:35:52
205 63.3 F 07-04-14/21:35:52
206 63.3 F 07-04-14/21:35:53
207 63.6 F 07-04-14/21:35:53
208 63.6 F 07-04-14/21:35:54
209 63.1 F 07-04-14/21:35:54
210 63.1 F 07-04-14/21:35:55
211 63.5 F 07-04-14/21:35:55
212 63.8 F 07-04-14/21:35:56
213 63.3 F 07-04-14/21:35:56
214 63.3 F 07-04-14/21:35:56
215 63.3 F 07-04-14/21:35:57
216 63.3 F 07-04-14/21:35:57
217 63.3 F 07-04-14/21:35:58
218 62.4 F 07-04-14/21:35:58
219 52.3 F 07-04-14/21:35:59
220 49.6 F 07-04-14/21:35:59
221 48.9 F 07-04-14/21:36:00
222 48.5 F 07-04-14/21:36:00
223 48.5 F 07-04-14/21:36:01
224 48.9 F 07-04-14/21:36:01
225 48.2 F 07-04-14/21:36:02
226 47.8 F 07-04-14/21:36:02
227 47.3 F 07-04-14/21:36:02
228 48.5 F 07-04-14/21:36:03
229 48.0 F 07-04-14/21:36:03
230 48.0 F 07-04-14/21:36:04
231 48.7 F 07-04-14/21:36:04
232 48.7 F 07-04-14/21:36:05
233 48.7 F 07-04-14/21:36:05
234 47.8 F 07-04-14/21:36:06
235 47.6 F 07-04-14/21:36:06
236 47.8 F 07-04-14/21:36:07
237 47.8 F 07-04-14/21:36:07
238 47.8 F 07-04-14/21:36:07
239 47.8 F 07-04-14/21:36:08
240 47.8 F 07-04-14/21:36:08
241 47.8 F 07-04-14/21:36:09
242 48.2 F 07-04-14/21:36:09
243 48.2 F 07-04-14/21:36:10
244 48.2 F 07-04-14/21:36:10
245 48.7 F 07-04-14/21:36:11
246 47.4 F 07-04-14/21:36:11
247 49.8 F 07-04-14/21:36:12
248 53.9 F 07-04-14/21:36:12
249 63.1 F 07-04-14/21:36:12
250 63.1 F 07-04-14/21:36:13
251 63.1 F 07-04-14/21:36:13
252 63.1 F 07-04-14/21:36:14
253 63.6 F 07-04-14/21:36:14
254 63.3 F 07-04-14/21:36:15
255 63.3 F 07-04-14/21:36:15
256 63.3 F 07-04-14/21:36:16
257 63.3 F 07-04-14/21:36:16
258 63.3 F 07-04-14/21:36:17
259 63.6 F 07-04-14/21:36:17
260 63.6 F 07-04-14/21:36:17
261 64.2 F 07-04-14/21:36:18
262 64.2 F 07-04-14/21:36:18
263 64.2 F 07-04-14/21:36:19
264 64.4 F 07-04-14/21:36:19
265 64.4 F 07-04-14/21:36:20
266 65.1 F 07-04-14/21:36:20
267 66.0 F 07-04-14/21:36:21
268 66.0 F 07-04-14/21:36:21
269 66.0 F 07-04-14/21:36:22
270 66.3 F 07-04-14/21:36:22
271 66.3 F 07-04-14/21:36:22
272 66.3 F 07-04-14/21:36:23
273 66.9 F 07-04-14/21:36:23
274 66.2 F 07-04-14/21:36:24
275 66.9 F 07-04-14/21:36:24
276 66.2 F 07-04-14/21:36:25
277 66.2 F 07-04-14/21:36:25
278 66.2 F 07-04-14/21:36:26
279 65.8 F 07-04-14/21:36:26
280 65.8 F 07-04-14/21:36:27
281 65.8 F 07-04-14/21:36:27
282 65.3 F 07-04-14/21:36:28
283 65.3 F 07-04-14/21:36:28
284 65.3 F 07-04-14/21:36:28
285 65.3 F 07-04-14/21:36:29
286 65.3 F 07-04-14/21:36:29
287 66.3 F 07-04-14/21:36:30
288 65.4 F 07-04-14/21:36:30
289 65.1 F 07-04-14/21:36:31
290 65.1 F 07-04-14/21:36:31
291 65.1 F 07-04-14/21:36:32
292 64.4 F 07-04-14/21:36:32
293 64.4 F 07-04-14/21:36:33
294 65.1 F 07-04-14/21:36:33
295 65.1 F 07-04-14/21:36:33
296 65.8 F 07-04-14/21:36:34
297 65.3 F 07-04-14/21:36:34
298 64.9 F 07-04-14/21:36:35
299 64.9 F 07-04-14/21:36:35
300 65.3 F 07-04-14/21:36:36
301 66.0 F 07-04-14/21:36:36
302 66.0 F 07-04-14/21:36:37
303 66.0 F 07-04-14/21:36:37
304 66.0 F 07-04-14/21:36:38
305 66.0 F 07-04-14/21:36:38
306 66.0 F 07-04-14/21:36:38
307 66.0 F 07-04-14/21:36:39
308 66.0 F 07-04-14/21:36:39
309 66.0 F 07-04-14/21:36:40
310 66.0 F 07-04-14/21:36:40
311 66.0 F 07-04-14/21:36:41
312 66.3 F 07-04-14/21:36:41
313 66.3 F 07-04-14/21:36:42
314 67.1 F 07-04-14/21:36:42
315 66.7 F 07-04-14/21:36:43
316 66.7 F 07-04-14/21:36:43
317 66.7 F 07-04-14/21:36:43
318 66.7 F 07-04-14/21:36:44
319 66.7 F 07-04-14/21:36:44
320 66.7 F 07-04-14/21:36:45
321 66.7 F 07-04-14/21:36:45
322 66.7 F 07-04-14/21:36:46
323 66.7 F 07-04-14/21:36:46
324 67.1 F 07-04-14/21:36:47
325 66.7 F 07-04-14/21:36:47
326 67.4 F 07-04-14/21:36:48
327 68.5 F 07-04-14/21:36:48
328 70.1 F 07-04-14/21:36:49
329 72.8 F 07-04-14/21:36:49
330 74.4 F 07-04-14/21:36:49
331 74.4 F 07-04-14/21:36:50
332 75.2 F 07-04-14/21:36:50
333 75.5 F 07-04-14/21:36:51
334 75.3 F 07-04-14/21:36:51
335 75.3 F 07-04-14/21:36:52
336 74.8 F 07-04-14/21:36:52
337 75.3 F 07-04-14/21:36:53
338 75.7 F 07-04-14/21:36:53
339 75.7 F 07-04-14/21:36:54
340 74.8 F 07-04-14/21:36:54
341 74.8 F 07-04-14/21:36:54
342 74.8 F 07-04-14/21:36:55
343 74.8 F 07-04-14/21:36:55
344 74.8 F 07-04-14/21:36:56
345 74.8 F 07-04-14/21:36:56
346 75.3 F 07-04-14/21:36:57
347 75.3 F 07-04-14/21:36:57
348 74.6 F 07-04-14/21:36:58
349 75.2 F 07-04-14/21:36:58
350 75.2 F 07-04-14/21:36:59
351 75.2 F 07-04-14/21:36:59
352 75.2 F 07-04-14/21:36:59
353 75.2 F 07-04-14/21:37:00
354 75.5 F 07-04-14/21:37:00
355 74.8 F 07-04-14/21:37:01
356 74.8 F 07-04-14/21:37:01
357 74.8 F 07-04-14/21:37:02
358 75.3 F 07-04-14/21:37:02
359 74.4 F 07-04-14/21:37:03
360 74.4 F 07-04-14/21:37:03
361 74.8 F 07-04-14/21:37:04
362 74.8 F 07-04-14/21:37:04
363 74.8 F 07-04-14/21:37:04
364 75.3 F 07-04-14/21:37:05
365 75.0 F 07-04-14/21:37:06
366 75.0 F 07-04-14/21:37:06
367 73.7 F 07-04-14/21:37:07
368 71.9 F 07-04-14/21:37:07
369 68.7 F 07-04-14/21:37:08
370 68.1 F 07-04-14/21:37:08
371 66.9 F 07-04-14/21:37:09
372 66.5 F 07-04-14/21:37:09
373 66.5 F 07-04-14/21:37:10
374 66.5 F 07-04-14/21:37:10
375 66.5 F 07-04-14/21:37:10
376 67.1 F 07-04-14/21:37:11
377 65.8 F 07-04-14/21:37:11
378 65.8 F 07-04-14/21:37:12
379 65.8 F 07-04-14/21:37:12
380 65.1 F 07-04-14/21:37:13
381 65.1 F 07-04-14/21:37:13
382 64.2 F 07-04-14/21:37:14
383 64.2 F 07-04-14/21:37:14
384 64.2 F 07-04-14/21:37:15
385 64.2 F 07-04-14/21:37:15
386 64.7 F 07-04-14/21:37:15
387 65.1 F 07-04-14/21:37:16
388 65.1 F 07-04-14/21:37:16
389 65.8 F 07-04-14/21:37:17
390 65.8 F 07-04-14/21:37:17
391 65.8 F 07-04-14/21:37:18
392 65.8 F 07-04-14/21:37:18
393 64.9 F 07-04-14/21:37:19
394 65.4 F 07-04-14/21:37:19
395 65.4 F 07-04-14/21:37:20
396 64.4 F 07-04-14/21:37:20
397 64.4 F 07-04-14/21:37:20
398 64.2 F 07-04-14/21:37:21
399 63.1 F 07-04-14/21:37:21
400 63.1 F 07-04-14/21:37:22
401 63.5 F 07-04-14/21:37:22
402 62.6 F 07-04-14/21:37:23
403 62.6 F 07-04-14/21:37:23
404 65.8 F 07-04-14/21:37:24
405 61.8 F 07-04-14/21:37:24
406 62.2 F 07-04-14/21:37:25
407 65.4 F 07-04-14/21:37:25
408 61.8 F 07-04-14/21:37:25
409 61.8 F 07-04-14/21:37:26
410 63.8 F 07-04-14/21:37:26
411 61.8 F 07-04-14/21:37:27
412 61.5 F 07-04-14/21:37:27
413 62.2 F 07-04-14/21:37:28
414 62.6 F 07-04-14/21:37:28
415 61.5 F 07-04-14/21:37:29
416 61.5 F 07-04-14/21:37:29
417 61.5 F 07-04-14/21:37:30
418 61.5 F 07-04-14/21:37:30
419 61.5 F 07-04-14/21:37:30
420 61.5 F 07-04-14/21:37:31
421 61.8 F 07-04-14/21:37:31
422 60.9 F 07-04-14/21:37:32
423 61.5 F 07-04-14/21:37:32
424 60.9 F 07-04-14/21:37:33
425 61.5 F 07-04-14/21:37:33
426 61.5 F 07-04-14/21:37:34
427 63.1 F 07-04-14/21:37:34
428 61.8 F 07-04-14/21:37:35
429 61.8 F 07-04-14/21:37:35
430 61.8 F 07-04-14/21:37:36
431 61.5 F 07-04-14/21:37:36
432 61.5 F 07-04-14/21:37:36
433 61.5 F 07-04-14/21:37:37
434 61.8 F 07-04-14/21:37:37
435 61.5 F 07-04-14/21:37:38
436 61.5 F 07-04-14/21:37:38
437 62.4 F 07-04-14/21:37:39
438 30.2 F 07-04-14/21:37:42
439 61.1 F 07-04-14/21:37:43
440 61.1 F 07-04-14/21:37:43
441 62.6 F 07-04-14/21:37:44
442 61.5 F 07-04-14/21:37:44
443 63.5 F 07-04-14/21:37:45
444 71.4 F 07-04-14/21:37:45
445 73.7 F 07-04-14/21:37:46
446 62.9 F 07-04-14/21:37:46
447 62.9 F 07-04-14/21:37:47
448 62.2 F 07-04-14/21:37:47
449 62.6 F 07-04-14/21:37:48
450 61.7 F 07-04-14/21:37:48
451 61.7 F 07-04-14/21:37:49
452 61.7 F 07-04-14/21:37:49
453 61.7 F 07-04-14/21:37:50
454 61.7 F 07-04-14/21:37:50
455 61.7 F 07-04-14/21:37:50
456 61.7 F 07-04-14/21:37:51
457 61.7 F 07-04-14/21:37:51
458 61.7 F 07-04-14/21:37:52
459 61.7 F 07-04-14/21:37:52
460 62.0 F 07-04-14/21:37:53
461 61.1 F 07-04-14/21:37:54
462 61.1 F 07-04-14/21:37:54
463 61.1 F 07-04-14/21:37:55
464 61.1 F 07-04-14/21:37:55
465 61.1 F 07-04-14/21:37:55
466 61.1 F 07-04-14/21:37:56
467 61.8 F 07-04-14/21:37:56
468 61.8 F 07-04-14/21:37:57
469 61.5 F 07-04-14/21:37:57
470 61.5 F 07-04-14/21:37:58
471 61.5 F 07-04-14/21:37:58
472 61.5 F 07-04-14/21:37:59
473 61.5 F 07-04-14/21:37:59
This is Concrete sidewalk, grass, sidewalk, zenith (I usually move it around straight up to find the coldest temp), back to sidewalk, grass, then I walked the sidewalk (afternoon shade starts at the door), then asphalt, walked the sidewalk back to the door.
Summary. @9:37 PM NE Ohio (41N Lat)
The grass cooled the fasted/doesn’t get as hot during the day. ~52F
Concrete ~67F
Asphalt ~75F
Lastly this is the important part the sky was ~-41F
Air temp was ~65F, Dew point was ~50F Air Pressure was ~30.16 and was near the peak
Rel Humidity was ~63%
Clear skies are cold, middle of summer it’s still below freezing (even with my thermometer not detecting Co2 IR, it’s still measuring the thermalized temps of the molecules). Now, I do see a large change when it’s really hot an humid, Here found one:
NO DATA UNIT TIME
1 88.5 F 07-01-14/18:54:20
2 88.5 F 07-01-14/18:54:21
3 88.8 F 07-01-14/18:54:21
4 88.5 F 07-01-14/18:54:22
5 88.5 F 07-01-14/18:54:22
6 88.8 F 07-01-14/18:54:23
7 88.8 F 07-01-14/18:54:23
8 88.8 F 07-01-14/18:54:23
9 88.8 F 07-01-14/18:54:24
10 88.8 F 07-01-14/18:54:24
11 88.8 F 07-01-14/18:54:25
12 88.8 F 07-01-14/18:54:25
13 84.7 F 07-01-14/18:54:26
14 81.6 F 07-01-14/18:54:26
15 81.6 F 07-01-14/18:54:27
16 81.6 F 07-01-14/18:54:27
17 81.6 F 07-01-14/18:54:28
18 81.6 F 07-01-14/18:54:28
19 80.9 F 07-01-14/18:54:28
20 80.9 F 07-01-14/18:54:29
21 81.5 F 07-01-14/18:54:29
22 81.5 F 07-01-14/18:54:30
23 82.0 F 07-01-14/18:54:30
24 82.0 F 07-01-14/18:54:31
25 82.0 F 07-01-14/18:54:31
26 82.0 F 07-01-14/18:54:32
27 81.5 F 07-01-14/18:54:32
28 82.2 F 07-01-14/18:54:33
29 82.0 F 07-01-14/18:54:33
30 81.5 F 07-01-14/18:54:33
31 81.5 F 07-01-14/18:54:34
32 82.0 F 07-01-14/18:54:35
33 81.6 F 07-01-14/18:54:35
34 81.6 F 07-01-14/18:54:36
35 81.6 F 07-01-14/18:54:37
36 82.2 F 07-01-14/18:54:37
37 82.2 F 07-01-14/18:54:38
38 82.2 F 07-01-14/18:54:38
39 82.2 F 07-01-14/18:54:39
40 82.2 F 07-01-14/18:54:39
41 81.6 F 07-01-14/18:54:40
42 82.4 F 07-01-14/18:54:40
43 81.8 F 07-01-14/18:54:41
44 89.4 F 07-01-14/18:54:41
45 89.9 F 07-01-14/18:54:42
46 89.9 F 07-01-14/18:54:42
47 89.9 F 07-01-14/18:54:43
48 89.9 F 07-01-14/18:54:43
49 89.9 F 07-01-14/18:54:44
50 89.9 F 07-01-14/18:54:44
51 89.9 F 07-01-14/18:54:44
52 89.9 F 07-01-14/18:54:45
53 89.4 F 07-01-14/18:54:45
54 89.4 F 07-01-14/18:54:46
55 89.4 F 07-01-14/18:54:46
56 90.1 F 07-01-14/18:54:47
57 90.1 F 07-01-14/18:54:47
58 90.1 F 07-01-14/18:54:48
59 89.6 F 07-01-14/18:54:48
60 89.6 F 07-01-14/18:54:49
61 89.6 F 07-01-14/18:54:49
62 90.3 F 07-01-14/18:54:49
63 90.3 F 07-01-14/18:54:50
64 90.3 F 07-01-14/18:54:50
65 89.2 F 07-01-14/18:54:51
66 41.9 F 07-01-14/18:54:51
67 32.0 F 07-01-14/18:54:52
68 31.7 F 07-01-14/18:54:52
69 31.7 F 07-01-14/18:54:53
70 31.7 F 07-01-14/18:54:53
71 31.7 F 07-01-14/18:54:54
72 31.7 F 07-01-14/18:54:54
73 31.7 F 07-01-14/18:54:54
74 31.7 F 07-01-14/18:54:55
75 31.7 F 07-01-14/18:54:55
76 31.7 F 07-01-14/18:54:56
77 31.7 F 07-01-14/18:54:56
78 31.7 F 07-01-14/18:54:57
79 31.7 F 07-01-14/18:54:57
80 31.7 F 07-01-14/18:54:58
81 31.7 F 07-01-14/18:54:58
82 31.7 F 07-01-14/18:54:59
83 32.1 F 07-01-14/18:54:59
84 32.1 F 07-01-14/18:55:00
85 32.1 F 07-01-14/18:55:00
86 32.1 F 07-01-14/18:55:00
87 31.9 F 07-01-14/18:55:01
88 32.3 F 07-01-14/18:55:01
89 32.9 F 07-01-14/18:55:02
90 32.0 F 07-01-14/18:55:02
91 32.3 F 07-01-14/18:55:03
92 32.3 F 07-01-14/18:55:03
93 32.3 F 07-01-14/18:55:04
94 32.3 F 07-01-14/18:55:04
95 32.3 F 07-01-14/18:55:05
96 32.3 F 07-01-14/18:55:05
97 32.3 F 07-01-14/18:55:05
98 33.0 F 07-01-14/18:55:06
99 32.3 F 07-01-14/18:55:06
100 32.3 F 07-01-14/18:55:07
101 32.3 F 07-01-14/18:55:07
102 33.0 F 07-01-14/18:55:08
103 33.0 F 07-01-14/18:55:08
104 33.0 F 07-01-14/18:55:09
105 33.0 F 07-01-14/18:55:09
106 33.0 F 07-01-14/18:55:10
107 33.0 F 07-01-14/18:55:10
108 33.0 F 07-01-14/18:55:10
109 33.0 F 07-01-14/18:55:11
110 33.0 F 07-01-14/18:55:11
111 33.8 F 07-01-14/18:55:12
112 33.8 F 07-01-14/18:55:12
113 33.8 F 07-01-14/18:55:13
114 33.2 F 07-01-14/18:55:13
115 35.9 F 07-01-14/18:55:14
116 78.2 F 07-01-14/18:55:14
117 79.3 F 07-01-14/18:55:15
118 78.9 F 07-01-14/18:55:15
119 78.9 F 07-01-14/18:55:15
120 79.3 F 07-01-14/18:55:16
121 78.0 F 07-01-14/18:55:16
122 60.8 F 07-01-14/18:55:17
123 58.4 F 07-01-14/18:55:17
124 59.0 F 07-01-14/18:55:18
125 77.3 F 07-01-14/18:55:18
126 78.8 F 07-01-14/18:55:19
127 78.8 F 07-01-14/18:55:19
128 79.1 F 07-01-14/18:55:20
129 80.0 F 07-01-14/18:55:20
130 80.0 F 07-01-14/18:55:21
131 69.4 F 07-01-14/18:55:21
132 64.4 F 07-01-14/18:55:21
133 63.1 F 07-01-14/18:55:22
134 60.6 F 07-01-14/18:55:22
135 55.2 F 07-01-14/18:55:23
136 58.4 F 07-01-14/18:55:23
137 60.0 F 07-01-14/18:55:24
138 60.0 F 07-01-14/18:55:24
139 47.8 F 07-01-14/18:55:25
140 35.4 F 07-01-14/18:55:25
141 34.5 F 07-01-14/18:55:26
142 34.5 F 07-01-14/18:55:26
143 34.5 F 07-01-14/18:55:26
144 35.6 F 07-01-14/18:55:27
145 35.0 F 07-01-14/18:55:27
146 35.0 F 07-01-14/18:55:28
147 35.0 F 07-01-14/18:55:28
148 35.0 F 07-01-14/18:55:29
149 35.0 F 07-01-14/18:55:29
150 35.0 F 07-01-14/18:55:30
151 35.0 F 07-01-14/18:55:30
152 74.1 F 07-01-14/18:55:31
153 91.7 F 07-01-14/18:55:31
154 91.7 F 07-01-14/18:55:31
155 91.7 F 07-01-14/18:55:32
156 92.1 F 07-01-14/18:55:32
157 92.1 F 07-01-14/18:55:33
158 92.1 F 07-01-14/18:55:33
Sidewalk,grass,sidewalk,zenith, I think the next bunch of readings were cloudy areas, zenith, sidewalk. There’s still close to a 60F difference. Air temp was ~88F at the time.
Humans have drastically altered the surface of the planet, greatly increasing the solar warming of the surface, but even still clear skies are not the limiting factor to cooling, clouds are.
I can prove global warming is a hoax in one word, “Climategate”. They got caught cooking the temps. and are still cooking the temps.
Alberta Slim says:
July 7, 2014 at 6:49 am
————————————–
“Please think about this: Put a pot of water on the stove and bring it to a boil. What is the temperature? 100C. Right? Now, turn up the heat. The water boils faster but the temperature stays the same. SO! Any heat picked up by the CO2 also radiates to space faster, thus keeping the earth in equilibrium [on average].”
But that would mean that all adding radiative gases to the atmosphere would do is increase the rate of tropospheric convective circulation (and maybe cause immeasurably small cooling). The Church of Radiative Climastrology has decreed that the speed of vertical tropospheric circulation is unchanged for increasing concentrations of radiative gases! What you preach is heresy, blasphemer!! Repent now lest ye be branded “CO2 heretic”!!!
Are we seeing a new trolling technique on this thread?
Alberta Slim says:
July 7, 2014 at 6:49 am
“Please think about this: Put a pot of water on the stove and bring it to a boil. What is the temperature? 100C. Right? Now, turn up the heat. The water boils faster but the temperature stays the same. SO! Any heat picked up by the CO2 also radiates to space faster, thus keeping the earth in equlibrium [on average].”
Your mechanism is correct with regards to the ocean surface temperature. but the reason the atmosphere doesn’t get warmer is because evaporation/convection is primarily latent heat which bypasses warming the lower atmosphere.
Think of it this way, a packet of warm moist air rises and expands, but does not transfer heat to the adjoining air. We can literally watch it happening in a thunder storm. I have measured and confirmed it in a sailplane.
What this means for CO2, is that the transpiration loop (the majority of the energy flux in the lower atmosphere) largely bypasses it.
Here’s a an idea. Submit a claim of proof, and if it is denied, file a claim in small claims court in your local jurisdiction. Imagine if dozens, or hundreds of people were to do this? It would be like mini-Scopes trials all across the country.
The main point of contention is not whether human emissions affect the climate*, but the impact of human emissions on the climate. Will burning fossil fuels lead to climate-related catastrophe? The contest turns this on it’s head and instead asks us to refute a strawman.
* BTW, this isn’t “scientifically proven,” either. Saying “all these emissions must be causing something” is a statement of belief, not fact. It’s not a baseless statement, but it’s still not scientific.
Genghis says:
July 7, 2014 at 8:18 a
From above ….. it seems that you and I agree.
The warm moist air expands and rises, and that warm moist air has CO2 in it.
Water vapour and CO2 are coolants .
We’ve been told by alarmists that CO2 is like a blanket and traps heat which back-radiates to heat the earth.
I say no.
Next question: If I take the insulation out of my house attic and replace it with airtight bags of CO2, will it “trap” the heat from my house and back radiate it, thereby reducing my heating bill??
I doubt it……………
Quite right. A model is an hypothesis. The experiment is to compare the output of the model with the actual climate.
Small edits to consider before submitting:
we went form — should be from
1980-200 — missing a digit
think tan. — missing a k
John M Reynolds
Why not just bet this clown $10,000 USD that not a single IPCC projection of global average temperature from 2007 will be below the actual global average by the end of 2014. He can go double or nothing on the same bet in 2015, 2016, etc., if he’d like. If he has so much faith in his religion then why wouldn’t he take this bet?
Even the Climategate con-men had to admit that thr atmosphere has not warmed as predicted by the comically phoney computer models. The correlation of co2 and warm periods show, if anything, that warmer times allow for more co2 to be absorbed in the atmosphere. Of coutse conmen like algore have been exposed as liars by reversing even this cotrelation because thiS historical record points to the fallacy of the argargument. The atmosphere has been cooling just as it has during past solar minimas.
Sorry Stevie, but there are so many of us who have serioisly studied this issue to the point of absolute certainty. Anybody who clsims to be able to “tease” an anthropogenic signal out of black and white data has been found out at closer inspection to be lying and manipulating the data to advance the hoax.
The whole nut of the issue is this; there cannot be any warming, man-made or not, if the atmosphere is cooling. Any deviation from this plain truth is an insulting spit-in-your-face LIE.
The entire issue itself has only a couple dicernable benifits, imo, as an IQ test for the gullible and a bs detector for politicians.
So really, do not tell us that sane people believe its getting warmer when its getting cooler….or that co2 has any measurable affect and that anyone other than the stupid, the liars, and stupid liars believe any part of the hoax….
It is just about the lowest insult one could level at someone imo.
Alberta Slim says:
July 7, 2014 at 8:51 am
“Next question: If I take the insulation out of my house attic and replace it with airtight bags of CO2, will it “trap” the heat from my house and back radiate it, thereby reducing my heating bill??
I doubt it……………”
Actually that is exactly how the insulation in your house works, by trapping air.
And remember one mans insulator is another mans conductor and CO2 seems to be a semiconductor.
@ Genghis……………..
I understand how insulation works.
You seem to have missed my point. The warmists tell us the CO2 is like insulation.
Insulation[a solid] slows down the transfer of heat; CO2[a gas] speeds up the transfer of heat.
If you are in the experimentation mood, how about doing an experiment?
Measure the inside and outside temps of the insulation and the place airtight bags of CO2, and measure the inside and out side temps. With a constant heat source.
Tell me what you find
Thanks.
Tom Rowan says:
July 7, 2014 at 9:12 am ……………………………..
I totally agree. The warmists have their faith in AGW. Logic and physics are out.
Genghis says:
July 7, 2014 at 9:29 am
Alberta Slim says:
July 7, 2014 at 8:51 am
“Next question: If I take the insulation out of my house attic and replace it with airtight bags of CO2, will it “trap” the heat from my house and back radiate it, thereby reducing my heating bill??
I doubt it……………”
Actually that is exactly how the insulation in your house works, by trapping air.
And it wouldn’t matter a bean if it were CO2 or N2 or He. Her question is, if it were CO2, would it lower her heating bill by “back radiation”? ‘Cos air alone don’t do that trick.
And no, it wouldn’t. Alas for her heating bill, the IR wavelength in question corresponds to a far, far colder temperature than she really wants her house.
And remember one mans insulator is another mans conductor
??? On what planet?
Junk Science had a contest offering a $500K prize for anyone who could scientifically prove humans are causing harmful global warming: http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/
The prize is unclaimed.
pardon my naiveté but isn’t it the responsibility of the entity that postulates a theory to prove it? the burden of proof rests in their court. If I say the moon is made of grey cheese should it become accepted as fact because no one has yet to disprove it? Besides, how can you disprove a theory which says that it causes warming and cooling, more rain and less rain, more snow and less snow and etc.
@davidmhoffer, I’ll take you up on the fertilizer wager. It’s only in carefully measured doses that have a very narrow range that fertilizer enhances plant growth. A little too much will burn the plant and inhibit growth, while a large dose will kill it outright. A person who is unaware of the proper usage and dosage is much more likely to damage or kill the plant by giving it fertilizer. I actually won the same bet in college by overfeeding a plant, though it was for much less money.
Margaret says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/06/about-that-30000-to-disprove-global-warming-contest/#comment-1678854
henry says
As a gas, CO2 is diffused almost 100%, distributed equally everywhere in the atmosphere.
Places on earth where CO2 is going quickly into the atmosphere (also burning of fossil fuel and wood) may have temporarily a higher concentration than the average, due to the CO2 being heavier than air, but it just takes a little wind and movement to get it diffused again. People who commit suicide by turning the exhaust gas into the [closed] cabin, die of asphyxiation (lack of oxygen), they do not die due to CO2 poisening.
Margaret Smith (July 7, 2014 at 7:28 am )
CO2 is evenly mixed in the atmosphere. Its concentration of about 390+ ppm applies throughout.
Of course, the density of air is higher near the ground but the proportion of CO2 remains about the same. The fact that CO2 is heavier than air doesn’t affect this since the atmosphere is well mixed. If it were not so, we would not be able to breathe because we would be enveloped in CO2 which had displaced the oxygen.
The concentration of CO2 may be assumed to be the same at all altitudes,
HenryP says: July 7, 2014 at 10:50 am
“..People who commit suicide by turning the exhaust gas into the [closed] cabin, die of asphyxiation (lack of oxygen), they do not die due to CO2 poisening…”
///////////////////////
Or is carbon monoxide poisoning?.
MikeB says:
July 7, 2014 at 11:00 am
Margaret Smith (July 7, 2014 at 7:28 am )
CO2 is evenly mixed in the atmosphere. Its concentration of about 390+ ppm applies throughout.
////////////////////
The claims that it is well mixed are over stated.
See the recent post The Revenge of the Climate Reparations. You will see from the satellite data, that there are substantial variations in the concentration of CO2 accross the globe.
How about the null hypothesis. I trust he is aware of that.
So how about he first prove HIS case. In absence of that proof from him, his case is disproved.
I claim my 30 grand now.
I should say Junk Science offered a prize. Nobody won.
Well, at this moment it looks like all of the pages Keating has devoted to this have their comments closed (full?). Is there another way to submit an entry other than posting a comment on a page at his site? Like an email address etc.?
Thanks.
Steven Burnett
The CO2 molecule must emit a photon with the same energy as that absorbed. The energy levels within the CO2 molecule are quantised and not divisible. In principle this means that the emitted photon will have the same wavelength as the absorbed photon. This may be modified slightly due to Doppler effects; for example, the photon may be emitted in the same direction that the molecule is travelling (or the opposite) and this will result in a slight Doppler shift to the wavelength.
However, apart from that, there is no possibility that the emitted photon will be at a completely different wavelength.
I am sad to see that most people [here on this blog] still do not really understand the principle of absorption and re-radiation. I have tried to explain it here.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/
I think to understand it you at least have to be able to read the UV-Vis-IR spectra of a gas.
Based on the theory of AGW, which would have been correct [in the case of CO2] if the CO2 did not have a cooling effect as well [due to absorption and re-radiation in the UV and short IR (e.g. 1-2um, 4-5um)] , and if the actual quantities involved were not so tiny [there are giga tons and giga tons of bicarbonates in the oceans], one would expect to see an increase in minimum temperatures, pushing up the mean average temperature. That is not happening. I have made my submission dr Keating:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/06/about-that-30000-to-disprove-global-warming-contest/#comment-1678753
He has accepted my submission.
No doubt I will not win the price. But that is not important. All I want is people to think about my results and what they mean.
I think even Anthony believes there is some AGW. However, my results show there is none, whatsoever. All warming and cooling is happening naturally. Someone designed it like this.
The truth is that from the very beginning (Tyndall, etc) everyone involved in the AGW business got stuck in the closed box experiments. That is what is really sad.
mellyrn says:
July 7, 2014 at 10:38 am
“And it wouldn’t matter a bean if it were CO2 or N2 or He. Her question is, if it were CO2, would it lower her heating bill by “back radiation”? ‘Cos air alone don’t do that trick.”
Atmospheric radiation is exactly how it works. Home insulation primarily is an attempt to stop convection and conduction.
“And no, it wouldn’t. Alas for her heating bill, the IR wavelength in question corresponds to a far, far colder temperature than she really wants her house.”
Radiation wavelength isn’t a temperature. A watt of any wavelength is the same energy wise.
Yes, because watt is the wrong units, the amount of a photon energy in joules is dependent on the wavelength of the photon, and when expressed in joules a single photon in the 14-16 um range has low energy. To transfer significant energy in watts in the Co2 bands requires a correspondingly large number of photons.
richard says
The claims that it is well mixed are over stated.
henry says
Please don’t make claims you do not prove
Some areas may have seasonal effects, due to lack of weather/rain, but in the end it all evens out again.
richard verney says
Or is carbon monoxide poisoning?.
henry says
if the exhaust of your car has CO, it is not properly tuned?
Alberta Slim says:
July 7, 2014 at 10:29 am
“@ Genghis……………..
I understand how insulation works.
You seem to have missed my point. The warmists tell us the CO2 is like insulation.
Insulation[a solid] slows down the transfer of heat; CO2[a gas] speeds up the transfer of heat.”
Actually most insulators work by trapping gases, Conductors are generally solids (or liquids.)
“If you are in the experimentation mood, how about doing an experiment?
Measure the inside and outside temps of the insulation and the place airtight bags of CO2, and measure the inside and out side temps. With a constant heat source.
Tell me what you find
Thanks.”
Been there, done that, with really tiny bags of air of course. That is exactly how foam insulation works, or wood, or blown insulation, or fiberglass, or insulated windows (less than a quarter of an inch in separation between the panes.) Even a metal sheet can be an insulator with a suitable air space.
The lower atmosphere is an insulator, CO2 included. Atmospheric radiation slows the surface cooling. Do yourself a favor. Go buy an IR gun at Lowes or Home Depot and point it at the sky. It measures real radiation and all radiation ‘warms’.
Mi Cro says:
July 7, 2014 at 11:55 am
Genghis > Radiation wavelength isn’t a temperature. A watt of any wavelength is the same energy wise.
“Yes, because watt is the wrong units, the amount of a photon energy in joules is dependent on the wavelength of the photon, and when expressed in joules a single photon in the 14-16 um range has low energy. To transfer significant energy in watts in the Co2 bands requires a correspondingly large number of photons.”
I couldn’t agree more. I am just intentionally using the misleading language the warmers use. Pielke Jr. is absolutely correct that we should be measuring the energy in the system, but then CO2’s trivial contribution would be clear to see.
I still stand by my original contention that atmospheric radiation slows the surface cooling and as a result the surface is warmer than it would be without an atmosphere.
Genghis says:
July 7, 2014 at 12:15 pm
I hold that to be determined, or I don’t know, your choice.
What I think is that the surface cools through clear skies plenty fast, and if Co2 changed this rate, it’s still more than fast enough to cool the planet as we know it.
I found the local store variants did not go cold enough, plus I wanted usb logging. But even the -60F min temp one I have isn’t really cold enough where I live, during the winter it read below -80F, even this summer I’ve seen it near -40F (see above posts).
Between this, models being unsatisfactory, and the physical surface record leaves me unconvinced, CS is low for Co2, may be even lower than Co2 in the lab setting.
HenryP says:
July 7, 2014 at 11:37 am
////////////////////////
I have not seen autopsies so I do not know, and I am just questioning.
I very much doubt whether a well tuned car results in complete combustion, and at slow rpm (tick over) this seems even more unlikely. Ideal combustion is achieved at max torque. This depends upon engine design, but may be around 4,000 to 4,500 rpm. I doubt that the car is set to such revs when people gas themselves.
Carbon Monoxide even at low levels is very poisonous and it would not surprise me if that is the culprit.
After typing and just prior to sending I quickly googled. This is from what appears to be a suicide site, so I am not linking the address, I am merely cutting and pasting the intro.
QUOTE
Carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning
In the past, using car exhaust fumes to commit suicide was a well known method. Whether that was by running a car engine continuously in an enclosed space like a garage, or by running a pipe from the exhaust directly into the car, again, ideally in a garage. But that was before the days of emission controls on cars, which now emit much lower levels of CO than previously. Whilst it is possible to achieve death using this method, it does generally require older cars. The method is susceptible to a number of things that can go wrong, and for this reason it is no longer cited as an effective method of committing suicide, and certainly not in places like the US, UK and Australia where car emissions are more tightly controlled.
However, CO can be highly toxic if the concentration is high enough. It is also odourless and tasteless and will cause reasonably swift unconsciousness leading to a peaceful and painless death, although there may be some brief panic knowing that the body is not breathing in air. On discovery, the body will look peaceful.
The method relies on being in an enclosed space and generating a high concentration of CO. Purchasing a tank of carbon monoxide is one way of doing this, used with a gas regulator or valve, or with a gas mask.
UNQUOTE
Further to my last post.
PLEASE NOTE THAT NO ONE SHOULD TRY THAT.
Mi Cro says:
July 7, 2014 at 1:20 pm
“I found the local store variants did not go cold enough, plus I wanted usb logging. But even the -60F min temp one I have isn’t really cold enough where I live, during the winter it read below -80F, even this summer I’ve seen it near -40F (see above posts).
Between this, models being unsatisfactory, and the physical surface record leaves me unconvinced, CS is low for Co2, may be even lower than Co2 in the lab setting.”
I have been measuring the Ocean surface and the sky with or without clouds above the ocean with an IR Gun. I have also been measuring the temperature below the surface with a couple of thermometers.
Conclusions of a couple of years of data collecting in the subtropics and tropics.
1. The surface temperature is always lower or the same temperature as the water just beneath the thermal skin layer.
2. Thick clouds are generally 2-3 degrees less than the surface temperature.
3. Clear Sky is generally 20 degrees or so less than the surface temperature.
And the big conclusion is that the Ocean is the real Greenhouse effect, because it absorbs almost 99% of the solar insolation. The oceans average temp is around 5 degrees exactly what the S-B says it should be based on the S-B equation and its surface is around 22 degrees. There is the greenhouse effect.
Genghis commented
Here (since I live further North and inland), the bottoms of clouds range from near surface temps, to near clear skies, depending on the altitude and type of cloud.
I see much larger differences, other than the really hot humid days, so the difference between your 20 degree differences and my 60-80 degree F differences is, wait for it, water vapor, not Co2. And where I live (yet again), there just isn’t an unlimited amount of water (well that’s not really true, I live 30 miles from Lake Erie, and yet we still have low (er) humidity days).
Genghis says:
July 7, 2014 at 12:15 pm
“I still stand by my original contention that atmospheric radiation slows the surface cooling and as a result the surface is warmer than it would be without an atmosphere.”…………………….
Try this:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/
Also: If I fill the vaccum space in my thermos bottle with 100% CO2, will my coffee stay hot longer than when my thermos has only a vaccum??
HenryP says:
July 7, 2014 at 11:37 am
/////////////////////////
Henry
I can give you an example of where people have died of oxygen depletion. I have unfortunately had experience, on a number of occassions, where a ship has been carrying a cargo of logs and where either during the voyage some of the crew have ventured into the hold to deal with an unexpected problem, or on discharge stevedores have been too quick to enter the hold in their eagerness to commence discharge, and people have died. The autopsy in each of these cases confirming that death was due to oxygen depletion.
During the course of the voyage, the logs have continued to breath the oxygen in the air in the hold, and have depleted it. People entering the hold have not expected that (and were not using oxygen breathing equipment) and have collapsed, and before there was time to rescue them, they have unfortunately died because of oxygen depletion.
Logs are a ‘dangerous’ cargo, but this is usually considered to be due to their size and weight, or because they are slippery because they are often loaded not from barges but directly out from the water (they are floated alongside the vessel – depends upon the density of the log).. However, other risks await the unwary..
@richard verney
I know that scientists have done tests with rabbits to see if CO2 has any poisonous character.
They pushed up the CO2 from 0.03% (300 ppm) gradually up to 65%, however they left the oxygen unchanged (at 21%). Even at 65% the rabbits would not die. From their tests, they reported that CO2 is not poisonous. It seems they did not go higher than 65% [I don’t know why].
There have been cases of enclosed spaces where CO2 suddenly went up [volcanic like releases in inhabited areas] leaving victims. Like I said, these must have been due to asphyxiation.
I believe in God, suicide is not a solution for any problem.
That’s exactly what AGW isn’t, and it didn’t start in the ’90′s. Well, it actually started in the 1890′s. And with physics that you’ve described. Carbon dioxide impedes outgoing IR. That’s the reason for expecting that putting a whole lot of it in the air to cause warming. Not a hypothesis based on observed warming.
Anyone who uses Arrehenius’s pre quantum mechanics statistical methods as their touchstone simply does not understand the subject.
As the term “AGW” is not exactly defined, you have a valid point. Does AGW include land-use changes, or does it solely apply to greenhouse gas emissions? There’s no doubt we’ve changed the landscape. Are these change only local in scope, or are they big enough to be regional or global?
And as for emissions, well, where’s the warming? The argument seems to be 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, 2) Humans burn fossil fuels, which release CO2 (and other greenhouse gases), 3) Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased, 4) Therefore, the warming must be due to burning fossil fuels.
The above mixes facts with conclusions. It is generally accepted, but not necessarily “proven” that humans are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2, for example. And if #4 is true, well, where’s the warming?
No one can prove scientifically that God does not exist. And no one can prove scientifically that God exists.
Don’t fall for it. Just demand that he can scientifically validate/verify what is anthropogenic climate change and what is not?
HenryP says:
July 7, 2014 at 2:17 pm
//////////////////
I recall long ago reading a paper on placing premature babies in a CO2 enriched atmosphere. I cannot recall what the concentration was, maybe about 500 to 600ppm (may be even slightly more). I cannot recall for what lung conditition that this was mooted as beeing advantageous. But there is some research on that.
Certainly CO2 does not appear to be ‘posionous’ until at least 1500ppm is reached. Even then, it is not seen as a significant risk, but rather there are guidelines on the length of exposure since this can impact on cognitive function..
I suspect (but I have not looked into this) that when CO2 is used for enriching the atmosphere of greenhouses, the workers frequently enter those greenhouses without breathing equipment.
And of course, CO2 levels on submarines has often been found to be in the region of 2,000ppm to 3,500ppm, and I seem to recall reading that the US navy has a cap at around 8,000ppm.
Finally, the scare with a doubling of CO2 say to 800ppm is not that the air will be dangerous to breath. It will not be. The scare is that it will lead to warming. Planet Earth has seen high levels of CO2 and life has done just fine, no reason to consider that it cannot cope with a rise to a 1000 or 1500ppm.
Alberta Slim says:
July 7, 2014 at 1:56 pm
“Also: If I fill the vaccum space in my thermos bottle with 100% CO2, will my coffee stay hot longer than when my thermos has only a vacuum??”
The secret to the vacuum in the thermos is the mirrored surface. It reduces radiation and then the vacuum eliminates conduction and convection.
Get rid of the mirrored surface and your vacuum thermos wouldn’t work as well as regular good old foam insulation. Nothing is simple.
Here is a question for you. If you have a sheet of aluminum does it make a difference whether the dull side is out or in when you bake with it? Hint it works the same as CO2.
Mi Cro says:
July 7, 2014 at 2:11 pm
“I see much larger differences, other than the really hot humid days, so the difference between your 20 degree differences and my 60-80 degree F differences is, wait for it, water vapor, not Co2. And where I live (yet again), there just isn’t an unlimited amount of water (well that’s not really true, I live 30 miles from Lake Erie, and yet we still have low (er) humidity days).”
It is pretty humid here in the Bahamas and South most of the time, and our measurements agree, in that humidity and water vapor is the biggest factor in atmospheric radiation.
This is important, the difference in atmospheric temperature, between clouds and clear sky, is greater with less humidity. That doesn’t disprove the CO2 theory, but it illustrates that CO2 radiation is almost unmeasurable. Whereas anyone with an IR Gun can easily measure H2O Radiation.
“That doesn’t disprove the CO2 theory, but it illustrates that CO2 radiation is almost unmeasurable. Whereas anyone with an IR Gun can easily measure H2O Radiation.”
Exactly!
Not only in IR, but the temperature record as well.
Alberta Slim says:
July 7, 2014 at 6:49 am
“Please think about this: Put a pot of water on the stove and bring it to a boil. What is the temperature? 100C. Right? Now, turn up the heat. The water boils faster but the temperature stays the same. SO! Any heat picked up by the CO2 also radiates to space faster, thus keeping the earth in equlibrium [on average].”
First, how precisely does heat radiate to space “faster” by first being intercepted by additional CO2 in the atmosphere? If the heat has been “picked up” by CO2 then the CO2 has slowed radiation of the heat from the Earth. Remember, the CO2 absorbs radiation that would otherwise just go straight out to space.
Second, your analogy to adding heat to boiling water is not apt for two reasons. First, adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not add heat to the system – it makes the system more inefficient at discarding the given amount of heat that is already added to it, and hence the system must respond by increasing its temperature to shed the same amount of heat that it did before CO2 was added. Second, the only reason the temperature of water (temporarily) stays the same in your analogy is because it involves a phase change at 100C where heat is used to convert the water molecules to steam, and after the phase change the steam certainly increases in temperature so long as heat is still added. Certainly you are not arguing that CO2 responds to the absorption of radiation by changing phase to a liquid or solid so as to maintain a constant temperature?
Konrad says:
July 6, 2014 at 9:52 pm
“Two important points – First the effective (not apparent) IR emissivity of liquid water is less than 0.8 . . . The 0.95 figure that climastrologists foolishly put into their failed S-B equations was for apparent emissivity. That is the emissivity setting you use for measuring water temp when cavity effect and holdraum effect are occurring. Second, water vapour evaporated into the atmosphere has effectively increased the radiating area of the surface, as it is now radiating in 3D.”
Neither of these points are relevant. Regardless of the emissivity value used, adding CO2 to the atmosphere can only increase temperatures. And arguing that water vapor added to the air as a response to the increased CO2 will increase the radiating surface of the air makes sense only as a negative feedback to reduce the temperature increase, but it does not show the absence of any temperature increase in the first instance. For that matter, why are you concerned at all with the oceans? Adding CO2 to the atmosphere intercepts outbound surface radiation, and in response the CO2 in the air must heat up to discard the extra energy. That’s a temperature increase, even before the intercepted outbound radiation even has a chance to hit the oceans.
You seem to be confusing a first property common to all matter (radiative cooling) with a second property (infrared absorption) common to only a subset of gasses. EVEN IF the net effect of the air over oceans was to cool the oceans, and EVEN IF the only cooling mechanism for the air is radiation to space, you still can’t ignore that the oceans (and land) ALSO cool by radiating directly to space, bypassing the cooling effect of the air over the oceans from conduction and convection. Adding an infrared absorber to the air causes the air to intercept that outgoing radiation and send part of it right back towards the oceans and the land, thereby not only raising the temperature of the air due to the newly intercepted radiation, but also decreasing the net radiation from the surface, causing the surface temperature to rise.
If I cool a CPU with a water-cooled radiator such that the radiator has a net cooling effect on the CPU (your premise number 1), and the only mechanism for the radiator to cool is radiation (your premise number 2), it does not logically follow that making the radiator less effective by say constricting the flow of water through one of the turns, can have no adverse effect on the temperature of the processor (your conclusion). As long as I move from state 1 to state 2, which makes it more difficult for the processor to discard heat, the processor will heat up.
This was outstanding. Thanks
Kurt says:
July 7, 2014 at 7:31 pm
——————————-
Remember, without radiative gases, our atmosphere has no effective cooling mechanism.
The question I posed at the start of this thread is critical to understanding the whole AGW question –
“given 1 bar pressure, is the NET effect of the atmosphere over the oceans warming or cooling of the oceans?”
You could also ask –
“how hot would our oceans get in the absence of DWLWIR and atmospheric cooling?”
The answer to the first is cooling. The answer to the second is around 80C or beyond, just like an evaporation constrained solar pond.
So the atmosphere is dramatically cooling 71% of the planets surface. Now, how does the atmosphere cool?
I have a more succinct answer.
Temperature is not equal to heat nor a measurement of heat nor is there a linear relationship between the two.. Therefore, temperature alone can not be used as a measurement of whether or not the climate is changing due to heat generation from man.
ironargonaut commented on
While I completely agree with this (well sort of), If you think historical surface temp data is shaggy, Dew Point is worse, more missing data, plus no indication when it was measured. I suppose you could just ignore that, but that just compounds the error in the heat content measurement you’re trying to get to.
I’m pretty sure the error in the temperature field they use to get to GAT is larger than the trend they’re looking for already.
Konrad says:
July 7, 2014 at 9:05 pm
“Remember, without radiative gases, our atmosphere has no effective cooling mechanism.”
I have a hard time making sense out of this statement. To what are you referring when you say “radiative gasses?” Everything above a temperature of absolute zero radiates, whether it is a liquid, a solid, or a gas. If you’re trying to say that without IR absorbers like CO2, methane, and water vapor, the atmosphere would not be able to cool, then you are wrong (and I think you do mean this based on prior posts about “adding radiative gasses” like CO2 to the atmosphere). Any atmosphere, of any composition, radiates into space at an amount proportional to the fourth power of its temperature in Kelvin. It will simply raise its temperature to the point where the outflow of heat equals the inflow of heat.
If you trying to say that, without gasses that radiate, the atmosphere would have no effective cooling mechanism, this may be trivially true, but without gasses that radiate, an atmosphere wouldn’t be an atmosphere to begin with. It’s like saying that without any wood, leaves, bark, or roots, a tree floating in a vacuum would have no effective cooling mechanism. Yeah, but then again there wouldn’t be a tree that needed a cooling mechanism, either.
Kurt, according to consensus, the bulk of the atmosphere (N2, O2) cannot radiate significantly. They claim/agree that without the so-called greenhouse gases (and clouds), all of the terrestrial LW radiation would come from the surface and basically zero from the atmosphere. With the GHGs, as it is, ~90% is atmospheric radiation (including clouds) and only ~10% is directly from the surface (the window).
http://pmm.nasa.gov/education/sites/default/files/article_images/components2.gif
Kurt says:
July 7, 2014 at 11:21 pm
——————————–
“To what are you referring when you say “radiative gasses?” “
Very simply, gases that have a far higher ability to absorb and emit IR than N2 or O2. Hair splitting about the limited IR emissivity of N2 and O2 is no use.
“If you’re trying to say that without IR absorbers like CO2, methane, and water vapor,..”
That would be IR absorbers and EMITTERS like water vapour, methane and way, way down the list …CO2. If you can’t admit that radiative gases increase the atmospheres radiative cooling ability, that tells me a lot.
Kurt, the atmosphere would superheat without (strongly) radiative gases. No planet or moon in our solar system has managed to retain an atmosphere without strongly radiative gases.
But at the end of the day there is no way around it. Empirical experiment proves that without atmospheric cooling, regardless of DWLWIR, surface Tmax of the oceans would hit 80C or beyond.
Climastrologists falsely claimed the ocean surface to be a “near blackbody”. They falsely claimed the surface temperature of the oceans would be -18C in the absence of DWLWIR and atmospheric cooling. These false claims can never be erased or hidden. They are the very foundation of the AGW hoax.
@konrad
give it up
I think there is no hope for Kurt
as I said before
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/06/about-that-30000-to-disprove-global-warming-contest/#comment-1679038
they all think they know something yet they simply donot understand that without the GH gases we would probably fry. It is years of misinformation, even the use of the wrong term for a radiative gas, (i.e. GHG) that keeps the people moving into the backward direction..
Mi Cro says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/06/about-that-30000-to-disprove-global-warming-contest/#comment-1680027
@Mi Cro
I would therefore be interested in hearing from you why minimum temperatures are falling naturally?
see graph at the bottom of the tables
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWa.pdf
[snip -slayer stuff -mod]
HenryP says:
July 8, 2014 at 7:34 am
What I think the data I’ve looked at says, is that the Continents go through period where the Min temps fall for a while, then go back up. The only explanation for this I can think of is that there are Ocean “cycles” where large pools of colder water (?) cools the continental surface temps for a while, then don’t. If the Arctic and Antarctic ice extent ping-pongs back and forth, that would to me, have to be caused by changes in the water, not the air. Or it’s an orbital effect, but I’ve not heard anyone suggest that before.
I’ve generated lots of slices of data from NCDC’s GSoD here :
http://sourceforge.net/projects/gsod-rpts/files/Reports/
This is now about 122M records of data, From some 20 thousand stations. All of the temp graphs here :
http://www.science20.com/virtual_worlds
Are based on various bit of data from the first url. I now have averages by continent, latitude bands, and 10 x 10 lat/lon blocks there.
HenryP says:
July 8, 2014 at 4:38 am
——————————–
“@konrad give it up”
Never.
Anthony does not go down under any circumstances. I have my reasons.
@Micro
the reference “slices” I do not get from the links?
a 100% correlation on the quadratic drop of the speed of minima on a random sample of 54 weather stations simply means: there is no man made global warming
whatsoever
@HenryP
this data set is 10 degree Latitude bands http://sourceforge.net/projects/gsod-rpts/files/Reports/10DegreeLatBands.zip/download
@MiCro
following your lead I got here:
http://www.icelotto.org/LotteryTickets.aspx?lang=en&bta=21307
please
ET
\want to go home
The [text] listed in the post is what I get, and the lat bands automatically pops up a save file as box to save the zip file. Maybe the popup blocker or ??
You should be able to cut and paste?
Sorry, “text listed”
@Mi Cro I posted my comment at his site. The response I got was “how many false statements can you make in one comment” I’m waiting for him to actually tell me which statement was false. He seems to be claiming temp=heat.
Here is his submissions page
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/07/challenge-submissions-page.html
It is interesting that many commenters, and the original essayist Steven Burnett, seem convinced that GHG molecules like CO2, or H2O, O3, and others, can absorb LWIR in some relatively broad bands, and can also radiate a variety of photon energies, different from the originally absorbed photon energy.
A bent (not linear) molecule like H2O clearly has a permanent non zero electric dipole moment, because of the charge asymmetry. So this makes them very good LWIR absorbers, and emitters.
Another very interesting bent molecule is that of Ammonia; NH3. So it clearly has a dipole moment and can radiate LW radiation, and absorb it.
If you look at the molecule of NH3, you will find that it has a tetrahedral shape.
The three hydrogen atoms form an equilateral triangle base of the tetrahedron, and the nitrogen atom sits on the top of the tetrahedron, equally spaced from the three hydrogens.
Well you could also draw the tetrahedron sitting on top of the N atom, with the hydrogen triangle on top of that.
Well it turns out, that the nitrogen atom, can pop through the triangle base hole, and invert the molecule. Well it actually can pop back and forth at a very high frequency, in the microwave region. This actually was the first so-called “atomic clock.”
The point is, that this kind of mechanical oscillator, like the 15 micron bending mode of CO2, has a very precise resonant frequency, because it depends on the fundamental physical properties of atoms. Their masses, electric charges, bond arrangements and bond strengths, etc. This is not like cating a bell out of bronze, and wondering what frequency it is going to boom at.
Every ammonia molecule built out of a 14N atom, and three 1H atoms is exactly the same as any other one. All of its components are identical, and if you make a bunch of them, they are all identical.
Well you can end up with a 15N atom I suppose, or a 2D atom might creep into your molecule.
So these “bells” all ring at exactly the same set of frequencies, just like the ammonia maser early atomic clock.
So nyet on a CO2 molecule just emitting any old frequency of photon. The true frequencies can be determined to parts in 10^8 or better. The Hydrogen maser is accurate to something like parts in 10^15 or so.
When GHGs capture LWIR radiant emissions from earth’s surface, the do so at some very specific frequencies and wavelengths. Doppler motion of the capture molecule, can slightly shift the frequency (line broadening), and the captured photon will eventually get ejected, and this process neither “heats”, nor “cools” the CO2 molecule.
The escape to space of the original surface emitted photon energy, is delayed by this absorb / emit process, which slows the energy loss rate, but the local Temperature doesn’t change appreciably.
The photon absorption process is an INDIVIDUAL molecule event. In earth’s atmosphere, a typical CO2 molecule is completely unaware, that another like it even exists. There’s about 13 layers of air molecules, on average, between a CO2 molecule and its nearest look alike.
The air Temperature on the other hand, is a massive effort by huge numbers of molecules, of any, and all species.
The equi-partition principle doles out an equal kT/2 to each degree of freedom of any molecule, regardless of its species. More massive molecules (O3) move slower than less massive ones (H2).
The molecular absorption / emission lines are quite different from the thermal continuum radiation that is black body like, and purely a function of Temperature.
There are literally dozens of cheap (but monumental) paper back books that anyone can buy at a Barnes & Noble bookstore, or Amazon, and learn this stuff for themselves.
So far as I know, none of those books carries an explanation of Konrad’s definitive selective surface experiment.
Every time I read a comment by george e. smith I learn something!
george e. smith says:
July 8, 2014 at 6:15 pm
———————————-
“So far as I know, none of those books carries an explanation of Konrad’s definitive selective surface experiment.”
You need to know were to look. Nothing new, plenty old. –
Harris, W. B., Davison, R. R., and Hood, D. W. (1965) ‘Design and operating characteristics of an experimental solar water heater’ Solar Energy, 9(4), pp. 193-196.
This graphic may also help –
http://oi61.tinypic.com/242a6b7.jpg
When illuminated with SW, block B reaches the lower average temperature as much absorbed SW is immediately re-radiated as IR from the surface without conducting into the block. Block A heats more as almost all SW is absorbed at the base, and must slowly conduct back to the surface to be radiated. Climastrologists went and treated our oceans as Block B instead of A.
-18C for the oceans in the absence of DWLWIR and atmospheric cooling? Totally false.
Konrad says:
July 8, 2014 at 7:34 pm
….
This graphic may also help –
http://oi61.tinypic.com/242a6b7.jpg
When illuminated with SW, block B reaches the lower average temperature as much absorbed SW is immediately re-radiated as IR from the surface without conducting into the block. Block A heats more as almost all SW is absorbed at the base, and must slowly conduct back to the surface to be radiated. Climastrologists went and treated our oceans as Block B instead of A.
-18C for the oceans in the absence of DWLWIR and atmospheric cooling? Totally false.
Correct, thank you for that.
This shows the wrong base assumptions of the CAGW theory, where climastrologists start allocating all warming to greenhouse gases, ignoring the oceans, in reality assigning all warming that results from the oceans behaviour to greenhouse gases.
I just got into Keating’s blog via comments to his latest rebuttal of a Roy Spencer submission, except that Spencer didn’t make a submission, someone else did as per Keating’s definition of “submissions”. The submitter apparently just linked to Roy’s whole blog. So I invited Keating to examine the submissions empirical reality has made in comparison to what CO2 “climate change” has predicted, noting what I think is its 100% Prediction Failure record, “meaning it’s falsified”. At first he didn’t seem to know what I was talking about – “???” – but I’m hoping to get a correct prediction pretty soon.
People can’t change unless they’re more than half right in a situation.
AGW and CAGW are wrong, deadly wrong, having killed myriads of Arabs in food riots, and thousands or more in many countries from freezing to death or in heat waves deprived of air conditioning (see Indur Goklani’s work); and have crashed our economy.
But Keating is very, very right. His careful measurements over several decades established beyond a reasonable doubt that our atmospheric [CO2] is rising. The years and graph almost certainly show an anthropogenic effect. It is logical that all that fossil fuel burning would be the cause. But I think the real cause is the killing of small and microscopic soil organisms from chemical agriculture, and from dams for “clean renewable, green” energy that is anything but.
When we understand what chem-based agriculture is really doing to our future farming ability, we will switch to Sonic Bloom and other “organic” methods more in harmony with Earth’s evolutionary history. We can explode the Overpopulation lie that is even more deadly than CAGW, raising more humans than ever–sustainably in the best sense of the term–and much more of every other kind of life to boot.
Properly understood, Keating’s Mauna Loa work can be a major contributor to that life-increasing outcome.
ladylifegrows says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/06/about-that-30000-to-disprove-global-warming-contest/#comment-1681666
henry says
I am really not following you, my lady. You lost me. The climate is changing:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
it is due to nature, divine design. The CO2 – and GHG stories are all red herrings.
adylifegrows says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/06/about-that-30000-to-disprove-global-warming-contest/#comment-1681666
henry says
I am really not following you, my lady. You lost me. The climate is changing:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
it is due to nature, divine design
Jct: A lesser scientist, Charles Keating, wants people to bet him climate didn’t change. Ask Professeur Inferieur what units of climate change he wants to use! Har har har. Professor of Physics is an incompetent. Har har har
” will totally cause ” — juvie slang.
Your defenses of skepticism are fine, but do not per se “disprove” AGW. Which of course is a demand to prove a negative. “Prove you are not the Queen of the Space Unicorns, in disguise”.
Not only will I show you my cards, I’ll do a little
destruction of his first. Here is the temperature graph he
cited:
http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/climatechange/2013/590x425_12210049_fig.a2.jpg
JCT: Notice that the temperature on his own graph in 2014 is
lower than in 1998! Har har har har har har. Maybe he
noticed too. Har har har har har har har har har.
His next card: Opinion from Forbes Magazine of Peter Gleick,
Dr. Gleick received a B.S. from Yale University in
Engineering and Applied Science, and an M.S. and Ph.D. from
the Energy and Resources Group of the University of
California, Berkeley. He is the recipient of numerous awards
for his work, among them the prestigious MacArthur “genius”
Fellowship in 2003. He was elected to the U.S. National
Academy of Sciences in 2006.
“The most consistent, highly respected, and regularly
analyzed and updated data on global surface temperatures are
available from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Sciences,
NOAA’s National Climate Data Center, and the United
Kingdom’s Met Office Hadley Center.”
JCT: Remember, his own graph shows temperature now lower
than in 1998 so have fun explaining the danger of rising
CO2! But his expert is citing the NASA and NOAA data set!
Notice that there is no way to prove a “not.” I’ll give
anyone $1,000 who can prove Martians are not planning an
invasion of the Earth. How can call? But if someone raises
me $100 they won’t invade this year, what can I do?
Do you get his fraudulent bet? He flashes his $30G bet like
he’s some kind of winner when there’s no way for anyone to
call him where only a raise can prove him wrong when he has
to back down.
So I defeated him with a raise. I bet him something provable
that trumps his bluff. And I think the Professor knows that
the TajProfessor has won his $30 Grand with a mere $100
raise. As he retreats in shame, having to delete every
reference to my winning raise, it sure does exemplify the
fraud and cowardice of the global warming hoaxers to have
their top hi-roller having to back down from a $100 raise
after flauning a $30,000 bet.
I think he realizes I’ve won his $30,000 challenge, not with
a Call which no fool could make, but with a raise only the
TajProfessor could make. Engineering trumps Philosophy every
time.
Finally, my best hole card (his own graph proving it’s
colder now is funnier but this is stronger):
Dr. Don Easterbrook lays global warming hoax to rest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI and my post
https://www.facebook.com/john.turmel/posts/10153284211177281
JCT: Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western WA University
Don Easterbrook is a real climate scientist under oath using
the original data. Note how many times the politicians ask:
“Are you telling us the NASA and NOAA data is manipulated?”
And all he can say is “Mine is the original data, theirs is
adjusted!” Har har har har har har. I guess doofus
PhysicsProfessor didn’t notice a real GeologyProfessor with
the true data in the news. Oops, it didn’t make the
mainstream news be probably focuses on.
Still, TajProfessor knows PhysicsProfessor’s own graph shows
that despite his fear of precipitous rise in temperature, it
happens to be lower now that in 1998! Har har har.
So now you know why the Global Warming Professor is on the
run and his blog makes it look like the PhysicsProfessor
beat the TajProfessor on the bet and only you know he’s
lying. Only you know the Professeur Inferieur didn’t win and
ducked and suppressed the raise that he couldn’t call. That
fold shows him wrong and his deletions show that he knows
it too.
Professor Fraud on the data and Professeur Inferieur to the
TajProfessor Great Canadian Gambler on the bet. Isn’t it
neat how a mere $100 raise could so cow him into hiding his
loss.
Jct: Did Professor Keating delete anyone els’s challenge?
TURMEL: TajProf $100 raise folds Prof Keating’s $30,000 Warming bet
JCT: Professor of Physics Charles Keating bet $30,000 no one
could disprove climate changes. Whether it goes up or down,
he wins! Quite the bad bet. Guess no one was dumb enough to
take a “no-lose” type of bet Keating was dumb enough to
offer.
Now, when he was pushing global warming, before adopting
both ways of change, we could bet on degrees of temperature.
But notice there are no units with which to measure climate
change! 1 clime up or 2 climes down? What? So I decided to
put him on the spot for his scam bet on both ways at his own
blog site to which he responded. Our conversation:
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.ca/2014/07/30000-challenge-submission-no-evidence.html#comment-1480383483
Jct: A lesser scientist, Charles Keating, wants people to
bet him climate didn’t change. Ask Professeur Inferieur what
units of climate change he wants to use! Har har har.
Professor of Physics is an incompetent. Har har har.
Christopher Keating: Mod: Mr. Turmel apparently can’t read
very well or he would have seen the challenge is for people
to demonstrate what they are already claiming – that man
made climate change is not real and they can prove it. If
you want units of climate change I suggest you address your
question to the people making the claim.
Jct: You flaunted a bet without any parameters. I’m the
Great Canadian Gambler, TajProfessor, do you think someone
flashes $30Gs in my face and I wouldn’t take it just by
showing temperature is now lower than in 1998? Tell me about
your CO2 rise!! But you don’t have any units for your
“climate change,” do you? About as incompetent a bet as I
can imagine. I’ll bet you a lousy $100 that temperature is
now lower than in 1998! Notice, my bet is provable with
degrees! That’s why I asked how your bet could be provable
without units. Besides, climate always changes, are you also
worried about global cooling in there. No units, bet on
something that changes but bet on both ways? You’re a joke,
probably why I scored 100% in Physics and you didn’t.
Christopher Keating: Please do. I will quickly show how you
are wrong. You are like the street dude who things you can
outsmart the pea under the cup gambler. Deniers make the
claim, I’m just saying they can’t do what they claim they
can. If you think you can, make a submission. Otherwise,
stop acting like you are someone cool. You’re not.
JCT: Aha, deniers make the claim that climate doesn’t change
more than 2 or 3 climes per year? Notice him back away and
blame the lack of units on deniers who could never make such
a silly claim?
Jct: I guess you missed the point. Without units of
measurement, how can you expect to prove a bet? I offered
you a $100 on something I can prove. Temperature is now less
than it was in 1998. Is the http://johnturmel.com/gambler
supposed to take you seriously when you can’t take my bet
with units you can prove? I get to use the line: “Flash the
cash, bye bye trash.”
Without any units, http://johnturmel.com/tajprofessor says
your flashing the cash is a rigged game. Did you not notice
when I asked you what climate change you were worried about,
global warming or cooling? You claim to win either way,
don’t you? I’m a real engineer challenging you to a real bet
with real units of measurement. You’re a sad excuse for a
“science” major.
Christopher Keating Mod: I love when deniers show how stupid
they are. I won’t hold you to it, but if you want to send me
that $100 simply because you feel so much shame for you
ignorant statements, please feel free to do so.
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/global-warming-has-not-stopped/21199576
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/
JCT: And if you visit his site, there stands the debate. I’m
stupid, I owe him $100 after he flashed his two hold cards
and I could not respond. Right? But I had responded:
Jct: Before I show you my cards, I’m just restating our $100
bet. You bet temperature has risen and I bet it’s gone down
since 1998.
JCT: So he deleted my response to make it look like he won.
I reposted the terms of my bet. Again, he deleted it. Wants
everyone to think he made the Great Canadian Gambler fold on
his nuts hole cards. So I went back and re-posted my
challenge:
Jct: I notice my reply doesn’t show. You didn’t get the last
word though it may look that way. Again:
“Jct: Before I show you my cards, I’m just restating our
$100 bet. You bet temperature has risen and I bet it’s gone
down since 1998.”
Jct: No response since yesterday and my reply has been
removed. Guess Mr. High-Roller Physics Prof couldn’t fade
the $100 bet. Okay, the Great Canadian Gambler will bet you
$1,000 that the temperature is now less than it was in 1998
after all that rise in CO2!!!
Are you going to erase this challenge too? Guess
TajProfessor cows PhysicsProfessor!
JCT: And sure enough, this third response he deleted too. So
if you go check global warming hoaxer Christopher Keating’s
$30,000 challenge, you’ll see it ends with him making me
back down. Before I play my card, I did one of my favorite
moves on loudmouths, giving them better and better odds they
have to back down to. My next post:
Jct: Okay, you deleted my posts to make it look like your
flashing your two hole cards made me back down from my bet.
Of course, you know I did not. Given I bet you $100 and then
$1000 that global yearly average temperature is now lower
than in 1998 to put the lie to your claim that we’re in
danger from global warming due to rising man-made CO2, tell
you what. I’ll give you 2:1 on the bet. TajProfessor bets
$1,000 on my scientific integrity and PhysicsProfessor only
has to bet $500 on yours! Are you going to delete this
fourth one too? You can run but you can’t hide.
JCT: Of course, Professor of Physics deleted my fourth
response too:
Jct: Wow, four times you delete my post so you can make it
appear like you made the Great Canadian Gambler back down!
My bet of $100 and then $1,000 was that the temperature
today is less than 1998. Then I even offered you 2:1 odds,
$1,000 to $500. And you still delete my post so you look
like you cowed me. Well, how about I give you 10:1 odds. I
bet $1,000 on my scientific integrity and you only have to
bet $100 on yours. Come on chicken, cluck cluck at 10:1. Or
better yet, delete this again to leave the impression the
PhysicsProfessor beat the TajProfessor on a bet. You’re
quite the shameful fraud if you think you’re going to get
away with faking beating me. 10:1, how can you coward out?
JCT: And of course, he deleted my fifth response too. So:
Jct: Looks like TajProfessor has PhysicsProfessor on the run
with the simple bet that it’s colder now than in 1998. 5
times he deleted my response to make it look like I folded
to his two links. Tell you what. I’ll give you 100:1. I bet
$1,000 on my scientific integrity, you only have to bet $10
that it’s colder now than in 1998 despite all the rise in
temperature you claim is going on. 100:1. That’s how
confident I am in my cards and your continued backing down
gives us an idea of how confident you are in yours.
JCT: So he deleted my 6th response and but explained why:
Christopher Keating Mod: To John Turmel:
Your comments are being deleted because you have decided to
engage in a juvenile and irrelevant attempt to hijack this
blog. If you ever have anything worthwhile to say or wish to
make an honest submission to the challenge, it will be
accepted. I am very confident you will do neither because
you have demonstrated you have nothing. If you want to be a
troll, that is your choice, but do it somewhere else.
JCT: I’ve responded:
Jct: How does this post you deleted hijack your bloc?:
“Before I show you my cards, let’s be clear you bet it’s now
warmer than in 1998 and I bet the average global temperature
is lower.”
Jct: So tell me how that hijacks your blog? Confronting you
with a bet you can’t take sure does win the debate but how
does that hijack your blog? Oh right, you have no answer so
you call that high-jacking..
CK: “you have demonstrated you have nothing.”
Jct: Notice I said I was not going to “demonstrate” my cards
until the bet was established. So of course, I have not yet
shown my cards and until you accept the terms of the bet,
why should I?
Regardless, that my merely simply stating the terms of my
bet results in what you call the hijacking of your blog does
indicate the power of my bet and the cowardice of your
deletions that make it seem the PhysicsProfessor beat the
TajProfessor! Har har har.
JCT: Note he has told everyone on the blog:
CK: If you ever have anything worthwhile to say or wish to
make an honest submission to the challenge, it will be
accepted.
JCT: But when I tried to make my last post:
<We are unable to post your comment because you have been
blocked by http://dialoguesonglobalwarmong.blogspot.com ?
JCT: So he made it look like I may still post my response if
I have one he thinks is worthy enough right after preventing
any more of my posts! What a lying hypocrite.
PhysicsProfessor cows TajProfessor! What a fraud.
I think he saw what was coming. I was going to give him
1,000:1 next, make him back down from betting $1 against my
$1,000! Then I'd give him 10,000:1, making him back down
from betting 10 cents against my $1,000. Then I'd give him
100,000:1 and make him back down from betting a penny on the
integrity of the PhysicsProfessor against the $1,000 I was
betting on the TajProfessor. And since I do have cards
proving I'm right, you know Hi-Roller Climate Hoaxer would
have to back down again.
Not only will I show you my cards, I'll do a little
destruction of his first. Here is the temperature graph he
cited:
http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/climatechange/2013/590x425_12210049_fig.a2.jpg
JCT: Notice that the temperature on his own graph in 2014 is
lower than in 1998! Har har har har har har. Maybe he
noticed too. Har har har har har har har har har.
His next card: Opinion from Forbes Magazine of Peter Gleick,
Dr. Gleick received a B.S. from Yale University in
Engineering and Applied Science, and an M.S. and Ph.D. from
the Energy and Resources Group of the University of
California, Berkeley. He is the recipient of numerous awards
for his work, among them the prestigious MacArthur "genius"
Fellowship in 2003. He was elected to the U.S. National
Academy of Sciences in 2006.
"The most consistent, highly respected, and regularly
analyzed and updated data on global surface temperatures are
available from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Sciences,
NOAA's National Climate Data Center, and the United
Kingdom's Met Office Hadley Center."
JCT: Remember, his own graph shows temperature now lower
than in 1998 so have fun explaining the danger of rising
CO2! But his expert is citing the NASA and NOAA data set!
Notice that there is no way to prove a "not." I'll give
anyone $1,000 who can prove Martians are not planning an
invasion of the Earth. How can call? But if someone raises
me $100 they won't invade this year, what can I do?
Do you get his fraudulent bet? He flashes his $30G bet like
he's some kind of winner when there's no way for anyone to
call him where only a raise can prove him wrong when he has
to back down.
So I defeated him with a raise. I bet him something provable
that trumps his bluff. And I think the Professor knows that
the TajProfessor has won his $30 Grand with a mere $100
raise. As he retreats in shame, having to delete every
reference to my winning raise, it sure does exemplify the
fraud and cowardice of the global warming hoaxers to have
their top hi-roller having to back down from a $100 raise
after flauning a $30,000 bet.
I think he realizes I've won his $30,000 challenge, not with
a Call which no fool could make, but with a raise only the
TajProfessor could make. Engineering trumps Philosophy every
time.
Finally, my best hole card (his own graph proving it's
colder now is funnier but this is stronger):
Dr. Don Easterbrook lays global warming hoax to rest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI and my post
https://www.facebook.com/john.turmel/posts/10153284211177281
JCT: Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western WA University
Don Easterbrook is a real climate scientist under oath using
the original data. Note how many times the politicians ask:
"Are you telling us the NASA and NOAA data is manipulated?"
And all he can say is "Mine is the original data, theirs is
adjusted!" Har har har har har har. I guess doofus
PhysicsProfessor didn't notice a real GeologyProfessor with
the true data in the news. Oops, it didn't make the
mainstream news be probably focuses on.
Still, TajProfessor knows PhysicsProfessor's own graph shows
that despite his fear of precipitous rise in temperature, it
happens to be lower now that in 1998! Har har har.
So now you know why the Global Warming Professor is on the
run and his blog makes it look like the PhysicsProfessor
beat the TajProfessor on the bet and only you know he's
lying. Only you know the Professeur Inferieur didn't win and
ducked and suppressed the raise that he couldn't call. That
fold shows him wrong and his deletions show that he knows
it too.
Professor Fraud on the data and Professeur Inferieur to the
TajProfessor Great Canadian Gambler on the bet. Isn't it
neat how a mere $100 raise could so cow him into hiding his
loss.
johnturmel,
In many states small claims court has a limit of $10,000. Why not try it? Subpoena him, and he will have to appear, or forfeit.
At the very least you will have a good story!
In many states small claims court has a limit of $10,000. Why not try it?
Jct: No, the fact I made him back down from the truth that temperature has gone down over the pat 16 years, it does not detract from the fact that he bet it would change either way. That’s why I call his bet a fraud. He’s flaunting it and we all know he means global warming but he’s actually better either way. I can only make him back down on the one way but that doesn’t disprove it can go either way. I only have the honor of making him back down that implies he knows he lost his bet. But I can’t prove he lost his bet just because he chickened out on betting the way he implies. Still, his deletions do exhibit a shameful cowardice that does imply he’s lost his big challenge if its implication were ever stated that he wasn’t also better on global cooling too. Still, great fun. Backing down from 1,000:1 bet. 100,000:1 would have been funner but he ran before I could stick them in his face.